Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/20/2001 PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 20,2001 Present: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Arn Menconi Robert Loeffler Jack Ingstad Sara 1. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Acting 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: Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss the following: 1) Receive legal advice regarding water diversion project 2) Receive legal advice regarding water legislation 3) Receive legal advice regarding proposed road impact fees 4) Receive legal advise regarding airport negotiations issues involving the terminal and a Fixed Base Operations candidate. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 8:37 a.m. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9:35 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of March 19,2001, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for March 22,2001, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of February 27,2001 D) Purchase of Services Agreement between Garfield County, Eagle County and the Resource Center E) Fourth Amendment to Sand and gravel Mining Lease with Western Mobile Northern. Chairman Stone asked if there are any amendments to the consent agenda. Robert Loeffler, Acting County Attorney, stated there are no amendments. Chairman Stone pointed out that for item C, the date of the minutes to be approved was changed to February 27, 2001 from March 13,2001. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. Ed Sands, Attorney representing the Town of Eagle, asked if he might speak on behalf of the Town to the 1041 Completeness hearing for Adam's Rib. 1 03-20-2001 Chairman Stone pointed out that is being heard as item 5C to be heard later in the agenda. The Chairman called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matthew Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration; 5MB-00224. Eagle-Vail Filing No.2: A Resubdivision of Lot 72. Block 4. The intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 72 to create two, liz duplex lots. Staff findings are as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00224, Eagle-Vail Filing No.2, a resubdivision of Lot 72, Block 4, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00264. Miller's Creek on the Eagle River. A Resubdivision of Lot 21. The intent of this Type B Minor Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 21 to create two, liz duplex lots, Lot 21A and Lot 21B. Staff findings are as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00264, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, a resubdivision of Lot 21, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00265. Miller's Creek on the Eagle River. A Resubdivision of Lot 22. The intent of this Type B Minor Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 22 to create two, liz duplex lots, Lot 22A and Lot 22B. Staff findings are as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an 2 03-20-2001 Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00265, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, a resubdivision of Lot 22. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Highland Meadows Filing No.2. 5MB-00266. A Resubdivision of Lot 23. The intent of this Type B Minor Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 23, thereby creating two single family lots, Lot 23A and 23B, two building envelopes for each lot, and an access easement. Staff findings are as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00266, Highland Meadows, filing No.2, a resubdivision of Lot 23. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-042, LUR-0034, A Resolution To Approve The Amending Of Chapter II, Article 5, Section 5- 270(A)(I) and Chapter II, Article 6, Section 6-120(B)(2) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, November, 1998. The Board considered this file at its regular meeting on February 12th, 2001. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2001-042, for the Amendments to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, file number LUR-0034, A Resolution To Approve The Amending Of Chapter II, Article 5, Section 5- 270(A)(1) and Chapter II, Article 6, Section 6-120(B)(2) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, November, 1998 incorporating the findings from the hearing held February 12,2001. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-043, To Approve The Subdivision Sketch Plan For Eby Creek Ranch (Eagle County File No. SUS-00009). The Board considered this file at its regular meetings held on February 6th, 2001, and on February 20th, 2001. Commissioner Gallagher asked if this is the project where they wanted to divide this into 5 lots. Mr. Gennett stated that is what they are proposing, however, the applicant will need to come back for preliminary plan to accomplish their goal. Chairman Stone recalled Commissioner Gallagher making the motion and that there were some hoops to jump through before preliminary plan approval. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2001-043, for the Subdivision Sketch Plan for Eby Creek Ranch, file number SUS-00009, incorporating the findings from February 20, 2001. 3 03-20-2001 Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Memorandum of Understanding, Colorado Works Program Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Director, presented a Memorandum of Understanding with the State of Colorado Department of Human Services regarding the Colorado Works Program. She explained this is an annual MOD to assure there is compliance with all the requirements there are to offer Colorado Works Program and Child Care Program. Colorado Works is law to our residents. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Memorandum of Understanding with the State of Colorado Department of Human Services regarding the Colorado Works Program. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Waiver Contract, Community Services Block Grant Kathleen Forinash presented a Waiver Contract with the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs, regarding the Community Services Block Grant. She stated they receive about $18,000 annually from the Department of Local Affairs and this is used to help underwrite the cost of the Healthy Babies and Families Program. Chairman Stone asks why it is called a waiver. Ms. Black stated it looks like a standard block grant and doesn't understand the naming. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Waiver Contract with the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs, regarding the Community Services Block Grant. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041 Permit Completeness Hearing, Adam's Rib - Frost Creek and 1041 Permit Completeness Hearing, Adams Rib - The Ranch Chairman Stone introduced the file stating this is the 1041 Permit Completeness Hearing, for Adam's Rib - Frost Creek for a major extension of existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems to serve the Ranch PUD. He read the title ofthe next file as a the 1041 Permit Completeness Hearing, Adams Rib - The Ranch an application for a major extension of existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems to serve the Ranch PUD. Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, stated the action being requested from the Board is to determine completeness of a 1041 Permit application and to estimate associated processing fees. He explained the dates being set and this being a procedure within the process. He explained staffs review and the submission to the authority to determine the completeness. He stated no substance is determined at this time. He stated with this application the only way for the Board to review the land use is to have the 1041 permit in process. He stated the Town of Eagle doesn't not yet have a signed contract with the applicant at this time. He stated with this application the only way to consider the land use for this file is to have the 1041 permit in process. He stated the Town of Eagle does not yet have a signed contract but that doesn't make an application incomplete. The approval criteria for the finding must have a signed contract. He stated when they get to the point of approving land use, then they will go to the Town and either a deal is made or it isn't. He asked for questions. Chairman Stone suggested now would be a good time for Mr. Sands to ask questions. He deferred to Willie Powell. Willie Powell, Manager for the Town of Eagle, stated the question asked is one he would raise. Ifthe Town has not given it's consent to be the provider of water and sewer can this be approved. He questioned if the process goes forward that before any final approval, if the Town does not give it's 4 03-20-2001 consent to provide water and sewer, does the 1041 still get approved. They are seeking clarification on both those items. Chairman Stone stated they have discussed that. Mr. Powell stated the Town has not yet been referred. He stated during the last set of the hearings they had questions about the completeness of the application including engineering plans and financial plans. They may have comments on the completeness in the future and are they allowed to comment. They do not yet have the application. During the last hearings, Commissioner Phillips was critical of them coming in at that point and raising questions about the completeness, but they didn't see any alternative. That is when they thought they should make comment and ask their questions. Those are the clarifications. Mr. Merry spoke to the submission requirements that the applicant needs to provide. The level of detail may be the concern, but he has received answers to all of the questions and he believes it is complete. He suggested there are no referral requirements. He stated this is the only way to move the land use applications forward. The 1041 is in good shape. The Town has the trump card as the applicant would have no water or sewer service. The applicant should move forward to see what happens. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there is still a line of communications between the Town and the applicant and if the land use is found to be approved then the water and sewer service would be forthcoming. Mr. Powell stated they have had a draft agreement presented them. Adam's Rib would like to conduct those discussions through the Eagle Planning Commission. He stated there has been no direct contact or discussion as it relates to land use. Mr. Powell stated they are ready to serve projects that meet the Master Plan and acceptable plans are permitted and they have and annexation or pre-annexation agreement they will do so. Chairman Stone asked ifthe Town would they like to have an extensive review of the completeness hearing or are the sufficiently satisfied this Board is acting in a judicious manner if they approve it completeness as the staff has recommended. Mr. Powell stated they are not objecting that the application move forward but they are seeking clarification and the Board agrees with staff in that regard that any final approval can not happen without the Town's review and thirdly that they have the ability to discuss the issues. Chairman Stone stated they have all the rights afforded them. He is trying to get an idea of the attitude and whether they have future standing or potential argument they are welcome to do what they want. He stated it seems clear that ultimately the Town has the trump card. He doesn't know why they are having this extended conversation when the Town will be consulted in an extensive manner. He stated it is annoying to him and it does not show good faith negotiations. He hopes that is not their attitude Mr. Powell stated they are here in good faith and are here because they were so criticized the last time. They want to preserve their options. Chairman Stone stated he is not going to guarantee that they are preserving or not preserving their options. It is not their position to advise them legally. Ed Sands stated they are here for a couple of purposes and they want to indicate that they want to continue the dialogue with Adam's Rib. He stated for they record they have not received the application and can not give an opinion Chairman Stone stated it is usual not to refer a file until it is found complete. Mr. Sands referred to 604.13 (7) describing what needs to be in application it speaks to the need for services by a governmental body and for the record no such agreement exists at this point. Chairman Stone stated he is pleased that the Town of Eagle is continuing with this unusual process and ultimately they can come up with a decision that best meets the needs of the people of Eagle County and the Town of Eagle. 5 03-20-2001 Mr. Sands stated they are hopeful to come up with an agreement to serve everyone's best interest. He asked how they should proceed to request party and interest status. Chairman Stone stated now is not the appropriate time to do that. Commissioner Gallagher asked the Town of Eagle to clarify that while there is not an existing contract, a contract is still possible. Mr. Sands stated it is certainly still possible they have been given that draft and there will be changes but it is definitely possible to enter into an agreement for water and wastewater services. Mr. Merry stated staff has not anticipated a court reporter nor are they prepared to arrange for the collection of fees and providing transcripts. The regulations allow for that at the requester's expense. Chairman Stone stated why don't we keep the discussion to the matter at hand. Mr. Merry suggested that these files will not be heard concurrently and that the Ranch is actually being heard before the Frost Creek File. He stated the Planning Commission will be given as much time and opportunity as they need and should the files not come to conclusion they will pull the files from the agenda rather than tabling. The applicant is aware of that and has asked for double noticing and they feel that can be met. If the Planning Commission does not complete their review of the files, they will re advertize. Ray Merry presented the 1041 Permit application completeness hearing to accept an application from Adam's Rib for a major extension of existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems to serve the Ranch PUD. The action being requested from the Board is to determine completeness of a 1041 Permit application and to estimate associated processing fees. Adam's Rib has submitted a 1041 Permit application for a Major Extension of existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems and efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects to serve Adam's Rib Ranch development proposal. The 1041 permit application proposes to extend the Town of Eagle's water and sewer infrastructure into "The Ranch PUD". The project is located south and adjacent to Town of Eagle, extending approximately 5 miles up the Brush Creek Valley. Staff has reviewed the above referenced application and has found it to be complete. It is important to note that much discussion surrounded submission requirement 5) g, regarding whether an executed water contract is required in order to fulfill this submission requirement. It is staffs opinion that the submission requirement is satisfied since the applicant included a draft water agreement which details how water will be provided. It is clear that the water service and wastewater treatment service agreement will need to be executed in order to make a positive finding for permit approval. Public hearing dates have tentatively been set for the Planning Commission to consider the matter on May 2, 2001, and Permit Authority on May 15,2001. He spoke to John Vengren's review of this plan and of Frost Creek. The applicant has also requested a waiver of the Special Review Use Permit associated with this activity as allowed pursuant to 3-310 (1) 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations. This may be granted at this time should the Board determine that requiring a Special Review Use Permit would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. Estimated fees for the above referenced 1041 Permit application are as follows: Community Development Staff 12 Hrs @ $42.50 = $ 510.00 Engineering Staff 8 Hrs @ $42.50 = $ 340.00 Attorney Staff 8 Hrs @ $75.00 = $ 600.00 TOT AL = $1,450.00 for both applications 6 03-20-2001 Mr. Merry stated there has not yet been a file number assigned as they don't yet have a completed application or fees and there is no State Site approvals with this file because there are no new citing's for waste water facility and no lift station applications. Chairman Stone noted they are taking these out of order, taking the Ranch first and 5C, Frost Creek second. Commissioner Gallagher asked for an explanation of the file number assignment. Chairman Stone stated they need to find it complete before they assign the file a number. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board accept the 1041 Permit application submitted by Adam's Rib, proposing to extend the Town of Eagle's water and sewer infrastructure into "The Ranch PUD" and for efficient utilization of a municipal water project, as complete. The estimated fee to process this application is $1,450.00 for both files and may be altered to cover the actual cost of review and public hearings. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve the applicant's request for waiver of the special use permit requirement as allowed in section 3 - 310 (1) 2, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve the applicant's request for waiver ofthe special use permit requirement as allowed in section 3-310 (I) 2, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Gallagher 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) Zino Ristorante, Inc. This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license located in Riverwalk in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Alsant, LLC Eagle-Vail Cafe This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license located along Highway 6 in Eagle-Vail. There have been no Sheriff s complaints or disturbances during the past year. However there were some environmental health concerns but after discussion with the applicant staff believes those will be taken care of immediately. Chairman Stone asked why there is concern for this Board about the environmental health issues. Ms. Roach responded it is because they must maintain a food license in order to hold a liquor license. C) Fabulous Foods, Inc. Blue Creek Grill This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license located along EI Jebel Road in EI lebel, across from the Community Center. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. D) EI Jebowl, Inc. 7 03-20-2001 This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license located along Highway 82 and El Jebel Road in EI Jebel. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. E) Sady Family, Inc. Edwards Liquors This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is located at the Northstar Center in Edwards along the Edwards Access Road. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Menconi asked on item B what those health concerns are. Ms. Roach stated there were several. It is basically hand washing, temperatures, food storage. They need to repair a hand washing sink that has no water and repair an exhaust fan. She stated most of the work will be done by Friday. There is a meeting scheduled for Friday with the licensee and the Environmental Health Officer. Commissioner Menconi asked if there is any purpose in holding off on the approval of the renewal until they have resolved the issues. Commissioner Gallagher stated if they loose their food service ability at the same instance they would loose their ability to serve alcohol. Ray Merry explained the liquor license is an effective tool to use to get the license holder back on track. The food service laws and the food service license is not an easily revocable item. They are trying to take advantage of this particular situation to get them back on track. Chairman Stone stated he has no problem if Commissioner Menconi wants to hold off on this. If they don't take any action today they still have their license. He suggested they could table this and ask the applicant to appear before the Board if they think it is serious enough. Ms. Roach stated or they can approve with conditions. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would like to have item B removed and that it can be rescheduled once the food license issues have been taken care of. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda as presented excluding item B, Alsant, LLC, doing business as Eagle-Vail Cafe. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone suggested they can handle this two ways. They can have Ms. Roach bring it forward again or make it a non consent agenda item to ask if these people understand the importance of the compliance with the laws. Commissioner Gallagher moved to table the liquor license for Alsant, LLC, doing business as Eagle-Valley Cafe for a period of not less than two weeks and to schedule this as a hearing and that the applicant be present for the hearing and show completion of all health related modifications. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Taste of Vail Earlene Roach presented a special events permit application for Taste of Vail. This event is for April 6, 2001 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Vail Mountain. This is their annual event which has been since 1993. This application is in order. Rondi Heston, event manager for Taste of Vail, was present for the hearing. Chairman Stone spoke to the alcohol management plan addressing the boundaries, entrances and exits and badges. He questioned the checking of identification. Ms. Heston stated as they receive their first ticket they receive the neck badges or a ticket. At that time their identification will be checked. She further explained the ticket checking procedures. Chairman Stone asked who will be serving the wine and do they have any knowledge regarding Colorado Liquor License laws. 8 03-20-2001 Ms. Heston stated these will be just sampling and all the wineries have responsibility for their own service. It will be the principal of the winery. She explained it is a tasting and that they serve no more than three tastes at a time. She stated all of the wineries have participated before. Ms. Roach stated they are restricted by law to serve in a certain size glass and they are small. They may only serve a maximum of four to one customer. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the wine will be served under the tent. Ms. Heston stated the entire area is not tented. There are some picnic tables outside of the tent. H is dug out as a castle. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the size of the whole thing and questioned where the people are going to be. He suggested it looks kind of tight. He asked what Kevin Foley's name is doing on the application. Ms. Heston explained Mr. Foley is the chairperson for the picnic, setting the area and coordinating volunteers. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the special events permit for Taste of Vail for April 6, 2001 from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDP-00020, ZC-00046, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Chairman Stone introduced the file noting that the hearing had been started at the Blue Lake Community Center on the 15th and that this is a continuation. He indicated this meeting would be primarily for Board questions and deliberation and that there would be no public comment. He listed the options as approval, approval with conditions, or denial. One of the options was if the community building were not built, recognizing that as a substantial change could require it be sent back to the Planning Commission. Joseph Forinash, Planner, stated it could be approved and yet no building would be constructed and or expand the uses in the northeast comer. Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, suggested the most sensible option is as Mr. Forinash recommended in that the Board can approve it and still delay the construction. That is open to any applicant, that they can choose to move forward. Chairman Stone asked if she agrees or disagrees that it would constitute a substantial change. Ms. Black stated she can see it considered a substantial change if the idea was the building was never going to be built the way that the PUD lays it out. She thinks it would have to go back before the Planning Commission. Chairman Stone asked if they understand what he means. They have had files that have had to go back before. Dave Michaelson stated he understands and that in some cases if you are reducing the impacts, that it is not a substantial change from the perspective of understandings of the project. The code is unique to Eagle County and he accepts that. Joseph Forinash referred to the term "Substantial Change ." He read Substantial Change in site design that either increases or decreases the number of structures of a size or nature of a building permit. He indicated he was selecting certain phrases that cover the point. Chairman Stone reviewed the options, one being approval and one being denial. Or that even though the plan is approved, it does not necessarily mean that the building is going to be built there. Based on that understanding he asked for the applicant's presentation. 9 03-20-2001 Dave Michelson stated they have no formal presentation, but are available for questions. Commissioner Gallagher asked for the artwork that shows the plan. Scot Smith showed the site plan. Dave Michelson stated only one change has occurred in the PUD Guide since the last hearing which is the inclusion of nordic uses as a use by right, cross country skiing and snow shoeing, on trail or off trail. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the orientation of the ball field and those in compliance with the BHA plan. He stated his concern and the tendency is to not have to walk that far to get to the dugouts. He asked if it will be possible to have a one lane road between the ballfields for equipment delivery like the Western Eagle County Recreation District has in Eagle. Mr. Michelson stated first of all it is important to note that the ultimate orientation of the fields does have some flexibility based on the PUD guide. What they ultimately decided to do was include minor reorientation ofthe fields as an amendment to the PUD and approved by the Community Development Director. The engineering would have to be revised. He stated he personally doesn't see anything that would preclude that. Commissioner Gallagher stated to a discussion of the sun setting and facing the sun at home plate. He did a site visit. He suggested the field on the left may be facing the wrong direction. He approves of the flexibility. He stated he was also told of a number of snow mobiles used on the property and asked if that use is pondered. Mr. Michelson stated for snow mobiles, no. He stated there has never been any reference to motorized vehicles in the park in the Master Plan or BHA plan other than traditional maintenance vehicles. Rich Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, stated they did allow people over there to take a snowmobile on site to prepare a cross country ski path. There did seem to be more snow mobile use on the site Commissioner Gallagher asked if that is a use they would recommend. Mr. Michaelson stated it is his feeling it would be prohibited under the PUD guide. They will need to maintain the trails. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there is that use available elsewhere in the valley. Mr. Michaelson stated there are. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to violations around the perimeter and people extending their backyard into the Tree Farm. He asked about perimeter access. Mr. Michaelson stated the only access that would be available would be the two trail connections to the north and two to the east. There are controlled access points to the Forest Service property along the Roaring Fork to the south. Commissioner Gallagher asked ifthey recommend closing the access between the Tree Farm and the pocket park and some access in from backyards. Mr. Michaelson stated if someone does not have a backyard fence and boarders the Tree Farm, he doesn't believe they would restrict their entrance. He asked if that access point is maintained or shut down. Stephane Colbalt, DHM, stated there is no fence between the pocket park and the Tree Farm. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the eight foot hog wire fence that has been cut. Ms Colbalt stated there is a gap for people to pass through. He asked if there is a problem having some kind of controlled access. Mr. Michaelson stated the homeowner's have every right to do what they want. They don't have any intention of installing any fence or controlling that boundary. Commissioner Gallagher suggested it may have been built to keep critters out. He suggested not wanting to encourage the wildlife to use it or provide the same type of protection but that will allow folks to come in and out. 10 03-20-2001 Mr. Michaelson stated the plan requires DOW enhancement and wildlife plan be enforced. And that is their intent. Rich Cunningham spoke to the access and a trail connector. He stated they were ask to move the trail connecting the access to the Tree Farm and the pocket park. They didn't want the trail running right through the park. They didn't have the intention of precluding access. Mr. Michaelson concurred. Royal Layboum stated he worked on the Trails Committee and Mr. Cunningham is correct. It was erected by the Forest Service to keep big game out. It is not maintained by the Homeowner's Association for Sopris Village who owns the park. There is a cut out section. The Homeowner's Association stated they did not want general traffic going through the pocket park and it was moved Commissioner Gallagher asked about the community gardens. He questioned the pedestrian situation. He stated it seems to him that is an issue now. He asked what triggers the need for an overpass or underpass. He spoke to watching kids on their bikes and that it needs to be a consideration regardless of what they do here today. Chairman Stone asked to have that general discussion and spoke to Dave Ruble and his expression that nothing could be done any other way. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, stated they have been working on this pedestrian problem for quite some time. She spoke to her observations. She spoke to what warrants the trigger on an underpass. She stated even with extremely liberal counts, it doesn't warrant an overpass or underpass. She stated a tremendous pedestrian volume is needed. She stated the Planning Commission suggested moving the pedestrian walkway to Sopris Village Drive. She stated that has some problems and if you move that walkway over, without massive barricading, it will be a more unsafe situation. She suggests they make the crossway as safe as they can, they work with CDOT to raise it six inches and work with more signage lighting. It is in their right of way and it's their call. Chairman Stone asked if she is talking about the raising it as in the roundabouts in Avon. Ms. Migchelbrink stated it works in Avon. Commissioner Gallagher asked when this happens he can see it being an enticing location for events, i.e 4th of July fireworks, Barbeque, Town party, a band, etc. during which time they would have the pedestrian counts. He spoke to the airport counts being seasonal. He asked if adding events adds to that formula. Dave Ruble, LSC Transportation consultant, stated the number is 250 people per hour. He stated they are in the 100 to 150 range. You need the 250 on a consistent basis. He stated you have to deal with the averages and the norms. Commissioner Gallagher asked how they ever got the underpass. He stated safety is the other issue and you have to have a history of safety problems. Chairman Stone stated they want to avoid incidents. He stated they are all concerned about the safety of people crossing the intersections. What is the most useable way to make the intersection safe, sooner than later. He asked if they have a blowup of the intersection. Mr. Forinash showed one. Chairman Stone asked if where it says proposed crossing if that is condition #4 and read "Upon commencement of Phase II a pedestrian underpass be required and Eagle County be responsible for 35% of the cost," he stated he wants to get back to that, " based on its pedestrian impacts as identified in the report fro LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. In the interim, the County move the pedestrian crossing to the east at the intersection of East Valley Road and Sopris Village Drive." He stated they found that was a mistake. Is that proposed crossing the interim crossing. Mr. Ruble responded in lieu of this being built, they would like to have the proposed crossing built be established fairly soon until the money can be found to do the underpass. Chairman Stone asked if they put the proposed crossing there, that it is not going to be utilized. Ms. Migchelbrink stated they are asking pedestrians to go east, come across and then back 11 03-20-2001 around. She spoke to jumping the barrier. She stated the problem that CDOT has is that any form of barrier that has to be put up would have to be very high, and if it is any higher it could prove to be an obstruction for vision and for snow removal. They tried to put it in a place that would be as safe as possible. The Planning Commission suggested moving it and she had a disagreement with it. She is willing to discuss it with CDOT but there are limitations if people don't use it. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would like to hope if they put up a jersey barrier that it would keep the kids in the right place and keep the snow removal, making it more pedestrian friendly and doing the same thing from the existing cross. He asked if it will keep the kids from doing that who are less visible and less aware. Dave Ruble asked about making this a four legged intersection. Chairman Stone asked what is the benefit in moving that crossing to the alternative location. He suggested the Planning Commission had this same discussion. Ms. Migchelbrink stated the problem with the existing crossing is there is no stop sign there and if you stop traffic you have a stacking problem. The real problem is that there is a stop sign that only stops one lane of traffic. She has recommended removal of the stop sign. If you are a kid and come out ofthe tunnel, you see a stop sign but don't know there are cars coming around the corner. She suggested they move the stop sign and CDOT agreed. Chairman Stone asked where that was. Commissioner Gallagher asked about making it a three way stop. Mr. Ruble stated there are not warrants for that. Commissioner Gallagher asked if it is possible to work with CDOT in anticipation. Ms. Migchelbrink showed where the traffic does not stop. She showed where they can place it and have a stop sign, but it can't be moved back because of stacking. Chairman Stone spoke to the crossing light in Edwards and asked if there would be any benefit to a similar situation here. Ms. Migchelbrink suggested it would be difficult with CDOT. Mr. Ruble stated they have not had a lot of success working with CDOT on that. Chairman Stone suggested if they could convince CDOT to do that. He spoke to the situation at Edwards where the light is green until the pedestrian pushes the button. He stated traffic is only stopped when someone is trying to cross. He thinks it is a viable way to get something done quickly and that can function well. He showed where that might go. He suggested it is a thought that may make some sense. He suggested a combination of lights and have the raised walkway, he thinks it will be utilized more. He stated it could happen sooner and would cost a lot less and because it would be utilized more often it would make the crossing safer. Ms. Migchelbrink stated she can suggest that to CDOT. Commissioner Gallagher suggested the lights, pedestrian and traffic, should be remote controllable for police agencies to have control. Mr. Ruble spoke to them allowing that to happen in Denver when there are big events. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the cost would be and if it could happen easier, quicker if the County contributed funds. Commissioner Menconi asked, they can weigh that and if they have the proposed walkway, would people use it. He suggested he heard that the proposed crossing will be less likely to be used. He suggested the traffic light may not take care of the people crossing the barrier. Ms. Migchelbrink stated if you are going to put a traffic light at the proposed location, that they take out the other crossing and do everything they can. She does think some people will try to get around it, but they can do all they can to keep people from not using it. Dave Ruble spoke to the overpass at Vail. He stated about 500 feet west of it there is a well worn path across the interstate. They are likely to take the easiest route. He suggested taking Sopris over and making a four legged intersection you would have the crossings in the right locations. That 12 03-20-2001 would be a better use of the $483,000 instead of an underpass. Chairman Stone asked when they did the work over there recently, why didn't they do that. Mr. Ruble stated that they would build off of what has been done already that would make it the safest and put the cross walk where it will be used. Ms. Migchelbrink stated the firm designed the intersection and they are doing an access control review for the area. That intersection is the intersection that was designed and that is what they are dealing with and she doesn't know about a redesign. There were comments from the audience. Chairman Stone stated he would rather not get into a freeform discussion because everyone had an opportunity to bring forward issues they wanted addressed. Commissioner Menconi asked which of the two crossings they prefer and why. Ms. Migchelbrink stated she would prefer leaving it as it is and raising the existing walkway. She wouldn't be against putting in an additional crossing as shown. Chairman Stone asked at which crossing they would put the light. Mr. Ruble stated he likes the existing location itself and making it as safe as possible by raising it and adding a light. Commissioner Menconi asked if they see a need for an underpass. Mr. Ruble stated he doesn't. Ms. Migchelbrink stated she doesn't necssarily see one and is personally not comfortable using them. She stated she is nervous using them because they are submerged. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the stack room and if there is enough for cars to stop after a green light. Mr. Ruble stated he thinks there is enough. He stated you'd have to work it out and allocate the use to pedestrian activity. Commissioner Gallagher stated he likes overpasses and that one or the other is appropriate. He asked if they are suggesting waiting to see the use. Ms. Migchelbrink suggested a wait and see. She would like to see an overpass but they really don't have the space to work with. She stated you'd almost be looking at an escalator type use. Chairman Stone spoke to ADA access and the need for a ramp. Ms. Migchelbrink stated the best way to slow traffic down is to go with a pedestrian signal with lights and warnings that would be clearly visible. She suggested that would be an enhancement. Herb Weisbard stated no body has addressed the residents in Valley Apartments. He stated if you move the crossing east, those people would continue to cross the road where the existing crossing is. He stated it would work better for the community and the park. Chairman Stone suggested they could discuss this for hours. He asked for other questions concerning the PUD. Commissioner Gallagher stated he asked Rich Cunningham to come up with some numbers for them to consider and to respond to the questions raised at the hearing in the Roaring Fork Valley as well as the letters receive. He asked him to find out how much it would cost to run optical cable from the Napa building to the site here on the park. He stated IS contacted Quest who indicated it would be similar for any other hook up and they stated it would be $2,000 to $4,000 for pick up and about $300 per month. He spoke to the utilities coming to the building site and the water lines have been extended under the intersection and up to the road. He stated the sewer is also in the vicinity, electric service and cable travel overhead and that the gas line is to the east of the proposed building site, the telephone would come in with the optics or at the Highway 82 right of way. He asked after the cost of the parking lot without the facility. The replay was approximately $125,000. He asked about the cost to redesign the building for the Willits parcel and he was told from 10 to 15% of the construction costs, as high as $375,000. He asked the cost of a pedestrian walkway overhead, $300 to $500,000, underground $500 to $650,000. He stated in doing his math it could be as much as a quarter million dollars to move the 13 03-20-2001 building to the Willits property not to mention the timing. He wanted to share that with everybody. There wasn't a question that Willits was as suitable as the Tree Farm. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Ruble to refer to page 27 of staff report and spoke to the discussion about the recreation use. He asked again why the ball fields were dropped down from the road. Mr. Michaelson stated what they wanted to create is a scenario with the home plate as close to the parking lot as possible, with the seating taking place without bleachers. As a spectator you'd be looking out and across this beautiful field rather than at a parking lot. Dave Carpenter stated that was the intent. Commissioner Menconi stated the original BHA plan the ball fields were closer to Valley Road. He stated he'd like to figure out how they can make modifications so that if there was an expansion of passive recreation area, two more ball fields dropped in, that it would not have to require a change to the PUD. Mr. Michaelson stated several memebers of Planning & Zoning were on all the large number of task forces for this project, he was not. He stated at one point there was a perspective of an industrial recreation facility with lots of action. As for the BHA plan, those number of fields were reduced from some of the original task force work done. He stated it is his opinion, and that additional fields beyond what is shown in the BHA plan or in the PUD, would require the applicant to come back and to explain the departure from the BHA plan. He asked if that precludes any exapnsion of the BHA plan. There was an incredible amount of debate about what scale of recreation uses are on the site and their location and what is on the plan is what came out of those efforts. He believes they would have to come back. Mr. Forinash stated based on the site plan and based on the PUD guide as it reads, he agrees. Commissioner Menconi stated what he has gotten out of this is the intense need for recreation in this area and people would like to see it as easy as possible for the district to expand and change the PUD. Mr. Michelson stated the questions posed to him about the ability to expand was really from a code perspective. Have they deed restricted the space from future expansion of recreation facilities. He stated no, they can come back to the Board and the community, they can do that. He referred to all the work that was done. He stated yes you can expand, yes there would be a process which would be a major PUD. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the move from the BHA plan and the bubble being moved south and asked if it did get moved would it restrict more fields being constructed or more recreation. Mr. Michaelson stated it did not get moved and there was a graph that showed that and it does not preclude modifying those bubbles. Commissioner Menconi asked if the amount of space shrunk in any way. Mr. Michaelson stated it was not in any significant way. Chairman Stone stated he can see some logic in flipping the ball fields. Rich Cunningham stated one alternative would be to incorporate more than one alternative in the PUD. He suggested that various orientations were explored with the concept being that any ofthese, as long as the number remains the same, various orientations could be considered. Chairman Stone asked who would propose the different design. Mr. Michelson stated there is flexibility built into the PUD guide and whoever is managing the property would submit the design. There is flexibility that would require approval by the Community Development Director. Mr. Forinash concurred. Mr. Cunningham stated they came up with three different orientations. Chairman Stone suggested if they codified the BHA plan they would not need condition #5. Mr. Michelson stated what they are codifying is the PUD guide and not the BHA plan. The BHA plan was the foundation. The PUD guide represents the PUD side of things. 14 03-20-2001 Chairman Stone spoke to the 65/35% split and how they came up with that. Mr. Michelson stated it was a calculation that the P & Z asked Bob Lee to make and what percentage of pedestrian trip generation will be for the office building versus the recreational. He stated it was relatively easy to use industry standards to associate pedestrian trips for the office but for recreational use it is difficult to define. It was based on Bob Lee's analysis. Chairman Stone stated he is not comfortable with how condition #4 is worded. He suggested that they could have other alternatives. He spoke to other options that have been considered today, but not before. He stated he does want to respect something heard over at Blue Lake which is saddleing the perspective recreation district with something that can't do. He also spoke to Ms. Migchelbrink's concerns with the underpass as a pedestrian and a woman. He stated he is not sure how to rewrite that but still feels it needs to be a requirement. It would be nice to spend the money now that wouldn't be wasted if they decide to do other things. He suggeseted a condition different that this that allows for flexibility . Mr. Michaelson stated they have discussed some alternatives but they aren't sure how they will work or how much it will cost. He stated they may want to tie the future analysis to the CO for the building, nailing the costs and the designs to be looked at. Chairman Stone suggested it needs to be some other trigger than the building. He appreciated them adding the winter sports and asked if the uses there would not preclude the motorized machine to set a cross country track. Mr. Michaelson stated that is correct. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they are going to drop condition #5. Mr. Michealeson they have the flexibility to change it if they want. The BHA plan was something they all felt comfortable with. He believes they can strike it and maintain the flexibility. Commissioner Gallagher asked about condition #7 and substituting the Basalt Lighting Code. He asked if they should substitute that. Mr. Michaelson stated you want both and it is a component of the PUD guide. This condition is an additional restriction placed by the P & Z and deals with the timing and security light during the hours of 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. He asked if condition #7 is more restrictive than the Basalt Code. Mr. Michaelson stated it is. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the community garden space and the apparent small size and what it would require through a major PUD process to make it larger. Mr. Forinash explained that would be the amount of expansion. He suggested a reasonible amount of growth would be acceptable and consistent with the preliminary plan. Commissioner Gallagher stated he is still not sure about the conditions and especially #4 and whether to delete #5. Chairman Stone asked if Commissioner Gallagher agrees with what he said in principle. Commissioner Gallagher stated he does. Chairman Stone stated the Resolution is the final determination and sometimes they have allowed that to confirm the actions. He spoke to situations where they have come up with a different direction. Commissioner Gallagher stated he has no problem with doing that. Commissioner Menconi stated he has five recommendations on which he has questions. He spoke to spoke to #3 and the oral and written representations. Mr. Forinash stated that is a standard condition that they include so that information that is presented or commitments made that are not captured in the conditions, that the applicant is held to those. Commissioner Menconi asked if it is creating any type of exposure as there has been so much material brought forward. Mr. Forinash stated it would be necessary to review the record and determine the intent ofthe 15 03-20-2001 Board for accepting or not accepting a given commitment. Commissioner Menconi stated both #5 and #6 refer to recreation. #6 is referring to two provisional soccer fields that overlap the baseball fields. He would recommend if people were considering omitting #5 that they would omit #6 as well to create more flexibility in the future. Mr. Michaelson stated he would agree. He stated all representations or changes they have made have been put on the site plan and in the PUD guide. He stated he believes they have put every significant change in writing and on the maps to be recorded as part of the approval. Commissioner Menconi asked after #9 and what would be lost if it is removed. Mr. Forinash stated that was included in case there are any gaps in the Engineering plans, questions, or omissions that they can be referred to the County Engineer for approval. It is not unusual for the Engineer to have some discretion. If the applicant takes exception they can appeal to the Board. Mr. Loeffler asked ifthat is to be provided before the final plat. Mr. Forniash stated that is the material to be submitted at final plat with complete construction drawings approved by the Engineer. Commissioner Menconi stated condition #4 was inserted as one of the Planning Commissions conditions, but he doesn't feel that is necessary. Ms. Migchelbrink stated she made her attempt to rewrite it to come up with one that is broader considering CDOT has the right of way and she doesn't feel it fair to include the underpass as it hasn't been warranted yet. Commissioner Menconi asked if there was any condition that related to the overpass/underpass. Ms. Migchelbrink suggested they explore safety enhancements including a raised cross walk and flashing signal. Mr. Forinash displayed the condition recommended by the County Engineer which read "The Eagle County Engineer will seek approval by CDOT to move the pedestrian access to the intersection of East Valley Road and Sopris Village Drive. Upon commencement of Phase II, the County Engineer will explore with CDOT the design and funding mechanism of a pedestrian underpass traversing the CDOT right of way. He stated the planning staff endorses the Engineer's recommendation. Chairman Stone suggested explore is not strong enough language. He understands it is CDOT's right of way but would like to compel them to explore this. Maybe something like must seek approval rather than simply explore. Their primary concern is safety. Cost is not the primary factor, the primary factor is safety and that it be addressed as soon as possible and that something needs to be done immediately if possible if they are going to begin building there and before it starts being used. He likes to have the flexibility to explore the options they have talked about and those they haven't and that it come back to the Board for their consideration and approval of the solution they come up with. Maybe CDOT has something they think would work better. Commissioner Gallagher stated he also likes this as it takes out the funding ratio and is not binding the recreation district. Chairman Stone suggested a yet to be formed organization can't be forced to pay and the County may be paying for it 100%. Commissioner Gallagher suggested the ditch seems to be a magic line. He asked if there is flexability in where they line the ditch. He understands it is now underground in a pipeline. Mr. Michaelson stated they do although he doesn't want to step on Dave Carpenter's toes. It came from the bubble diagram and integrated it with the BHA work. Commissioner Gallagher asked what they anticipate the ditch looking like, how wide, how deep, how much water. Dave Carpenter stated it is an irrigation ditch with significant flow and is pretty heavily used. It will be laid out more flat without steep ledges. Commissioner Gallagher asked about width and depth. Mr. Carpenter stated it will be layed out more flat, the width would vary and the depth would be 16 03-20-2001 three to four feet deep. Commissioner Gallagher asked how deep will the water be. Mr. Carpenter stated that varies with the flow but suggested a foot deep. He stated at times they can increase the flow. Maximum he can not say. Commissioner Gallagher asked if it flows east to west. Tom Morrison, civil engineer for the project, stated the ditch varies but is set in as a straight slope with two to three feet on one end and four feet on the other. It has relatively flat side slopes with the depth being about a foot. Commissioner Gallagher suggested that seems to be a barrier to active recreation and if they want to expand that use, should they move the ditch. Mr. Michaelson stated it is a physical barrier but it's not that large. He spoke to a park in Fort Collins and how it is almost an amenity to active and passive recreation. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the ditch design allows for some activity for kids, wading pools, fishing, frog catching or is it just flowing through. Mr. Michaelson stated the ditch right now is piped. Dave Carpenter stated they tried to make it a pleasant place for kids to hang out and relatively safe. Commissioner Menconi asked Derril Rankins about the BHA alignment, the alternative plan and the current plan. He stated he doesn't see disparity between the plan. Derril Rankins, Eagle County resident, stated the discrepency that has occured is where the bubbles were layed out in the 1994 original Master Plan. He stated the alignment has not been maintained in any plan that has come back in. The origninal bubble was at 37% which came below the pivot point on the irrigation system. He questioned how you can eliminate the 30% and not consider it a reduction. He stated in the BHA plan was a compromise and the original bubble is still well below where the active recreation is designed. Mr. Michaelson stated he stands by his original statement. Mr. Rankin showed the original zone off the Master Plan on the BHA plan adopted. This was the 37% to be included in active recreation. Chairman Stone asked if he is concerned about the loss of active recreation. Mr. Rankin stated he is. He showed the pivot points on the two different plans. He stated that has been lost back to open space. Chairman Stone said that depends on perspective. He'd like to see the overlays. Rich Cunningham stated there was no intent to modify the bubbles. They are not reflected on this plan but they remain the same and are willing to reflect that which is shown. Mr. Rankin asks about the line of delineation. Ifthey were to move the ditch to the alignment of the bubble that would satisfy them. Chairman Stone suggested he understands the request. Commissioner Menconi suggested the bottom line is whether it is the same amount of space that they are referring to. Mr. Michaelson requested the 11 x 17 bubbles be included in the record. Chairman Stone stated he would label those as Al being BHA Active Recreation and Active Green Space and the second which says Active Recreation equals 37 acres and the Actual Green Space as A2 the final one that says Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master plan as A3. Starting with exhibit 3 which is the original bubble diagram, it shows the acreages of active and passive recreation. On the next two you see the active recreation bubble that is kept within the two plans and is the same as the BHA plan. The blue line is the actual area of active recreation which they have kept the same. The difference between the two is part of the active recreation bubble in both diagrams is actually called open space. That was kept open for a future third ball field. The line is still there and is in the current plan and can be kept open for a third field. 17 03-20-2001 Commissioner Menconi suggested it is almost like phasing with the blue line representing the actual active recreation area and the red line can be open space or future expansion of active recreation. He asked at what point did the drainage ditch come into discussion. When they started to grade the site to take the water into the detention pond they came up with the soil. Commissioner Menconi asked if the ditch creates any problems or was it taken into consideration with a third ball field being put into place. That ditch would not be a problem for it to be crossed over. Commissioner Menconi suggested it appears that if there was a third ball field it would not prohibit that happening south of the drainage field. Chairman Stone asked if it is coincidental that they referred to 37 acres and 37%. Mr. Michaelson stated he doesn't know. Mr. Cunningham stated in the original Master Plan the acreage breakout, the active recreation is 37 acres. Chairman Stone stated exhibit A3 says percentages. Mr. Michaelson referred to the BHA plan and page 4 and it being shown as percentages. He explained the math. It is shown on percentages here and he believes it is shown on percentages there. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the item before the Board is what they are going to be approving, he'd like to have a line on there that represents the extension to the south showing that as active recreation space. Mr. Cunningham stated staff would have no problem with doing that in the site plan ofthe PUD. Mr. Michaelson stated one reason they have only a single zone as there is no hard line so that they will have the ability to be flexible. Commissioner Gallagher stated the ability to amend should be different in the active recreation area and outside the recreation area. Mr. Michaelson agreed with Mr. Cunningham. Chairman Stone asked for further Board discussion. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Points discused by the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission included the following: Internal pathways: The desirability of eliminating the roundabouts. The inclusion of unpaved trail on the south portion of the site. Dogs: Should be leashed. Desirability of small penned areas within which dogs could run loose. Design and purpose ofthe proposed Interpretive Center. Concern about safety of pedestrians, especially children, crossing East Valley Road to get to and from the Tree Farm site. Consistency with the Master Plan, especially with respect to location of proposed building. Layout of proposed recreation fields - overlap and orientation. Site plan: Location of concession stand. Desirability of a playground. Overflow parking. Building design and layout, including one vs. two story design. Distance of building to mass transit. Desirability of second access to site from Valley Road west of proposed access. 18 03-20-2001 Appropriate provisions in PUD Guide for minor modifications. Need for integrated pest management plan. Adequacy of water rights to irrigate the site with non-potable water. Payment of one time fee to RFT A to offset impact on public transit of the development. Lighting on building and in parking areas - eliminate unnecessary lighting through the night. Proposed development ofa 124.31 acre site southwest of the intersection ofEl Jebel Road and U.S. Highway 82 which would include a number of active and passive recreation areas, pedestrian paths, a protected riparian corridor, an interpretive trail, fishing access to the Roaring Fork River, a 14,750 square foot government services facility, other public uses in existing structures, and agricultural hay production. The chronology of the project is as shown on staff report and as follows: May 1994 - The U. S. Congress approved legislation authorizing an exchange oflands between the U. S. Government and Eagle and Pitkin Counties, resulting in the acquisition by the Counties ofthe property known as the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm. December 1994 - Subject property transferred by quit claim deed from the United States Forest Service to Eagle County and Pitkin County. May 1996 - Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan adopted by the Eagle County Planning Commission and established certain objectives for the development of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm site. October 1996 - Subject property transferred by quit claim deed from Pitkin County to Eagle County. June 1998 - The Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Community Park Master Plan was prepared by the Town of Basalt providing a Community Plan representing a vision for the use of the site. July 2000 - The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved a PUD Sketch Plan for the proposed development. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering Department Response from Benchmark Engineering Services (referral agent) regarding the Preliminary Plat include a number of technical comments. Copy attached. Response from the County Engineering Department with the following comments: The phasing plan should be more clearly shown on the construction plans. The drainage report needs to reflect the phasing of the project. A plan and profile needs to be provided. The roads need to be crowned. Certain easements and rights-of-way for Valley Road need to be shown. Other technical comments (copy attached). Other comments are provided which pertain to the final plat. Additional response from the County Engineering Department with the following comments regarding the Preliminary Plan (copy attached): A conceptual design for the secondary access is required.. Additional response dated February 21, 2001, from the County Engineering Department with design and technical comments (copy attached): Eagle County Environmental Health Division Overall the plan will accrue a marginal benefit to the environment by: Abandoning existing septic systems and connecting to the regional wastewater treatment infrastructure. Allowing previously cultivated areas to return to native vegetation. Delineation of wildlife enhancement and riparian zones. 19 03-20-2001 Recommends that: An Integrated Pest Management Plan regarding application of fertilizers and pesticides to soccer and baseball fields be incorporated in the PUD Guide. Irrigation of sports fields incorporate technologies such as timers and moisture sensors that reduce water use. Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO Trails) The Preliminary Plan appears to reflect the majority of the Sketch Plan comments. It is not clear whether the trail has been moved closer to Valley Road as requested. The maximum distance to the edge of pavement should be 20'-30', with good visibility to the roadway. The path shows a 6' width. ECO recommends an 8' width for the main trails. Trails could be straightened, roundabouts eliminated, and paving phased to reduce costs. The southern loop trail could be graded and compacted unpaved trail for the foreseeable future. One of the paths is shown stubbing out at the southeast corner of the site onto a residential lot. Does an easement exist? An additional response indicating that the trail along Valley Road should be closer to Valley Road, that is, 10' to 20' feet from the edge of pavement. Town of Basalt (Planning and Zoning Commission) Restated position that the site should not be compromised by office complex development due to the suburban character of the proposal and its location outside the designated urban service area and urban growth boundary in the West Basalt portion of the Town's Master Plan. Other summary areas of concern included: Environmental issues including creation of impervious surfaces, drainage issues, water quality, and environmentally sensitive turf management practices. View planes into and across the site. Traffic circulation and impacts adjacent to the site and off-site a EI Jebel Road and East Valley Road, along with opportunities for creating a transit friendly site. Need to maximize safe pedestrian connections, and concern regarding cost of implementing the plan which includes expensive details such as bike path rotaries. Use of raw water irrigation systems on the County Building site. Size of the proposed building footprint and options for a full two story structure. Impacts ofthe over-sized proposed parking lots (see attached letter for detail). Lighting issues including conformance with low impact lighting standards in the Town Lighting Ordinance. Compatibility of the PUD plan's recreational component with the consensus Community Master Plan concepts for the site. Input from the ECO Trails Committee on revised trail and pedestrian plans. Pedestrian safety at the East Valley RoadlUnderpass crossing continues to be a major concern. Acknowledges the County's role in carrying forward recreational planning on the Sopris Meadows (sic) Tree Farm site and assisting local residents of Eagle County and the Town of Basalt in their initial efforts toward building and developing ball fields and other community amenities on the site. Roaring Fork Transit Agency It is projected that the development will generate 4,130 new annual riders, and will impact the public transit system on an annual basis in the amount of $6,044, with an associated one-time cost of $7,074. The site design does not meet the needs ofthe public transit system, however, RFTA understands that transit may have been compromised so that other goals could be achieved. Transit and alternative transportation incentives that could be built into this proposal include: Build the recreational parking spaces closer to transit for some park-and-ride use. 20 03-20-2001 Purchase bus passes for County employees. Provide shower facilities in this site plan for the county offices allowing employees to bicycle to work. Build bicycle lockers on site for both the offices and recreational facilities. Try a vanpool system for employees of the county. Offer to contribute money toward transit to offset the impact of the development. The bus stop closest to the development is in need of a pullout, and has been built to accommodate one. RFTA recommends that the developer coordinate with CDOT and the Town of Basalt and share in the cost of the proposed bus pullout. Basalt and Rural Fire District No comments or concerns. Mid Valley Metropolitan District Engineering and technical comments (copy attached) USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service The application indicates that an erosion control plan will be submitted with the final plat. Why wasn't it submitted with the Preliminary Plan? Disturbed areas are to be seeded, but no mention is made of what these varieties will be. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments In addition to the stormwater detention criteria in the Land Use Regulations designed to minimize off-site changes to the hydrology, NWCCOG recommends the additional use of its criteria designed to address water quality impacts from land development. Recommends that the detention pond and outlet structures for the detention ponds be designed to minimize off-site pollutant flows. Recommends that for those drainage basins that have exposure to pollutants (roads, buildings, parks, etc.) That best management practices be implemented to minimize water quality impacts. Recommends reviewing the erosion and sediment control criteria listed in the 208 Plan Water Quality Protection Standards for additional water quality protection measures. Notes that a vegetated drainage channel conveying stormwater from the detention pond to the Roaring Fork River, rather than the proposed culvert, might be more aesthetically pleasing and provide additional water quality enhancement. Recommends that, as sewer connections are made for the new facilities and buildings, the existing buildings also be connected to the Mid Valley Metro District. Colorado Geological Survey CGS concurs with the assessment made by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechical, Inc., of the geological hazards present on the site. CGS recommends a site-specific geotechnical investigation, with subsurface explorations, at the location of the proposed government office building, and at any other planned structures (other than picnic shelters and restrooms). H-P Geotech's report adequately addresses the hazard of sinkholes, and measures that may be taken to mitigate the hazard. Careful subsurface investigations will provide useful information on alluvium thickness and the extent of solution cavities in the area. Colorado Division of Water Resources The PUD does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision" as defined in applicable statutes. DWR does not provide comments on land use actions that do not involve the subdivision on land. Colorado Division of Wildlife Many of the proposed mitigation measures, such as bear-proof containers, protection of herons, and a weed management plan, will be beneficial to wildlife. Concerns include absence in the application of enforcement provisions, such as for: Closing riparian trails during the waterfowl nesting period. 21 03-20-2001 Requirement of leashing dogs throughout the site, but especially along the riparian trail throughout the year. Without adequate enforcement, the value of the riparian corridor may be significantly compromised due to disturbance. Colorado State Forest Service Site has a low wildfire rating. Only concern regarding wildfire hazard is adequate emergency vehicle turn-around areas Dead end roads should not be permitted. Cul-de-sac roads in excess of750 feet in length should have vehicular turnaround areas every 750 feet. Cul-de-sac turnaround pads should have a radius of 45 feet. From a tree health point of view, evergreen trees should be planted at least 20 feet from buildings; deciduous trees at least 10 feet. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Building Division, Eagle County Assessor, Garfield County, Pitkin County, Colorado Department of Transportation, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Summit Vista Homeowners Association, Sopris Village Homeowners Association, US West, Holy Cross Energy, KN Energy. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F .3.e Standards for the review of a Preliminary PUD: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - 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 pun. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire site is owned in fee simple by Eagle County. [+] 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. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - 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 effictfor the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F3.f, Variations Authorized All identified uses are uses permitted in the Resource zone district either by Right, by Limited Review, or by Special Review. No variations, pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, of the Land Use Regulations, are required. The Planning Commission has recommended adding a fenced dog park as a permitted use by right. [Condition # 8] Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to 22 03-20-2001 Section 5-240 F3.f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shaUleave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. Certain dimensional limitations are proposed in the PUD Guide. These are all equal to or more restrictive than those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, since the dimensional limitations differ from those in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD, a variation, pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, is required. The proposed basis for the requested variation is considerations resulting from both the Master Planning processes for the site and the Sketch Plan approval. This appears to include obtaining desired design qualities and avoiding environmental resources, as set forth in Section 5-240 F.3.f (3), Basis for Granting Variations, while leaving adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensuring proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. Staff agrees that the PUD achieves these purposes and that the variations are necessary for those purposes to be achieved, and makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3- 340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations MAY be permitted as necessary for the PUD Preliminary Plan to achieve the purposes of obtaining desired design qualities and avoiding environmental resources. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - 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: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) 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 A condition of approval of the PUD Sketch Plan was that the Applicant 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. That information has been provided. Based on the criteria used, 363 spaces are a reasonable minimum; 412 spaces have been provided. The Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission has raised a question about the parking lots being "over-sized". Staff has considered the response of the project team and determined that, given the overall intent for the site, the proposed parking is reasonable. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] 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 complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - 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 23 03-20-2001 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. A detailed landscape plan has been provided which satisfies the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] 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. STANDARD: 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, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (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. The sign standards applicable to the PUD will be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - 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. [+] Potable water supply. - Potable water will be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. A 12" water main exists to the north of the site. [+] Sewage disvosal. - Sanitary sewer service will also be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. A 15" PVC sanitary sewer main exists to the north of the site. [+] Solid waste disposal. - Services are available in the area. [+] Electrical supvly. - Electric service will be provided from an adjacent overhead Holy Cross power line. [+] Fire vrotection. - The Colorado State Forest Service has noted the advisability of providing that emergency vehicular turnaround areas being provided every 750 feet on cul-de-sac roads. It appears that the presence of the parking lots along the internal road (to be designated Eagle County Drive) provide sufficient turnaround along its entire length. Where Eagle County Drive joins the parking lots near the existing buildings, it appears that an emergency vehicle would have to make several turning movements, but a turnaround can be accomplished. The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District has indicated no concern about the site or the proposed development. [+] Roads. - The Applicant has not provided Preliminary Plan level drawings, but has indicated that all suggested and required changes will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. It appears that the requirements of the Land Use Regulations can be met. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition # 9] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [n/a] Proximity to Schools - There will be no residents on the site. [+] Proximity to Police and Fire Protection. and Emergency Medical Services. - Law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services are available in the immediate vicinity. With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. 24 03-20-2001 [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS 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 HAS demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical servIces. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - 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 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 removedfrom the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. [+] Safe. Efficient Access - One of the conditions of approval of the Sketch Plan was that the road to the existing buildings be constructed by Applicant as soon as feasible. The Applicant has agreed to provide access directly to the existing buildings at the time the internal access infrastructure for the government services building is constructed. A second condition of approval is that the Preliminary Plan address improved pedestrian access across Valley Road at Highway 82, including careful examination of separated pedestrian crossing, i.e., an overpass or underpass not at grade. The Applicant has determined that the cost associated with constructing an overpass from the site to the north side of Highway 82 to be from $1 million to $1.5 million dollars and would create significant visual impacts that could not be mitigated. The cost of extending the existing underpass to the site is estimated at just under $500,000. The Planning Commission has recommended that a pedestrian underpass be constructed as part of Phase II of the development. [Condition # 4] A third condition of approval is that a second access for recreation users be explored. The Planning Commission has recommended that, prior to construction of a pedestrian underpass under East Valley Road, the pedestrian crosswalk across East Valley Road be moved further east than has been 25 03-20-2001 proposed to the intersection of East Valley Road and Arapahoe (sic). [Condition # 4] [+] Internal Pathways - Additional conditions of approval of the Sketch Plan are that the Preliminary Plan be reviewed by the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority trails staff to refine the internal trail alignment, and that a report on pedestrian and non-motorized movement within the park be provided at application for Preliminary Plan. The Applicant reports that proposed Preliminary Plan has been reviewed by the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority and approved with minor modifications. Some ofthe recommended changes have been incorporated into the Preliminary Plan. However, the Trails Coordinator has recommended that the trail along Valley Road be moved to within 10' to 20' feet of the Valley Road pavement. The Applicant represents that all changes suggested by the ECO Trails staff have been incorporated into the Preliminary Plan. Staff Recommends that as a condition of approval, plans for all internal pathways should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Emergency Vehicles - Although not reflected in the Preliminary Plan, emergency access to the site is proposed to be from Valley Road by way ofa 125+ foot easement. The easement will be reflected on the final plat. The only hardened surface within the proposed easement is a 12 foot wide path. Staff Recommends that as a condition of approval, the adequacy of the emergency access should be subject to approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding [+] Principal Access Points - The Applicant has represented that all suggestions and requirements of the County Engineer will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Staff Recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Snow Storage - Ample areas are available for snow storage. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS 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. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The site and the proposed development have undergone a substantial amount of public review and scrutiny prior to the preparation and submission of this Sketch Plan application. In the process of developing the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan and the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Community Park Master Plan, the comments and concerns of many interested individuals, including representatives of the Summit Vista Home Owners Association, the Sopris Village Home Owners Association, the Blue Lake Owners Association, as well as the Town of Basalt, Eagle County and Pitkin County, were factored into the planning for the development. In the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Community Park Master Plan, the Community Plan which came out of that planning process is characterized as representing "the joint vision of valley residents and provides for at least a portion of the numerous interest groups needs in a compromise plan that maintains the park with a moderate level of active recreation while also incorporating a variety of other community spaces." 26 03-20-2001 Given the nature of the proposed development, adequate separation and buffering have been provided with respect to adjacent land uses. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] 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. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. x x x x x x x Eagle Countv Master Plan. The proposed development generally conforms to all applicable Guiding Policies of the Eagle County Master Plan. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x x x x x Eagle Co un tv Open Space Plan. The proposed development generally conforms to the Policies of the Eagle County Open Space Plan. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN 27 03-20-2001 x x x x x Mid Vallev Community Plan. The proposed development generally conforms to all applicable Policies of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. MT. SOPRIS TREE FARM MASTER PLAN Mi. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan. A number of Planning Objectives were established for the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan, including the following: Provide area for a governmental service facility for County departmental use. Provide space for needed Mid Valley community uses as determined by County and Town staffs and local residents as allowed by regulations ofthe Act [authorizing transfer ofthe site from the U.S. Forest Service to Eagle County and Pitkin County]. Provide substantial buffer areas, maximize open space and protect from future development. Provide adequate access, circulation and parking while minimizing impact to adjacent residential areas and Valley Road. Provide and maintain public river access. Maintain and protect riparian area from proposed land uses. Develop site Master Plan for use as a guide for site planning and building reuse. The Master Plan provided two goals, along with a number of Planning Objectives for each. The Government Services Goal is to "provide interior and exterior spaces for government services as defined." Several planning objectives are set forth which include minimizing visual impacts or other impacts on existing and proposed land uses and certain other planning activities. The Community Services Goal is to ''provide area(s) for future implementation of active and passive recreation facilities while protecting open space and agricultural uses." Planning objectives are in the areas of active recreation; passive recreation; agriculture/open space; and open space. The PUD Preliminary Plan is in conformance with the goals and applicable planning objectives of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan. MT. SOPRIS TREE FARM COMMUNITY PARK MASTER PLAN (BHA Master Plan). A Community Plan for the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm site came out of this planning effort which 28 03-20-2001 "represents the joint vision of valley residents and provides for at least a portion ofthe numerous interest groups needs in a compromise plan that maintains the park with a moderate level of active recreation while also incorporating a variety of other community spaces." The Community Plan includes a list of key park elements and a site plan. With the exception of the community service facility being moved from the west end of the site to a location near the east entrance of the site, the PUD Preliminary Plan generally conforms to the Community Plan developed as part ofthis planning effort. [+] 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). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. The PUD is to be developed in at least two phases. The first includes the Government Building, associated parking and the internal road to the existing buildings near the northwest corner of the site. The recreation portion of the site is proposed to be developed by a recreation authority which is yet to be formed. The Applicant represents that all suggestions and requirements of the County Engineer will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A sufficient phasing plan HAS been provided for this development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - 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. i 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. ii. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, 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. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Planfor PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to coliform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Planfor 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 29 03-20-2001 common open space. (d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage aU 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 Pun. Over 50 percent of the site is proposed to consist of common recreation and open space. The recreation portions of the site are to be developed by a recreation authority yet to be established. Maintenance of the recreation areas of the site will be responsibility of that recreation authority. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS been demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: Minimum area; Improvements required; Continuing use and maintenance; or Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - 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. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) concurs with the assessment made by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechical, Inc., of the geological hazards present on the site, and notes that their report adequately addresses the hazard of sinkholes, and measures that may be taken to mitigate the hazard. Careful subsurface investigations will provide useful information on alluvium thickness and the extent of solution cavities in the area. The Applicant has represented that subsurface explorations at the Government Building site have been completed and will be submitted with the building permit application. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has expressed concern about the enforcement of [1] limited access to the riparian trails during the waterfowl nesting period, and [2] the leashing of dogs on the property. The Applicant represents that Eagle County will place of necessary signs in the area and enforce closure of the trails. Dogs within the park will be required to be leashed at all times. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, 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 Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+] 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). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The 30 03-20-2001 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. Article 3, Zone Districts [+] All applicable provisions of Article will be satisfied. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) As discussed under Off-Street Parking and Loading [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)], above, the proposed development conforms with these standards. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) As discussed under Landscaping, [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)], above, the proposed development conforms with these standards. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) As discussed under Signs, [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)], above, the proposed development conforms with these standards. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - As noted above under Natural Resource Protection [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)], the Colorado Division of Wildlife has expressed concern about certain enforcement issues. The Applicant represents that Eagle County will place of necessary signs in the area and enforce closure of the trails. Dogs within the park will be required to be leashed at all times. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - As noted above, the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) concurs with the assessment made by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechical, Inc., ofthe geological hazards present on the site. The Applicant has represented that subsurface explorations at the Government Building site have been completed and will be submitted with the building permit application. As a condition of approval, a note should be required on the final plat that site-specific geotechnical investigations, with subsurface explorations, should be provided for the location of the proposed government office building, and at other planned structures (other than picnic shelters and restrooms) prior to issuance of building permits. [Condition #2] Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service has raised questions abut the turnaround for emergency vehicles. As noted above under Adequate Facilities. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (7)], it appears that adequate turnarounds exist. The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District has indicated no concern about the site or the proposed development. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+ ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - Although the application apparently is not specific about the use of wood burning devices, such device apparently are neither contemplated or proposed. All uses of wood burning devices in the PUD will be required to conform to the requirements of this Section. Staff makes a favorable finding. [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - This site is not included on lands designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. Given the valley floor location ofthe site, ridgeline impacts are not a factor. The Applicant is not required to provide a ridgeling analysis. Consequently, this Section is not applicable to this application. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - An Environmental Impact Report which satisfies the requirements of this Section has been provided. Staff makes a favorable finding. [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) There are no significant commercial or industrial operation on the proposed site which would 31 03-20-2001 subject this application to the provisions of this Division. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - The Applicant has represented that all changes required and suggested by the County Engineer will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Applicant represents that all changes suggested by the ECO Trails staff have been incorporated into the Preliminary Plan. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, all sidewalk and trails plans should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9] [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - It appears that this standard will be met. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The Applicant has represented that all changes required and suggested by the County Engineer will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The Applicant has represented that all changes required and suggested by the County Engineer will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - It appears that the standards of this Section will be satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - It appears that the standards ofthis Section will be satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - It appears that the standards of this Section will be satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding. [n/a] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) No residential units are proposed on the site, Therefore, no school land dedication is required. Other Standards in the Land Use Regulations Other Standards - It appears that all other standards of the Land Use Regulations will be met, except as discussed elsewhere in this Staff Report. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS 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. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the 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 32 03-20-2001 entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. The proposed development is located near existing development and requires limited extension and/or improvement of utility service lines and roads. Water and sewer service lines can be extended along with other utility lines. It appears that utility lines will be sized to serve the planned ultimate needs and avoid disruption which would result from undersized lines, and that proposed road extensions can be shown to be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. Consequently, the efficiency of the spatial pattern has been demonstrated. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall 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. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - 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. Staff review of the proposed development indicates that the property is suitable for development. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] 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. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - 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. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] 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. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that demonstrates meets the requirements of this Section. Requirements for a Zone Change In Section 5-240.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the. . . Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor. Based on the above analysis and other available information, Staff makes the following findings as provided in this Section of the Land Use Regulations: (1) [+] Consistency With Master Plan. With proposed conditions of approval, the proposed PUD IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FL UM of the Master Plan; (2) [+] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment IS compatible with 33 03-20-2001 existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed conditions of approval, it IS an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; (3) [+] Changed conditions. There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the present zone district and/or its density/intensity; (4) [+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment DOES NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from development under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. (5) [+] Community need It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a community need. (6) [+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment DOES result in a logical and orderly development pattern, DOES NOT constitute spot zoning, MAY logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; and (7) [+] Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAVE changed to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Mr. Loeffler stated they should address the zone change first. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve file number ZC-00046, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number PDP-00020, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm, incorporating the planning commission findings, staff findings and with the following conditions: 1. The changes required in the February 21, 2001 Memorandum from the Engineering Department be incorporated in the engineering drawings. 2. A note be required on the final plat that site-specific geotechnical investigations, with subsurface explorations, be provided for the location of the proposed government office building, and at any other planned structures (other than picnic shelters and restrooms prior to issuance of building permits. 3. 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. 4. Upon commencement of Phase II the local issuing authority as defined in the State Highway Access Code, 2CCR60 1-1 will impose terms and conditions necessary to design, fund and construct safe pedestrian access from the CDOT right of way. 5. The illumination part of the PUD Guide note that only security lighting will be allowed on the building between 10:00 p.m and 6:00 a.m., and the Sheriffs parking lot and entrance will use shielded, low profile lighting unless special events dictate otherwise. 6. Allowed uses in the PUD Guide include a fenced dog park. 7. The Applicant provide a complete set of engineering plans, including plans for internal pathways, satisfactory to the County Engineer, be provided which satisfy all applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations, and which specifically demonstrate that: a. Adequate roads will be provided within the site. b. Internal pathways are designed and located as required and represented by the Applicant. c. An adequate emergency access to the site will be provided. d. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. e. A phasing plan for the development, as well as the corresponding drainage report, is clearly reflected. f. A sufficient grading and erosion control plan has been completed and incorporated in the 34 03-20-2001 engineering plans. 8. That the active recreation line as represented on exhibit A2 and Al be applied to the sketch plan attachment to this. 9. The applicant shall provide the engineering plans at the time of final plat. Mr. Loeffler suggested the applicant provide the engineering plans at the time of final plat so that there is specificity as to when these should be done. Commissioner Gallagher modified the motion to include that. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. In discussion, Chairman Stone stated the final conditions will be renumbered reflecting the deletion of items 5 and 6. He asked for further discussion. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the fenced dog park and asked if that is shown in the PUD guide. Mr. Michaelson stated it is not shown in the PUD but incorporated in the PUD text. Commissioner Gallagher asked if it will be shown on the final plat. Rich Cunningham stated he sees no problem in doing that. Commissioner Menconi asked if there would be any need for direction as to location and size at this time. Mr. Michaelson stated they will feel comfortable in depicting it on the site plan and allowing the Community Development Director to look at it and determine if it needs to come back. Mr. Cunningham stated they would seek the advise of the Animal Control director as to the size and the site ofthe location and nature of the facility. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone stated this action does not preclude the offer and if the Town of Basalt wants to proceed with some type of documentation it does not preclude the Commissioners from building the government building somewhere else. Part of the difficulty was that the offer that was made for them to build the building at the Willits Site was not specific enough at this point in time. There are some general offers from the developer to help them out with the design and they are not sure that anyone knows what that means. What can be convincing to them is a very specific offer recognizing the money that has been spent. Ifthe developer and the Town as a combined group want to reimburse the County for those expenses, for instance the architectural design work, what would they want to pay. He thinks those specifics would be necessary to enter into the financial discussions. He believes this Board is still open to that but more specifics would be needed. Jacque Whitsitt, Basalt Town Board, asked if they can find out the kind of time frames they are looking at and that the expectations are reasonable. She would like the time frame to get something credible on paper to offer them Chairman Stone stated they will get a more specific time frame but that it will happen pretty quick. They will get a more specific commitment to them by tomorrow. Ms. Whitsitt asked they entertain a suggestion that they work on the study that they might do together so that potential outcomes are something they might buy into. Chairman Stone suggested a lot of the discussion can happen without hiring a consultant to see if they are on the same track. He asked they have those preliminary discussions without hiring a consultant. Ms. Whitsitt thanked them for their consideration. Chairman Stone suggested they have taken their proposal seriously. Commissioner Gallagher asked they also have some information about the library and what they are planning to do. Ms. Whitsitt stated they will find out what they can. 35 03-20-2001 PDF -00062, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Final Plat Chairman Stone introduced the file and turned it over to Mr. Forinash. Joseph Forinash presented file number PDF-00062, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD Final Plat. He stated this matter needs to be tabled to April 10, 2001. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number PDF -00062, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD Final Plat to April 10, 2001, at the applicants request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00070, Lafarge Gravel Pit Chairman Stone thanked the applicant for their patience. He spoke to this morning's approval of the lease. Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number ZS-00070, Lafarge Gravel Pit. The Western Mobile Company, now a subsidiary of Lafarge Corporation, currently has been mining near the Eagle County Fairgrounds since the 1980's. Currently, they have a Special Use Permit for the purpose of extracting and processing sand and gravel resources, and are mining in what is called Area B, west of the Animal Shelter. The applicant is currently applying for a new and separate Special Use Permit for the purpose of extracting sand and gravel in Area D, south of the recreation area, east of Area B. All processing of material will continue in Area B. The chronology of this application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1980: Board of County Commissioners approved a Special Use Permit for gravel mine at the Eagle County Fairgrounds. 1997: Board of County Commissioners approved an amendment to the previous Special Use Permit. Area B operates under this Permit, and is for both the processing and extraction of sand and gravel. 2000: Staff received an application for a separate Special Use Permit for the extraction of sand and gravel in Area D. Material will be processed in Area B. December 31 S\ 2003 lease between Lafarge and Eagle County, for Area D, expires. Area D is the last site to be mined at the Fairgrounds. The Planning Commission had several concerns with both the Special Use Permit itself, and the area surrounding Area D. The main concern with the Special Use Permit pertained to the expiration date. The Planning Commission felt that it wasn't necessary to tie the expiration date to the Eagle County / Lafarge lease expiration, and amended Condition no. 3 to have the Permit expire December 31 S\ 2007. The Planning Commission's other concerns pertained to the security of a ditch that runs through the property of which both WECMRD and Lafarge use on a regular basis, and the protection of the present, and future WECMRD recreation areas. A sub-motion was created to address this concern, as the Attorney deemed it un-related to the Special Use Permit at hand. The Planning Commission made a motion to approve Special Use Permit file ZS-00070 incorporating Staff findings and conditions, with the exception of Condition no. 3 which is to read, "This Special Use Permit shall only be valid until December 3P\ 2001." (Vote -UNA) The Planning Commission also made a sub-motion, "to have the Eagle County Commissioners respond to concerns expressed by WECMRD regarding impacts on future recreation expansion needs." (V ote- UNA) Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering, dated January 16th, 2001 Final engineering drawings to be stamped by a professional engineer. Easements will need to be recorded for the sanitary and gas lines. Details regarding what type of security fence is to be used and how it is to be constructed must be 36 03-20-2001 provided. The leaders labeling thel 00 year flood plain line on sheets 4 and 5 must not also point to the boundary line. The text calling out the pond must be revised to: "Approx. Location of proposed pond perimeter by the Eagle County Master Plan dated Oct. 23, 2000." Colorado Geological Survey, dated December 18th, 2000 Erosion controls should be put in place to minimize the loss of soils by wind and water. Suggest that neighboring wells be monitored periodically to test water levels No potential geologic hazards exist that would preclude the use of this site for gravel exploration. Colorado State Forest Service, dated December 11, 2000 No significant wildfire hazards exist. Colorado Division Of Wildlife, dated December 26th, 2000 Application contains an accurate account of likely impacted wildlife. DOW agrees that the described mitigation measures will decrease the impacts on wildlife. Emphasis needs to be placed on preserving the riparian corridor, adjacent to the pit, in its existing state. All development should stay outside a 75 foot setback from the riparian corridor. Preservation of the corridor will allow for continued movement of wildlife, resting and hunting areas for eagles / other raptors, and habitats for a variety of animals. Norris Dullea, Consultant on Eagle County Fairgrounds Master Plan, dated January 15th, 2001 It would be beneficial for the County to ask Lafarge to extend their grading limits to include the 'Great Lawn' so it can be graded to 2%. (See attached graphics as well). Additional Referrals were sent to the following: Eagle County: Attorney; Animal Shelter; Environmental Health; Road and Bridge; Sheriff Holy Cross, Greater Eagle Fire, KN Energy, EC Historical Society, WECMRD, and the Town of Eagle. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: o Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.l Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FL UM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. THE MASTER PLAN MATRIX THAT FOLLOWS ANALYZES THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN x x Community CenterIRural x x x The Future Land Use Map designates this area as both a) Community Center: to be used as a 37 03-20-2001 residential/commercial activity center, with some non-residential uses (i.e recreational), existing to serve the nearby community; and b) Rural: to be used mainly for agriculture or resource-oriented purposes. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x x x x x x x Xl Both the Division of Wildlife and this master plan stress the necessity to maintain and/or increase riparian habitats. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use Permit CAN be shown to be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and Master Plan FLUM, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. ST ANDARD: Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. As the extraction activity will be replacing that current extraction activity in Area B, Staff feels that this use is compatible and concurrent with what is there now. Traffic and noise levels should remain constant, and much ofthe activity for this operation is proposed to occur on a portion of the site which will be screened from adjacent areas by berms. This site will also be situated next to an existing mining area, where the processing of materials will occur, and by using the existing access through Area B, no new haul roads will need to be built. The applicant has shown, by past example, that the area disturbed by the mining operation can be adequately reclaimed once mining has ceased. Further, the extraction activities proposed for this Special Use may facilitate future development of Eagle County's Fairgrounds Master Plan. [+] FINDING: Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. 38 03-20-2001 STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.3 Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The proposed sand and gravel mine will be located in the Resource zone district. This Special Use Permit is found under Section 3-10.P - Zone Standards for Exploration, Extraction, and Processing Operations. Standards 3-1 O.P: [+] 1. Environmental Impact Report. The applicant shall submit an Environmental Analysis report in accordance with Section 4-460. Included in the report shall be a depiction of location, scope and design of the proposed use, and an explanation of its operational characteristics and impacts. [+] 2. Compliance. The proposed Special Use will be designed and operated in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the County, State, and Federal Governments, and shall not adversely effect: a. Water. Existing lawful use of water, through depletion or pollution. b. Adjacent Land Uses. Adjacent land uses, through generation of vapor, dust, smoke, noise, glare, vibration or other emanations; or c. Wildlife. Wildlife and domestic animals through creation of hazardous attractions to wildlife, impacts on wildlife habitat, or patterns or other means. [+] 3. Site Plan. ...a detailed site plan shall be submitted, including landscaping sufficient to meet the standards found is Section 4-230 Landscaving Design Standards and Materials. Security may be required to guarantee landscaping, drainage and erosion control. [+] 4. Fabrication, Service and Repair All fabrication, service and repair activities associated with the use shall be conducted within a building (except for incidental repair activities) unless the applicant demonstrate that it is not practical to do so and insures that all impacts from outside activities are mitigated [+] 5. Storage. All storage of materials associated with the operation shall occur within a building, or shall be obscured by an opaque fence. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. Staff feels that plans to reduce visual impacts related to operations through berming and landscaping are adequate. As the extraction activity will be replacing that current extraction activity in Area B, traffic (hauling), trash, parking and loading, odors, glare and vibration and noise levels should remain constant. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use DOES adequately minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, while the proposed Special Use CAN avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, glare, and vibration, it CAN avoid adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding noise and traffic, and WILL NOT create a nUIsance. 39 03-20-2001 STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.5 Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. Staff feels that the applicant has addressed this section adequately, and can make a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use CAN fully minimize environmental impacts, and though it will not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources, it WILL NOT cause significant deterioration to scenic resources. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.6 Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The mine provides potable water (bottled) and on site sewage disposal. As this is an existing mining operation, there should be no increased impacts to roads, parks and schools, as the employees who are currently employed with Lafarge, shall work in this area of the mine as well. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services such as roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and waste water facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Operations to be during daylight hours, with lighting to be for safety and security reasons. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - State would like setback from riparian area of75 feet. Area D is currently outside the flood plain, and plans to leave a substantial buffer between the river/riparian area, and the mining location. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) [nla] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) No wood burning devices are proposed. [nla] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and deemed sufficient. [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) [+] Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates in excess of the standards are not anticipated as a result of this development. [nla] Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) [+] Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) The hazardous materials storage will only be for fuel, related to the maintenance of vehicles and mining equipment. The applicant is expected to conform to local, state and federal regulations and laws regarding the storage and disposal of all hazardous materials. [+] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) The applicant has demonstrated that this mine will not effect water quality in the area, and have erosion control mitigation. [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) No new roads will be created. [nla] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) 40 03-20-2001 [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) Water for landscaping and reclamation is proposed to be distributed by truck. Trucks from Area B will water Area D, where the extraction will now take place. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) There is an associated condition which pertains to this standard. Please see condition number two (2). It discusses the future of a pond location as found in the Fairgrounds Master Plan. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) as conditioned; gas line easements must be dedicated and recorded. [+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) [n/a] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). Standards in this section do not apply. [+] FINDING: as conditioned Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES fully comply with all the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.8 Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. No other applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations were found relevant to this proposal for Special Use. [+] FINDING: The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics Chairman Stone suggested in reviewing the staff report he made a note where he crossed off items #4 and #5 as he believes those were taken care of. Chairman Stone read #4 as "All outstanding Engineering comments, as per a memo dated January 16,2001, must be satisfied prior to the approval of this Permit by the Board of County Commissioners." He asked if someone from engineering can reference that. Bob Loeffler stated the easements have not been recorded and when he spoke with KN Gas representative a couple of weeks ago about finalizing the easements, he said he would have to check with Lafarge and get back to him. He suggested there may be some further movement and suggests that they keep number 5 until they have determined where the gas lines will be and that they not do an easement, then they can do an as built. Helen Migchelbrink stated #4 has been addressed and all other items satisfied. Steve Wood, applicant, stated he is available for questions. Chairman Stone asked for pubic comment. Commissioner Gallagher asked about condition #2 and if they have a Board approved reclamation plan. Mr. Loeffler stated the reclamation plan is set forth in the lease amendment in high volume which speaks to grading, vegetation, timing, etc. Chairman Stone asked if #2 is still written appropriately. Mr. Loeffler stated it is still correct to mention the subject of the special use permit and it acknowledges there may be a change to the pond configuration. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. ZS- 00070, Lafarge Gravel Pit incorporating all Staff findings, and the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 41 03-20-2001 2. All future reclamation shall adhere to the Board approved reclamation plan, except that upon notification from Eagle County, the applicant shall submit a new reclamation plan which shows, in detail, the proposed "pond" as per the approved Fairgrounds Master Plan. Pond construction plans must be approved by the Eagle County Engineering department. (Note: Plans submitted for this application show the general location and shape of the pond, and are subject to change). 3. This Special Use Permit shall only be valid until December 315\ 2007 4. Easements for all relocated gas/sewer lines shall be recorded upon (relocation) construction. 5. The maximum area of disturbance within the permit area shall be limited to 30 acres at any one time. The remainder of the total area shall be either in its natural existing state or shall be reclaimed in accordance with the current existing permit of the State of Colorado Mining Board and applicable standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone thanked the applicant and for working with them on the lease. PDS-00023, Vail Christian High School Matt Gennett presented file number PDS-00023, Vail Christian High School. He stated this matter needs to be tabled to April 3, 2001. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number PDS-00023, Vail Christian High School, to April 3, 2001 at the applicants request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0033, Land Use Regulation Amendment Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, presented file number LUR-00033, Land Use Regulation Amendment. He introduced Jim Duncan from the consulting firm the county hired to put the background study together as well as the proposed regulations. He stated what they are talking about is amending the Land Use Regulations to incorporate a new road impact fee as well school land dedication requirements. Chairman Stone asked how many meetings the Planning Commission took to discuss this. Mr. Montag spoke to four meetings with the Eagle County Planning Commission and three or four with the Roaring Fork Planning & Zoning Commission. Chairman Stone suggested with as much information as they will receive today and with the need to review the information that they will probably not make a decision today. He does think there is time for discussion and consideration. He suggested it will be worth while to get the information today and take it back up again in two weeks. Mr. Montag stated the Planning Commission took a great deal oftime to hear the presentation, discuss it and digest the information. He stated in the packets they have hopefully received a number of documents. He stated the first is a cover memo that outlines all the different documents. The document following the memo is the Staff report. The next is the Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in Lieu Study done by Duncan Associates. Within this document, the justification and the rational for coming up with the regulations is included. He stated Duncan Associates is one of the more well known companies that deals with impact studies. In addition to the study are the actual regulations as proposed to date. There have some modifications made since they started out with the Planning Commission. There were a number of comments wanting more clarification and they have attempted to do that. Following the regulations is a matrix depicting comments/responses and identifies all of the concerns and questions heard to date. Staff has responded to all of those. There are fourteen pages in this matrix. Following that is a revised Exhibit A. He stated they have shortened the list or fee schedule of road impact fees and have made it more comprehensive based on the input from the public and staff. Following this are a 42 03-20-2001 couple of pages listed as Road Impact Fee Options. The reason they have the options is the Planning Commission felt as though they wanted to have different protocol to look at. They did recommend a different option than what was proposed. Fianlly are the referral letters which he has copied from individuals and Towns. And lastly they have draft samples ofIGA"s that would need to be implemented with the Towns and CDOT to ultimately allow this regualation to work as intended. They don't necessarily need the Town's approval or commitment to get started. Chairman Stone asked ifhe will give a general explanation as to how this is supposed to work. Mr. Montag stated Eagle County is updating the Land Use Regulations to incorporate Road Impact Fees and to modify the School Land Dedication/Fees-in-lieu requirements. These items were contemplated for inclusion/modification into the LUR's during the previous major revision process that occurred in 1998. However, associated studies needed to be completed detailing the background information and data before moving forward. Now that this information is available, the County Commissioners have directed staff to proceed. The Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study and accompanying proposed regulations were prepared by the County's consultant, Duncan Associates. The study has been accomplished pursuant to the Board's direction as part ofthe initial Land Use Regulation adoption process. Meetings were held as part of the process with the School Districts, Towns and CDOT to obtain feedback and determine their commitment level. The Study provides an excellent description of the concepts and components utilized in preparing the proposed regulations. Eagle County has historically charged a road impact fee of $1000 per dwelling unit to help cover the cost of road improvements as a result of additional traffic impacts associated with development. The basis ofthe current fee has historically not been well documented or clear. The purpose of the "Study" and regulations is to provide a sound basis for a revised road impact fee. The reason for charging the fee was to offset the road impacts associated with the additional traffic generated with the development. The basis for the fee has not previously been well documented. The County recently completed a county-wide road improvements plan providing the foundation for updating the road impact fees. The Eagle County 2010 Road Capital Improvement Plan identifies the road improvement costs attributable to growth, versus costs attributable to existing service deficiencies. The road impact fees are designed to fund growth-related, capacity-expanding improvements to the major road system in the County - for both residential and nonresidential uses. This includes all state and federal highways, as well as County and Town roadways identified in the Eagle County 2010 Road Capital Improvement Plan. IGA's will need to be adopted by participating Towns and CDOT to address the cross-jurisdictional traffic impacts. Staff has identified options available for the Board to consider regarding the time of fee collection. These options (Road Impact Fee Options) are attached for consideration and Board direction. The existing Land Use Regulations contain requirements for school land dedication or fees-in- lieu payment associated with residential development. The dedication formula has not been updated since the 1970's, although the land valuation have been periodically adjusted over the years. A firm legal basis will be established with the adoption of the regulations. Based on the analysis as described in the Study, the net result of all recommended changes in the regulations is that the land dedication requirement would increase for single family detached units, and decrease for duplexes, apartments and mobile homes. In addition, the proposed (by separate BOCC Resolution) land values would change the fee-in-lieu costs. This application was referred to: The Towns of Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, RedCliff, and Vail, the County Assessor, the County Attorney, Eagle County School District RE50J, Roaring Fork School District RE-I, Colorado Dept. of Transportation, and the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. Responses are attached. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: 43 03-20-2001 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: The proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate referral agencies, including the town within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Hearing of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (a) The proposed amendments SOLELY AMEND THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. (b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAVE been provided. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D. Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as applicable: (a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use Map of the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) The proposed amendments DO address a demonstrated community need. (c) The proposed amendments ARE in the public interest. Mr. Montag stated in general the Towns are supportive of the concept but they want time to review the proposed changes. He stated they can move forward without the Towns signing on at this point and they can sign on at a later date. Both the Planning Commissions recommended approval. The Eagle County Commission voted 5 to 1. The one vote against was with a Planning Commissioner who is not in favor of the use of impact fees in any way. His idea of the methodology is that it should be done case by case. The way the proposed regulations are written, the impact fees would be collected at the time of building permit not at final plat as they are now for the residential units. He stated these regulations are proposing to collect for residential as well as non-residential, commercial, uses at the time of building permit. The Planning Commission felt uncomfortable about that wanting the residential to be collected at the time of final plat and commercial being collected at the time of building permit. Which is called option B. It is in the backup material. Chairman Stone stated this amendment is a substantial change in the bredth of the amendment as well as the timing of when the fees are to be collected. He suggested if they come up with an amendment that reflects how it all works would it be possible to change that fee only at a later date. Mr. Loeffler stated the school impact fee is an analogy. There are two elements to the school impact fee that's included. He stated one is how the fee is charged. A separate thing is the land values used in the formulas in that framework. The regulation is to create a framework for how to determine the fee. It anticipates a five year fee structure that can be modified. Mr. Montag confirmed a fee can be modified and the regulation requires that every five years. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the relationship ofthe County and the Towns on this. Mr. Montag stated when the capital improvement plan was prepared it included all County, Town and CDOT roads. He stated the fees were to be collected and spent in both County and Towns for improving roads. The intent was to make sure there is a sharing. Mr. Loeffler stated the Towns would be invited to adopt as their own regulations this same impact fee. Then the fees go into a joint pot. A committee comprised of representatives from each of the participants selects each year where the money goes. Mr. Montag both Planning Commissions recommended option B. It was felt more comfortable collecting the residential fees at final plat and the commercial entities at the time of the building permit. They need to have the detail available at the time of building permit as at final plat, they may not know what the ultimate commercial use is going to be. Jim Duncan, president of Duncan Associates, drafted this study for Eagle County. He stated 44 03-20-2001 there are a lot of numbers. All impact fee studies are based on the rational nexus test which is like a three legged stool. One is called need - to show that new development is creating need for the facility. Two is to show that the development will receive benefit for the money spent or improvements given and the Third is the fair share leg of the stool. He stated when you go project by project it is difficult to evenly distribute the funds and everybody pays their fair share. He stated the bottom line is Eagle County is a rapidly growing County. Chairman Stone stated we are 41,165 in population. Mr. Duncan said the other piece of this is that the unicorporated area is growing at a faster rate than the Town. The formula, which is an improvements driven formula the other is a demand drive which is less sophisticated. When they started this study, the County had just completed the transportation plan by design as a foundation document for a road impact fee plan. He stated they are looking at a 15 year period and the improvements that have to be made as well as the increased traffic. And then divide it and assign to the new growth. He explained the formula. The key thing about the County and whenever you come up with a road fee, you want to spend it where you collect it. They have designed two plans. One for this side of the County and one for the Roaring Fork. The biggest minus is the small areas. The transportation system including the interstate highway is documented by segements, the distance, the average daily traffic in winter and the projected 2010 traffic, the vehicle miles of travel. The bottom line is the total vehicles miles of travel in 1995 which is 1.9 million increasing by 700,000 to by 2010. Going through the information and looking at summer and winter, they took an average. They then looked at what is actually happening. CDOT showed the new trips to be greater. Deficiency improvements are another important component. Those costs should not be passed to new development and should be borne by those living there already. They looked at those that have been made which is $10,000,000 with an outstanding of$3,800,000. Chairman Stone asked when we talk about the costs, does that include CDOT roads as well. He asked who pays for it. Mr. Duncan stated they will reduce the cost by what the County will be getting from CDOT. You have to recognize what you are getting from the State and the Federal Government. He stated they also found additional improvements found in the Town of Vail. He showed those in table 6 and the costs in table 7 which caused and additional $30,000,000 in growth related improvements. Table 8 is a summary. He further explained the formula stating they have assumed that CDOT has contrubited each year and will do so in the future. Commissioner Menconi asked about the difference in the projection dates. Mr. Duncan stated the $3,000,000 is over a five year cycle not an annual allocation. He stated it is a credit. He stated there is a typo on the overlay. They will double check all the numbers. He stated there have been experiences when the funds are used as matching funds. He stated there is an additional credit. He stated they were looking for the average and they credited that money spent by each of the communities. Chairman Stone stated he understands the assumptions, but the County has had a road impact fee so maybe some of this money instead of coming from the Tooth Fairy, maybe it did come from impact fees. He is not sure that it is a proper assumption to make. Mr. Duncan stated he will double check that amount. Commissioner Menconi asked if this is saying that each one of those groups has spent in a total year on road capacity expenditures. Mr. Duncan stated they looked at the annual expenditures per year and extracted what was for capital road improvements. George Roussos, Asst. County Administrator, stated they are talking capacity enhancements and not maintenance of the roadway system. He stated the Commissioners adopted a policy of a level of service C in 1997. The projections you see are those that are when the level of service drops below the adopted level. Those projects are then in the list of needed projects. 45 03-20-2001 Commissioner Menconi suggested at one point in time Eagle County built large roads and we're growing into them slower than what has happened in the Town of Vail. Mr. Roussos suggested when you go to level of service F, they did the improvements on those which cost a lot of money. Very few Eagle County roads are included as they met their level of standard. Mr. Duncan stated he will review those figures to make sure that the figures are correct. Chairman Stone stated he would like to investigate it further and questioned if the monies were generated from some sort of road impact fee and if they can look at it more definitively. Mr. Duncan stated they then use the projections and determined a revenue credit per trip and the revenue credit per trip. They assume the level of effort will remain the same and have then taken that and come up with a net cost of $334.00 per trip. He spoke to the fair share portion. Commissioner Menconi asked on table 10 if they are assuming the annual capacity is based on the five years of expenditures of all of the entities. He spoke to the roundabouts built in Vail and Avon. He suggested in two of the towns there was a large layout in meeting capacity. How is that factored. Mr. Duncan stated that is a positive improvement. Just because it is a round about, they may not give it credit. Commissioner Menconi asked how this is determined and is it by doing a basis of most recent history. He asked ifthere is another way to look at the projected needs. Mr. Duncan stated they have tried to look at the historic pattern of expenditures and extract the expanding capacity improvements. The purpose of an impact fee is not to replace but to supplement. They assume the local government will continue to use other methods. Those will be paid for in some other way. They have to validate the figures. Mr. Roussos stated what they have is really a timing issue. He stated the County has been working on this since 1994. It has taken a long time to get the demographics identified for the County, going through the process and developing the study. Mr. Duncan stated their study started in 1999. Chairman Stone reiterated that this is not replacing the revenues that have been spent. He stated that message needs to get out to the public. His concern is that public will not spend a lot of time thinking about this. Mr. Duncan stated you have to think of the impact fee as the future people and developments paying their own way. Chairman Stone stated it is in addition too and not in replacement of and will not pay for all future road improvements. Mr. Duncan stated that is what they are trying to document. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to table 5, growth related improvements on page 13. He stated it appears they want to stop improving Highway 24 at Minturn. He spoke to the road to Tennessee Pass and the potential for development in the Gilman area. He stated he also doesn't see the road into Minturn that parallels the railroad tracks. It is used for people to view the elk and an alternate route into Town. Mr. Duncan stated these came out of the Lee, Scott, Cleary plan and it may be those were not identified as growth related. Commissioner Gallagher suggested specifically Highway 24 over Battle Mountain as the workers come from Leadville. Chairman Stone stated he will want to wrap this up at 5:00. He addressed the people in the audience and asked if they would like to speak today or hold their comments until the next meeting. Rick Pofenberger stated he can wait. Some of the questions have already been asked. Steve Isom asked if they can set a public hearing for the next time. Gerri Arnold stated she is good until next time. Mr. Rousssos stated when the modeling of the road network was done in the 1995 timeframe and 46 03-20-2001 they were able to replicate the actual traffic counts it did not fall below that level of service C at the time. He suspects the County Engineer would recommend in the next budget cycle they remodel the network and that was one ofthe issues raised at the Roaring Fork side. Mr. Duncan showed Table 12 which takes a series ofland uses to come up with a daily trip rate per use. He stated every trip is not a primary trip. He stated all residential uses are primary as are employment type places, offices are 100% as that is the primary destination. He spoke to that formula. He was asked a question in a public hearing if these are valid figures for Eagle County. He stated if there are unique uses study there are outlets to do other studies. This gives a weighted fair share value to each type of land use. Chairman Stone asked if there is any significant difference whether a unit is occupied as a primary residence or as a second home. Mr. Duncan suggested impact fees are more prevalent in resort communities. He spoke to Hilton Head. They assume if a structure is there it has a potential impact. They will factor in seasonal use. These are full occupancy. The next table takes the same uses and multiplies it by the cost per trip of $334.00 and that is where they come up with a net cost. He showed a slide of the reduced list of uses, alternate Exhibit A. He thinks there is validity is asking about park and rides. The short list is easier to administer, Chairman Stone stated he would like to discuss the next date for a hearing. Jack Ingstad stated the 17th of April or the 24th. Chairman Stone stated the 17th is a good time. Mr. Duncan stated the 24th would be better for him. They agreed on the 24th. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board of County Commissioners table File No. LUR-0033 to April 24, 2001. 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 March 27, 2001. Attest: Clerk to the B ~~ 47 03-20-2001