Loading...
Minutes 06/28/2002 SPECIAL HEARING JUNE 28, 2008- V' Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Tom Moorhead Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a Special Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: LUR-0042, Wildfire Regulations Chairman Gallagher stated they are having this special meeting today to discuss the Wildfire Management Plans and how they interface. This meeting is an effort to tell the Board of County Commissioners how they feel and what are their concerns. He spoke to the numbers of houses destroyed in Colorado this year due to wildfires. Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number LUR-0042, Wildfire Regulations and showed a map depicting where the forest fires are in the United Stated. He showed photos of the fire in Glenwood Springs on June 8, 2002 and the aftermath on June 11. He showed how quickly the fire spread and that it crossed the railroad, the river, and 170. He spoke to the qualities of Eagle County and how the same attributes spawn forest fires. He spoke to the risk in the wildland/urban interface. He showed a slide depicting the negative snow pack for this year. He stated beginning on the 15th of February, 2000, the Chief Building Official initiated a series of meetings with the seven Local Fire Authorities having jurisdiction within Eagle County's boundaries. Also present at some ofthese meetings was Mike Harvey of the Colorado State Forest Service. The purpose of these meetings was to construct a regulatory framework designed to mitigate the threat of wildland fire upon new development and new construction located within the WildlandlUrban Interface. The Colorado State Forest Service defines the WildlandlUrban Interface as: "Any area where man-made buildings are built close to or within natural terrain and flammable vegetation, where high potential for wildland fires exist." The scenic views, rugged mountains, expansive forests and warm dry summers are several of the qualities which make Eagle County a desirable place to live. These same desirable attributes also serve to produce severe wildfire hazards. Together, fuels, weather and topography define the fire environment and when combined with characteristics of access and water, determine the ease at which a wildfire will start, the speed at which it will spread, the intensity at which it will bum and the time in which it can be controlled. Subdivisions and other development have created a situation where a wild land fire can involve more buildings than any amount of fire equipment can possibly protect. Many existing residences in remote areas of Eagle County are already subject to serious wildfire danger. Additionally, many heavily vegetated, privately owned large land holdings remain undeveloped in Eagle County. It is reasonable to expect that future growth pressure will push residential development ever further into potentially hazardous wildfire areas. Due to man's ever increasing presence in the WUI areas, when wild land fires do occur they are extinguished as quickly as possible to prevent the destruction of homes. This tends to aggravate the overall problem because forests rely on fire to maintain good health. Fire thins trees and brush and eliminates dead material. Fire suppression to protect homes and population has interfered with this 1 06-28-2002 natural process. Since forest fires in WUI areas are not allowed to burn freely, the result is an increase in vegetation density which provides more fuel for fires. The more dense the vegetation becomes, the greater the intensity with which it will bum, increasing its destructive and dangerous potential. Aside from the obvious threats to both life and property, additional costs associated with wildfire in the WUI include wildlife habitat destruction, watershed damage, air quality problems, recreation impacts, aesthetic impacts and costs to the general population in tax dollars required to suppress fire and restoration after a fire. Per the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management, WUI wild land fires nationwide have destroyed in excess of lO,OOO homes and 20,000 other structures and facilities since 1970. These wildfires have cost our government agencies in excess of$20 billion to suppress and the insurance industry another $6 billion in restitution. As of yesterday evening the costs of fires burning in Colorado has reached $56,559,900. Combined, a total of224 residences and 526 outbuildings and at least one commercial structure that have been destroyed. An additional1,l59 residences, 301 out buildings, 31 commercial buildings are still being threatened by these fires. He reviewed a summary of changes to the Land Use Regulations, Chapter 2 stating the plan to: -Provide related definitions. -Require a Vegetation Management plan for all new developments. -Include explicit requirements for a fire fighting water supply and infrastructure for all new developments. -Modify existing standards to assure adequate site access and turn-around areas for emergency vehicles. - All items would be installed before combustible materials were on site. He showed additional slides intended to help them understand the necessary mitigation factors. He showed homes scattered on a heavily forested hillside. He spoke of thinning and fuel breaks. He showed a slide of a home in one of the more exclusive Eagle County developments that has been built on a ridge line and at the top of a draw. He spoke to the ladder fuels that build up under and around forested areas. He suggested more strict requirements could be placed on the developers. He reviewed the summary of Changes for the Building Resolution and introduced Dan Stanek, Chief Building Official. Mr. Stanek spoke to the plan which would: - Provide standards for the creation of "defensible space"around all structures. - Provide standards for fire resistive construction materials, methods and designs. He spoke to an extreme hazard zone being mitigated to a moderate level before construction. He stated they would receive assistance from the Colorado Forestry Service for mitigation. Mr. Narracci spoke to the diagrams at the back of the package. He spoke to Table A. This chart indicates the minimum dimensions for defensible space from the home to the outer edge of Zone 2. For example, if your home is situated on a 20 percent slope, the minimum defensible space dimensions would be 90 feet uphill and to the sides of the home and l04 feet downhill from the home. Cliff Simonton, Planner, spoke to their visits and reviews of defensible space. He stated it is not as cut and dry as going out to measure a clearing. He spoke to the negotiations that would go on out on the site and the hopes would be that they would not be too compromising to the owner. Chairman Gallagher asked if negotiating would mean diminishing the intent. Commissioner Menconi wanted to make certain people understand they can still plant trees and bushes. Mr. Narracci stated it would allow some old growth coverage to be maintained in harmony with a mitigation plan. He showed a photo of a newly constructed home in the heavy forest. He spoke to including the old growth trees as part of the structure and then plan the defensible space away from the building. He showed more photographs of homes that would be threatened. He showed a photo of an 2 06-28-2002 unapproved building site on Bellyache Ridge. He then showed an adjacent lot where the homeowner has defined a defensible space. A significant amount of the existing development and lands remaining to be developed within Eagle County are considered to be threatened by the potential for devastating wildfires. As such, the County has embarked upon a process to implement new Wildfire Regulations. The proposed Wildfire Regulations represent two elements of a three part approach which has been designed to minimize the inherent risks of wildfire on development located at the Wildland Urban Interface. The three elements comprising Eagle County's approach to Wildfire Management include: 1) Land Use Regulations; 2) Building Resolution and; 3) Educational. He stated they have been running "Fire Wise" videos on the public television stations as well as having conducted public meetings. One was held in Eagle and another will take place in Avon. For the purpose of to day's hearing, we will be discussing amendments proposed for the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Building Resolution (Please note that the Eagle County Building Resolution has been adopted and incorporated as a separate chapter o/the Land Use Regulations). The proposed Land Use Regulation amendments anticipate that all new development in Eagle County will be required to incorporate wildfire mitigation measures designed to reduce the overall wildfire hazard rating before construction or individual lot sales may occur. Proposed wildfire mitigation measures include: Creating Defensible Space around the perimeter of new developments; Creating Fire Breaks within new developments; On-site management of fuels or vegetation, removing dead and diseased trees and strategic thinning of vegetation to help promote overall vegetation health while minimizing the hazard; Strategically locating building sites to avoid high or extreme hazard areas; Minimum standards for Emergency Vehicle access and turnaround areas; Minimum standards for Fire Fighting water supply; Water supply will be provided via fire hydrants in developments served by water distribution systems. In developments not served by water distribution systems, water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants will be provided. The proposed Building Resolution amendments anticipate that all new construction or additions to existing structures will trigger a requirement that individual Defensible Spaces be created around the new construction and existing structure. Depending upon the level of hazard rating, varying degrees of fire resistive construction and sprinkling may also be required for the new construction or additions as well as the existing structure. Education is a key component to the County's wildfire program designed to generate public awareness of the hazard potential and what measures individual property owners may take to help protect their homes and property. The educational component, however, is not part of the proposed regulation amendments. Following is an itemization of each proposed modification to the Land Use Regulations and Building Resolution:. Chapter 2: Land Use Regulations Article 2 - Definitions SECTION 2-110. DEFINITIONS: The purpose ofthese proposed amendments is to define the terms 'Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction' and 'WildlandlUrban Interface'. It is necessary to clarify that within Eagle County, fire related emergencies are (initially) handled by anyone of seven entities falling into one ofthe following categories: Town of Vail Fire Department; Special Districts formed for the purpose of Fire Protection or; 3 06-28-2002 The Eagle County Sheriff's Office which, is responsible for responding to fire related emergencies which do not occur within the jurisdiction of either the Town of Vail or any of the established Fire Protection Districts. A definition of Wildland/Urban Interface is inherent to the purpose and intent of these proposed regulations. Article 4- Site Development Standards SECTION 4-430. DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO WILDFIRE HAZARDS: The purpose of this proposed amendment is to set forth the applicability and minimum requirements for: 1. A Vegetation Management Plan which is proposed as a requirement for all new development in Eagle County; 2. Procedures for review of the Vegetation Management Plan by the Colorado State Forest Service; 3. Explicit minimum requirements for a Fire Fighting Water Supply within all new developments; 4. Appropriate references to other applicable portions of the Land Use Regulation with regard to internal and external Access for new developments. SECTION 4-620. ROADWAY STANDARDS: The purpose ofthe amendments proposed in this section are to: I. Provide minimum standards for emergency vehicle turnaround areas; 2. Update cross-reference information to the AASHTO publication entitled A POLICY ON GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS which, sets forth preferred designs for cul-de- sacs and turnarounds; 3. Clarification of the requirement of Dual Access; 4. Bolster the requirements for emergency vehicle access on public and private access approaches and driveways. SECTION 4-680. WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS: The purpose of the proposed amendment is to: Provide minimum requirements for Fire Fighting Facilities with regard to Water Supply. This is accomplished by cross reference to the appropriate section of the Land Use Regulations. SECTION 5-240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DISTRICT: The purpose of this amendment is to include a Vegetation Management Plan as a document required for processing both Sketch and Preliminary level Planned Unit Development applications. SECTION 5-280. SUBDIVISION: The purpose ofthe proposed amendments is to: Require that a developer be made responsible for providing fire hydrants, water tanks, cisterns and/or dry hydrants within the development capable of providing a fire fighting water supply; Properly reference the appropriate section ofthe Land Use Regulations pertaining to Water Supply; To include a Vegetation Management Plan as a document required for processing a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision; To delete language which is inconsistent with the intent ofthese proposed Wildfire Regulations. Chapter 3 - Eagle County Building Resolution The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Building Resolution are to establish minimum design and construction standards for the protection of life and property from fire within the WildlandlUrban Interface. These provisions are meant to aid in the prevention and suppression of fires, lessen the hazards to structures from wildland fires and lessen the hazards to wildlands from structure fires, as well as, to improve the ability of fire fighters to save individual structures. The proposed changes to the Building Resolution introduce wholly new concepts and as such, represent a substantial addition to the existing language as opposed to amendments of existing language 4 06-28-2002 and requirements. The proposed amendments include the following sections: GENERAL - To set forth both the Purpose and Applicability; DEFINITIONS - To define terminology used throughout the body of the proposed regulation; PROCEDURES - For hazard rating assignment and inspection; REQUIRED MITIGATION - Establishes minimum standards for: Vegetation Management. Site specific Defensible Space requirements; Construction. Fire resistive construction materials, fire rated roofing materials and sprinkling may be required for new construction depending upon the severity of the wildfire hazard rating present on the site in question; Additions. Additions to existing structures will trigger a requirement that defensible space be created around the existing structure, as well as, the new addition. Also, the new addition may be required to be constructed of fire resistive construction materials and be sprinkled depending upon the severity of the wildfire hazard rating present on the site in question; Exterior Decks. Decks requiring a building permit may be required to be constructed of fire resistive materials depending upon the severity of the wildfire hazard rating present on the site in question; Roofing or Siding of Existing Buildings. When re-roofing or re-siding an existing structures requires a building permit, fire resistive materials may be required depending upon the severity of the wildfire hazard rating present on the site in question. PERMIT FEES - A fee for Wildland Hazard Mitigation inspections has been proposed. Mr. Narracci stated the following were those who they requested referral responses: REFERRAL RESPONSES: The proposed amendment package was referred out to the following agencies: County Engineering Department County Assessor's Office County Attorneys Office County Department of Environmental Health Weed & Pest Cooperative Extension County Sheriff s Office Board of County Commissioners Eagle County Planning Commission Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission Colorado State Division of Local Affairs Colorado State Department of Health Colorado State Forest Service (Mike Harvey) Colorado State Forest Service (Scott Woods) Colorado State Forest Service (Conservation) Colorado Division of Wildlife Bureau of Land Management U.S. Army Corp of Engineers U.S. Forest Service Natural Resource Conservation Service US West/PTI Public Service Co./KN Energy Holy Cross Electric Town of Vail Fire Department 5 06-28-2002 Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District Gypsum Fire Protection District Greater Eagle Fire Protection District Town of Minturn Fire Department Eagle River Fire Protection District Eagle Valley Homebuilders Association Three Rivers Home Builders Association Colorado Division of Insurance Western Information & Insurance Service Vail Board of Realtors Glenwood Springs Association of Realtors Vail Associates Cordillera (Lance Badger) NWCCOG Knight Planning Services Isom and Associates Braun and Associates, Inc. PJA Land Planning The Land Studio Sid Fox and Company Johnson and Kunkel Alpine Engineering Peak Land Surveying High Country Engineering Lines in Space White Surveying Starbuck Surveying Benchmark Engineering Sopris Engineering Intermountain Engineering Marcin Engineering Eagle Valley Surveying Meyer Land Systems Town of Avon Town of Basalt Town of Eagle Town of Gypsum Town of Minturn Town of Redc1iff Town of Vail Additionally, these proposed regulations were referred out to all 82 Home Owner's Associations currently registered with Eagle County's Community Development Department. 6 06-28-2002 Responses were received from the following agencies, firms or individuals: Army Corp of Engineers: The referral response indicated that, "in accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a Department of the Army permit is required for any discharge (including mechanized land clearing) of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States". 'Waters of the United States' are defined as the territorial seas; perennial and ephemeral streams; lakes, ponds, impoundments; and wetlands. This response from the Army Corp is consistent with their response to all proposed land use applications. The Army Corp was included as a referral agent for these proposed regulatory amendments in hope that the Army Corp would respond to the potential for increased erosion due to accelerated run-off which would occur in the aftermath of a wildfire event. Town of Basalt: The Town's response favorably indicated that, "The existing code and proposed amendments generally support Town of Basalt philosophies on growth and new development including that developments will be properly and adequately served by emergency service agencies. The overall goal being improved safety for homeowners, visitors, and emergency service providers". The Town further "endorses the general concepts included in the regulations as a significant step in helping to assure public safety, one of the critical purposes of zoning and development review". The Town also supports the educational component of the overall implementation strategy. Additionally, the Town offered eight comments and questions: 1. "In addition to revising the submittal requirements to require information on wildfire protection, do the approval criteria for these various applications make reference to wildfire protection as a standard that must be met?" SECTION 4-430. DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO WILDFIRE HAZARDS sets forth the requirement under Applicability. 2. "Reference to recommendations from the Colorado State Forest Service should also include denial of development review requests where the level of mitigation does not provide acceptable levels of safety." The regulations imply that acceptable levels of safety are a key component to the County's overall evaluation of all land use proposals. Every property presents unique circumstances which must be evaluated by County Staff and weighed by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. 3. "Roadway Standards and access requirements should clarify that failure to meet the required standards and/or provide dual access points may constitute the basis for denial of a development review request. Should the dual access requirement be eliminated when a development or roadway serves only a very limited number of units?" Again, the regulations imply that dual points of access is a key element of a new development proposal. Pursuant to Section 5-260.0 of the ECLUR, The Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove variances from Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovement Standards. The Board could utilize this authority in instances where it is not possible for a given development to provide dual points of access but, where the developer is providing an alternative which may benefit a larger vicinity (i. e.: An off-site water tank or road improvements which will help to improve fire fighting capabilities and access for existing developed areas which are currently substandard. Further, in small developments with a limited number of units, the Board may again choose to utilize their variance authority. 4. "Maximum grades for driveways should clarify where the grade is measured (i.e. centerline of each driving lane) as road grade will become significantly steeper on the inside lane of a curved section of roadway." In discussion with the Eagle County Engineering Department, the maximum grades, as recommended in the ECL UR are acceptable as is. The recommended curve radii, measured from centerline, are proposed to be substantially reduced from a minimum 60 to 80 feet to a minimum of 45 feet. 5. Development review requirements should include establishment of building envelopes in locations where the implementation of defensible space and requirements for removal of vegetation will result in the least amount of environmental degradation. Planning Staff does work with applicants for new development to establish building envelopes, when necessary, to contain site construction in logical 7 06-28-2002 locations which are free from hazard and which protect a site's attributes to the greatest extent possible. Nevertheless, language has been added to the proposed regulations to require the use of building envelopes as necessary. Commissioner Menconi asked if there is a regulation that would indicate a developer would be better off clustering the properties rather than spreading them out. He suggested Mr. Narracci alluded that clustering would be beneficial. Mr. Narracci stated clustering is recommended but it is not a requirement. Commissioner Menconi asked if there are other Counties that are requiring clustering. Mr. Simonton said the current Regulations now are more related to land constraints. He stated if the Land Use Regulations as amended are approved, they will provide an option for clustering and would provide a greater incentive. Commissioner Menconi asked if they believe that clustering would create a more defensible space. Mr. Simonton stated it certainly could. 6. The regulations appear to have the potential to negatively impact environmental protection goals depending on site specific variables. We recommend that the County consider establishing study areas where serious wildfire safety is a concern and where significantly lower densities and limits on development may be appropriate in order to protect natural habitats. The County's goal over the next year is to develop a Wildfire Hazard Map which would identifY existing hazard conditions on all privately owned and adjacent publically owned lands. In general, one may expect that the higher the wildfire threat becomes the less conducive to development the property would be. Commissioner Stone asked if they have established hazard zones. Mr. Narracci stated they have a base hazard zone map that needs to be updated significantly. They have a great deal of mapping done and they need to compile it. He suggested some site specific locations may need further investigation. They are working with the Forest Service on this as well as fire districts. Commissioner Stone suggested it will be difficult to implement a regulation ifthey don't have the hazard zones located on a map. Chairman Gallagher suggested it is his understanding that until the map is defined they will have to require that the zone be required by new development. Mr. Narracci stated in some instances they will have to get the Forest Service to help them ascertain some of the difficult areas. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the changing vegetation and the need to upgrade and re-examine the map. Commissioner Stone suggested the general public doesn't mind playing by the rules, but they must know what the rules are. The answer needs to be memorialized. Mr. Narracci stated they can either add regulations or in the resolution they can identify this in the interim. Commissioner Menconi concurred with the points made by Commissioner Stone and Chairman Gallagher. 7. "The Commission (Basalt) felt that the defensible space requirements could be lightened in certain cases where other mitigation measures are provided. By way of example, requirements for the use of fire resistive building materials, provision of pressurized water systems and fire hydrants or upgraded access such as wider paved roadways may off-set the need for requiring as much removal of vegetation. Such adjustments could help to avoid unnecessary environmental damage such as soil erosion and debris flow potential." Staff is of the opinion that fire resistive construction, pressurized water systems, sufficient access AND Defensible Space are all indispensable elements of a comprehensive wildfire mitigation plan. Further, properly executed Defensible Space does not equate to denuding a site of all vegetation, therefore, soil erosion and debris flow should not exceed historic 8 06-28-2002 rates. Commissioner Menconi stated it is his understanding with this point that anyone of the variables is strong enough that another isn't necessary. He suggested they are saying if they have enough of one factor does it create enough merit to not require a defensible space. Mr. Narracci suggested that is their point. He believes the Forest Service feels that all of the variables are necessary. Mr. Simonton stated there are some Counties that have check lists, and those are certainly out there as options that are in place elsewhere. Commissioner Menconi asked if they are also moving toward a regulation that will require building codes to have a certain amount of fire retardant. Commissioner Menconi asked if they, for example, had 100 feet of driveway around the house if they could then not have sprinkler system. Mr. Simonton stated that would be the out some. 8. "The Commission (Basalt) expressed appreciation for the referral and interest in the future of the proposal. Please continue to provide the Town with updates on the progress of your deliberations." Robert Warner, Jr.: Mr. Warner's response indicates that, "I would like to say that I am totally behind the concept of strengthening our land use regulations as it relates to wildfires and water systems". Mr. Warner feels that the County should first develop a wildfire hazard map before attempting to develop land use regulations aimed at controlling the wildfire hazard. This way, we would know which areas to focus on and could more realistically evaluate what should and should not be done. He suggests that the County should not rush into adopting these regulations in the next several weeks because it will negatively affect developers, builders, architects and homeowners who now may have a substantial amount of time and money into design of a new home. If these regulations were to be approved, a complete redesign may become necessary. Mr. Warner's letter is most pointed with regard to the proposed changes to the Building Resolution. He feels that requiring one hour fire rated construction would be ineffective in achieving the intended goal. He also references the fact that the proposed code, if adopted, would likely conflict with the longstanding practices of numerous Design Review Boards. These are all conscientious comments which should be considered by the Planning Commissions and the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Narracci spoke to not rushing into this. He suggested that the Planning Commission believes there should be a 90 day grace period to allow those who are designing a new home to proceed without having to redesign it. Chairman Gallagher asked what the trigger point would be. Mr. Stanek stated building permit. Mr. Narracci stated it would also be preliminary plan for subdivisions. Mr. Stanek spoke to the fire resistance construction materials in the exterior walls will not only help if the fire is from the outside, but if the fire starts in the house it will help minimize its spreading. Homestead Owners Association: Concerns were expressed with regard to sprinkling, fire resistive construction and defensible space as they may relate to the Homestead. The response seemingly indicated that the author had not seen the proposed amendment package. The Homestead HOA was sent a referral package along with the other 82 HOA's during the original referral period which, spanned from April]'t to May Ft. PJA Land Planning (Rick Pylman): Ricks, verbal comments centered around the proposed requirements for defensible space on smaller lot subdivisions where it may not be possible to create a minimum 70 foot defensible space and the necessity to make a distinction between areas such as the Homestead and Singletree which are developed primarily on the valley floor and which are separated from any 'wildland' areas. Staff is aware of the discrepancy which Rick pointed out. The proposed regulations have been adjusted to exempt properties located within a 'low hazard rating' from the requirement of creating a defensible space. This will solve the problem in small lot subdivisions where 9 06-28-2002 the hazard rating is low. There may still be a few platted lots within subdivisions such as the Homestead and Singletree which are located in WUI areas. Mr. Narracci showed a view of Eagle-Vail where the homes on the irrigated golf course section could be exempt, those closer to the forest would have greater restrictions. Singletree Design Review Board (John Perkins): Mr. Perkins' verbal comments were virtually identical to those of Rick Pylman with PJA Land Planning. Cordillera (Lance Badger): Mr. Badger submitted a letter indicating support for the concept of wildfire regulations with several poignant questions: 1. "What does 'fire resistive' construction mean? Does it mean non-wood siding, as some have suggested, or does it mean a one-hour assembly? If it means a one-hour assembly then are windows allowed? Assuming one can find one-hour glass windows for a house, can they ever be opened and would it then not defeat the purpose?" Pursuant to Section 3.13.2 of the proposed regulations, Fire Resistive Construction can mean non-combustible or 518" drywall under combustible materials. Openings in exterior walls are not regulated by this regulation. 2. "Most Design Guidelines within local communities call for roof overhangs to be between 18" and 24". Will the new regulations conflict with the covenants of these communities regarding the dimensions of the overhangs? Does the overhang (eve) have to be constructed as a one-hour assembly as it relates to fire-resistive construction? If so, what does the detail look like, given that eves are typically vented? Can a one-hour assembly be designed with a cold roof? Has any architect reviewed the proposed regulations and offered comments?" Roof overhangs may remain the same dimensions. Roof overhangs in moderate, high and extreme hazard zones would be either of non-combustible materials or 518" drywall underneath combustible materials. Vents are to be located on the verticalface of the eves, gable ends, or roof jacks. Yes, at least two architects have reviewed and commented at length - both are members of the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission. Chairman Gallagher asked if a cold roof would be allowed. Mr. Stanek stated yes it would and explained the requirement. 3. "Will an addition to a home require that the entire house be fitted with a sprinkler system in houses which currently do not have fire suppression systems (sprinklers), or will only the addition be required to add such a system?" As currently proposed, Section 3.13.4.3 'Additions' would require that the entire building, including the addition, be equipped with a sprinkler system if the total floor area exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. in a moderate hazard zone or 4,000 sq. ft. in a high or extreme hazard zone. 4. "What happens to the sites that are only served by wells instead of a central water supply? Wells are typically limited to 15 GPM by the State, and any sprinkler system would require fire storage. What kind of storage would be required for the necessary fire-flows?" If a sprinkling system is required by Section 3. 13.4.2.b or 3. 13.4.2.c then, adequate water storage will be required. Mr. Stanek stated that would be a three head system at 15 gallons per minute, multiplied by the time it will take a fire truck to get there. He stated the further out you go, the bigger the tank. 5. "How are non-habitable additions treated (i.e. a garage addition or storage shed)?" As currently proposed, Section 3.13.2 'Definitions', 'Building Size', the area of an attached garage accessory to a dwelling may be excluded provided the garage is separated from the dwelling by a full one-hour occupancy separation. The definition proposed for 'Defensible Space " further states that a defensible space shall also encompass, and extend from, all buildings on the property located within a 50 foot radius of the affected building. 6. "Does conformance with defensible space extend to the less of: The proposed defensible space dimension, property line or building envelope? Since many of the approved PUD's supercede and replace the ECLUR's in its entirety, the building code would be the only applicable and enforceable regulation. As a result, the building code in certain cases would conflict with the PUD's, Wildlife Mitigation Plans and homeowner covenants regarding disturbance outside of building envelopes, in wildlife corridors, elk calving sites, open space parcels, etc. Will the building code have language 10 06-28-2002 addressing these potential conflicts?" As currently proposed, under Section 3.13.2, 'Definitions' the definition of Defensible Space indicates that Defensible Space shall extend pursuant to Table A or to the property lines, whichever is less. We cannot require mitigation on property which is not owned by the applicant. Staff, as yet, has not identified a single PUD Guide which contains restrictions on alteration of the landscape outside of a building envelope. He spoke to the Cordillera PUD. Some specifically allow decks, patios, hot tubs, etc. outside of building envelopes. With regard to wildlife corridors and wildlife impacts; buildable single-family lots have rarely been created in these areas. The wildlife corridor areas etc. are typically intended to prevent disturbance due to building, grading and access. The strategic manipulation of vegetation within these areas (if applicable) can be accomplished in a manner so as to not compromise the intent of a Wildlife Mitigation Plan which is to protect wildlife and their movements. Homeowner covenants cannot be less restrictive than the County's regulations, therefore if these regulations are adopted, various Homeowner Associations will need to bring their covenants into accord with the County's minimum regulations. 7. "Has the Colorado Division of Wildlife made any official comments regarding the proposed regulations?" A referral was sent to CDOW during the referral period which extended from April r to May r. No response was received. 8. "If the County approves a building permit on a lot which increase the risk of injury to an adjacent home, does the County have any liability? Will not any approved building permit increase the risk to existing adjacent homes, ifthe setbacks are less than the defensible space?" Per our County Attorney, the County would not incur liability. 9. What happens in attached housing situations (i.e.: one duplex owner conforms and the other does not)?" In the instance where each one half duplex owner also owns and singularly controls one half of the 'lot' upon which the entire duplex is located then, the wildfire regulations would apply to only the half of the duplex and lot in question. In instances where each one half of the duplex represents a lot held in single ownership and the remainder of the 'lot' upon which the entire duplex is located is owned jointly by both one half duplex owners then, any alteration to the commonly owned 'lot' would require the concurrence of both one half duplex owners. Defensible Space would need to be implemented on the entire 'lot '. Commissioner Stone stated he doesn't mind going through all ofthese, but the Commissioners have reviewed all of the responses. He suggested in the matter of time, he would like to make sure those who are here for public comment have an opportunity to speak. Chairman Gallagher asked about any additional letters. Mr. Narracci stated the letters they have received are for the most part supportive. He stated the districts have either submitted letters or come to the meetings and voiced their support. He spoke to the response and suggestions by Knight Planning. Eagle River Fire Protection District: The Eagle River Fire Protection District was integrally involved in all meetings pertaining to the proposed wildfire regulations. In review of drafts of the proposed regulations up to the point of sending them on referral, the District was in support. The District's has since indicated 'qualified' support for the proposed regulations with reference to the comments set forth in Mr. Warner's letter of response. (Please note that Mr. Warner and Mr. Badger both sit on the ERFPD 's governing Board). Gypsum Fire Protection District: The Gypsum F.P.D. submitted a letter urging the adoption of the WildlandlUrban Interface code as proposed. The Board of Directors and the Fire Chief reviewed and discussed the code and fully support it. Greater Eagle F.P.D.: The Board of Directors, Staff and Volunteers of the Greater Eagle F.P.D. express their full support of the proposed Wildfire Regulations with regard to Wildland fire management in Eagle County. The response indicated that these regulations are necessary and desirable in order to reduce the potential for loss of homes in the WUI areas of the County. To date all fire protection 11 06-28-2002 agencies in the County have been working with people in their own areas to try educating property owners. This proposal will begin to really help all the fire agencies in the valley with an ever-growing problem of homes built within the previously undeveloped wildlands. It will also begin to reduce the chances of a possible catastrophic fire moving through new development and destroying it. Recently we have learned that the USFS and BLM are trying to begin fuel management projects near the existing subdivision of Eby Creek Mesa and surrounding area. This will be a great step in reducing the threat to a very high hazard subdivision. Knight Planning Services, Inc.: In a letter from Tom Boni, he commends the County for identifying an area that needs additional regulations to promote overall public safety. Tom questions the proposed regulations with regard to the Eagle County Road Standards because there are a different set of circumstances where a development is located in a low hazard area, provided with adequate municipal water service, fire hydrants, and are within close proximity to fire stations. Tom believes that separate routes of entrance and exit into development is warranted where there is a significant fire hazard, the development is of significant size or, when there are other implications affecting public safety. There are many existing examples within our medium density subdivisions where 25 - 40 homes exist on streets or on a combination of streets that have one access connection to the surrounding community. This is generally a result oftopography and ownership patterns. These neighborhoods are attractive and safe. Tom suggests language with regard to the requirement for Dual Access in order to provide flexibility: For small developments in areas served by municipal water service and located in areas that have a manageable fire hazard rating and other requirements that are satisfactory (upon review and approval) by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, may be served by once access roadway. Section 4-620.J.9.(4) Access Approaches and Driveways states that, "Driveways shall not serve more than three units." This existing regulation accommodates access for new development of up to three residences (and three accessory dwelling units) without 'triggering' the requirement for dual points of access. Staff believes Dual Access is a critical element of a comprehensive wildfire code and should be applicable to all new development which exceeds three lots. That portion of the proposed regulations pertaining to Dual Access has been adjusted to make it clear that the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the requirement for Dual Access. This variance may be granted either as part of a newly proposed development as part of the routine review or, by separate request of the developer in instances where a singular point of access may be exceptionally problematic. Eagle County Ambulance District: The ECAD has requested that the proposed regulations include language which would require that all gated communities provide a standardized code for access by ambulance, fire and law enforcement agencies. Through discussions with the County's Emergency Management Officer, Staff has come to realize that the current practice of non-standardization is a real problem. Please see attached referral responses and letters. 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including the applicable towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Notice ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section s-230.B.2 Text Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (a) The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. (b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section s-230.D Standards ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations as applicable: 12 06-28-2002 (a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use Map ofthe Eagle County Master Plan. (b) The proposed amendments DO address a demonstrated community need. ( c) The proposed amendments ARE in the public interest. These proposed regulations were reviewed by the Eagle County Planning Commission (ECPC) during three separate hearings (May 15t\ 22nd and June 5th). The ECPC had numerous questions and offered many suggestions for clarification and refinement of the proposed regulations, no substantive alterations were made. Following the three ECPC meetings, the ECPC unanimously recommended approval of the proposed regulations with five conditions: 1) Add language in each of the reference for access clarifying that an applicant may request from the BoCC a variance from improvement standards with regard to dual access. This adjustment has already been incorporated and was made available for review by the RFVRPC. 2) On Page 3, under Maintenance, include language which requires that firebreaks, turnaround areas and emergency access routes be maintained. This adjustment has already been incorporated and was made available for review by the RFVRPC. 3) On Page 5, under Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds, remove reference to the number of units served and retain the sentence which states that, "Due to mountainous terrain, it may be necessary to have dead end roads which, exceed 1,000 feet in length". This adjustment has already been incorporated and was made available for review by the RFVRPC. 4) A recommendation to the Board to include a 90 Day Grace Period from the time of adoption prior to the regulations coming into effect. The ECPC recommends that this time be utilized to issue press releases and to notifY all building firms, architects and Design Review Boards of the new regulations. 5) A recommendation to the Board to hire a consultant to complete a fire hazard rating map within one year from the date of adoption. Mr. Narracci stated they believe they can achieve this in house over the next year working with the emergency management people. The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission (RFVRPC) reviewed the proposed regulations during two separate hearings (May 16th and June 6th). The RFVRPC also had many questions and offered many suggestions for clarification and refinement of the proposed regulations. Following the two RFVRPC meeting, the RFVRPC unanimously recommended approval ofthe proposed regulations with five conditions: a. Provide alternatives for creating Defensible Space in Moderate Hazard fire danger areas which, allow either a 30 foot clear area or a 15 foot clear area within a minimum 70 foot radius of strategically managed vegetation per Table A. Staff is inclined to go with the recommendation of the Colorado State Forest Service with regard to the minimum amount of necessary Defensible Space. The CSFS recommends a minimum of 70 feet on flat ground (Please reference Table A). The first 15 feet immediately around a structure should be kept free of all trees and other obstacles. The CSFS has repeatedly stated that anything less than 70 feet would be ineffectual. b. Make the following adjustments to the proposed regulations: 1. On Page 3, change Item C to read Building Design versus Structural Design. This adjustment has already been incorporated. 2. On Page 6, Item (1) Add language indicating that driveways are not required to be paved. The ECLUR's currently do not require that driveways be paved, additional language is not necessary. 3. On Page 11, Section 3.13.4.1.a states that, "Otherwise within this zone, plant 'nothing' within 3 to 5 feet of the structure." There are things you can plant (i.e. lawns and flowers). Also, What constitutes an 'individual' spruce tree? Language with regard to what may be planted near a structure's 13 06-28-2002 foundation has been incorporated. Staff believes that the term 'individual' is self explanatory. 4. On Page 12, under Moderate Hazard Construction, indicate that eaves and soffits shall be of fire resistive construction as opposed to one-hour rated. Soffit assemblies are not rated because the building code doesn't deal with soffits. This adjustment has already been incorporated. 5. A recommendation to the Board to include a 90 Grace Period from the time of adoption prior to the regulations coming into effect. The RFVRPC recommends that this time be utilized to issue press releases and to notifY all building firms, architects and Design Review Boards of the new regulations. 6. A recommendation to the Board to hire a consultant to complete a fire hazard rating map in less than one year from the date of adoption. 7. Revisit the regulations after the mapping is complete. Mr. Narracci stated all the staff findings are positive and they are comfortable with what is presented. They believe this is workable though it may require adjustments in the future. Commissioner Stone asked Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, about the current Land Use Regulations. He suggested the prior Board of County Commissioner had a process for reviewing these. Mr. Montag stated it is his recollection they focused on those areas that are of most concern. He suggested that is more efficient than going through page by page. He suggested they are pretty comfortable with what they have, and there may not be a lot of areas where they need direction. Chairman Gallagher asked those who want to speak to sign up on the yellow pad. He suggested if their name is not on the list they can not speak. He adjourned for a ten minute break. Chairman Gallagher asked the Commissioners if they have questions for staff or if they wish to go to public comment. The Board agreed to move forward with public comment. Rick Plyman, resident of Eagle County, stated they all understand that this is important and they understand the concept. He stated he is not against the concept especially after seeing what has happened in Glenwood. He stated his biggest concern is the defensible space and where they apply. He stated without a map and without understanding what the moderate zone area is, it is difficult to understand the implications. He asked if it applies to 10% of the houses or 60 to 70% of the houses. He is thinking about the houses that are out there and those coming in to do remodels. He asked how those will be impacted. Without the map he thinks it is difficult to understand. He stated he has a bit of concern and knows this was taken from Summit and Jefferson Counties, but there is an enforcement issue in negotiating with a homeowner. He thinks it is a difficult situation to put staff or the homeowner through. He questioned the dispute mechanism. He would ask they give that more thought. He stated he did talk with some ofthe Eagle-Vail Design Review Board and they are feeling that this is somewhat of a one size fits all program. He suggested they must differentiate between Eagle-Vail and Bellyache. He suggested a house may be vulnerable from just one side and they need to try to address those specific issues or they may have a lot of unhappy people. He thinks they are on the right track with the right staff, but a map will give greater definition. Commissioner Menconi suggested the last issue he mentioned has been addressed in the Regulations. Mr. Narracci stated lots that are consistent with landscaping in the middle of a residential area are likely to be in a low hazard area and not require mitigation. Commissioner Menconi expressed the concern with the one size fits all and that those issues are being addressed. Mr. Narracci stated the zoning they are proposing will provide the differentiation that Mr. Plyman is speaking to. Commissioner Menconi asked where the confusion is. Mr. Plyman stated he is not reading it that way. He spoke to zone 1 not allowing planting within 14 06-28-2002 fifteen feet. Zone 2 you are allowed to build but you need a 10 foot prune requirement. He suggested the homeowner has no expertise in fire prevention. Commissioner Menconi stated what this seems to be creating is a mock discussion. He asked how Mr. Narracci would respond ifhe were an applicant. Mr. Narracci stated the applicant would have to weigh a proposed addition against the requirement for defensible space. He stated it is a shift of thinking. Mr. Stanek stated they can accommodate esthetic desires. Mr. Simonton stated there are some things that will need to be addressed. The overall intent is to reduce the tree load around the house. He stated there will certainly be conflict and staff will be placed in some uncomfortable positions. Scott Hunn, representing Vail Resorts Development and Beaver Creek Resort Company, stated they are in agreement with this regulation and support the adoption. They would like to point out that they have been pro-active in trying to understand the regulation and what it means to the Beaver Creek community. He stated they have tried diligently to assess each property. They have sent out the fire laws packet to homeowners and are trying to address the areas of greatest concern. He spoke to the VR reservoirs and the snow making equipment that can be of assistance. He stated they are concerned with the adoption of these in urgency. He stated they would like the opportunity to come to a better understanding of how this will effect their development, the long term impacts and what this means to their building environment. He spoke to the conflicts with specific building guidelines and what has received previous approval. He stated he is personally interested in taking more time to figure out what these regulations mean and what the impacts will be on the character of the area. Chairman Gallagher asked what kind of time frame are they looking at. Mr. Hunn stated he is not sure. Commissioner Stone stated they are not rushing to adopt these and the comments of such are not appropriate. He stated they started this a long time ago, long before this summer's fire season. He stated he is pleased this Board has been pro-active in doing this. He believes Commissioner Gallagher's question is appropriate and that he would like to see it come forward. Ifhe is to consider delaying the Board's decision, he would like to know for how long. He is pleased with Vail Resort's education efforts but challenges the enforcement. He stated he is willing to work with people but wants to know how much time they are talking about. He stated it would be helpful for them to have a time period. Mr. Hunn apologized that his comments about urgency was not implying they are rushing this. He stated these communities were developed with a great deal of thought and care and these changes may alter, in many ways, the results that may come from this. He thanked Mr. Stanek and staff for the time and effort that they have put forth in this effort. Jack Hunn, representing Vail Resorts, stated they are very much of support of what the County is trying to do and commends them. Vail Resorts has been a land developer in Eagle County for forty years and they are very involved in these communities. They are the largest employer in Eagle County. They have developed a significant number of employee units and want to consider how this might effect future employee units. He stated the practical application as drafted appears to be headed towards problems with interpretation. He suggested more time is warranted to work out some ofthe regulations. As written today they see this as effecting the esthetics in some of the existing locations. He stated they would like thirty days or less to allow their staff to work with County staff to try to come to a better understanding. Commissioner Menconi asked for an example of an area of concern. Mr. Hunn spoke to the driveways and roadways and that they might want an variance for heated driveways. He spoke to communities where voluntary sprinkling already exists. Geri Arnold, representing Vail Resorts, stated one of the concerns she has is the phrase that Eagle- Vail would likely be in a low hazard zone. She urged that the rating be developed as quickly as possible. 15 06-28-2002 Chairman Gallagher stated until the map is done, the designations will be made with the cooperation of the Forest Service, staff and the fire departments. If that service were available to Vail Resorts to do an assessment of an area prior to the map coming out, would that meet their needs. Ms. Arnold stated that would be all available. She stated until the map is produced it will be difficult to reconcile the information beforehand. Chairman Gallagher suggested that any area that is identified and rated, it will then probably be incorporated into the map. Ms. Arnold stated that would be very helpful and especially so for those that are going under design. Rosie Sherwood, Brush Creek resident, stated she is speaking as a homeowner today. Obviously a major concern is living in a pretty vulnerable spot. She stated she is about ten minutes from fire service. She stated she shares a hillside with six homeowners. She stated each of their homes is as safe as their neighbor is conscientious. She has concerns with the future developments in Eagle County that are more remote. She stated when development is a good distance from fire protection it should bring more directness and a possible need for a new fire station. She thinks it is vital that water supply also be addressed. She stated this year they will get it first hand just what water supplies are. She stated nine miles up stream the Creek looks great, but you get close to Town and it's a trickle. She stated these are definitely things that should be considered. She believes 35 acre parcels should also be looked at. She stated she almost lives in a clustered area and she thinks it is a good idea. She stated her six house community allows them to protect as a group. Randy Cloyd, Adam's Rib, stated he lives in a log cabin house, wood shingle roof, a real fire hazard. He stated he has made defensible spaces. He stated he is switching his roof and might put on a metal roof. This may require him to then sprinkle or put in a water tank. He asks when does enforcement come into play. He suggested critical mapping is critical. He is concerned with broad lines. He suggested the map should be worked through the public as well. He suggested they have to look at the development and the overall view. He suggested there must be some flexibility. He thinks the concept of the regulations is very good. Dave Vroman, Gypsum Fire Protection District, stated this is not a new process as they have been working on it over the last two years. He stated though they don't have a specific map right now, they do have the information and the understanding. This is not advocating clear cuts or concrete buildings or bunkers. Resource intensive houses exist. Fires do not allow for variance. He stated we are in a drought year and it has been a drought cycle for a number of years. The map will be a living document, but it is not the answer. The standards are the answer and let sight visits be the determining factors. There are too many variables. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Vroman to imagine that somebody new has come into this today and they will ask how much is this going to slow down the potential for a fire coming in or going out. Mr. Vroman stated the houses in Mitchell Creek in Glenwood were not mitigated. This is not going to encumber the process to the point it will kill it for the individual. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the presentation and the explanation that a fire crossed the Interstate. Mr. Vroman stated houses that did not do mitigation had flame lengths of90 feet. He stated homes that mitigated were 2 to 4 feet flame lengths. He stated it is just more defensible. You are truly as safe as your neighbor but if you do some mitigation it allows the fire to be managed and the structures can be protected. Commissioner Menconi asked about the fire crossing the interstate. Mr. Vroman stated they were faced with a resource management issue. He stated spotting in these kind of conditions happen. The Glenwood crew thought they had a hold and never anticipated it crossing the River and the Interstate. 16 06-28-2002 Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Vroman to explain spotting. Mr. Vroman stated the weather created from the body of fire will carry the sparks in front of the fire. He stated fire wise practices may allow them some time and provides minimum damage as opposed to complete loss. Commissioner Stone spoke to the new recreation center and the new RFT A building that are fire wise with their metal roofs and minimal landscaping. Mr. Vroman stated it was the fire that carried the branches down and across the road. Commissioner Stone stated his brother in law is a fire chief in Durango and he stated they go into a neighborhood and determine which they can save and which they can't. Mr. Vroman spoke to resource management and the best use of resources. He spoke to structure triage. Commissioner Stone asked about the sprinkling of homes. He suggested that is to protect the occupants. He stated there are two parts to the discussion and most are trying to save the home from catching the fire or being more resistant. He asked what is the value of sprinkling. Mr. Vroman stated the sprinklers are on the interior and will allow the fire to stay in a room. Without the sprinkling the house becomes fuel for the fire. Commissioner Stone asked if these Regulations are connected to wildfires how does sprinkling effect the fire. Mr. Vroman suggested the sprinklers do not allow the house to become the ignition point. He stated sprinkling allows the fires to remain confined and more addressable. He stated that keeps a minor fire a minor fire. Chairman Gallagher suggested throughout the life of this process they have heard that if a fire hydrant is present they are covered. Mr. Vroman stated the difference in types of fire are major. He stated in 1994 the hydrants were dry. With the Coal Seam they had water. It depends on how much time people have to use the water. Chairman Gallagher asked if a fire hydrant stopped the fire on Red Mountain. Mr. Vroman stated the systems are very critical. He stated watering systems or hydrants may buy you the time that it takes fire protectors to get there. Chairman Gallagher asked if requiring hydrants is a helpful mitigating factor. Mr. Vroman suggested it is certainly helpful. Chairman Gallagher asked about clustering. Mr. Vroman suggested it is how they are built and how much care is given to mitigation. Clustering is a component, but it is not the answer. Chairman Gallagher asked about the turning radius for driveways. Mr. Vroman stated they can presently fit in a 45 foot radius. It is close and not bad considering some ofthe geographical differences. He suggested it may be time to talk about transferable building rights. John Benson, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District, pointed out and thanked Mr. Stanek for the time that he has spent in getting this going. He suggested Eagle County's time is running out. He stated he agrees with Chief Vroman that the fire knows no variances. He spoke to Ms. Sherwoods concerns about future fire stations. He agrees they must have input on the 35 acre parcels. He stated they are the ones risking their lives trying to defend something that is not defendable. He thinks that it is time to move this forward. Commissioner Menconi asked ifMr. Benson thinks it would be prudent for the Board to allow for more time. Mr. Benson suggested it is time to make a decision. He doesn't believe the County can give any more time. Commissioner Menconi spoke to past situations where the Board has had the opportunity to develop the Regulations they will be moving forward on. He asked if Mr. Benson was in attendance at 17 06-28-2002 the previous meetings. Mr. Benson stated he was not but Chief Vroman was. Chairman Gallagher asked about the turning radius for Mr. Benson. Mr. Benson stated they can use 40 to 45 feet but it is very tight. They are running vehicles that better utilize 60 to 65 feet. Chairman Gallagher asked if staff has response to the public input. Mr. Narracci stated defensible space will not negatively effect property values. According to the Glenwood Post article, a developer in Pagosa Springs who is selling high end lots, indicates he implements defensible space, creates 100 foot fire breaks along all roads, fire hydrants every 1,000 feet, and estimates it definitely increases the costs of his lots. He can raise the prices because the buyer seems to like the idea that everything is done. He relates people seem to like having the forests opened up a bit and makes for a healthier environment. Mr. Stanek stated on a re-roof they would require an upgrade in the roof material. They do not want to penalize someone who is in need of a roof. Chairman Gallagher asked if re-roofing alone requires sprinklers. Mr. Stanek answered no. Mr. Simonton stated there may be situations where people won't let them know they are re- roofing ifthey fear they might have greater restrictions placed on their home. Mr. Narracci stated they realize the map is very important to help make operations more efficient, but the map is just boiling down existing conditions into an accessible product. Mr. Simonton stated they might view the hazards differently. Chairman Gallagher asked if they understand what they will do before the map is complete. He explained it as staff and Forest Service personnel doing an on-site inspections of each property. Berry Smith, Eagle County Emergency Management, stated the second most common cause of structure fires is radiant heat starting fires through the windows by igniting something flammable within the home. Commissioner Stone stated they have about fifteen minutes left and he suggested they might start thinking about how they will accommodate additional requests. He asked staff what kind of feedback have they gotten from insurance companies. Mr. Narracci stated they sent several state agencies referrals but they haven't gotten any replies back. Commissioner Stone asked that they check with some of the local representatives and ask them what kind of changes have taken place as well as some of their rating criteria. He stated with that information in hand it may be easier for them to go to the public and ask their support. He stated the map is not going to be a static document. If they do have a map it needs to be understood that it is an advisory document that promotes an elevated level of site specific review. He wants to make sure in the Regulations that people understand it is not a fine line document. He stated he understands Jefferson County and Summit County have their own specific wildfire inspectors. He questioned what they were proposing. He spoke to page 2 and the "shall's" for the Forest Service. Are they expecting the Colorado State Forest Service to do this on a home by home basis. He suggested that would be problematic in a year such as this. He questions if this will require additional staff and where that money might come from. What are their thoughts and response. Mr. Simonton stated Summit County found it was in their advantage to have someone on board and that person not just visited the sites but was trained in the educational component. He stated there is a great deal of training involved. He stated it also provided them with a person on site that had strength in their background. They have a person on site that has experience in fire fighting and it brings more credibility to the position. Commissioner Stone asked if that is their recommendation. Mr. Simonton suggested they may be able to encorporate the skills with existing positions such 18 06-28-2002 as Barry, the Emergency Management individual. Commissioner Stone asked they have further discussion on that and especially as they enter into the budget process. He then spoke to page 12 and the structures of different sizes. He asked how they picked those out. Mr. Stanek stated they came from Summit and Jefferson County and they then adjusted them. Commissioner Stone asked what is the philosophy behind the size of a structure. Mr. Stanek explained they went with the differentiation because it allows someone who has less money the ability to still build. Mr. Vroman stated it is an issue with resources and the fire flow requirements. He stated there are definable break over points. As you get larger homes they require greater mitigation. Commissioner Stone suggested that Mr. Stanek's point is important as well because all changes have costs. He spoke to retrofitting a home with a sprinkler system as opposed to building new. He is still looking for a definitive answer to what square footage makes sense. Chairman Gallagher stated it would be his desire to go beyond noon today. He would like to give staff direction so when they meet the final time they may be able to adopt the proposed Regulations. Commissioner Stone stated he is available until 1 :00. Commissioner Menconi stated he is available until 12:15 p.m. today. He stated he became a Commissioner while this was underway. His first question was why they are doing this. He stated it has become very apparent as to need. He appreciates the work of staff and the Planning Commission. He asked for more detail on the ratings. He stated the points of the Roaring Fork Planning Commission indicating the Regulations could be lightened in some areas is interesting. He spoke to the Eagle County Planning Commission and the time period for implementation. He asked about the trigger points and when it is appropriate to have these discussions. He believes it must be enforced on 35 acres and larger parcels. He questioned the dispute resolution mechanism. He stated he believes it is important they move quickly. The Planning Commission had three hearings and the Board has held a special meeting today because of the desire to move this forward. He questions what will be flushed out during this time period. He asked how this will be customized. He stated he does believe that clustering is a component as well as transferrable development rights. Perhaps this is a first stage. Chairman Gallagher asked about ads on public T.V. in Eagle. Mr. Narracci stated they are running ads. Chairman Gallagher asked if the hazard map will be within a year and that he hopes the fire marshalls will participate. He then asked if they are permitting development in extreme hazard areas. Mr. Stanek stated they are. He stated with that something that is in extreme areas, their hopes are to bring it down to moderate. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the driveway radius and asked they check with other departments. He stated he would not want clusters addressed in this Regulation. He stated he would like to make the point that water is essential, but fire hydrants don't stop wildfires. He wants the minimums to be the minimums and beyond that they consider other things. He would like them to pursue the concept of an IGA with the Forest Service and BLM for development across their boundaries. He would like the Attorney to look at how the existing Regulations can be made applicable to spaces within an existing PUD. He suggested the ninety day grace period might be as of today. He would like them to notify the newspapers that they are looking to give fair warning that this is coming. He stated the Colorado State Forest Service provisions should be modified to include other capable individuals. He asked if any of the local districts have someone on staff to do this. Mr. Vroman stated they don't have the folks on staffbut they can by 2003. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like to see the staff work with the local agencies for a partnership on these Regulations. Chairman Gallagher spoke to shutters on the windows and that helping stop radiant heat. He spoke to the modification of these. He stated it is time for a paradigm shift. 19 06-28-2002 Commissioner Menconi suggested he would like to see the impact it has on Design and Review Boards by the next meeting. Commissioner Stone suggested there could be more discussion on the plant species. Chairman Gallagher asked if it would be acceptable to reference existing Forest Service Regulations. Commissioner Stone suggested that it might not be fit for everyone who has a building envelope determined. He believes it needs to be site requirements. He agrees as well they must discuss the Regulations as they effect the DRB Guidelines. He would like to have more discussion on penalties. He asked about enforcement and what legal avenues they will have. Chairman Gallagher thanked everyone for coming and giving input. He hopes those asking for more time will find this time to be sufficient. He stated he would add that at such time they have input from the public that they provide that to their co-operators in the Fire Districts. He suggested that July 30,2002 at 1 :30 p.m would be an appropriate time to continue this hearing. Commissioner Menconi moved to table LUR-0042 Eagle County Land Use Regulations Amendment to July 30, 2002. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until July 2,2002. Attest: Clerk to the Bo 20 06-28-2002