Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/15/2001 PUBLIC HEARING MAY 15,2001 Present: Tom Stone Arn Menconi Renee Black Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Acting County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board Absent: Michael Gallagher 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 is the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of may 14,2001, subject to'teview by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for May 17,2001 subject to review by County Administrator C) Contract with the Colorado Department of Public Health for tuberculosis Direct Observed Therapy D) Assignment of Lease between Eagle County and Colorado Christian University for Eagle County Airport Light Beacon Approach E) Approval of the Grant Renewal Application to the division of Criminal Justice for Juvenile Wrap Around Services for the 2001-2002 State Fiscal Year F) Annual Sanitarian's Contract between the State of Colorado, Department of Public Health and Environment, Consumer Protection Division and Eagle County Environmental Health Department. Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Renee Black, Acting County Attorney, stated there were no changes. Chairman Stone asked about the item D, Assignment of Lease, Colorado Christian University. Jim Elwood, Airport Manager, spoke to the tower and the fact they lease out space on the tower to local broadcasting firms. This is a new owner so they are transferring the lease. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the consent agenda as presented. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher was not present for the morning portion of this hearing. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00268. Bachelor Gulch Village. Filing No.3. A Resubdivision of Tract Y. The intent of this Type B Minor Subdivision is to re-subdivide Tract Y into three tracts: Y-1, Y-2, and Y-3. Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director 1 05-15-2001 shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00268, Bachelor Gulch Village, filing No.3, Resubdivision of Tract Y, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00270. The Homestead - Filing No.2. Blocks 13 Thru 16. A Resubdivision of Lot 4. Block 16. The intent of this Type B Minor Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 4 into two (2), Y2 duplex lots, Lot 4A and Lot 4B. Staff findings are as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00270, The Homestead, Filing No.2, Blocks 13 through 16, Resubdivision of Lot 4, Block 16, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-068 In The Matter Of Amending The Eagle County Land Use Regulations As Amended To Adopt A Revised Section 4-700 Adopt A New Section 4-710. The Board considered the aforementioned amendments at regular public meetings held on March 20th, April 24th, and May 8th, 2001. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2001-068, Amending The Eagle County Land Use Regulations As Amended To Adopt A Revised Section 4-700 Adopt A New Section 4-710. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-069, Older Americans Month Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health & Human Services, presented Resolution 2001-069, designating May 2001 as Older American's Month. She read the resolution into the record as follows: "Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado (hereinafter the Board) wishes to celebrate The Many Faces of Aging during May 2001, which is Older Americans Month; and Whereas, the Board recognizes that the number of seniors in Eagle County will grow by fifty percent in the next five years to over 4,000 seniors; and that nationally the number of Americans 65 and 2 05-15-2001 older will number 88 million people, one-quarter ofthe United States population by the year 2030; and Whereas, this growing number of seniors is marked by a richness of diversity in cultural background and life experiences; and Whereas, seniors are living longer, healthier and more active lives, working and volunteering throughout their senior years; and Whereas, the Board desires to recognize the many contributions that the Seniors of Eagle County have made and continue to make to the quality of life in and of our communities; Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: That May 2001 be designated as Older Americans Month in Eagle County and be celebrated by families and communities throughout Eagle County. That, the Board hereby finds, determines and declared that this Resolution is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the county of Eagle, State of Colorado. Moved, read and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 15th day of May, 2001." Chairman Stone invited the Seniors to join the group. Present were Ethel Borgen, Virginia Rose, Johnnette Phillips, Don Olsen, Katie Harper, Olive Meyers, Barbara Pearch, Ruth Lentz, Peggy Buckau, Joan Brallier, Joe Kasper, Bud Harrison, Emilia Gonzalez, Edith Lederhause. Ms. Harper read the following into the record: "My children are coming today. They mean well. But they worry. They think I should have a railing in the hall. A telephone in the kitchen. They want someone to come in when I take a bath. They really don't like my living alone. Help me to be grateful for their concern. And help them to understand that I have to do what I can as long as I can. They're right when they say there are risks. I might fall. I might leave the stove on. But there is not challenge, no possibility of triumph, no real aliveness without risk. When they were young and climbed trees and road bicycles. But I let them go. Because to hold them would have hurt them. Now our roles are reversed. Help them see. Keep me from being grim or stubborn about it. But don't let me let them smother me." Chairman Stone stated he would like to thank the Seniors in that we benefit more from them than they from us. He stated Eagle County has decided to not accept any of the bids for the Assisted Living Center but to build it themselves. Commissioner Menconi stated the facility will be for 24 places. He stated those interested in reserving a spot please get in contact with them as quickly as possible. Commissioners Stone and Menconi thanked the seniors for being present and for all the volunteer work they do throughout the County. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2001-069, designating May 2001 as Older Americans Month. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 3 05-15-2001 Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Lodge at Cordillera Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented a new application for a hotel and restaurant license with optional premises for Kensington Management Corporation, dba/Lodge at Cordillera. She stated this applicant has been licensed but let it expire and had to start over. The neighborhood and the needs of the neighborhood must be re-established. The neighborhood used was the Cordillera subdivision. The applicant has submitted a petition of 102 signatures as evidence of need. Rick Rosen, Attorney representing the applicant, was present for the hearing as was Adam Leseur, manager. Commissioner Menconi moved to establish the neighborhood as the Cordillera PUD. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone stated there are 58 businesses and 47 residences that signed the petition. Commissioner Menconi moved to establish the needs of the neighborhood as evidenced by testimony and the submitted petition. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Rick Rosen, legal council to Kensington Management, introduced Adam Leseur. Mr. Rosen explained the need for them to reapply for the license due to a clerical error on their part in allowing the license to expire. He explained the measures they took to remove the liquor from the appropriate locations and the rooms. He stated they are here to reapply for a liquor license for the Lodge at Cordillera with three optional premises including the golf course, the Pub and the tennis facilities. He stated the boundaries are identical to before. Chairman Stone asked if there have been any complaints or disturbances. Ms. Roach responded there have been none and that this is basically a technical issue. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve a new hotel & restaurant license with optional premises for Kensington Management Corporation, dba/Lodge at Cordillera. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Rick Rosen explained that Mr. Leseur has been the manager of the Lodge and has taken on the additional responsibilities of managing the liquor establishment. Mr. LeSeur explained he has been in the business for some time and previously worked with Ritz Carlton in Aspen. Chairman Stone asked about his familiarity with liquor service in Colorado Mr. Le Sour explained. Chairman Stone asked if they have a liquor service manual for employees. Mr. Rosen explained each location is responsible for their particular establishment. He stated each location must have a copy of the code and the manager be familiar with the laws and the requirements. Chairman Stone spoke to the successes we have seen in the establishments that fully educate their staff. Ms. Roach explained an up and coming liquor training class that is going to take place on May 31 st. Mr. Rosen spoke to Cordillera having many employees that will be in attendance. 4 05-15-2001 Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the manager's registration for Adam LeSeur, Kensington Management Corporation, dba/Lodge at Cordillera. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00028, Woodland Hills PUD Sketch Plan Chairman Stone spoke to this file and stated that Commissioner Gallagher was now present for the hearings. He stated this matter was tabled from April 17, 2001 at the applicants request. Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number PDS-00028, Woodland Hills PUD Sketch Plan. The applicant wishes to obtain approval for a residential, PUD (Sketch Plan) including the following: 88 multifamily units consisting of76, two bedroom / 2 car garage units, and 12, one bedroom / 1 car garage units, open / recreation space, and a new bus stop. The one bedroom units will be deed restricted; i.e. would only be allowed to appreciate 3% per year at a maximum based on the original purchase price; 10, two bedroom units will also be deed restricted, with the remaining units to be "free market" units. The chronology of the property is as follows and as shown on staff report: 1997: DRT discussed a pre-application proposal for 40 single family homes, 24 town homes, and 30 cluster homes (10.7 units per acre). DRT did not respond favorably toward the proposal. They felt that the density was too high; 6-7 units per acre would have been more favorable. 1998 (July): DRT reviewed another pre-application proposal for this property. Once again, Staff felt that the density was too high. 1998 (September): An application for a PUD Sketch plan (Deer Park PUD) was submitted to the County. 106 town homes and condominium units (12 units per acre) were proposed, along with a bus stop, trails and open space. The Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions, however, the Board of County Commissioners Denied the proposal. They felt that the density was too high. The Planning Commission deliberated, at length, over issues regarding: Density; master planning; the broader need for affordable housing throughout the Eagle County; the proposed sale price; price per square foot and; whether or not approval of this proposal would be precedent setting. Each Planning Commissioner expressed a great deal of difficulty in rendering a recommendation. Ultimately, by a vote of 3 to 2, the Planning Commission recommended approval ofthis project for the following reasons: 1) That this proposal would result in much needed affordable housing; 2) Affordable one bedroom units with garages are a desirable, unique product; 3) Density for this project (10 du/acre) is off-set by the relative smaller size of the individual units thereby leaving more of the site open resulting in overall less visual impact. Several Commissioners suggested that due to the actual square footage of the units proposed, the overall density is more akin to six or seven dwelling units per acre as opposed to ten. The Planning Commission moved to approve file number PDS-00028 incorporating all staff findings and conditions, adding conditions 7, 8 and 9. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Engineering Memo dated March 7th, 2001: This application is in substantial compliance with the PUD Sketch Plan Requirements of the 5 05-15-2001 Land Use Regulations. Colorado Division of Wildlife, State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources, dated February 26th, 2001: The adjacent areas contain both elk and deer winter range, as well as bear habitat. Dogs: Each residential unit may have one dog. Dogs should be contained (see memo). Visitors shall be prohibited from bringing dogs onsite. Fencing: Shall be restricted throughout the development. Bears/Trash removal: There shall be no outside storage of trash; collection bins are ok the morning of collection. All outside trash containers must be bear-proof. Pets shall not be fed outside. Contractors must use bear-proof containers or haul trash offsite. Mountain Lions: All residents and perspective residents shall receive a copy of the CDOW's brochure "Living with Wildlife in Mountain Lion Country." It shall be the developer's responsibility to acquire and distribute these materials. Additional Commitments: The primary responsibility for enforcement (of the wildlife covenants) lies with the Woodland Hills Homeowners Association. It is recommended that all wildlife related mitigation measures are incorporated into a separate Mitigation Plan document. The Mitigation Plan should be incorporated into the covenants. Enforcement Provisions for Covenants & or PUD Guidelines: See attached memo for recommendation on how the applicant might incorporate into covenants or PUD Guide. Colorado Geological Survey, State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources, dated March 5, 2001 Topography and drainage: A submitted drainage report indicates that detention storage of 11,200 cubic feet will be required to detain the 25 year peak flow emanating from a 12.6 acre drainage basin to the south. The drainage basin is neither shown on the site plan, nor does it appear that there is room for it as the site is currently planned. Soils and Bedrock: The site is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite. Subsidence due to collapsible soils, hydro compaction, existing sinkholes, and formation of solution cavities are a serious concern in this formation, as is corrosive soils. Six test borings were performed; all encountered "refusal on gravel' / sandy soils. Its suitability for foundation bearing material should be defined with more certainty. The (submitted) LKP Engineering's report makes very general foundation recommendations, and does not address methods for mitigating the risk of structural damage due to collapsible or corrosive soils, with the exception that a type II cement is recommended for substances in contact with corrosive soils. We concur with their recommendation for additional site-specific investigations and analysis to develop final design criteria for individual foundations. Groundwater: 6 05-15-2001 We concur with the application consultants' recommendation for foundation perimeter drains to help prevent infiltration and to control wetting of potential expansive or collapsible soils in the immediate vicinity of the substructure. The systems should be sloped to discharge to a gravity outlet or sump pump location. Grading: The proposed final grading contours are not shown on the site plans. We recommend analysis to determine the need for berms or drainages to divert runoff from the slopes to the south of the property away from the proposed development, and that retaining walls, if used, be evaluated to determine the need for drains to reduce hydrostatic pressure. Erosion and sedimentation control methods should be designed and in place prior to the start of grading. Once grading is complete: additional geotechnical investigations be performed to establish alluvium thickness or depth to competent bedrock, density and bearing capacity, and depth to groundwater. Prior to construction, any adverse conditions encountered need to be mitigated if necessary and incorporated into the final design of foundations. We recommend that approval of this proposed development be contingent upon assurances that this requirement will be met. Existing structures: There are existing septic tanks, leach fields, buried utilities, foundations and likely debris from past and existing uses. These must be excavated and disposed of offsite, not graded into the fill. Colorado State Forest Service, dated March 9th, 2001 The wildfire hazard is moderate. The parking lots provide adequate emergency vehicle turnaround. Recommendations: Implement defensible space around all structures. Require class A roof and fire resistive construction. Trees and shrubs should be planted at least 15 feet away from structures. Non flammable landscaping such as flagstone should be placed under decks and porches that are at ground level. Holy Cross Energy, dated February 21 st, 2001 The development is within the certified service area of Holy Cross Energy. They have the capacity to provide electric power to this development. They wish to be contacted when plans move forward. Edwards Metropolitan District, dated February 21 st, 2001: Residents in the past have relied on the Edwards Sub-Area Master Plan from 1985. In that document the density is low density- approx. 2 dwelling units per acre. They believe that the Edwards Committee has reaffirmed that the residents want to keep higher densities closer to the "core area" of Edwards, and lower further away. Environmental Health Department, memo dated March 7th, 2001: The applicant must seek approval of a 1041 permit for water/wastewater extensions. The permit must be in place prior to Preliminary Plan approval. An Environmental Impact Report will be required. Stormwater runoff from the proposed development must be designed to meet the drainage standards of the Land Use Regulations. Lake Creek Meadows Homeowners Association memo dated March 7t\ 2001. Lake Creek Homeowners will be affected by the Woodland Hills development because of increased traffic on Hwy 6. Also will add increased traffic to Edwards Interchange to and from 1-70. 7 05-15-2001 Would suggest planning for an additional interchange at the West end of Edwards. Adjacent Property Owners There are numerous adjacent property owner letters in support ofthis project attached to this Staff Report. They feel that the density is appropriate, and that this project will help elevate some ofthe affordable housing woes of this valley. They also feel that if this density is denied, that it would lessen the value of their land; their land would be down zoned. Other (General Public in support, and against this project)- see attached Additional Referrals were sent to the following with no response received: Eagle County Attorney, Sheriff The School District Fire District Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: FILE PDS-00028 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F .3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch 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. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in 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 F3.j, Variations Authorized This is a residential use development. Use of the PUD is necessary as this property shall be comprised of one lot and open space. The PUD guide should be written to properly address and acknowledge all extraneous, residential uses ofthe site including specific details pertaining to such things as pets, trash, recreation, open space, etc. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT 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. However, variations MAY be granted along with approval of the Sketch and/or Preliminary Plan. 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 P UD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F3.j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snow melt between buildings. The current zone district is RSL. This project could be possible without a PUD in that RSL 8 05-15-2001 allows multi-family dwellings (3 or more dwelling units in one building) on 15,000 sf, as a use by right. 8.8 acres would allow approximately 22 lots of 15,000 sf each, therefore, allowing a possible 88 dwelling units, if they were constructed as fourplexes. (This calculation does take into account the road as proposed as well). [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3- 340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time ofthe application for PUD as the property is not being subdivided into 15,000 sflots. However, variations MAY be granted along with approval of the Sketch and/or Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the P UD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations' parking standards dictate that there should be 2 parking spaces for a 1 bedroom, and 2.5 per 2-3 bedroom units. Parking, as proposed, currently exceeds that amount. According to the plans, there exist 3.6 spaces per unit, for all the units. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, 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 PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Landscaping is a major component ofthis development. Staff can make a favorable finding. A more detailed landscaping plan will be required at Preliminary Plan, with a Detail Landscaping Plan to be submitted at Final Plat. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the P UD that is determined to be suitable for the P UD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The Woodland Hills PUD guide limits the size of the entrance sign only, with all other signs to adhere to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for standards. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign 9 05-15-2001 Regulations. The draft Woodland Hills PUD guide will use the Eagle County 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 P UD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The applicant has provided evidence that all facilities will connect to Woodland Hills PUD, however, a 1041 permit is required prior to Preliminary Plan approval, as this hook up would constitute as an extension. [+] FINDING: as conditioned Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Sketch 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(subject to 1041 review and approval) 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 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-o.fway, 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 andfrom off-street parking areas. A highway access permit will be required prior to Preliminary Plan approval. [+] FINDING: as conditioned Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] AS CONDITIONED It HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards 10 05-15-2001 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 Vehic1es (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, other PUD developments exist in the near vicinity of the Woodland Hills property, as well as the Eagle River Village Mobile Home Park. Lake Creek Village is in the line of site of Woodland Hills, as well as the Villas at Bret Ranch. The subject property is located on the most western edge ofthe Edwards community. Given the density of the multi-family developments in the immediate vicinity, the Eagle River Mobile Home Park, the current RSL zoning designation to the east, west and north of the site, and the numerous letters of support for this project, this proposal may be considered compatible and in character with the majority of neighboring uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD MAY BE considered 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 CONSIDERS THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. x x x x x x Community Center Community Center has a suggested density of 3-12 dwelling units per acre, in designated areas typically found along major transportation routes which have public water and sewer, and have not been designated as sensitive lands. This designation promotes Community Centers as appropriate locations for affordable housing, with cluster and Planned Unit Developments being encouraged. 11 05-15-2001 x x x x x x x Concerns related to pets (feeding, housing, other restrictions), or bear proof trash containers have not been addressed as of yet within the draft PUD guide, but shall be a condition for the applicant to do so as part of Preliminary Plan. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: NOTE: (plus or minus' are added before the elements to show the conformance of the proposal in relation to the vision statement) [+] Housing is a community-wide issue. [+] Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. [+] Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing transit routes. Although near a transportation route, a new, designated transit stop is not indicated on the plans. [n/a] Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success [n/a] It is important to preserve existing local residents housing. [+] Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county [+] Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs EDWARDS SUB-AREA COMMUNITY PLAN x1_ The Edwards Sub Area Master Plan states that the people of Edwards who live in Edwards ( at the "present time" of 1985) shall work elsewhere. Staff does not feel that this statement is still valid. It is unclear if the proposed site is located on the associated, 1985 Edwards Sub-Area planning 12 05-15-2001 map (Staff can find only a draft version of the Development Intensity map). There are considerations of both the Lake Creek and Squaw Creek valleys in the text, however, this site lies in between those valleys (Squaw Creek is not depicted on the associated Development Intensity map). The map also uses general overlays, which determine where the Development Intensities lie. Due to the poor quality of the Edwards Sub-Area Development Intensity Map, it is difficult for Staff to determine if the High Density area on the draft version of the map is intended to represent only the Eagle River Mobile Home Park or if property in the immediately vicinity around the mobile home park was intended to be included within the High Density area as well. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. A phasing plan has not been presented as part of this application, except that actual construction shall be completed in two phases. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT necessary for this development at this time, however, should be a component of the Preliminary Plan. 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 P UD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for everyone thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (I) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-o.fways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (ii) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (l00) 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. (b) 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 PUD. (c) 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. (d) 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 13 05-15-2001 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 P UD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. Maintenance responsibilities have been identified within the Woodland Hills Sketch Plan, however, not within the draft PUD plan. Staff recommends that any associations/people responsible for park maintenance be identified within the Preliminary Plan PUD guide. [+] 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; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. However, the Applicant MAYbe able to demonstrate in the Preliminary Plan that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards. 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. All referral comments shall be adhered to as conditions of either Sketch and/or Preliminary Plan approval. [+] FINDING as conditioned: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of both a Sketch Plan, and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 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) [+] as conditioned Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430)- 14 05-15-2001 [+ ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) [+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) [+] 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) [+] as conditioned Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) [+] as conditioned Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Fees will be collected prior to Final Plat approval. All findings under this standard are either favorable, favorable as conditioned, or do not apply to this project. The Woodland Hills PUD will be subject to all of the requirements of a final PUD guide or the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. By connecting to the existing infrastructure, this proposal will not cause inefficiencies, nor will it be a leapfrog pattern of development. This application has also proposed future connections to adjacent properties in that they have designed internal roadway connection stub outs to which future developments can hook up to. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] 15 05-15-2001 The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The proposed development area is compatible with the majority of surrounding developments in the 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. Chairman Stone stated he understands from listening to the tapes that public comment has been closed. David Nudell, applicant and owner developer ofthe project, stated when present a month ago the issues were affordablity and the traffic it would create. He stated they have hired Dave Ruble to address the traffic concerns. He will give that presentation. He spoke to David's Carter questions about the affordable housing. He has met with Mr. Carter to review the tax estimates and the costs. He spoke to using the mill levy of Brett Ranch to verify the taxes. He spoke to the dues and that he has doubled them to $100 for one bedroom units and $200 for two bedroom. He spoke again to Brett Ranch, the Reserve, and others and believes that the dues are in accordance with those of similar developments. He spoke to the handout on pricing and affordablity. He stated he has reduced the prices since the last meeting. With the adjustments that they have made, he has taken six of the one bedrooms and reduced them to $120,000. On the two bedroom units he has them at $210,000, bringing it to 1.76 average income wage earners. The top price unit will now be $240,000 down from $250,000. He stated it does meet the criteria of local resident housing. It is designed to be local resident housing and not for weekend or short term housing. He explained his calculations on the real world analysis. He explained his comparisons on rent verses ownership. He suggested when ownership looks like rent, it is then affordable. Commissioner Menconi asked about the difference in the prices. Mr. Nudell stated the $1600 figure is to comply with the definition. The real world analysis looks at real dollars. Chairman Stone asked how they made the calculations. Mr. Nudell explained the work done by the tax consultant. He explained the net benefit of ownership. Chairman Stone asked about the tax right off basis. Mr. Nudell stated it would be the mortgage interest and the property tax. He stated they used the most average situation and they are not trying to skew this in any way. This is the comparison of owning verses renting. He stated the larger the unit, the more expensive. He spoke to the garages and those being much larger which should be taken into account. He spoke to the million dollars in soft costs, the sewer extension, tap fees and fees in lieu, building permit fees, school fees, impact fees both required and voluntary totaling a little over $12,000 per unit. He's spending funds on landscaping and the accellldecell requirements. He stated the cost is between $220 and $240 per square foot. He explained his comparisons on that. Commissioner Menconi asked about Brett Ranch. Mr. Nudell stated they are about the same. He spoke then to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment. He stated 40% of county residents rent. 850 renter households moved for sales. 25% have month to month leases. He explained the rental vacancy rate being 1 or 1.6%. He spoke to the vacant positions in the County. The top 7 amenities are washer dryer, gas heat, sunlight, multiple bathrooms, extra storage, soundproof, garages. They will be 27 ' wide by 9' high by 18' deep. He explained they 16 05-15-2001 have all of these amenities. He further explained the statistics. He spoke to the question from Commissioner Menconi about the units available. He spoke to the characteristics of some similar developments and their shortcomings. Commissioner Menconi asked about the amenities. Mr. Nudell stated the location, the bedrooms being located on the opposite side of the garage doors. All units are end units which reduces noise, units have been located to optimize sun and views, all units have 27 foot wide two car garages. He spoke to the recreational facilities. He stated they have an over ~ acre sodded playing field. There are six tot lot areas throughout the project with swings, sand boxes, and swing bounces. 20 station health trail system through the project. He spoke to the landscaping and his cost of $350,000. He stated there are only two places east of Gypsum, two bedroom, two bath for under $300,000. He explained the comparisons. He spoke again to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment guidelines. Dave Ruble, LSC transportation consultants of Denver, stated they used a traditional approach with reviewing this development. He stated there will be about 584 daily trips in and out of the facility. At peak hours there will be about 30 vehicles headed east and a few headed west. He stated they used the intersection of Highway 6 and the Spur Road for present day and the year 2020. They reviewed other traffic counts that have been done. Level of service would be a C. Chairman Stone asked when the study was done. Mr. Ruble stated 1999. He stated they did reduce this for transit ridership by 15%. He stated this would be above and beyond what has currently been anticipated. He referred to the Edwards Access Control Plan and how he compared the two studies. He spoke to the new lane geometry and the variations of impacts. He stated they are recommending a left turn lane for westbound traffic, but an east bound decelllane is not warranted. Tom Boni, Knight Planning, stated there were two other questions that came up at the last hearing. One involved the density ofthe project relative to the neighborhood. He spoke to the aerial photo. He stated this is not a neighborhood of single family homes. The density comparisons were spoken to and he explained those. The idea was to create a two bedroom and one bedroom product. Smaller units have less impact. He spoke to the precedence issue. He stated each project is judged on its own merits. They believe this project meets the requirements. He spoke to the denial of Deer Park. He explained they were 106 dwelling units which were larger. They were all two and three bedroom units. Prices were also a consideration. Chairman Stone asked the sizes. Mr. Nudell stated 525 square feet for one bedroom and 1050 square feet for two bedroom. Mr. Boni spoke to the Edwards Access Control Plan. They looked at the needs assessment of the Eagle County Housing Plan and the Control Plan. He spoke to the interconnections with surrounding developments and the accell/decelllanes. He explained their compliance with the Master Plan, the Edwards Access Plan, Environmental Quality. Regarding transportation, there are three issues. The internal issues have been addressed. They will be linking to the trails that already exist and having ample trails within the development. He spoke to the future connect with Miller Ranch. He spoke to the transit use and the ridership from the Edwards area. He stated the ridership rate will be greater than what they have calculated. He spoke to the increased service to that area by ECO transit. He spoke to the Comprehensive housing plan and their compliance with that plan. Lastly, this is smart growth. It is compact, pedestrian friendly, does not require new water or sewer service. These are affordable houses with minimal impact on the environment. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, stated the County encourages provisional affordable housing. He believes this project does that and they have met the higher standard though affordablity and greater scrutiny. He stated this project is not associated with a private business. They are not creating jobs, but they are creating housing for those already living here. He stated from the start they understood the issues. He suggested they have responded to the comments from the public and have proposed 17 05-15-2001 solutions. Their effort is to meet the requirements of the County housing plan. They have a long way to go and would like to move to preliminary plan. He stated there are some wording refinements they would like to suggest. Concerning the approval of the 88 units with deed restrictions, they are requiring the individual to be an Eagle County Resident or Employer. He spoke to the periodic fix up along set guidelines and prices for carpet, paint, appliances, etc. This is their commitment to stay within the price category . Chairman Stone asked if they may not have to do a 1041. Mr. Knight stated on one part of it they may not. He stated they fully intend to comply with the 1041 regulations. He spoke to the interconnecting roads and that they remain as shown. He stated that is their request. He concluded their presentation but was available for questions. Chairman Stone asked ifthere was anyone here who wasn't at the last meeting who hasn't spoken or sent a letter and would like to speak. There were four people. He limited the talks to three minutes. B.J. Bliss, area resident, was present to represent the younger workers and younger families. He suggested normal employee housing is not acceptable. He thinks this community would be great for people like him. Chuck Powers, area resident, stated Bill Andre, Division of Wildlife, has related he would like to make it of record that he is opposing this proposal. He spoke to affordable housing and that the people in Edwards think they've had their share. He stated he speaks to the contrary. He stated the problem they have is with the traffic. The thing missing is the issue with transportation. He stated the County has taken a big piece of County allocation and applied them to other projects. In lining the projects up for affordable housing they need to line up the other resources. Marty Lipstein, area resident, spoke to the lack of housing and that there is no place to live. He spoke to the trailer park and that it isn't going anywhere. Everyone wants affordable housing, they just don't want it where they live. The longer they put off locating the properties where they should be, the longer there will be a problem. He thinks this project needs to be approved. Lorie Bauer, area resident, spoke in favor of the issue of affordable housing. She explained her credentials and the need for housing is at an all time high. Rental rates in Eagle County are the greatest in the State. She has reviewed the pricing structure and the restrictions and believes they are in line. She spoke to it being a private entity. She spoke to the Down Payment Assistance Program and them having the money but there being no product. Buckhorn Valley in Gypsum no longer qualifies for Down Payment Assistance. She spoke to the guaranteed pricing. At least 22 of the homes would fall into the price gap. If the project were built with no restrictions, the market value would be higher than what it is. She spoke to the comparable sales and the need for more projects like this. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they could explain the difference in the units between those that go for higher prices. Mr. Nudell explained they are identical and the only real difference is if they are upper or lower level units. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the label affordable being applied for five years. Mr. Nudell stated the five year deed restriction was to stop the quick flip phenomenon. It is intended for people to live there and if they do they will benefit from the appreciation. He explained all the units will be offered as affordable. It is a very good stepping stone for 88 families to get in at rates that are affordable. Commissioner Gallagher asked why it is okay to have 66 units to quick flip and 22 units not. Mr. Nudell stated the things they will do to try to stop that are to prove you are a County employee and must use it as their primary residents. They will require documentation of residency. They can put an additional stipulation on to make it either a primary residence or as a qualified employer to make it affordable housing. Commissioner Gallagher asked about deed restricting them all. 18 05-15-2001 Mr. Nudell stated it does effect the marketability. He stated he is hesitant to set the entire pricing as it unfairly binds his hands to meet the costs. The maximum is $240,000. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the numbers reflect gross income or net. Mr. Nudell stated that is gross income. Commissioner Menconi asked for an analysis as to why they chose to permanently deed restrict the one bed room and the two bedroom being five years. Mr. Nudell explained to permanently deed restrict for someone is an option to buy over renting. He explained the benefits of buying as a stepping stone of ownership without deed restrictions. He suggested that at the level of $220,000 or more it does not make good sense to deed restrict. They can afford a free market unit. Commissioner Menconi asked if they create a permanent deed restriction in the two bedroom units, it would keep it affordable as the other prices increase. The second purchaser would then come in five years later and buy it, it will return to free market. He asked if the location has been selected for those ten units. Mr. Nudell stated he has not. Chairman Stone stated he doesn't have any questions, but would like to summarize his feelings and talk about the different options. The options are to approve as presented, to deny as presented, or to approve with some changes or additional conditions. He spoke first to the road impact. He suggested the presentation really said the traffic is already bad, but we're not going to make it worse. He stated he would like to pursue a full interchange at the Wilmore Lake which would relieve the pressure to the Spur Road, but that is years to the future. He stated some of the drawbacks are the traffic. He questions the marketability of the one bedrooms. He thinks the market to a large degree is saying two bedrooms is what people want. He spoke to the West Vail Lodge redo. He spoke to the water and sewer payback, but that is not a compelling factor. He stated the County is working on a public partnership for sale at the Berry Creek 5th filing. Recognizing the County should hold itself to the same standard others are held to. Commissioner Gallagher stated the affordibility of something for five years doesn't excite him this much. He spoke to the 66 units once they are sold for the first price. The one bedroom units mayor may not sell. The garage is a nice thing. He stated he can't give the total project the blessing of affordablity. He can't understand only deed restricting part of the units. This project will further congest the Edwards area. Commissioner Menconi stated he thinks in this proposal and in the work that has done the applicant has tried to bring good things to the market and to first time homeowners. He's the one taking the greatest risk and using the information he has to set the price and the restrictions. He applauded him on bringing more units to the market, helping people to afford their first home. With regards to density, he thinks it falls within what conforms to the area and he thinks the traffic issue has been a heated conversation. He lives in the area and drives the area and doesn't feel that this will contribute significantly. He stated he ran on a platform of offering affordable housing and he is supportive of Mr. Nudell's intentions. Chairman Stone asked Commissioner Menconi ifhe is in favor of this project moving forward to sketch plan. Commissioner Menconi stated he is. Chairman Stone asked ifhe would like to see any changes to the conditions. Commissioner Menconi stated he is favor of the recommendations by staff and would like Mr. Montag's opinion those recommended by the Planning Commission. He questioned each of those. Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, spoke to the condition of the 1041. They concur that this project would have to conform to the 1041 regulations. Chairman Stone stated before asking Commissioner Gallagher his opinion, he'll offer his own. He spoke to voting to deny Deer Park and thinks they are a lot closer to what is acceptable on this 19 05-15-2001 property but they are not quite there. Affordablity is the issue of concern to him. He is not sure what the issue is with this particular project be it the price, the pay backs, or the development costs. He has a concern with the marketability of this small of a unit at that kind of price. He would either like to see an increase in the size of the units or a decrease in the price. Commissioner Gallagher stated his concern about the affordablity he has spoken to before. The fact that 25% has restriction after the first day of sale brings it out of the realm of affordable. He would like to see the deed restriction placed on all units. A 525 square foot one bedroom unit is too small. Mr. Nudell responded as a private developer not having public funds, he has to balance the deed restriction with local resident housing. This has to be a doable project and this is one of the tools a developer uses. As for the size, there are a number of things to bear in mind. The utility room is moved out to the landing. There is a laundry facility inside the unit. There are decks on each unit. He thinks they are very livable. He thinks it will not be an unpleasant experience for people to live there. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the statement about the memo. He stated he would not approve of the suggested change as there are more than dogs listed in the Wildlife Memo. Item three is a suggested change and the suggested change #4 to replace condition #7. He stated the condition is rather weakly worded. Mr. Montag stated the Planning Commission's recommended condition was to take it into consideration as they go from sketch plan to preliminary plan. That was the intent to consider those items. Commissioner Menconi stated here they are analyzing the square footage of the units but they don't analyze the square footage of a second home owner. He spoke to the million dollar homes and that this isn't done for the upper end homes. Mr. Nudell is the one who is taking the risk in deciding whether or not the market could bear such a price. Here he is at sketch plan and willing to cap. He might be able to bring it in less than that to sell the units. He asked for comments from the other Commissioners about why at sketch plan they are delving into these questions. Chairman Stone stated the Deer Park application, he voted for denial at sketch plan and isn't willing to move anything forward that doesn't appear to be successful at preliminary plan and final plat. He stated it is a waste oftime and money to proceed with a project that you do not feel will succeed. He spoke to quality of life and what it feels like to live in a place. He stated when it comes to affordable housing and providing a good quality of life, these people deserve the same opportunity to have the same quality living experience. He stated he would prefer to not take a vote at this point of time and continue the hearing to see ifthere is anything the applicant can do to make the project more viable. He stated that is why he gives so much scrutiny to the price, the traffic, etc. and that is why he asked for suggestions on changes. David Nudell stated ifit is acceptable to them and if they can give input to make this project more acceptable, he'd be willing to take that into consideration. Commissioner Gallagher stated his concerns are similar to what Chairman Stone spoke about. The idea that if they call it affordable, it has to warehouse bodies, it is not acceptable. He spoke to the worker bees. People want a piece of the pie and that is a legitimate want. To be forced by their wages and ability to live in a cubby hole they call affordable is not acceptable. He would like to see a floor plan and to see what they are proposing. Chairman Stone suggested they should be encouraged by the consideration they are giving this file and that they are taking it seriously. He'd rather have it tabled for additional considerations. Commissioner Menconi spoke to his unit being 1000 square feet with a density of 20 units per acre. He stated he has gotten depressed over the last ten minutes. He stated he is honored to be sitting here as a Commissioner and representing people who come from his experiences. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board of County Commissioners table File No. PDS-00028, Woodland Hills PUD Sketch Plan to May 29, 2001 at the applicant's request. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 20 05-15-2001 Mr. Nudell asked ifthere is any possibility that they might meet with the Commissioners to discuss the proposal. Chairman Stone stated they are not able to do that. It was asked if public comment will be included at then next hearing. Chairman Stone stated no but they will read anything submitted in writing. PDF -00065, Cresta, Phase II PUD Final Plat Jena Skinner presented file number PDF-00065, Cresta, Phase II PUD Final Plat. The intent of this plat is to create 10 town home lots, common areas, and easements. This development is located in Filing 13, and/or Development Area 'A' of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD guide. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: a. This final plat DOES conform to the of the approval ofthe Preliminary Plat for subdivision. b. Required improvements ARE adequate. c. Areas dedicated for public use and easements ARE acceptable and; Pursuant to Sections 5-280.B.5 and 5-280.B.3.e. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (1) Consistent with the Master plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the Master Plan. (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4 Site Development Standards. a. Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. i. Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan or shall be required prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. ii. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines ARE sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption which would occur if under-sized lines had to be upgraded. iii. Coordinate Utility Extensions. 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 area IS served by the Arrowhead Metropolitan District, as well as other utilities. iv. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural, or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, as well as existing and probable future public improvements to the area. vi. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and DOES NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Chairman Stone suggested final plat is really the easiest level to be at as they are assuring that the conditions of preliminary plan have been incorporated in final plat. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. PDF-00065, Cresta, Phase II PUD Final Plat, incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the Plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 21 05-15-2001 ZS-00073, Century tel at Castle Peak Jena Skinner presented file number ZS-00073, Century tel at Castle Peak. The applicant desires to operate, and maintain an existing telecommunications facility (co-located with the Eagle County Sheriffs Department) comprising of: 1. Four (4) parabolic antennas (dishes) 2. Three (3), 39-50ft antennas The "microwave" tower, as it is also known, has been in existence since the early to mid 70's. Although Century tel has had a lease since 1971, the exact date of the actual construction, could not be determined. This Special Use Permit will bring current all County records with regards to this existing facility and will eliminate ambiguity for the BLM, Century tel, and Eagle County. The Chronology of this application is as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Telephone Company (of which Century tel has evolved into) was granted a lease from the BLM to construct and maintain a communications facility. c. Code enforcement issued a Notice of Violation for operating the tower without a Special Use Permit. d. Unable to verify that the facility had been constructed prior to 1974, Century tel is now applying for a new Special Use Permit for a Telecommunications facility. As this site has existed for approximately 30 years, the Planning Commission had no issues with this file. The Planning Commission voted unanimously, 7 :0, on approving LEA-00035, and again, for ZS-00073 (approval to incorporate Staff findings and conditions). No new conditions were added to this file. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: There were no referral comments received for this file. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.IConsistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. THE MASTER PLAN MATRIX THAT FOLLOWS ANALYZES THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN The Future Land Use Map designates this area as BLM land, or Public Lands. The plan discusses the unlikelihood for residential uses, and that public access to these lands should be available. 22 05-15-2001 The plan is silent in regard to Telecommunication Facilities. Staff can make a favorable finding. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x x x x x EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN x x x x The application site is situated within the watershed boundary. The site, however, is not directly adjacent to any water course, or collector area. Due to the nature of the equipment, and the longevity of the site not causing any problems, Staff can make a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use Permit CAN be shown to be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and Master Plan FLUM, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. As this site has been in existence for approximately 25-30 years without complaint, and due to the site's remote location, Staff can make a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.3 Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Apvlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The existing Telecommunication Facility will be located in the Resource zone district. There are no specific standards for these types of uses found in Section 3-310. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and the standards applicable to the particular use, as 23 05-15-2001 identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Azricultural and Resource Uses STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands,. furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. As this facility has been in existence for many years, it is anticipated that any existing impacts will remain constant. As of this date, there have been no complaints received regarding this facility. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design ofthe proposed Special Use DOES adequately minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, while the proposed Special Use CAN avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, glare, and vibration, it CAN avoid adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding noise and traffic, and WILL NOT create a nUisance. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.5 Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The applicant has addressed this section adequately, and a favorable finding can be made. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use CAN fully minimize environmental impacts, and though it will not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, and other natural resources, it WILL NOT cause significant deterioration to scenic resources. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.6 Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police andfire protection, and emergency medical services. This is an un-manned facility, with only the necessity of power to be available. The road used to access the site is adequate. Staff can make a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services such as roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and waste water facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) [n/a] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) No wood burning devices are proposed. [+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) An Environmental Impact Report was not necessary for this Special Use Permit. [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) [+] Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates in excess of the standards 24 05-15-2001 are not anticipated as a result of this development. [+] Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) There have been no complaints received concerning this finding. All Telecommunication facilities have to comply with FCC standards (the regulating authority). [+] Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) [+] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) No new roads will be created. [n/a] 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) [n/a] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). Standards in this section do not apply. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES fully comply with all the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.8 Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. No other applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations were found relevant to this proposal for Special Use. [+] FINDING: The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics Chairman Stone stated they appreciate the applicant going through the process to bring this into compliance. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to condition 2 and the modification of sites. He asked what are the conditions for this. Ms. Skinner suggested they incorporated the language that a separate special use permit may be required if a modification is planned to the site. Chairman Stone stated there will be a resolution as final action of the Board and they can work on the wording before that time. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00073, Century tel at Castle Peak, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Plans for any modification to equipment or to the site which would result in an expansion of this site, may necessitate a new special use permit if deemed necessary by the Community Development Department Director. Staff shall be authorized to modify the condition before approval of the Resolution. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0035, Adams Rib Ranch Randy Cloyd, representing Adam's Rib, read a letter to the Commissioners as follows: 25 05-15-2001 "We are disappointed that the process didn't work. We tried hard. Therefore, we are left with no alternative but to withdraw our Adam's Rib Ranch PUD and amend our Adam's Rib Frost Creek PUD. We are working on the revised layout of the Adam's Rib Frost Creek PUD and believe that it will have 60 units (plus or minus). Bland Pittman, our land planner, is arriving tomorrow to do a site- specific review ofthe Frost Creek project. Fred Kummer will be here Friday and Saturday to finalize the layout. We will then revise the 1041 and the PUD and submit the amended applications to the County. This amendment to the Adam's Rib Frost Creek PUD will be responsive to the comments we have received during the process and will bring this PUD into full compliance with the Eagle County Master Plan and the Eagle Area Community Plan. At the Eagle County Planning and Zoning meeting tomorrow we will ask that they table the Adam's Rib Frost Creek PUD until July 18, 2001 in order for us to revise this PUD." The letter was signed by Randy Cloyd. Boots Ferguson, Holland and Hart, stated the letter explains their coarse of action and they are withdrawing the applications for the Ranch at this time. Commissioner Menconi moved to accept the letter of withdrawal of file 1041-0035, Adam's Rib Ranch 1041 Permit, PDSP-00012, Adam's Rib Ranch Preliminary Plan, and ZS-00037Adam's Rib Ranch Zone Change, at the applicant's request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until May 29, 2001. Attest: Clerk to the Board :J!!O. ~ 26 05-15-2001