Loading...
Minutes 04/30/2002 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 30, 2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Tom Stone T om Moorhead Jack Ingstad Sara 1. Fisher Chairman Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board Absent: Am Menconi Commissioner This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn into an Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning pending litigation including Close v. BOCC and Williams v. BOCC (EEOC claim) an appropriate topic for exec session pursuant to 24-6-402(4)(b) CRS Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioner the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the next item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of April 29, 2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for May 2,2002, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioner meeting minutes for April 2, 2002 D) Residence Lease E). Salt Lake City Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Training Center's Training Agreement F) Agreement between Eagle County and Terri Allender G) Agreement between Eagle County and Sudi Berg. Commissioner Stone stated he has a comment on item C, the Commissioner meeting minutes, the first portion of that meeting, the Executive Session needs to be deleted as there was not an Executive Session held that day. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Tom Moorhead, County Attorney, stated there are no changes. Chairman Gallagher asked after item E, Salt Lake City Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting Training Center's Training Agreement, and the associated signature page which is page three. He stated 1 04-30-2002 it in fact should be signed by the Airport Manager and the Salt Lake City representative. He asked Mr. Storer to pay special attention to the advertising as it moves forward. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented with the appropriate amendments to the minutes and the amendment to the signature block as discussed. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher noted that Commissioner Menconi was out of town. Interest Report, First Quarter Karen Sheaffer, Eagle County Treasurer, presented the Interest Report for the first quarter of 2002. She explained the report to the Board saying that for the first quarter it looks good. She added that as of today they have received 62% of the tax payments and they are equal with their collections as compared to last year. The Board thanked Ms. Sheaffer for her report. Settlement Stipulations Tom Moorhead presented a settlement stipulation for John G. Krediet, schedule number R009171. The original assessed value was $12,213,300, the Board of Equalization value was $8,353,680 and the negotiated value is $6,800,000. He explained this is residential property on Forest Road in Vail. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the settlement stipulations as shown on Exhibit A and as presented by County Attorney. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Chairman Gallagher stated there are no plats or resolutions for signature today. Resolution 2002-063, Inclusion of Minturn and Red Cliff into Eagle River Fire Protection District Chairman Gallagher stated the next matter before the Board was Resolution 2002-063, regarding the inclusion ofthe Town of Mintum and the Town of Red Cliff into the Eagle River Fire Protection District. Commissioner Stone read the Resolution for the record as follows: "Whereas, the skilled and worthy firefighters of the Minturn Volunteer Fire Department have fought fires in every town and community ofthis County for nearly a century, saving an unknown number of lives and countless dollars in property, in cooperation with all other departments; and Whereas, the population of Minturn is changing and the availability of volunteers for firefighting in Minturn is vanishing as it is in other parts of our culture; and Whereas, the citizens of the Town of Minturn are confronted with the choice of joining the well established Eagle River Fire Protection District, or the choice of risking the loss of well trained and adequately manned fire protection altogether; and Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County firmly believes that cooperative and shared efforts towards the resolution of all emergencies is the most efficient use of our resources; and 2 04-30-2002 Whereas, the Board of Directors of the Eagle River Fire Protection District have set May 7, 2002 as the date for an election to be held in the Town of Minturn at the Minturn Town Hall for the citizens of Minturn and Red Cliffto choose to be included into the Eagle River Fire Protection District. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: That, the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County strongly supports the inclusion of Minturn and Red Cliff into the Eagle River Fire Protection District; and That, the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County strongly encourages all voters and property owners to vote for inclusion into the Eagle River Fire Protection District and to VOTE YES on QUESTION 1A on May 7, 2002 at the Minturn Town HalL" Chairman Gallagher asked for comments. Commissioner Stone stated that he is very supportive of this resolution and the County has been very generous in helping support the Minturn Fire Department. He stated he believes the inclusion would be the best solution for the Towns. Chairman Gallagher stated that he also supports the resolution and believes, given his history as a Minturn Fire Fighter, that this will be beneficial for all citizens and firefighters. This proposal will not eliminate fire fighting in Minturn but rather provides for better training. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-063, regarding the inclusion of the Town of Minturn and the Town of Red Cliff into the Eagle River Fire Protection District. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone asked that the COlmty Manager forward this resolution on to the appropriate newspapers and the Towns of Minturn and Red Cliff. Government Week Art Contest Winners Chairman Gallagher stated the next item on the agenda was the winners of the Government Week Art Contest. The winners are as follows: Minturn and Gypsum Middle Schools Third Prize Third Prize Second Prize Second Prize First Prize Grand Prize Third Prize Second Prize First Prize Grand Prize Diego Ontiveros for Mexico Levi V llsquez for Squirrel Desiree Smith, Finding the Fire Within Chelsea Donaldson for Illuminating the Wodd Diego Ontiveros for Bridge and Boat Sarah Davis for The Power of Love and Wodd Peace $50.00 $50.00 $75.00 $75.00 $100.00 $125.00 Eagle Valley High School Lacy Ramunno for Tunnel Lacy Ramunno for Child on Mothers Knee Jake Niswanger for Cowboy Sketch Jake Niswanger for Navajo Girl. $62.50 $62.50 $112.50 $112.50 Chairman Gallagier expressed his appreciation for the talent these individuals have at their young age. He encounged all those present to continue with their art. The Board pre~nted the awards to the students. 3 04-30-2002 Abatement Hearings Max Schflaley, Appraisal Coordinator, presented a petition of abatement for Dennis W. Gartner, schedule number R009333. He explained the petition is for 2000 and 2001. Upon review, an Appraiser measured the unit and did an inspection. He compared those findings to surrounding homes. The Assessor recommended that 2000 and 2001 be abated for the original valuation of $294,020.00, original tax amount of$12,797.80, with an abated assessed value of$117,200.00 and an abated tax amount of$5,101.36, leaving a balance of $7,696.44 for 2001. For the year 2000, which is a different appraisal year, the original valuation was $164,410.00, original tax amount of$7,341.56, with an abated assessed value of $34,240.00 and an abated tax amount of$1,528.94, leaving a balance of$5,812.62. Commissioner Stone pointed out that the Board did not receive the letter being referred to. He stated they would take time to read the correspondence. Dennis Gartner, owner of 1179 Red Sandstone Drive, spoke to the letter and that it identifies the issues of concern. He stated the structural concerns have been taken care of. He asked about the appraised value. He stated the remaining items mentioned in the letter he does not believe have been taken care of. Mr. Schflaley explained the difference in the appraisal of the unit for both years. Mr. Gartner stated in his letter he pointed out that the value should be at $1,500,000. He spoke to the market and the comparables that are far different than what is up the road. He stated to sell the property it would take $1.9. He asked about the law not allowing you to go back for more than one year. He questioned if the error is made by the County ,on the size of the property if the Board could go back more than a year. Bryan Treu, Asst. County Attorney, stated the law states that you can not go back for more than two years. He quoted the statute, CRS 39-10-114. Mr. Gartner asked if that takes into accoul1t there w~~ a technical error. He asked in going back to 2000 and 2001, can he also can go back to 1999. Mr. Schflaley stated he can not. Jodie Caruthers, Eagle County Assessor, stated the Statate is clear and they cannot go back further. Chairman Gallagher asked if the other issues have been i~entified. Mrs. Caruthers replied they have taken all issues into aCC~lllt. Commissioner Stone asked if Mrs. Caruthers can identify t\\e issues stated. Mr. Schflaley stated they made the location adjustments on-the land value. That was taken care of. He stated the sales that they used during the time frame ranged in this filing, Lionsridge, Filing 4, from $625,000 to $2,800,000. He stated the petitioners home is one of the newer homes in that specific area and they are above the median in the range of sales. He stated th~'e are not a lot of properties in this area. That is one of the things that makes it difficult. Mr. Gartner stated the properties the Assessor is using are all up\n Buffehr Creek. That area they are comparing it to are mostly single family new homes, higher up t~e mountain and farther away. He stated there haven't been any homes in their area for sale for the last fi\e, six years. Mr. Schflaley asked if the petitioner has had an appraisal done. Mr. Gartner answered no. Chairman Gallagher asked about the statement about the extra featur~. Mr. Schflaley suggested that it might be the elevator. Mr. Gartner spoke to the value placed on a steam shower. He questiont.<;! the additional value. He suggested that the extras are valued in addition to existence of the property. Chairman Gallagher asked the difference between features and quality of construction. Mr. Schflaley stated the sale prices are adjusted based on the comparisom. 4 04-30-2002 Chairman Gallagher asked if the quality of construction is a separate feature. He spoke to the letter and the issue of elevation. Mr. Schflaley stated many of the properties in the area are on similar topography. He stated these have some very good views. Chairman Gallagher spoke to number 5 and number 6 in the letter regarding location. He read from the letter and the petitioner's suggestion that a minimum of 4 means they are valued 4 times more. Mr. Schflaley stated they did take into consideration that some of the sales are in better areas. He stated they did make adjustments for location. He stated some lots are at $450,000 and others are at $600,000. Chairman Gallagher asked what the lot was appraised at. Mr. Schflaley stated $290,000 and related they did make adjustments for location. Commissioner Stone thanked Mr. Gartner for coming in. He also suggested that the Assessor's office has reviewed this in detail. He stated he thinks it is unfortunate for the error in square footage and that mistakes do happen. He stated he believes that he will support the Assessor's decision. He has been a real estate broker for the last sixteen years. He discussed that real estate sales are impressive. He suggested that the Red Sandstone address is one to be coveted and that the appraisal is fair. Commissioner Stone moved to approve abatement for schedule number R009333, Dennis W. Gartner, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion.' Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Max Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Rita Veronica Belle, schedule number R027623. The Assessor's Office reviewed the subject property and the property was overvalued for 2001. He stated it is located in the Maria Teresa McNulty Exemption, towards Cottonwood Pass. He stated for the year 2001, with an original value of $80,770.00 with a original tax amount was $3,363.82, the abated assessed value is $44,420.00, the abated tax amount is $1,849.96, leaving a balance of $1,513.86. Commissioner Stone moved to approve an abatement for schedule number R027623, Rita Veronica Belle, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Max Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Rita Veronica Bell, schedule number R027624. He stated this is a second property located in the same area. He stated the Assessor's Office has reviewed this property and made adjustments for not having utilities and a paved road. The Assessor is recommending an abatement for 2001, with an original value of $82,690.00, with an original tax amount of $3,443.80, the abated assessed value is $45,480.00, the original tax amount is $1,894.12, leaving a balance of$1,549.68. Commissioner Stone moved to approve an abatement for schedule number R027624, Rita Veronica Belle, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Elizabeth Kuehn Cason, schedule number R017420. He read from the abatement that the property is an 88 parcel of land located south of Buckhorn. The subject property is near the Town of Gypsum and has been classified land for the past ten years. The property was also inspected several times during that time period. There has not been any evidence of agricultural activity. However, in the letter submitted at the BOE hearing, Mr. Gerard submitted a letter that he is running a livestock operation on the property since 1990. Pursuant to 39-10- 5 04-30-2002 114 and 39-1-102, C.R. S. an abatement should be allowed for agricultural purposes. For the year 2000, the original value was $157,760.00, with an original tax amount of$7,480.30, leaving an abated assessed value of$157,470.00, and an abated tax amount of $7,470.54, leaving a balance of$13.76. Chairman Gallagher asked when the last inspection was done on the property. Mr. Schflaley stated the petitioner only uses the property twice per year as a stopping point when taking the cattle up or down from the pastures. Commissioner Stone moved to deny schedule number R017420, Elizabeth Kuehn Cason, as recommended by the Assessor for 1999 but the abatement for 2000 shall be approved as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Mara McTaggart, schedule numbers R021162 He read from his report that the parcel is a 40 acre tract. The assessor is recommending the property be adjusted. The original assessed value was $58,000.00, and the original tax amount was $2,255.86, with an abated assessed value of$34,800.00 and an abated tax amount of$1,353.52, leaving a balance of $902.34. Commissioner Stone moved to approve abatement schedule number R021162, Mara McTaggart, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition for abatement for Mara McTaggart, schedule number R021163. He stated this is the same issue as the previous schedule. The original assessed value was $58,000.00, and the original tax amount was $2,161.26, with an abated assessed value of $34,800.00, and an abated tax amount of $1,296.76, leaving a balance of$864.50. Chairman Gallagher stated he is still confused about the properties as the petitioner has listed more than three properties and they have been listed by book and page. Mr. Schflaley stated he would review the file to be sure that nothing fell through the cracks. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the schedule number R021163, Mara McTaggart, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for William T. & Julie C. Esrey, schedule number R040105. This is for the year 2001. The Assessors office did a neighborhood adjustment but this property was not included in that adjustment. The original assessed value was $905,750.00, the original tax amount was $39,424.58, with an abated assessed value of $249,090.00, and an abated tax amount of$10,842.14, leaving a balance of $28,582.44. Commissioner Stone asked about the theory behind equalizing a whole neighborhood. Mr. Schflaley stated due to errors in square footage or problems. He stated the high sale had a very low square footage amount. Chairman Gallagher asked what the low square footage reflects. Mr. Schflaley stated in this area approximately 5,000 square feet. Chairman Gallagher asked about the comparison between Red Sandstone and Spraddle Creek. He stated that is improvements only. Mr. Schflaley stated there a lot of other factors. Commissioner Stone suggested that pricing a home on a square foot basis is an over 6 04-30-2002 generalization and he hopes they don't use that alone. Mr. Schflaley stated some of the properties have mansion qualities. Commissioner Stone moved to approve abatement for schedule number R040105, William T. & Julie C. Esrey, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Oscar Tang, schedule number R040098. He stated it was a taxpayer generated abatement and it is similar to the previous file. It is in Spraddle Creek. The original assessed value was $926,640.00, the original tax amount was $40,333.86, with an abated assessed value of $256,820.00, and an abated tax amount of$11,178.60, leaving a balance of $29,155.26. Commissioner Stone moved to approve abatement for schedule number R040098, Oscar Tang, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone spoke to the statements about the two last homes being in the medium range. He asked if the medium size, means medium quality. Mr. Schflaley stated most of the properties up there are in pretty good shape. Median is appraising property speaks to the price range. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc., schedule number P026997. He spoke to the pipeline installation which is excavating equipment and should not be considered for taxable valuation. The original assessed value was $72,650.00, the original tax amount was $4,571.72, with an abated assessed value of $42,240.00, and an abated tax amount of $2,658.08, leaving a balance of$1,913.64. Commissioner Stone stated it should either be considered as personal property or not. Mr. Schflaley stated it is one line item on the personal property list. Commissioner Stone moved to approve abatement for schedule number P026997, Wells Fargo Equipment Finance, Inc., as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Nextell West Corporation, schedule number C960015. He stated there was a clerical error and the abatement should be granted. The original assessed value was $242,400.00, the original tax amount was $9,280.52, with an abated assessed value of $45,800.00, and an abated tax amount of$1,753.50, leaving a balance of$7,527.02. Commissioner Stone moved to approve schedule number C960015, Nextell West Corporation, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Kensington Partners, schedule number R047859. He stated this is for 1999 and 2000. The basis for the recommendation is the property is valued as vacant land. He stated a revised plat was filed to dedicate the land as open space. Commissioner Stone asked if there is an opportunity to deed a property such as this over to a homeowners association. Mr. Schflaley stated that seems where they are headed. He stated they are winding down their 7 04-30-2002 development and are taking care of some of the issues. Chairman Gallagher asked where this is located. Commissioner Stone stated it is the par three. Chairman Gallagher asked what the property owner would have to do to change the status of this property and putting a home on it. Commissioner Stone spoke to the allowable number of units they can build on. They would have to come back to the Board and get an amended PUD to build more units. Chairman Gallagher stated it being Cordillera, he believes they are doing the right thing. Commissioner Stone moved to approve abatement for schedule number R047859, Kensington Partners, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Stag Gulch Partners, schedule numbers R046185, R014560, R045522, R045523, R045525, R045526. He stated these are all properties is open space and wildlife corridor. Commissioner Stone moved to approve schedule numbers R046185, R014560, R045522, R045523, R045525, R045526, Stag Gulch Partners, as recommended by the Assessor for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Schflaley presented a petition of abatement for Galena Partners, schedule number R047864. He stated this property is also open space as the previous schedules. Commissioner Stone moved to approve abatement for schedule number R047864, Galena Partners, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. SE-00030, Condon Knox Subdivision Exemption Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number SE-00030, Condon Know Subdivision Exemption. She stated this was an Exemption Plat to legally recognize a parcel of land owned by James and Richard Condon and Rosemary Knox. This is a 7.3 78 acre parcel, which has never been platted. It was "created" in 1977 when the then present owner sold off this parcel ofland, without legally subdividing. The current owners then obtained the deed to their parcel in 1997. This parcel currently has an existing dwelling and driveway. It also has legal sewer and water. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: January, 1977: The parcel was "created" from the sale of the parcel by Harold and Edith Reese, to Marvin and Roberta Fender. September, 1997: The current owners obtained the deed to the parcel. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: All issues associated with this plat have been satisfied by the Applicant. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-270 Subdivision Exemption of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, findings are follows: a. The lot in questions WAS created and established in the records of the Clerk and Recorder prior to August 22, 1984 notwithstanding compliance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations in 8 04-30-2002 existence at the time of the creation of the parcel. b. A certified survey of the parcel HAS been submitted which includes legal description meeting the minimum requirements of a land survey plat pursuant to 38-51-106 C.R.S., and all record and apparent rights of way, easements and monumentation ARE indicated on the Plat. c. Legal and physical access to a public right of way by a conventional vehicle HAS BEEN demonstrated. d. The land proposed for exemption HAS a legal, physical, adequate, and dependable potable water supply. e. The land proposed for exemption HAS a waste water disposal system, or other lawful means of disposing of human wastes that complies with all public health laws. f. Satisfactory evidence HAS been provided demonstrating that the exemption WILL NOT create hazards, and the lot DOES contain a safe, adequate building site. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. SE-00030,Condon Knox Subdivision Exemption, incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. He noted that the six different requirements required for approval have been met. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00037, East Squaw Creek PUD Amendment Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented file number PDA-00037, East Squaw Creek PUD Amendment. He stated after a brief discussion, the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this file, with the condition that prior to final approval by the Board of County Commissioners, the Applicant provide letters from all property owners within the East Squaw Creek PUD authorizing the Applicant to represent their interests in this matter. That condition has been met (please see attached letters of consent). The East Squaw Creek PUD, which included both Lot 9 and Lot 10 of the Chaveno Parcel (platted 1986), was approved in November of 1990. In January of 1992, lots 1 through 9 ofthe Chaveno parcel were incorporated into the Cordillera PUD, placing Lot 9 in both PUD's.. At the time, it was believed that the Cordillera PUD would supercede the East Squaw Creek PUD regarding land use decisions on Lot 9. It has since been determined that this is not the case, and that the Lot 9 property is now actually governed by both the Cordillera PUD and the East Squaw Creek PUD. The Applicant would like to clear this up, and is requesting an amendment to the text of the East Squaw Creek PUD Guide to delete reference to Lot 9. If approved, land use on Lot 9 would be determined solely by the Cordillera PUD Guide. The East Squaw Creek PUD guide allows single family residential, agricultural, ranching and greenhouse, water impoundment, water diversion, utility distribution, day home care, temporary buildings and open space as uses on Lot 9. The Cordillera PUD Guide lists uses for the Chaveno parcel, which includes Lot 9, under the caption Planning Parcel E. Those uses include single family residential, equestrian facilities, open space, employee caretaker units, trails, wildlife management and habitat enhancement, utility lines and facilities, accessory buildings and uses, community safety, service maintenance and administrative facilities, and employee housing. Once Lot 9 has been removed from the East Squaw Creek PUD Guide, land use will be determined solely by applicable sections of the Cordillera PUD Guide. Should this amendment be approved, the East Squaw Creek PUD will be reduced from 91 acres to 84.3 acres, and will consist of one 24.65 acre residential lot, Lot 10, and two large open space tracts. The chronology ofthe application is as shown on staff report and as follows: November, 1982 - Chaveno and East Squaw Creek properties are approved for a zone change 9 04-30-2002 from Resource to Resource Limited (ZC-172-80) March, 1986 - The Final Plat for 10 lots of the Chaveno Subdivision is approved. February, 1991 - East Squaw Creek PUD is approved (PD-295-90) which includes Lot 9 and Lot 10 of the Chaveno subdivision. January,1992 - Lots 1 through 9 ofthe Chaveno Subdivision are incorporated into the Cordillera PUD (PD-293-91P). Lot 9 is now within both PUD's. Referral responses are as shown below and as found on staff report: Eagle County Engineering No comment. Other referrals were sent to the Eagle County Surveyor, the Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, and the Eagle County Assessor, with no response. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.m., Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD. STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan/or PUD - No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, that: 1. Modification. The modification, removal or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development. Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not effect, in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the street from a Planned Unit Development or the public interest. (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The deletion of Lot 9 from the East Squaw Creek PUD should not compromise the development or preservation of the East Squaw Creek PUD in any way, and should provide for a more efficient development or preservation of Lot 9, which will now be governed solely by the Cordillera PUD Guide document. The proposed Amendment should not result in any adverse effects to adjacent properties, and will not result in the conveyance of special benefit to any person. [+] FINDING: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F. 3.m . ] The proposed PUD Amendment (1) IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. In addition, a Preliminary Plan for PUD may be amended, extended, varied or altered only pursuant to the standards and procedures established for its original approval. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. All owners within the East Squaw Creek PUD have indicated their consent in writing to the changes proposed. This amendment effects the zoning of Lot 9 of the East Squaw Creek PUD only, which is owned by the Applicant, the Cordillera Homeowners Association. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person. However, the Applicant HAS provided written consent by all owners within the PUD that they will be subject to the conditions and 10 04-30-2002 standards of the proposed amendment. 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.3j, Variations Authorized Pursuant to the East Squaw Creek PUD Guide, the uses allowed on Lot 9 include single family residential, agricultural, ranching and greenhouse, water impoundment, water diversion, utility distribution, day home care, temporary buildings and open space. Pursuant to the Cordillera PUD Guide, uses allowed include single family residential, equestrian facilities, open space, employee caretaker units, trails, wildlife management and habitat enhancement, utility lines and facilities, accessory buildings and uses, community safety, service maintenance and administrative facilities, and employee housing. If this amendment is approved, green houses, water impoundments and diversions and home day care would cease to be uses by right, as they are not included as allowed uses in the Cordillera PUD Guide. All other uses would remain in effect, and no new uses are proposed. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed on the property affected by the proposed amendment ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. 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.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. At the time of its approval the East Squaw Creek PUD was found to be in compliance with this standard. No changes in dimensional limitations are proposed as part of this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the 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 At the time of its approval the East Squaw Creek PUD was found to be in compliance with this standard. No change is contemplated by this amendment. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found at the time that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved that adequate, safe and convenient parking and loading was being provided. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT 11 04-30-2002 adversely effect the adequacy of the existing off-street parking and loading. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the P UD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. At the time of its approval the East Squaw Creek PUD was found to be in compliance with this standard. No change is contemplated by this amendment. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the approved East Squaw Creek PUD Preliminary Plan HAS been determined to have complied with the standards in effect at the time the Preliminary Plan was approved. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT impact existing landscaping nor require additional landscaping. 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 proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing signs nor require additional restrictions on signs other than those already provided. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the East Squaw Creek PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate facilities were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of these facilities. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate facilities were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the provision of adequate facilities with respect to potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, or location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-o.fway, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. 12 04-30-2002 (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 P UD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removedfrom the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the East Squaw Creek PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate improvements were to be made. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely effect the adequacy of these improvements nor warrant additional improvements. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate improvements were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect improvements regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access, (b) Internal Pathways, (c) Emergency V ehicles, (d) Principal Access Points, and (e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the P UD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. At the time of its approval the East Squaw Creek PUD was found to be in compliance with this standard. No change that would effect the compatibility of land uses on the effected properties is contemplated by this amendment. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD HAS been determined to be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect this compatibility. 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 following analysis with respect to the Master Plan and the FLUM applies only to the changes proposed in the PUD Amendment, as submitted by the Applicant. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN x x x x x 13 04-30-2002 It was previously determined that the East Squaw Creek PUD was in conformance with applicable Eagle County Master Plans. No changes are proposed that would effect its status in this regard. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The proposed PUD Amendment IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. At the time of its approval the East Squaw Creek PUD was found to be in compliance with this standard. No change is contemplated by this amendment. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT required for this PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. 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. b. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. c. Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary 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 common open space. d Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the P UD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. At present, the total area ofthe East Squaw Creek PUD is approximately 91 acres. 59.7 acres, or 14 04-30-2002 some 65.6 %, is designated open space. The proposed amendment will reduce the PUD's total acreage to 84.3 acres, but will not impact either ofthe two open space tracts. If approved, the percentage ofthe property that would be open space would increase to approximately 70 %. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It has previously been determined that the development DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect common recreation and open space within the PUD 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the East Squaw Creek PUD was approved, adequate consideration regarding geology, soils, wildfire and wildlife was given to mitigate hazards and protect resources. This standard will not be impacted by the proposed amendment. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS previously been determined that applicable analysis documents were adequately considered prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. Adequate protection of natural resources HAS been provided for. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)) - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)) [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)) The proposed PUD Amendment to delete Lot 9 from the East Squaw Creek PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site DevelolJment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, findings were made to warrant the zone district change to PUD based on the applicable Land Use Regulations. The proposed PUD Amendment is also consistent with the provisions of Article 3, Zone Districts, of the current Land Use Regulations. Article 4, Site Development Standards When the Preliminary Plan for the East Squaw Creek PUD was approved, applicable site development standards had been satisfied. The proposed PUD Amendment does not create any non- compliance. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)) It HAS previously been found that the development complied with the regulations, policies and guidelines of the Land Use Regulations applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. Adequate protection of natural resources HAS been provided for. 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 15 04-30-2002 service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. b. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. c. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. When the Preliminary Plan for the East Squaw Creek PUD was approved, it was found that the development would have an efficient spatial pattern The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the spatial pattern in any way that causes inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS previously been found that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD satisfied the requirements of the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time with respect to efficient spatial patterns. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT adversely affect the spatial patterns in the area. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. When the Preliminary Plan for the East Squaw Creek PUD was approved, it was found that the area was "compatible with the characteristics" of the proposed use. The proposed PUD Amendment does not alter the suitability of the property. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been determined that the site was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT alter the suitability of the property. 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the East Squaw Creek PUD was approved, it was determined that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed changes will not adversely affect the compatibility of the PUD with surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS previously been determined that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the compatibility of the resulting development with surrounding uses. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: 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." A draft amended Planned Unit Development Guide is provided. However, a revised PUD Guide may be necessary, depending on the action on this application by the Board of County Commissioners. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section are fully met. A revised PUD Guide MAY be necessary. Commissioner Stone asked how this parcel effects the density transfers. Mr. Simonton stated this parcel has never been platted. He stated the intended use is to have this as open space for utilities and easements. Commissioner Stone spoke to the letters from the owners and asked if they represent all the owners. 16 04-30-2002 Mr. Simonton stated that is correct. Chairman Gallagher asked if there is a need to plat this parcel. Mr. Simonton stated all the properties are already platted and the Board is just authorizing the change to the PUD Guide. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. PDA-00037, East Squaw Creek PUD Amendment, incorporating all staff findings. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PR-00018, Berry Creek Housing Review Chairman Gallagher stated the next item is the Berry Creek Housing Review. He asked if there were members in the audience who would like speak to the file. There were none at this time. Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PR-00018, Berry Creek Housing, Site Specific Development Review. The Preliminary Plan for Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on 5 February 2002. created large development tracts for future development activities and projects that had not yet been designed or detailed. The Preliminary Plan provided for the development of Miller Ranch Road and conceptually indicated where access to this road may occur from individual tracts. The uses for the respective Tracts within the PUD were identified as part of the Preliminary Plan, but the detailed plans for each of the uses were not included as part of the Preliminary Plan. The PUD Guide provides certain additional Site Specific Development Review procedures for each of the Tracts. The specific development review procedure for the Housing Tract requires that the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners review the proposed development to ensure that it is consistent with the vision ofthe overall Preliminary Plan. Specifically, approval ofthe Berry Creek Neighborhood may occur after consideration by the Board that the development is consistent with the PUD Guide, the PUD Preliminary Plan, the Master Circulation Plan, and the Master Drainage Plan for the PUD. This Site Specific Development Review is for a residential development within the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD which includes a mix of housing types in a New Urbanism site design featuring a grid street pattern, alleys, restricted front yard vehicular access, on street parking, sidewalks, and tree- lined streets. The proposed 282 unit development, which is to be built in three phases, will include 69 single family homes, 64 duplex homes, 49 row house homes, and 100 "mill lofts" . Access to the residential development is from Miller Ranch Road which is to be constructed during the summer of 2002. Water will be provided by the Berry Creek Metro District and the Edwards Metro District. Wastewater treatment services will be provided by the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. The Preliminary Plat shows streets with alphabetic street names and numeric alley names. It is expected that the Final Plat will indicate final street names more in keeping with what is customary in the County. While the Planning Commission was in favor of the overall development and architectural flavor, it also determined that it wanted to have available more detailed information for its' review ofthe development. Consequently, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the Site Specific Development Plan, based on the following issues: 1. There should be a separation of Sketch and Preliminary plan details. 2. The Planning Commission should have access to the PUD Guide. 3. The Planning Commission needs information on deed restriction and pricing, including whether secondary market approval would be required in the conditions. 4. The Planning Commission needs details on the child care or common space in terms of access, parking and security 17 04-30-2002 5. The Planning Commission needs to see the HOA rules or the CCR's, whichever is more appropriate legally. 6. The Planning Commission needs details on lighting and illumination, noise control and security concerns with the school. 7. There is a concern about emergency access within the streets of the housing development 8. The design review committee should be made up of 3 members from the community, one member from the County, and one member from the school district. 9. All Engineering concerns need to be spelled out in complete detail. The Planning Commission also recommended the following Staff Conditions: 1. All engineering studies, plans and construction drawings be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the initial final plat for this development. 2. All illumination within the Housing Tract conform to the requirements of the Land Use Regulations, including the mandated and recommended parameters of the PUD Guide with respect to design, location, type and height of fixtures. 3. This Site Specific Development Plan be approved to include a Child Care I Community Center Facility on Parcell of Tract D. 4. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and in all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval. NOTE: The Applicant and Staff have provided additional information and clarification in response to the nine issues cited by the Planning Commission in a memorandum dated 18 April 2002 from Keith Montag (Eagle County Community Development Director) and Andrew Gerber (ASW Realty Partners, LLC). The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1999 - The Eagle County Recreation Authority and the Eagle County School District (RE-50J) entered into a Intergovernmental Agreement to develop the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch site on a joint basis. 2000 - A PUD Sketch Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2002 - A Combined PUD Sketch IPreliminary Plan Berry Creek I Miller Ranch was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Approval of a final plat for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD is pending. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineering Department Memo dated 7 March 2002 indicates various comments that need to be resolved prior to approval of the final plat. Memo dated 8 April 2002 indicates that all comments have been resolved. Eagle County Environmental Health No comment. ECO Trails (Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority) Complete construction plans for the regional trail to be reconstructed need to be provided. Entity that demolishes the regional trail should be responsible for rebuilding the trail. East berm adjacent to Lot 25 was stabilized with geotech fabric and contains irrigation heads. Because of the sub-surface condition of the berm, heavy equipment travel is not appropriate. This section ofthe regional trail has become very popular, especially in the construction season months. It needs to stay open and available to the citizens and reconstruction of the regional trail needs to occur as part of Phase I construction. What is the location of the detention pond at the southwest corner ofthe site relative to the trail? Is there a hazard? Where does pond drain and where the water pass under the trail? 18 04-30-2002 Culverts do not appear to be proposed for the replacement section of the trail. The trail needs to be constructed to the adopted standards found in Chapter 4 of the Regional Trails Plan. To safely accommodate use of the trail for the snow plowing scenario and prevent damage to the trail, several requirements are provided. Where is the snow storage going to occur relative to the trail? Given the tight distance between the railroad right of way and Lots 4,5,6 and 7, what will the distance be between the trail and the front of the units? The gas line is located on the north edge of the trail and if any work needs to be done it will be a tight situation. Who will own Parcel 14 which contains the trail, and what is the status of the parcel? Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Facilities Management, Eagle County Housing Department, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority, Eagle County School District, Berry Creek Metro District, Edwards Metro District, Upper Eagle Water & Sanitation District, Eagle River Fire District, Eagle County Ambulance District, CenturyTel, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy CONSISTENCY WITH THE PUD PRELIMINARY PLAN The Preliminary Plan for Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on 5 February 2002. created large development tracts for future development activities and projects that had not yet been designed or detailed. The Preliminary Plan provided for the development of Miller Ranch Road and conceptually indicated where access to this road may occur from individual tracts. The uses for the respective Tracts within the PUD were identified as part of the Preliminary Plan, but the detailed plans for each of the uses were not included as part of the Preliminary Plan. The PUD Guide provides certain additional Site Specific Development Review procedures for each of the Tracts. The specific development review procedure for the Housing Tract requires that the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners review the proposed development to ensure that it is consistent with the vision of the overall Preliminary Plan. Specifically, approval of the Berry Creek Neighborhood may occur after consideration by the Board that the development is consistent with the PUD Guide, the PUD Preliminary Plan, the Master Circulation Plan, and the Master Drainage Plan for the PUD. Consistency with the PUD Guide The PUD Guide includes a number of provisions which are directly applicable to this Housing Tract, including uses; dimensional limitations; parking; wildlife mitigation; illumination; noise, odor and air quality; signs; and design guidelines. This Site Specific Development Plan conforms to all of these provisions of the PUD Guide. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Guide [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Guide. Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan The Preliminary Plan approved for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD contemplates the development of this Tract to include approximately 285 housing units, with a mix of housing types, and consistent with the various design elements ofthe PUD, including utilities, drainage, circulation, and so on. What is proposed is 282 housing units of essentially the same mix and site layout and as was outlined as part of the approved PUD Preliminary Plan. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Preliminary Plan. Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan The Master Circulation Plan approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan provides primary and secondary access points into the Housing Tract. The access points proposed in the Site Specific Development Plan conform to those approved in the PUD Preliminary Plan. In addition, the traffic study 19 04-30-2002 for the PUD anticipates traffic volumes associated with the Housing Tract that are consistent with the development being proposed by this Site Specific Development Plan. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Circulation Plan. Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan As part of the engineering review of the proposed development, it has been determined that the drainage plan proposed for the Housing Tract is consistent with the Master Drainage Plan approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Drainage Plan. CONSISTENCY WITH PUD AND SUBDIVISION PRELIMINARY PLAN STANDARDS NOTE: The proposed development of this Tract is not a PUD Preliminary Plan per se. The applicable Preliminary Plan is part of the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD. However, the following review of the proposed development with respect to PUD and Subdivision Preliminary Plan Standards is provided to confirm that all applicable requirements are being satisfied. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F .3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary Plan for a PUD: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. Portions of the site are currently owned by Eagle County and the Eagle County School District (RE-50J), respectively. Pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement, both parties are applicants for this development. Once the final plat for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD is approved (expected to occur in May 2002) this site will be conveyed in its entirety to Eagle County. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] While the title to all land that is part of the development IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person, the owners HA VE made a joint application based on an Intergovernmental Agreement which continues to be in effect. 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.3j, Variations Authorized. The uses proposed for the Housing Tract conform to the approved PUD Guide for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that are proposed in the development ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the PUD Preliminary Plan and the PUD Guide. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for P UD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. 20 04-30-2002 Dimensional limitations which vary from those applicable for the property prior to approval of the change in zoning from R to PUD were approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan and are reflected in the PUD Guide for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD. As proposed, the development of the Berry Creek Neighborhood does conform to these dimensional limitations. Conformance will continue to be verified as building permit applications are received and reviewed. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The development DOES conform to the dimensional limitations approved as part of the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD and as set forth in the PUD Guide. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the 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 proposed development's configuration combines both off-street and on-street parking. The design reduces the emphasis on automobiles and increases the emphasis on pedestrians. Consequently, a number of features are incorporated which place greater reliance upon on-street parking. The PUD Guide approved for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD specifically provides that parking for this housing tract will be provided by a combination of off-street parking (surface and within garages) and on-street parking along designated roadways. The design, location and total number of spaces is being presented as part of the current review process. The Applicant is proposing that all required parking for the 69 single family homes be provided off-street. For the 64 duplex homes, 128 of the 192 required parking spaces will be provided off-street. For the 49 row homes, 98 of the required 122 parking spaces will be provided off-street. And for the 100 mill loft homes, 182 of the 224 required parking spaces will be provided off-street. The total number of required parking spaces to be provided on-street is 150. The Applicant proposes to provide 219 on-street parking spaces, netting a total of 69 more spaces than would otherwise be required by the Land Use Regulations for these 282 homes. However, several of the on-street parking spaces will likely be eliminated by modifying certain intersections within the site to allow turning movements by buses and trucks. A Comprehensive Parking Plan is provided as a part of this application. Given the intent and unique nature of this proposed development, Staff has determined that the proposed parking plan is consistent with this Section of the Land Use Regulations, as modified by the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch 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 development complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards and the PUD Guide. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. 21 04-30-2002 The PUD Guide required a review of the proposed landscaping and landscaping irrigation for certain of the sites within the PUD, including this Tract. The landscaping requirements ofthe Land Use Regulations are applicable. A Landscape Plan has been provided which satisfies these requirements. Whether collateralization of the landscaping is required will be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] It HAS been demonstrated that the landscaping proposed for the development complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards and the PUD Guide. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The Sign Regulations of the Land Use Regulations (Division 4-3) are applicable throughout the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD, with only a few exceptions. Exceptions applicable to the Berry Creek Neighborhood are [1] one ground mounted project entry sign at each vehicular entry point for individual development tracts (such as this one) - maximum area of 32 square feet and 8 feet in height, [2] one 20 square foot wall sign for each non-residential building for each major entry. Unless a comprehensive sign plan is subsequently approved for the entire PUD, the Sign Regulations (Division 4-3), as modified above, will apply. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The signs within the development WILL be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, as modified by the PUD Guide. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police andfire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] Potable water supolv. - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval ofthe PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that adequate facilities for potable water supply will be provided. [+] Sewage disvosal. - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that adequate facilities for sewage disposal will be provided. [+] Solid waste disvosal. - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that adequate solid waste disposal services are available in the area. [+] Electrical suvvlv. - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that adequate facilities for electrical supply will be provided. [+] Fire vrotection. - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that the site is located within and will be served by the Eagle River Fire Protection District. +] Roads. - The County Engineer has reviewed construction plans for the proposed development and identified certain items that need to be addressed. As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. [+] Proximitv to Schools - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD 22 04-30-2002 Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that schools are in reasonable proximity of the site. [+] Proximity to Police and Fire Protection. and Emergencv Medical Services. - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that all emergency services are within reasonable proximity to the site. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS been demonstrated that the development will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical servIces. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be 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 P UD 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. The County Engineer has reviewed construction plans for the proposed development and identified certain items that need to be addressed. A number of variations from improvement standards were previously granted by the Board of County Commissioners to accommodate the specific design intended for this development. (See Eagle County File No. VIS-0015.) As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS been demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards, and as approved as variations from improvement standards per Eagle County File No. VIS-0015. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The 23 04-30-2002 development proposed for the P UD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The surrounding land uses consist of recreation, schools and other residential, all typical components of a residential neighborhood. It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that this and other uses in the PUD are compatible with surrounding land uses both within the PUD and in the surrounding vicinity. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The proposed development IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN EDWARDS SUB-AREA PLAN The Edwards Sub-Area Master Plan discourages on-street parking, as has been proposed in the housing tract. However, elsewhere in the Master Plan, affordable Local Resident Housing is encouraged. As noted elsewhere in this Staff Report, incorporation of some on-street parking furthers the goal of affordable Local Resident Housing. 24 04-30-2002 EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x x x x x x EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: 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 Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success It is important to preserve existing local residents housing Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs 25 04-30-2002 POLICIES ITEM I YES I NO I N/A I 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to X develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in X collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents X and workers in Eagle County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on X line. Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is X primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local X residents 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference X will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in X proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged X 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock X II. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public X assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue X [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The development 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 Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the P UD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. A phasing plan for this development has been provided and reviewed by the County Engineer. As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval ofthe final plat for this development. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS been provided for the development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD 26 04-30-2002 shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (aJ Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. i Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. 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. b. Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Planfor PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. c. 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 common open space. d. Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and 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. Of the overall Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD, which consists of222.7 acres, 86 acres are proposed as parks and open space. The requirement for Common Recreation and Open Space for the overall PUD is amply satisfied. There was an expectation at the time that common recreation and open space within the Housing Tract would be more limited. Within this housing tract itself, 3.6 acres (out of a total of31.5 acres) will be open space. Given the open space to be developed elsewhere within the PUD, including in the immediate vicinity of this site, adequate open space has been provided within this proposed development. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The applicant HAS demonstrated that the development will include adequate common recreation and open space. 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. It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted were considered, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies. This proposed housing development has also considered the applicable analysis 27 04-30-2002 documents and referral responses. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The proposed development 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 have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary Plan for a Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The development IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts All applicable provisions of Article will be satisfied. Article 4, Site Development Standards Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) The proposed development includes a configuration combining both off-street and on-street parking. The design reduces the emphasis on automobiles and increases the emphasis on pedestrians. Consequently, a number of features are incorporated which make greater use of on-street parking appropriate. The PUD Guide approved for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD specifically provides that parking for this housing tract will be provided by a combination of off-street parking (surface and within garages) and on-street parking along designated roadways. The design, location and total number of spaces is being presented as part of the current review process. As noted above, given the intent and unique nature of this proposed development, Staff has determined that the proposed parking plan is consistent with this Section of the Land Use Regulations, as modified by the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD Guide. Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) The PUD Guide requires a review of the proposed landscaping and landscaping irrigation for certain ofthe sites within the PUD, including this Tract. The landscaping requirements of the Land Use Regulations are applicable. A Landscape Plan has been provided which satisfies these requirements. The PUD Guide also provide certain parameters for parking lot lighting, street lighting and architectural lighting for the PUD as a whole. All are to utilize "concealed source" light fixtures that are designed and located so as to not cast glare directly onto adjacent properties. Use of Low Pressure Sodium lamps is encouraged. Street and parking lot lights are encouraged to be no more than 20 feet off the ground. The Applicant's proposal appears to be silent on specific details of the proposed illumination. As a condition of approval, all illumination within the Housing Tract should conform to the requirements of the Land Use Regulations, including the mandated and recommended parameters of the PUD Guide with respect to design, location, type and height of fixtures. Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) The Eagle County Sign Regulations (Division 4-3 of the Land Use Regulations) are applicable throughout the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD, with only a few exceptions. Exceptions applicable to the Berry Creek Neighborhood are [1] one ground mounted project entry sign at each vehicular entry point for individual development tracts (such as this one) - maximum area of32 square feet and 8 feet in 28 04-30-2002 height, [2] one 20 square foot wall sign for each non-residential building for each major entry. Unless a comprehensive sign plan is subsequently approved for the entire PUD, the Sign Regulations (Division 4- 3), as modified above, will apply. Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that the proposed development will not significantly impact those species mapped in the Eagle County Master Plan. Certain wildlife mitigation measures have been incorporated into the PUD Guide to further minimize adverse impacts. Geoloflic Hazards (Section 4-420) - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval ofthe PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that any geologic hazards can be adequately mitigated. Such mitigation will be required to be demonstrated on a site specific basis prior to issuance of specific building permits. Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that there is little threat to this property from wildfire. Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The use of wood burning devices within the planned unit development is prohibited. Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The site is not in an area designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. Environmental Imvact Revort (Section 4-460) - A satisfactory Environmental Impact Report was considered as part of approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan. Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) There are no significant commercial or industrial operation on the proposed site which would subject this application to the provisions ofthis Division. Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) Roadwav Standards (Section 4-620) - The County Engineer has reviewed construction plans for the proposed development and identified certain items that need to be addressed. A number of variations from improvement standards were previously granted by the Board of County Commissioners to accommodate the specific design intended for this development. (See Eagle County File No. VIS-0015.) As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - This Standard was satisfied as part ofthe Preliminary Plan review for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD. As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. Irrigation Svstem Standards (Section 4-640) - This Standard was satisfied as part of the Preliminary Plan review for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD. As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - This Standard was satisfied as part of the Preliminary Plan review for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD. As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - This Standard was satisfied as part of the Preliminary Plan review for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD. As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. 29 04-30-2002 Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - This Standard was satisfied as part of the Preliminary Plan review for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD. As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - This Standard was satisfied as part of the Preliminary Plan review for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD. As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - This Standard was satisfied as part of the Preliminary Plan review for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD. As a condition of approval, all engineering studies, plans and construction drawings should be completed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of the final plat for this development. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] With the recommended conditions, it HAS been demonstrated that the proposed development complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD that the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided essentially at one time, and the extension of public services will not require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. Utility lines are properly sized. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed development IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD that the site is suitable for development. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be developed IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed 30 04-30-2002 subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The surrounding land uses consist of recreation, schools and other residential, all typical components of a residential neighborhood. It has been demonstrated at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD that this and other uses in the PUD are compatible with surrounding land uses both within the PUD and in the surrounding vicinity. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The proposed development IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. OTHER REQUIREMENTS Energy Efficient Design and Construction Practices. A condition of approval of the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD is that the "Applicants commit to exploring the feasibility of incorporating energy efficient design and construction practices into the development ofthe project." The Applicant for the Berry Creek Neighborhood has provided a summary of efforts to satisfy this requirement. (See attached facsimile transmittal from Wolff-Lyon Architects dated 25 March 2002. [+] FINDING: Feasibility of incorporating energy efficient design and construction practices into the development of the project. The Applicants HAS demonstrated a commitment to exploring the feasibility of incorporating energy efficient design and construction practices into the development of the project. Child Care / Community Center Facility. This proposed development includes Parcell, a 40,711 square foot site in the northwest comer of the Tract which is labeled for use as a "public community facility" on the plat. Discussions which occurred when the PUD Preliminary Plan was approved also included a child care center on this site. However, the size or design features of a community center or child care facility was not finalized. The proposal under consideration for this Housing Tract does not include specifics on a proposed development of Parcel 1 - the Public Community Facility Site. However, the concept of a Child Care I Community Center Facility is being included as a part of this Site Specific Development Review. As the development of the Housing Tract progresses, it is anticipated that the Child Care / Community Center Facility plans will be finalized. As a condition of approval ofthis Site Specific Development Plan, a Child Care / Community Center Facility on Parcell of Tract D is being recommended. Vince Hooper, ASW Realty Partners, spoke to the last two years and the creation of a new neighborhood. He spoke to the location of the property and the design. He introduced the design team being Andrew Gerber, ASW Realty Partners, Ken Beck, ASW Realty Partners, Jim Walker, Wolf Lyon, Tom Lyon, David Despo, DLD Engineering, Ted Archibeque, Meyer Land Surveying. He stated they started this in May 2000 through a competitive selection process. They were selected as the designers and developers. He stated the housing site is not an isolated site. It is part of a larger parcel with other uses including schools, parks and open space. This site specific development plan is more detailed. In comparing the plans with the housing plans of the preliminary application you will find them consistent and nearly identical. The primary goal is to create a quality living environment for locals, a neighborhood community with a sense of character and identity. The property is unique in that it is very flat. The site is very developable. It is unique in that it is 100% deed restricted. He spoke to the New Urbanism and explained it as a mixture of housing types. He read the list of enhancements to the sites. One primary concern is to create a sense of character. He referred to the location between Miller Ranch Road, the Middle School to the east and the recreation fields to the west. He spoke to the community building and day care that will help frame the site. The primary entrance is to the north east. He showed the park to be surrounded by town homes. He stated the duplexes are located at the comers so that each 31 04-30-2002 unit can have street frontage. The first phase will be the northern boundary with the central park and the individual housing types. Commissioner Stone asked how many units are in the first phase. Mr. Hooper stated he'll get into that a little later in the presentation. He stated they are trying to create a sense of pedestrian priority. He stated they have looked at the road standards and configurations. He showed where some roads will be wider than others. He stated that helps to increase the safety for pedestrians and the intersections that also help slow the traffic. He spoke to the alleyways which function as common driveways for the rear of the units for garages and surface parking. He spoke to the unit parking, surface parking and carports. He stated they have required more than the necessary number of spaces. All of the streets are bounded by the streets. He showed some of the street sections. He showed the tree lined streets, but stated the parks will be fairly wide open. He spoke to the linkages through the neighborhoods for entrance to and exit from the park. He showed the different types of housing units they will have and where they will be located throughout development. The architectural style is the mountain craftsman style. He showed access and egress. He showed the front elevation for the forty nine town homes with three different floor plans including two and three bedroom. He stated they are very excited about this unit and what makes it unique is the large interior space. The first floor is a separate unit and has twelve foot ceilings. The second floor is the second unit. He stated the character is the mountain industrial design. The unit pricing is still preliminary, but they have the mill lofts which house 100 units, ranging from $122,000 to $152,000 the forty nine town homes town homes ranging from $216,000 to $231,000, the 64 duplexes ranging from $193,000 to $218,000 and the sixty nine single family homes ranging from $232,000 to $254,000. Mr. Hooper stated they are also excited to incorporate "Green Built" technology within the development of this site. The deed restrictions will include owner occupancy, price cap, buyer selection process, annual verification and term of the restrictions. He stated the neighborhood will be a covenant controlled community to preserve the future character of the development. He referred to the Planning Commissions suggestions. He stated the responses to those are in the packet. He stated at the conclusion of the hearing the Planning Commission stated they are in favor of this plan. In conclusion he would like to say they have worked very hard on this plan and will continue to pursue this with the progression of their design. They are in complete compliance with all of the Eagle County plans, regulations and requirements. He stated they are very excited about this and that it will be a neighborhood they can be proud of. He stated they are open for questions. Chairman Gallagher asked that Mr. Hooper respond to each one ofthe issues raised by the Planning Commission. Chairman Gallagher asked again if there is member of the public who wishes to speak. There were two. Mr. Hooper stated the first issue was the process. He stated the PUD guide specifically requires a site specific development plan and this process is the completion of that requirement. Next is the PUD guide and their desire to see a copy. The third item was interest in the deed restrictions. He stated the site specific development requirements do not require that information but they put together that package and the pricing. He stated the fourth item is in relationship to the child care and the building specifics. He stated they don't have that information defined, but they have shown a schematic plan. The fifth item was in relationship to the homeowners rules and regulations. He stated the PUD guide and development plan doesn't require that information. They will use the input they got from the Planning Commission regarding parking, charcoal grills, barking dogs, etc and plugged them into what they typically do. Item six was a concern with lighting and light pollution. He spoke to the design standard they are developing. He stated item seven is the emergency access. They have worked closely with the Eagle River Fire Protection District. The next item was the design/review committee and their existence and responsibilities. The last items related to engineering concerns. He referred to the letter 32 04-30-2002 from Peter Sulmeisters and the Engineering Departments approval of the plans. Chairman Gallagher called for public comment. Tom Leinhart, registered professional engineer, spoke to having owned his own development company. He voiced comment and spoke to the Middle School being only 100 feet away. He suggested that there is a need for open space between the school area and the housing. He thinks that needs to be considered prior to it being done. The second issue is with affordable housing and he wonders what kind of mechanism is in place to make sure the numbers don't creep up. He spoke to the phase in the report stating the final price is determined by construction costs. He suggested they maintain control over the spending. He stated there is not enough recreation on site for this kind of project with the numbers they are proposing. Brian Waddell, Edwards resident, complimented the applicant on what he thinks is a good project. He stated there are a couple of other things and one is the location between school and housing. He stated he is concerned with some of the parking issues and questions if it is adequate on site for what is being built. He requests some control either on site or off site and that they maintain control of the parking. He stated he is pleased there are HOA's or CCR's that may be prepared in a draft form. The community is very unique but if they have their own people review that document they may be able to help. One of the lighting and illuminations concerns is what recourse do they have if it is not sufficient. He spoke to the access road and the amount of vehicles that will use the road during its development. He spoke to them having been assured the improvements will be done before the housing is complete. He asked if this is the last of the housing thatwill be placed on Berry Creek Fifth or if there could be more housing. Commissioner Stone replied there will be no more single family housing on Berry Creek 5th. Chairman Gallagher stated he does. not believe that student housing has been ruled out on the college site. Mr. Waddell asked if the School District would have to come before the Board for approval of student housing or if that has already been approved. Commissioner Stone stated this has been a little different process and there will be site specific review of each site along the way. When Colorado Mountain College wants to build on their property they have to come back for site specific review beforehand. He stated that is special in this case and they have added this requirement to keep it on the record. Mr. Waddell spoke to WECMRD and their interest in the adjoining parcels. He asked ifthe authorities have been defined. Commissioner Stone stated that is why they required that each site must come back for its own reView. Mr. Hooper stated the concern about recreational opportunities showed the park is about one acre, the open space two acres and the pocket parks combined are one acre. He stated that focus is on the neighborhood but itdoes not open up additional community activities. Those will be incorporated in the open space parcels and the School parcel. Chairman Gallagher asked about tot lots and park equipment in the pocket parks. Mr. Hooper stated they have not incorporated equipment in the pocket parks. Regarding the middle school and the proximity to housing, he explained that they are actually building to the backside of the school. He stated they have about fifty feet between them with carports and/or service areas in between. He spoke to the possibility of a fence. He suggested fencing would be inappropriate but perhaps a split rail divider to specify boundaries. Discussion continued on parking. Chairman Stone spoke to parking passes with guest parking. He spoke to the number of cars per unit and that perhaps in the homeowners association documents they could have something that speaks to the number of vehicles as well as the recreational items. They need to either accommodate them on 33 04-30-2002 site or people should be required to store them offsite. Mr. Hooper stated they are in agreement with that. Andrew Gerber spoke to the affordable housing and the ideal site. He stated one thing that makes for a good housing site is the recreational amenities and schools. He stated this will serve the neighborhood well. He stated as for pricing, they are going through the competitive approval process with approval by the County. Everyone will know what the costs will be prior to the beginning of construction. Commissioner Stone asked him to embellish more on the pricing. He spoke to the arrangement between them and the County and the agreement that is in place. Mr. Gerber stated this is a joint venture and the process is one to come up with the design, a program, what type and size of units. The plans will be designed, bid out and then marked up 12%. They will split the cost of the mark up with the County. Chairman Gallagher pointed out the 6% the County receives gets spit again with the Town of Vail. Mr. Forinash stated illumination is something they have been talking to and provisions to restrict the design are in place. He stated there may be additional requirements set by the Design Review Board. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, spoke to the question about the lighting and what one can do. She stated they have some competing interests going on with safety and esthetics. She stated they will come up with a fixture where they can vary the bulb and all will be downcast. They will provide them with greater flexibility. She spoke to what they are doing on the Spur Road and what will be in place. She stated on May 29th they will begin their efforts on the Spur Road. The new exists for Texaco will come out on Miller Ranch Road. This is before anything happens on the site. Commissioner Stone asked about the right in right out. He asked if someone coming off the highway will come into the Texaco directly. Ms. Migchelbrink stated they will be able to do so by entering on Miller Ranch Road and then turning in. She stated they are awaiting the results of the scheduling for the State. As far as this proposal is concerned they are moving ahead with their projects. Commissioner Stone asked about the Cemetery Bridge Road. Ms. Migchelbrink stated it will be completed by the end of next summer and will reduce the traffic on the Spur Road by 20%. Commissioner Stone asked about the completion dates of the Miller Ranch Road. Ms. Migchelbrink stated the road will be completed by end of summer 2002 with the rest coming on line in 2003 and tying in. Chairman Stone asked about the applicant's opinion on the fence. Mr. Hooper stated they would not like to see a six foot chain link fence. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Commissioner Stone complimented the applicant on their presentation and thanked them for their work with the Planning Commission. He asked Mr. Hooper about Mr. King's response after they met and discussed his issues with the file. Mr. Hooper stated he was then very supportive. Commissioner Stone spoke to the fence and suggested perhaps a natural barrier such as a hedge. He spoke to the placement of the schools by homes. He stated that really is an enhancement to those who have children. As for the recreation, there needs to be recognition that the developer is the County and the intention is to have use of the surrounding open space and recreational activities. They have made a larger, more regional approach. He stated the ultimate guarantee on the pricing is they are taking the cost, the lower bid and adding on 12%. By adjusting the size of the units they have tried to strike a balance. He believes there is a huge backlog of people who would like this kind of unit. He stated they are a partner in this and have given themselves greater scrutiny than they would otherwise. He spoke to 34 04-30-2002 the satellite dishes and their placement. Chairman Gallagher agreed that some barrier along the east wall would be a good idea. He suggested they need to tweak the covenants and part of that including provisions for maintaining suitable recreation within the facility. Commissioner Stone stated the only site that they don't know the shape, size or dimensions of the building is the community center site. He asked Chairman Gallagher about his opinion on that building. He asked if it should come back for a site specific review. Chairman Gallagher stated site specific review would be appropriate. Commissioner Stone agreed. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. PR-00018, Berry Creek Housing Review, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. All illumination within the Housing Tract conform to the requirements of the Land Use Regulations, including the mandated and recommended parameters of the PUD Guide with respect to design, location, type and height of fixtures. 2. This Site which has an allowable use for a childcare community center facility on Parcell of Tract D, be required to come back before the Board for its own site specific review process. 3. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and in all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until May 7, 2002. Attest: Clerk to the Bo 35 04-30-2002