HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/08/2001
PUBLIC HEARING
MAY 8, 2001
Present:
Tom Stone
Michael Gallagher
Renee Black
Jack Ingstad
Sara J. Fisher
Chairman
Commissioner
Acting County Attorney
County Administrator
Clerk to the Board
Absent:
Arn Menconi
Commissioner
This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
Consent Agenda
Chairman Stone stated the first item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda as follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for the week of May 7, 2001, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of April 24,
2001
C) Resolution 2001-065 conferring Power of Attorney upon the Attorney's Office to
draw on Letter of Credit No. 361 in the amount of$634,015.80 for the account ofMRLD, LLC (Millers
Creek Subdivision), drawn on Weststar Bank, Letter of Credit to expire May 14, 2001
D) Resolution conferring Power of Attorney upon the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter
of Credit No. 8070253 in the amount of $2,000.00 for the account of Carl & Angela Mueller, drawn on
First Bank of Vail, Letter of Credit to expire May 12,2001
E) Child Support Enforcement Purchase of Legal Services Agreement, between John
Collins, Eagle County and the State of Colorado
F) Resolution 2001-066, concerning appointment to the Basalt Library District Board of
Trustees.
Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda.
Renee Black, Acting County Attorney, stated they would like to pull item D as that has been
taken care of.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the consent agenda as presented except for item D.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present for the hearing.
Plat & Resolution Signing
Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's
consideration:
5MB-00262, Berry Creek Ranch Filing No.1, Are-subdivision of Lot 13. The intent of this
Type B Minor Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 13, thereby creating two (2) 12 duplex lots, Lot 13A
and 13B. Staff findings are as follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
1
05-08-2001
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 file 5MB-00262, Berry Creek Ranch Filing No.1, A
re-subdivision of Lot 13 asking the clerk to include the findings in the minutes and authorizing the
Chairman to sign the plat.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared
unanImous.
Resolution 2001-067 To Approve The Zone Change And Planned Unit Development
Preliminary Plan For Colorado River Ranch PUD (File Nos. ZC-00042 and PDP-00018). The
Board considered this application on the 13th day of March, 2001.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2001-067, To Approve The Zone Change
And Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan For Colorado River Ranch PUD (File Nos. ZC-00042
and PDP-00018).
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unammous.
Chairman Stone stated the next item on the agenda is the Eagle County Air Terminal Board
Meeting. He asked Jack Ingstad if there was any reason to convene for this meeting.
Mr. Ingstad responded there is not.
1041 Permit Application Completeness Hearing
Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, stated the next item on the agenda was the 1041
Permit Application Completeness Hearing to accept an application from Nova Guides for site selection
and construction of a major new domestic water and sewage treatment system and efficient utilization of
municipal and industrial water projects. The action that will be requested from the Board on May 1,
2001, is to determine completeness of a 1041 Permit application and to estimate associated processing
fees.
Nova Guides has submitted a 1041 Permit application to construct major new domestic water
and wastewater systems and efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects to serve Nova
Guides lodge and cabins. The project is located approximately 15.5 miles North of State Road 91 on
U.S. Route 24.
Staff has reviewed the above referenced application and has found it to be complete. We have
tentatively scheduled the hearings for the Planning Commission and Permit Authority on June 6, 2001
and June 19,2001, respectively. Estimated fees for the above referenced 1041 Permit application are as
follows:
The applicant has also requested a waiver of the Special Review Use Permit associated with this
activity as allowed pursuant to 3 - 310 (I) 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.
2
05-08-2001
Estimated fees for the above referenced 1041 Permit application are as follows:
Community Development Staff
10 Hrs @ $42.50 = $ 425.00
Engineering Staff
6 Hrs @ $42.50 = $ 255.00
Attorney Staff
4 Hrs @ $75.00 = $ 300.00
TOTAL = $ 980.00
Commissioner Gallagher asked what water system they are using now.
Mr. Merry stated what they have is a few wells that serve cabins and clustered waste water
systems. They are looking to add a lodge and the new waste water system for the lodge. They are
proposing to look at the whole facility.
Chairman Stone asked what triggers the application for a new 1041.
Mr. Merry stated it is when a new system is being proposed. They do not find it acceptable to do
it piecemeal and this is the opportunity to look at the whole development.
Commissioner Gallagher asked what would cause the Board to not waive the special use permit.
Mr. Merry explained the special use permit is required, but because the 1041 is a more detailed
review, there is the option for the applicant to request the Board waive the special use permit.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board accept the 1041 Permit application submitted by
Nova Guides, proposing to extend the Town of Eagle's water and sewer infrastructure into the "Frost
Creek" PUD and for efficient utilization of a municipal water project, as complete. The estimated fee to
process this application is $980.00 and may be altered to cover the actual cost of review and public
hearings.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unammous.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve the applicant's request for waiver of the
special use permit requirement as allowed in section 3-310 (I) 2, of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unammous.
ZS-00003, Gypsum Ranch Sand & Gravel Pit
Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented file number ZS-00003, Gypsum Ranch Sand & Gravel Pit.
Roaring Fork Resources, owner and operator of the Gypsum Ranch Sand and Gravel Pit, has submitted a
request for approval to move into Phase II of their six phase gravel extraction and processing operation
located north of the Eagle County Airport. Per condition #2 of Resolution 97-146, each new phase of
this project requires approval by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners through separate
resolution. Resolution 99-47 approved Phase I in April of 1999.
The subject property is a 250 acre parcel that fills the space between Highway 6 and the Eagle
River, beginning one mile east of Gypsum and running east approximately 1.2 miles to the western
property line of the G.H. Daniels Nursery site. The site is zoned Resource. Historic uses of the land are
agricultural, and these uses remain on undeveloped portions of the site. Phase I, located at the west end
of the property, totals approximately 25 acres and currently contains all operational equipment and
support facilities. Phase II of the project will open approximately 18 acres ofland moving east. Each
additional phase will open between 16 and 24 acres ofland at a time. 120 of the 250 acres will be subject
to mining under the current plan.
As the excavation moves towards the east, permanent operational facilities will remain on the
Phase I site. Offices, scales, a Redi-mix concrete plant, an asphalt plant, parking and maintenance areas,
3
05-08-2001
and equipment and fuel storage areas will remain for the life ofthe project. The crusher machinery and
wash plant will move with each phase so as to remain in close proximity to new resource as it is
exposed. Overburden materials will be stockpiled on future phase sites and will be used as visual berms
surrounding active operations areas. Stockpiled overburden will then be relocated, as needed, to
accommodate reclamation activities, which will be concurrent with development. As detailed in the
Phasing Reclamation and Operations Plan (revised 3/28/01), the operator is required to begin restoration
and reclamation of the non-operating portions of previous phases within one year of the approval of a
new Phase. Approximately 50% of the area impacted by Phase I operations is slated for reclamation.
The excavation of the Gypsum Sand and Gravel Pit is occurring in such a manner as to leave a
significant head wall, 20 to 30 feet tall, on all sides of the pit. This, combined with perimeter berming,
has resulted in mining and processing activities that are, for the most part, below grade and out of view
of the public. Also, given the height of the head walls and the large volume of the excavation, storm
water incident on the site is 100% contained within the "pit". It is unlikely that any storm water runoff
would ever daylight from the site to the adjacent river.
Mr. Simonton showed photographs of phase I and the area that is currently being used. He spoke
to the restoration of the Nottingham Pit stating that it looks quite nice.
Ten conditions for the Gypsum Ranch Sand and Gravel Pit Special Use Permit, ZS-00003, were
set forth in Resolution No. 97-146. Following is a list of the conditions (in italics), the Applicant's
response to each condition, and Staffs analysis of the same:
1) This Special Use Permit supercedes the Uses by Right in the Resource Zone District except as
may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners through the Special Use Permit process;
provided, however, that agricultural uses and the existing dwellings, utility distribution facilities and
water diversion structures/ditches as shown on the Site Plan shall be considered to be a part of this
Special Use Permit. The Site Plan referred to herein is dated May 27, 1997 and is attached hereto as
Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference.
Applicant Response: Only the allowed uses noted above are occurring on Phase 2 and the (past
and) future phases of the project.
Staff Analysis: The Applicant has submitted an updated Site Plan that reflects current layouts
and conditions (Exhibit A). Staff has confirmed that only those uses allowed are occurring on the site.
The Applicant is in compliance with condition # 1.
2) This Special Use request is granted with the provision that the applicant adhere to the Site
Plan, and to the Phasing, Reclamation and Operations Plan dated July 9, 1997, and the Review
Checklist for Approval of Movement Onto a Subsequent Phase, respectively Exhibits Band C hereto.
Applicant Response: The applicant is in substantial compliance with the Site Plan, the Phasing
Reclamation and Operations Plan dated July 9, 1997, and the Review Checklist. The attached checklist
has been completed to the extent possible indicating the information that can be completed prior to an
inspection of the site by County staff. Supporting documentation is attached to this letter for the items
which have been checked. A number of the items on this list will need to be completed and approved
by staff through an on-site inspection.
Staff Analysis: Using the Review Checklist as a guide, Staff conducted the required site visit on
Tuesday, March 6, 2001. Additional information and/or clarification was requested, and the applicant
responded accordingly. Both the Site Plan and the Phasing, Reclamation and Operations Plan have been
updated to indicate current conditions and proposed layouts (Exhibit A and B). The Review Checklist
has been completed and is also attached (Exhibit C). It has been determined that the Applicant is in
compliance with condition #2.
3) The applicant must provide acceleration/deceleration and turn lanes on Highway 6 prior to
commencing operations on the site using this Special Use Permit.
Applicant's Response: The improvements noted above were in place prior to commencement
4
05-08-2001
of operations on Phase 1 of the project. These improvements have been inspected and approved by the
Eagle County Engineering Department. The attached letter from Phill Scott of the Engineering
Department dated August 8, 2000 indicates the date on which the County accepted these improvements
for the beginning of the warranty period.
Staff Analysis: The installation and acceptance of acceleration and deceleration lanes is noted.
Letter of acceptance from Phill Scott attached. The Applicant is in compliance with condition #3.
4) The applicant must obtain the following permits and approval of agency having jurisdiction of
the following plans, and copies of these permits, plans and approvals must be submitted to Eagle County
Planning Division before beginning site preparation or other activities pursuant to this Special Use
Permit on the site:
a. State Highway Access Permit
b. Railroad Crossing Permits
c. Storm Water Management Plan
d. Silt and erosion controls
e. MLRB/DMG Mining Permit
f Fire Protection Plan
g. Spill Prevention and Control Counter Measures
h. Air Emission Permit
i. Fugitive Dust Control Plan/Permit
Applicant's Response: Copies of the permits and approvals as referenced above were
submitted to the County for the Phase 1 review process. Staff determined that the applicant had
demonstrated compliance with the necessary permitting requirements. However, for the sake of
convenience, we have attached copies of the permit information and plans referenced above for staff
reference. The Spill Prevention Plan and the silt and erosion control plans were included in the final site
drawings for the project, and have been approved by staff. The Fire Protection Plan was included as
Section IX of the Phasing, Reclamation and Operations Plan dated 7/09/97. These latter items have not
been resubmitted.
Staff Analysis: Current permits and approvals have been submitted and are in order. Select
permits are attached to this report. The Spill Prevention Plan and the Phasing Reclamation and
Operations Plan have been updated to indicate current conditions. The Applicant is in compliance with
condition #4.
5. The applicant must hard-surface the entrance road from Highway 6 to the scales before
beginning operations pursuant to this Special Use Permit.
Applicant's Response: The entrance road from Highway 6 to the scales has been hard-surfaced
as noted and this road is being maintained in good operating condition.
Staff Analysis: Confirmed by site inspection, the applicant is in compliance with condition #5.
6. Operations on the site must comply with the Eagle County Industrial and Commercial
Performance Standards (Section 2.07. 07) or any applicable more stringent or additional performance
standards which may subsequently be adopted by the County, specifically but not limited to the
following:
a. Noise from all on-site sources and from truck hauling shall not exceed the performance
standards contained in State noise statutes or the following County standard, whichever is more
restrictive. The use shall be operated so that the volume of sound generated does not inherently or
recurrently exceed 60 decibels with a maximum increase of 5 decibels permitted by a maximum of 15
minutes in anyone hour at any point of the property boundary line.
b. The use shall be so operated that the ground vibration inherently and recurrently is not
perceptible, without instruments, at any point on the property line. There shall be no blasting on the
site.
5
05-08-2001
c. The use shall be so operated that it does not emit an obnoxious or dangerous degree of
heat, glare, radiation, or fumes beyond the property line.
d Fuels, chemicals, and other material shall be stored in such a way as to prevent or
contain accidental spills onto the ground Such storage shall comply, as a minimum, with applicable
state and federal regulations.
e. No materials or wastes shall be deposited upon the property in such form or manner
that they may be transferred off the property by natural causes or forces.
f All materials or wastes which might cause fumes or which constitute a fire hazard or
which may be edible by or otherwise attractive to rodents or insects shall be stored outdoors only in
closed containers.
g. No dust, noise, odor, glare or vibration shall be projected beyond the permit area.
h. Every use shall be so operated that meets State Air Quality Standards.
Applicant's Response: The applicant has been in compliance with the Eagle County
Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards throughout the Phase 1 operations on the Gypsum
Ranch site and will continue to comply with these standards with the Phase 2 operation. Around the
time Phase 1 began operations in 1999, Eagle County passed a new set of Land Use Regulations. The
Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards in the new regulations are set out in Division 4-5. A
comparison of these standards in the two sets of regulations indicates that there are no substantial
differences in the content between the two, and the applicant will continue to comply with the applicable
standards as noted above.
Staff analysis: Staff would agree. Code enforcement activities have been minimal over the past three
years and have all centered on dust and dust suppression issues. Reference the attached memo from
Rudy Zitti, Eagle County Environmental Heath, the Applicant has responded in a positive and timely
fashion to all requests. The Fugitive Dust Control Plan has been updated to reflect current conditions.
Concerns for fuel storage on site have been addressed. Staff has determined that the Applicant is in
compliance with condition #6.
7. This permit will expire without further action on June 1, 200B.
Applicant's Response: Understood.
Staff analysis: Condition #1 of Resolution 99-47, Permit to Proceed with Phase 1, reads:
"Consistent with approval conditions #2 and #7 (Resolution 97-146), the lifetime of the Special
Use Permit is now less than 10 years and is set to expire June 1,2008. A realistic phasing plan
identifying the June 1, 2008 expiration date shall be completed and reviewed as part of the compliance
review that will occur prior to commencement of operations on Phase 2".
While information submitted by the applicant acknowledges June 1, 2008 as the expiration date
of the existing Special Use Permit, the Phasing, Reclamation and Operations Plan has not been modified
to reflect a termination of gravel operations at that time. It is "realistic" to assume that, upon expiration,
the operator will apply for an extension of operations through a new special use permit and, if approved
by the BoCC, will be allowed to continue with the existing 20 year phasing plan. As such, and given
the Applicant's printed acknowledgment of this termination date, Staff can find that the current
application complies with condition #7. It is noted, however, that application for approval for that future
phase which would precede and/or include the 2008 termination date should require a more detailed
analysis of how operations on the site would end should a new special use permit not be granted at that
time.
8. When submitting its design of subsequent phases of development ofthe property, the
applicant must provide for locations for a bike path crossing the property to conform to the County
Trails Plan and river access.
Applicant's Response: I have attached the portion ofthe County Trails Plan applicable to the
6
05-08-2001
area adjacent to the Gypsum Ranch. As you will notice, there are two approved alternatives for a bike
path through this area and neither of these alternatives crosses the Gypsum Ranch property. The
primary route for this path between Gypsum and Eagle is north of the Eagle River, and south of or
sometimes within the 1-70 right-of-way. The purpose for the location ofthe path here as the prime
alternative is due to the location of the Eagle County Fairgrounds property at the eastern end of this
segment, also north of the Eagle River. As will be noted in the current Fairgrounds Master Plan, paths
are shown crossing the entire Fairgrounds property with a connection for the remaining segments at the
west end. This preferred alternative stays north of the Eagle River for the entire route, and does not
contemplate a crossing of the river. The second alternative for a bike path between Gypsum and Eagle
is south of Highway 6. As stated in the plan, "this alternative is not as continuous as Alternative A
(north of the river) nor is it as separated from vehicular traffic, but it may prove to be more achievable in
terms of construction and acquisition." Thus, with two viable locations for the path in the approved
County Trails Plan outside of the Gypsum Ranch project boundary, a third and less viable alternative
does not seem reasonable at this time.
Staff Analysis: Staff would agree with the applicant's position, and finds plans submitted in
compliance with condition #8.
9. Before beginning any operations pursuant to this Special Use Permit, Applicant must enter
into a written agreement for the relocation and diversion of the Stremme-Gates ditch. Although the
County will not necessarily enforce the agreement, Applicant's performance of that agreement shall be a
condition of the permit.
Applicant's Response: A written agreement, signed copy attached, was completed with the
adjacent owner and user of the Stremme-Gates ditch prior to Phase 1 approval. The ditch has been
relocated as shown on the exhibit to the agreement and has operated with no problems since it's
relocation. The next phase of the operation will have no effect on the continued operation of this ditch.
Staff Analysis: The above referenced agreement is noted, as is the fact that operations on Phase
II will not effect the continued operation of this irrigation ditch. Plans submitted are in compliance with
condition #9.
10. In-basin water augmentation, above the take-out in the Eagle River, should occur if it
becomes available and feasible.
Applicant's Response: Attached is a copy of an approved Water Rights Application, 97-CW-
099, which addresses this issue. This application was signed by the district water judge on July 7, 1999
and allows for augmentation water to be provided from a number of sources. Included among these
sources is in-basin supply from the Eagle Park Reservoir. Also attached is a copy ofthe current Water
Supply Contract between the applicant and the Colorado River Water Conservation District. The
District administers contracts for the Eagle Park Reservoir.
Staff Analysis: The Applicant has provided evidence that a contract for water in Eagle Park
Reservoir does exist, and would be able to supply in-basin augmentation should a call originate from
downstream on the Eagle River. The Applicant is in compliance with condition #10.
Staff is in agreement with the Applicant that the 10 approval conditions required by Resolution
97 -146, Approval of Special Use Permit 2S-00003, for Gravel Extraction and processing for the
Gypsum Ranch Sand and Gravel Pit, have been or are currently being met.
Chairman Stone asked if there was a referral requested from the Town of Gypsum.
Mr. Simonton stated a packet was sent to them but they did not respond.
Terrill Knight with Steve Wojack, Knight Planning, John Martin, owner, and Claude Girard,
Roaring Fork Resources, were present for the hearing. Mr. Knight stated he has appreciated staffs
presentation and working with them. He spoke to the work they did at Nottingham towards reclamation.
He spoke to the history of this file. He stated they originally applied for the entire property to be
permitted. He stated they agreed to the phasing. The turn lanes and the access permits are for the life of
7
05-08-2001
the gravel pit. One issue was to pave the access point and into the scale house which have been done.
The first phase has been compact and the next phase will provide for more organization. The plant
operations will stay where they are today. It is well screened. It might make sense to make a shelf rather
than the hole in the ground which seems to work. They did once request a longer time period and may
have to ask for an extension. He stated they have met all of the conditions and are operating responsibly.
He stated there has been very little impact on the neighborhood. He spoke to complaints during high
winds. It does work from the operators point of view. They agree with the condition on the
augmentation plan and will be glad to speak to the Board when and if that changes. He stated they are
requesting approval to move into the second phase.
Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none.
Commissioner Gallagher spoke to dust control but suggested they are on top of that.
Rudy Zitti, Code Enforcement Officer, stated in the past two years they have had four complaints
regarding dust suppression. He thinks they have resolved those issues. He stated the access road has
been paved and the berm has been enlarged. He stated last year two of the complaints were related to the
stock piling of dirt for the airport. He feels the applicant has addressed all of the issues and they now
have two water trucks. He stated he has a contact person there and they have agreed that during high
winds, when they get complaints they will be addressed immediately.
Commissioner Gallagher asked why they are repeating the condition they are asking be included.
He asked if there is an expectation oflosing the augmentation water.
Mr. Knight stated there is no expectation to lose that water.
Chairman Stone read condition #2 that was previously approved. He spoke to the word
reclamation and staff s analysis. He asked if they understand that reclamation must be handled as they
go along. He spoke to another gravel pit that did not reclaim the areas disturbed. He wants to make sure
they understand that it is important to him and to the County that it be reclaimed to the maximum extent
possible as they go along. For future phasing it is something he will be looking for.
Mr. Knight stated they clearly understand. That other case did not have a time limit, but it is
currently being reclaimed.
Chairman Stone stated this seems to be a better operation.
Mr. Knight stated originally the Town of Gypsum was not in favor of gravel operations in this
area but they have changed their position. They are in contact with them and work with them a lot.
Chairman Stone stated he wanted to be sure that they are all working as friendly neighbors and
that it is easier to work on it in advance.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the plan issued in the beginning contemplates taking down the
1-70 berm.
Mr. Knight stated it does not. They are making a hole. He stated at some point they may want to
take that down. He stated it would have to be justified at the time. He spoke to the time period
requested and that they can always come back and ask for modifications.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the ditch and if it is abandoned.
Claude Girard stated it is the old irrigation ditch and is still used for irrigation.
Commissioner Gallagher stated it goes right down the middle of phase three and four.
Mr. Knight stated it will be moved at some point. He stated it will remain operational.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of County Commissioners approve the request for a
Permit to Proceed for Phase II, Gypsum Ranch Sand and Gravel Pit, File No. ZS-00003, with the
following condition:
1) The Board of County Commissioners shall be immediately notified of any changes in or to the
existing water augmentation plan (Water Supply Contract CRWCD 99-8).
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unanImous.
8
05-08-2001
LUR-0033, Land Use Regulation Amendment
Keith Montag, Community Development Director, presented file number LUR-0033, Land Use
Regulation Amendment. The initial public hearings were held with the Eagle County Planning
Commission on January 17th and January 31 st , 2001. Presentations were made by staff which was
followed by public comment and Planning Commission discussion. The LUR amendment was
recommended for approval on February 2pt by a 5-1 vote. Specifically, the Commission recommended:
Option B (as outlined in the "Road Impact Fee Options" document)
Exhibit "A" be modified to remove "public good" type uses from the fee schedule (ie: Church,
School, Hospital, Nursing Home, etc.)
To verify that fees refunded by the State (and Federal Government) on those projects listed on
Exhibit "B" be put back into the County's road impact fee fund.
Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission:
The initial public hearings were held with the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning
Commission on January 18th and February 8t\ 2001. Presentations were made by staff which was
followed by public comment (one person) and Planning Commission discussion. The LUR amendment
was recommended for approval on March 8th by a 3-0 vote. Specifically, the Commission
recommended:
Option B (as outlined in the "Road Impact Fee Options" document)
Use Exhibit "A" as originally proposed (deleting park-n-rides)
Clarify Section 4-700 B., indicating who will hold the money if the School District requests
County to sell dedicated school land.
Fill in the blanks in Section 4-700 A & B, indicating the County will decide the need and
usability of school land taking into consideration the recommendation from the applicable School
District based on their capital improvements plan.
Direct staffto initiate the update of Exhibit B (Road Capital Improvements Program) by March
2002 to include road projects in the El Jebel areas and to work with the Town of Basalt staff to
incorporate their legitimate projects.
Comments and Response:
A matrix has been prepared to capture the various comments/concerns raised to date. A response
has been drafted to address each comment.
Modifications/Option:
A revised copy ofthe proposed LUR amendment language is attached depicting changes made
to date. In addition, "Road Impact Fee Options" have been outlined for discussion.
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 L UR' 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.
BACKGROUND:
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 of the 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.
Road impact fees. Eagle County has historically charged a road impact fee of $1 000 per
9
05-08-2001
dwelling unit to help cover the cost of road improvements as a result of additional traffic impacts
associated with development. The basis of the 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 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 proposed road impact fee methodology is based on the "improvements-driven" model. This
approach distinguishes between improvements required to remedy existing deficiencies, and
improvements needed to accommodate the traffic generated by future growth.
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.
School land dedication. 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.
REFERRALS:
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:
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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.
10
05-08-2001
Mr. Montag stated this is a continuation from the last hearing on April 24. It was continued in
order to make some changes based on direction received from the Board. The main focus had to do with
when the impact fee was to be collected and the road impact fee schedule. He spoke to the information
in the Board's packet being the information from the consultant. Also in the packet is a revised set of
regulations dated 5/08/01. He stated the regulations incorporated the direction and changes discussed by
the Board of County Commissioners. He stated he they spent quite a bit of time talking about the time
for collection. The regulations now reflect that the fees would be collected at building permit for
residential and non-residential (commercial) developments. The direction was that this fee would be
implemented from this point forward on those final plats that are being approved from this point
forward. Secondly, they spent time on Exhibit A, the road impact fee schedule. He suggested he is
confident the amended Exhibit A reflects the discussion they had. On page 23, paragraph 1, they should
have deleted the words "final plat or".
Chairman Stone asked why he says that. Even though they are not collecting or assessing the
permit fees before building permit, but the determination they should pay should still be in there.
Mr. Montag stated he understood and that it was previously correct.
Renee Black agreed.
Chairman Stone asked Rick Poffenberger if he had anything to add.
Mr. Poffenberger stated he would like to urge the Board to make the resolution such that it
doesn't impose the fees on someone with a preliminary plan already approved. He spoke to the
unanticipated costs. He stated they presented legal argument and the concerns with Two Rivers.
Chairman Stone suggested even though Mr. Kris was not the original applicant, it's been
understood from the very beginning that $1000 was going to be collected in relation to that project. He
asked if Mr. Poffenberger believes they don't have to adhere to that ruling.
Mr. Poffenberger stated there was nothing published about the collection of that fee. He stated
that an impact fee that isn't earmarked, isn't enforceable. He understands that this County wants to
ensure there is adequate infrastructure. He stated he didn't ever concede that a road impact fee would
ever be paid.
Chairman Stone asked if Mr. Poffenberger has been the attorney since the outset.
Mr. Poffenberger stated there was discussion of the fee and when he came on he suggested to his
client that wasn't enforceable. He has had that discussion with his client.
Chairman Stone stated it is his feeling that there were verbal agreements and understandings. He
thanked him for his reasonable approach toward this. He recognizes this is one particular project that
may be caught at an inappropriate time that there was an assumption of the fee for residential units.
Coincidental timing may require them to pay not only for the residential but for the commercial as well.
He stated he would like to explore if, for this project only, there is any way of turning back the clock and
just accepting the $1000 on the residential. He stated he doesn't know if the other Commissioners will
agree with them.
Mr. Poffenberger stated the sole purpose for contesting the fee is based on unanticipated costs
and trying to provide affordable housing. He stated they don't want to appear to be stingy with public
amenities they support. The costs continue to go up each year.
Chairman Stone stated he thinks the $1000 was anticipated. He is looking for a compromise or
peace treaty.
Mr. Poffenberger thanked the Board.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if there is a provision in this Land Use Regulation or can they
add a provision to allow for grand fathering on the residential.
Mr. Montag stated his assumption is the Board could exempt parcels as it sees fit.
Chairman Stone suggested they might want to have the discretion and that the Board could
consider at its sole discretion that they could go back to the $1000 per unit on the residential.
Ms. Black stated she would suggest to them that it would destroy the legal standing. She spoke
11
05-08-2001
to the Land Use Regulations and that there may be a way to do so. She explained the impacts.
Mr. Poffenberger stated he concurs with Ms. Black.
Chairman Stone stated he has nothing more on the road impact fee schedule.
Commissioner Gallagher concurred.
Chairman Stone spoke to the school land dedication fee.
Mr. Montag stated there are a couple of blanks that need to be completed in the school
discussion. He stated these regulations are establishing the land dedication formula. They will be
coming back with information from the County Assessor to determine the land values. That will be
done through a separate resolution. He stated here they are addressing the formula for the land area
dedication.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he has a problem with the equalizing of all the land within Eagle
County. He spoke to a particular development and that it mayor may not put demand or pressure on the
school system. He suggested there is a big difference between Two Rivers and Beaver Creek. He asked
for advise.
Ms. Black stated the reason the courts have upheld schemes like this is because County
Commissioners don't really want to have developers go through the analysis of how many students are
going to impact the school system. She spoke to Colorado court decisions.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he is satisfied with the way it is written.
Chairman Stone alluded to Two Rivers again and if this will change the discussion between the
School District and Two Rivers.
Mr. Poffenberger stated he might prefer this regulation over the one that now exists. He stated a
development agreement is the best way to address the situation with Two Rivers Village. He asked the
Board maintain as much discretion as possible. In Two Rivers the School District claims they want land.
He suggested whether they can demand land they don't need. They claim they want a school in Dotsero
that they could say they need a school. He would suggest the Board maintain the discretion to determine
if a school is needed or not. He stated between all the parties involved, they will reach a resolution
before they come back for their hearing. He doesn't think they are that far apart.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of County Commissioners approve LUR-0033, Land
Use Regulation Amendment, incorporating staff findings.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unammous.
PDP-OOOI9, PDA-0032 Cordillera Southern Parcel, Phase II
Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file numbers PDP-00019 and PDA-0032, Cordillera Southern
Parcel, Phase II, PUD Preliminary Plan and PUD Amendment. The applicant wishes to:
1) Subdivide a 448 acre parcel of land into 4 single family lots with caretaker units (lot size
ranging from 56-72 acres each), and one open space parcel;
2) Amend the Cordillera PUD to:
a. remove the sentence which dictates that a Preliminary Plan must be done for the
Southern Parcel;
b. propose a Minor Modification to adjust Planning Parcel boundaries to allow the
creation of Planning Parcels 0-3 and 0-4;
c. to shift (1) residential dwelling unit from Planning Parcel M of the Western Parcel to
Planning Parcel T of the Mountain Tract (due to geologic concerns);
d. add the use of a small sales center adjacent to the existing Community Center within
Planning Parcel N of the Western Parcel.
The lot sizes proposed are as follows: Lot 1- 63.906 ac; Lot 2- 56.6 ac; Lot 3- 69.99 ac; and Lot
4- 72.472 ac.
12
05-08-2001
The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report:
1992: The entire Southern Parcel (Phases 1 and 2) received Sketch Plan approval/Zone Change
for a total of 36 residential dwelling units.
1998: Cordillera submitted the Preliminary Plan for both "Phase I" and "Phase II"ofthe Southern
Parcel for a density of 36 dwelling units- consistent with Sketch approval.
During the public hearings, the applicant withdrew "Phase II" from the Preliminary Plan
approval due to adjacent homeowner concerns.
Both Phase I Preliminary Plan and Final Plat were approved.
1. Phase I approval comprised of 12 single family dwelling units; this area is known as Filing 32
(EI Mirador).
2. Phase II of the Southern Parcel still retained Sketch Plan approval for the remaining 24 units.
3. As a result of the Preliminary Plan approval, the Southern Parcel was subdivided into three
new planning parcels known as Planning Parcels 0 (dedicated open space), 0-1 (Phase I, which contains
12 dwelling units), and 0-2 (now containing 24 dwelling units).
4.2000: Cordillera applied for, and was approved, to both shift 20 of24 units out of the Southern
Parcel Phase II (also called "Casteel"), and shift 4 caretaker units into the Southern Parcel, Phase II.
5. 2001: Cordillera is applying for Preliminary Plan approval for "Phase II" of the Southern
Parcel.
The Planning Commission deliberated, at length, over issues regarding access through the two
wildlife corridors.
Cordillera had presented three alternatives for access to the home sites. The Planning
Commission was not in favor for access from EI Mirador (alternative three), but could not definitively
decide on which ofthe remaining options were better. John King felt that avoiding the wildlife corridors
altogether was best, with a clustering option on the Colorow side to be the best solution. Ron Brave
disagreed in that development had always been contemplated in the locations as proposed (approved at
both Sketch Plan for the whole of the Southern Parcel, and Preliminary Plan for EI Mirador).
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the boundaries as shown on the slide. He asked if the black
outline represents a building envelope.
Ms. Skinner stated it is the approximate location of each planning parcel.
Commissioner Gallagher asked why they are doing a PUD preliminary plan.
Ms. Skinner stated in 1998 there were some homeowner concerns with development in the
southern parcel and they then withdrew that proposal. There were two different planning areas and they
withdrew one.
Commissioner Gallagher asked for her to explain.
Ms. Skinner showed the original area to be developed on the map.
Chairman Stone asked at the preliminary plan approval for this piece of property originally had
approval for how many parcels.
Ms. Skinner stated originally 36.
Chairman Stone asked about the movement of density and where those moved to.
Matt Dean, representing the applicant stated to Mountain Star.
Chairman Stone reiterated that both this and Mirador had a preliminary plan at one time, but that
was a different plan.
Ms. Skinner explained the applicant request which is to 1) Subdivide a 448 acre parcel of land
into 4 single family lots with caretaker units (lot size ranging from 56-72 acres each), and one open
space parcel;
2) Amend the Cordillera PUD to:
a. remove the sentence which dictates that a Preliminary Plan must be done for the
Southern Parcel;
b. propose a Minor Modification to adjust Planning Parcel boundaries to allow the
13
05-08-2001
creation of Planning Parcels 0-3 and 0-4;
c. to shift (1) residential dwelling unit from Planning Parcel M ofthe Western Parcel to
Planning Parcel T of the Mountain Tract (due to geologic concerns);
d. add the use of a small sales center adjacent to the existing Community Center within
Planning Parcel N of the Western Parcel.
The lot sizes proposed are as follows: Lot 1- 63.906 ac; Lot 2- 56.6 ac; Lot 3- 69.99 ac; and Lot
4- 72.472 ac.
Chairman Stone pointed out item C has nothing to do with this file, but they are trying to take
care of other matters at this time.
The Planning Commission was satisfied with the proposed PUD amendments.
Ultimately, by a vote of 4 to 1 for file PDP-00019, the Planning Commission recommended
approval of this project, with the additional condition that the Applicant present a clustering option (at
Colorow) for the Board of County Commissioners.
The Planning Commission also made a recommendation outside of the motion suggesting that
the Colorow homeowners decide whether they would prefer the clustering option to occur, or that
access should be allowed to be within the wildlife corridors.
The Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 for PDA-00032.
Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows:
Engineering Memo, dated March 7th, 2001:
Engineering is satisfied with this application.
The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners should consider the road
design items in a letter from Chris Williams dated February 20th, 2001 (attached).
The Engineering Department recommends that both the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners approve the requested variations of the road design.
Engineering Memo, dated April 5th, 2001:
(concerning driveway alternative off switchback) The engineering department recommends that
the proposed driveways have a minimum shoulder of 2 feet on each side; more supportive for asphalt
and allows more room for vehicles to pass.
Environmental Health Department, dated March 6th, 2001:
Potable water quality will be the responsibility of the developer.
A Plat note stating that the potable water system has no protection under the Safe Drinking Water
Act may be appropriate notification to lot purchasers.
The "design guidelines' submitted by J & K are incorrect. A statement that septic system design
will be subject to Eagle County's permitting will suffice.
Colorado Geological Survey, State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources:
The site contains multiple geological hazards that need to be carefully considered in the planning
and construction of homes, roads, and utilities; site contains landslides, debris flows, and potential
sinkholes.
The plans shows that portions of Eagle Trap Road will be located in a landslide area.
It may be prudent that a geotechnical engineer should evaluate the stability ofthe proposed road.
Portions of the building envelopes for lots 3 and 4 contain slopes steeper than 30% and may be
located on soil prone to sinkholes.
A soils and foundation investigation should be required for each lot prior to the issuance of a
building permit.
Houses placed on slopes of 30% or more should have a slope stability analysis.
Colorow at Squaw Creek Homeowners Association, dated February 28th, 2001
Reviewed the development plans for the Casteel lands (Southern Parcel) that abuts their
properties.
14
05-08-2001
This letter is a reflection of the (CSCHA) board's position more than anyone lot owner.
The board wishes to make the following points for consideration:
You have (potential) access from both switchbacks on Colorow Road which may be a better way
to access lots 3 and 4 instead of the one going to your present fence.
The road you show going along the property line adds yet another road on a hillside that already
has three roads running across it. We think that it will needlessly disrupt the tree line that runs along the
east-west ridge. What happens to the existing jeep trail that parallels the new road.
Lot 1 building envelope seems to be positioned on a ridge; the viewing platform is highly visible.
This envelope should have some height restrictions such that it does not stick up like a sore thumb above
the ridge line, or that the envelope should be moved down the hillside so it doesn't break the ridge line.
Why are these envelopes so large (4 acres)? Paul Bedford would prefer the southern leg not be included
in the building envelope as it will be visible from his house, and vice versa.
Lot 2 building envelope would be better if it were not going into the tree line and atop the ridge
line. Again, a 4 acre envelope seems overly generous. The envelope is also very close to the property
line of Paul Sells' place.
Lots 3 and 4 are fine in the locations shown.
Adjacent Property Owner in Cordillera, dated Feb.28, 2001:
The property owner thinks that it is inconceivable that any more subdivisions are permitted at
Cordillera; open space always suffers.
Please do not allow any more development anywhere at Cordillera.
Adjacent Property Owner in Cordillera, dated March 13th, 2001:
We would like to respond that we do not want this (the subdivision) to happen.
Adjacent Property Owner in Cordillera, dated March 19t\ 2001:
Homeowner from the Divide: Henry Nadler.
Supports both the subdivision of the Southern Parcel, and the preservation of open space.
Adjacent Property Owner in Cordillera, dated March 19th, 2001:
Homeowner from the Divide: J.T. White
Supports both the subdivision of the Southern Parcel, and the preservation of open space.
Adjacent Property Owner in Cordillera, dated March 19th, 2001:
Homeowner from the Divide: Barry and Ruth Bucher.
Supports both the subdivision of the Southern Parcel, and the preservation of open space.
Adjacent Property Owner in Colorow, dated March 14th, 2001:
Homeowner from Colorow: John and Beverly Rasmussen.
Do not support this application. Concerned with the new development in the Southern Parcel.
Living in Squaw Creek Ranch, they will be greatly impacted.
Primary concerns are safety and disruption of an elk migratory area.
Would rather have lots 3 and 4 be accessed from El Mirador.
It will be difficult and dangerous for construction trucks to access sites.
Adjacent Property Owners in Colorow, dated March 24th, 2001
Homeowner from Colorow: Steven Roosa Do not support this application.
Think that the access to Casteel should be from EI Mirado.
Want to protect Elk.
Adjacent Property Owner in Cordillera, dated March 20th, 2001:
Homeowner from the Divide: Thomas B. Wilner.
Supports both the subdivision of the Southern Parcel, and the preservation of open space.
Letter from Western Ecosystems, Inc, Ecological Consultants (Rick Thompson), dated March
28th, 2001:
Wildlife assessment of the different access roads for the Southern Parcel.
15
05-08-2001
The preferred access alternative is the single access road out of Colorow with the sharp
switchback.
least impact on the two wildlife corridors, habitat loss, and habitat effectiveness.
road length is shorter than driveway alternative.
it does not extend as far north vs. other alternatives.
Recommendations:
Portion of road between lots 2 and 4 to be driveway standards (narrower, minimize habitat loss,
etc)
Cut and fill slopes should be 1: 1.
There should be no retaining walls along the road.
There should be no guardrails along the road corridor, other than for safety at switchback.
Colorado Division of Wildlife, dated April 10th, 2001
Bill Heicher of CD OW. He is in agreement with the memo written by Rick Thompson.
Road construction should be confined to the periods of April 1 through December 1.
Recommends that the home sites be clustered nearest to Colorow, with smaller building
envelopes.
Adjacent Property Owners in Colorow, dated April 18th, 2001
Homeowner from Colorow: Paul G. Smith
Do not support this application. Want to protect Elk. Adjacent Property Owners in Colorow,
dated April 12th, 2001
Homeowner from Colorow: Joseph L. Goltzman
Do not support this application.
Want to protect Elk.
Think that the access to Casteel should be from EI Mirador.
Adjacent Property Owners in Colorow, dated April 16th, 2001
Homeowner from Colorow: Kurt E. Basset
Want to protect wildlife. Has a preference for road access to Casteel:
EI Mirador (Alt 3)
With the 2 entrances (Alt 2)
Single entry (Alt 1)
Additional Referrals were sent to the following:
Eagle County Attorney and Sheriff
Lake Creek Meadows, Cordillera and Pilgrim Downs Homeowners
Holy Cross, Metro District, and Fire District
Eagle County Historical Society
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 Sketch and Preliminary plan for 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 pud.
The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire site is owned in fee simple by Kensington
Partners.
[+] 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
16
05-08-2001
a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or
Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation
in effect for the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations
may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized.
Due to the large acreage of the Southern Parcel, it would be possible (through the clustering
clause in the Land Use Regulations) to allow for 13 single family homes, with caretaker units, or one
single family home per 35 acres, if the zoning were Resource. It would also be possible to allow the
land owner to subdivide their property into 35 acre lots without going through the subdivision process.
Currently, all the uses as proposed are allowed within the Cordillera PUD.
[+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)]
The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE 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 application for
PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240
F. 3.j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for
necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between
buildings.
The current zone district is PUD. The acreage of the lots are: Lot 1-63.706 ac; Lot 2-56.6ac; Lot
3-69.99ac; and Lot 4-72.972 ac, all with 4 acre building envelopes. Normally, this type of subdivision
would be exempt from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; there should not be a need for variations
as the lots conform to all dimensional standards as found in the Land Use Regulations.
[+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)]
The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in Table 3-340,
"Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the
time of the application for PUD.
STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Offstreet 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
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.
As each lot contains a single family home, with a caretaker as the only other use, parking
standards will conform to the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and shall be
verified at Building Permit application submittal.
[+] 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 PUDh
17
05-08-2001
shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards.
Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed
landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the P UD 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.
Any Building Permit application has to submit application through the Cordillera Design Review
Board, which ensures all landscaping requirements of the Cordillera Covenants, and the Cordillera PUD
are adhered to. This Preliminary Plan application is special in that the approval for the Southern Parcel
will be incorporated into an existing PUD, with previously approved landscaping standards.
[+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)]
It HAS previously been demonstrated that landscaping provided in the PUD can 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 Development (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan
for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area
necessary to direct users to and within the Pun.
The applicant has submitted a comprehensive sign plan which has been approved, and accepted
by engineering. New signage will be consistent with existing signage.
[+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)]
The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE NOT as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign
Regulations. However, the current the Cordillera PUD has a comprehensive sign plan, as provided in
Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), that IS suitable for the PUD
and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
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 andfire protection, and emergency
medical services.
Existing facilities (electricity, telephone, gas, cable, etc) currently servicing Colorow / Cordillera
PUD will be available to the Southern Parcel. Water, will be distributed from on site wells, and septic is
proposed for each homesite. There will also be a storage tank to be used for fire protection, as well as
the installation of a fire hydrant. Fire protection may be shared with Colorow.
The applicant has provided Staff with a copy of the recorded Use, Easement, and Maintenance
Agreement (see attached). Also, the engineering department has approved two, out of possible three,
access options (see attached memo dated April 5th, 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 sewage disposal, electrical supply, and roads; the
applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD
will be provided adequate facilities for potable water, solid waste disposal and fire protection. In
addition, the Applicant 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, Imvrovements 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
18
05-08-2001
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-ol-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No
roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of
the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for
that functional classification of roadway.
(b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and
convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages
off-site.
(c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to
all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as
applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services
and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities.
(d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for
smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts
a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots,
units or buildings shall not be permitted Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected
with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to
maintain the County's road network.
(e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal
street network and from off-street parking areas.
Access to the Southern Parcel is existing. There will be a new roadway and driveways built to
proper specifications. Snow storage for each lot shall be demonstrated at Building Permit. Roadways
and driveways are proposed to be built to accommodate emergency vehicles.
[+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)]
AS CONDITIONED 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 proposedfor the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
Currently, the Southern Parcel is larger than adjacent and surrounding lot dimensions, however,
lot sizes throughout the Cordillera PUD vary. This site is compatible with the character of the
surrounding uses on the Colorow side, consisting of single family homes.
[+] 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
19
05-08-2001
CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED.
x
x
x
Resort / PUD
Zonin
x
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
x
x
x
As this proposal will be part of an existing subdivision, Staff can make a favorable finding based
on the fact the Cordillera PUD is currently consistent with the Master Plans, and that the Southern Parcel
is adjacent to the PUD on two sides, will be incorporated into the PUD, consists of97% open space, and
would be consistent with the intent of the previous zoning of Resource. Cordillera is also ensuring that
the Wildlife corridor currently on the Southern Parcel is maintained, and that geologic hazards are
avoided.
[+] 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 P UD 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.
Not applicable / necessary, as this is Phase 2, of a possible 2 phases approved at Sketch Plan /
Preliminary Plan for Phase I.
[+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)
A phasing plan IS NOT necessary 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
20
05-08-2001
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.
(l)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.
(2) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas,
riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that
are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable
by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently
accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD.
a. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be
shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the
development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUn.
b. Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall
continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that
all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions
and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division
of any common open space.
c. Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an
association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and
recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the
maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly
owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation
shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association
or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUn.
The total acreage of the Southern Parcel is 400+ acres. All development is limited to 16 acres
(each lot has a 4 acre building envelope), leaving 97% open space. There currently are trails throughout
the Southern Parcel which people will continue to use for hiking and snowshoeing.
[+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]
The PUD HAS demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common
recreation and open space standards with respect to:
(a) 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 Preliminary Plan has addressed this section adequately in that the home sites were placed to
avoid a wildlife corridor, the ridge line between Cordillera and Lake Creek, geologic hazards, etc.
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.
21
05-08-2001
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the
review of both a Sketch Plan, and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision:
STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.BJ.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
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 Develovment Standards.
Article 4, Site Development Standards
[+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
[+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2)
[+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3)
[+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4)
[+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) -
[+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) -
[+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430)-
[+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440)
[+] Ridge line Protection (Section 4-450)
[+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460)
[nla] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5)
[+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6)
[+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620)
[+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630)
[+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640)
[+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650)
[+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660)
[+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670)
[+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680)
[+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690)
[+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7)
All findings under this standard are either favorable or do not apply to this project. The Southern
Parcel will be subject to all ofthe requirements of the Cordillera PUD, and have adequately addressed
those found within the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as well.
[+] 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.
22
05-08-2001
(b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate
population of the service area to avoidfuture land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines.
(e) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the
entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service
into an otherwise un-served area.
This proposal will not cause inefficiencies, nor will it be a leapfrog pattern of development. This
phase was first contemplated in 1991, and is more compatible with the surrounding area. It is located so
that all utilities except for water and sewer can be connected.
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/or 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.
[+] FINDING: Suitability/or 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.
The Preliminary Plan has addressed this section adequately in that the home sites were placed to
avoid a wildlife corridor, the ridge line between Cordillera and Lake Creek, geologic hazards,
topography, etc
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.
See previous discussion.
[+] 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.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F .3.a.(3) Preliminary Plan
for PUD Application Contents: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting
forth the proposed land use restrictions and standards of development."
An amended Planned Unit Development Guide is provided as part of the application which
appears to be sufficient for this Preliminary Plan. Staff makes a favorable finding in this regard.
[+] FINDING: Preliminary Plan for PUD Application contents [Section 5-240.F.3.a.(3)]
Applicant HAS submitted a PUD guide that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section HAVE
been fully met.
PDA-00032, PUD AMENDMENTS DISCUSSION:
Staff feels that the proposed changes to the PUD guide are minor in nature, and have no
significant issues surrounding them. The proposed changes are as follows:
Delete the sentence "A Preliminary Subdivision Plan for Phase II must be approved by the
Board 0/ County Commissioners prior to approval of a Final Plat" entirely from the Cordillera PUD
Guide as the associated Preliminary Plan fulfills this requirement.
A Minor Modification to the PUD Guide through adjustment of the boundaries of existing
Planning Parcels 0 and 0-2, and the incorporation of additional Planning Parcels 0-3 and 0-4
into the existing PUD Guide. It is the Community Development Director who has the authority to
approve these changes; the Community Development Director has currently approved this modification.
23
05-08-2001
A minor density shift of one (1) residential dwelling unit from Planning Parcel M of the
Western Parcel to Planning Parcel T of the Mountain Tract in order to avoid geological issues on
Lot 16 of Planning Parcel M. Staff has no issues with this shift.
To add a small sales center adjacent to the existing Community Center within Planning
Parcel N of the Western Parcel. Staff has no issues with this proposal as the location seems suitable
for this use (a small information building and a community store in the immediate area already). Future
uses of the sales center include a re-sale center, when Cordillera is 100% sold.
Ms. Skinner showed slides of the site.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they have a site plan that shows the lot locations.
Ms. Skinner showed the slide and explained the access points.
Commissioner Gallagher asked for clarification.
Ms. Skinner showed the building locations.
Commissioner Gallagher asked to see the lines that contain the 60.3 acres.
Matt Dean explained those lines to the Board.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he wants to understand all the different parts in this. He
suggested the portion in the middle that goes down is not part of this.
Mr. Dean explained that portion of the property.
Commissioner Gallagher asked from what he understands, by approving this there will be no
building on the area left as open space.
Mr. Dean stated that is correct.
Ms. Skinner stated they are restricted from building in those areas as they are wildlife corridors.
She showed another slide of the property.
Mr. Dean, representing the applicant, stated the proposal consists of three parts. First, Phase II
the Southern Parcel. Second, a minor density shift to planning parcel T of the Mountain Track. Third,
they are proposing a sales office. Mr. Dean stated in 1992 they received sketch plan approval for 36
units, 12 in phase 1 and 24 in phase 2. He explained the development restrictions. In 1992 a total of 9
units were approved between the two wildlife corridors. In 1998 they submitted a planning application.
There were two hearings on the Southern parcel, July 15 and July 28. 30 petitions were sent to the
Board voicing concern with the proposal. Due to the concerns, Phase I was approved and the applicant
withdrew Phase II. More concern was voiced by homeowners. At the conclusion of the hearing Board
members suggested Cordillera meet with the homeowners of Colorow. In March 2000, Cordillera
applied for a density shift. At the time they applied for the density shift, three planning parcels were
created. Several Colorow owners voiced their opposition to the plan. The twenty unit density shift was
approved. Today' s application is to fulfill the preliminary plan language so they can proceed with the
South parcel.
Mr. Dean showed the map of to day's proposal. Since this area is an open alpine meadow and
adjacent to the ridge line, the ridge envelopes will be visible. He explained their creation of new
planning parcels. The modification opens a large view corridor from Colorow. The size and shape of
the planning parcels are dictated from the building envelopes which are all four acres in size. Lots 1 -4
range from 66 to 72 acres in size. From the March 2000 plan the amount of open space has increased
from 93% to 96% open space. The plan is better as they have reduced density. The fenced pasture will
be adjacent to each building envelope. Lots one and two have ten acre pastures, lot 3 has a five acre
pasture and lot 4 a four acre pasture. He spoke to the wildlife corridors and the access road, which will
be one common driveway. They will install a gated entry feature. He emphasized that the access
through Colorow is better land planning. Utilities - water should be provided through three well sites.
The water service will be private to the subdivision. Sewer is ISDS. Electrical service is already in
place. Ridge line visual analysis - the ridge line restrictions are only a requirement from the Lake Creek
Valley and not the Squaw Creek Valley. They have determined the glass ceilings for all of the building
24
05-08-2001
envelopes. He referred to section 16 in the binder. He stated they set the ceiling elevation above the
building envelope. He noted as the building envelope approaches the ridge line they are limited in
general to less than a story height. The second part of the application is a residential shift to Mountain
Track. He spoke to landslide activity on filing 18 in planning parcel M. They propose to transfer this
unit and dedicate it as open space. They will move it to planning parcel T making an total of 44 units.
He showed the Sales Center in Planning parcel N. The Mountain Track is the final phase ofthe
Cordillera development. The addition of the sales center will reduce traffic impacts. The future use will
be a sales center until terminated. It will then be used as a community center for homeowners.
Mr. Dean spoke then to the Planning Commission suggestions. He reviewed their concerns with
the conditions. The condition to cluster the four envelopes, disregards the public from the application
process. He stated a plan was suggested that doesn't exist within the application but was not reviewed
by the public. They are not sure which plan was approved. If the process is intended to be public, why
was the plan approved. The Colorow owners have no desire to have the four homes in the southwestern
corner. There are four Colorow homeowners most effected by this application. He showed them on
another map. They have concerns with the visual impacts, the two center building envelopes being
highly visible and since this is adjacent to Colorow, clustered homes is out of characteristic. Third, the
proposed Master Plan is consistent with the 1992 approvals which included 24 units. 9 were approved
in the same area as lots 3 and 4. The four lot plan is consistent with the 1992 approvals. Only two units
are now proposed. One of the two wildlife corridors had to be crossed and approval was given to cross
through both at sketch plan approval. They propose to access only through the narrow, southern
corridor. Forth, the plan is consistent with Cordillera's commitment to maintain wildlife corridors. He
explained the wildlife movement and the precedence of roads and wildlife movement. He explained the
traffic studies and even with the heavy traffic the corridors function fine. The access roads would be
driveway standards. There are a total of 91 0 units in Cordillera. The driveway access to lots 3 and 4
which will serve only two homes will not impede wildlife movement. This is appropriate here as there
is already existing density. He stated Cordillera is the first PUD to use the wildlife corridors. The
wildlife will utilize the corridors only twice a year. He suggested they are trying to create a better
development and explained all they have done to make it less of an impact on wildlife. The applicant is
requesting approval of the original Master Plan with the alterations explained today.
Chairman Stone asked for public comment.
Ms. Skinner asked that the letter from Paul Sells be introduced into the record.
Chairman Stone read the letter - "Please be advised that I own Lot 4B Colorow and I am
definitely against the Commissioners approving our cluster homes on the Ridge area of Cordillera.
Kurt Bassett stated they are representing lots 2A and 2b. He stated the consensus is that they
would rather not see eight homes. They are in 15 to 20 acre sites. They are a low amenity development.
They prefer to see lower density in the meadow. He stated they have had discussions with Cordillera so
that the ridge line will not be effected. Overall they are generally in agreement with Cordillera not to put
all four units in the meadow and the single entrance way is also agreeable.
Diana Cecala, owner oflot 12A, stated she is extremely opposed to the four houses being
clustered because of the high density and the negative impact. She stated all those who live through the
development have to drive through. Of the entire subdivision, 18 of the 22 lots would be impacted. Of
all those owners there is unanimous opposition. She stated the effect of the meadow would be
disastrous. Even though the acreage is generous, the visual impact would be the same. They feel the
clustering plan is a lose lose proposition and hope they devise a plan that is more respectful of what they
need.
Chairman Stone stated it was the Planning Commission's request that the clustering option be
submitted. He asked ifthey saw a clustering option. He asked if Mr. Bassett and Ms. Cecala are
supportive of the plan now being presented by Cordillera.
Ms. Cecala stated they are in agreement with what is now being proposed.
25
05-08-2001
Beverly Rassmusson, area property owner, stated all of the traffic goes by her house. She stated
although she doesn't want to see eight homes clustered, she'd like to see the wildlife corridors protected.
She read a statement for the record.
Jack Snow, homeowner adjacent to the proposed clustering, stated he will speak for himself and
Paul Sells. He stated they are supportive of the original plan which is a far better solution than the
clustering. He stated these homes access across Colorow. It is a single pallet, a single plan. The
protective covenants of Colorow are to protect and maintain the area as a desirable rural residential area.
He doesn't think that four large homes with four caretaker units fall under desirable rural residential. He
stated the homes are situated so that one home to another it is difficult to see. He showed an overlay.
He stated the developer listened to them. The Planning Commission came up with a design without
public input. He stated he is concerned about the wildlife. He stated he sees elk every other day. He
stated he is torn about allowing access in the corridor, however, they are seeing elk on Squaw Creek road
daily. To stop the development for a count of sixteen is absurd.
Chairman Stone asked for further public comment. There was none. He stated he wasn't at the
Planning Commission hearings, but it seems like the suggestion for clustering was coming from a
request by Bill Heicher, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Chairman Stone read paragraph four from the
letter. He stated lots spread out and very large size will have additional impacts to the wildlife.
Chairman Stone stated since there are three different requests being made, he'd like to discuss 2
and 3 up front or not at all.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he hasn't a problem with C and D, but he does have a problem
with it being heard in this form.
Chairman Stone suggested in the interest of time, and since it was presented in this fashion, he'd
like to continue with the files. He asked in the future that they not have such a complicated request. He
stated he doesn't have a problem with shifting the units. He does have a concern with the Sales Center
and why they need to hear this.
Ms. Skinner stated the use is allowed as part of the PUD.
Matt Dean stated there is currently a sales trailer in this location. There is a difference with it
being a permanent structure. It is not listed as a use in planning parcel M.
Chairman Stone stated there is a structure there that they are using now.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested they are asking that a sales center be an approved use as part
of parcel M.
Commissioner Gallagher spoke to figure A2 the recreation easement of 18 acres.
Mr. Dean stated that is an established pedestrian trail. It's a Homeowners Association
declaration. The trail is not fenced so it will not impede wildlife corridors.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the land use to the east.
Mr. Dean explained it is Lake Creek and Pilgram Downs.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they are limited in their construction times.
Mr. Dean stated that would make it difficult for them to put the infrastructures in.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested that would be something that would be important in an area
where they are trying to be sensitive to wildlife. He asked on lot 4 about deed restriction that would
prevent further subdivision.
Chairman Stone suggested that since this is part of the PUD they have the ability to transfer
density, but since they committed themselves to the PUD, Senate Bill 35 would not apply here.
Ms. Black stated they can't as it was subdivided by the PUD. She spoke to the open space and if
that is platted as open space.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the marking of the plat and the parcels being designated for
wildlife.
Mr. Dean stated those lines are on the current preliminary plan and the answer is yes.
Ms. Black asked if the open space is currently specified as lots with acreages attached.
26
05-08-2001
Mr. Dean stated he believes they are designated.
Ms. Black stated she is talking about the entire planning parcel. Is someone going to be able to
identify the location as open space on the plat.
Mr. Dean stated some ofthe open space falls within the plats.
Ms. Black asked who it benefits.
Mr. Dean stated it benefits the four property owners.
Chairman Stone stated he thinks this is one of those situations where the time and market have
produced a better product than what could have been proposed. He stated they have shifted density and
much of that shift has benefitted Colorow. He asked ifMr. Dean could explain what the intent is on
horses being adjacent to these homes.
Mr. Dean stated there are the pastures that directly abut each building envelope. Lots 1 and 2 are
ten acres each, lot 3 is five acres and lot 4 is four acres.
Chairman Stone asked how many animals per parcel.
Mr. Dean stated four horses.
Chairman Stone asked if there are other restrictions.
Mr. Dean stated only on fence heights. He stated this all natural meadow and not irrigated.
Chairman Stone stated he thinks four horses on non-irrigated pasture is unacceptable. He spoke
to the property he owns which is fully irrigated. He spoke to the benefit from a sales point of view, but
Cordillera does have horse barns and facilities already.
Mr. Dean stated there would be an HOA for just these four lots. He stated the homeowners can
not let the pastures fail. Ifthe owner does not maintain the pastures, the common HOA will do so.
Chairman Stone stated he feels that horse boarding on even the ten acre parcel is a concern
without irrigation. He suggested it might be restricted for summertime only with the animals being fed
weed free hay.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested there are sufficient resources in the County where they can
come up with the appropriate restrictions. He agrees with Chairman Stone that four horses are a lot.
Chairman Stone spoke to the three different accesses considered by the planning commissioner.
He questions where they are located and why they decided on this one.
Mr. Dean spoke first to the restrictions on pastures. He stated they would apply the same
restrictions they have at the Territory where all the feed is supplemental. He stated there are four horses
allowed there to 1.5 acres. They will limit these to two horses allowed year round.
Chairman Stone stated so really the pastures are not traditional pastures. He asked what they will
be used for.
Mr. Dean stated they will be used for exercise.
Chairman Stone suggested they refrain from calling this pasture and better to be defined as a
riding arena. He thinks it will make a much more acceptable operation.
Commissioner Gallagher concurred.
Chairman Stone asked about the access roads.
Mr. Dean stated they did three road alternative access studies. Alternative 1 is what they are
proposing being one single access from Colorow. Alternative 2 is two access points from Colorow.
Lastly is the access with one being from Colorow and the other from Mirador. He spoke to the wildlife
corridors. He stated they presented all these across the board, apples to apples. He explained the
differences between the alternatives.
Chairman Stone asked if lot three is entirely outside the wildlife corridor.
Mr. Dean stated the building envelope and the pasture are.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about emergency vehicle access.
Mr. Dean stated they have introduced two turn around points as suggested by the County
Engineering Department. He stated once inside the envelope there will be some sort of a hammer head
or donut for the home itself.
27
05-08-2001
Commissioner Gallagher stated he would like that to go beyond an assumption.
Chairman Stone asked what the wildfire status is within this area.
Mr. Dean stated it is an X which is the driest. He spoke to the fire hydrants and the sprinkler
systems required internally.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the water storage.
Mr. Dean stated 12,000 gallons total.
Commissioner Gallagher stated at 1500 GPM that doesn't last very long.
Chairman Stone clarified the water for these homes is coming from the three existing wells. He
asked what the purpose is for the storage.
Jim Kunkel stated the system was recommended by the Avon Fire Protection District. He stated
this is a very rural development and basically the consideration is the conventional fire protection is not
feasible. They are providing enough storage at the hydrant at the beginning of the development. It is
recommended that all of the houses be equipped with fire suppression systems.
Commissioner Gallagher asked how much water the wells make.
Mr. Kunkel stated they are not recommended for fire suppression though they will make up for it
from the 12,000 gallon tank.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he is concerned about the wildfire interface. They are
introducing a fire hazard into a wildfire area by putting in a house and all the add ons. He would be
concerned that they have a defensible zone as they have to protect the houses from the woods and the
woods from the houses.
Mr. Dean stated the design guidelines are a reference from the Summit requiring defensible
space. That will be applied to this property.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the HOA will have some enforcement. He stated he would like
to have a letter on record from the Eagle Fire Protection District.
Chairman Stone stated he would like to review the fire restrictions of the Summit. He asked if
there are guidelines.
Commissioner Gallagher stated they could take a look at the plans for adequacy.
Chairman Stone spoke to Fire Wise which has come from those accustomed to fighting fires.
Commissioner Gallagher stated a fuel profile would be a consideration as would the Fire Wise.
He stated he would like to review the wildfire interface plans for this proposal.
Chairman Stone suggested that needs to be a requirement before final plat. He stated it is
something that the County Commissioners have not addressed in the past. He stated he now realizes the
severity of the problem. People lose their homes, but those who take care of fighting the fires could be
placed in danger. As time goes on, he likes to think they get smarter and have better regulations.
Chairman Stone stated he does not like the clustering as well and to have the four home sites and the
building envelopes spread out. As long as they are avoiding the major migration routes, he doesn't
believe the road will be much of a deterrent.
Commissioner Gallagher asked they make the Wildfire Interface
Ms. Skinner stated if this is approved the condition should refer to the Engineering Memo of
March 7th.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he would also like the road construction to be limited from April
1 to December 1.
Chairman Stone spoke to the change about the horses.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested they have that as part of final plat, limiting the horses to two
and the feed brought in and that the area labeled as pasture not be used as grazing pasture.
Chairman Stone spoke to the guidelines discussed with the Territories.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. PDP-
00019, Cordillera Southern Parcel PUD Preliminary Plan incorporating all Staff findings, and the
following conditions:
28
05-08-2001
1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant
in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval.
2. All (septic system) designs will be subject to a memorandum fro the environmental Health
Department, dated march 6, 2001.
3. Pursuant to a memo from the Colorado Geological Survey, dated March 13th, 2001, all
building permits shall require both a geotechnical soils and foundation investigation, and slope stability
analysis (for houses proposed to built on slopes of30% or more).
4. Stamped approval from a geotechnical engineer (evaluating the stability of the proposed road)
must be submitted with the Final Plat.
5. Road construction shall occur only between April 15t and December 1 st.
6. Wildfire interface plans shall be approved by the Board and the Community Development
Department prior to final plat submittal.
7. Horses shall be limited to two (2) per lot with all feed to be brought in. Areas labeled as
pastures on the plan, as approved, shall be used only as riding/exercise areas.
8. Applicant shall adhere to a memorandum from the Eagle county Engineering Department
dated March 7th, 2001.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unanImous.
Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of County Commissioners approve PDA-00032,
Cordillera Southern Parcel PUD Amendment, incorporating all Staff findings.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared
unammous.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
May 15,2001.
c~~
29
05-08-2001