Loading...
Minutes 01/29/2002 PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 29, 2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Torn Moorhead Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board Absent: Torn Stone Commissioner This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first item before the Board is the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of January 28,2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of January 8, 2002 C) Resolution 2002-010, Request for Internship Grant with Colorado Aeronautical Board D) Federal Aviation Administration Application for Federal Assistance Grant AIP-3-08- 0020-29 E) Colorado State Forest Service Grant to Eagle County Youth Conservation Corps for wildfire mitigation projects F) Resolution 2002-011 amending two regular public meeting days ofthe Board of County Commissioners for fiscal year 2002 G) Resolution conferring Power of Attorney up the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit No. 361, in the amount of$108,592.83 for the account ofMRLD, LLC, drawn on Weststar Bank to expire on February 2, 2002 H) Resolution 2002-012, final release of collateral and termination of the warranty period of Arrowhead at Vail, Filing 13, Sixth Amendment I) Indemnification Agreement with the United States Government for the transfer of the Gypsum Gun Club property to the Town of Gypsum J) Lease Agreement for Xerox DC480c, Digital Copier K) Lease Agreement for Xerox DC2006 Duplex/DF/MEM Color copier L) 2002 1500 4X4 Guad Cab Pickup, trade in #6993, 1997 Dodge 1500 4X4 M) 2002 Chevrolet Impala, police package 9C1, trade in #7398-21 N) (12) 2002 4X4 four door utility, trade in #6608-39, #6995-40, #7621-12, #7697-25, #7707-22,#7715-37,#5941,#6092,#6589,#6590,36577,#6572 0) (2) lIz Ton Cargo Vans, trade in 7432-1998 GMC Safari Van #7437, 1998 GMC Safari Van P) Agreement with Mountain Board of Cooperative Education for T ANF /Chi1d Welfare Services Q) Agreement with Samaritan Center of the Rockies for T ANF /Child Welfare Services R) Agreement between Eagle County Health and Human Services and Karen Lajoy Smith 1 01-29-2002 for TANF/Child Welfare Services S) Agreement with Robert Durham for TANF/Child Welfare Services T) Agreement with CSU Cooperative Extension for T ANF /Child Welfare Services U) Agreement between Eagle County Health and Human Services and Colorado West Mental Health for TANF/Child Welfare Services V) Agreement between Eagle County Health and Human Services and Michael Claussner for T ANF /Child Welfare Services W) Agreement between Eagle County Health and Human Services and Jose Banuelos for T ANF /Child Welfare Services X) Agreement between Eagle County Health and Human Services and Terri Allender for T ANF IChild Welfare Services Y) Agreement between Eagle County Health and Human Services and Joel Karr for TANFIChild Welfare Services. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Tom Moorhead, County Attorney, stated item G, Resolution conferring Power of Attorney, needs to be pulled. He stated this is for the account of MRLD and a new Letter of Credit has been received. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, pulling item G. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher stated Commissioner Stone is not present as he is at the State Legislature today testifying concerning private lands. Final Settlement, Harney Naill, Inc. Rich Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, presented final settlement for Harney Naill, Inc., for the Riverview Apartments remodel and renovation. He stated this matter was published. He stated they have received two claims, one of which has been settled and the other is outstanding. Mr. Moorhead stated there are two claims and there will be no monies disbursed until it has come to an agreement as to the amount. By final settlement the County has met the requirements of publication and the Board can proceed. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve final settlement for Harney Naill, Inc., for the Riverview Apartments remodel and renovation. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioner the vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2002-013, to Extend Approval of the Subdivision Sketch Plan for Castle Ridge Subdivision. Eagle County File Number SDS-00006. The Board considered the request for a two year extension at its regular meeting of December 18th, 2001 Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-013, to extend approval of the Subdivision Sketch Plan for Castle Ridge Subdivision, file number SUS-00006. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 2 01-29-2002 Resolution 2002-014, CDOT Appreciation Day Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, presented Resolution 2002-014, declaring Tuesday, January 29, 2002, as Colorado Department of Transportation Appreciation Day. She stated they are here to honor CDOT for their excellent and timely response in solving a community traffic problem in the Edwards area. Chairman Gallagher stated they are breaking ground today. At the Edwards Interchange there were some serious traffic problems. In November CDOT and Eagle County got together and decided what was needed was turning lanes and traffic signals. The earthwork and the paving had to be completed with urgency as the only batch plant available was due to shut down. They short circuited the normal process. There was no Intergovernmental Agreement. This work was done on a handshake. This project was engineered together and worked together. The County Road and Bridge Department moved the dirt and got the pavement laid down. CDOT helped and made sure it was done to the appropriate standards. Chairman Gallagher stated in two weeks they had the expanded roadways done, additional lanes in and the poles in for the signals. The signals became operational on January 9, 2002. He stated the improvement is magnificent. He expressed the Board's appreciation for what they did to make this happen. Commissioner Menconi echoed many of the thoughts or sentiments expressed by Chairman Gallagher. He thanked them for all the work and in helping the community. He read the Resolution for the record as follows: "Whereas, there has been a significantly increased level of vehicular traffic in and around the Edwards area of unincorporated Eagle County over the past ten years and, Whereas, the citizens of Eagle County are concerned that steps be taken to mitigate these traffic impacts to the Edwards Spur Road (I70G) and the associated ramps to Interstate 70 at Exit 163 and, Whereas, in November and December of2001, the Colorado Department of Transportation jointed forces with Eagle County to make various improvements to the Edwards Spur Road (I70G) and the Interstate access ramps significantly accelerating the implementation of the improvements planned and, Whereas, these improvements included re-paving the asphalt roadway and adding a turn lane under Interstate 70, re-paving the asphalt and adding a right hand turn lane to each of the exit ramps off ofI-70, and the installation of traffic signals at both of the ramp intersections with 1-70-G and, Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the extreme importance of the Colorado Department of Transportation's role in solving the traffic issues in the Edwards area of Eagle County and, Whereas, the purpose of CDOT Appreciation Day is to honor CDOT and those individuals who are responsible for helping complete these vital improvements to the Colorado State Highway system. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners hereby designates January 29, 2002, as CDOT Appreciation Day and extends its thanks to the following individuals for their roles in improving traffic safety in the Edwards area: Owen Leonard, Region 3 Director Jim Nall, Traffic Engineer Charles Meyer, Operations Engineer Ralph Trapani, Program Engineer Greg Fowles, Project Engineer Keith Powers, Resident Engineer Paul Dejulio, Maintenance Supervisor Mike Goolsby, Assistant Maintenance Supervisor 3 01-29-2002 Dave Kuhn, Patrol 14, Wolcott Scott Bishop, Patrol 14, Wolcott Jack Jones, Patrol 17 , Gypsum Paul Borden, Patrol 17, Gypsum Matt Jaramillo, Patrol 17, Gypsum, John Patterson, Patrol 18, Gypsum Mark Bacialli, Patrol 20, Dowd Junction Doug Kline, Patrol 20, Dowd Junction Butch Kenyon, Patrol 19, Dowd Junction Dennis Olive, Heavy Equipment Operator Don Olmstead, Traffic Electrician Gene Holder, Traffic Electrician Eric Kimball, Traffic Electrician Andy Schaeffer, Traffic Electrician Charlie Boughton, Transportation Worker I Tim Daniel, Transportation Worker I Jack Wooden, Transportation Worker I Dave Wilson, Operations Supervisor Clint Moyer, Operations Engineer Jim Hayes, Traffic Electrician Bill Gies, Traffic Technician Howard Fitch, Traffic Electrician Tom O'Donnell, Transportation Worker I Don Irwin, Transportation Worker I Clarence Groves, Transportation Worker I Charlie Nuttal, Transportation Worker I Gary Popovich, Transportation Worker II Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-014, declaring Tuesday, January 29, 2002, as Colorado Department of Transportation Appreciation Day. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00030, Hook Spur Ranch Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented file number PDS-00030, Hook Spur Ranch. He stated topics discussed by the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission include the following: The location and possible reconfiguration of the building envelope on Lot three. Options and impacts regarding driveway improvements and/or re-alignments. Controls related to the number, location and size of accessory dwelling units on the property. Standards regarding fencing on the property relative to wildlife. Limitations to the total square footage allowed for homes. The control of locations and/or size of agricultural outbuildings on the site. At the close of deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended approval, and added five conditions to the twelve proposed by Staff. These additional conditions are indicated in grey on pages 27 and 28 of this report. The Applicants are proposing a Planned Unit Development (PUD) that would create three residential lots and an open space tract on a 73.6 acre parcel adjacent to Hooks Spur Road southwest of EI Jebel. The present zoning on the parcel is Resource. Access is proposed from Hooks Spur Road. A historic ranch access crosses the old Rio Grande Railroad tracts (now the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding 4 01-29-2002 Authority ROW) before traveling up a very steep, heavily vegetated slope that parallels Hooks Spur Road along the northeast property line. Most of the property exists on an elevated terrace some 100 feet above the road, and is gently sloping to the north and east. Forty acres (more or less) of this terrace have historically been irrigated for pasture. The twenty four acres that exist above the irrigation ditches in the southwest comer of the parcel are comprised of relatively undisturbed native sage and scrub brush terrain. The terrace area is bisected by two drainage features which convey intermittent flows toward the Roaring Fork River to the northeast. No water was present in these drainages during a site visit in early November. Development of the property as planned will necessitate the crossing of one of these drainages with a driveway. The site is presently vacant of any structures. The Applicants are proposing lots of 16.5 acres each that would support a single family residence, an accessory dwelling unit and accessory residential and agricultural out-buildings. Building envelopes are located on each lot. Those portions of land previously irrigated outside the building envelopes will continue to be irrigated and used as pasture. The 24 acre portion of the property to the south and west that supports native vegetation will be set aside as an open space tract for the purpose of preserving elk and deer winter range. Water is proposed to be provided by well; sewage disposal would be by ISDS. No land use actions for the subject property predate this application. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineer (11/29/01) The driveway width, gradient and radius needs to be shown, and needs to demonstrate that the requirements of ECLUR Section 4-620.1.9 can be met. A preliminary layout and design will be required at the preliminary plan stage. The locations of any intermittent streams, flood plains, water bodies, dressiest, springs and wetlands need to be clearly shown on the plans where applicable. The completed access permits across the railroad right-of-way will be required as a part of the Preliminary Plan in order to demonstrate legal access. Eagle County Environmental Health (12/17/01) Engineered ISDS or on-site wastewater treatment may be required due to rapid percolation rates. Retaining existing agricultural uses and irrigation may interfere with the operation of septic systems. Future irrigation patterns should avoid septic absorption systems. Clustering the building envelopes to the south of the irrigated area may eliminate potential problems with septic systems. Colorado State Forest Service (12/14/01) The wildfire hazard for this development is moderate. The lot size is adequate. Fire behavior could be problematic on steep slopes, but building envelopes are located a safe distance away. Natural fuel continuity is not conducive to wildfire spread. Access to the subdivision is poor from the standpoint of wildfire control and public safety. Dual ingress and egress is important to minimize the potential for entrapment. The water supply is inadequate Implementation of the following suggestions will reduce wildfire hazard: Implement defensible space practices around all structures. A roadway meeting county standards should be provided, and should include provision for dual ingress and egress. A fire fighting water supply should be developed. A 25,000 gallon tank is recommended. Dispose of all slash resulting from right-of-way clearing and construction. 5 01-29-2002 Driveways should enter access roads at close to 90 degrees in angle for the first 25 feet, should be as short as possible and should have sufficient room at the residence to turn a fire apparatus around. Require fire resistant roofing material to be used in building construction. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) (12/17/01) Overall review does not indicate a potential for significant impacts to water resources. Implementation recommendations from NWCCOG's 208 plan should be utilized in the areas of erosion and sediment control, post-construction storm water run-off and riparian and waterbed setbacks, specifically: Soils in the area of building envelopes for Lot 1 and Lot 2 are subject to rapid runoff and severe water erosion hazard. Special attention should be devoted to erosion and sediment control practices in areas on or adjacent to these soils. The plan is deficient regarding specific measures that will be used to protect surface water quality. The applicant should develop a storm water management plan which meets the criteria listed in NWCCOG's Water Quality Protection Standards. NWCCOG's post-construction storm water detention criteria should be applied to minimize storm water pollutants. Runoff should be directed away from areas with high erosive potential. Placement of septic systems should avoid highly erosive soils. No soil disturbance activities should be allowed within waterbed set backs and riparian areas. Colorado Division of Water Resources (12/10/01) The existing well permits were issued assuming parcel sizes of 35 acres or more. If the parcel is subdivided, the presumption that there will not be material injury to the vested water rights of others or to any other existing well will no longer apply. An augmentation plan is required, or the Applicant may apply for a new permit for these wells pursuant to a District contract. Due to the lack of information, we are unable to comment on the physical adequacy of the proposed water supply. Colorado Geologic Survey (12/18/01) Nearly vertical slopes are present along the access road and adjacent to the southern drainage channel. Slope failure, and subsequent damage to the access road, may become a concern with increased landscape irrigation, ISDS flows and structural loading near the slope crest; The current access road should be analyzed for stability, and consideration given to a new access alignment, side slope re- grading or the construction of retaining walls. Building envelope setbacks from the slope crests should be maintained. The drainage channel that approximately parallels the lot line between Lot 1 and Lot 2 appears to convey significant seasonal flows. A hydro-logic study should be conducted to verify the suitability of the embankment and culvert system that is proposed to support the driveway between Lots 1 and 2 where it crosses this drainage. The culvert should be sized to handle seasonal flows, the embankment should be constructed to handle seasonal flooding. Building envelope setbacks from this drainage channel should be maintained. Town of Basalt (12/17/01) The area is outside the urban growth boundaries ofthe Town of Basalt. Initial recommendation is that development in these areas should be discouraged, or at most only allowed at a density consistent with past agricultural activities. If allowed, development should reflect low density clustered design that encourages the conservation of agricultural uses or open space. The following changes would significantly improve the quality of development in terms of environmental sensitivity: 6 01-29-2002 Lot sizes should be reduced to create a larger open space tract. Lots should be located east of the major drainage swale. Lot sizes of approximately 10 acres would allow for undisturbed wildlife circulation, and would leave vegetation along the swale undisturbed. Building envelopes should be reduced in size and allowances for building footprints and impervious surfaces reduced. Standards for the use of native vegetation and weed control should be included in the PUD Guidelines. Fencing standards should include wildlife compatible designs and restrictions on domestic animals including dogs should be established. Low levels of lighting should be required by the PUD Guidelines. No lighting should be allowed along driveways outside of building envelopes. Agricultural buildings should not be allowed outside of building envelopes, or in lieu of this standard, additional guidelines should be established covering size, number, lighting and location. Open Space uses should be further refined in the PUD Guide. Additional definitions of acceptable agricultural activities and uses should be included. Utility services and access road construction should be designed with high standards for protection of existing vegetation, habitat and ground cover. Additional comments may be submitted upon review by the full P&Z Commission. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District (12/13/01) A greater turning radius is needed at the switch back ofthe access road. No parking or storage of equipment should be allowed at the switchback. A water storage tank of 20,000 gallons should be located on the property for fire fighting purposes, and should be placed so as to be available year round. On any driveway longer than 400 feet, a pullout is required every 150 feet for passing. Dead end driveways should be provided with a cul-de-sac or hammerhead turnaround. Basalt Post Office (phone call on 11/27/01) No concerns at this time. Address numbers will be provided at final plat. Additional Referral A~encies, not responding: Eagle County Assessor, Attorney, Sheriff and School District; Colorado Division of Wildlife; Natural Resources Conservation; US West/PTI; Public Service; Holy Cross Electric, Basalt Water Conservancy District. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.1.a, Overview and Puruose. PUD Sketch Plan Review; the review of a Sketch Plan for PUD provides an opportunity for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for the proposed development. Consideration is given as to whether the application of a PUD to the site will result in significant improvements that would not otherwise be available through conventional subdivision, and whether the improvements proposed by the PUD are generally compatible with surrounding uses. Issues and concerns that should be addressed relevant to the approval of a Preliminary Plan are identified at this time. Staff utilizes the Standards for Sketch and Preliminarv Plan for PUD, as detailed in Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-240.F.3.e., and the Standards for Sketch and Preliminarv Plan for Subdivision, as detailed in Section 5-280.B.3.e in the review ofa PUD Sketch Plan application. The reader will note that there is some redundancy as these standards are applied. Pluses and minuses appearing before each Finding indicate where Staff has found that the proposed development presently meets that Standard ([+]), will not be able to meet that Standard (as proposed) ([-D, does not presently meet, but should be able to meet the Standard at Preliminary Plan ([+/-D, or that the Standard does not 7 01-29-2002 apply ([n/a]). Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F .3.e., Standards for Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The land is owned in fee simple by three brothers. Power of attorney has been assigned by all three brothers to Terrill Knight of Knight Planning Services for the purpose of processing this file. Prior to the approval of the Preliminary Plan, written consent of all owners acknowledging their willingness to adhere to the provisions ofthe PUD will be required (see condition # 2). [+/-] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person, but is instead owned in fee simple by three brothers. It MAYBE demonstrated prior Preliminary Plan approval that all owners have agreed to be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. 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 application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F. 3.f, Variations Authorized. The proposed uses of agriculture, single family residential and open space are designated as uses that are allowed, are allowed as a Special use, or allowed as a Limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Districts Use Schedule", in the existing Resource Zone District. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those spec~fied in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to 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 snow melt between buildings. The dimensional limitations proposed for the PUD are consistent with those found in Table 3- 340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the existing Resource zone district designation, with the exception oflot size. The minimum lot size allowed in the Resource zone is 35 acres. The applicant is proposing a minimum lot size of fifteen (15) acres. The applicant will request Variations to dimensional limitations with respect to minimum lot size as a part of their application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] With the exception oflot size, the proposed dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE consistent with the dimensional limitations specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the sketch application for PUD. Variations of the dimensional limitation for lot size MAY BE authorized at the time of Preliminary Plan application pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized,. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Offstreet parking 8 01-29-2002 and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A minimum offive (5) off-street parking places per residence is proposed. Given the density, intensity of use and available space, it is reasonable to expect that related standards be met. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] Off-street parking and loading provisions provided in the PUD DO comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off- Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Landscaping on a subdivision wide scale is not proposed by this plan. A Conceptual Landscape Plan indicating those areas where existing vegetation will be preserved has been submitted, and is sufficient for Sketch level review. Provisions for the regulation of illumination have also been submitted, and are consistent with the intent of applicable standards. The Town of Basalt has suggested that lighting of areas outside building envelops be further evaluated and/or restricted. The Applicant will be required to provide a detailed landscaping and illumination plan, to include plans for modified irrigation systems, with the application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Provisions for landscaping and lighting provided in the PUD ARE consistent with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. The Landscape Plan DOES NOT, at present, adequately delineate specific areas that will be disturbed, or how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will preserved or replaced, or how the areas disturbed will otherwise be re-vegetated. However, these details MAY BE addressed at the time of Preliminary Plan application. 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. Signs of the type contemplated by this standard are not planned for this residential/agricultural PUD. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] Sign standards WILL BE able to fully conform to applicable standards as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations at the time of Preliminary Plan application. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for P UD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Potable water suvvlv. Two valid well permits exist for this property. Both of these permits were issued under the assumption that they would be the only wells on parcels of 35 acres or larger, however, and the cumulative effects of these two wells supplying a subdivision of three smaller lots was not considered at the time. As such, a Water Augmentation Plan may be necessary prior to the approval of water rights for this development (referral response from the Colorado Division of Water Resources, 12/1 0/01). Prior to Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to clearly demonstrate that related approvals and permits are in place and that they are sufficient to meet the needs of the PUD as set 9 01-29-2002 forth in Eagle County's Land Use Regulations. Placement and design of various water system components should be submitted as a part of the Preliminary Plan (see condition # 4). Sewage disvosal. It is proposed that an ISDS be utilized for the three single family lots. Eagle County Environmental Health may require engineered systems given the rapid percolation rates of existing soils (12/17/01). Flood irrigation patterns historic to the site may also need to be altered to prevent the flooding of septic leach fields. The Colorado Geological Survey recommends that ISDS systems be set back from the crest of the steep bank to the northeast to prevent possible slope stability problems (12/18/01). At Preliminary Plan application, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that adequate sewage disposal facilities will be provided and that terminal components of the system will be properly engineered and located (see condition # 5). Solid waste disvosal. Given the presence of single family residences along Hooks Spur Road, it is reasonable to assume that service for the removal of solid waste would be available to this site. At the time of submittal for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that solid waste disposal services will be provided. Electrical sUlJplv. The Applicant has indicated that electrical supply services will be available to this site. Fire vrotection. The Basalt Rural Fire Protection District has recommended improvements to the access driveway, pullouts on access roads, turnarounds at the terminal end of driveways and the installation of a 20,000 gallon tank to supply water for fire fighting (12/13/01). In their referral response of 12/14/01, the Colorado State Forest Service provided a wildfire rating of moderate, noted poor access and the lack of dual ingress /egress, listed suggestions for the reduction of wildfire hazards on the site, and also requested that a fire fighting water supply of25,000 gallons be provided. When applying for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that adequate fire protection measures have been taken, and that adequate fire protection services will be available for this development (see condition # 7). Roads. The site is presently accessed by a single driveway off of Hooks Spur Road. The drive crosses the right-of-way of the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA) which parallels this section of Hooks Spur Road. The applicant has provided evidence that a private way license should be available to the owners of the proposed lots (letter from Tom Newland, 11/05/01) to cross RFRHA land. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate that necessary access permits have been obtained at application for Preliminary Plan approval. For the first 800 feet, the proposed access drive is narrow, somewhat steep, and a 180 degree switch back is required midway through its course. This portion of the drive does not presently meet County standards, and both the Basalt & Rural Fire Department and the Colorado State Forest Service have noted that improvements to the drive will be necessary to allow access for fire fighting apparatus, and CGS has recommended analyzing the road and its side slope configuration for stability. Driveways on the more gentle upland terrain are proposed to be constructed within an access and utility easement, and should not be problematic. Some level of engineering will be required where the driveway crosses the drainage channel between Lots 1 and 2 (CGS referral, 12/18/01). A present lack of dual ingress and egress to the site has ben noted, and might be resolved through the extension of the driveway easement and driveway improvements across Lot 1 to the western property line where an existing driveway traverses adjoining land (see condition # 3). Proximity to schools. Dolice and fire Drotection. and emergencv medical services. It is assumed that the nearest schools, medical, police and fire services are located in either El lebel or Basalt. Both towns are within three miles of the site. When applying for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant is required to demonstrate that schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services will be available to this development. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully 10 01-29-2002 demonstrated that the development proposed will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, and that it will be will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. However, such demonstration MAY BE made at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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-o.fway, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. Considerable work will be required to bring the existing driveway into conformance with applicable standards. Regrading, widening, enlarging the radius of the switchback and retainage of the uphill bank will likely be needed. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate that all applicable standards can be met at the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval. (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. No internal pathway systems are proposed by this plan. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. As previously discussed, significant improvements may be required to that portion of the access drive that climbs the steep slope on the northeastern edge of the property. Otherwise, appropriate easements have been defined and are indicated on the site plan. Provisions for secondary emergency vehicle access to the site from the driveway that borders the western property line should be considered to provide dual ingress/egress. (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. A private way license from the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority (RFRHA) will be required prior to application for Preliminary Plan Approval. This development, as proposed, should otherwise be able to meet the specifics of this standard without difficulty. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. Adequate space should be available on site for the storage of snow plowed and/or removed from roadways and parking areas. Snow storage should not be allowed to compromise the function of the driveway as an emergency vehicle access. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate that all standards of this Section regarding 11 01-29-2002 Improvements will be satisfied at submittal for Preliminary Plan Approval. [+/-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. These standards MAY BE met, however, at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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. The land proposed for development is currently zoned Resource, and is surrounded by other Resource properties. Lands east, west and north support single family and agricultural uses, and are minimally impacted by driveways, irrigation ditches, grazing, ranch homes and related accessory buildings and fences. Several homes have also been developed on large lots overlooking the property to the south. Hooks Spur Road is a dead-end gravel surfaced road that serves 20 or so ranches in the immediate area. Traffic volumes witnessed on this road on the day of site inspection were very low. The proposed home sites will exist considerably above and out of view of travelers on Hooks Spur Road, although the home site proposed for lot three (3) will be visible in the distance from a section of Hooks Spur just northwest of Hooks Bridge (near Basalt). While the lot size proposed will be smaller than that allowed by the present day zoning, the uses proposed should not be "incompatible" or "out of character" with those that exist on adjacent properties. Impacts to traffic on Hooks Spur Road will be only slightly more than what would occur if the property were to be subdivided and developed under existing zoning. Historic irrigation practices and agricultural uses will be continued. The establishment of a PUD provides the additional benefit of requiring the creation of a permanent open space tract, and allows for increased control of land use activities on the site through provisions of an approved PUD guide. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from Sketch Plan to Preliminary Plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the Master Plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSIS THAT FOLLOWS CONSIDERS THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. Eagle County Master Plan. Environmental Ouality - No long term negative impacts are anticipated. Open Space/Recreation - Proposed development is compatible with surrounding uses and avoids sensitive lands. 12 01-29-2002 Development - Proposed development does not conform to the FLUM. However, the rural character and scenic quality of the area will be largely preserved. Affordable Housing - Accessory dwelling units are proposed. FLUM - The Future Land Use Map indicates this area as "Rural", and further specifies that densities in rural areas should not exceed I dwelling unit per 35 acres. The proposed PUD will increase the density on the affected parcel by one dwelling unit (plus one accessory dwelling unit) over that otherwise allowed by current zoning. The density ofthe proposed development will be 1 unit per 24.5 acres. Eaele County Open Space Plan. Open Space Provision - The proposed development is sensitive to open space values. Visual Quality - No adverse impacts are anticipated. Development Patterns - Proposed development is in an outlying area approximately three miles from the commercial centers of both EI lebel and Basalt. The open space values of the area, however, should not be significantly diminished. Hazards - The site is not delineated on a Hazards Map, and building envelopes avoid areas with slopes in excess of 40%. Construction of the driveway will require stabilization work on the very steep northeast edge of the property. Wildlife - Proposed development is not located in an area designated critical to wildlife. The proposed open space tract sets aside property indicated on county master plan maps as deer and elk winter range. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN Mid Vallev Community Plan. 13 01-29-2002 Open Space/Environment - The Mid Valley Community Plan suggests limiting development on agricultural lands and encourages development on non-irrigated lands. This proposal develops irrigated lands, resulting in an estimated 10% loss of historic pasture. The terraced area of this property is designated as "open space" on the Open Space/Trails/ Thoroughfares Mid Valley Sub-Area Master Plan Map. The northeast edge of the property, along Hooks Spur Road, is indicated as an area of "medium density" on the Land Use Sub Area Map. However, setbacks from property lines and steep slopes render this area of the subject parcel unbuildable. One might therefore question the literal application of these maps to this area. If the general intent of the Master Plan is to keep development near the road, and maintain the upper pasture as open space, this plan does not conform. Valley wide views, contiguity with adjacent agricultural lands and flood irrigation practices will be preserved. The proposed open space tract will be maintained by a homeowners association through provisions in an approved PUD guide. El Jebel/Basalt - The sub area plan identifies this as a low density area (gross Du's/acre of 1/35 - 1/14), and states that "undeveloped areas on the south side of the Roaring Fork River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels". Provision is made for "density bonuses, such as a limited number of one or two acre lots" through the "implementation process". The "implementation process" indicates a high priority for the use of a PUD as the means of enforcing the policies of the master plan for this area. A site plan that would cluster the building sites on smaller lots toward the north edge of the terrace, as recommended by the Town of Basalt (12/17/01), would provide for greater conformity to the apparent intent of the Mid Valley Master Plan and master plan maps for this area. [+/-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS NOT presently consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans. The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance to all applicable Master Plan Guiding Policies at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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. Phasing is not proposed for this development. Driveway improvements will very likely be labeled as "public improvements" by the County Engineer, and the completion of the same required prior to the issuance of a building permit for any of the lots. A specific Site Development Schedule may be required at the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval. Initial site disturbance, vegetation protection, landscaping, drainage and erosion control, irrigation and water supply improvements and the installation of open space protection systems would be addressed (see condition # 11). [+/-] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT proposed for this development. A specific Site Development Schedule sufficient to meet the requirements of this standard MAY BE required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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 14 01-29-2002 County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (1) 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. (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 ofthe 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 Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for 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. The recommended minimum of 25% of the total land area is met by this proposal, which sets aside 24 acres of use able open space. This is approximately 33% of the total area proposed for development. The Town of Basalt has noted a lack of definition regarding uses allowed in the proposed open space tract. A full discussion regarding restrictions and/or covenants protecting open space areas, and provisions for the long term use and maintenance of open space areas and related improvements will be required as a part of the Preliminary Plan to satisfy the requirements the applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. Activities allowed on the open space tract should be specifically directed at its intended use as a winter range for deer and elk (see condition # 10). [+/-] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD DOES NOT, as yet, fully comply with the common recreation and open space standards. The Applicant MAYBE able to comply with related standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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 referral agencies that have responded regarding this application are indicated on page two, three and four of this report. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate the manner in which the recommendations made by the Applicant's own analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of all referral agencies, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. The Town of Basalt noted that this area is outside the urban growth boundaries ofthe Town of Basalt, and recommended a number of changes to "improve the quality of development in terms of environmental sensitivity". Staff believes these suggestions are for the most part appropriate, and would 15 01-29-2002 offer the following item specific responses: 1) Lot sizes should be reduced to create a larger open space tract. Lots should be located east of the major drainage swale. It would seem of questionable value to expand the open space tract to include areas previously irrigatedfor pasture. The use of building envelopes to control site disturbance will result in most of the pasture land remaining open space. The steep scarp on the northeastern edge of the property and the two drainage swales will also remain undeveloped. Staff would agree, however, that certain benefits would be realized through a greater clustering of building sites on smaller lots. Services would be consolidated, overall site disturbance would be reduced, impact on the southern drainage feature by a driveway would be avoided, and a greater uninterrupted open space would be retained to the west. Depending on one's interpretation, a more clustered plan would be in closer conformance to provisions of the Mid Valley Master Plan for this area. Conversely, the "spreading out" of home sites on the property would lead to setting more "rural" in nature, and therefore more in keeping with the nature of developments on adjacent properties. 1. Lot sizes of approximately I 0 acres would allow for undisturbed wildlife circulation, and would leave vegetation along the swale undisturbed. It is not clear how 10 acre lots would increase opportunities for wildlife circulation over and above the plan proposed, as the density of homes and the amount of wildlife-usable open space would remain the same. Staff would note that the Division of Wildlife did not respond to a request for comment. Vegetation in and along the drainages is proposed to be preserved. 2. Building envelopes should be reduced in size and allowances for building footprints and impervious surfaces reduced. Building envelopes proposed are approximately two acres in size. Staff would assume that the size of the envelopes is more a response to the need for flexibility of siting than it is a indicator of the size of the homes that may eventually be built. At present, the allowance for structure coverage would be 9,000 square feet, and impervious surface coverage would be 18,000 square feet. Provisions in the PUD Guide to limit the size of homes, accessory structures and impervious surfaces on the property may be further modified. 3. Standards for the use of native vegetation and weed control should be included in the PUD Guidelines. 4. Fencing standards should include wildlife compatible designs and restrictions on domestic animals including dogs should be established. 5. Low levels oflighting should be required by the PUD Guidelines. No lighting should be allowed along driveways outside of building envelopes. 6. Agricultural buildings should not be allowed outside of building envelopes, or in lieu of this standard, additional guidelines should be established covering size, number, lighting and location. These are reasonable requests, and evidence should be provided that they have been appropriately considered and/or incorporated at applicationfor Preliminary Plan approval. 7. Open Space uses should be further refined in the PUD Guide. Additional definitions of acceptable agricultural activities and uses should be included. Staff would agree. Uses allowed should be more greatly defined to reflect the preservation of the open space tract for wildlife winter range. As an example, agricultural and ranching uses in this area should not be allowed. 8. Utility services and access road construction should be designed with high standards for protection of existing vegetation, habitat and ground cover. Staff would agree. [+/-] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES 16 01-29-2002 NOT fully demonstrate that 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, have been considered. However, adequate consideration MAY BE demonstrated at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e., Standards for Sketch 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 earlier discussion, "Consistency with Master Plan" on pages 13, 14 and 15. [+/_] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS NOT presently consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans. The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance to all applicable Master Plan Guiding Policies at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts [+] Uses - Uses proposed are consistent with those allowed. [_] Lot dimensions - Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized for a PUD, a Variation would be required for proposed minimum lot size of 15 acres. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Please note earlier discussion. Off- street parking and loading provisions provided in the PUD comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Please note earlier discussion. Plans for landscaping and illumination have been submitted and are deemed adequate for sketch plan approval. [n/a] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified at the writing of this staff report regarding wildlife. Further refinement of the uses allowed in the open space tract is recommended. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - No geologic hazards have been identified that would preclude the development ofthis property as proposed. The Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS) has recommended that the portion of the access drive that negotiates steep terrain be analyzed for stability, and that building envelopes be maintained an appropriate distance from the edge of the steep scarp on the northeast edge of the property. The means by which the southern drainage feature would be crossed with a driveway should be carefully evaluated and engineered. The Northwest Colorado Council of Governments has noted the susceptibility of soil types on the property to erosion, and has recommended that special attention be given to erosion control and soil stabilization practices. The Applicant should plan to incorporate and/or address all of the recommendations of their soils engineer, HP Geotech, Inc., and those of CGS and NWCCOG in their application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - Provisions related to wildfire protection have been included in the application. The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has noted a moderate wildfire hazard on this site. CSFS recommends driveway improvements and the development of a firefighting water supply, in addition to the incorporation of standards related to the disposal of slash and the use of 17 01-29-2002 fire resistive building materials. CSFS' s recommendations should be incorporated into the PUD Preliminary Plan and the PUD guide. [+ ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - Wood burning devices, if proposed at the time of application for building permit, will be required to meet applicable County standards. [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not in an area designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - A preliminary Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was submitted with the application and was deemed to be sufficient for the Sketch Plan application. The Applicant is advised that if significant environmental issues are subsequently identified, a more extensive EIR will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+/ -] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [-] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - Please note earlier discussion related to access and driveway standards. The County Engineer has noted that the applicant will be required to meet standards found in Section 4-620.J.9 of Eagle County Land Use Regulations at preliminary plan application. The Colorado Geologic Survey and the Basalt and Rural Fire Department have also noted improvements that will be required to the driveway. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Eagle County Trails Plan reflects a trail in this area within the abandoned rail corridor. The development as proposed should not interfere with this plan. No internal trails are proposed. [-] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - The site has been historically flood irrigated, and the applicant has indicated that surface water rights are available to the property. Evidence that water use will comply with the requirements of applicable Colorado Law will be required as a part of an application for Preliminary Plan. Detailed plans for any modification to irrigation delivery systems must be submitted as well, and will be reviewed by the Director of Environmental Health. Irrigation ditch easements should be developed and indicated on the preliminary plat. Provisions for the maintenance of all irrigation systems should be included in the PUD guide. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - Historic drainage patterns are to be maintained. On- site storm water retention should be addressed, and a full drainage report and storm water control plan will be required at the time of application for Preliminary Plan. Maintenance of proposed drainage and storm water control systems should be addressed in the PUD guide. [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - General information regarding grading and erosion control is included in the Sketch Plan application. More specific information will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - Standards for lighting are discussed in general in the PUD Guide. Detailed information regarding utility layout and installation will be required as a part of the Preliminary Plan. [- ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - Please see earlier discussion under Adequate Facilities on page 9. Potable water is proposed to be provided by wells. A 20,000 to 25,000 gallon tank is recommended for fire suppression. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has indicated that a Water Augmentation Plan may be required prior to the issuance of water rights and/or well permits for this development. These issues must be fully addressed at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) are proposed. Engineered systems will likely be required. This Section requires compliance with Eagle County Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations and is subject to review by the County Environmental Health Manager. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Lacking response from the Roaring Fork Valley School District, it is assumed that cash-in-lieu of school land dedication will be preferred. Payment will be due as a part of Final Plan Approval. 18 01-29-2002 Road impact fees will be assessed at the time of application for building permit per applicable Eagle County regulations. [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that 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. However, the Applicant MAY BE able to meet the applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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. The spatial patterns proposed by this development are not anticipated to cause the kind of inefficiencies contemplated by this standard. [+] 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. No conditions have been identified at this time that would preclude the development of this property as proposed. Access improvements will be required. Consideration and/or incorporation of all referral recommendations into plans submitted for Preliminary Plan approval will be required. [+] 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. Please note earlier discussion on page 13. The agricultural/residential use proposed is similar to and compatible with the existing land use in the surrounding area. It appears unlikely that the future development of the surrounding area would be adversely affected by the development of this PUD. [+] 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 WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant 19 01-29-2002 shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." The purpose of a Planned Unit Development zone district, as provided in Section 5-240.A., Purpose, is: "to permit variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations." This Section goes on to say that this purpose is to be achieved through the application of performance standards that: i. Permit integration of uses; ii. Establish more efficient land use patterns; iii. Preserve lands; iv. Maintain water quality and quantity; v. Contribute to trails system; vi. Establish incentives for affordable housing; and vii. Be consistent with the Master Plan. The Applicant has submitted a draft PUD Guide. Staff has looked for indications that one or more of the performance standards listed above are being served by techniques such as clustering of building sites, protecting open space and/or view corridors, or some other benefit which justifies the use of PUD zoning. The proposed development will preserve lands, but it is not consistent with all provisions of the Master Plan. The applicant may be able to demonstrate that the benefits of establishing a low density PUD in this area of Eagle County outweigh the anticipated impacts, and that proposed development does create a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations at application for Preliminary Plan. [+/-] FINDING: PUD Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD guide and MAY BE able to demonstrate that the requirements of this Section can be fully met at Preliminary Plan. Requirements for a Zone Change It has been recommended by the Eagle County Attorney that these considerations be reviewed at PUD Sketch Plan, even though zone changes are not granted for a PUD at Sketch Plan. It is almost impossible to avoid confronting these requirements at this stage since they are fundamental to the location appropriateness of the proposed land use. Staff has therefore provided a list of the criteria that must be met for a zone change, pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for amendment to the Official Zone District Map. (1) Consistency With Master Plan. (2) Compatible with surrounding uses. (3) Changed conditions. (4) Effect on natural environment. (5) Community need. (6) Development patterns. (7) Public interest. The Plan as submitted by the Applicant, and conditioned by this report, MAY be found to fully comply with the standards for Zone Change at application for Preliminary Plan. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, stated Mike Davies, applicant, was present for the hearing. He stated this project began as a family project. The lots could be sold at a later date. He stated the point from which they began was the Master Plan as well as the changing character of the area. While it remains rural there are houses and barns and small enclaves being constructed in the area and the area is designated by the Master Plan to be rural. He stated they had good contact with the neighbors and have a lot of support. One neighbor was concerned with the Hook Spur name as there is another project called Hook Spur Ranch. He stated a good portion of the property is pasture land and the goal is to 20 01-29-2002 continue that. When first looking at the project they intended to place the houses up on higher ground but in reviewing the wildlife concerns the houses were moved to the pasture area and where possible, behind stands of trees. He stated this is a good combination of putting controls on the land. They are preserving the upper 24 acres for recreational use. The sage brush will stay until it needs manipulation. They felt it was important to create building envelopes, which are shown on the map. They are approximately 2 acres in size which will hold the house, garage and barns. The bulk of the buildings will be in the building envelopes. The uses will be limited outside the building envelopes. The location of the driveways are in place and it has been agreed upon that is the best location. They will work on the curve to make it more accessible for emergency vehicles. They will have the final design at preliminary plan and have those signed off by the Fire Department. He stated the idea of clustering was brought up at the Planning Commission but the area is small and they have large houses scattered. They will come back with more detail at preliminary plan. Mr. Knight spoke to the Planning Commission comments and the issue of fencing. They do not disagree with the standards of fencing for the passing of wildlife. The border of the properties will have fencing that is accessible to wildlife however, they believe there should be an area inside the building envelopes that is available for wildlife proofed fencing, i.e. yards and gardens. The PUD Guide as suggested the Planning Commission should be considered at preliminary plan. They have proposed a percentage of each lot concerning how large of a home or barn is reasonable. The out buildings will also be defined. He stated they do not agree with condition 14. He stated they proposed a 1,200 square foot caretaker unit on each of the parcels. They believe this is appropriate. He stated the Planning Commission is concerned with the scattered look. He stated they have agreed to cluster those within the building envelopes and will look at those carefully. The caretaker unit proposed is consistent with the Master Plan. He stated condition 15 is an overlap of condition 14 to an extent. The statements made were for the applicant to look at this issue and the visibility. They have agreed to do more research and justification. There are houses all around this property. He stated they are willing to look at reasonable sizes of the proposed buildings and they do intend to restrict the sizes. Mr. Knight pointed out on the map the lots and the current proposed building envelopes. Access will be provided to all three lots within the site. He spoke to the drainage way across the site. It is well vegetation and separates the site nicely. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Menconi asked if the applicant owns the property. Mr. Davies stated they have owned this property since the early 80's and has been gifted to the three brothers. Commissioner Menconi asked if they intend to move to the area or will this be their second home. He questioned if they will be using this property for investment purposes. Mr. Davies stated they are not at the stage in their lives where they can afford second homes. It is his intent to move here as soon as possible. His two brothers will be holding onto the property to an undetermined amount of time. The idea has been to have this as a place to come back to the valley and build a home, not as investment property. Commissioner Menconi referred to page 4 of staff report, NWCCOG comments, there are several concerns, the plan is deficient regarding certain measures used to protect surface water quality, a storm water management plan should be developed that meets the criteria and post construction storm water detention criteria should be applied to minimize storm water pollutants and run off being directed away from areas of high erosive potential. Mr. Simonton stated the review ofthe preliminary plan will necessitate the review of all concerns. He stated at sketch plan these concerns are in the findings to allow the applicant time to answer them. At this time this level of detail is not required. Commissioner Menconi spoke to concerns from the Colorado Division of Water Resource, well permits and managing the water for the inhabitants and for fire safety. 21 01-29-2002 Commissioner Menconi spoke to the comments from the Colorado Geological Survey, current access road should be analyzed for stability and consideration given to a new access alignment, side slope regrading or construction of retaining walls, hydrology studies should be conducted to verify the suitability of the embankment and a culvert system between lots 1 and 2. Mr. Simonton stated there is a gap in the vegetation that crosses the drainage. There is an embankment on that culvert. He stated the old rancher used this as access. Mr. Davies stated there are two areas that are crossing. The point Mr. Simonton is referring to has no existing culverts. He stated they are looking at both of those. Commissioner Menconi stated additionally the building envelope set back from the drainage channel should be maintained. He spoke to concerns from the Town of Basalt. It appears many of the issues brought forth from the Town of Basalt are also of concern to him. On page 8, off street parking and loading, it reads provisions for the regulations of illumination have been submitted and are consistent with the intent with the applicable standards. The Town of Basalt has suggested that lighting outside of building envelopes be further investigates. It appears they want to assure there is a conservation with the use of lights. Mr. Knight stated he address all of the comments when he is finished. Commissioner Menconi stated on page 15, under Mid-Valley Community Plan, setbacks from property lines and steep slopes render this area unbuildable. If the general intent of the Master Plan is to keep development near the road and maintain the upper pasture as open space, then this plan does not conform. Mr. Simonton stated there are two maps provided, the Open Space Map and the Density Map. The Open Space Map indicates the terrace area is to remain open space. The Density Map indicates a zone along the road that begins about halfway through the property and moves to the North and West that is designated as medium density. It is absolutely impossible to build anything in this area because of the terrain. The property line for this property is up against the very steep banle It is subject to interpretation. There was density allocated for that area and the upper area was to remain open space. He stated the use of a PUD is an excellent approach and the Mid Valley Plan does provide for increases in density above zoning through certain implementation processes. One of the processes identified that is recognized as the best process is an application of a PUD to the land. Commissioner Menconi asked if the undeveloped areas on the South side of the Roaring Fork River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels, provisions are made for density bonus such as a limited number of one or two acre lots through the implementation process which indicates a high priority for the use of a PUD as a means of enforcing the policies of the Master Plan. Would that further clarify the point made by Mr. Simonton? Mr. Simonton stated with the exception of the 1 or 2 acre lots. Commissioner Menconi mentioned the site plan that would cluster the buildings on smaller lots. He asked for the reasoning. Mr. Simonton stated the literal application would be that they would allow the applicant some increase in density if they were only one or two acre lots. Commissioner Menconi stated it appears there is a clustering of buildings on lots one and two but lot three is an outlier. Mr. Knight stated there are a myriad of issues. He related they have taken the conditions of the land and the issues of the out lying area, like views from greater distances. He stated they spaced the houses as they could for the 20 acre lots. He stated he believes the Town of Basalt must look at the plan as a whole. He stated this plan accomplishes those goals. He stated they have made their best judgement on the property and believe it is the right one. He stated the steepness ofthe property led them in this way. Commissioner Menconi stated it is his intention to take the process the applicant has taken and the concerns expressed and make a decision. He asked why the building envelope on lot three was to the 22 01-29-2002 east end of the lot. Mr. Knight stated there is a large house and barn currently. He stated the view from the North would not be as good if the three houses were clustered. He stated the vegetation below and the driveway is protected from as many directions as possible. Commissioner Menconi asked for staff s 'opinion. Mr. Simonton stated he mirrored the comments by Mr. Knight. He stated spreading the homes out is consistent with the area. He stated if clustered they would be visually impacted. Commissioner Menconi asked about page 18 and the comments by the Town of Basalt, lot size should be reduced to create a larger open space tract. Lots should be located east of the major drainage swale. Mr. Simonton stated it seems of questionable value to create smaller lots as the uses on these lots will be restricted to single family, accessory buildings and agricultural mix. Putting those uses on smaller lots will not create a greater amount of open space that would be perceived visually. Commissioner Menconi questioned accessory dwelling units and that the applicant could create four accessory dwelling units currently. Simonton stated they would be able to subdivide into two 35 acre tracts and the accessory dwelling units could be detached and be 1,800 square feet and no restrictions would apply to the homes. Commissioner Menconi asked if there could be other facilities built on the property. Mr. Simonton responded there could be agricultural buildings without limits. Commissioner Menconi stated currently the applicant is proposing three houses, three detached accessory units and various out buildings. He questioned the number of agricultural buildings. Mr. Simonton responded that would be determined through the PUD Guide. Currently the agricultural buildings would not be restricted. Mr. Knight responded to Commissioner Menconi's comments. He stated they do have a drainage way in the center of the property. The project has been flood irrigated for many years. The slopes are stable and they will be doing a water quality management plan. The preliminary plan will have a great deal more detail. The Division of Water Resources, Kevin Patrick, is involved and is in the process of completing a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District that will probably replace the existing well permits in place. Water will be in place at preliminary plan. The comments from the Colorado Geological Survey are being taken into account, specifically road slope and stability. Each driveway needs to be designed appropriately and the drainage way will have an engineered culvert or water passing system. Setbacks from the channel will be adhered to. They recognize the need for control of lighting, down lit, this would at worst appear to be a dot in the night as with the others in the area. Setbacks from the slope are a geologic and technical issue however no homes will be built close to the slopes. It was not their goal to be totally covered by vegetation. The Master Plan should be looked at as a whole. He pointed out their plans changed based on the conditions. As far as smaller lot sizes, these are smaller lot sizes. The buildable area is 2 acres which is what is being recommended. They need to address the size and use of agricultural buildings. Any large barn must be within the building envelope, and smaller buildings might be out on the site and may be more appropriate. They have agreed to limit those to the size of the home. He stated there is no ridge line. He stated they have taken a very careful look at the use of the property that is sufficiently restricted and not obtrusive to the neighborhood. Commissioner Menconi asked about a possible range of square footage of the proposed homes. Mr. Knight stated they were considering a maximum limit of25,000 square feet. Commissioner Menconi asked how the applicant felt about a limit of 5,000 square feet. Mr. Davies stated their desire is not to have an enormous place but would like to have the flexibility to have larger. It is hard to put a limit on the size of a residence and related they are trying to have covenants to limit those. Commissioner Menconi stated it is his concern as to the size of dwelling units. 23 01-29-2002 Mr. Davies stated their vision is to use low lying structures in the ranch style that is sheltered and camouflaged, blending into the area. Chairman Gallagher asked about current agricultural uses. Mr. Knight stated the property is irrigated pasture land on the middle terrace and moderated grazing in the sage brush area. Mr. Davies stated it is not mowed and baled but is been grazed by cattle and horses. Chairman Gallagher asked what will happen to the property after the development. Mr. Davies stated the property will remain the same. Chairman Gallagher asked who will own the open space. Mr. Knight stated it will be owned by the association, which will consist of the three brothers. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the combination of agricultural out buildings and within the open space adjacent to one ofthe other properties, thus minimizing the number of buildings. Mr. Knight stated they will consider that. Chairman Gallagher stated the County GIS can help with maps to scale. He asked outside of the building envelope what kind of fencing will be used. Mr. Knight stated they will be using a 42 inch fence as recommended by the guidelines from the DOW, to allow wildlife to pass over and under. He stated they are not proposing solid fencing. Chairman Gallagher stated maybe it would be an advantage to avoid fencing outside of the building envelope and have a common grazing area. He asked about the cottonwood elevation was on the North side of the property. Mr. Knight stated they are inconsistent. Chairman Gallagher questioned ISDS and if there a possibility in consolidating sewage disposal. Mr. Knight stated he believes the down side is concentrating the release of water in one location. When they reach a certain number of gallons per day they would have to get a permit from the State. Chairman Gallagher stated he assumes the applicant will continue the agricultural use, he assumes they will continue their water rights by flooding the property for irrigation. He stated he is concerned with the amount of fire protection water. Mr. Knight stated at this point they are looking at sprinkler systems being mandated in the residences. Additionally, by placing the homes in the pasture land rather than the sage brush the wildfire hazard drops dramatically. They are in contact with the Fire Department very closely. Chairman Gallagher asked about irrigation water. Mr. Davies stated it is from the Home Supply Ditch. Chairman Gallagher questioned mowing the sagebrush and recommended the applicant burn it. Mr. Knight stated they do not have disagreement with the substance of staff conditions. Chairman Gallagher asked if the applicant has concerns with condition 12. Mr. Knight stated they would like to have some wildlife proof fencing within the building envelope. He stated it will be a limited area and will not block the movement. Chairman Gallagher questioned condition number 13. Mr. Knight stated they do not object to this condition. Chairman Gallagher questioned condition 14. Mr. Knight stated they would like to change the square foot number on accessory units to 1,200 and they would be detached. Mr. Simonton stated that condition provided for some options. One option would be that the accessory dwelling unit would be attached to the primary structure and would be 850 square feet. The second option is for one detached accessory dwelling unit at 1,200 square feet. Mr. Knight stated that was correct, but the accessory units will be within the building envelope. He stated part of the discussion focused on if it would look like six different houses rather than three. He stated he would like to have them close together and not spread out. He stated they could be built at different times which is the reason for being detached. 24 01-29-2002 Chairman Gallagher stated the condition may read that accessory dwelling units shall be restricted to 1,200 square feet, assuming they are within the building envelope. Mr. Knight stated that was correct. Chairman Gallagher stated condition 15, simply asks the applicant to investigate an option. Number 16 refers to the limit in size. Mr. Knight stated they are in agreement with those. Chairman Gallagher stated the applicant would like to see number 12 be applicable except within the building envelope. Mr. Knight stated that was correct. Commissioner Menconi stated he is interested in approving the sketch plan with no modifications to the conditions, except for condition 12, as stated by Chairman Gallagher. He stated the applicant is taking four total units and turning them into six dwelling units. They are trying to move to the best land use of the property. He asked if the applicant would consider a different size of accessory unit. Chairman Gallagher stated his concern with the condition by the Planning Commission is they are not equal choices. Commissioner Menconi stated at this time, without going through any planning, four units are available of undetermined size with the exception of the accessory unit which would be no greater than 1,800 square feet. With what is available in condition 14,2,500 square feet, looking at the possibility of 3,600 square feet, it would move it to the potential of six dwelling units. He stated they are trying to move into a direction of creating and enhancing the best land use for the property. What the community and the applicant would have are three residential units plus one accessory unit of 1,200 square feet. Mr. Knight stated they feel that is a severe limit on the size, if it is a matter of attached versus detached, they would agree to two attached at 1,200 square feet and one detached at 1,200. Ifthe Board cannot come to a decision they would request a tabling. Mr. Simonton stated the Planning Commission was looking at eliminating the possibility of six distinct dwellings across the hillside. That could have also been addressing six full family units on the hillside. Addressing that is easy through the PUD Guide Commissioner Menconi stated they could have 3 residential units with one detached care taker for a total of 4, or they could have 3 residential units with 3 caretaker attached units. Mr. Simonton stated that was correct. Commissioner Gallagher stated the applicant has requested they be allowed to have 3 accessory dwelling units, each 1,200 square feet, two attached and one detached. Mr. Knight stated that was correct. Commissioner Menconi asked if the applicant would consider the two attached units at 1,000 square feet and the detached unit at 1,200 square feet. Mr. Knight stated they would agree with that. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve of File No. PDS-00030, Hook Spur Ranch, incorporating all staff findings, with the following conditions: 1. That concurrent with application for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant submit an application for a Zone Change for the effected parcel. 2. That prior to Preliminary Plan approval the Applicant provide evidence that all three owners of the subject parcel have agreed to abide by the conditions and standards of the PUD. 3. That prior to Preliminary Plan approval the Applicant provide evidence that issues related to site access as identified by Eagle County Engineering (11/29/01), the Colorado Geological Survey (12/18/01), Colorado State Forest Service (12/14/01) and the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District (12/13/01) have been adequately addressed. 4. That prior to Preliminary Plan approval the Applicant provide evidence that issues related to potable water supply, as detailed by the State Engineer (12/10/01), have been resolved. 25 01-29-2002 5. That prior to Preliminary Plan approval the Applicant provide evidence that issues related to the siting and design ofIndividual Sewage Disposal Systems, as identified by Eagle County Environmental Health (12/17/01), the Colorado Geological Survey (12/18/01), and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (12/17/01) have been addressed. 6. That prior to Preliminary Plan approval the Applicant demonstrate that issues related to storm water management and erosion control, as identified by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (12/17/01) have been adequately addressed. 7. That prior to Preliminary Plan approval the Applicant provide evidence that issues related to fire suppression and wildfire protection, as detailed in the referral responses from the Colorado State Forest Service (12/14/01) and the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District (12/13/01) have been adequately addressed. 8. That prior to Preliminary Plan approval the Applicant demonstrate that issues identified in the referral response from the Town of Basalt concerning "environmental sensitivity", specifically, lot coverage, the use of native vegetation and weed control, fencing standards, restrictions on dogs, site lighting, accessory building sizes and locations, and open space uses have been adequately considered and/or incorporated into the plan. 9. That prior to Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant respond with sufficient detail to all requirements of Article 4, Site Development Standards of Eagle County's Land Use Regulations, with particular emphasis on Division 4-6, Improvements Standards, as requested by Eagle County Engineering (11/29/01) and as further outlined in referral responses from the Colorado Geological Survey (12/18/01), the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (12/17/01), the report by HP Geotech, Inc.(09/l7/01), and the report by Western Ecological Resource, rnc.(1l101). 10. That at application for Preliminary Plan the Applicant submit a draft PUD Guide that has been modified to provide provisions related to long term maintenance of fire protection systems, travel routes, irrigation systems and drainage features. 11. That a detailed Site Development Schedule identifying time frames for the completion of those items considered public improvements be submitted as a [Jart of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. 12. That for the purpose of protecting wildlife movement ti1fough the area, fencing standards be included in the PUD Guide that specify a maximum top strand heig.1:1t of 42 inches and a minimum bottom strand height of 12 inches above the ground, except within h1.lilding envelopes. 13. That the PUD Guide provide limits regarding the number,.size and location of agricultural structures that will be allowed outside of established building envelopes. 14. That Accessory Dwelling Units of lot 1 and 3 shall be attac1\~d and restricted to 1,000 square feet, the accessory dwelling unit on lot 2, may be detached in close prox{mity to the primary residence and not to exceed 1,200 square feet. 15. That the applicant investigate a reconfiguration of the proposed building envelopes to provide a greater degree of clustering toward the northern edge of the property. 16. That the PUD Guide include provisions limiting the size ofhome.,i built on the property. 17. That all material representations made by the Applicant in submittl~d materials and in public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless oth.~rwise amended by other conditions. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissio1.ers the vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00139, Lot 1, Parcel C, Wolcott Springs Cliff Simonton presented file number AFP-OO 13 9, Lot 1, Parcel C, Wolcott Springs. He stated this was an Amended Final Plat, the purpose of which is to move the existing buildhg envelope 26 01-29-2002 approximately 130 feet uphill to the south. The size and configuration of the envelope will not change. This plat amendment will position the envelope more favorably in relation to a future access from Wolcott Springs Road, which sits above the envelope to the south. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.2 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has considered the following in the review of the Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent Property. The proposed amendment does not adversely effect adjacent property owners. All three adjacent property owners have been notified. No comments via letter or phone call have been received; b. Final Plat Consistency. The proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the intent ofthe Final Plat; c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The proposed amendment conforms to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines; d. Improvements Agreement. An improvements agreement is not applicable; and e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. A restrictive plat note alteration is not applicable. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. AFP-00130, Lot 1, Parcel C, Wolcott Springs, incorporating staff findings. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous PDS-00031, Heritage Park Matt Gennett presented file number PDS-00031, Heritage Park. He stated the applicant has requested this matter be tabled to March 19, 2002. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number PDS-00031, Heritage Park to March 19, 2002, at the applicants request. Chairman 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 February 5, 2002. Attest: Clerk to the Bo ~- Chairman 27 01-29-2002