The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 05/29/2001 PUBLIC HEARING MAY 29, 2001 Present: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Arn Menconi Renee Black Jack Ingstad Sara 1. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Acting County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the first item before the Board is an Executive Session. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn into an Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding the sale of Airport Bond. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present at this time. The time was noted at 10:23 a.m. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. The vote declared unanimous. The time was noted at 11 :07 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of May 28,2001, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for May 31, 2001, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for May 1 and 8, 2001 D) Award bid to Faris Machinery for one 2001 road shouldering machine E) Contract between Eagle County and the State of Colorado for the Eagle County telecommunications planning F) Resolution 2001-070 concerning final release of collateral and termination of the warranty period for Cordillera Valley Club, Filing 6, The Sanctuary G) Early Head Start, one time quality improvement funds for 2001-2002 H) Community Service Block Grant Application for 2001-2002 I) Agreement between County of Eagle and the Eagle Valley Family Center, acting as fiscal agent for the Eagle River Youth Coalition J) Contract between the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Eagle County K) Resolution 2001-071 concerning appointments to the Down Payment Assistance Committee 1 05-29-2001 L) Assignment of Certificate of Deposit #6000035513 for Stephen and Susan Soldoffin the amount of $2,000.00 from Wells Fargo Bank M) Contract for Software and Services between V otec Corporation and Eagle County Government, for Elections and Voter Registration Licensed Software Maintenance and Support Agreement N) Marshall/Austin Productions Music, Stage and Production Contract. Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Renee Black, Acting County Attorney, stated there are no changes. Commissioner Menconi commented on item C, the Board minutes, he was not in attendance for the May 8 meeting and asked that it be voted on separately. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda excluding item C. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve item C, the Commissioner meeting minutes of May 1, 2001 Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve item C, the minutes for May 8, 2001. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Commissioners Gallagher and Stone voting aye, Commissioner Menconi abstained. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00271. Settler's Lodge. Tract J. Bachelor Gulch Village. The intent of this Type B Minor Subdivision is to create and define 16 condominium units and associated common elements in Settler's Lodge. Pursuant to Section 5-290 (6) (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-00271, Settler's Lodge, Tract J, Bachelor Gulch Village, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00272. Eagle-Vail Filin2 No.2. ARe-subdivision of Lot 22. Block 3. The intent ofthis Type B Minor Subdivision is to re-subdivide Lot 22 to create two (2) single family lots, Lot 22A and Lot 22B. He stated plat findings are as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (6) (1) ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (0) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an 2 05-29-2001 Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Gallagher asked if Eagle- Vail is part of the Land Use Regulations and if any changes have to be made to approve this file. Renee Black stated the provisions are in the Land Use Regulations to allow this approval to be made. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00272, Eagle-Vail, Filing No.2, a resubdivision of Lot 22, Block 3, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Board. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Board and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-072, Authorizing the Clerk to Conduct 11-6-01 Election by Mail Sara Fisher, Eagle County Clerk and Recorder, presented Resolution 2001-072, authorizing the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder to conduct the November 6, 2001 Election by Mail Ballot. She stated this is required by the Mail Ballot rules and regulations. She stated her office has done Mail Ballot elections in odd numbered years since 1993. She reviewed the entities that could be on this mail ballot elections. Commissioner Menconi asked about the Citizens for Quality Education, who expected to have a ballot issue on this ballot. He asked if they could choose either a polling place or be on the mail ballot. Ms. Fisher stated the School Board has determined they get much better turn out on a mail ballot election but they could ask to hold a polling place election. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2001-072, authorizing the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder to conduct the November 6, 2001 Election by Mail Ballot. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ms. Fisher thanked the Board for their approval of the contract with VOTEC, who will be the new election registration system. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Sara Fisher, Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda for May 29, 2001, as follows: A) Gwendolyn J. Braatz 3 05-29-2001 Fireside Lodge This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located along Highway 131 in Bond. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. Saddleridge at Beaver Creek This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located on Meadow Lane in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) Designs By Teresa Inc Asia This his a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located along Edwards Access Road across the parking lot from Fiestas. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. D) CNSC Inc Jambalayas Louisiana Grill This is a change of trade name from the above to Main Street Grill. This establishment is located at Riverwalk in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for May 29, 2001 as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Adam's Rib Ranch Metropolitan District No.1 & 2, Public Hearing Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher reconvened the meeting stating that Chairman Stone would not be present for the afternoon hearing. Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, stated the next three items can be handled together. Randy Cloyd, Adam's Rib, stated the Adam's Rib Ranch Metropolitan District was withdrawn officially at a Planning and Zoning meeting. The Frost Creek 1041 PUD and Zone Change were tabled to July 18th by Planning and Zoning and are therefore not ready to come before this Board. Mr. Montag stated Frost Creek 1041, Preliminary Plan and Zone change were continued to July 18th to allow the applicant to make changes to the plan and continue through the hearing process. He stated he understands the applicant has not asked they be withdrawn, only tabled. He suggested this Board could table the Frost Creek applications indefinitely and the public notice be re-done. He stated another option is for the applicant to withdraw the files. Mr. Cloyd asked they table the files indefinitely so the Planning Commission can hold their hearing. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher stated for the record the Board does take notice that the Metropolitan District Service Plan was withdrawn at the Planning Commission level and is not before this body. Commissioner Menconi moved to postpone indefinitely file numbers 1041-0036, Adams Rib Frost Creek, file PDSP-00015, Adams Rib Frost Creek PUD Preliminary Plan and file number ZC- 4 05-29-2001 00035, Adams Rib Frost Creek Zone Change, at the applicants request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two Commissioners the vote was declared unammous. PDA-00033, Arrowhead at Vail PUD Amendment Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number PDA-00033, Arrowhead at Vail PUD Amendment. She stated the applicant wishes to amend the Arrowhead at Vail PUD to: 1. Add 'Development Area P' to the definition of building height in Section 11,6, Definitions; 2. In Section XI, No. 18, under the Development Area P development requirements, Density: reduce the allowable density from 78 to 35 and eliminate all references to "two family" requirements; under Maximum Size: increase the maximum allowable building size on a single-family lot (all single- family lots being a minimum of 1 acre) from 7,000 square feet to 8,500 sq ft of Residential Floor Area and increase the maximum allowable unit size on a cluster home unit from 3,800 sq ft to 5,000 sq ft of FAR; 3. Also in Section XI, change "Lower Bachelor Gulch (Village)- Tract YY- MOUNTAIN LODGES" to "Lower Bachelor Gulch Village- Lots 112-115, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" allowing only 4 dwelling units (instead of 17 chalet units) and make other changes to be consistent with the Single Family Residential designation; 4. In Section IX, Uses: amend the Development Area chart to add lots 112-115 to the Single- Family Residential designation and eliminate "YY" under MOUNTAIN LODGES; 5. Add a new Section (Section XIV) clarifying the restrictions on interval ownership and timeshare use throughout the PUD; 6. Add a new Section (Section XV) addressing the permitted use of low power wireless communication antennas. 7. Re-number the last three sections of the PUD Guide to accommodate the addition of the new sections described in 5 and 6 above. The chronology of the property is as follows: 1981/2: Arrowhead at Vail created. 1993: Bought by Vail! Arrowhead Inc. 1993-2000: Several PUD amendments, Plats, etc. 2001: Arrowhead at Vail Filing 27 Final Plat (also known as Development Area 'P') was approved. 2001: Code enforcement on a wireless Internet company; Staff suggest use be added to PUD. 200 I: Vail Arrowhead Inc. is proposing a PUD amendment. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Additional Referrals were sent to the following: Eagle County Attorney, Environmental Health Arrowhead Metro District Arrowhead at Vail Homeowners' Association Town of Avon Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked about the wireless Internet. Ms. Skinner explained it is a very small receiver for the Internet. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: FILE PDA-00033 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 5 05-29-2001 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 controlled by Vail/Arrowhead Inc. [+] 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 efJectfor 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.f, Variations Authorized. All uses, except for proposed Section XI: Low Power Wireless, have been approved as part of the initial Preliminary Plan for Arrowhead at Vail. Staff feels that it is necessary for the PUD to address wireless use, as it was probably not contemplated 8 years ago (1993). Currently, use of wireless telecommunication is allowed by Special Use in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, with proposed amendments allowing low power wireless, in some instances, to be a use by right, limited review, or special use, depending on zoning. [+] 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 efJect for the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. [+] 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)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, O(fStreet Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, O(fStreet 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. Parking requirements shall remain the same. Staff may make a positive finding. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with 6 05-29-2001 the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed 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 Arrowhead Design Review Board, which ensures all landscaping requirements ofthe PUD are adhered to. This PUD Amendment shall not alter current landscaping standards and/or restrictions. [+] 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 Develovment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Any new signage throughout the Arrowhead ta Vail PUD shall be consistent with existing slgnage. [+] 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 Arrowhead at Vail 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 and fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] 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, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of 7 05-29-2001 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 grantedfor emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removedfrom the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. No new improvements are proposed. Staff may make a positive finding. [+] 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 proposed for the P UD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. As Arrowhead is an existing PUD, this finding has previously been made. Staff may make a positive finding. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. As Arrowhead at Vail is an existing PUD development, all Master Plan considerations have benn both made, and approved. Staff may make a positive finding. 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 providedfor 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. 8 05-29-2001 Not applicable / necessary, as is no new developments proposed with these amendments. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT necessary for this application. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (1) 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. (3) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Planfor PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. (4) 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. (5) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. No new development is proposed with this application. [+] 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. 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 previously. No new development is proposed with this application 9 05-29-2001 [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of 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 DevelolJment 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) [+] 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) [+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7)- Not applicable. All findings under this standard are either favorable or do not apply to this project. [+] 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 10 05-29-2001 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 Countv 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. This proposal will not cause inefficiencies, nor will it be a leapfrog pattern of development, as this is an existing development. [+] 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: Suitabilityfor 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 all suitability issues have been address at Preliminary Plan, and/or during the Building Permit process. 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. 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-00033 The proposed changes to the PUD guide are minor in nature, and have no significant issues surrounding them. The proposed changes are as follows: Add 'Development Area P' to the definition of building height in Section II, 6, Definitions. This addition is consistent with the existing PUD guide. In Section XI, No. 18, under the Development Area P development requirements, Density: reduce the allowable density from 78 to 35 and eliminate all references to "two family" requirements; under Maximum Size: increase the maximum allowable building size on a single- 11 05-29-2001 family lot (all single-family lots being a minimum of 1 acre) from 7,000 square feet to 8,500 sq ft of Residential Floor Area and increase the maximum allowable unit size on a cluster home unit from 3,800 sq ft to 5,000 sq ft of FAR. There are no issues with this amendment. Also in Section XI, change "Lower Bachelor Gulch (Village)- Tract YY- MOUNTAIN LODGES" to "Lower Bachelor Gulch Village- Lots 112-115, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL" allowing only 4 dwelling units (instead of 17 chalet units) and make other changes to be consistent with the Single Family Residential designation. There are no apparent issues with this change. In Section IX, Uses: amend the Development Area chart to add lots 112-115 to the Single- Family Residential designation and eliminate "YY" under MOUNTAIN LODGES. Add a new Section (Section XIV) clarifying the restrictions on interval ownership and timeshare use throughout the PUD. The applicant was directed by the former County Attorney to incorporate these restrictions into the PUD guide. Add a new Section (Section XV) addressing the permitted use of low power wireless communication antennas. This addition is necessary as private, low power wireless use (e.g. wireless Internet), is likely to increase as technology becomes more efficient. Re-number the last three sections of the PUD Guide to accommodate the addition of the new sections described in 5 and 6 above. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] - No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon afinding by the County. . . that (1) the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) does not affict in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Neither the decrease in density, increase in the floor area, nor is the addition of the use of Low Power Wireless telecommunications, expected to create a discernible difference in the nature of the development. Consequently, the proposed amendment is consistent with the existing PUD, will not affect nearby property owners, and would not be granted solely to confer a special benefit on anyone individual or property owner. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Amendment to Preliminary Planfor PUD The proposed PUD Amendment (1) IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Rick Pylman, Peter Jamar Associates, stated Ms. Skinner did a good job explaining the amendments. He further explained as follows: 1) The Arrowhead PUD has two definitions of building height. In the lower area building height is measured at 35 feet tall to the ridge line. In lower Bachelor Gulch it is measured at mid-point between the eve and the ridge. 2) Development area P - when that came through the process there wasn't a plan. The density is being reduced from 78 units to 35, using the single family cluster uses. They would increase the maximum building site from 7000 square feet to 8500. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked if they would be transferring the density. Peter Jamar, Jamar & Associates, stated they are not proposing to transfer at this time. 3) They are changing the density from 17 chalet units to 4 single family units. He stated they feel it more appropriate to keep it as single family. There was a request to amend the interval ownership 12 05-29-2001 definition by the Planning Commission. He stated that is not part of this amendment. 4) He spoke to the low wire power antennas. The county has been addressing those through special use permits. He stated it is really a visual issue and they can deal with that through the design review board. They make it allowable through the PUD guide. 5) The last changes are just renumbering. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Menconi asked about the decrease from 78 units to 35 units but increasing the Size. Mr. Jamar stated when they analyzed the property they feel that 78 units would be a push and too much an increase of traffic. Commissioner Menconi asked when this was approved. Mr. Jamar stated late 80's early 90's. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked when they talk about increasing the size does that increase the footprint. Mr. Jamar stated the building height restrictions will be the same. It might be a bigger footprint or a larger second story. Commissioner Menconi asked about the change in wording on #5 ofthe PDA 33 amendments. Ms. Skinner stated there should then be seven amendments as opposed to eight. Ms. Black stated they can make the motion reflecting what is on the staff report and incorporating staff findings 1 through 7. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked for clarification. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. PDA-00033, Arrowhead at Vail PUD Amendment, incorporating Staff findings and the numbered actions one through seven, removing number #5 and amend #7 to take out what's described in number five, leaving six. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDF -00038, The Ranch House PUD Final Plat Matt Gennett presented file number PDF-00038, The Ranch House PUD Final Plat. The intent of this final plat is to create a 1.7 acre lot which will include easements for open space and road / bike / pedestrian access as well. Six dwelling units (comprised of four multi-family and two single family units), agriculture, and contractor storage are land uses contemplated for this Planned Unit Development proposal. The chronology of this property is as follows and as shown on staff report: In June of 1996, a PUD Sketch Plan was approved, but it then expired in June of 1998. A multi- use, Minor PUD (PDSP-00007 & ZC-00026) was approved with conditions by the Board of County Commissioners in March of 1999. All of the aforementioned conditions have been met (see old staff report in backup materials marked "Draft"). 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: This final plat conforms to the of the approval of the Preliminary Plat for subdivision. Required improvements are adequate. Areas dedicated for public use and easements are acceptable and; Pursuant to Section 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 FLUM of the Master Plan (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision complies with all of the 13 05-29-2001 standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. (3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. 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. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions are allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural, or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. 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. All previous conditions for approval have been satisfied. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked for a closer sketch. Mr. Gennett stated he does not. He has the Mylar. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked to take a five minute break to locate the applicant. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated the applicant is on his way in so the Board will go on to the next application and return to this file later in the day. PDS-00028, Woodland Hills PUD Sketch Plan Keith Montag 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 is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1997: DRT discussed a pre-application proposal for 40 single family homes, 24 townhomes, 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 townhomes 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. 14 05-29-2001 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 of this 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. They added 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 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. 15 05-29-2001 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. Staff concurs with their recommendation for additional site-specific investigations and analysis to develop final design criteria for individual foundations. Groundwater: Staff concurs 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. Staff recommends 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. Staff recommends 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'\ 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 5t, 2001: Residents in the past have relied on the Edwards Sub-Area Master Plan from 1985. 16 05-29-2001 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. Storm water 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 7th, 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. 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 of the 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 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 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 F.3.f, 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 of the 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 17 05-29-2001 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 PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3,f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The current zone district is RSL. This project could be possible without a PUD in that RSL 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 of the 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, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the P UD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Landscaping is a major component of this 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. 18 05-29-2001 [+] 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 Development (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. 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 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 PUD 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 andfire 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-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be grantedfor emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services 19 05-29-2001 and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removedfrom the internal street network 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 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, 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 of the 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. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN x x x x x x Community Center! 20 05-29-2001 II II.. AP~i~:ble lCommunity 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. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN X1_ 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. [nla] Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success [nla] 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 21 05-29-2001 Xl x x x xl_ 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 ifthe proposed site is located on the associated, 1985 Edwards Sub-Area planning 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 ofthe 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 P UD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be providedfor 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 PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the P UD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-o.fways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable 22 05-29-2001 by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the 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: Minimum area; Improvements required; Continuing use and maintenance; or Organization. However, the Applicant MAY be 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). 23 05-29-2001 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)- [+] WiZcijire Protection (Section 4-430) - [+ ] 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 24 05-29-2001 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)] 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. David Nudell, applicant, stated the purpose of the application is to provide local resident housing. He read the three levels of the definition oflocal resident housing. He stated the project gives a great living situation for the residents. He spoke to individuals who are now renting. He spoke to some examples of similar properties with one bedroom or smaller, which are Sun River, Beaver Bench, Benchmark, Lions Mane and Pitkin Creek Park. He stated the one bedroom units at Woodland Hills are larger than half the size of two bedroom units throughout the valley. He stated the reason there are usually more than one person in a two bedroom place is the market rent is high. This forces people to live in roommate situations. These units give greater room and more living space with an opportunity to own instead of renting. He showed the floor plans of the units to the Board. He noted he customized the floor plans with input from a number of people. He spoke to the one bedroom and the coat closet and washer/dryer. He spoke to the outside storage which is about 40 additional square feet. He stated the bedroom is 12 X 13 with a full bath. He spoke to the two bedroom units and the separate dining area. The bedrooms are 11 x 14 with a walk in closet in the master bedroom. The second bedroom is 12 x 12. He spoke to comparisons with other units. He spoke to the freeing up of other rental units. He stated that will benefit by having 88 units to be freed up. He stated this is a stepping stone project allowing people to get into the ownership aspect. He spoke to the comments about the smallness of the one bedroom. He believes there is considerable demand for the one bedrooms with the garages. He spoke to the acceptance of the one bedrooms at the West Vail Lodge and the demand for the units. He read a letter from Jill Cleghorn. He stated it is for people like this that he has designed the one bedroom units. He spoke to the deed restrictions and the quick flip. He stated for the kind of project this is, which is a stepping stone project, most people's greatest source of wealth is their home. He quoted a local real estate attorney and her take on the deed restricted units. The buyer has no ability to advance themselves beyond the first unit. He stated deed restriction is no longer a stepping stone. The 10 two bedroom units will prevent the quick flip on the least expensive units. Those buyers will have to stay for five years to see the benefits. He doesn't see why they shouldn't be able to sell in two years. That is the American 25 05-29-2001 dream and he spoke to the rewrite of the tax laws. The one bedrooms are really a leg up from renting. He referred to the Brett Ranch project. Of the 156 units, 7 of those units were flipped in the first year. That is about 5%. He spoke to the 1 % transfer fee to those who want to buy and are not qualified residents. They believe because these units must be purchased only by Eagle County residents. He suggested only 4 of the 88 units will be flipped. He suggested they write into the developer contract the following - "no sales are allowed by individuals buying into the project while there are developer units still available." Second, they are willing to impose a 1 % recapture fee payable to the Eagle County Housing Division for any seller for the life of the project who sells for more than 15% greater than when purchased. This will create a long term benefit to first time home owners in the valley. He stated are people ultimately going to sell for a profit, that's the point. Are they going to appreciate unreasonably, he doesn't think so. He spoke to the restriction of selling only to local residents and the location. He spoke to the traffic. He stated this is a small project specifically designed for people already living in the valley. He spoke to the traffic study and the level of service being a C both with or without Woodland Hills. He reiterated they are in full compliance with the Edwards Traffic Plan and the Off Site Road impacts. They are contributing above and beyond what is required toward the perceived traffic problems. On the DOW issue, they want to modify one item allowing for up to two dogs for owners only. They have done a great deal of research for what works and what doesn't. What they can offer is one more option. If the Board feels the one bedroom units are not as needed as the two bedroom, they will offer four two bedroom units instead of eight one bedrooms. He stated they are offering more than any other developer. He stated they have worked hard with staff and the Planning Commission who have recommended approval. Tom Boni, Knight Planning, stated this brings to conclusion three or four hearings. They have seen the willingness on the side of the applicant to address the issues raised. He spoke to the neighborhood and as they have shown previously, Eagle River Mobile Home Park is on one side with Lake Creek and Brett Ranch on the other as well as the sewer plant. This has a character for resident housing. This is a small development compared to the others. The Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM, indicate this is located in the community center. The housing plan encourages this kind of development. They are compliant with the Eagle County Zoning and Subdivision plans. They did a traffic study at sketch plan and the conclusion is a 1.3 second delay at the intersection. It is small and it is on the bus route. He asked for the Boards approval of the project. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher spoke to the traffic and one of the complaints they hear is that coming out of the north side on Highway 6 to go left is nearly impossible. He stated here they are considering adding to that. He asked if they would be interested in putting in a traffic signal at Hill Crest with the understanding that future development would buy into that and reimburse them at a point in time. That won't reduce the impact but it may help somewhat. Mr. Nudell stated he was surprised at the location of the most recent light put in and the question as to why they didn't put it in at the entrance. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher explained that was to move children and pedestrians across the streets. Mr. Nudell stated he doesn't know what the price ofthat would be. He stated he would certainly earmark the monies he would put toward the study toward the light. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked about Tot Lots. Mr. Nudell stated there are six of them. Chairman Pro-tem asked about changing a two bedroom unit into a day care facility to keep the children and the prices within the development. Mr. Nudell stated he would certainly consider that. He suggested they would do that in lieu of one of the one bedroom units. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher stated they have long spoken of the obvious need for affordable housing. They seem to be serving more of the middle to upper end. He stated his concern is for day care, 26 05-29-2001 not if it is one bedroom or two bedroom, but not the square footage. Mr. Nudell questioned if they are expected to run the day care. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated he doesn't know how that would happen. The cost of real estate has much to do with the cost of daycare. He spoke to the traffic light and asked George Roussos, Asst. County Administrator, about the traffic light at Hill Crest and what the cost would be and if that is the right location. George Roussos stated the Access Control Plan did identify a light in that location for about 1/4 of a million dollars. He spoke to the Cordillera Valley Club building the road and then receiving re- numeration from the medical center. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher stated that is a lot of money, but some type of traffic control downstream is important to review. Commissioner Menconi stated one of his top priorities for child care takes into consideration the amount of square footage, access outside and fencing. He stated he would like to explore the opportunity to create more space. He stated this has been a conscientious effort. In trying to determine the facts he has found that many of those against are not knowledgeable of the facts. He thinks that what is occurring and in some peoples minds they have gotten misinformation in order to find against the plan. He stated the Board takes seriously how they go about reviewing the facts. He spoke to the traffic and the experts saying there will be minimal impact as a result of this project. He asked Mr. Montag to speak to the letter from Robert Warner and his concerns. Mr. Montag stated they did receive a letter from Bob Warner who points out a number of concerns he has and a number of issues mostly relative to staff's interpretations of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and specifically the RSL zoning. He has identified the Land Use Regulations are not totally clear on the RSL zoning. He stated Mr. Warner feels the past interpretation is that the minimum lot size for each multi family unit is 15,000 square feet. He stated he agrees the 15,000 is the minimum lot size but what is allowed is a multi family building containing 3 or more multi family units. He read from the definitions that RSL is accomplished by multi family residences. He believes that multi family units on 15,000 square feet are permissible. Mr. Warner had indicated it should be only one family unit. He spoke to duplex lots and the language there. They look at the lot size for a duplex and allow for a duplex lot to be split into smaller lots. You can have the multiple units per lot. 15,000 square feet they feel they can have 3 or more multi family units on 15,000 square feet. He stated when one looks at the impacts of multi family units, it may be wise to look at the number of bedrooms. All one bedroom units will be less impact, less bedrooms. There is potential for more impacts with the increased number of bedrooms. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked if the density the applicant is proposing is a use by right. Mr. Montag responded most definitely. Commissioner Menconi stated he believes the Edwards area people are mostly against this project. He does not think that this project is going to have a negative impact. He sees their job as needing to look at creating more entry level units in the County. He thinks it will be difficult for any proposals for the Edwards area. He spoke to the Edwards Community Plan that is very conservative and asking for little or no growth. He doesn't think that is very realistic. He believes the County will work on traffic issues as they come up and into the future. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked ifthey are going to be able to have 176 dogs there. Mr. Nudell stated if everyone has them, yes, but only if everyone has them. He stated they allow 2 dogs per unit at Brett Ranch and they do not have 300 dogs. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked if the demand for two dogs is that important. Mr. Nudell stated he has a rental unit and advertises no smoking, no pets. He stated the last time he tried to rent, the first fifteen callers begged them to allow dogs. He stated there is a big demand out there. Mr. Boni stated the DOW letter allows a maximum of two dogs per unit. It stated it does not 27 05-29-2001 require them to be in an outside kennel. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated it suggests one dog per unit in a kennel. He stated he did not see in the conditions the 1 % going toward the Eagle County Housing Plan. Mr. Nudell stated that is something they can include ifthey think it will be of value. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher spoke to the 3% appreciation cap and if it should be tied to the CPI. Mr. Nudell stated it is easier to administer and is consistent with what has been done before. The purpose is to try to keep the price of the units contained. The purpose is to prevent the quick flip. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher stated he would like to see the 1 % transfer fee in the conditions. He stated he does not feel comfortable today about placing a condition on the traffic light or the day care, but he would like to see that come preliminary plan. Mr. Nudell asked if they will be staying with the original 12 bedrooms. Jeannie Huff, a Homestead resident, stated she has some issues. She stated one of the conditions for the price cap is unless there is a 10% increase in lumber. She asked if they will be taking off the pricing because the cost of lumber will go up. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher reminded her that this is sketch plan. Ms. Huff stated that modulars are going up at the Edwards Elementary School for the next seven years. She questions how they can accommodate more housing when they don't have the infrastructure. She feels like the problems are falling on deaf ears. She suggested it is conflicting to want the appreciation but wanting the price to be down. They do represent Edwards, they do have facts, they are adults and have lived there for a long time. They do live there, they do have the facts and she hopes that they will look at the physical problems at the intersection. She stated she thinks there are other units that are approved and that they should look at those. She stated to look at the core of Edwards as already having dense zoning is unfair. She feels they are infringing on one person's rights to accommodate another's. She is for affordable housing but does not think it appropriate to rush ahead when this has been voted down before. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked that staff and the applicant work on the proposed conditions while they return to The Ranch House PUD file. PDF -00038, The Ranch House PUD Final Plat Mr. Gannett returned to PDF-00038, The Ranch House PUD Final Plat. He reviewed his presentation from before. Mr. Gennett presented file number PDF -00038, The Ranch House PUD Final Plat. The intent of this final plat is to create a 1.7 acre lot which will include easements for open space and road / bike / pedestrian access as well. Six dwelling units (comprised of four multi-family and two single family units), agriculture, and contractor storage are land uses contemplated for this Planned Unit Development proposal. The chronology of this property is as follows and as shown on staff report: In June of 1996, a PUD Sketch Plan was approved, but it then expired in June of 1998. A multi- use, Minor PUD (PDSP-00007 & ZC-00026) was approved with conditions by the Board of County Commissioners in March of 1999. All of the aforementioned conditions have been met (see old staff report in backup materials marked "Draft"). 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: This final plat conforms to the of the approval of the Preliminary Plat for subdivision. Required improvements are adequate. Areas dedicated for public use and easements are acceptable and; Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e. ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 28 05-29-2001 (1) Consistent with the Master plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision complies with all ofthe standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. (3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. 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. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions are allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural, or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. 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. All previous conditions for approval have been satisfied. Ken Long, Town Planner for the Town of Gypsum, explained the applicants request. He updated the Board on the property and what has been done. There is currently a large berm along the house hiding the equipment. The applicant was given approval to build four unit multifamily units in addition to the current one on site. Only one of those units has been constructed. The owner would like to create some employee housing so his employees have a place to live and do not have to drive to work. There are also horses currently on site but when the sixth lot is created the horses will be moved to another site. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated this is the most multi use project he has dealt with. He asked if they are planning on further subdivision. Scott Zeigler, applicant, stated for him to subdivide into three parcels, he would have to get rid of the heavy equipment. He stated he has run his business out of there for 27 years. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve PDF-00038, The Ranch House PUD Final Plat including staff findings and authorizing the Chairman Pro-tem to sign the plat. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00028 Woodland Hills PUD Sketch Plan Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher stated they will now return to this file. Commissioner Menconi stated Ms. Huff has mentioned that this has fallen on deaf ears, but this is the third meeting on this plan over the last three years. He spoke to Deer Park which was denied by the Board previously. He suggested the reason it was denied was based on affordablity. Mr. Montag stated it was affordablity, traffic and density. Commissioner Menconi stated there has been a lengthy process reviewing this project over the 29 05-29-2001 last few years. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. PDS- 00028, Woodland Hills PUD Sketch Plan, incorporating all Staff findings, and with the following conditions: 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. The applicant shall adhere to the Division of Wildlife memo dated February 26th, 2001. This requirement shall be incorporated as a component of the final Woodland Hills Park PUD guide to be submitted with the Preliminary Plan application. In lieu of kennels/no yards, the applicant shall incorporate strict leash laws with an escalating fine structure. 3. Applicant shall comply with Eagle County's 1041 permit regulations. 4. A permit for the proposed point of access must be obtained from Eagle County prior to Preliminary Plan approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 5. All recommendations made by the Colorado State Forest Service memo dated March 9th, 2001, shall be incorporated into the PUD guide and implemented at Building Permit issuance. 6. The applicant shall adhere to, and address the Colorado Geological Survey memo dated March 5th, 2001 as part of Preliminary Plan. Specifically, the following conditions apply to this application: a. A 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. A new drainage plan demonstrating where the drainage basin is located is required at Preliminary Plan submittal. b. Additional site-specific investigations and analysis to develop final design criteria for individual foundations is required at Preliminary Plan submittal. c. Foundation perimeter drains are required for any building to help prevent infiltration and to control wetting of potential expansive or collapsible soils in the immediate vicinity of the substructure. This note shall appear on the future Final Plat. d. Erosion and sedimentation control methods should be designed and in place prior to the start of grading. Once grading is complete, additional geotechnical investigations shall be performed to establish alluvium thickness or depth to competent bedrock, density and bearing capacity, and depth to groundwater. e. Prior to construction, any adverse conditions encountered shall be mitigated if necessary and incorporated into the final design of foundations. f. Existing septic tanks, leach fields, buried utilities, foundations and likely debris from past and existing uses must be excavated and disposed of offsite, not graded into the fill. This condition is to be carried over and incorporated as a condition of Preliminary Plan approval. 7. Pursuant to a memorandum from the Eagle River Fire Protection District dated March 3, 2001, all the proposed road networks must accommodate emergency vehicle turning radii. Additionally, fire hydrant spacing on improvement plans must be approved by the Eagle River Fire Protection Department prior to Final Plat approval. 8. At the applicants request, the approval of the 88 units, in regards to deed restrictions, are as follows: a) Must be Eagle County Resident or Eagle County Employer to buy any unit (Similar documentary paperwork as used in the Riverwalk PUD shall be incorporated). b) Permanent 3 % appreciation cap per year on 1 bedroom product i. 6 units at $120,000 per unit, 6 units at $135,000 per unit. ii. Allowance for periodic fix-up along set guidelines and prices for carpet, paint, appliances, etc. to be first approved by the Homeowner's Association. And then maximum sales price will be approved/signed off by a County Designate, and such agreement to be recorded at the County. c) 5 year, 3% appreciation cap on 10, two (2) bedroom units at $210,000 per unit. d) Initial and maximum price guarantees on all 1 bedroom and 10, (2) bedroom units 30 05-29-2001 subject to: 1. No decrease in density. ii. No unexpected requirements placed upon project prior to Final Plat. iii. No unreasonable (10% or greater) increase in the cost of concrete, asphalt, or lumber. e) Any unit proposed to be re-sold with a 15% increase or greater over the purchase price must pay a 1 % transfer fee to be paid to Eagle County Housing Division. 9. No building permits shall be issued for this project unless projected sale costs can be met. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until June 5, 2001. ~~~ 31 05-29-2001