Loading...
Minutes 03/26/2002 PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 26, 2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone T om Moorhead Jack Ingstad Earlene Roach Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Deputy Clerk to the Board 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 next item is the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of March 25,2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes ofthe Board of County Commissioners meeting for February 26,2002 C) Agreement for supplying and hauling scrap tire chips to Eagle County Landfill D) Agreement for grinding I chipping scrap tires at Eagle County Landfill E) Bid Award 2002 Overlay Project, to Frontier Paving, Inc., 1014 County Road 311, New Castle, Colorado (low bidder) F) Approval of ECO Drug and Alcohol Policy G) Resolution 2002-051, Authorizing the Chairman to sign the Land Lease and Option Agreement between Eagle County and Berry Creek Limited Liability Company. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office ifthere were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Tom Moorhead, County Attorney, stated there are no changes. He mentioned on item G, while approving the Land Lease they will not be entering into that lease until there is a final plat and the exchange of properties with the School District. Chairman Gallagher asked about the rubber tire shredding and hauling, items C & D. He stated there is a contract with a provider to haul the tires and then there is a contract with someone else to chip the tires. Ron Rasnic, Solid Waste Manager, stated the ones there now will be used for the leach drainage for the new cell they are building now. It will be approximately five and one half acres in size. It will take approximately 7,800 cubic yards of tire chips. He stated the scrap tires on site will provide about 1,600 cubic yards so they must import additional tires to complete the project. Chairman Gallagher asked about the tires on site and how long they have been there. Mr. Rasnic stated they usually get about 5,000 to 6,000 tires per year. That tire pile has been there for some time. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda, items A through G, as presented. . Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Settlement Stipulations 1 03-26-2002 Tom Moorhead presented the settlement stipulations stating the stipulation involves three properties which are under the same ownership. They are as follows: Traer Creek LLC, schedule number R01531l, assessed value is $716,270, stipulated value is $1,780.00. Traer Creek LLC, schedule number R043982, assessed value is $626,030, stipulated value is $260.00. Traer Creek LLC, schedule number R021 166, assessed value is $767,860, stipulated value is $2,600.00. Mark Chapin, Deputy Assessor, stated the property is located at the old Stolport in Avon. He stated the petitioner provided significant information as to warrant the agricultural classification. He stated that information was provided at the Board of Equalization appeal process. He stated he has not seen livestock on the property however with the information provided by the petitioner, they would not be able to win this case at the State level. He stated they provided leases, canceled checks. Chairman Gallagher asked if a lease was enough to classify the property agriculture. Mr. Moorhead stated it was. Commissioner Stone asked who the lease was with. Mr. Chapin stated he did not have the file in front of him at this time. He stated there were seven years of leases and canceled checks. Commissioner Stone asked if this matter could be tabled. Diane Mauriello, Deputy County Attorney, stated the matter is scheduled for next Thursday before the State Board of Equalization. The Rule 11 deadline, the disclosure deadline, has already passed in terms of providing documents to the Board of Assessment Appeals. She stated in the scope of proposing this stipulation they have reviewed numerous documents indicating that agriculture uses has been occurring on the property. Commissioner Stone asked if it this could be tabled until later in the day to check the leases. Mr. Moorhead stated that would be fine. Commissioner Stone moved to table this matter until later in the day after the Woodland Hills file has been heard. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Menconi stated he would like to see the information to see if the company holding the lease has an affiliation with the owner of the property. Chairman Gallagher asked about the old runway and if it was included as agriculture property. Mr. Chapin stated the runway is still on the property and in tact. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Award, Traffic Control Services Eddie Storer, Acting Airport Manager, stated the next item on the agenda was the award of Air Traffic Control Services, for the Eagle County Regional Airport. Commissioner Stone asked which Board should be taking action on this matter. Mr. Moorhead stated the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Storer presented a contract with Midwest Tower Services, which is the same service provider used in the past. He stated they are the tower controllers that control the traffic at the Airport. Chairman Gallagher asked about the cost. Mr. Storer stated it will run approximately $379,000.00 depending on the amount of time the tower is to remain open in the summer. 2 03-26-2002 Chairman Gallagher asked about commercial versus general aviation. Mr. Storer stated the primary use is for commercial operation. Commissioner Stone asked about the extension of time. Mr. Storer stated this agreement provided for service from April 1 to September 30. It is renewal for four additional years with an "out" clause ifthe County decides to change the service. Commissioner Stone asked if they had been paying to rent the tower cab that the air traffic controller works out of. Mr. Storer stated they have not. When putting out the RFP they had to include the tower cab in order for others to bid. Commissioner Stone asked if the FAA reimburses that cab cost. Mr. Storer answered no. Commissioner Stone stated in the future they could spend $38,400.00 per year. Mr. Storer stated that was correct. He related they asked for a price to buy the tower and it was $97,000.00. They would then have a piece of equipment they do not have a use for. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the bid award of Air Traffic Control Services to Mid West Air Traffic Control Services, Inc., contingent upon receipt ofF AA Funding. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00295. Berry Creek Filing: 4. A Re-subdivision of Lot 8. Block 5. He stated this was a Type B Minor Subdivision, the intent of which is to re-subdivide Lot 8 into two, ~ duplex lots, Lot 8A and Lot 8B, and create an access easement for Lot 8B. Staff findings are as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision (G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision. a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate; b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable. Commissioner Stone moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00295, Berry Creek, Filing 4, are-subdivision of Lot 8, Block 5, incorporating stafffindings. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Vail Valley Charitable Fund Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented a special events permit for the Vail Valley Charitable Fund. She stated this event will be at the plaza or village of Beaver Creek on April 13, 2002 from noon to 6:30 p.m. She stated this was an annual event and there have not been any complaints in the past. 3 03-26-2002 Kate Carey, applicant was present for the hearing. She introduced Bill Lodge, from High Point Distributing. She stated they are a 5013C that help people who live and work in the valley who have a financial need due to a medical crisis. They help out with creating a platform for those events already scheduled for an individual person, and they also have on-going fund raising to raise monies for the general fund in order to give grants on a monthly basis. She stated she is the only employee and is part time but there is a volunteer board of eleven. They have been incorporated since 1996. Chairman Gallagher asked if this was a major fund raiser. Ms. Carey stated this is actually a new event this year. She explained the liquor license enhances the event. Mr. Roach related the Vail Valley Charitable Fund does have an event every year however the theme is new. But this event does occur on an annual basis. Commissioner Stone moved to approve a special events permit for the Vail Valley Charitable Fund for April 13, 2002 from noon to 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0040, Woodland Hills Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number 1041-0040, Woodland Hills. He stated this 1041 application for the extension of existing water and wastewater facilities to serve the Woodland Hills project is being processed in conjunction with companion Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Zone Change applications for an 88 unit multifamily project on the 8.81 acre site. File numbers PDP-00022/ PUD Preliminary Plan and ZC-00055/ Zone Change, respectively. The subject property is located 1.6 miles west of the intersection of Edwards spur road and US Highway 6 on the South side of Highway 6. Proposed is the extension of an existing domestic water main to the site. This line extension entails the installation of approximately 1,640 linear feet of 8-inch water main and related appurtenances which, will provide an estimated 34,000 gallons per day of domestic treated water. The proposed 8-inch water main extension is anticipated to connect with an existing 12-inch water main operated by the Edwards Metropolitan District located in the Highway 6 right-of-way adjacent to the northern boundary ofthe subject property. Also proposed is the extension of an existing sewer main to service the development. Approximately 1,640 linear feet of 8-inch sewer main and related appurtenances will collect an estimated 30,000 gallons per day of wastewater from the development and transport it to the Edwards Wastewater Treatment Plant located west of the subject property. Connection to the existing system will occur at the northwest comer of the subject property tying into an existing 8-inch sewer main. The treatment plant, operated by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, will treat the wastewater and release the treated effluent into the Eagle River. The subject property is located within the boundaries ofthe Edwards Metropolitan District and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. This 1041 proposal was referred to the following departments, agencies and homeowner's association seeking review and comment: Eagle County Engineering Eagle County Attorney's Office Natural Resource Conservation Service Berry Creek Metropolitan District Edwards Metropolitan District Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority 4 03-26-2002 Colorado Division of Water Resources Colorado Geological Survey Colorado Department of Health Colorado Division of Wildlife Water Conservation Board Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Eagle County Historical Society Eagle River Fire Protection District As of the writing of this report, the following agencies had responded: Eagle County Engineering: No outstanding engineering issues have been identified. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS): Set forth recommendations regarding provision of a complete re-vegetation plan including species, quantities, planting times, planting depths and methods, mulch type and installation specifications, soil preparation, fertilization and plans for post landscape installation clean-up. Also, the response supports the applicant's stated desire to maintain long-term storm water management features. Lastly, NRCS recommends that the applicant develop and provide a weed control plan for this project for both during and after construction. Eagle River Fire Protection District: "In previous submittals, total square footage for the largest building was noted as 7,408 square feet and the building was not protected by a fire sprinkler system. Based on this information and Appendix III-A and III-B in the Uniform Fire Code, 1997 Edition, water lines must be sized to provide 2250 gpm for a duration of 2 hours." In a telephone discussion, Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief, indicated that the proposed 8" water main extension may not be adequate to supply the necessary fire flow. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG): "Overall, NWCCOG's review does not indicate a potential for significant impact to water resources. NWCCOG is pleased to see the applicant's proposal for connection to the Edwards Metropolitan District and Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. NWCCOG is also pleased to see the proposed maintenance of pre-development 100- year and 25-year storm flows through the use oftwo detention ponds." NWCCOG requests that long- term maintenance of the storm water detention facilities including access and responsibility should be considered. Per Appendix 10 of the 208 Plan, NWCCOG notes that disturbed areas be stabilized or protected to effectively control erosion if they remain exposed and inactive for periods of more than 14 days and inspection of the storm water management system should occur at least every 14 days. NWCCOG recommends that, "the applicant develops a storm water management plan with more specificity than that provided in the 1041 permit application which meets the criteria in the Water Quality Protection Standards". Lastly, information provided with the 1 041 Permit application conflicts with regard to wetlands on the site. The application indicates that wetland and riparian areas are to be avoided however the Environmental Conditions Technical Report which was submitted with the application states that, "No open water bodies or wetlands exist on the property". During the hearing, the Applicant provided an overview of the proposed development with particular focus on the necessary positive findings which must be made with this 1041 application. The applicant addressed to the Planning Commission's satisfaction each of the referral responses and recommendations which were received from the Eagle River Fire Protection District, Northwest Colorado Council of Governments and from the Natural Resources Conservation Service. The Planning Commission questioned the availability of water to serve the project. More specifically, whether or not the applicant will be able to purchase water rights from the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. The Eagle County Planning Commission determined that no obvious major issues or concerns have been identified with this permit application and that with proper hazard mitigation it is not anticipated that the proposed extensions will create or be subject to undue environmental impacts. The Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this 1041 application Eagle River Water and Sanitation District Arrowhead at Vail HOA Lake Creek HOA River Pines HOA Singletree HOA Homestead HOA Eagle River Mobile Home Park 5 03-26-2002 incorporating the findings and with five conditions of approval. Condition number five reads, "Prior to approval of this 1041 permit application by the Eagle County Permit Authority, the adequacy of water rights or, the cost ofthe purchase of water rights from the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority should be resolved". This condition should be resolved to the Permit Authority's satisfaction prior to approval of this 1041 Permit application. In accordance with Section 6.04.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Woodland Hills Water & Wastewater System. a. Major extensions of domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the development area and source development area to sustain such growth and development; (+)FINDINGS: It is proposed that the Woodland Hills project be served by the Edwards Metropolitan District and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The developer is funding the proposed utility extensions. Operation and maintenance of the facilities will be managed by the Edwards Metropolitan District and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. Development which will occur as a result of the proposed utility extensions will be within the anticipated financial capacity ofthe respective districts. The addition of the proposed development will help to retire the debt of the District related to the extension of the water and sewer mains to service this general area. The proposed multifamily development which would be served by the water and sewer main extensions will help to improve the financial and economic capacity of the area by providing affordable housing necessary for sustaining a permanent population and the economic vitality of the tourism industry. The Eagle County Master Plan does not identify the subject property as lying within environmentally sensitive areas. Appropriate erosion control measures will be employed during construction to minimize sediment loads to the Eagle River. The development will result in a minimal population increase. Therefore, a commensurate nominal increase in traffic and exhaust emissions is expected. b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable Regional, State or Federal land use or water plan; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed development will be in accord with Best Management Practices and efficient planning/development techniques set forth in the 208 Regional Plan. The development area is included within the Edwards Metropolitan District service plan. The proposed project will not further proliferate service districts. The proposed development is intended to provide local resident housing which, is an objective substantiated by the Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map designates the site as a Community Center which accommodates multifamily development of the density proposed. Conformance with the spirit and intent ofthe Edwards Sub-Area Plan was found at Sketch Plan. c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users within the development area and source development area; (+/-)FINDINGS: The subject property is located within the Edwards Metropolitan District's boundaries. The adequacy of water rights or the cost of the purchase of water rights is yet to be determined. Upon dedication of water rights or, payment in lieu to the Edwards Metropolitan District, the surface and subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users within the development area or source development area would then be protected. Prior to approval of this 1041 permit application by the Eagle County Permit Authority, the adequacy of water rights or, the cost of the purchase of water rights from the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority should be resolved. d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are 6 03-26-2002 available for efficient operational needs; (+)FINDINGS: Water will be supplied to the Edwards Metropolitan District by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (UERW A). The Colorado Department of Health reviews the water supply system operated by the UER W A on an annual basis and has found that system to be adequate in terms of quality and capability. e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; (NA)FINDINGS: Not Applicable - no additional water treatment plants are being proposed. f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; (NA)FlNDINGS: Not Applicable - The existing sewage treatment facilities servicing the area have sufficient capacity to service the proposed development. No new sewage treatment facilities are being proposed. g. The scope and nature of the proposed developmentwill not compete with existing water and sewage services or create duplicate services; (+)FINDINGS: The scope and nature ofthe proposed development will not compete with existing water or sewage services. The proposed development will connect to the existing water distribution and wastewater collection services. No duplication of services will exist. h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; (NA)FINDINGS: Not Applicable - replacement is not being proposed. i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; (+)FINDINGS: U.S. Census figures for 2000 indicate that Eagle County is the fourth fastest growing county in Colorado with a population increase of 90 percent during the last decade. The population growth projections used as the basis for the Eagle County Master Plan indicate a two percent per year rate of growth for the next 10 years. j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division; (NA)FINDINGS: Not Applicable - proposal does not entail facility upgrade or expansion, only water and sewer main extensions to serve site. k. Appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed water distribution and wastewater systems will be placed entirely within appropriate existing and created utility easements. All of the proposed water and sewer extensions are located within and adjacent to the development parcel. The applicant will grant all required easements. l. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development; (+)FINDINGS: The subject property is currently utilized for a variety of trailer homes, a warehouse and several storage sheds as such, no significant agricultural resources will be eliminated by the development proposal. Some of the existing uses on the property are currently non-conforming with the existing zoning. The proposed Woodland Hills Planned Unit Development is attempting to satisfy a need for entry level local resident housing. If approved, a byproduct will be that several non-conforming uses will cease to exist. The PUD includes a pedestrian/bicycle trail which will tie into the regional trail system. It is anticipated that the Woodland Hills development will benefit the county in such a manner to offset any loss of natural resources or agricultural land. m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral downstream 7 03-26-2002 surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; (+)FINDINGS: During construction, there is a temporary risk of increased sedimentation due to runoff from disturbed areas. This risk can be effectively minimized through the use of Best Management Practices designed to dissipate erosion of drainage channels and disturbed areas which will prevent sedimentation from entering streams. All disturbed areas will be reclaimed and revegetated so that sedimentation from the area can be expected to return to pre-development conditions. Wastewater generated from the proposed development will be collected and treated by the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. The District provides advanced wastewater treatment and discharges treated effluent in compliance with water quality standards established by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Compliance with these standards helps maintain the water quality of the Eagle River. The proposed development is not expected to decrease the quality of downstream surface or subsurface water resources. n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate Federal or State air quality standards; (+)FINDINGS: Short-term air quality impacts with slight increases in airborne particulate levels near the proposed development will occur during the construction phase. During construction, air quality standards will be maintained in accordance with standard construction practices. Air quality impacts from the development itself are expected to be insignificant. The proposed development will generate a small increase in Eagle County's overall population. As such, a commensurate increase in vehicular traffic and natural gas appliances is expected. Additional vehicle traffic will result in increased fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. To mitigate fugitive dust emissions from vehicle traffic, all roads within the development will be paved. Paved roads will be regularly cleaned to reduce accumulation of material that would generate fugitive dust. The increase in exhaust emissions is not expected to cause a violation of Federal or state air quality standards. No wood burning devices allowed within the development. o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forest and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public out-door recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; (+)FINDINGS: Development of the site will occur on gentle to moderate slopes. The southern, steeper portion of the site is not proposed for development, thereby minimizing site disturbance. The soils analysis submitted with the application concludes that the proposed development will have limited impacts on soil, vegetation, water bodies or wetlands. The only 'forested' portion of the site occurs along the southern border where development is not proposed. No rare or endangered species were identified by the consultant. The subject property is located on the south side of Highway 6. Jurisdictional wetlands exist adjacent to the Eagle River located on the north side of US Highway 6. As such, wetland and riparian areas apparently do not exist on the subject property. There is a discrepancy noted in the application materials regarding the presence of wetland and riparian areas on the site. All exposed slopes will be immediately stabilized following backfilling. Areas of geologic hazard occur throughout the region including landslides, mild earthquakes, mud and debris flow, rock fall, avalanches, steep slopes and sink holes. The project site is located on a relatively flat terrace and is expected to be free of geologic hazards associated with steeper terrain. The 8 03-26-2002 preliminary geo-technical study indicated that natural slopes on the site will remain stable unless disturbed and that there is no known historic landslide activity on the site. Based upon the Eagle County Master Plan Wildlife Habitat maps, the site is not identified as General Wildlife, Mule Deer, Elk habitat or migration corridors. The geo-technical evaluation of the property indicates that there are no geo-technical issues that preclude the development as proposed. There are no known ground water recharge areas located on the property, however, the detention ponds proposed as part of the Drainage Plan will potentially increase ground water recharge characteristics of the site. The Master Plan's Open Space Map does not identify this property as a desirable location for public outdoor recreation area or a site to be preserved as a Unique Geologic Resource. The Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation found that there are no documented archeological or historic resources on the subject property. p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; (+)FINDINGS: Short term noise impacts near the subject site will occur from the operation of heavy equipment during the construction phase of the project. Slight noise impacts will occur from both increased vehicle traffic and outdoor activities that will be associated with the development but, will be insignificant relative to ambient noise levels. The subject property is not currently in pristine condition. The proposed development or its associated collector system is not expected to further degrade existing natural scenic characteristics nor is it anticipated to generate undue ocular, auditory or olfactory impacts. q. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution systems will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs ofthe residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed development will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area, since all project facilities will be paid for by the owner of the proposed development. Further, fees paid to the district for the delivery of water to the development requires either the declaration of water rights or the payment of cash in lieu of water rights to ensure that each development pays its fair share and is not a burden on the district. r. The development site of a proposed major extension of an existing domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snow slides, landslides, avalanches, rock slides or other disasters which could cause a system operation breakdown; (+ )FINDINGS: The region is in the Uniform Building Code, Seismic Risk Zone 1. Based on current understanding of earthquake hazard in this part of Colorado, there is no apparent reason to increase the commonly accepted seismic risk zone for the area. The proposed site will incorporate storm water management practices to adequately convey storm water and maintain pre-development 100 year flow while enhancing water quality of site runoff. The proposed water and sewer systems will be located at or below grade and will not be subject to injury by fire. The primary development area ofthe site is relatively flat; the risk of snow slides, avalanches, landslides or rockslide which could cause a system operational breakdown is negligible. There is no known historic landslide activity on the site. s. Any proposed domestic water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing 9 03-26-2002 water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed development and associated distribution system is capable of providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health. t. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed development may assist the Eagle County and Edwards area economy by adding to the supply of attainable local resident housing which is vital to securing a high quality work force. During on site construction, temporary increases in noise, diesel fumes and construction traffic will be expected. The modular buildings proposed for location on the site will significantly reduce the overall impact during the construction phase of the project. The development proposed will generate a small increase in the overall population of Eagle County and will, in turn, create commensurate increases in traffic and exhaust emissions. Air quality impacts from the proposed development are expected to be insignificant in relative comparison to the existing air quality of the source development area. The proposed development will replace two existing points of access with an improved Highway 6 access point. Public roads will be stubbed to the property's boundaries to provide access to future development which may occur to the east and west of the subject site. This is consistent with the Edwards Area Access Control Plan. The application materials indicate that the development will incorporate Best Management Practices to control and enhance storm water conveyance and quality. As a result, sediment loads to the Eagle River will be minimized. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: In accordance with Section 6.05.15 (Efficient Utilization of Municipal and Industrial Water Projects)ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, approval of the Permit application: a. The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed development consists of multi-family residential dwellings targeted for persons employed in Eagle County. The existing development on site is served by existing water taps and water wells. Development of Woodland Hills will result in growth that demands extension of the existing domestic water distribution system. b. Assurances of compatibility of the proposed water project with Federal, State, Regional, and County planning policies regarding land use and water resources; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed development will be in accord with Best Management Practices and efficient planning/development techniques set forth in the 208 Regional Plan. The development area is included within the Edwards Metropolitan District service plan. The proposed project will not further proliferate service districts. The proposed development is intended to provide local resident housing which, is an objective substantiated by the Master Plan. The Future Land Use Map designates the site as a Community Center which accommodates multifamily development of the density proposed. Conformance with the spirit and intent of the Edwards Sub-Area Plan was found at Sketch Plan. c. Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas; (+)FINDINGS: The Edwards Metropolitan District ensures efficient use of water resources within its service area through: Metering of all water users; efficiency standards for fixtures imposed by Eagle County building codes; a leak detection program, including monthly audits of metered water uses, 10 03-26-2002 scheduled sounding of mainlines and leak repair, and; the Authority has implemented a Water Conversation Master Plan designed to encourage increased efficiency. Methods specific to the proposed project include utilizing native plant species and seed mixes in the site landscape and a reduced amount of sodded lawn area. The Natural Resource Conservation Service is requesting greater detail with regard to landscape materials and re-vegetation efforts. The proposed development will not result in the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. A drainage plan has been prepared which ensures that adequate water quality measures are achieved. A Storm water Management Plan and Best Management Practices have been prepared for the site. This plan will protect the Eagle River from sedimentation and erosion as a result of the development. The drainage plan includes the construction of detention ponds which will contribute positively to the recharge of groundwater and aquifers. Proper erosion control and de-watering techniques will be followed. The Northwest Council of Governments has recommended that the storm water management plan contain more specificity with regard to water quality protection standards. d. Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources; (+)FINDINGS: Water quality will be protected in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System discharge requirements. During construction of the proposed water main extension, standard practices designed to prevent erosion and sedimentation will be utilized. All disturbed areas will be properly restored and re-vegetated if not part of a developed area. All water lines will be built in accordance with the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District's Standard Specifications for Water and Sewer Lines. e. The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed water system is an extension of the Edwards Metropolitan District water system whom provide water under contract with the Upper Eagle River Water Authority. The Authority's water supply system is regularly monitored by the Colorado Department of Health and the water quality meets or exceeds all drinking water standards. f. The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface water resources in the source development area below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; (+)FINDINGS: During construction, there is a temporary risk of increased sedimentation due to runoff from disturbed areas. This risk will be effectively minimized through the use of Best Management Practices designed to dissipate erosion of drainage channels and disturbed areas which will prevent sedimentation from entering streams. All disturbed areas will be reclaimed and revegetated so that sedimentation from the area can be expected to return to pre-development conditions. Wastewater generated from the proposed development will be collected and treated by the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. The District provides advanced wastewater treatment and discharges treated effluent in compliance with water quality standards established by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Compliance with these standards helps maintain the water quality of the Eagle River. The proposed development is not expected to decrease the quality of downstream surface or subsurface water resources. g. The proposed development and the potential diversion of water from the source development area will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands, and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting area and the habitats or rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas, 11 03-26-2002 and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; (+)FINDINGS: Development ofthe site will occur on gentle to moderate slopes. The southern, steeper portion of the site is not proposed for development, thereby minimizing site disturbance. The soils analysis submitted with the application concludes that the proposed development will have limited impacts on soil, vegetation, water bodies or wetlands. The only 'forested' portion of the site occurs along the southern border where development is not proposed. No rare or endangered species were identified by the consultant. The subject property is located on the south side of Highway 6. Jurisdictional wetlands exist adjacent to the Eagle River located on the north side of US Highway 6. As such, wetland and riparian areas apparently do not exist on the subject property. There is a discrepancy noted in the application materials regarding the presence of wetland and riparian areas on the site. All exposed slopes will be immediately stabilized following backfilling. Areas of geologic hazard occur throughout the region including landslides, mild earthquakes, mud and debris flow, rock fall, avalanches, steep slopes and sink holes. The project site is located on a relatively flat terrace and is expected to be free of geologic hazards associated with steeper terrain. The preliminary geo-technical study indicated that natural slopes on the site will remain stable unless disturbed and that there is no known historic landslide activity on the site. Based upon the Eagle County Master Plan Wildlife Habitat maps, the site is not identified as General Wildlife, Mule Deer, Elk habitat or migration corridors. The geo-technical evaluation of the property indicates that there are no geo-technical issues that preclude the development as proposed. There are no known ground water recharge areas located on the property, however, the detention ponds proposed as part of the Drainage Plan will potentially increase ground water recharge characteristics of the site. The Master Plan's Open Space Map does not identify this property as a desirable location for public outdoor recreation area or a site to be preserved as a Unique Geologic Resource. The Colorado Historical Society, Office of Archeology and Historic Preservation found that there are no documented archeological or historic resources on the subject property. h. The salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Section 6.05.13 (16) and (17) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith, if any, have been paid; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed water distribution system will have a negligible impact on downstream salinity concentrations. Wastewater generated by the development will be included in the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District waste stream and will be treated and discharged by the Edwards Wastewater Treatment Plant under existing or future state discharge permits. No offset plans are necessary. i. The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area; (+)FINDINGS: The proposed development may assist the Eagle County and Edwards area economy by adding to the supply of attainable local resident housing which is vital to securing a high quality work force. During on site construction, temporary increases in noise, diesel fumes and construction traffic will be expected. The modular buildings proposed for location on the site will significantly reduce the overall impact during the construction phase of the project. The development proposed will generate a small increase in the overall population of Eagle County and will, in turn, create commensurate increases in traffic and exhaust emissions. Air quality impacts from the proposed development are expected to be insignificant in relative comparison to the existing air quality of the source development area. The proposed development will replace two existing 12 03-26-2002 points of access with an improved Highway 6 access point. Public roads will be stubbed to the property's boundaries to provide access to future development which may occur to the east and west of the subject site. This is consistent with the Edwards Area Access Control Plan. The development will incorporate Best Management Practices to control and enhance storm water conveyance and quality. As a result, sediment loads to the Eagle River will be minimized. PROPOSED FINDINGS: In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, approval of the Permit application: c. Major new domestic water or sewer systems, major extensions of such systems, and municipal and industrial water projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant that: 2. That compliance with the special use permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. (+)FINDINGS: The applicant has requested a waiver of the special use permit requirements. Such an application would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, stated they have a presentation of the entire project and related there are interrelated and they would like to go forward with the entire presentation. Chairman Gallagher stated the Board would like to hear the information relating only to the 1041 permit at this time. Tom Boni, Knight Planning, stated with regard to the fire flows, they have a letter from Peak Land Consultants indicating they believe their calculations are correct and there is sufficient pressure in the 8" line to provide the stipulated and required gallons per minute at the hydrants. They believe this line is no different than the 8" line at St. Clare of Assisi. He stated the applicant will do a fire flow pressure test on the line prior to final plat. If there is not enough pressure in the line they will upgrade to a 10" line. Mr. Narracci stated he has not seen that letter. Staff made copies of the letter and handed them out to staff and the Board. Mr. Boni stated the second question regarded the availability of water rights and if the applicant can pay for those rights. He stated they had two meetings with the Edwards Metropolitan District and have submitted a check for $5,000 for further analysis on the water this project would require. He stated they will owe $170,000 in lieu of water rights dedication fees. He stated Mr. Collins submitted a letter indicating the Board has committed to provide this project with water and will allow cash in lieu of water rights. He submitted the letter for the Board's review. He stated they believe they have an agreement with the Edwards Metropolitan District to provide water. Chairman Gallagher stated he is in receipt of a letter from James Collins, attorney for Edwards Metropolitan District, indicating they will be providing this project with water. Commissioner Stone stated the Board just came from a lunch meeting concerning water in Edwards. He stated he heard that Edwards Metropolitan District was not going to accept cash in lieu of as they do not have enough water to serve everyone. For Woodland Hills they are predicting 9.192 acre feet of augmentation water. He quoted from the letter from Edwards Metropolitan District, "As you are aware the District presently allows developers to pay cash in lieu of dedicating water rights and the District requires a payment of $12,000 per acre foot on irrigation replacement water. The District's present policy is also to require a developer to dedicate 120% of its projected replacement obligation." He stated they don't have enough water available in the Eagle Park Reservoir to provide for a number of developments. One of those developments was Miller Ranch. He stated Miller Ranch and Woodland Hills do not have augmentation water. He stated ifthe County decided to make the payment in lieu of, on Miller Ranch, providing water for augmentation. He stated they responded they would not let them do the development because they do not have the water. Chairman Gallagher stated his understanding was that they reserve the right to not accept cash in 13 03-26-2002 lieu of. Mr. Boni stated they have been working with the Edwards Metropolitan District. Up until last Thursday they had numerous letters back and forth and they also were not sure what the outcome would be. As of Thursday, the Board of Directors voted and that vote was summarized in the letter from Jim Collins. They have accepted the fees in lieu of water rights. Chairman Gallagher stated they have a letter from Jim Collins and they have to take the letter at face value. Mr. Boni stated the spirit of the Metropolitan District has always been above board. He stated they have worked in good faith with them. Commissioner Stone stated he does not question the applicant what so ever. He stated he looks at all applications equally. He stated he wants to be consistent and there is one finding that has to be met which is "the proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or sub-surface water rights of upstream or downstream users within the development area and the source development area". Staff reports indicates that adequacy of water rights is yet to be determined. He stated he does not know if the Board can make a 1041 decision that is conditional. Ray Merry, Director of Environmental Health, stated the Board cannot condition a 1041 permit with regard to the findings. Staff put those in the findings in trying to get the applicant to present enough information to make that finding. Commissioner Stone stated he agrees with the Chairman that they accept the letter on face value. Mr. Merry stated the letter from Collins & Cockrel dated March 22, 2002 will be marked as exhibit "AI ", the Glen Pro sack memo will be labeled exhibit "ECl" and the PLC communication as exhibit "A2". Mr. Boni stated the letter he submitted satisfies the applicants obligation to assure they have water. The obligation was to provide the agreement. Those payments do not occur until building permit. With regards to Carol Wilson, he believes Peak Land Consultants have been in contact with her and she is comfortable with the size ofthe water line if it is tested and it comes back okay. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like to see how these things affect the cost of the units. Mr. Boni stated they will address that later in the presentation. They have included measures in the preliminary plan and will provide details of those. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was public comment. Jeannie Huff, Homestead Owners Association, asked if there was question on what Edwards Metropolitan District was going to do. Chairman Gallagher stated the Board does have communication from general counsel for the district indicating they can and will provide water. The Board will accept that letter. He stated augmentation water is that which goes back into the stream to keep the stream flows up. He stated those are not applicable to this file. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Merry to clarify that the criteria for a 1041 have been satisfied. Mr. Merry stated staff can go through each finding if they need do. He stated staff does not provide a recommendation on a 1041 permit but rather the criteria the Board must meet to approve said permit. The only outstanding issue the staff had was settled with the letter from Collins and Cockrel, dated March 22,2002. Commissioner Stone questioned the proposed finding under Section 6.04.15, item B, "the proposed development does not conflict with an approved local Master Plan or other applicable regional state or federal land use plan. n He stated there has been considerable discussion on this property as to what the Master Plan says or does not say. Mr. Boni stated they go into the Master Plan in detail in the next presentation. He showed a slide 14 03-26-2002 out of the applicants presentation relating to the Master Plan. He pointed out the location of the Woodland Hills site on the Future Land Use Map. Commissioner Stone asked if there was a designation in the FLUM or any other local Master Plans, Sub Area Master Plan, which speaks to density. He stated he believes at one time there was lengthy discussion on how many units could be on this particular property. Mr. Boni stated the FLUM is the best place to find the densities. Mr. Knight stated the Planning Commission made the same conclusion as did the Commissioners on the sketch plan application. Commissioner Stone stated he believes it would be good for the record if the Board would review the findings. He suggested staff report letters" a" through "t" be included into the record showing all findings were positive, and also "a" through "i" have been found to be positive or would not be applicable. Chairman Gallagher stated Chapter 2, Article 3, Section 3.310.i of Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Sub Paragraph "c" should be included in the minutes. He stated he would like to address those conditions to assure the conditions have been met. Mr. Boni stated the Soil Conservation District had a very detailed landscaping plan and soil erosion plan. He is not sure they realized it was in the packet. There is additional detail that will be added. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. 1041-0040, Woodland Hills, incorporating the findings and with the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the applicant in this permit application, correspondence, and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2. Development of the site must adhere to the recommendations set forth in the Natural Resources Conservation Service letter dated January 14,2002. 3. Development of the site must adhere to the recommendations set forth in the Eagle River Fire Protection District letter dated January 22,2002. 4. Development of the site must adhere to the recommendation set forth in the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments memorandum dated January 25,2002 Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDP-00022, Woodland Hills PUD Preliminary Plan ZC-00050, Woodland Hills Zone Change Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file numbers PDP-00022 and ZS-00050, Woodland Hills PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change. She stated the applicant wishes to obtain approval for a residential, PUD (Preliminary Plan and Zone Change). The proposed Woodland Hills PUD is located 1.6 miles west of the intersection of Edwards spur road and Highway 6 on the South side of the highway. The site is 8.81 acres in area. The proposal shall consist of 88 units, creating a density of approximately 10 units per acre. The proposal also includes the following: 76, two bedroom, two bath, two car garage units, and 12, one bedroom, one bath, one car garage units (the one bedroom units will be deed restricted; to cap appreciation at 3% per year based on the original purchase price; the two bedroom units will be "free market" units). Sale of all units will be restricted to Eagle County employees or certified employers of persons working in Eagle County. Outdoor recreational areas including a 0.5 acre park/athletic field, a sodded pocket park area adjacent to the play field (tot lot), several picnic areas, and a Health Trail System, consisting of 12 fitness stations along a gravel trail which winds through the project. Internal street connections to adjacent properties. 15 03-26-2002 Connection/direct access to the ECO bike path/trails system. Comprehensive landscaping throughout the project. A new a bus stop on Highway 6 near the entrance to Woodland Hills. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1997: Design Review Team discussed a pre-application proposal for 40 single family homes, 24 town homes, and 30 cluster homes (10.7 units per acre). DRT did not respond favorably toward the proposal. They felt that the density was too high; 6-7 units per acre would have been more favorable. 1998 (July): DRT reviewed another pre-application proposal for this property. Once again, Staff felt that the density was too high. 1998 (September): An application for a PUD Sketch plan (Deer Park PUD) was submitted to the County. 106 town homes and condominium units (12 units per acre) were proposed, along with a bus stop, trails and open space. The Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions, however, the Board of County Commissioners denied the proposal based on inadequate findings. 2001 (May): The Woodland Hills Sketch Plan was approved (with conditions) by the Board of County Commissioners to accommodate the current proposal for an 88 unit multifamily development on an 8.81 acre site (9.99 du per acre). The Planning Commission discussed density, the broader need for affordable housing throughout Eagle County, whether or not approval of this proposal would be precedent setting, and maintaining the affordable nature of the project over a long period of time. The Commission also commented on how the density may be a bit high, but because of the nature of the deed restrictions, the need for affordable housing based on growth projections, they could accept the 10 units per acre along Highway 6. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of all files related to Woodland Hills. Referrals are as follows and as shown on staff report: Engineering Memo dated January 18,2002: Reviewed additional information received January 15,2002. Additional information contained revisions to the application, discussed/requested at a meeting held Jan. 8th, 2002. The application now meets the requirements for Preliminary Plan. There are some aspects of the design which will require construction level drawings to be submitted with Final Plat. Suggest that the responsibility for the drainage facilities be outlined in the PUD Guide instead of the covenants. Any reference to Hwy 6 right of ways to be maintained by the County, should be specific (example given). Letter also addresses the requirements and plans for the bus stops to be utilized by ECO transit; using the existing, westbound passenger stop is a good idea. Office of the State Engineer, State of Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated Dec. 27, 2001 The applicant proposes to obtain water from the Edwards Metro District. Wastewater from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The ERWSD provided a letter stating that they were unable to provide an "ability to serve letter." (Therefore) the source ofthe proposed water would be the Colorado River, via the Eagle River. This river is over appropriated; an augmentation plan is required. Due to a lack of an water augmentation plan, current water rights are inadequate. Environmental Health Department, memo dated March 7th, 2001: The Environmental Impact Report states that there will be no wood burning fire places allowed in Woodland Hills PUD. The PUD Guide should include a statement to this effect. 16 03-26-2002 It is recommended that approval ofthe Preliminary Plan or Final Plat be conditioned to require a storm water detention plan designed with NWCCOG's water quality protection standards for treating pre and post construction storm water runoff. The NWCCOG recommends detention for the 2 and 25-year storm water events. Colorado State Forest Service, December 20th, 2001 Please refer to our previous memo dated March 9th, 2001 The wildfire hazard is moderate. The parking lots provide adequate emergency vehicle turnaround. Recommendations: Implement defensible space around all structures. Require class A roof and fire resistive construction. Trees and shrubs should be planted at least 15 feet away from structures. Non flammable landscaping such as flagstone should be placed under decks and porches that are at ground level. Eco Trails, March 7th, 2002 As you know, the route of the regional trail system has been moved to the north side of Highway 6 for safety reasons related to pedestrian crossings of Highway 6. That shift relieves the Woodland Hills developer of the commitment to build a section of the 10' wide core trail. A contribution to the pedestrian and bicycle system in Edwards should still be made by the project, as per the PUD provisions, in addition to addressing the transportation needs of the project residents. Please delete all previous conditions relative to a public trail contribution and substitute this revised version. 1. Eight foot wide paved spur trail to be provided on the property, along the entire width of the property abutting the Highway 6 right-of-way. The spur trail will be designated for public use but constructed and maintained by Woodland Hills. The goal in this situation is to have each developing property on the south side of Highway 6 contribute to a more minor path system than the regional trail, that will eventually tie together. I will explore the possibility of using the applicant's "extra" contribution of road impact fees to fund the construction of a trail section to connect his property to the trailer park (and regional trail), as suggested by Tom Boni of Knight Planning. I will also suggest to the applicant that he request that the "extra" funds he pledged be made available to build that connection when he meets with the County Commissioners, since they are the decision makers regarding the road impact fees. Eagle County Housing Department, dated January 23rd, 2002: Pricing: This is the first time that a developer has proposed self-imposed price maximums as a means of guaranteeing affordability. With the proposed deed restrictions in place, 100% of this project will provide housing restricted to people who live and work in Eagle County. Affordability: Pricing: The developer has priced the twelve one bedroom and 10 two bedroom units so that they meet the definition of Local Residents Housing. Long term affordability: The permanent 3% annual price cap on all one bedroom units will guarantee long term affordability. Ten ofthe two bedroom units have a five year annual price cap of 3%, which will prevent the initial purchaser from performing a "quick flip." Recording: All housing conditions concerning deed restrictions and price guarantees mentioned in the application (and which were conditions ofthe sketch plan approval)should be recorded in the PUD agreement and in the deed restrictions for each property. PUD Agreement: 17 03-26-2002 The PUD Guide needs to reference the housing section of the PUD Agreement in order to alert planning staff of necessary conditions and approvals. Deed restriction: A master deed restriction needs to be recorded at time of final plat. This deed restriction should be approved by a designee of the Housing Department. Deed restrictions on individual properties should be approved by a designee of the Housing Department as well and recorded as they are built (after building permit and prior to sale). Other comments: Reference Section 8d: Initial and maximum price guarantees on all I bedroom and 10 two bedroom units subject to; i. No decrease in density ii. No unexpected requirements placed on the project prior to Final Plat. iii. No unreasonable (10% or greater) increase in the cost of concrete, asphalt or lumber. The developer has requested that the above wording be changed to include all two bedroom units, not just ten. Conditions need to be set forth as to what will happen in the event that any of these conditions occur. Will the price be adjusted accordingly? Will the restrictions no longer apply? F or example, in iii. if the cost of concrete, asphalt or lumber increases by more than 10%, then how will prices be adjusted? By what mechanism will the increases be measured? Suggestion: Initial costs for concrete, asphalt and lumber need to be determined at time of preliminary plat approval, as a basis for monitoring any increase in price; the costs will be obtained from using local quotes. They also must be in the PUD Agreement. As each phase is developed, at time of building permit, these costs and the maximum purchase prices will be reviewed. If building costs increase by any amount over the stated 10%, then the price maximum will be adjusted, based on the actual dollar amount of the increase (the full amount ofthe increase, not just the amount over 10%). Recaptures due to such increases in building costs will be spread evenly and/or proportionally among the remaining units. Any change to the initially agreed upon Maximum Purchase Price of any unit must be approved in writing by the Housing Department. 8b. Concerning the 3% annual price cap on all relevant units: Make this "The greater of 3% or the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index (CPI)." This would allow for increases more closely tied to annual rises in the cost of living. 8e. Any unit proposed to be resold with a 15% or greater over the purchase price must pay a 1 % transfer fee to be paid to the Eagle County Housing Division. This should read" ...Eagle County Housing Department. " It should be clarified as to whether this transfer fee would apply to subsequent resales of the property or just to the initial sale. This condition should be included in both the PUD Agreement and the deed restriction. Section 9. No building permits shall be issuedfor this project unless projected sale costs can be met. This should be eliminated. Placing the maximum purchase price in the deed restriction will be a more efficient mechanism to guarantee that the price will not be exceeded. The PUD agreement should include a provision to for amendment(s) of the maximum purchase price(s) due to increase in construction costs to be treated as a minor deviation to the preliminary plan. Colorado State Geological Survey, January 7, 2001 Had reviewed the Sketch Plan; the comments in the March 5th, 2001 have been satisfactorily addressed. Concerning the site-specific geo-technical evaluation by HP Geotec: agree with report. 18 03-26-2002 HP mentions that site is underlain be Eagle Valley Evaporite and recommends that the applicant be aware ofthe potential for future ground subsidence on the property. Applicant should observe condition of foundations, property, as early detection of distress is important. Berry Creek Metro District, dated January 31, 2002 Are heavily invested in seeing that this part of Eagle County evolves in a logical and sustainable manner. Have known about Woodland Hills for some time, and have discussed the merits of this project at meeting dated 01/30/02. The board unanimously believes that Woodland Hills in no way conforms to the 1985 Edwards Sub Area Plan, to recommendations from the Edwards Task force, or to any vision we have for growth. Specifically: the density is too high; it would set a precedent for abutting properties. This level of density would be more appropriate in the core area of Edwards by Hwy 6 and Spur Road. Staff recommended this project be denied because it is too dense and does not conform to the master plan. George Gregory, dated January 31, 2002. Letter written on behalf of the Edwards Task Force to continue to register objections to the final approval of Woodland Hills. Contacted Committee members feel that the density is inappropriate and contrary to the 1985 plan; the density of 10 units per acres is contrary to the Committee's current recommendation. Sub Area plans must be respected. Woodland Hills is not even on the 1985 map. The language of the plan states that this kind of development should occur at the Edwards commercial center, and that densities should diminish to rural along the transportation corridor. Woodland Hills does not comply with this requirement. Additional concerns: basic infrastructure and traffic concerns still have not been addressed. With Berry Creek! Miller Ranch to the east, and Woodland Hills to the west, the Hwy 6 corridor will become an even greater knot of congestion. Regarding the supply of water and treatment of sewage: the water district plans to build a pumping station to the east of the Spur Road. The station is planning to install a 8" pipe; this will diminish the flow and quality and life for much of the Eagle valley. Edwards is downstream form Vail, Minturn, etc. All the waste from these communities ultimately returned upstream of the new pumping station. Notwithstanding these problems and that there are hundreds of units still to be built, your office still receives plans for densities that are contrary to the Sub Area plan for which the infrastructure does not exist; it makes no sense to approve a project with 10 du/ac until infrastructure has been addressed. We request that this proposal be denied or that the density be reduced to 6 dulac. Ken Hix, Mountain Sky Custom Prebuilt, Inc., dated January 28, 2002 Currently a Class "A" General Contractor in Summit Co. since 1976. Currently working with David Nudell (applicant) on Woodland Hills. It is not often that developers provide one bedroom units; it's just not profitable. David should be commended for doing so. It is extremely rare to find a one bedroom unit so well laid out and livable as the ones in Woodland Hills, private, with a garage, offered at entry level pricing. Believes that the project fits the parcel extremely well. Steve Hodge, dated January 20, 2002 Has lived and worked in Eagle County long enough to know affordable housing for locals is needed. Woodland Hills provides just that. Excited to be the first to reserve a home. 19 03-26-2002 Has seen so many people come and go because of the financial burden of living in the Vail Valley. As an employee of the Vail Valley Medical Center, he is looking forward to the completion. Price, location, amenities are all in its favor and will help keep locals like Mr. Hodge to afford to stay here. Amy Goffstein, President of Stag's Leap HOA, dated February 5, 2002 Has lived in Eagle County for last 3 years. Is aware of many individuals in Eagle County who are desperately in need of affordable housing for themselves and their families. Also know many who have had to leave, or not able to move to this valley because of the cost of housing. Woodland Hills is the perfect answer to the affordable housing dilemma. The price, location, and amenities are exactly what people are looking for, important in maintaining a stable workforce in the Vail Valley. The traffic impact would be minimal, and the additional impact is needed. Tanya Shivley, dated February 5, 2002 Has been a resident of Eagle County since 1989, and can attest to the scarcity of affordable housing to the area. The amenities in Eagle County should be treasured, yet it is difficult to gain a foothold in the community through a housing purchase. While supply and demand dictate a higher than average market price for real estate, Woodland Hills will offer area residents a chance to purchase a home at an affordable price. Believes that Woodland Hills is a well-planned development with attention to detail and quality considered in the plans. Please consider approving Woodland Hills to help ease the pinch on affordable housing. Steve Wickum, Homestead Homeowners Association, dated February 14th, 2002 Have read the Staff report and would like to make comments as it relates to the project. Homestead and other entities in the Edwards are is concerned with the density of Woodland Hills. The proponents have used the 1985 Sub Area Master Plan map; several members of our Board (Homestead?) do not believe that it is part ofthe plan. It should not be represented as part of the Plan until there is definite proof it is part of the plan. Regarding Section 5-240.F.3.e, Compatible with Surrounding Land Uses: although some individual projects have a higher density, overall (gross) densities of Brett Ranch, the ERV Mobile Home Park, and Lake Creek Village is significantly lower. Woodland Hills presently has a zoning of RSL which would allow just under 3 units per acre after you net out roads and parks. We think that this is an appropriate density; no need to up zone. If the property is up zoned it would not be compatible. Regarding Section 5-280.B.3.e(5), Compatible with Surrounding Uses: do not agree with density. Once this is approved, assume all density will be 10 units per acre and this 10 units per acre is actually higher because the roads and parks were not subtracted. This property is 100% developable; Woodland Hills is seeking a density almost twice as high as Homestead (which most people thin is high already). Homestead is 1 unit per acre allowing for a great deal of open space, wildlife habitat and visual relief for the community. Regarding Section 5-280.D.2, Compatible With Surrounding Areas: we believe that it is not compatible because of the density. Regarding Section 5-230.D.3, Changed Conditions: we do not believe that the density has changed to warrant increasing density from RSL. If the applicant wishes to change to PUD with same density as RSL, that would be appropriate. Regarding Section 5-230.D.5, Community Need: we question if there is as much need for 20 03-26-2002 employee housing as is being proposed. We believe that the type of housing being proposed (with few recreational amenities or sense of community) is inappropriate and cannot be justified at a time that affordable housing is being handled by other areas. Note that plans for the Berry Creek 5th are more affordable, primarily due to land costs; it is difficult to do affordable housing when the land costs and infrastructure will probably be $60-80,000 per unit. We urge the PC and BOCC to deny Woodland Hills because of density and traffic. Edwards Metropolitan District, dated March 5th, 2002 Writing to confirm that Edwards Metro District is anxious to continue to cooperate in assisting you in obtaining the water required for Woodland Hills. The District requests a check for $5,000 as a deposit towards the water rights analysis currently underway; you may forward the check and a copy of this letter to the manager for the District. The tentative analysis is that Woodland Hills may require 9.192 acre feet of year-round water rights, and the cost may be in the neighborhood of $170,000. Additional Referrals were sent to the following with no response received: Eagle County Attorney, Sheriff, Animal Control, Road and Bridge The School District Fire District Eagle County Ambulance District School District: Edwards Colorado State Wildlife Division CDOT Utilities: Telephone- CenturyTel, Natural Gas- KN Energy, Holy Cross Electric- Eagle-Vail Eagle River Fire Protection: Carol Moulson Homeowners Associations: Eagle River Valley Mobile Home Park, Lake Creek, Arrowhead, River Pines, The Reserve, Singletree Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: FILE PDP-00022 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a 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 allZands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire site is owned in fee simple, by four separate owners. The owners have assigned the applicant as representative for this process. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized. The current Residential Suburban Low Density zoning currently allows all the uses associated with this proposal. Those uses include multifamily dwellings, home businesses, and recreation. The PUD guide is written to properly address and acknowledge all extraneous, residential uses of the site including specific details pertaining to such things as home businesses, recreation, etc. 21 03-26-2002 [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations ", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snow melt between buildings. The main use of multi-family dwellings (3 or more dwelling units in one building) is currently permitted as a use by right in standard, RSL zoning. However, the Woodland Hills PUD necessitates the following variations to the dimensional limitations to accommodate the nature of the proposal: Minimum Lot Area per Use; The applicant requests the approval of 12 dwelling units in 3 buildings on Lot I which comprises 1.06 acres (1 dwelling unit per 3,847 s.f. net density), 26 dwelling units in 13 buildings on Lot 2 which comprises 4.613 acres (1 dwelling unit per 7,72~ s.f. net density) and 24 dwelling units in 6 buildings on Lot 3 which comprises 2.026 acres (1 dwelling llilit per 3,677 sJ. net density). See Development Plan attached as Sheet 2 of Exhibit C that will become part of the Planned Unit Development Guide. The RSL zone district allows one dwelling,unit per 15,000 square feet. Minimum Front, Rear and Side Yard Setback Requirement; The applicant requests that setbacks permitted be as shown Gn the site plan that will be attached to the Planned Unit Development Guide. All buildings have been setback 50 feet from Highway 6, and 20 feet from (proposed) Eagle County Roads. The setback on the perimeter of the property ranges from a minimum of 15ft. to a maximum of 45 ft. Maximum Floor Area Ratio; The applicant requests that the total floor area ratio permitted on the overall property exclusive of ROW be .28. The maximum permitted in the underlying RSL Zone DistricUs .20. The proposed floor area ratios for each lot is listed below: Lot 1 -.28 Lot 2 - .25 Lot 3 - .30 Maximum Impervious Coverage; The applicant requests that the maximum impervious coverage permitted on the property exclusive of ROW be .55. The RSL Zone District allows .35 The proposed lot coverage by impervious materials is listed below: Lot 1 - .55 Lot 2 - .55 Lot 3 - .55 Maximum Building Coverage; The applicant requests that the maximum building coverage permitted on the property be .22. The RSL Zone District allows .20. The maximum building coverage limitation requested\for each lot is listed below: Lot 1 - .22 Lot 2 - .20 Lot 3 - .25 Preliminary Plan PUD variations may be granted if the Board of County Commission~rs finds that one (1) of the purposes found in Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized is necessary f~r that purpose to be achieved. There are several purposes in allowing variations for Woodland Hills. They are as follows: 3.(a) Obtain Desired Design Qualities. A variation may be allowed that perm its for a greater variety in the layout of the buildings. The units have been situated on this property to maximize privacy 22 03-26-20~2 and views from the residential units, provide central open space to conceal onsite parking to the greatest extent possible, as well as provide an easy, internal traffic circulation system. 3.( d) Trails. A variation may be allowed that it provides incentives for applicants to make contributions to the County's multi-use trail system, in accordance to the latest version of the Eagle County Trails Plan. Woodland Hills currently has incorporated a portion ofthe trail in the design of Woodland Hills. 3 .( e) Affordable Housing. A variation may be allowed that extends an incentive to applicants to assure that long term affordable housing is provided. A review of the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan shows that the cost of the units proposed by this development qualifies for both category one and two (see Housing memo dated January 23, 2002) in the local resident housing guidelines. [+/_] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3- 340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations MAY be granted along with approval of the Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of sha~ed parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations' parking standards dictate that there should be 2 parking spaces for a 1 bedroom, and 2.5 per 2-3 bedroom units. Parking, as proposed, currently exceeds that amount. According to the plans, there exist 3.6 spaces per unit, for all the units. On street parking will be prohibited, and has qeen adequately addressed in the Woodland Hills PUD guide. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Landscaping is a major component of this development, as the existing properties that comprise Woodland Hills contain little in the way of landscaping and/or vegetation. Staff can make a favorable finding. A landscaping plan has been submitted with this Preliminary Plan, with a detailed Landscaping Plan to be, submitted at Final Plat. Staff had recommended the following be addressed, and was incorporated, as part of the Woodland Hills PUD guide: Density of plant materials and the ratio of coniferous to deciduous Minimum height of coniferous and minimum caliper of deciduous materials at planting Explanation of any restoration, grading or landscape techniques, including maintenance and 23 03-26-2002 planting schedule. General landscaping intent for common open space. With these additional standards, and the creation of the associated PUD Agreement, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed this finding. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the P UD that is determined to be suitable for the P UD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The Applicant has provided a sign plan as part of the Woodland Hills PUD guide. The sign plan directly acknowledges size limitations of the entrance sign, directionallinformation signs, building identification signs, and warning/traffic signs. All other signs to will adhere to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for standards. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.FJ.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. The Woodland Hills PUD will use both the Eagle County comprehensive sign plan, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the PUD guide. These plans ARE suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Planfor PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The applicant has provided evidence that all utilities will connect to Woodland Hills PUD, however, a 1041 permit is required prior to Preliminary Plan approval, to allow the extension of water and wastewater lines to Woodland Hills. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for sewage disposal, electrical supply, and roads; the applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD is subject to 1041 review and approval, for the provision of adequate facilities for potable water and sewage disposal, however, must be approved prior to approval of this Preliminary Plan. In addition, the Applicant HAS demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-o.f-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for 24 03-26-2002 that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. A highway access permit has been obtained from CDOT/Eagle County. In regards to internal pathways and emergency vehicles, the Eagle River Fire Protection District has reviewed the plans, and have indicated that the road system will be adequate to handle all emergency response vehicles (memos concerning emergency vehicle/turning radii contained within Woodland Hills PUD Preliminary Plan application package). [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] AS CONDITIONED it HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. ( c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposedfor the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Currently, other multifamily PUD developments exist in the vicinity of the Woodland Hills property, as well as, the Eagle River Village Mobile Home Park. This proposed development would be visually compatible and in character with these other existing developments. Taking into account, however, the method by which density was awarded in the past for these developments, the issue of compatibility becomes less clear. Following is a table which compares and contrasts Woodland Hills to other existing development in the immediate vicinity: Development Acreage per # of Dwelling Density Unit Size No. of Subdivision Plat Units (du/acre) Bedrooms or Special Use Brett Ranch 956-1415 sq ft 2 to 4 *The Villas 16.7 ac (gross) 156 9.34 Does not include 10.78 ac (net) 14.47 garages. *Entire PUD 113.88 (gross) 202 1.77 25 03-26-2002 Cordillera 660-998 sq ft 30 one bdrm Valley Club 152 two bdrm *Lake Crk ViI 29.96 (gross) 270 9.01 88 three bdrm 26.39 ac (net) 10.23 *Entire PUD 424.3 (gross) 445 1.00 Eagle River 119.07 (gross) 380 trailers 3.19 980 sq ft to 1,680 sq ft 324 two to three MHP 39.87 ac (net) 9.52 bdrm 56 four bdrm Woodland Hills 8.81 ac (gross) 88 9.99 555 sq ft to 1050 sq ft 76 two bdrm 8.81 ac (net) 9.99 Does not include garage 12 one bdrm When net densities of existing developments are compared to Woodland Hills, compatibility is readily apparent. This net density is the visual density that a passer-by would perceive in this vicinity of the Edwards area. The gross acreages of existing developments, however, are considerably lower than that of Woodland Hills. The gross acreage is derived by accounting for lower density land or open space which is part of the respective PUD's but which, is not located in the vicinity of the multifamily portions of said PUD's. In the instance ofthe Eagle River MHP, the majority of the land factored into the gross calculation consists of land which has little likelihood of being developed due to extreme topographical constraints. In each instance, the developable portion of the land which is also the most visually impacted portion of each PUD and the MHP has been maximized with multifamily development and mobile homes. Woodland hills is not compatible based strictly upon numeric gross density calculations but, would be compatible with the character of the area and would generate similar visual impacts when compared directly to the referenced existing projects in the immediate vicinity. [+/-] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD MAY be considered compatible with the character of surrounding land uses based upon net density calculations or, visual density. The Woodland Hills project is not consistent with existing similar developments based strictly upon numeric gross density calculations. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN x x Community Center 26 03-26-2002 II II Not Applicable .. .. Community Center has a suggested density of 3-12 dwelling units per acre, in designated areas typically found along major transportation routes which are accessible public water and sewer, and have not been designated as sensitive lands. This designation promotes Community Centers as appropriate locations for affordable housing, with cluster and Planned Unit Developments being encouraged. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Concerns related to pets (feeding, housing, other restrictions), or bear proof trash containers have been addressed within the PUD guide, as well as the Declarations and Covenants for Woodland Hills. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN LOCAL RESIDENT HOUSING: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: NOTE: (plus or minus' are added before the elements to show the conformance of the proposal in relation to the vision statement) [+] Housing is a community-wide issue. [+] Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. [+] Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing transit routes. Although near a transportation route, a new, designated transit stop is not indicated on the plans. [nla] Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success. [nla] It is important to preserve existing local residents housing. [+] Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county [nla] Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs. The Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan cites many criteria for what kinds of new developments would qualify in meeting the recommended standards of local residents housing Eagle Valley . Woodland Hills is in compliance with many of the recommendations from this plan. EAGLE COUNTY WATERSHED PLAN 27 03-26-2002 This property is relatively flat, but at the foot of significant sloping land. There are neither wetlands, nor open water of any sort on this property. The applicant has satisfied all previous Colorado Geological Survey conditions of Sketch Plan concerning storm water runoff, removal of existing septic systems, drainage detention, and erosion control, and will adhere to any and all Eagle County Regulations concerning the same issues. EDWARDS SUB-AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Subsection II. SUB AREA PLAN defines several 'Concepts for Development': "The area should develop as a focal point for local development and eventually become a town." Local development should include a mix of housing types in order to create a balanced community. Since 1985, Edwards has evolved into an area with multiple commercial development of its own. It may be considered necessary for Edwards to have its own affordable housing to support local residents who work there. "The spectacular view and wide green valleys should be emphasized and preserved." The subject site is not in pristine condition and is currently developed with a modular home, fenced horse runs and a variety of other buildings, vehicles etc. "The openness should be preserved by clustered development." Multifamily development, by design, 'clusters' residential development, thereby facilitating the preservation of open area. In this instance, it is proposed that at least 25% of the site remain open. This project is proposing 22 buildings, three less than what may be allowed under standard, RSL zoning (if one were proposing to build either single family or duplex units on the same 8.81 acres). "The Lake Creek and Squaw Creek valleys should be kept rural (1 du/2: 10 acres). Developments should be encouraged to be clustered, with provision for open space." Lake Creek and Squaw Creek valleys have indeed remained rural in character and this proposal 28 03-26-2002 would not compromise this objective as this development is not in either valley. The proposed multi- family development would provide active open space for residents of the development. "The 'theme' of the area, which workshop participants encouraged, should be recreation- oriented, aimed at local residents with an emphasis on natural surroundings. Development should be fitting in, blending, harmonizing with, as opposed to, competing with spectacular surroundings. Development should be restricted from ridge lines and should be reinforced with additional dry land planting. " The proposed development would maximize use of the site but would do so in a manner which would be consistent with other existing and approved development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The applicant has imposed several deed restrictions on this property to ensure that employees or employers will be the only people living in this development. Ridge lines would not be effected by this development, and landscaping is currently a component of this proposal. Subsection III. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY states that: "The accompanying maps identify areas of development and the general land use categories. These general categories specify type of uses rather than specific numbers." The subject property is not included on the maps, like the Squaw Creek Valley, however, the site is clearly represented on the Master Plan's FLUM and is identified as Community Center. The Plan does define RURAL as 1 du/2: 10 acres. "The main development and the central community focus should occur at the Edwards Commercial Center. Development densities should diminish from high density to rural along the transportation corridor away from this community center." The Lake Creek and Squaw Creek valleys have/are being developed in a rural character. Squaw Creek valley is further west of this site and appears to represent a logical 'edge of community' for the Edwards area. The Saint Claire church complex, is considered to be a transitional use. The majority of land located between Squaw Creek valley and the subject property on the south side of Highway 6 appears to be un-developable due to topography. In effect, due to these topographical constraints, the development of land leading up to Squaw Creek Road will diminish to a rural character as is recommended by the existing Edwards Area Plan. "Clustering development helps to preserve open fields, and natural areas." The proposed development would preserve/improve open area within the project - albeit not natural. The site, however, is not in a natural condition currently. Subsection IV SPECIFIC COMPONENTS states that: With regard to Housing- "For the present time (1985), people living in Edwards will work elsewhere. As Arrowhead and Berry Creek areas develop, it can become a support community for those adjacent resort areas." Now, 16 years later, the Arrowhead and Berry Creek areas have developed and attainable multifamily housing is necessary to house support workers for the adjacent resort areas. "The housing character should orient toward residential development and not the passing tourist. " This project is attempting to cater to local residents only. With regard to Recreation- "High density housing developments should have local playgrounds." This proposal does incorporate a centralized play field, tot lot, and other recreational amenities. Please be advised that Eagle County and the citizens of the Edwards Community are actively developing an updated, more comprehensive version of the Edwards Area Community Plan and associated Future Land Use Map. The committee has currently identified the criteria as mentioned above as 'still valid' today (when considering the proposed Edwards Sub Area Plan). The updated plan is anticipated to be adopted by the Eagle County Planning Commission in April 2002. At the time of 29 03-26-2002 preparation of this Staff Report, specific density recommendations for property in the Woodland Hills vicinity remain undefined. EAGLE COUNTY TRAILS PLAN The purpose of the Eagle County Trails Plan is to identify opportunities for non-motorized trail systems and outline a coordinated process for development and implementation of those trail systems. The Applicant has worked with the Eagle County Trails planner since the Woodland Hills Sketch Plan application. A portion of the trail is currently part of any and all future plans for Woodland Hills. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the P UD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be providedfor public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. A phasing plan has been presented as part of this application. The phasing plan is as follows: Phase 1. Buildings 15 through 18 Phase 2. Buildings 11 through 14 Phase 3. Buildings 1 through 4 Phase 4. Buildings 5 through 8 Phase 5. Buildings 9 and 10 Phase 6. Buildings 19 through 22 [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS been submitted for this development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space landsfor everyone thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (I) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-o.fways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (ii) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Planfor PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any 30 03-26-2002 common open space. Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the 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 Woodland Hills PUD includes a comprehensive Recreation and Open Space plan. Currently, 26% of Woodland Hills is to be dedicated to active recreation. This includes a half acre recreation field, a tot lot, and a 12 station health and fitness trail system. There will also be several picnic tables throughout the development. All land surrounding the residences of Woodland Hills will be common space. Maintenance of this common space will be provided through the Declarations and Covenants. Also a component of this application, Woodland Hills will be contributing to the ECO Trails system by constructing a portion of the trail which passes along the front of the development. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Presently, the only referral comments related to this standard is from the Forest Service, which made no new comments for this application, but referred back to the Sketch Plan referral memo dated March 9,2001. All comments have be adhered to as conditions of Sketch Plan approval; the applicant has currently incorporated the conditions into the Preliminary Plan application, specifically within the PUD Guide. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See previous discussion, page 15. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. 31 03-26-2002 Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) [+ ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) [+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) [+/_ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) The 1041 must be approved prior to Preliminary Plan approval. [+/_] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) The 1041 must be approved prior to Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Fees will be collected prior to Final Plat approval. All findings under this standard are either favorable, favorable as conditioned, or do not apply to this project. The Woodland Hills PUD will be subject to all of the requirements of a final PUD guide and/or the Eagle County Land Use Regulations., unless the proposed variations have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. 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. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. By connecting to the existing infrastructure, this proposal will not cause inefficiencies, nor will it be a leapfrog pattern of development. This application has also proposed future vehicular access 32 03-26-2002 connections to adjacent properties in that they have designed internal roadway connection stub outs to which future developments can hook up to. The applicant for Woodland Hills has also applied for a 1041 permit, companion with these files. This is necessary to allow water and wastewater lines to be extended to the subject property. It is necessary to first obtain approval of the 1041 prior to the Preliminary Plan. Currently, the applicant has shown that joining to existing facilities shall be acquirable. [+] FINDING: as conditioned 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 human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. The property of Woodland Hills is suitable for development. If approved, the proposed development would add the additional benefit of "cleaning up" the subject property which currently harbor old septic systems, and a variety of debris. [+] 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 human-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 refer to previous compatibility discussion on page 14. [+/-] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The development proposed for the PUD MAY be considered compatible with the character of surrounding land uses based upon net density calculations or, visual density. The Woodland Hills project is not consistent with existing similar developments based strictly upon numeric gross density calculations. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions. " The PUD guide, in its current format, adequately addresses the land use restrictions for the proposed development. The guide, in conjunction with the associated Declaration and Covenants shall be sufficiently satisfies this standard. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a pun Guide that demonstrates meets the requirements of this Section. FILE ZC-00050 Requirements for a Zone Change In Section 5-240.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor. Based on the above analysis and other available information, Staff makes the following findings as provided in this Section of the Land Use Regulations: 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). Please refer to the Master Plan evaluation on page 14. 33 03-26-2002 [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l] The proposed zone change designation IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Eagle County Master Plan. STANDARD: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; By changing the zoning from Residential Suburban Low Density to that of Planned Unit Development, the proposed development may be considered to be compatible with existing zone districts located to the north (Lake Creek Village, Brett Ranch). Please refer to compatibility discussion on page 13. [+/-] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The development proposed for the PUD MAY be considered compatible with the character of surrounding land uses based upon net density calculations or, visual density. The Woodland Hills project is not consistent with existing similar developments based strictly upon numeric gross density calculations. The proposed PUD is the appropriate zone district to achieve the proposed outcome. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the use or density/intensity; Surrounding zone changes have been occurring on properties in close proximity to Woodland Hills since 1974, when this property was first zoned to RSL. Other changes in zoning include: the expansion ofthe ERV Mobile Home Park in 1986; Lake Creek Village in 1993 from RSL to PUD; Brett Ranch PUD, in 1997; the installation of the Eagle River Sanitation and Water District treatment plant in 1981, with several expansions taking place over the years- most recently completing its last expansion 2001. Other changes which have occurred in the vicinity of Woodland Hills is the growth of commercial properties in Edwards, and the increased service of Eco Transit along Hwy 6. Most recently, CDOT has increased the turning lanes at the Edwards interchange to improve traffic flow to Singletree and 1-70 access points. Edwards is becoming a significant area to shop (with substantial commercial developments having been approved over the years), work and obtain services in the Eagle Valley. The population of Edwards has increased from 4,143 in 1990, to 8,183 in the year 2000. [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the density and intensity. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands; The property of Woodland Hills does not contain any open water or wetlands, wildlife habitat, or significant natural vegetation. This project will be required to use storm water, drainage, and erosion control methods during any construction, and is not expected to produce significant noise and air pollution, outside of what normal construction generates. [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4] The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts to the natural environment. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; Housing demands in Eagle County are ever present, and are therefore a community need. The applicant for this project has offered to deed restrict several of the proposed units to ensure that affordability for first time, local resident home buyers. [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] The proposed amendment DOES address a community need. 34 03-26-2002 STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; This proposal is located on the fringe of the Community Center designation, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, and is adjacent to US Hwy 6 a major transportation corridor. The traditional view of a Community Center is that of concentric rings which are centered over a community's core area and gradually transition outward into less intensive land uses as the distance from the core area increases. Development of Community Centers within the Eagle Valley, however, is dictated by topographical constraints which force development into elongated ellipses or lineal patterns which follow the valley's floor and transportation routes. The most easily developable land tends to be located toward the valley's bottom adjacent to lineal transportation corridors and nearest to public infrastructure. Indeed, existing development patterns do locate higher intensity multifamily uses and the mobile home park in the valley's bottom adjacent to existing infrastructure and transportation routes. The proposed Woodland Hills development is logically located within just such an area and is adjacent to existing transportation routes, bus routes and existing public infrastructure necessary to support a multifamily development. Further, the existing RSL zoning of immediately adjacent properties does allow multifamily residential as a use-by-right. [+] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] The proposed amendment WILL result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning. Further, the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. STANDARD: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] Whether and the extent to which the area to which the proposed amendment would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Edwards has been steadily growing in population, and is estimated to continue to grow in the future. With the continued growth of commercial development, new residential development will be necessary to accommodate new residents and/or employees of the Eagle Valley. With limited land/space in the vicinity of Edwards, it may be in the public interest to encourage higher densities on land within the community centers, versus having Edwards sprawl further away from amenities and schools, producing further dependence on private vehicles to travel into the center as opposed to walking, biking or use of public transportation. [+] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] The extent to which the area to which the amendment would apply HAS changed and continues to change is such that it is in the public interest to encourage a new density in the area. Chairman Gallagher questioned the two findings that are not positive. Ms. Skinner stated there are differences in the minimum lot area, building coverage, set backs and floor area ratio. She stated the RSL zone district allows one dwelling unit per 15,000 square feet. Chairman Gallagher asked about the set backs and floor area ratio. Ms. Skinner stated there are collector roads which have a 50 foot set back, the side and rear yards are 12.5' setbacks. Floor area ratio in RSL zoning is 20% and the applicant is asking for .28%. The applicant is asking the impervious coverage be changed to .55%. Building coverage is currently .20% and the applicant is asking for .22%. Chairman Gallagher asked about compatibility with the surrounding area. Ms. Skinner stated there are other multi-family developments in the vicinity as well as Eagle River Mobile Home Park. The proposed development will be compatible with the surrounding uses. If you look at adjacent property it is not very compatible because of the mobile home part. Commissioner Stone questioned the density of the mobile home park. Ms. Skinner stated the Eagle River Mobile Home Park is comprised oftwo lots and has an 35 03-26-2002 overall density of 3.19. A large part of the lots is hillside and cannot be built upon. Tom Boni stated engineering has been done by Peak Land Consultants and traffic engineering has been don by LSC Transportation Consultants. Watershed Environmental Consultants, were brought on for help on the 1041 permit application to review the site for environmental impacts. Hepworth Pawlak has been on site and drilled numerous holes to ascertain the soil stability. Knight Planning Services is the land planner. Mr. Boni showed slides of the Edwards area that was identified as part ofthe community center. He stated that consists of Brett Ranch Villas, Lake Creek Apartments, north and south of the river is the Eagle River Mobile Home Park. The other feature is the natural physical restraint of the hillside. He showed a slide of what their development would look like in relationship to the surrounding area. He stated they have worked hard with staff and the Planning Commission. He stated they had three meetings at sketch plan. He stated they reduced the density of the dwelling units. On April 4th the Planning Commission recommended approval as they felt the proposal would offer much needed affordable housing, the density is offset by relative smaller size of the individual units. They have 12 one bedroom units of 600 square feet in size. The imposed additional conditions, a frontage road concept and a provision be made with regard to the units and the affordability of those units. On April 17th the Board tabled this file to address affordability and traffic. He stated there was a good mix of people both in favor and speaking in opposition. He stated according to the Open Space Map they are within the area identified for development. He stated Eagle County has a comprehensive housing plan of which this application meets both the first and second categories of that plan. He reviewed the Board's conditions. The plan complies with the Edwards Access Control Plan, the Colorado Geologic Survey, Fire District, housing requirements. He stated there will be no building permits issued without compliance with sale prices. 1. Any individual purchasing any of the units must be an Eagle County resident or employer. 2. There be a permanent cap of 3% on all one bedroom units. 6 would be offered at $120,000 and 6 at $135,000. There will be an allowance for periodic fix-up. There shall be a 5 year 3% cap on 10 of the two bedroom units to be offered at $210,000. Commissioner Menconi asked about the owner occupied stipulation. Mr. Boni stated that was not discussed at the hearing. The idea is that there will be employers who will be interested in purchasing the units and offering them to their employees. Chairman Gallagher stated the concern is that the employer will pay a cheaper price and then offer it at an expensive rate to their employee. That was the concern. Mr. Boni stated a 1 % transfer tax will be paid to Eagle County Housing Department. No building permit shall be issued unless projected sales costs can be met. The interior road was eliminated to allow for an additional park. He stated there have been minor revisions to the building locations and building connections on two buildings. They would have a roof line connection. There have been minor revisions to a grading plan which have resulted in the approved appearance to the buildings. There will be seven feet of fill so if looking at the building from three sides it appears to be a two level rather than a three level unit. There will be a jogging trail that goes through the entire property. They have been dealing with the Eco trails along front of property. Commissioner Stone asked if these are 3 story units what is the height. Mr. Boni stated they are within the 35 foot height limitation. Commissioner Stone asked if the buildings could be seen from Highway 6. David Nudell, applicant, stated that they all face away from Highway 6. Mr. Boni showed the Board a lot layout showing the buildings and how they face. Mr. Nudell stated he has 8 one bedroom units under reservation out of the 12 planned. He stated the one bedroom are very popular. He stated the two bedroom units had the floor plans switched and now have a large open area, one and 3/4 baths and two bedrooms 36 03-26-2002 Commissioner Menconi questioned the price range. Mr. Nudell stated out of the 12 two bedroom units, 10 ofthose are at $210,000 and the others will not go above $240,000. Mr. Boni stated on the Future Land Use Map, the housing plan directs applicants to locate houses as close to community centers as possible. The Open Space Map is an important document and identifies the area on the Lake Creek side and this project is located outside of that. The Edwards Sub Area Plan showed the Edwards Mobile Home Park as a multi-family area. In the environmental section of the Master Plan, they rarely find properties with some kind of trade offs. He stated there are no identified wildlife or environmental resources located on the property. He spoke to the transportation and mass transit areas along Highway 6. The most frequent stops is the Eagle River MHP and they stop as often as 5 times during peak hours. Considering the Edwards Access Control Plan, they have oversized their entrance along Highway 6. Consistent with Eagle County Land Use Regulations they have met each and every regulation. Any PUD has to request a different land use or different density and spatial patterns. The infrastructure is there to support, bus stops are there, St. Clare of Assisi is there, a church site will be included, the land is suitable for development and is located at the base of the hill, compatibility with surrounding land uses. They have 12 smaller size units and with the restriCtions, the Planning Commission considered this to be in the correct range. He stated in terms of compatibility you must think in terms of literal definition. It does not have to be the same but has to be agreeable with surrounding land use. He stated the only constant in Edwards is the ERMHP. There are no significant environmental impacts. Services are close by. This application is a private sector response to local resident housing. They have good location with excellent mass transit connections, compatible with surrounding development, good location and the application is in full compliance with conditions of sketch plan approval. Mr. Knight noted they have no disagreement with staff. He stated the questions pointed out were compatibility and dimensional limitations. When and if the zone change is approved, they will be fully consistent with dimensional limitations. Mr. Nudell stated they have a nice looking project. They have 30 year roots in the valley and the homes will have a 50 year warranty. This is a low maintenance long term project. They have made a number of changes based on recommendations from staff and the Board. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Jerry Tylich, Eagle-Vail resident, stated he lived in Carbondale and Telluride in the past and housing is always a problem. He stated he prefers that people should be able to live where they work. He stated this project is at the right place and will allow workers the ability to live where they work. It will also be a good economic stimulate. Peter Berg, Berry Creek Metro District, stated the proposed zone change is substantially different than what is there currently. He questioned the increase in density. It saddens him that the Town of Vail decided to have open space and not a place for their workers to live. He stated Edwards has been handed the task of supplying affordable housing. He stated Berry Creek will have another 285 affordable units, a project in Avon will have another 400 units. He stated his concern is traffic. Almost all year long the parking lot at the Singletree Community Center is full with those playing soccer. This plan with its sub roads seems to be standard for the density. He stated if this project is approved it will only be a short amount of time before the adjacent property owners will be asking to develop their property. Commissioner Stone asked if he could change the development of the property what would he do. Mr. Berg stated the history of the property has been not a good one for affordable housing. He stated he would support an initiative by the County to help developers to build something more than 600 square feet. He stated they could have open space and more recreational facilities. Commissioner Stone asked if he was mostly concerned about the size of the units and recreation 37 03-26-2002 amenities. Mr. Berg stated he does not have a problem with the gross density but a problem with the net density. The trailer parks gross density is 4 units per acre and the net density is less than 4 units per acre. This is because of the hillside that will never be developed. Doris Dewton, area resident, stated since the first discussion, the inventory of affordable housing has gone up in the greater Edwards area. We now have Berry Creek of about 285 units, the West Avon parcel of about 400 units and all of those units will be attainable. In this proposal 114 of the units will be attainable and the rest are reasonably priced. She questioned the cost of asphalt, concrete and lumber. Secondly, she argued that the price ofthe land basically makes this area not appropriate for attainable housing. There was discussion with David Carter concerning maintenance costs and if these units really affordable. In looking at the map there are two spur roads to nowhere. This is the beginning of a ripple effect and the adjacent property owners are waiting to start their development. This is residential medium or low density. The Edwards Sub Area Master Plan of 1985 is still in force as there has been no new Master Plan. This project is totally inconsistent with that plan. The task force established by the County has not approved this application. She stated Mr. Nudell has made no effort to meet with Homeowners Associations nor the Edwards Governing Body. She proposed the Board deny or table this plan until the new Edwards Area Master Plan has been approved. Commissioner Stone asked Ms. Dewton what would make this project more acceptable. Mr. Duten stated she would lower the density to medium density and she would speak to the owner of the property about the cost of the land. If that was not attainable she would withdraw from the development. George Gregory, area resident, stated the Board needs to assure that the overall interest of the community and the future of Edwards is protected. He co-chaired the Edwards Update Task Force Committee. There are several points, the Sub Area Plan is intended to be more specific than the Future Land Use Plan. He stated paragraph 2 on page 2, the spectacular green views of the valley should be preserved. That has not been done. The openness should be preserved by clustered development. The property in question did not appear on the Sub Area Master Plan. He stated it is absurd to argue they intended this to be density of 10 units per acre and part of the community center. This project goes against the task force committee recommendation. The project is not consistent with similar developments and the applicant is straining to make it fit. The infrastructure will not have enough water for new homes to water their lawns. How is the public park space going to be watered. He stated there are 1,000 units that could be built on tomorrow that will not require coming before the Board. He stated he understands the constraints but the quality is a significant issue with a number of people. It is modest and mediocre to the extreme. He stated 50 year siding, which is what the applicant is going to use, is not something the Board is going to be proud to show off. He asked if they are solving the problem or contributing to it. The more the land goes up the project is more expensive. He would lower the density and improve the architectural appearance of the project. The Rivers Edge property is high density housing that is very pleasing. This project is just boxes. He would assure that there was enough space there that the owners and their children have recreation. Lastly he would eliminate the two spur roads. His last point is that this project is in a transient area. He read from the Master Plan and asked the Board to deny or table this project and ask the applicant to work with other entities to come to a census on an appropriate density. Jeannie Hauff, Homestead Owners Association, stated the idea of affordable housing is driving the entire project. She stated the in-fill can ruin the vision they have for Edwards. This is the kind of project that could ruin that vision. There should be public outcry for a change in zoning. She believes when Berry Creek was approved there was a case for low income housing. She stated she does not see the rush for approval ofthis project. She stated she believes the Board listens to the applicant but does not listen to the public. The Board does have an obligation to be prudent and cautious. She stated the 38 03-26-2002 Board has an obligation to be very cautious. She stated if she could change the development to build one single family home and one accessory units on each lot. Ms. Skinner stated if the lots were combined as one lot there could be a total of 50 dwelling units, 25 residential units and 25 accessory dwelling units. If the lots were combined they could build three single family homes or three duplexs with accessory dwelling units. Commissioner Menconi asked if the Association took a stand on Brett Ranch and on Lake Creek Apartments. Ms. Huff stated they took an opposing position. Elizabeth Myers, area resident, spoke to gross versus net density. She stated the hillside behind the trailer park is open space. Using words like compatible with other units and yes it is compatible. But they need to look at the open space and it then is no longer compatible. She stated $200.00 per square foot is not affordable. She requested the Board listen to the people of Edwards. They do not want more density. Orlando Villegas, area resident, stated they have to realize they must face the housing problem. The people that live here need this type of housing to be able to live where they work. Steven Wray, area resident, stated this will be a good project and will help the local economy. Those in objection are the ones that can afford more that others. This projects needs to be approved and this type housing is needed. Mr. Knight stated the Master Plan and the Sub Area Plans are the basic documents. It has been consistently shown that this plan is consistent with the Master Plan and they have added restrictions on the project to showaffordability. Chairman Gallagher asked why the applicant has not communicated with ECOGY. Mr. Nudell stated he has gone to all entities, listened to their concerns and has responded. He stated most of the items they are requesting he cannot do. Chairman Gallagher stated he has heard that there is a question as to the FLUM. Mr. Narracci stated for the LUR the FLUM does designate this area as being in the community center. As one moves westward the density should drop. The Edwards Plan that was done in 1985 does not show this property on that map. He stated there is a point by point evaluation on staff report of the Edwards Area Plan. One way of looking at it is that density would demish rapidly outside of the community center which is the Lake Creek and Squaw Creek Valley. They have been developed in a rural character. Chairman Gallagher questioned the area designated as community center is centered at the Highway 6 and Spur Road Interchange. Mr. N arracci stated it begins there and moves west. Chairman Gallagher asked staff to summarize where this project lies to the full length ofthe community center. Mr. Narracci stated they provided a larger scale land use map, which is centered on Highway 6 and the Spur Road. It picks up again further west and goes to where the topography becomes steeper on the south side of Highway 6. Chairman Gallagher asked for the Attorney's opinion. Mr. Moorhead stated the applicable map would be the FLUM done in 1998. Chairman Gallagher stated he is trying to understand the concept of going from 3 to 12 in a community center. Mr. Gregory stated they were told to stop work on a new FLUM showing a community center because of a variety of reasons. That is the reason there is not a more current FLUM. There is a lot of commercial on the north side ofl-70, and with the exception of the medical center and the cancer center, the rest is supposed to remain open space. The community center is not something that is elongated for three or four miles but it is at the core area. 39 03-26-2002 Chairman Gallagher stated the Commissioners are aware of the happenings in Edwards. Commissioner Stone asked about the purpose of the spur roads. Mr. Knight stated good community planning works around a transportation system. They felt an overall street pattern was important. Certainly the access plan and code suggests good off road patterns. When something gets built next to this development it will also become a part of the neighborhood. Commissioner Stone stated the purpose of the two spur roads is to recognize the adjacent property could be developed into PUDs in the future and if that would happen they may not have their own access onto Highway 6. From a good planning standpoint they would access through this development. Mr. Knight stated they would have the opportunity to ask. He stated the access code permits are given to each process as they have to have their own access. They are proposing to create a tract and if they are never used they will never be used. Obviously you should try to plan for the future. Commissioner Stated if the Board uses the intersection of the Spur Road and 1-70 as a starting point, they would take the outer most portion and have lowering densities, the core would be 12 and the outside boundary would be 3. Mr. Knight stated the theory was the concentray grain theory. Knowing that Squaw Creek and Lake Creek and the Eagle River was there. The Lake Creek area was not included in the theory. They eliminated areas where high density was not appropriate and put it where it was appropriate. It was his view they are beyond on how far out you are. Commissioner Stone stated he was not here when sketch plan was voted on. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the difference in concentric circles. He asked about transportation corridors. He asked if that was part of staffs decision. Mr. Narracci stated it was linear development. Commissioner Menconi asked if they took 76 units and used the 7,650 square feet and multiplied those together, divide by 3,000, you come up with 41.8 units. Ms. Skinner stated that was explained in staff report. Mr. Narracci stated in the RSL zoning, based on the 15,000 square foot lot size, they could end up with that amount of duplexes. Commissioner Menconi stated he looking at backing into it with square feet. Mr. Narracci stated based on RSL zoning, on each 15,000 square foot lot, one could have a floor area ratio of 4,200 square feet, there could be maximum pervious coverage of 8,250 square feet, and a maximum building footprint of 3,000 square feet. Commissioner Menconi stated the applicant is requesting an additional 20,000 square feet. Ken Hicks, representing Mountain Sky Custom Pre-Built Homes, stated they provide UBC homes which is the same code as Cordillera uses. They do not provide HUD homes. They are 2x6 wall construction, R-19 insulation, 100 pound snow loads if required, they are using the highest grade of vinyl wolverine siding, floor systems are double microlambs with a custom built truss system that hangs on the top of the microlambs, 3/4" sub floor. He stated a lot of the floor systems are stronger than that put in a custom built home. He stated he is currently working on a sales office at Cordillera at Black Horse. Commissioner Menconi asked if there was a range in square foot price. Mr. Hicks stated Mr. Nudells project is between mid and low range. He stated they have a minimum quality standard. Commissioner Menconi asked about a square foot price. Mr. Hicks stated the square foot price averages about $65.00 per square foot. The upper end house that has every option is approximately $82.00 per square foot. Commissioner Stone complemented the applicant in really making an effort to keep the homes as affordable as possible. He suggested the applicant request this matter be tabled to allow him to work 40 03-26-2002 with all concerned entities. The issues are the density of the entire PUD. He thanked Mr. Knight for a good planning process but that also can create problems. He stated the issue is the LUR almost encourage high end development. How can the Board give incentives. He stated the major issue is density. Commissioner Menconi stated the good neighbor policy has been being used and works well. He stated the Planning Commission voted in favor of the file, two which are from Wolcott and two from Singletree. He stated out of all the files he has had the opportunity to hear, this applicant has worked diligently with the County in trying to build affordable housing and what is necessary for the community. 25% of the people employed in this community live outside of Eagle County. He stated living in Avon, in an area that has made a commitment to create opportunities for those who live in units of 1,000 square feet. He would like to compromise in density and is willing to approve this application with conditions. Chairman Gallagher suggested tabling this matter. In an effort to come up with a project that is good but having 25% of it as affordable is admirable. The Board cannot hear the opinions they have heard today without suggesting the applicant work with the neighbors. At the same time, he spoke to those opposing this matter and stated the Board is not holding this over the applicants head. Mr. Nudell stated he has tried to work with the neighbors and suggested they only table this matter for two weeks. Commissioner Menconi asked the applicant take a wholistic approach when speaking to the community. Mr. Tylich stated those that this project will benefit are not present today as they work and cannot be present. Laurie Bower, Housing Division, stated there is some concern with the affordability component. She stated if they reduce the density the developer may not be able to have the units as affordable as they are shown to be currently. Commissioner Stone moved to table file numbers PDP-00022 and ZC-00050, Woodland Hills to April 9, 2002. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Settlement Stipulations Chairman Gallagher noted that Commissioner Menconi had to leave for a previously scheduled meeting. Mark Chapin and Diane Mauriello re-appeared to discuss the settlement stipulations heard earlier in the day for Traer Creek LLC, in which the classification was changed to agriculture. Ms. Mauriello reviewed a packet of information submitted to the Board indicating the land was being used for grazing. Chairman Gallagher asked if there were animals grazing on the property. Mr. Chapin stated the petitioner has indicated there were animals grazing on the property. Commissioner Stone questioned the lessor, Piney Valley Ranch's Trust. He questioned if the owner and the lessor were both involved in Traer Creek. He stated these two entities both represent Traer Creek. He stated he has not seen animals grazing on this property. He stated there is a lot of pavement still there and animals cannot graze on pavement. Mr. Moorhead stated if the Board denies this it would go to hearing. Mr. Mauriello stated this involves more than just the stolport property. There are a number of parcels included in this petition. They would need to move the April 4, 2002 hearing and she does not know how the process will go. Rule 11 has which is the discovery method has not been filed. Commissioner Stone stated he would be more open to the property on the north side ofI-70 but 41 03-26-2002 the properties on the south side of I -70 he has a problem with. Chairman Gallagher agreed. He stated he is not interested in approving this and would like to have more information. Mr. Moorhead informed the Board if not approving this petition no action is needed. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until April 2, 2002. Attest: Clerk to the BoarQ 42 03-26-2002