Loading...
Minutes 07/06/2002 PUBLIC HEARING JULY 9,2002 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 scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the first item before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss the following which are issues appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)( e): 1. Weinberg v. Board of County Commissioners, Civil Action No. 99-M-1774 2. The purchase of the Mountain High Aviation Parcel 3. Golden Eagle Senior Housing. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to go into Executive Session to discuss a personal issue appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(e). Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from the Executive Sessions and reconvene into the regulation meeting. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the weeks of July 8 & 15,2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for July 11, 2002, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of June 25, 2002 D) Grant of Easements by Cordillera and Eagle River Mobile Home Park for Construction of County Trail in Edwards E) Contract between the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Eagle County F) Agreement between Eagle County Health and Human Services and Mary Ezequelle G) Agreement between the County of Eagle and Colorado Mountain College for Early Head Start Group Socialization site H) Agreement between Eagle County Health and Human Services and Richard Delaney I) Approval of Assignment of Agreement from Raytheon Infrastructures to Washington Infrastructure for Airport Engineering J) Contract to Buy and Sell Real Estate between Eagle County and Norman L. Nunn and Yvonne Jean Nunn. 1 07-09-2002 Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Tom Moorhead, County Attorney, stated Consent Agenda is complete as presented. Commissioner Stone spoke to the meeting minutes for June 25th and that Commissioner Gallagher was not present for that hearing. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda items A through J, with the exception of item C, the meeting minutes. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to approve item C, Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meeting for June 25, 2002. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. Commissioners Stone and Menconi voting aye and Chairman Gallagher abstaining as he was not present for that hearing. Acknowledgment of Receipt, Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District Tom Moorhead presented an Acknowledgment of Receipt of Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District, plan and referral of Service Plan to Eagle County Planning Commission, for hearing on July 17, 2002. Commissioner Stone moved to acknowledge the receipt of Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District and refer this matter to the Planning Commission to be heard on July 17, 2002. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Acknowledgment of Receipt, Eagle Valley Park & Recreation District Tom Moorhead presented an Acknowledgment of Receipt and Referral ofthe proposed Eagle Valley Park Open Space and Recreation District Service Plan to be referred to the Planning Commission. He stated the applicant has requested this matter be pulled from the agenda. The Board concurred. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-E-001, Appointments, Hearing Referees, Board of Equalization Tom Moorhead stated the next item is the appointments of Hearing Referees for the 2002 Board of Equalization. He explained the season is here and the referees will be hearing the protests then refer those appropriate appeals to the Board. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the appointments Ken Call and Mark Young, Hearing Referees for the 2002 Board of Equalization as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 07-09-2002 Resolution 2002-090, Submission of Ballot Question, Term Limitations Tom Moorhead presented Resolution 2002-090, providing for the submission to the registered qualified electors of Eagle County, Colorado, ofa ballot question which would eliminate term limitations for the individual elected officials of Eagle County, imposed in accordance with Article XVIII, Section 11, of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, said ballot question to be submitted at the general election to be held November 5, 2002, prescribing the form of ballot question for submission at said Election; County Clerk and Recorder; and otherwise providing for the conduct thereof. Chairman Gallagher stated what they are doing is giving the public the chance to vote on term limits, not for the individual elected officials but for the individual elected offices. Commissioner Stone stated this is a ballot question different than in the past. In the past everyone was on the ballot together. This time there will be a total of seven questions, one for each one ofthe offices to allow individuals to vote on each office. Sara Fisher, Clerk & Recorder, asked when the decision was made to put the question on this year's ballot and was it prompted by a letter from the public, or the parties coming forward, or from elected officials coming forward to ask about term limitations. Commissioner Stone stated the Board has been talking about this for quite some time and were presented with possible language from the County Attorney, months ago. Ms. Fisher stated she was not part of the discussion this year which she believed was at the meeting in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. She stated she is concerned that the question was not posed to the voters previously. She stated the elected officials came to the Board both last year and the year prior, requesting the question be placed on each of those ballots. It could have been posed to the voters before term limits actually effected some of the elected offices. Commissioner Menconi stated when he came on in January 2001, this was a discussion that came up at meeting with the elected officials. He stated he was interested in having the question on the November 2001 ballot but it did not get on the ballot. He stated the Board did have a discussion on this matter in Steamboat earlier this year concerning the wording. Mr. Moorhead stated as to when the Commissioners decided to put the question on the ballot, that is the decision at this time. He stated he was given direction to provide a resolution for consideration and it is this action that will place the question on the ballot. Ms. Fisher asked why did the Board choose to not put the question on last year's ballot. Chairman Gallagher stated at the time he considered it for last year's ballot, he was convinced that it was voting for individuals rather than voting for the office. It was his desire and belief that it might have a better chance of passing if the individuals were not being voted on but the offices would be voted on. Commissioner Stone agreed. Ms. Fisher thanked the Board for their response but she believes it was a matter of choice on the Board's part. She stated she does believe it should have been left up to the voters before it effected the future of the voters and the taxpayers, rather than the Board's desecration for them. Commissioner Stone stated the voters had an opportunity and voted to keep in term limits before. The voters are now getting that opportunity once again. Ms. Fisher stated she wishes it could have happened before it effected the voters future. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-090, providing for the submission to the registered qualified electors of Eagle County, Colorado, of a ballot question which would eliminate term limitations for the individual elected officials of Eagle County, imposed in accordance with Article XVIII, Section 11, of the Constitution of the State of Colorado, said ballot question to be submitted at the general election to be held November 5, 2002, prescribing the form of ballot question for submission at said Election; County Clerk and Recorder; and otherwise providing for the conduct thereof. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3 07-09-2002 Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Assessment Appeals. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Stone stated he believes this to be a report to the Board of County Commissioners and there is no need to change hats. Mr. Moorhead stated he read the title ofthe item to be the Board of Equalization but he agrees with the report being presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi withdrew his motion. Commissioner Stone withdrew his second. Statutory Report, Total Assessed Value, Eagle County Jody Caruthers, Eagle County Assessor, presented the statutory report to CBOE of the total assessed value of real property and list of real property assets. She explained the packet of information relating the first item is the protest master log, showing the total of real property. 200 properties were adjusted, 228 denied for a total of 428 appeals. The next item is the abstract of assessment by class code. The last item in the packet is the abstract of assessments showing the value changes per class code. Commissioner Stone acknowledged acceptance ofthe work done by the Eagle County Assessors office. Ms. Caruthers explained this report does not include personal property and those will be submitted to the Board in two weeks. The Board accepted the report. Resolution 2002-091, adopting a Third Supplementary Budget Mike Roeper, Finance Director, presented Resolution 2002-091, adopting a Third Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2002, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies. He stated the monies to be appropriated are $307,990.00, primarily for the continuation of the Down Payment Assistance Program and the acquisition of a printer for the Administration Offices. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-091, adopting a Third Supplementary Budge and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2002, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planned Unit Development, National Guard's Colorado High Aviation Training Site Eddie Storer, Airport Manager, presented the Planned Unit Development approval for the National Guard's Colorado High Aviation Training Site improvements. He introduced Richard Markovich who is an architect with Colorado National Guard. Mr. Markovich explained there are a few items they wish to address as they update and modify both the interior and exterior of the building. He explained some of the changes they intend to make, cleaning the building up and tying it into the other buildings there. He explained the intention to place a temporary building on site. He explained some of the steps taken are to ensure that they can continue to function even while they are under construction. He explained the third item being the hazardous storage unit site. He stated right now it is on the southwest portion of the parcel and they would like to move it so that it is out of site and closer to the building. 4 07-09-2002 Chairman Gallagher asked about the temporary building. Mr. Markovich stated this is for a maximum of nine months. He stated they want to do some landscaping around the building to clean it up and make it look better. They would also like to add a lighted flag pole. He spoke to the replacement of some of the panels on the building using a transparent window material. He stated that would effect the exterior appearance of the hangar. He stated they are modifying the exit stairs to the building and providing expanded balconies. He spoke to the handrails needing to be updated. He spoke to the need to be in compliance with code. He stated they also have some new concrete paving to do around the building on the north and east sides. He stated they wish to pave those with concrete paving to replace some of the asphalt outside of the hangar. Chairman Gallagher asked if this is a PUD amendment. Mr. Moorhead stated it is not. It is the Landlord's review prior to remodel or construction. Chairman Gallagher asked if this will go before the Town of Gypsum. Mr. Moorhead stated it will. Commissioner Stone asked for confirmation that this won't change the height of the building. Mr. Storer stated it is cosmetic remodeling. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Planned Unit Development approval for the National Guard's Colorado High Aviation Training Site improvements. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, stated there are no plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration today. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-092, Liquor Fees Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented Resolution 2002-092, amending Eagle County Beer and Liquor Code Policies and procedures, liquor fees. She explained the Resolution and changes in fees to the Board. Chairman Gallagher asked who sets the fees. Ms. Roach stated they are set by State statute. Chairman Gallagher asked what is a resort complex. Ms. Roach stated currently the County does not have a Resort Complex license. It would be for Vail Resorts to combine all their licenses into one and license the entire mountain. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-092, amending Eagle County Beer and Liquor Code Policies and procedures, liquor fees. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-093, Colorado Cares Day Merlisa Mizerak, Volunteer Coordinator, Health & Human Services Director, presented 5 07-09-2002 Resolution 2002-093, designating August 2,2002 as Colorado Cares Day. Ms. Mizerak read the Resolution into the record as follows: "Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado (hereinafter the Board), wishes to celebrate Colorado Cares Day on August 3, 2002, and Whereas, the Board acknowledges that this day celebrates the anniversary of Colorado's admission into the Union and, that this day will celebrate the spirit of giving and volunteerism in the State of Colorado; and Whereas, the Board desires to encourage all citizens to give back to the state and their neighborhoods in celebration of our statehood; Now therefore be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: That, August 3, 2002, be designated as Colorado Cares Day in Eagle County and be celebrated by families and communities throughout Eagle County. That, the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. Moved, read and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 9th day of July, 2002." Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-093, designating August 2,2002 as Colorado Cares Day. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Colorado Cares Volunteer Awards Chairman Gallagher stated the next item on the agenda is an opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to recognize those in the community who help others. The Colorado Cares day was first celebrated in Colorado in 1999 to celebrate the day with residents who give back to the community. Last year, Governor Owens added Colorado Cares Volunteer Service Awards to honor the people who give back to the community year round. He thanked the committee who selected the winners. He stated the Eagle County winners will receive two certificates, one from the Board of County Commissioners and one from Governor Bill Owens. He stated the certificates will be presented by last year's award winner, Edith Leaderhause. Commissioners Menconi introduced Ann Loper, who receives an Environmental Award. Ms. Loper is an energetic person who is always ready for a challenge and never fears the hard work or frustration that may accompany it. She shows her concern for the environment and for other living things by volunteering at the Berry Ford Alpine Gardens and at the Humane Society, where she not only works with animals but also has served as president. Commissioner Stone introduced the Lions Club who receives a Health Award. Health issues are a priority for the Lions Club. For 22 years they have organized the local 9 Health Fair. This past year saw a record number of participants, 600 people came to the fair for various screenings and to receive important health information. Chairman Gallagher introduced Jim Himmes, Erin McGovern, Ann Muncaster and Matthew Scheer, receiving an award for Education. All three are English as a second language volunteer teachers. They meet with their 10 - 20 students each week for two hours at the Avon Public Library where their students range from beginner ESL to advanced ESL levels. Ann works with children at Edwards Colorado Community College and as a retired elementary school teacher, she is the perfect volunteer to work with her students through the Literacy Project. She also volunteers at the Sheriff s Office. Commissioner Menconi introduced Beverly Kunkle, receiving and award as a Good Samaritan. She is a cuddler working at the Family Learning Center with the fufant Care staffto keep babies happy by holding them and talking to them. She also volunteers at the Golden Eagle Senior Nutrition Site and 6 07-09-2002 at the Eagle Valley Community Fund annual rummage sale. Chairman Gallagher introduced the Buddies Program Mentors. The Buddies Program has been working with youth in Eagle County for over 15 years. Through this program, children are matched with volunteer mentors who serve as positive adult role models who establish a one on one relationship with their buddy through various activities. Through the many success stories of this program, it is evident that the rewards of these matches are a two way street, with the volunteers getting back as much joy as they give. Commissioner Stone introduced the Eagle Valley Leos who are receiving the Rising Star Award. The LEO club is a teen service club at the Eagle Valley High School. Its 30 plus busy members work hard in the community throughout the year. They serve lunch to seniors, deliver cards and flowers to Eagle County volunteers, help with highway cleanup, provide child care at the 9 Health Fair, sponsored a flea market and much more. They enlist the help of their friends, getting more youth involved in the community and increasing membership in the LEOS. Their hard work was noted by the Lions Club International when the LEOS were one of 12 clubs in the country presented with the Outstanding Service Award. Commissioner Menconi introduced Vi and Byron Brown, receiving the Community Pride Award. The Browns are pioneer residents of Vail and have been actively involved in the community from the beginning. Undoubtably, their greatest contribution has been the 38 years they have worked spearheading the "grand daddy of all garage sales", the annual Eagle Valley Community Fund Rummage Sale. They have coordinated volunteers from more that 60 local non-profits. These volunteer hours and work translate into dollars for each of their organizations. Starting with profits of$500.00 in the early days, the Eagle Valley Community Fund distributed $189,000 in 2000. All proceeds remain in Eagle County and help those in need in our community. Commissioner Stone stated the Vail Police Department Volunteers, Frank D' Alessio, Gilda Kaplan and Mabel Selek. All three give their time to help the police officers of Vail. Frank was the original volunteer when the program began six years ago. In addition to recruiting for the volunteer program, Frank started the Citizens Academy and according to Commander Joe Russell, what cannot be quantified is the affect he has had on the lives of the people influenced by his presence. Gilda not only works numerous hours without compensation, she also uses her own resources much ofthe time to keep the volunteer program moving forward. Commander Russell notes that she sees what is needed and proceeds to develop new concepts, then carries out these new responsibilities without hesitation. Mabel is described as an impresario of volunteerism. She has worked seven months every year for the past three years. Her tireless administrative work provides the police with accurate information that aids in crime prevention. Chairman Gallagher introduced Edith Kirby who is receiving the Centennial Award. The Centennial Award goes to a Colorado resident who has made a significant and lifelong contribution to the State through service and volunteerism. Ms. Kirby exemplifies both the spirit of this award and the spirit of Colorado. She represents those Colorado residents born and raised in the rural acres of our State, who have always served by helping neighbors and small organizations in their isolated communities. While their work is not high profile, it is often essential in these areas where residents only have each other to rely upon. A perfect example ofthis occurred in 1946. When she learned that a neighbor's mother had been badly burned by an exploding pressure cooker, Edith rode alone on horseback to the neighbor's home where she stayed to care for the mother until the mother was well again. Edith has been active in the Toponas Community Club, the local school, the McCoy Community Church, local elections as an election judge and the American Legion, where she served as President, Vice President and Sargent of Arms. As nominator, Edith Leaderhause notes, she has a great amount of energy and the insight to know what needs to be done. She helped keep her community alive by taking advantage of all the opportunities to help them financially, through her membership, making sure things got done and leading others to make the community a better place to live. 7 07-09-2002 Chairman Gallagher stated there is a reception being held in the corridor for all those who attended. VIS-0014, Castle Ridge Justin Hildrith, Engineering Department, presented file number VIS-0014, Castle Ridge. Per Section 5-260.G: Variance from Improvement Standards, The Board of County Commissioners is the authority that decides variances from the improvement standards. Prior review by the Planning Commission is not stipulated in the Land Use Regulations. Staff recommendation is for denial. This is a petition for a Variance from Improvement Standards, and for those requirements of Section 4-620 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations ("LUR") as noted in the attached Exhibit "A" which was submitted by the petitioner. These variances will be for the access road to the proposed Castle Ridge Subdivision. The Castle Ridge Subdivision proposes to use the existing Castle Lane and Knight Road for the access. These roads do not meet the road standards outlined in Article 4, Site Improvement Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The applicant is proposing to improve the two roads but not up to Eagle County standards. The chronology ofthe application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1964 - Seven Castle Estates subdivided and Castle Land and Knight Road created. 2001 - Sketch Plan approval for the Castle Ridge Subdivision with conditions. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eaele County Plannine Department This application is a precursor to a Preliminary Plan approval for the Castle Ridge Subdivision proposed to be accessed through Seven Castles Estates. The Planning Division recommends denial unless the applicant demonstrate that access will be adequate for emergency and service vehicles. Currently, Knight Road and Castle Lane are maintained and plowed by individual property owners. There is not a homeowners association or metro district that is responsible for the maintenance of the roads. The large service vehicles, such as trash trucks, cannot negotiate the current alignment. Emergency vehicles cannot access the full length of the existing Castle Lane. Eaele County Road and Bridee Department The proposed lane widths are too narrow. Most full-size vehicles exceed this width measured mirror to mirror. The typical road section for the passing lane shows a section 22 feet wide, 16 feet for the road and 8 feet for the passing lane. An 8 foot passing lane is too narrow. The variations for the maximum grade requested seem extreme. Maintenance is difficult for roads with grades up to 12.9%. The maintenance of the roads is not addressed and these roads are not currently maintained by Eagle County. Eaele County Emereency Manaeement and the Basalt and Rural Fire District The proposed road width is not adequate for the evacuation of residents and the presence of emergency vehicles during an emergency. If the road had adequate width, the variance for grade and surface type would be acceptable. The short length of the road makes the grade tolerable. Adjacent Property Owners As part of the Sketch Plan condition, the applicant was requested to consult with the property owners along Castle Lane and Knight Road to address these issues. This variance application conflicts with concerns outlined in several letters signed by many residents along Castle Lane and Knight Road. 8 07 -09-2002 The residents have expressed concern regarding limited right-of-way, narrow lane widths, road surface type and the limited emergency access of Castle Lane and Knight Road. The existing roads, even with the improvements, are substandard and they are concerned about the consequences of additional traffic on these roads. The applicant received Sketch Plan approval for the Castle Ridge Subdivision on February 24, 2000. The proposed Castle Ridge Subdivision is a 4-unit subdivision on 18.22 acres to be off Knight Road and Castle Lane. These two roads were created in 1964 as part of the Seven Castle Estates Subdivision. From the Seven Castle Estates Plat, it does appear that it was intended that Castle Lane provide the access to the lot proposed to be the Castle Ridge Subdivision. Knight Road and Castle Lane are public roads not maintained by Eagle County because they do not meet Eagle County Road standards. Currently, no organization is responsible for the maintenance of these two roads. As a result maintenance on these roads is sporadically done by single homeowners when it deteriorates to unacceptable levels. The maintenance of these roads is not addressed as part of this variance application. As part of the Sketch Plan approval for the Castle Ridge Subdivision, the following condition was attached: "Road and right-of-way issues affect properties down-road of this approved development. In addressing these issues, the applicant shall consult with those property owners. At the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval, the applicant shall report the results of the consultations and present solutions to the road and right-of-way problems, subject to approval by the Eagle County Engineer. The road and right-of-way problems include the following: The existing width ofthe right-of-way through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision of 40 feet vs. the Eagle County standard of 50 feet. The surface of the existing road through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision of gravel vs. the Eagle County standard of pavement. The roadway width of the existing road through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision is approximately 14 feet vs. the Eagle County standard of 24 feet. The grade of the existing road through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision is 13 percent vs. the Eagle County standard of 8 percent with a maximum of 10 percent. The switch back radius on part of the existing road through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision is 30 feet vs. the Eagle County standard of 80 feet." Following the Sketch Plan phase, the applicant decided that a variance from the improvement standards would be required for the access road even with the proposed improvements. The applicant wishes to vary from these standards because the effects would not be compatible with the existing environment in the subdivision. Effects that would not be compatible with the existing environment include large cut and fills, changing the nature of the rural road to a more suburban road and taking of right-of-way from adjacent property owners. In Exhibit "A," the applicant has identified the specific variances from the improvement standards and the subsequent explanation of the hardships associated with the strict compliance to the standards. The applicant has identified right-of-way width, lane width, lane surface type, maximum road grade, and intersection slope as items that a variance is required. The specific locations of the requested variances are also identified in Exhibit "A." Determination of Road Classification: The first step is to decide the appropriate road standard is to classify the roads. Knight Road is classified as a Rural Residential Road. Castle Lane is classified as a Rural Minor Collector Type VI. These roads were not previously classified by Eagle County since they are not county roads. The classifications for these two roads were determined by the applicant's engineering consultant. Application Must Be Specific: In previous applications for variances from the road standards, 9 07-09-2002 the Eagle County Attorney's Office has requested that the application be very specific concerning the section of the LUR for which a variance is requested, the location of the variance, and the reason for the variance, including the hardship caused by attempting to comply with the LUR. The petitioner has provided this specific information in Exhibit "A." Should the Board of County Commissioners decide to approve the request for variance, Exhibit "A" will be incorporated into the Resolution. County Engineer: The County Engineer's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-610.A.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an alternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity that reflect community values equal or better than that established by these standards. . . " For my evaluation, I interpreted the standards in the LUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values," since the LUR were adopted after extensive work and comment by the community. Board of County Commissioners: The Board of County Commissioners' responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260.G.2 ofthe LUR. It states, in part, "The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the petitioner of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. Hardship is not defined in the LUR. However, the definition of hardship in Webster's Dictionary implies that hardship is derived from some sort of privation or deprivation. The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the petitioner will be deprived of some or all of their right to use the land if the LUR is strictly followed. Assuming that the Board of County Commissioners will make a finding that the Rural Residential Road standard is appropriate, and that they wish to consider the request for variances, staff makes the following findings: 1. The petitioner HAS filed a petition for a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-260.G ofthe LUR. 2. The petition HAS been properly advertised and is ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. Variance Items Numbered 1 through 6, as shown in Exhibit "A," requested by the petitioner will not provide a road design that will perform equally, is equally durable, and/or be equally safe as that required by the Rural Residential Road Standards of the LUR. The following paragraphs explain staffs reasons for Finding No.3. Each standard that the applicant is asking for a variance for is listed and followed by the applicants description of the hardship and the staff s response. STANDARD NO.1: Road Right-ol-Way width for Knight Road. [Section 4-620.J] The minimum right-at-way standard for a Rural Residential Road is 50 feet. The applicant is requesting a right-of-way width of 40 feet instead of the standard 50 feet for Knight Road. The applicant thinks it is a hardship to comply with standard because the cuts and fills required would be undesirable for the local residents. The issue of the narrower road Right-of-Way is interrelated with the request for a lane width variance, which is Standard No.2. [-I FINDING: Road Right-ol-way width for Knight Road. The narrower road right-of-way width DOES NOT show equality of performance because it does not allow for appropriate lane widths once grading and drainage ditches are included in the right-of-way. STANDARD NO.2: Lane Width and Shouldersfor Knight Road and Castle Lane. [Section 4-620.J] The minimum lane width for a Rural Minor Collector VI is 22 feet and for a Rural Residential Road is 24 feet. The applicant is requesting a road width of 16 feet with passing lanes of22 feet including shoulders on Knight Road and Castle Lane. The applicant has stated that the hardship to 10 07-09-2002 comply with this standard is that there is only 40 feet of right-of-way currently in existence preventing meeting the standard without obtaining additional right-of-way. [-] FINDING: Lane Width and Shoulders for Knight Road and Castle Lane. There is NOT an equality of performance for a road when two vehicles cannot pass. With this proposal, one vehicle must pull over and stop to let another vehicle pass. STANDARD NO.3: Road Surface Type. [Section 4-620.J] The standard road surface type for both of these roads is asphalt. The applicant is proposing to keep the existing road surface as gravel. The stated hardship is that local residents have expressed the desire to keep the road gravel and the Board of County Commissioners required the applicant to incorporate local issues in road design. The correspondence the local residents have sent the Eagle County Engineering Department indicates that they would prefer to have the road "chip-sealed." [-] FINDING: Road Surface Type. Current county road standards do not allow for gravel roads as they are more difficult and expensive to maintain relative to paved roads. Therefore, the proposed gravel road is NOT as durable as asphalt and is more costly to maintain. STANDARD NO.4: Maximum Road Grade on Knight Road. [Section 4-620.J] The standard for the maximum road grade for a Rural Residential Road is 8%. The proposed road grade on Knight Road will be 11 %. The applicant states that the hardship in complying with this design standard because the topography on site would require major cuts, fills and retaining walls. [-] FINDING: Maximum Road Grade on Knight Road. [Section 4-620.J] It is difficult to accept steeper grades as equally safe is very difficult. Obviously, as grades steepen, it takes vehicles longer to stop in the downhill direction, thus having an obvious safety reduction. The effect of the road grade is further compounded by the request for a narrower road. Since the stretches with the steeper grade are relatively short, emergency services thinks the steeper grade would be manageable for there vehicles if the road is brought up to standard width. STANDARD NO.5: Intersection Slope [Section 4-620.1.5] The standard allowable intersection slope is 2% for 20 feet on either side of the intersection. The intersection of concern is Knight Road and Frying Pan Road. The applicant is proposing a 3% intersection road grade instead of the county standard of2% for the first 50 feet. This would be an improvement over the existing intersection grade of 6% for the first 50 feet. The applicant states that there is a hardship complying with the standard because the existing county intersection is 6% for the first 50 feet. [+/-] FINDING: Intersection Slope. The higher intersection grade will NOT provide an equivalent level of service but because of the low traffic volumes it will not have a significant impact on traffic or durability and should be manageable. STANDARD NO.6: Maximum Road Grade on Castle Lane [Section 4-620.J] The maximum road grade for a Rural Minor Collector VI is 8% to 12%. The proposed road grade on Castle Lane is 12.9% compared with the road standard of a maximum of 12% for this type of road. The applicant states that the hardship in complying with this standard is that the existing road grade is 16% in some areas and the county standard is 12%. A maximum grade of 12.9% would be a vast improvement on this road. [-] FINDING: Maximum Road Grade on Castle Lane. Although this is not a large increase over the county road standard, accepting the steeper road as equally safe is difficult. As with Knight Road, the effects of the steeper road are compounded with the request for a narrower road. In conjunction with the narrower road request, this road will NOT be equal to a road built to the county road standard. Chairman Gallagher introduced a letter from the neighbors which stated adequate notice was not provided to the them. He stated it was reported to him that the sign announcing this meeting was posted at the end of Castle Lane when in fact the variance was for all of Castle Lane and Knight Road. However, he understands the property owners on Castle Lane received notice by mail. Tom Moorhead stated the notice requirements are for three, publication, notice by mail and the 11 07-09-2002 property be noticed. He read the requirement of at least one notice on the property. He stated the sign was to be set back no more that 25 feet from the street and shall be in full view of the public, on each street side of the land subj ect to the application. He stated the posting of such sign shall be the responsibility of the applicant who shall sign a sworn certification that the posting was done according to the law. He stated again the posting is the obligation ofthe applicant. He stated ifproper notice has not been given, the Board of County Commissioners do not have jurisdiction. He suggested if they receive approval and later it is found to be questionable, the applicant may lose any and all approvals made. He stated the section concerning the notice, does not describe variances. He stated it is his understanding that the sign was posted in Castle Ridge Subdivision. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment regarding the publication and posting for this hearing. Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, stated they submitted the affidavit at the last meeting which was tabled. He stated they also posted the property. He spoke to the letters and the phone calls. He stated they are required only to notify people within 200 feet of the property and they have no requirement to notify those outside of that area. Commissioner Stone reiterated that ifthey are granted the hearing but if they can not show proof that the notification was made appropriately, they may lose any approvals granted. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Lucy Jewkes, area resident, stated she in fact did get the notice. She stated the twelve people who got the notice were actually on Knight Road. She stated she had notice in May at which time the file was tabled. She suggested that the only reason she knew the file was being heard today was a phone call from Justin Hildreth. Steve Burk, an owner on Knight Road, stated he did not receive notification. He stated Knight Road is one entrance that branches off and they will be effected. He stated he spoke with a number of people who said they would like to come to the meeting but they did not know anything about it. Carla Nicholson, owner of the first piece of property on the left, stated she received no notification, there was no sign, and they will be greatly effected. She showed her property in the photograph. Chairman Gallagher asked about the requirement for posting. Mr. Moorhead read from the Statute, "all land subject to public hearing shall be posted with at least one notice, a sign, of the public hearing at least 15 calendar days prior to the public hearing. The dimensions of the sign shall be at least 2 feet by 3 feet. The sign shall state the type of application sought by the land and describes the sign." He stated the signs are available in Community Development during regular business hours. Chairman Gallagher suggested his need for clarification is the subject ofthe land. Mr. Moorhead stated he failed to find the reference that Steve Isom referred to. He suggested the Board of County Commissioners must consider what is the land subject to the application. Is it the subdivision itself or does it include the road that is being modified. Commissioner Stone suggested that Mr. Isom may be correct, but since they are looking at road improvements to access the subdivision, perhaps the notification must consider those who live along the road. He suggested that everyone adjacent to the roads should be notified. Mr. Isom stated it never occurred to them to notify the people along the roads. He referred to letters from Lucy Jewkes on May 31 st and that she and they were aware of the hearing on that date. Commissioner Stone spoke to a commitment the Board has made that for files that are of interest to those in the Roaring Fork Valley that they hold at least one public meeting for those who reside there to attend. He suggested this may be an opportunity for them to do that this time. Commissioner Menconi suggested they are in agreement in giving broader notice of this file and scheduling this for a more appropriate time. Chairman Gallagher suggested it is up to the applicant to either request a tabling or tell them how 12 07-09-2002 they would like to proceed. Steve 1som asked for clear direction of who needs to receive notification. Chairman Gallagher suggested they should look at all the property owners along the road. Mr. Moorhead agreed. Commissioner Stone stated it is his opinion it should be the property owners adjacent to Knight Road and Castle Lane. He stated those are the people who are potentially effected by the road. Mr. 1som stated they would request a tabling as the next possible date. Justin Hildreth stated the next available date would be August 6,2002. He stated the meeting on July 30, 2002 is a full day. Chairman Gallagher asked ifthere might be an earlier date they could meet in the Roaring Fork Valley. Commissioner Stone suggested that would be just a meeting for input. Chairman Gallagher suggested that they would have a public hearing in El Jebel after the 24th of July and prior to the 6th of August. Commissioner Menconi questioned whether they could hold the hearing on August 6th in El Jebel and then come back the same day to make a decision. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board table file V1S-0014, Castle Ridge Subdivision to August 6, 2002, at the applicants request. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.. PDP-00022, Woodland Hills PUD Preliminary Plan ZC-OOOSO, Woodland Hills Zone Change J ena Skinner, Planner, presented file numbers PDP-00022, Woodland Hills PUD Preliminary Plan and ZC-0050, Woodland Hills Zone Change. The applicant wishes to obtain approval for a residential, PUD (Preliminary Plan and Zone Change). The proposed Woodland Hills PUD is located 1.6 miles west of the intersection of Edwards spur road and Highway 6 on the South side of the highway. The site is 8.81 acres in area. Using Option #4 as the new proposal, Woodland Hills will consist of76 units, creating a density of approximately 8.63 units per acre. The proposal breakdown is as follows: Density Reduction Option, as introduced by Applicant during the Board of County Commissioner's hearing of April 23rd, 2002: Total of 76 units (density of 8.63 per acre) 20 two bedroom units @ $225,000-5 year 3% appreciation cap, locals only 56 two bedroom units @ market-no restrictions. The remaining amenities shall remain the same, aside from the increase in open space (this is accomplished with the decrease in the total number of buildings). Other proposal components are as follows: Outdoor recreational areas including a 0.595 acre park/athletic field, a sodded pocket park area adjacent to the play field (tot lot), several picnic areas, and a Health Trail System, consisting of 12 fitness stations along a gravel trail which winds through the project. Internal street connections to adjacent properties. The creation of an 8' spur trail as conditioned by ECO Trails. Comprehensive landscaping throughout the project. A new a bus stop on Highway 6. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 2001 (May): The Woodland Hills Sketch Plan was approved (with conditions) by the Board of County Commissioners to accommodate the current proposal for an 88 unit multifamily development on an 8.81 acre site (9.99 du per acre). 13 07-09-2002 2002 (April): At the Board of County Commissioners hearing on April 23rd, the applicant provided several proposals offering lower densities. In considering a decrease in density, Woodland Hills was sent back to Planning Commission as the decrease constitutes a 'significant change.' 2002 (June): The Planning Commission denied option no. 4 and rather opted for option no. 2, which they unanimously supported. EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: The Planning Commission felt that the newest proposal for Woodland Hills (option no. 4) could not be supported. The Planning Commission was unanimous in that the one bedroom units are a very important, and unique, component of Woodland Hills and they would rather have permanent, deed restricted one bedrooms, instead ofthe (5 year deed restricted) two bedroom units as proposed in option no. 4. They suggested that option no. 2 be reconsidered by the Board of County Commissioners, as it contained one bedroom units, permanently deed restricted. EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommended DENIAL of the newest proposal as presented (option # 4), with a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to look at the applicant's option # 2. The accompanying Zone Change file was still recommended for approval. The vote was unanimous [5:0], on both files. A comment was also made which stated, "There were three pages of discussion regarding the access at the (April 23rd) BOCC hearing on this file. Considering our new Wildfire Regulations that we're trying to pass, the BOCC should bear in mind that dual access would be very necessary to this proj ect." Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Comments received since the Planning Commission Hearing, June 5th, 2002: Housing Department, dated June 28th, 2002: Option #2 would be more desirable in that there is a significant need for one bedroom options in the Edwards area and that the 3% price cap is for perpetuity, thus guaranteeing perpetual affordability. If Option #4 is chosen, it is suggested that the appreciation cap be for perpetuity instead of for 5 years as proposed, with the allowance for a possible reduction in the number of units with a price cap from 20 to 15. Fewer units that remain permanently affordable would be more desirable than more units with only short term affordability. Owner Occupancy should be required on all units, unless they are purchased by a Qualified Employer and leased to a Qualified Employee(s). Jeff Nathanson, dated June 20th, 2002: Resident of Edwards. Would like to give his support to Woodland Hills; sees it as an affordable housing option. Would like the Board of County Commissioners to keep in mind that there is still a desire for affordable housing. Past Referrals Steve Bonsignore, dated May 22,2002: Writing in support of Woodland Hills. Has lived here for approximately 25 years, and owns a business. The location and cost ofthe units appeal to Mr. Bonsignore very much. Hopes that the negative opinions of a few don't ruin the chance to buy a new home here. Engineering Memo dated May 17th, 2002: Additional information received May 15th has been reviewed. The density has been reduced from 88 to 76 units; the revised information does not include a revised traffic report. It is my opinion that the traffic report should be revised if this plan reaches Final Plat; the report 14 07-09-2002 should be based on actual number of dwelling units approved. For consideration ofthe Preliminary Plan, the current traffic report is sufficient since the shift is downward. There is an outline for a traffic report attached to the memo. Woodland Hills traffic plan relies on three key elements: entrance design based compliance with the State Hwy Access Code and Edwards Access Control Plan; side roads for adjacent access in compliance with the Edwards Access Control Plan; and participation in traffic impact fee program Should any of these elements be removed from the application, the Engineering Department would be unable to support the approval of the plan. During deliberations with the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners there was some sentiment to alter or remove the side road connections. Should these side road accesses be removed from the plan, the previously approved State Hwy Access Permit for Woodland Hills would be invalidated. In the previous memo dated January 18th, 2002, a suggestion to clarify the responsibility of maintenance and drainage facilities in the PUD, has been made. Peter Bergh, dated April 23rd, 2002: Thank you for the careful deliberations for this project. From the hearing today it appears that Woodland Hills option no. 4 will receive approval at the next hearing. Though denser than I would like to see, housing for 76 families would be achieved; I am ready to move on. Qne suggestion I would like to offer may alleviate your concerns about access from Hwy 6 and interior traffic as the land on either side ofthe parcel is developed at some future date. The parcel to the east is a telephone switching station, likely to remain as is. However, when the parcel to the west comes up for development, consider requiring (as a condition), have a new entrance, and have Woodland Hills abandon their access road when the new road is built. This would result in both developments sharing a single curb cut, and prevent a considerable amount of traffic from flowing through Woodland Hills. (See sketch). Engineering Memo dated January 18, 2002: Reviewed additional information received January 15, 2002. Additional information contained revisions to the application, discussed/requested at a meeting held Jan. 8th, 2002. The application now meets the requirements for Preliminary Plan. There are some aspects of the design which will require construction level drawings to be submitted with Final Plat. Suggest that the responsibility for the drainage facilities be outlined in the PUD Guide instead of the covenants. Any reference to Hwy 6 right of ways to be maintained by the County, should be specific (example given). Letter also addresses the requirements and plans for the bus stops to be utilized by ECQ transit; using the existing, westbound passenger stop is a good idea. Office of the State Engineer, State of Colorado Division of Water Resources, dated Dec. 27, 2001 The applicant proposes to obtain water from the Edwards Metro District. Wastewater from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The ERWSD provided a letter stating that they were unable to provide an "ability to serve letter." (Therefore) the source of the proposed water would be the Colorado River, via the Eagle River. This river is over appropriated; an augmentation plan is required. Due to a lack of an water augmentation plan, current water rights are inadequate. Environmental Health Department, memo dated March 7t\ 2001: 15 07-09-2002 The Environmental Impact Report states that there will be no wood burning fire places allowed in Woodland Hills PUD. The PUD Guide should include a statement to this effect. It is recommended that approval of the Preliminary Plan or Final Plat be conditioned to require a storm water detention plan designed with NWCCOG's water quality protection standards for treating pre and post construction storm water runoff. The NWCCOG recommends detention for the 2 and 25-year storm water events. Colorado State Forest Service, December 20th, 2001 Please refer to our previous memo dated March 9th, 2001 The wildfire hazard is moderate. The parking lots provide adequate emergency vehicle turnaround. Recommendations: Implement defensible space around all structures. Require class A roof and fire resistive construction. Trees and shrubs should be planted at least 15 feet away from structures. Non flammable landscaping such as flagstone should be placed under decks and porches that are at ground level. Eco Trails, March 7th, 2002 As you know, the route ofthe regional trail system has been moved to the north side of Highway 6 for safety reasons related to pedestrian crossings of Highway 6. That shift relieves the Woodland Hills developer of the commitment to build a section of the 10' wide core trail. A contribution to the pedestrian and bicycle system in Edwards should still be made by the project, as per the PUD provisions, in addition to addressing the transportation needs of the project residents. Please delete all previous conditions relative to a public trail contribution and substitute this revised version. 1. Eight foot wide paved spur trail to be provided on the property, along the entire width of the property abutting the Highway 6 right-of-way. The spur trail will be designated for public use but constructed and maintained by Woodland Hills. 2. The goal in this situation is to have each developing property on the south side of Highway 6 contribute to a more minor path system than the regional trail, that will eventually tie together. 3. I will explore the possibility of using the applicant's "extra" contribution of road impact fees to fund the construction of a trail section to connect his property to the trailer park (and regional trail), as suggested by Tom Boni of Knight Planning. I will also suggest to the applicant that he request that the "extra" funds he pledged be made available to build that connection when he meets with the County Commissioners, since they are the decision makers regarding the road impact fees. Eagle County Housing Department, dated January 23rd, 2002: Pricing: This is the first time that a developer has proposed self-imposed price maximums as a means of guaranteeing affordability. With the proposed deed restrictions in place, 100% of this project will provide housing restricted to people who live and work in Eagle County. Affordabili ty: Pricing: The developer has priced the twelve one bedroom and 10 two bedroom units so that they meet the definition of Local Residents Housing. Long term affordability: The permanent 3% annual price cap on all one bedroom units will guarantee long term affordability. Ten ofthe two bedroom units have a five year annual price cap of 3%, which will prevent the initial purchaser from performing a "quick flip." Recording: All housing conditions concerning deed restrictions and price guarantees 16 07-09-2002 mentioned in the application (and which were conditions of the sketch plan approval)should be recorded in the PUD agreement and in the deed restrictions for each property. PUD Agreement: The PUD Guide needs to reference the housing section of the PUD Agreement in order to alert planning staff of necessary conditions and approvals. Deed restriction: A master deed restriction needs to be recorded at time of final plat. This deed restriction should be approved by a designee of the Housing Department. Deed restrictions on individual properties should be approved by a designee of the Housing Department as well and recorded as they are built (after building permit and prior to sale). Other comments: Reference Section 8d: Initial and maximum price guarantees on alII bedroom and 10 two bedroom units subject to; i. No decrease in density ii. No unexpected requirements placed on the project prior to Final Plat. iii. No unreasonable (10% or greater) increase in the cost of concrete, asphalt or lumber. The developer has requested that the above wording be changed to include all two bedroom units, not just ten. Conditions need to be set forth as to what will happen in the event that any of these conditions occur. Will the price be adjusted accordingly? Will the restrictions no longer apply? For example, in iii. if the cost of concrete, asphalt or lumber increases by more than 10%, then how will prices be adjusted? By what mechanism will the increases be measured? Suggestion: Initial costs for concrete, asphalt and lumber need to be determined at time of preliminary plat approval, as a basis for monitoring any increase in price; the costs will be obtained from using local quotes. They also must be in the PUD Agreement. As each phase is developed, at time of building permit, these costs and the maximum purchase prices will be reviewed. If building costs increase by any amount over the stated 10%, then the price maximum will be adjusted, based on the actual dollar amount of the increase (the full amount ofthe increase, not just the amount over 10%). Recaptures due to such increases in building costs will be spread evenly and/or proportionally among the remaining units. Any change to the initially agreed upon Maximum Purchase Price of any unit must be approved in writing by the Housing Department. 8b. Concerning the 3% annual price cap on all relevant units: Make this "The greater of3% or the Denver-Boulder Consumer Price Index (CPI)." This would allow for increases more closely tied to annual rises in the cost of living. 8e. Any unit proposed to be resold with a 15% or greater over the purchase price must pay a 1% transfer fee to be paid to the Eagle County Housing Division. This should read "...Eagle County Housing Department. " It should be clarified as to whether this transfer fee would apply to subsequent resales of the property or just to the initial sale. This condition should be included in both the PUD Agreement and the deed restriction. Section 9. No building permits shall be issuedfor this project unless projected sale costs can be met. This should be eliminated. Placing the maximum purchase price in the deed restriction will be a more efficient mechanism to guarantee that the price will not be exceeded. The PUD agreement should include a provision to for amendment(s) of the maximum purchase price(s) due to increase in construction costs to be treated as a minor deviation to the preliminary plan. Colorado State Geological Survey, January 7,2001 17 07-09-2002 Had reviewed the Sketch Plan; the comments in the March 5th, 2001 have been satisfactorily addressed. Concerning the site-specific geo-technical evaluation by HP Geotec: agree with report. HP mentions that site is underlain be Eagle Valley Evaporite and recommends that the applicant be aware of the potential for future ground subsidence on the property. Applicant should observe condition of foundations, property, as early detection of distress is important. Berry Creek Metro District, dated January 31, 2002 Are heavily invested in seeing that this part of Eagle County evolves in a logical and sustainable manner. Have known about Woodland Hills for some time, and have discussed the merits of this project at meeting dated 01/30/02. The board unanimously believes that Woodland Hills in no way conforms to the 1985 Edwards Sub Area Plan, to recommendations from the Edwards Task force, or to any vision we have for growth. Specifically: the density is too high; it would set a precedent for abutting properties. This level of density would be more appropriate in the core area of Edwards by Hwy 6 and Spur Road. We recommend that this project be denied because it is too dense and does not conform to the master plan. George Gregory, dated January 31,2002. Letter written on behalf ofthe Edwards Task Force to continue to register objections to the final approval of Woodland Hills. Contacted Committee members feel that the density is inappropriate and contrary to the 1985 plan; the density of 10 units per acres is contrary to the Committee's current recommendation. Sub Area plans must be respected. Woodland Hills is not even on the 1985 map. The language of the plan states that this kind of development should occur at the Edwards commercial center, and that densities should diminish to rural along the transportation corridor. Woodland Hills does not comply with this requirement. Additional concerns: basic infrastructure and traffic concerns still have not been addressed. With Berry Creek! Miller Ranch to the east, and Woodland Hills to the west, the Hwy 6 corridor will become an even greater knot of congestion. Regarding the supply of water and treatment of sewage: the water district plans to build a pumping station to the east ofthe Spur Road. The station is planning to install a 8" pipe; this will diminish the flow and quality and life for much of the Eagle valley. Edwards is downstream form Vail, Minturn, etc. All the waste from these communities ultimately returned upstream of the new pumping station. Notwithstanding these problems and that there are hundreds of units still to be built, your office still receives plans for densities that are contrary to the Sub Area plan for which the infrastructure does not exist; it makes no sense to approve a project with 10 du/ac until infrastructure has been addressed. We request that this proposal be denied or that the density be reduced to 6 du/ac. Ken Hix, Mountain Sky Custom Prebuilt, Inc., dated January 28,2002 Currently a Class "A" General Contractor in Summit Co. since 1976. Currently working with David Nudell (applicant) on Woodland Hills. lt is not often that developers provide one bedroom units; it's just not profitable. David should be commended for doing so. lt is extremely rare to find a one bedroom unit so well laid out and livable as the ones in Woodland Hills, private, with a garage, offered at entry level pricing. Believes that the project fits the parcel extremely well. Steve Hodge, dated January 20,2002 18 07-09-2002 Has lived and worked in Eagle County long enough to know affordable housing for locals is needed. Woodland Hills provides just that. Excited to be the first to reserve a home. Has seen so many people come and go because of the financial burden ofliving in the Vail Valley. As an employee of the Vail Valley Medical Center, he is looking forward to the completion. Price, location, amenities are all in its favor and will help keep locals like Mr. Hodge to afford to stay here. Amy Goffstein, President of Stag's Leap HOA, dated February 5,2002 Has lived in Eagle County for last 3 years. Is aware of many individuals in Eagle County who are desperately in need of affordable housing for themselves and their families. Also know many who have had to leave, or not able to move to this valley because of the cost of housing. Woodland Hills is the perfect answer to the affordable housing dilemma. The price, location, and amenities are exactly what people are looking for, important in maintaining a stable workforce in the Vail Valley. The traffic impact would be minimal, and the additional impact is needed. Tanya Shivley, dated February 5,2002 Has been a resident of Eagle County since 1989, and can attest to the scarcity of affordable housing to the area. The amenities in Eagle County should be treasured, yet it is difficult to gain a foothold in the community through a housing purchase. While supply and demand dictate a higher than average market price for real estate, Woodland Hills will offer area residents a chance to purchase a home at an affordable price. Believes that Woodland Hills is a well-planned development with attention to detail and quality considered in the plans. Please consider approving Woodland Hills to help ease the pinch on affordable housing. Steve Wickum, Homestead Homeowners Association, dated February 14th, 2002 Have read the Staff report and would like to make comments as it relates to the project. Homestead and other entities in the Edwards are is concerned with the density of Woodland Hills. The proponents have used the 1985 Sub Area Master Plan map; several members of our Board (Homestead?) do not believe that it is part of the plan. It should not be represented as part of the Plan until there is definite proof it is part of the plan. Regarding Section 5-240.F.3.e, Compatible with Surrounding Land Uses: although some individual projects have a higher density, overall (gross) densities of Brett Ranch, the ERV Mobile Home Park, and Lake Creek Village is significantly lower. Woodland Hills presently has a zoning of RSL which would allow just under 3 units per acre after you net out roads and parks. We think that this is an appropriate density; no need to upzone. If the property is up zoned it would not be compatible. Regarding Section 5-280.B.3.e(5), Compatible with Surrounding Uses: do not agree with density. Once this is approved, assume all density will be 10 units per acre and this 10 units per acre is actually higher because the roads and parks were not subtracted. This property is 100% developable; Woodland Hills is seeking a density almost twice as high as Homestead (which most people thin is high already). Homestead is 1 unit per acre allowing for a great deal of open space, wildlife habitat and visual relief for the community. Regarding Section 5-280.D.2, Compatible With Surrounding Areas: we believe that it is not compatible because of the density. Regarding Section 5-230.D.3, Changed Conditions: we do not believe that the density has 19 07-09-2002 changed to warrant increasing density from RSL. If the applicant wishes to change to PUD with same density as RSL, that would be appropriate. Regarding Section 5-230.D.5, Community Need: we question ifthere is as much need for employee housing as is being proposed. We believe that the type of housing being proposed (with few recreational amenities or sense of community) is inappropriate and cannot be justified at a time that affordable housing is being handled by other areas. Note that plans for the Berry Creek 51h are more affordable, primarily due to land costs; it is difficult to do affordable housing when the land costs and infrastructure will probably be $60-80,000 per unit. We urge the PC and BOCC to deny Woodland Hills because of density and traffic. Edwards Metropolitan District, dated March 51h, 2002 Writing to confirm that Edwards Metro District is anxious to continue to cooperate in assisting you in obtaining the water required for Woodland Hills. The District requests a check for $5,000 as a deposit towards the water rights analysis currently underway; you may forward the check and a copy of this letter to the manager for the District. The tentative analysis is that Woodland Hills may require 9.192 acre feet of year-round water rights, and the cost may be in the neighborhood of $170,000. Additional Referrals were sent to the following with no response received: Eagle County Attorney, Sheriff, Animal Control, Road and Bridge The School District Fire District Eagle County Ambulance District School District: Edwards Colorado State Wildlife Division CDOT Utilities: Telephone- CenturyTel, Natural Gas- KN Energy, Holy Cross Electric- Eagle-Vail Eagle River Fire Protection: Carol Moulson Homeowners Associations: Eagle River Valley Mobile Home Park, Lake Creek, Arrowhead, River Pines, The Reserve, Singletree FILE PDP-00022 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire site is owned in fee simple, by four separate owners. The owners have assigned the applicant as representative for this process. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part ofthis PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. The current Residential Suburban Low Density zoning currently allows all the uses associated with this proposal. Those uses include multifamily dwellings, home businesses, and recreation. The 20 07-09-2002 PUD guide is written to properly address and acknowledge all extraneous, residential uses ofthe site including specific details pertaining to such things as home businesses, recreation, etc. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time ofthe application for PUD. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snow melt between buildings. The main use of multi-family dwellings (3 or more dwelling units in one building) is currently permitted as a use by right in standard, RSL zoning. However, the Woodland Hills PUD necessitates the following variations to the dimensional limitations to accommodate the nature of the proposal: Minimum Lot Area per Use; The applicant requests the approval of 12 dwelling units in 3 buildings on Lot 1 which comprises 1.06 acres (1 dwelling unit per 3,847 s.f. net density), 40 dwelling units in 10 buildings on Lot 2 which comprises 4.613 acres (1 dwelling unit per 5,023 s.f. net density) and 24 dwelling units in 6 buildings on Lot 3 which comprises 2.026 acres (1 dwelling unit per 3,677 s.f. net density). See Development Plan attached as Sheet 2 of Exhibit C that will become part of the Planned Unit Development Guide. The RSL zone district allows one dwelling unit per 15,000 square feet. Minimum Front, Rear and Side Yard Setback Requirement; The applicant requests that setbacks permitted be as shown on the site plan that will be attached to the Planned Unit Development Guide. All buildings have been setback 50 feet from Highway 6, and 20 feet from (proposed) Eagle County Roads. The setback on the perimeter of the property ranges from a minimum of 15ft. to a maximum of 45 ft. Maximum Floor Area Ratio; The applicant requests that the total floor area ratio permitted on the overall property exclusive of ROW be .26. The maximum permitted in the underlying RSL Zone District is .20. The proposed floor area ratios for each lot is listed below: Lot 1 - .28 Lot 2 - .2 Lot 3 - .30 Maximum Impervious Coverage; The applicant requests that the maximum impervious coverage permitted on the property exclusive of ROW be .51. The RSL Zone District allows .35 The proposed lot coverage by impervious materials is listed below: Lot 1 - .55 Lot 2 - .42 Lot 3 - .55 Maximum Building Coverage; The applicant requests that the maximum building coverage permitted on the property be .21. The RSL Zone District allows .20. The maximum building coverage limitation requested for each lot is listed below: Lot 1 - .22 Lot 2 - .15 Lot 3 - .25 Preliminary Plan PUD variations may be granted if the Board of County Commissioners finds that one (1) of the purposes found in Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized is necessary for that purpose to be achieved. There are several purposes in allowing variations for Woodland Hills. They are as follows: 21 07-09-2002 3.(a) Obtain Desired Design Qualities. A variation may be allowed that permits for a greater variety in the layout of the buildings. The units have been situated on this property to maximize privacy and views from the residential units, provide central open space to conceal onsite parking to the greatest extent possible, as well as provide an easy, internal traffic circulation system. 3.( d) Trails. A variation may be allowed that it provides incentives for applicants to make contributions to the County's multi-use trail system, in accordance to the latest version of the Eagle Countv Trails Plan. Woodland Hills currently has incorporated a portion of the trail in the design of Woodland Hills. 3.(e) Affordable Housing. A variation may be allowed that extends an incentive to applicants to assure that long term affordable housing is provided. A review ofthe Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan shows that the cost of the units proposed by this development qualifies for both category one and two (see Housing memo dated January 23,2002) in the local resident housing guidelines. [+/-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3- 340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations MAY be granted along with approval of the Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of 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 Eagle County Land Use Regulations' parking standards dictate that there should be 2 parking spaces for a 1 bedroom, and 2.5 per 2-3 bedroom units. Parking, as proposed, currently exceeds that amount. According to the plans, there exist 3.6 spaces per unit, for all the units. On street parking will be prohibited, and has been adequately addressed in the Woodland Hills PUD guide. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Landscaping is a major component of this development, as the existing properties that comprise Woodland Hills contain little in the way oflandscaping and/or vegetation. Staff can make a favorable finding. A landscaping plan has been submitted with this Preliminary Plan, with a detailed Landscaping Plan to be submitted at Final Plat. Staff had recommended the following be addressed, and was incorporated, as part of the Woodland Hills PUD guide: Density of plant materials and the ratio of coniferous to deciduous 22 07-09-2002 Minimum height of coniferous and minimum caliper of deciduous materials at planting Explanation of any restoration, grading or landscape techniques, including maintenance and planting schedule. General landscaping intent for common open space. With these additional standards, and the creation of the associated PUD Agreement, the applicant has satisfactorily addressed this finding. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The Applicant has provided a sign plan as part of the Woodland Hills PUD guide. The sign plan directly acknowledges size limitations of the entrance sign, directional/information signs, building identification signs, and warning/traffic signs. All other signs to will adhere to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for standards. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. The Woodland Hills PUD will use both the Eagle County comprehensive sign plan, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), and the PUD guide. These plans ARE suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The applicant has provided evidence that all utilities will connect to Woodland Hills PUD. A 1041 permit has been approved to allow the extension of water and wastewater lines to Woodland Hills. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for sewage disposal, electrical supply, and roads; the applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD HAS approval for adequate facilities for potable water and sewage disposal. In addition, the Applicant HAS demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-ofway, 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 o/State Highway Officials (AASHTO)/or 23 07-09-2002 that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removedfrom the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. A highway access permit has been obtained from CDOT/Eagle County. In regards to internal pathways and emergency vehicles, the Eagle River Fire Protection District has reviewed the plans, and have indicated that the road system will be adequate to handle all emergency response vehicles (memos concerning emergency vehicle/turning radii contained within Woodland Hills PUD Preliminary Plan application package). [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] AS CONDITIONED it HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. ( e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Currently, other multifamily PUD developments exist in the vicinity of the Woodland Hills property, as well as, the Eagle River Village Mobile Horne Park. This proposed development would be visually compatible and in character with these other existing developments. Taking into account, however, the method by which density was awarded in the past for these developments, the issue of compatibility becomes less clear. Following is a table which compares and contrasts Woodland Hills to other existing development in the immediate vicinity: Development Acreage per # of Density Unit Size No. of Subdivision Dwelling (du/acre) Bedrooms Plat or Special Units Use Brett Ranch 956-1415 sq ft 2 to 4 *The Villas 16.7 ac (gross) 156 9.34 Does not include 10.78 ac (net) 14.47 garages. *Entire PUD 113.88 (gross) 202 1.77 24 07-09-2002 Cordillera 660-998 sq ft 30 one bdrm Valley Club 152 two bdrm *Lake Crk ViI 29.96 (gross) 270 9.01 88 three bdrm 26.39 ac (net) 10.23 *Entire PUD 424.3 (gross) 445 1.00 Eagle River 119.07 (gross) 380 trailers 3.19 980 sq ft to 324 two to three MHP 39.87 ac (net) 9.52 1,680 sq ft bdrm 56 four bdrm Woodland 8.81 ac (gross) 76 8.63 1050 sq ft. Does 76 two bdrm Hills 8.81 ac (net) 8.63 not include garage When net densities of existing developments are compared to Woodland Hills, compatibility is readily apparent. This net density is the visual density that a passer-by would perceive in this vicinity of the Edwards area. The gross acreages of existing developments, however, are considerably lower than that of Woodland Hills. The gross acreage is derived by accounting for lower density land or open space which is part of the respective PUD' s but which, is not located in the vicinity of the multifamily portions of said PUD's. In the instance of the Eagle River MHP, the majority ofthe land factored into the gross calculation consists of land which has little likelihood of being developed due to extreme topographical constraints. In each instance, the developable portion of the land which is also the most visually impactive portion of each PUD and the MHP has been maximized with multifamily development and mobile homes. Woodland hills may not be as compatible based strictly upon numeric gross density calculations (as the Edwards plan implies more of a decrease in density as you travel away from the core) but, is more so compatible with the character of the area and would generate similar visual impacts when compared directly to the referenced existing projects in the immediate vicinity. [+/-] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD MAY be considered compatible with the character of surrounding land uses based upon net density calculations or, visual density. The Woodland Hills project is not consistent with existing similar developments based strictly upon numeric gross density calculations. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects ofthe master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space! Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Quality Recreation Housing Services Conformance X X X X X X Community Centerl Non Conformance Mixed Conformance 25 07-09-2002 II II Not Applicable lCommunity Center has a suggested density of3-12 dwelling units per acre, in designated areas typically found along major transportation routes which are accessible public water and sewer, and have not been designated as sensitive lands. This designation promotes Community Centers as appropriate locations for affordable housing, with cluster and Planned Unit Developments being encouraged. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Qualitv Patterns Conformance X X X X X X Xl Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Xl_ Concerns related to pets (feeding, housing, other restrictions), or bear proof trash containers have been addressed within the PUD guide, as well as the Declarations and Covenants for Woodland Hills. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN LOCAL RESIDENT HOUSING: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: NOTE: (plus or minus' are added before the elements to show the conformance of the proposal in relation to the vision statement) [+] Housing is a community-wide issue. [ +] Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. [ +] Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing transit routes. Although near a transportation route, a new, designated transit stop is not indicated on the plans. [n/a] Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success. [n/a] It is important to preserve existing local residents housing. [ +] Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county [n/a] Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs. The Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan cites many criteria for what kinds of new developments would qualify in meeting the recommended standards of local residents housing Eagle Valley. Woodland Hills is in compliance with many of the recommendations from this plan. 26 07-09-2002 Water Water Wildlife Recreation Land Use Quantitv Ouantitv Conformance X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable EAGLE COUNTY WATERSHED PLAN This property is relatively flat, but at the foot of significant sloping land. There are neither wetlands, nor open water of any sort on this property. The applicant has satisfied all previous Colorado Geological Survey conditions of Sketch Plan concerning storm water runoff, removal of existing septic systems, drainage detention, and erosion control, and will adhere to any and all Eagle County Regulations concerning the same issues. Development Economy Housing Circulation Recreation Concepts Conformance X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable EDWARDS SUB-AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Subsection II. SUB AREA PLAN defines several 'Concepts for Development': "The area should develop as a focal point for local development and eventually become a town." Local development should include a mix of housing types in order to create a balanced community. Since 1985, Edwards has evolved into an area with multiple commercial development of its own. It may be considered necessary for Edwards to have its own affordable housing to support local residents who work there. "The spectacular view and wide green valleys should be emphasized and preserved." The subject site is not in pristine condition and is currently developed with a modular home, fenced horse runs and a variety of other buildings, vehicles etc. "The openness should be preserved by clustered development." Multifamily development, by design, 'clusters' residential development, thereby facilitating the preservation of open area. In this instance, it is proposed that at least 25% of the site remain open. This project is proposing 22 buildings, three less than what may be allowed under standard, RSL zoning (if one were proposing to build either single family or duplex units on the same 8.81 acres). "The Lake Creek and Squaw Creek valleys should be kept rural (1 du/~ 10 acres). Developments should be encouraged to be clustered, with provision for open space." Lake Creek and Squaw Creek valleys have indeed remained rural in character and this proposal 27 07-09-2002 would not compromise this objective as this development is not in either valley. The proposed multi- family development would provide active open space for residents of the development. "The 'theme' of the area, which workshop participants encouraged, should be recreation- oriented, aimed at local residents with an emphasis on natural surroundings. Development should be fitting in, blending, harmonizing with, as opposed to, competing with spectacular surroundings. Development should be restricted from ridge lines and should be reinforced with additional dry land planting." The proposed development would maximize use of the site but would do so in a manner which would be consistent with other existing and approved development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. The applicant has imposed several deed restrictions on this property to ensure that employees or employers will be the only people living in this development. Ridge lines would not be effected by this development, and landscaping is currently a component of this proposal. Subsection III. DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY states that: "The accompanying maps identify areas of development and the general land use categories. These general categories specify type of uses rather than specific numbers." The subject property is not included on the maps, like the Squaw Creek Valley, however, the site is clearly represented on the Master Plan's FLUM and is identified as Community Center. The Plan does define RURAL as 1 du/2: 10 acres. "The main development and the central community focus should occur at the Edwards Commercial Center. Development densities should diminish from high density to rural along the transportation corridor away from this community center." The Lake Creek and Squaw Creek valleys have/are being developed in a rural character. Squaw Creek valley is further west of this site and appears to represent a logical 'edge of community' for the Edwards area. The Saint Claire church complex, is considered to be a transitional use. The majority of land located between Squaw Creek valley and the subject property on the south side of Highway 6 appears to be undevelopable due to topography. In effect, due to these topographical constraints, the development of land leading up to Squaw Creek Road will diminish to a rural character as is recommended by the existing Edwards Area Plan. "Clustering development helps to preserve open fields, and natural areas." The proposed development would preserve/improve open area within the project - albeit not natural. The site, however, is not in a natural condition currently. Subsection IV SPECIFIC COMPONENTS states that: With regard to Housing- "For the present time (1985), people living in Edwards will work elsewhere. As Arrowhead and Berry Creek areas develop, it can become a support community for those adjacent resort areas." Now, 16 years later, the Arrowhead and Berry Creek areas have developed and attainable multifamily housing is necessary to house support workers for the adjacent resort areas. "The housing character should orient toward residential development and not the passing tourist." This project is attempting to cater to local residents only. With regard to Recreation- "High density housing developments should have local playgrounds." This proposal does incorporate a centralized play field, tot lot, and other recreational amenities. Please be advised that Eagle County and the citizens of the Edwards Community are actively developing an updated, more comprehensive version of the Edwards Area Community Plan and associated Future Land Use Map. The committee has currently identified the criteria as mentioned above as 'still valid' today (when considering the proposed Edwards Sub Area Plan). The updated plan is anticipated to be adopted by the Eagle County Planning Commission in April 2002. At the time of preparation of this Staff Report, specific density recommendations for property in the Woodland Hills 28 07-09-2002 vicinity remain undefined. EAGLE COUNTY TRAILS PLAN The purpose of the Eagle County Trails Plan is to identify opportunities for non-motorized trail systems and outline a coordinated process for development and implementation of those trail systems. The Applicant has worked with the Eagle County Trails planner since the Woodland Hills Sketch Plan application. A portion of the trail is currently part of any and all future plans for Woodland Hills. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for 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. The new phasing plan for this application (reflecting proposed option number 4) is as follows: Phase I. Buildings 1 through 4 Phase II. Buildings 5 through 8 Phase III. Buildings 9 through 12 Phase IV. Buildings 13 through 16 Phase V. Buildings 17 through 19 Buildings 1,2,5,8,9,14 and 16 shall contain the $225K units. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS been submitted for this development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space 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 Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for 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 Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any 29 07-09-2002 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. The Woodland Hills PUD includes a comprehensive Recreation and Open Space plan. Currently, 28% of Woodland Hills is to be dedicated to active recreation. This includes a half acre recreation field, a tot lot, and a 12 station health and fitness trail system. There will also be several picnic tables throughout the development. All land surrounding the residences of Woodland Hills will be common space. Maintenance of this common space will be provided through the Declarations and Covenants. Also a component of this application, Woodland Hills will be contributing to the ECO Trails system by constructing a portion of the trail which passes along the front of the development. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: Minimum area; Improvements required; Continuing use and maintenance; or Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Presently, the only referral comments related to this standard is from the Forest Service, which made no new comments for this application, but referred back to the Sketch Plan referral memo dated March 9,2001. All comments have be adhered to as conditions of Sketch Plan approval; the applicant has currently incorporated the conditions into the Preliminary Plan application, specifically within the PUD Guide. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See previous discussion, page 15. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. 30 07-09-2002 Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [ +] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) [ +] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) [ + ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) [+] Ridge line Protection (Section 4-450) [ +] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) [ +] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [ +] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [ +] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) [ +] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [ +] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [ +] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) [ +/ -] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) The 1041 must be approved prior to Preliminary Plan approval. [ +/ -] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) The 1041 must be approved prior to Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Fees will be collected prior to Final Plat approval. All findings under this standard are either favorable, favorable as conditioned, or do not apply to this project. The Woodland Hills PUD will be subject to all of the requirements ofa final PUD guide and/or the Eagle County Land Use Regulations., unless the proposed variations have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all ofthe standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. By connecting to the existing infrastructure, this proposal will not cause inefficiencies, nor will it be a leapfrog pattern of development. This application has also proposed future vehicular access 31 07-09-2002 connections to adjacent properties in that they have designed internal roadway connection stub outs to which future developments can hook up to. The applicant for Woodland Hills has also obtained approval for a 1041 permit, which was a companion with these files. This was necessary to allow water and wastewater lines to be extended to the subject property. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. The property of Woodland Hills is suitable for development. If approved, the proposed development would add the additional benefit of "cleaning up" the subject property which currently harbor old septic systems, and a variety of debris. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please refer to previous compatibility discussion on page 15. [+/-] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The development proposed for the PUD MAY be considered compatible with the character of surrounding land uses based upon net density calculations or, visual density. The Woodland Hills project is not consistent with existing similar developments based strictly upon numeric gross density calculations. 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." The PUD guide, in its current format, adequately addresses the land use restrictions for the proposed development. The guide, in conjunction with the associated Declaration and Covenants shall be sufficiently satisfies this standard. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that demonstrates meets the requirements of this Section. FILE ZC-00050 Requirements for a Zone Chan~e In Section 5-240.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor. Based on the above analysis and other available information, Staff makes the following findings as provided in this Section of the Land Use Regulations: STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Please refer to the Master Plan evaluation on page 17. 32 07-09-2002 [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l] The proposed zone change designation IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Eagle County Master Plan. STANDARD: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; By changing the zoning from Residential Suburban Low Density to that of Planned Unit Development, the proposed development may be considered to be compatible with existing zone districts located to the north (Lake Creek Village, Brett Ranch). Please refer to compatibility discussion on page 15. [+/-] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The development proposed for the PUD MAY be considered compatible with the character of surrounding land uses based upon net density calculations or, visual density. The Woodland Hills project is not consistent with existing similar developments based strictly upon numeric gross density calculations. The proposed PUD is the appropriate zone district to achieve the proposed outcome. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the use or density/intensity; Surrounding zone changes have been occurring on properties in close proximity to Woodland Hills since 1974, when this property was first zoned to RSL. Other changes in zoning include: the expansion of the ERV Mobile Home Park in 1986; Lake Creek Village in 1993 from RSL to PUD; Brett Ranch PUD, in 1997; the installation of the Eagle River Sanitation and Water District treatment plant in 1981, with several expansions taking place over the years- most recently completing its last expansion 2001. Other changes which have occurred in the vicinity of Woodland Hills is the growth of commercial properties in Edwards, and the increased service ofEco Transit along Hwy 6. Most recently, CDOT has increased the turning lanes at the Edwards interchange to improve traffic flow to Singletree and 1-70 access points. Edwards is becoming a significant area to shop (with substantial commercial developments having been approved over the years), work and obtain services in the Eagle Valley. The population of Edwards has increased from 4,143 in 1990, to 8,183 in the year 2000. [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the density and intensity. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands; The property of Woodland Hills does not contain any open water or wetlands, wildlife habitat, or significant natural vegetation. This project will be required to use storm water, drainage, and erosion control methods during any construction, and is not expected to produce significant noise and air pollution, outside of what normal construction generates. [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA] The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts to the natural environment. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; Housing demands in Eagle County are ever present, and are therefore a community need. The applicant for this project has offered to deed restrict several ofthe proposed units to ensure affordability for first time, local resident home buyers. [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] The proposed amendment DOES address a community need. STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] Whether and the extent to which the 33 07-09-2002 proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; This proposal is located on the fringe of the Community Center designation, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, and is adjacent to US Hwy 6 a major transportation corridor. The traditional view of a Community Center is that of concentric rings which are centered over a community's core area and gradually transition outward into less intensive land uses as the distance from the core area increases. Development of Community Centers within the Eagle Valley, however, is dictated by topographical constraints which force development into elongated ellipses or lineal patterns which follow the valley's floor and transportation routes. The most easily developable land tends to be located toward the valley's bottom adjacent to lineal transportation corridors and nearest to public infrastructure. Indeed, existing development patterns do locate higher intensity multifamily uses and the mobile home park in the valley's bottom adjacent to existing infrastructure and transportation routes. The proposed Woodland Hills development is logically located within just such an area and is adjacent to existing transportation routes, bus routes and existing public infrastructure necessary to support a multifamily development. Further, the existing RSL zoning of immediately adjacent properties does allow multifamily residential as a use-by-right. [+] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] The proposed amendment WILL result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning. Further, the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. STANDARD: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] Whether and the extent to which the area to which the proposed amendment would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Edwards has been steadily growing in population, and is estimated to continue to grow in the future. With the continued growth of commercial development, new residential development will be necessary to accommodate new residents and/or employees of the Eagle Valley. With limited land/space in the vicinity of Edwards, it may be in the public interest to encourage higher densities on land within the community centers, versus having Edwards sprawl further away from amenities and schools, producing further dependence on private vehicles to travel into the center as opposed to walking, biking or use of public transportation. [+] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] The extent to which the area to which the amendment would apply HAS changed and continues to change is such that it is in the public interest to encourage a new density in the area. Tom Boni, Knight Planning Services, representing David Nudell, applicant, showed a picture of their revised layout. He showed the deletion of the interior roadway and reconfigured the position of the three units. He stated Mr. Nudell is ready to consider any of the four options previously presented to the Board. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Nudell if any of the options work for him. Mr. Nudell stated yes. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Skinner to walk him through the options. He spoke to Option 2 and asked if there were any changes. Ms. Skinner stated on Option 2 there is no difference. She stated they would rather have the 80 units with the one bedrooms being permanently deed restricted. Commissioner Menconi asked what made them more interested in the one bedroom units. Ms. Skinner suggested that most of the proposals do not have the one bedroom unit with a garage of this size. She suggested it was a nice amenity for the developer. Commissioner Menconi asked for input from David Carter, Director of Housing, about the deed 34 07-09-2002 restrictions. David Carter stated the two over riding recommendations on the housing is permanent deed restriction for the life of the unit and that units be owner occupied. He suggested that historically Eagle County has had a limited number of one bedroom units available on the market. He suggested there are very few, but they are limited. Commissioner Menconi suggested one bedroom are not as salable as two bedroom. Mr. Carter stated deed restricted or not, one bedroom units are a little harder to sell. He stated people are typically looking for two bedroom units. Commissioner Menconi spoke to Option 4. He suggested it is 20 two bedroom units with a five year, 3% appreciation cap for locals only. He asked if Mr. Carter would prefer those to a one bedroom Mr. Carter stated you have to look beyond units per acre. He stated typically larger units will have greater impact than smaller units. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Nudell about taking Option 4 and reducing the number of units from 20 to 15 and making them permanently deed restricted. Mr. Nudell stated he believes that came from a discussion with the Housing Division. He suggested whether it is one, two or twenty that he will have them forever. He suggested there is a big difference and there is a relative rarity of one bedrooms. He stated in some cases buying a deed restricted is better than renting. He believes they are decently marketable units at that price. He stated he is completely willing to go with any ofthe four options he presented. Commissioner Stone stated he has the same concerns he did originally. He stated he has a concern with the access and the number of homes in this proposed subdivision. He suggested they will have a traffic issue to deal with in the future. He spoke to another file being submitted today. He gave credit to Terrill Knight and Tom Boni for recognizing that there will be concerns in the future. He stated in his opinion all of the options are still too dense for this property. He spoke to densities of 8.863 to 9.53 units per acre. He stated as a Board of County Commissioners they try to look at things on a larger, more regional basis. He stated the reason one bedrooms are a rarity is because they don't sell. He spoke to meeting with the Town of Vail to discuss Berry Creek. He stated others agree that one bedrooms are not marketable and they don't work. He suggested they stay away from the one bedrooms. He stated the two bedrooms are much more marketable. He spoke to the access issue and considerations for the future. Chairman Gallagher asked if the composition ofthe Planning Commission included anyone who makes money on real estate. Ms. Skinner stated there is a developer. Chairman Gallagher questioned their ability to determine if or if it would not make it. Commissioner Menconi stated the reason they are having this hearing is that this file had to go back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Nudell stated if it was up to him he would stay with Option 4. He thinks he can sell the one bedrooms, but if it is up to him he would prefer #4. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the variation and the reason for it going back to the Planning Commission. He questioned the locals only and if that is to mean owner occupant. Mr. Nudell stated that is owner occupied or employers who purchase for employees. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. PDP-00022, Woodland Hills PUD Preliminary Plan, incorporating all Staff findings, and the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. An eight foot wide paved spur trail shall be provided on the property, along the entire width of the property abutting the Highway 6 right-of-way. The spur trail will be designated for public use but constructed and maintained by Woodland Hills. 3. Dedication of water rights and lor cash in lieu be in place before the issuance of building 35 07-09-2002 permit. 4. Option 4 as presented by the Applicant, a total of76 two bedroom units, a density of 8.63 acres, which is 22 two bedroom units at $225,000 with a 5 year 3% appreciation cap, for owner occupied, locals only and 56 two bedroom units at market without any restrictions. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Stone stated that he will not be voting in favor of this file and he asked the Commissioners to have some discussion regarding the access to Highway 6. Chairman Gallagher asked ifhe was looking for something other than what is on the plat. Commissioner Stone spoke to additional development that is planned in the area. He stated they are trying to restrict the number of access points on Highway 6. He stated another idea would be to close this entrance and open up another entrance with an adjoining property. He asked there be some recognition or discussion of what the future brings or they may leave the door open so that purchasers in this recognize the additional traffic that may be generated. He stated he is looking for suggestions. Chairman Gallagher questioned if this is not what CDOT asked for. John Vengrin, Engineering Department, stated this did go through the Permit Access application and that part of the approval is that this entrancelexit be used by other properties. Chairman Gallagher asked about the roads shown in black if they will be engineered to handle an appropriate amount of traffic. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, stated nobody knows the future. He stated the roads all meet the same standards and will be dedicated to the County so they can do with it what they will. He stated the accellldecelllanes are designed to handle more traffic than what is being proposed. Chairman Gallagher asked if the roads going to adj acent property will not be developed until such time as they are necessary. Mr. Knight stated that is correct. John Vengrin stated it is probably preferable to build the stub outs. He spoke to the confusion with Heritage Park. He spoke to disclosure documents. Commissioner Gallagher suggested he can go along with disclosure documents or with a fence that indicates this will be a road. Ms. Skinner stated they will be clearly labeled on the plat. Commissioner Menconi asked if the developer is required to put money in an account for future building of the roads. Mr. Vengrin stated that is why he would like to see them built. Mr. Nudell stated he will have already made the width of the road larger than necessary and he will have constructed the accell/decelllanes. The adjacent property owners could at least build the small stub. Chairman Gallagher stated he will not complicate the issue by requiring the applicant to complete the road construction. Commissioner Stone stated there does need to be something specific and as such do they or don't they need to be collateralized. He suggested if they are not going to build them, do they need to be collateralized. He suggested that notice to all the purchasers, not just those on the roads, be given ample disclosure. Mr. Nudell agreed. Commissioner Stone asked again if the public improvements need to be collateralized. Commissioner Menconi suggested ifMr. Nudell is putting up a sum of money after a period of time, what will happen to the money. Mr. Moorhead stated you can make the condition however you choose. Commissioner Menconi suggested they create a condition that collateralizes the roads and the language be worked out before final plat. Commissioner Menconi moved to amend his motion to add condition 5, that staff develop a 36 07-09-2002 collateralization with regard to the internal road connection and there is a time period and notification in sales documents to purchasers ofthe property. Mr. Boni stated he thinks there is another issue. They have engineered the accellldecelllanes to accommodate future development. He stated they have been talking about approaching the County with a cost recovery agreement. What Mr. Nudell is suggesting is that in exchange for not having to construct the Spur Road that he would then not request a cost recovery. Mr. Nudell stated if he is not going to be required to build the stub roads, why would he have to be responsible to collateralize them. Commissioner Menconi stated that Mr. Nudell had already agreed to build the roads. He suggested they are recommending that they not have to be built until it is necessary. He does not want to see future owners be faced with the expense of construction. Mr. Nudell stated ifthe roads are going to be built by another developer of an adjacent property, why should he have to bear the burden. Commissioner Menconi stated that is because this is the filing they are hearing today. He spoke to the partnership needed in building the roads. Commissioner Gallagher stated he believes that the applicant has spent a good amount of money on the accellldecelllanes and increasing the engineering on the internal road system. He suggested in his mind it is a fair trade and he would be inclined to make a plat note that the roads would be the responsibility of future developers. Commissioner Menconi stated he is relying on statements by the County Attorney that this is something that can be constructed. Mr. Moorhead stated it may be reasonable based upon the impacts that his development will have. Commissioner Menconi stated today they do not know what it will cost and he suggested that between now and final plat this could be worked out between staff and the applicant. Commissioner Stone reminded everyone that any additional costs will be added on to the purchase price. He suggested it seems reasonable and Mr. Nudell has already gone above and beyond. He stated he would hope that he considers Chairman Gallagher's view point and that it is reasonable. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like there to not be a fifth condition and that the applicant work with staff to specify that the stub outs be the responsibility ofthe next developer. Commissioner Menconi withdrew his amendment as stated and it should read the applicant and staff work together to come up with language that the stub offs are the responsibility of future developers. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. Chairman Gallagher and Commissioner Menconi voting aye, Commissioner Stone voting no. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve Eagle County File No. ZC-00050, Woodland Hills Zone Change, incorporating all Staff findings. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Chairman Gallagher and Commissioner Menconi voting aye, Commissioner Stone voting no. PDS-00031, Heritage Park PUD Sketch Plan Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number PDS-00031, Heritage Park PUD Sketch Plan. As revised since last being tabled by the Planning Commission, the applicant has reduced the proposed density by eliminating the originally contemplated lock-off units, and two single family lots. Further, the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Ambulance District have both responded favorably regarding the anticipated ingress and egress to the site. Staff has determined that sufficient positive findings have been demonstrated to warrant a recommendation of approval with conditions. 37 07-09-2002 The Planning Commission recommendation is denial. The sketch plan proposes the subdivision of 11.4 acres of unincorporated land in the Resource (R) zone district into 24 single family home lots. The lot sizes proposed range from 9,400 square feet to 18,400 square feet. A "meandering park" is contemplated for walking and light recreation, which would be open to Homestead residents as well. The gross density of the proposed development is 2.1 dwelling units per acre. By comparison, the gross density of the combined Homestead PUDs, which envelope the subject property on three sides, approximates to 1.1 dwelling units per acre. The approximate net density of the portion of Homestead Filing 1 that exists along and adjacent to Allen Circle is approximately 2.55 units per acre. The Green Ranch PUD borders the western side ofthe subject property and allows a gross density of approximately one unit per 14 acres. Access for Heritage Park is via the 50 foot wide, 0.103 acre "Tract B" of Homestead Filing 1, directly off of Allen Circle. The proposed internal road configuration is two cul-de-sacs sharing a common connection to Allen Circle. The easterly cul-de-sac serves 17 single-family lots and the westerly cul-de-sac serves 7 single family lots. The proposed lengths of each are 1,000 feet and 500 feet, respectively, which conforms to Section 4-620c.9 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The current zoning of the site is Resource (R), which requires a minimum lot size of35 acres, allows agricultural uses and the development of a single family home with an accessory dwelling unit. 1. In July of 1980, an Exemption Plat was approved by the Board of County Commissioners for the Hollis Allen Parcel, a 10.37 acre parcel ofland in the Resource (R) zone district. 2. In September of 200 1, the applicant and his representative filed an application for a Subdivision Sketch Plan (SUS-OOOll) for the subject property which was withdrawn based upon staff comments. 3. In October of200l, the applicant and his representative submitted the current Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan application (PDS-0003l) for the Allen Tract site. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial ofthis project. The reasoning behind their recommendation was centered on the issues of density, access, and traffic. Also of concern were questions of whether there exists a need for this type of housing under present conditions, and the lack of community support in the immediate neighborhood. A significant number of people voiced their opposition to this proposal during the public comment portion of the hearing. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineer The Engineer has numerous comments which are attached to this report. Eagle County Environmental Health Environmental Health has comments which are attached. Eagle County Road & Bridge Questioned whether the width of the proposal's access off of Allen Circle is adequate. Eagle County School District RE 50J The school district has attached comments regarding the cash in lieu of land dedication requirements. Colorado Geological Survey The comments of the Colorado Geological Survey are included with the attached referral responses. Colorado Division of Wildlife The comments of the Division of Wildlife are attached. Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources The Division of Water Resources has comments (letter attached). Holy Cross Electric The proposed development is within a certified service area of Holy Cross Energy. Their 38 07-09-2002 response letter is attached as well. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments NWCOG has numerous comments which are attached. Homestead Owners Board of Directors Letter attached to this report. Additional Referral A~encies (No Response): Eagle County Assessor, Attorney's Office, Historical Society, Sheriffs Office and ECO Trails & Transit; Colorado State Health Department, Colorado Historical Society, and Colorado State Forest Service; KIN Energy; CDOT; Century-Tel; Edwards Ambulance District; Eagle River Fire Protection District. Public Comments: Approximately 115 letters were received from immediate neighbors and Homestead residents objecting to this Sketch Plan application. Most people stated their opposition is based upon the density of the proposal and the potential negative traffic impacts it may have on Homestead Drive and its enVIrons. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch PUD: Under the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Sketch Plan review standards (Section 5-240.F.3.e. Standards): "The Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall comply with the ... Standards," which thereby requires that it conform with virtually all Article 4 "Site Development Standards." While all standards will, at Preliminary Plan, be applied in detail, it is appropriate at Sketch Plan to determine: (1) whether sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that these standards are able to be met at Preliminary Plan; and (2) that when fully applied, the Preliminary Plan will conform to Sketch Plan. If staff found the information supplied sufficiently vague, or had sufficient doubt that, particularly, when an Article 4 Standard is applied at Preliminary Plan general conformance with Sketch Plan could be found, then staff could not make a finding that the Sketch Plan conceptually conformed with that Standard. Pluses and minuses appearing before certain Standards indicate where staffhas found that the proposed development meets that Standard ([ + D, does not meet that Standard ([ - D, is mixed ([+1- D, or has found that the Standard does not apply ([nlaD. STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240f3.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. It has been demonstrated that all of the land in the proposed PUD is owned by Landel Company, L.c., A Texas Limited Liability Company, and Barbara Allen. The applicant has a consent agreement in which he is identified by the owners as having control over the land. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. The uses proposed are residential in nature. All uses 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 Districts Use Schedule" within the existing Resource (R) zone district. 39 07-09-2002 [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those 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.3f, Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The dimensional limitations proposed for the PUD are not in compliance with the standards set forth for the Resource (R) zone district in Table 3-340 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The proposed density of the Heritage Park Sketch Plan exceeds that which is allowed within a Resource (R) zone district. The Applicant has requested Variations to the dimensional limitations pertaining to minimum lot size for uses in the Resource (R) zone. The Resource zone district has a minimum lot size ofthirty-five (35) acres. The applicant proposes lot sizes that range from 8,800 to 14,300 square feet. Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, also provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: (a) obtains desired design qualities; (b) avoids environmental resources and natural resources; (c) incentives for water augmentation; (d) incentives for trails; (e) incentives for affordable housing; and/or (f) incentives for public facilities. [+1-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3- 340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. A Variation WILL be required pursuant to Table 3-340 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations 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 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 Applicant has indicated that the off-street parking and loading standards, as stated in Article 4, Division 1 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, will be met. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It WILL BE demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD CAN comply 40 07-09-2002 with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. A landscape plan for a PUD is intended to address issues such as type and placement of trees in common areas, and how areas disturbed during development will be re-vegetated. The conceptual landscape plan is required to illustrate the overall intent of the Applicant with regard to landscaping of the development. The current landscaping plan in the proposed Sketch Plan does adequately depict the general intent of the applicant in terms of which areas are to be most heavily disturbed, what types of vegetation exist now on the site, and other features that may be removed or replaced. The Landscaping Design Standards require that landscaping in a PUD shall be provided in a manner that is most consistent with the character of the proposed development and the unique ecosystem and specific environment in which the development is located. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. The Conceptual Landscape Plan DOES adequately demonstrate what areas will be disturbed and how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will preserved, replaced or the areas otherwise re-vegetated. The Landscaping Design Standards may be satisfied with the Preliminary Plan application. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Signs are contemplated for this PUD and will conform to the Sign Regulations within the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING: 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. 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. Potable water sUDPlv. The Edwards Metro District will facilitate water supply. Successful completion and approval of a 1041 permit application either prior to or concurrent with preliminary plan submission is required as a condition of approval. Sewage disposal. To be provided by the Eagle River Sanitation district. Successful completion and approval of a 1041 permit application either prior to or concurrent with preliminary plan submission is required as a condition of approval. Solid waste disposal. Upper Eagle River Electrical supplv. Holy Cross Electric Fire protection. Eagle River Fire Protection District 41 07-09-2002 Roads. Access to the site will be from Allen Circle. The Applicant has provided the Community Development Department with letters from both the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Ambulance District stating that the single point of access will be sufficient. The Land Use Regulations require, however, that "The applicant shall be required to provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shall be a secondary emergency ingress/egress from any development. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles." As such, the applicant for this proposal shall provide a secondary emergency ingresslegress OR, the Board of County Commissioners, at their discretion, may choose to grant a variance of the required improvement standard. Proximitv to schools. police and (ire protection. and emergencv medical services. When applying for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant is required to demonstrate that schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services will be available to this development. [+1-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS demonstrated 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, and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. With Preliminary Plan, either the applicant must provide a secondary point of ingresslegress or, the Board of County Commissioners, at their discretion, may choose to grant a variance from the required secondary access. Also, approval of a 1041 permit application for a major extension of existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems and efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects MUST be obtained prior to Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-ofway, 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. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations require dual points of ingress/egress. The Applicant has provided written acceptance of the singular access point from the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Ambulance District. With Preliminary Plan, the applicant for this proposal shall provide a secondary emergency ingress/egress OR, the Board of County Commissioners, at their discretion, may choose to grant a variance of required improvement standard. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts 42 07-09-2002 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 Applicant has not adequately demonstrated that these standards can be satisfied on a sketch plan level. As pointed out in the comments of the Eagle County Engineering Department, Section 4- 620J.l.h of the Land Use Regulations requires two points of access to the public road system. The Heritage Park Sketch Plan has only one point of access. Unless a secondary point of access is provided, the Applicant must request a variance from the Improvement Standards to allow the singular access point. The Applicant has obtained written consent from the Fire and Ambulance Districts indicating that the one proposed access will be adequate in times of emergency. Prior to Preliminary Plan approval, the applicant must either provide a secondary point of access to the site or, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance for the Improvement Standard to allow the singular point of access. When applying for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant is required to demonstrate that all other applicable standards of this Section regarding Improvements will be satisfied for this development. [+1-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles. (d) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The subject property is bordered on three sides by the Homestead PUD, and on one side by the Green Ranch PUD. As detailed in the Summary section ofthis report (Page 1), the gross density ofthe Green Ranch PUD is substantially lower than that of this Sketch Plan proposal. The lot sizes proposed for Heritage Park are larger than the Homestead lots on its border, however, the gross numerical density of Homestead, inclusive ofthe Homestead Open Space PUD, is equal to 1.1 dwelling units per acre. The approximate net density or, visual density of the portion of Homestead Filing 1 that exists along and adjacent to Allen Circle is approximately 2.55 units per acre. The revised Sketch Plan offers a lower density than that of the surrounding Homestead neighborhood and provides a logical transition to the Green Ranch property. The finding for this standard requires that the development proposed be compatible with the character ofthe land uses that surround the subject site. The development as proposed should not adversely compromise the character of the Edwards community. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the gross density of surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the subject site. The net or visual density proposed with Heritage Park IS consistent with the adjacent homestead development. 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 43 07-09-2002 master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Qualitv Recreation Housing Services Conformance x x x x x Non x Conformance Mixed x Conformance Not Applicable EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN The Sketch Plan does not conform to the Eagle County Master Plan in regards to the Affordable Housing component. The Eagle County Housing Department determined that the application does not sufficiently address the stated policies for Local Resident Housing. (Page 48 of the Plan) The Master Plan discourages building urban style roads in mountainous terrain. This proposal will entail an extension of existing urban style roads. (Page 50 of the Plan) The FLUM identifies the subject property as appropriate for community center development. Residential development in the Community Center is expected to be relatively high density in the range of 3 to 12 dwelling units per acre. (The proposed gross density of 2.1 units per acre is below the low end of the recommended spectrum.) 1985 EDWARDS SUB-AREA PLAN Development Economy Housing Circulation Recreation Concepts Conformance x x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x Applicable The 1985 Edwards Sub-Area Plan is the applicable sub-area plan to this application. It offers the following: "The main development and the central community focus should occur at the Edwards Commercial Center. Development densities should diminish from high density to rural along the transportation corridor away from this community center." The Allen Parcel is on the inner edge ofthe community center. The Edwards Area map identifies the site as appropriate for medium density residential development. The Plan further indicates that medium density may accommodate single family residential, duplex or primaryl secondary development. The Plan does not define 'medium 44 07-09-2002 density', however, the fact that duplexes are included as appropriate medium density development, seems to imply that 'medium density' would be included in the FLUM's recommended density range of 3 to 12 dulacre. The proposed gross density is 2.3 units per acre. With regard to housing, the Edward's Plan recommends that, "the housing character should orient toward residential development and not the passing tourist". Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance x x x x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x Applicable EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Eagle River Watershed Plan At Preliminary Plan, the developer will be responsible for demonstrating how pre and post- construction onsite storm water management and erosion control techniques will be employed to minimize negative impacts upon both the watershed and the Eagle River. Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan. The application does not conform with the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan in that the following policies apply to this application and have not been satisfactorily resolved: Local resident home ownership should be facilitated; Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line; New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage for each ofthe three income categories of local residents, including the low and middle categories. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. [+1-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] As submitted, the PUD Sketch Plan IS NOT consistent with all of the guiding policies ofthe Master Plans, and 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 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. The applicant has sufficiently addressed the phasing concept for this project. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS been considered for this proposed development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every 45 07-09-2002 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. (b) 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. (c) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (d) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (e) 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. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Eagle County Engineer The engineer had numerous comments regarding traffic impacts, but is satisfied with the information submitted related to traffic. Eagle County Environmental Health Environmental Health has comments about 1041 requirements, landscaping, and storm water detention. Eagle County Road & Bridge Questioned whether the width of the proposal's access off of Allen Circle is adequate. Eagle County School District RE 50J The school district has attached comments regarding the cash in lieu of land dedication requirements. Colorado Geological Survey 46 07-09-2002 The comments of the Colorado Geological Survey regarding site suitability and potential hazards are attached. Colorado Division of Wildlife The comments of the Division of Wildlife are attached. Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources The Division of Water Resources has comments on necessary reports for this type of application. Holy Cross Electric The proposed development is within a certified service area of Holy Cross Energy. Their response letter is attached as well. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments NWCOG has numerous comments on storm water management which are attached. Homestead Owners Board of Directors Letter of opposition attached to this report. The referral agencies that responded to this application are indicated above and their specific comments are attached. It is expected that additional responses will continue to be received. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate the manner in which the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+1-] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13) The PUD DOES NOT fully demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. 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)] [+1-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) As submitted, the PUD Sketch Plan IS NOT consistent with all of the guiding policies ofthe Master Plans, and 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 (Covered above) Article 4, Site Development Standards [ +] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) The Applicant has not provided a Comprehensive Parking Plan for this proposed PUD. Consequently, the provisions of the Land Use Regulations would be applicable. Given the proposed uses and density, there appears to be no reason why the requirements of the Land Use Regulations can not be satisfied at Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) The Landscaping Design Standards provide that landscaping in a PUD shall be provided in a manner which is most consistent with the character planned for the development and the unique ecosystem and specific environment in which the development is located. The Standards go on to indicate that for developments that contain lots larger than two (2) acres, "landscaping should include 47 07-09-2002 preservation or replacement of existing trees, shrubs and ground cover and re-vegetation of areas that are disturbed by development." Given this Design Standard, the nature and density of the proposed use on the site and in the surrounding areas is such that buffering within or around the perimeter ofthe PUD may be crucial. The Applicant has clearly demonstrated what areas will be disturbed and how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will be preserved, replaced or the areas otherwise re-vegetated. The Applicant is required to provide such information as part of the detailed landscaping plan provided with the Preliminary Plan application. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Signs are proposed for the development. To the extent that signs are used, it is reasonable to expect that they can conform to this Division ofthe Land Use Regulations. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified at the writing of this staff report regarding wildlife. Any conflicts subsequently identified are required to be addressed at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - Incorporation of the recommendations made by CGS should be reflected in the application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) had not responded with comments by the time this report was written. Any recommendations from the CSFS should be incorporated into the application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - No wood burning devices are proposed. [n/a] Ridge line Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not within a designated ridge line area as depicted on the Ridge line Protection Map. [ +] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - An "Ecological Assessment" has been provided with the Sketch Plan Application. The Applicant has been advised that if significant environmental issues are subsequently identified, a more extensive EIR will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [nla] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) The proposed development includes no commercial or industrial uses. These commercial and industrial standards do not apply. [+1-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) Not all ofthe Improvement Standards have been demonstrated as being met by the applicant. [-] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - Internal circulation is proposed to be provided by two short cul-de-sacs. Standards applicable to the access are provided in Section 4-620.J.h., Access Approaches and Driveways. The Land Use Regulations require that "The applicant shall be required to provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shalf be a secondary emergency ingress/egress from any development. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles." As such, the applicant for this proposal shall provide a secondary emergency ingresslegress OR, the Board of County Commissioners, at their discretion, may choose to grant a variance of required improvement standard. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Applicant will need to address the comments of ECO Trails at the Preliminary Plan stage. [ +] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - The Applicant is required to demonstrate, at the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval, the extent to which the standards of this Section are applicable and how they will be met. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - These standards are intended to minimize the likelihood and extent of flooding and environmental damage from uncontrolled urban runoff. The 48 07 -09-2002 Applicant has submitted a drainage plan and will comply with the engineering comments at preliminary plan. [ +] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The Applicant addressed aspects ofthe standards pertaining to grading and erosion control. The Applicant is required to demonstrate at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [ +] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - It does not appear that the Applicant will have particular difficulty in meeting these standards, however, the Applicant is required to demonstrate at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [ +] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - Potable water is proposed to be provided by the Edwards Metro district. The Applicant has demonstrated the availability of this service. The Applicant is also required to provide a fire fighting water supply, fire hydrants and fire fighting system within the development, as required by the local Fire Protection District. [ +] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sanitary Sewage Disposal is to be provided by Eagle River Sanitation. The Applicant is required to demonstrate at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Road Impact Fees will be applied to all new traffic generating development. The appropriate Eagle County School District has determined the proper fee in lieu of land dedication and it is outlined in their referral comments (attached). [+1-] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the proposed PUD 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 Ea~le County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. The Applicant is required to demonstrate fully at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] 49 07-09-2002 The property proposed to be developed IS suitable for development, considering its proximity to other similar developments and public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The subject property is bordered on three sides by the Homestead PUD, and on one side by the Green Ranch PUD. As detailed in the Summary section of this report (Page 1), the gross density of the Green Ranch PUD is substantially lower than that of this Sketch Plan proposal. The lot sizes proposed for Heritage Park are larger than the Homestead lots on its border, however, the gross numerical density of Homestead, inclusive of the Homestead Open Space PUD, is equal to 1.1 dwelling units per acre. The approximate net density or, visual density ofthe portion of Homestead Filing 1 that exists along and adjacent to Allen Circle is approximately 2.55 units per acre. The revised Sketch Plan offers a lower density than that of the surrounding Homestead neighborhood and provides a logical transition to the Green Ranch property. The finding for this standard requires that the development proposed be compatible with the character of the land uses that surround the subject site. The development as proposed should not adversely compromise the character of the Edwards community. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the gross density of surrounding land uses in all directions from the subject site. The net or visual density proposed with heritage park IS consistent with the adjacent Homestead development. 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." The Applicant has submitted a draft PUD Guide. It appears that the proposed land use restrictions in the draft PUD Guide can be fully met at Preliminary Plan. More important is the use of a Planned Unit Development for what is being proposed. The purpose of a Planned Unit Development zone district, as provided in Section 5-240.A., Purpose, is: to permit variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations. This Section further states that this purpose is to be achieved through the application of performance standards that: i. Permit integration of uses; ii. Establish more efficient land use patterns; iii. Preserve lands; iv. Maintain water quality and quantity; v. Contribute to trails system; vi. Establish incentives for affordable housing; and vii. Be consistent with the Master Plan. Staff has looked for indications that one or more of these performance standards are being served by such techniques such as clustering of building sites, protecting open space and/or view corridors, or some other benefit which justifies use ofPUD zoning. The rationale presented by the Applicant notwithstanding, it appears that the proposed development does create a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations. Further, there does appear to be a creative use of the performance standards listed above in the Sketch Plan as presented. [+] FINDING: PUD Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] 50 07-09-2002 Applicant has submitted a PUD guide that DOES demonstrate that the requirements of this Section can be fully met at Preliminary Plan. The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the purposes of PUD zoning are being served by the proposed development. Requirements for a Zone Chan~e It has been recommended by the Eagle County Attorney that these considerations be reviewed at PUD Sketch Plan, even though zone changes are neither granted for a PUD at Sketch Plan nor may they be "formal" findings. It is almost impossible to avoid confronting these requirements at this stage since they are fundamental to the location's appropriateness of the proposed land use in the first place, and must be found at Preliminary Plan. Staff, therefore provides a list of criteria which must be met for a zone change, pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards. for amendment to the Official Zone District Map: (1) Consistency With Master Plan. (2) Compatible with surrounding uses. (3) Changed conditions. (4) Effect on natural environment. (5) Community need. (6) Development patterns. (7) Public interest. Mr. Narracci explained today's topics of discussion as water, proposed height versus maximum height of the Homestead Covenants, pricing within the proposed development, trail connectivity both within and outside the development, landscaping both within and around the proposed development, discussion regarding access and restrictions of construction times within the development. He stated he received three letters, two in opposition and one from Mr. Boni indicating additional conditions 1 requirements they are willing to comply with. Terrill Knight introduced himself, Tom Boni, Michael Sheldon, Jim Guida and David Leighe. Mr. Leighe, T.D.A. Colorado, Inc., introduced himself and his company. He stated they did the traffic analysis on this development. He stated the Allen Circle capacity which will have two entrances and will be a local street. He stated this is a County street and according to regulations should not have more than 750 vehicle per day. He stated it is residential with single family homes. He stated when they add all of the Heritage traffic they will only be at 54% capacity or half of the County's qualitative level. Next he spoke to the functioning of intersections. He stated with their additional traffic, the intersections, peak times, they are still staying at level of service A. He explained what that is and with additional traffic they will still stay in the range oflevel A. He suggested people will not experience a significant change. He spoke then to Safety Issues. The two-lane road width is what Allen Circle now has. He explained it is all destination traffic and is all residential. He stated the two-lane roadway will be fine. He stated the new construction will be within the County standards. He stated the roadway out of Heritage Park will be a down grade of 8%. Width and profile will all be to County Standards. He stated when they look at that, they look at a case by case basis. He stated they would like to see a six foot clearance on either side making a thirty six foot wide width. From a single access point road it is not a volume issue but that it is designed in such a way they can work around potential situations. The Spur Road,lUS 6 improvements, he stated there have been a number of studies and this development will add less than 1 % to the overall traffic. He stated it is pretty hard to run an analysis on such a minor impact. He spoke to the CDOT corridor study that is going on now. He stated that will include what is going on here. He stated they will look at the whole stretch of Highway 6. He stated when they did their report they used the ITE trip generation rates. He then spoke to the pedestrian enhancements. He stated there will be roadwaylpedestrian enhancements that will allow for better circulation to Edwards Village Blvd and to the school. Some of the pedestrian connections will give those who wish to walk a greater and safer opportunity to do so. Commissioner Stone referred to the slide and asked if all of the pedestrian pathways are currently 51 07 -09-2002 m. Mr. Boni stated they are not. He stated the ones on the site are planned. The extension ofthe path from the development to the school is not there. He stated there was an anticipated connection but he does not believe they are there. He stated they would be working with the Homestead Homeowners Association to build the paths. Commissioner Stone questioned them working together. Mr. Boni stated the Homeowners Association will be the lead entity. He showed the connection on the hillside and they would need permission to construct on either side. He stated the existing trails in Homestead have been built in the open space. He showed two connections in green which are general locations of existing trails. He further explained the roadways and pathways. Commissioner Stone asked which paths would they propose that the applicant would have a financial involvement. Mr. Boni stated their commitment at this time is to provide a sidewalk along the north side of Allen Circle and a pedestrian trail through the open space which extends along the exterior of the property. He stated they would once again have need for the Homeowners Association permission. Commissioner Stone asked if they got permission would they be willing to pay for the construction in full. He asked what they would construct the path of. Mr. Boni stated they are considering a soft path and not pavement due to the grades. Chairman Gallagher stated they are going to have a period of public comment today and that those who wish who wish to speak must sign up accordingly. He asked that when they come up for public comment that they address only new issues. Mr. Boni asked to read the letter they submitted to Mr. Narracci this morning. He showed the westerly lots visible from the west side of the property. He spoke to the four lots they have added where they agreed to add ten, 2) enclose the underside of decks larger that 100 square feet construction along the north side of the homes, 3) they will prohibit the construction of an unbroken vertical three story facade on the northern side of these homes. Taken together these commitments will soften the homes on the north side of the property. Chairman Gallagher asked for clarification and ifthey are planting six trees per home. Mr. Boni stated six trees per home. He stated with regards to building height, the PUD guide allows for 35 feet and in special circumstances with a variance. He explained the roofs may be steeper. He requested that Heritage Homes be allowed a building height of 35 feet using architectural and landscape measures to soften the impact. They would like to show that at preliminary plan. He spoke to pricing and construction maintenance. Jim Guida stated pricing for the homes on the east cul-de-sac are expected to be approximately $600,000. The inner facing lots may average 10% to 15% higher. Lots ofthe west cul-de-sac will be larger and most likely they will be $800,000. He stated in construction management and general maintenance he put together the following: 1) All streets in Heritage Park will be paved prior to vertical construction 2) A sidewalk along Allen Circle will be constructed prior to vertical construction 3) The park will be developed prior to construction and will include the definitive boundary along with tree planting along neighboring properties 4) The inter-connecting trails will be developed and access to Edwards Commercial Center and the Edwards School will be established prior to construction 5) Construction access, during the school session they will be restricted from 7:00 a.m. and 7:45 a.m. Heavy construction of any kind will be prohibited on Sundays. The home construction schedule is to begin the summer of 2003 with units on the market in the spring of 2004. They intend to build three to five homes per year. Construction will be scheduled so that each trade can be completed ineconcession. He stated he'll commit to a monthly update newsletter to all homeowners along Allen Circle. 52 07-09-2002 Chairman Gallagher asked about afternoon hours and the school. Mr. Guida suggested it would be quite prohibitive to regulate the afternoon hours. He suggested that 7;00 would be a target for off hours. Chairman Gallagher asked about construction hours. Mr. Guida stated he would commit to 7:00 a.m. and no later than 6:00 p.m. He read a statement about their intent to build according to the Green Approach of construction. Mr. Boni spoke to the landscaping and open space. He showed a schematic. He spoke to a twenty foot rear set back, but in fact they are set back at a greater distance still with a 20 foot setback on the front of the property. He stated they will be landscaping the rear ofthe property. For illustration purposes he showed two homes of about 2,400 square feet on two adjacent lots in Homestead. He stated this provides a buffer of 105 to 115 feet between the two buildings and gives a sense of the landscaping that can be done. Mr. Boni stated what they have in this application in regards to density and design they find it to be compatible with the neighborhood and it complies with the Eagle County Master Plan and the Edwards Sub Area Plan. He stated density is right to put in development centers. He stated if a project is designed carefully and the resources are taken into consideration and preserved, with Heritage Park they have compromised with their density. They are at the lower end at 2.1 dwelling units per acre. They have continued to work with the neighborhood to be a good neighbor. He stated when you average the lots created in Homestead, their lots are larger than those lots by 12 to 13 %. They are creating 1.7 acres of usable space most which is located between themselves and Homestead. He suggested they have gone three steps forward to meet every reasonable request. This is smart in-fill development. He showed some of the cul-de-sacs within Homestead as well as some in Eagle that have higher density on the roads. He summarized by saying there are very many neighborhoods that have more units passing in front of their homes. He suggested that those are considered to be safe and reasonable neighborhoods. Commissioner Stone asked how the site will be supplied with water. Mr. Guida stated the original developer stubbed an eight inch water line into Tract B. The sewer runs on their side of the street. Commissioner Stone asked if they have a commitment to serve? Mr. Guida stated the commitment to serve sewer has already come through. They intend by preliminary plan to have the commitment to serve water from the Edwards Metropolitan District. Commissioner Stone suggested Ralph Davis questioned where they are going to get the water during the construction phase. He spoke to the concerns among members ofthe Water Authority in relation to providing water to the Berry Creek site. Payment in lieu for water would not be allowed. Michael Sheldon stated this development comes with one cubic foot per second on the Creamery Gulch Ditch, senior water rights which will be turned over to the District. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Stephen Richards, an architect in the valley, stated he has had some land planning experience and since that time he has had continuing education. He suggested that the County has been trying to deal with urban sprawl and subdivisions. He explained that this is an appropriate means of development. He spoke to his location at the end of Eagle. He stated the people who bought there bought understanding that there might be development. He explained this will provide many positive opportunities. He stated in general he is in favor of approval. Mike Layman, area resident, asked the Commissioners to recall many of the points he made in opposition. He spoke to the additional signatures he has, the letters sent to Mr. Narracci and the faxes and e-mails. He stated as far as the height is concerned, he is unaware of any variances granted in or around this area. The fact this is on a plateau, he is concerned they will encroach the area. He suggested there is no need for homes of this caliber in this area. He spoke to the access and the home counts. He stated the home counts on the other streets were zoned that way. Those owners knew what the trafficowas going to be on the streets. He asked the Board agree with the Planning Commission and make a 53 07 -09-2002 unanimous denial. Michael Guida, the developer's brother, stated he believes the development speaks for itself as does the developer. He believes that his brother will follow through on all that he is committing to in this proj ect. He referred to a letter that indicated that those in favor have something to gain. He suggested that those who are opposed have something to gain by not having it built. He stated he believes this is a quality project and there is a need for this housing in this community. Nancy Kirby, a resident of Allen Circle, questioned if alternate access had been requested at the last hearing. She suggested one of the big selling points they are making is pedestrian access. She does not see heavy use ofthe paths they have now. Bottom line is people will drive ifthey can. She implored the Board to do the right thing and listen to the public. Ralph Davis, area resident, stated his concerns are truly with the water. He stated this is a concern not so much ofthe developer but of the Planning Commission and all who live here. He spoke to Creamery Ditch senior water rights which exist at 1.2 cubic feet. He referred to a statement that water rights are wonderful, but what do you do if there isn't any water. He suggested there has been no criticism about this not being a quality proj ect. He is concerned about the number of those who oppose the project as compared to those who support it. He suggested those who are in favor seem to be those who will benefit by the project be it real estate developers or construction people. Jeannie Huff, manager of the Homestead Homeowners Association, stated she takes exception with the traffic experts who imply what will or won't be noticed. She stated she notices everything. She spoke to the development of Homestead and the clustering of development. She stated the density issue is key and having managed Homestead for seventeen years she takes exception. She spoke to the removal of the walkways, ravines, tot lots, club, etc, is not fair. She stated ifthere is plenty of water there, why do they have restrictions. She stated the Planning Commission has been unanimously opposed to this as is the constituency. She stated the Homestead PUD has limited use and there is no secondary access. Harris Burch, area resident, stated he is here to express his opposition. As far as a need for this project, as of today there are 11 homes on the market under $700,000. He asked the Board listen to the community. Chuck Harrison, a resident of Homestead, stated he thinks the developer has done an incredible job in listening to the public. He would like to express his support for the project. John Cole, area resident, stated he has heard that there is need for this project. He suggested they would be better served by not trying to guess what the best needs are for the community. Jim is a builder and he needs to make money, the engineer needs money, the builder also needs money, the real estate agents also need money. People have a need to live in nice neighborhoods just as real estate agents have a need to sell units. The most obvious reason for the support of denial from the Homestead Homeowners Association is this is the only property that is not part of the Homeowners Association. Heritage is not a project on the outskirts of Homestead but right in the middle of it. He stated they can complain about traffic but the biggest complaint is about property valuations, in other words, money. He stated he is speaking today because of his children. Currently Allen Circle is a quite street and with this project safety is an issue. It should be noted that Fred Green spoke in defense ofthis project. He stated Homestead is not an up-scale area. It appears there are a lot of homes on the real estate market currently so why approve a project that will add more to that market. He urged the Board to deny this project. Craig Forbes, a real estate broker, stated he specializes in units in Beaver Creek. He stated he believes this is a good plan and it is not overly dense. He is surprised by the Planning Commissions recommendation to deny based on density. He doesn't quite get that. He suggested the traffic is not a significant increase. He spoke to the need for this project. He suggested the County has grown considerably and he doesn't understand how twenty-four more homes that are in in-fill can be a bad thing. Glen Ewing, an Eagle resident, stated he was on the Planning Commission for six years, the 54 07-09-2002 Town Council for ten years and a resident of the valley for fifty years next week. He spoke to the small percentage of private land in Eagle County and that it needs to be used thoughtfully. He has known the builder for twelve years and considers him to be a solid developer with good ideas. He urged the Board to approve the project. Hubert Peterson, area resident, stated he served time on the Planning Commission in this County for years. Things haven't changed much as there is a lot of not in my backyard. He has been here since 1932. He stated he lives down under the development were The Reserve is. He feels at the time that Mr. Allen set this property aside, it was about the same time he did the same thing. He has never met the developer, but has no problem with the development. Kent Meyers, area resident, stated he has no interest in this project. The only thing he would like to point out is that he has known Jim Guida for twelve years, he does what he says he is going to do and exceeds his client's expectations. He urged the Board to support the project. Eve Trumpfore stated she was a homeowner in Homestead previously, and spoke to the vacant land and how those who bought on Allen Circle did so knowing that it would ultimately be developed. She stated she has known Mr. Guida and believes he will do a good job. She stated she is in favor of the proposal. Todd Moore, a resident of Allen Circle for thirteen years, spoke to the nice quiet neighborhood in which they live. He spoke to walking around the Allen parcel and how it will work. He just doesn't believe it will work and he is opposed to the project. David Desbow, an engineer in the Valley and a Homestead homeowner, suggested that so much of the presentation is focused on traffic. He stated as an engineer it seems completely reasonable to him to do what Mr. Guida is wanting to do. He thinks it is a fair plan and is in favor of the project. Jim Green, area resident, stated he spoke to the beautiful quality ofthe land and his concern is the density. The question is if 24 units in such a beautiful and prominent location are needed. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. He asked if the applicant had a response. Michael Sheldon spoke to the additional access issues. He was involved with the Allen family, the Homestead Homeowners Association and Bobby Warner. He spoke to the Upper 80 that the Allen's owned. He stated he represented Arrowhead in the zoning of Arrowhead. He stated many locations function effectively with only one access. He asked Mr. Guida ifhe would consider finding an emergency access point. Mr. Guida has committed to provide an easement from the cul-du-sac to the west onto Fred Green's property. He suggested they would perhaps commit to an emergency exit onto Lake Creek Road. He stated the Allen's did not voluntarily give up their access to Lake Creek. He suggested they were advised by their attorney to settle rather than to litigate. Mr. Guida has asked Mr. Sheldon to meet with neighbors over the last several months and he has done that. Some meetings were attended and some were not. He believes that Mr. Guida has made a sincere good faith effort to compromise with the neighbors in reducing the density and buffering the property. They have made efforts and he believes this is a high quality plan. He suggested some of the neighbors may never be satisfied. He suggested that he has no other options for easements. They will provide it to the extent they can and hope that Mr. Green will continue the plan through his property. He suggested that the Homeowners Association does not have any desire to give the applicant an easement. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the accesslegress options. He stated he looked at the various options. The access off of Lake Creek was traded away. He stated he doesn't have a problem with the density or with the in-fill. He sees blocks of open space elsewhere that appear to be so on purpose. He stated he does have trouble with access. He spoke to raising his children in Minturn. He is particularly concerned about the construction traffic. He suggested that the primary access might be elsewhere and the secondary access be from Allen Circle. He stated the second access is not only to get emergency vehicles in but to get property owners out. He stated he can't speak to Mr. Green's property. He suggested the primary access should come from Lake Creek Road. Mr. Sheldon stated they can set the idea of an easement and they can provide a breakaway access 55 07-09-2002 from the end of the cul-du-sac. They will make the commitment on the record they will provide that as the last planning file necessitates the agreement with future developers. He referred to the agreement signed by Bobby Warner and that this access off of Allen Circle was going to be the access point. He stated Tract B was dedicated for that purpose. He stated they would like to have a secondary access and will commit to do what they can. Commissioner Stone stated this is a difficult file because on the one hand it appears to qualify for smart growth. He suggested the loose definition of smart growth is okay until it is in his backyard. He stated he can certainly understand the position of those who live on Allen Circle. He stated he can see both sides of the equation. Ultimately, he would like to discuss the overall density of Homestead. He suggested that Woodland Hills was just approved for preliminary plan. He reminded people that this is sketch plan approval only at this point in time. He suggested it could be approved with challenges to meet before preliminary plan. He spoke to Woodland Hills which just got approved for 76 units which is a density of 8.63 units per acre. He stated he voted against that. His reasoning at the time was it was outside the acceptable density. At 2.1, smart growth advocates would argue that this makes sense. He asked about the zoning on the other Allen parcel. Mr. Sheldon stated with the Board of Directors ofthe Homestead Homeowners Association they agreed there would be access to the Upper 80. He suggested in talking about the overall density, the neighbors have said they can live with twelve and not twenty-four units. Commissioner Stone asked what the reasoning was behind the twelve in lieu of twenty four. Mr. Sheldon stated they have gone from 44 units to 24, but the neighbors have said they can live with twelve. Jeannie Huff stated she was involved in those meetings and with the other parcel. She stated the twelve units were to be considered commencerate with Homestead. They are at 1 unit per acre. Commissioner Stone suggested the home sites on Allen Circle are certainly not 1 unit per acre. He spoke to the gross density vs. the net density. He suggested the piece of property is approximately 12 acres and so they are looking at 1 unit per acre. Ms. Huff suggested that they should be buying the open space as those in Homestead have done. Commissioner Stone stated he is trying to look at a solution that would combine the two Allen parcels together. The dispute seems to be over twelve units. He stated he is concerned like on the previous file they heard today and reminded Commissioner Gallagher that he approved 76 units on a single access. He suggested they look at reducing the density on the two parcels combined together. He suggested this is 11 acres with twenty units there. He suggested they look at seeing if the Allen's would consider 8 units on the upper parcel. Mr. Sheldon requested a five minute recess on that question. He stated he does have the authority that they will make the concession to reduce the density on the Upper 80 by twelve units and they will provide the documentation prior to preliminary plan. Commissioner Stone stated that does still not solve the issue of Allen Circle and that any amount of additional traffic is additional traffic. Chairman Gallagher asked if they can show the access point to the Upper 80. Mr. Sheldon stated this would reduce the twelve units down Homestead Road. Chairman Gallagher asked where the Upper 80 is. Ms. Huff showed it is Russell Trail to Gold Dust Drive to Homestead Drive to Edwards Village Blvd and to the light. Chairman Gallagher asked if this is the potential development that may have something to do with the secondary access. Mr. Sheldon stated it is not. He stated in addition to this he can make an easement from their boundary to the west. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment only as it relates to density. Michael Cacioppo, resident of Homestead, asked if they have this access that they are trying to 56 07-09-2002 work out with Fred Green. Mr. Sheldon stated in addition to the access, they are offering an emergency easement that would drop down to the south and intersect the Green property boundary. Mr. Cacioppo asked about the dead end driveway on the Gulch and if it is a private driveway. Ms. Huff stated it is and is owned by the Homestead Homeowners Association. Mr. Cacioppo suggested if you were to take a right down the gulch there is nothing there. He questioned ifthat was the area that was given up some years ago. He asked why the County doesn't condemn a section of the land back to Lake Creek Road. Commissioner Stone stated he thinks it is a great idea, but he is reluctant to condemn private property. He suggested the largest group in opposition is the Homeowners Association and they could in fact help solve this situation. He suggested if the Homeowner's Association is unwilling to discuss a second access, he is not interested in condemning the property. Mr. Cacioppo asked if Homestead Homeowners Association owns property with access to Lake Creek Road. Ms. Huff stated they do. Mr. Cacioppo suggested either the County can condemn whoever's access and design it is so that Heritage Park could never get into Homestead except for an emergency access. He suggested that could solve the issue. Mr. Sheldon stated that Terrill Knight has just advised them that the Green property has been presented to the Planning Commission. He stated he is not advocating condemnation of anyone's private property. He spoke to the legal access to Tract B and an 8 inch water line was stubbed in. They think that they have made their case and that there should be an approval. He stated they can provide the easement for another access and the Board can deal with it as they wish. He stated they would like to proceed. It has been fifteen months that they have been working with the neighbors in trying to find resolution. Ms. Huff stated regarding the Allen Upper 80 and the density of twenty units. She suggested it is currently zoned for 1 unit per 35 acres. She stated it is her recollection that the Homeowners agreed not to fight density of 20 units or less. She suggested they would be taking away the property rights of the owners. She stated the Homeowners Association have always stood on the one unit per acre. The access was for the zoning at the time. She suggested whether Jim Guida can do this development or not it is not what they are fighting about. The twenty-four units is what the fight is all about. Kraig Forbes stated the density of one acre per unit at Homestead is somewhat irrelevant. He suggested the density immediately surrounding this neighborhood is greater than what is being proposed. Chairman Gallagher suggested they are discussing the subject of density for this particular location. Mike Layman stated when you take away the open space that is near by, there is not a valid comparison. He stated they have suggested alternative accesses for Mr. Guida and not once have they ever asked or suggested they should use Homestead property for access. He stated Mr. Guida has never questioned Fred Green and suggested that there is no way Fred Green would allow them through his property. Commissioner Stone withdrew his idea of reducing the access in the Upper 80. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. PDS-00031, Heritage Park PUD Sketch Plan, incorporating staff findings and with the following conditions: 1. Prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan, the applicant must either provide a secondary point of ingresslegress OR, a Variance from the Improvement Standard (VIS) that requires dual access points must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2. Prior to Preliminary Plan application, site-specific geo-technical investigations and an erosion control plan must be provided pursuant to the Colorado Geologic Survey (dated December 18th, 2001). 3. Prior to Preliminary Plan application, a report documenting the amount of water which can be 57 07-09-2002 supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights must be provided pursuant to comments from the Office ofthe State Engineer dated December 10th, 2001. 4. Eagle County School District RE 50J has determined the acceptable cash in lieu ofland payment for this subdivision to be $22,317.75, which will be due at Final Plat. 5. Prior to Preliminary Plan approval, a 1041 application for major extensions of existing water and sewage treatment systems and efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects must be approved by the Eagle County Permit Authority pursuant to the Environmental Health Department Memorandum dated December 17th, 2001. 6. Prior to Preliminary Plan application, wood burning devices are to be prohibited from this development, and; a storm water detention plan designed with NWCCOG's water quality standards for treating pre-construction and post-construction storm water runoffto reduce sediment transportation must be provided pursuant to the Environmental Health Department Memorandum dated December 17th, 2001. 7. Prior to Preliminary Plan application, Environmental Health's recommendation regarding the landscape plan must be addressed. 8. Prior to Preliminary Plan application all of the recommendations made by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments in their letter of December 11,2001 must be addressed. 9. Prior to Preliminary Plan application, all comments of the Road & Bridge Department regarding incorporation of a Weed Management Plan into the Landscaping Plan need to be addressed. 10. Prior to Preliminary Plan application the recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife as set forth in their letter dated December 10th, 2001, stated that plans and proper methods dealing with trash, compost, pets, and feeders must be incorporated. 11. Prior to Preliminary Plan application the comments from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, dated December 26, 2001, must be adhered to and addressed. 12. The applicant must sufficiently address the findings identified by the Eagle County Housing Department in regards to the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan and pending regulations. 13. Except as otherwise modified by this application, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Menconi stated he is in agreement with the Planning Commission with the lack of community need. He spoke to the 1,000 units approved in the Edwards area which have not yet been built. Commissioner Stone stated that this is exactly the opposite of how Commissioner Menconi voted on Woodland Hills today. Commissioner Menconi suggested that the comparison of the two is the type of home available. He suggested these are being suggested at a price of $700,000 where the Woodland Hills proposal is for two bedrooms, two baths in the $200,000 range. Chairman Gallagher suggested to the applicant, the first condition is his highest priority and he is not inclined to grant a variance. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. Commissioners Gallagher and Stone voting aye, Commissioner Menconi voting no. . 58 07-09-2002 Eagle Valley Park & Recreation District Service Plan Tom Moorhead stated that earlier today he recommended that Item 5 be readdressed and that the Board consider acknowledging receipt of the plan and forward it to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stone moved to acknowledge receipt of the Service Plan for the Eagle Valley Park and Recreation District and refer this matter to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Menconi 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 23, 2002. Attest: Clerk to the Boar 59 07-09-2002