HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/30/2002
PUBLIC HEARING
JULY 30, 2002
Present:
Michael Gallagher
Am Menconi
Tom Stone
Torn 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 matter before the Board was an Executive Session.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn into an Executive Session for the purposes of receiving
legal advice on specific legal questions and developing strategy for negotiations relating to management
of Mountain Glen Village which is an appropriate topic pursuant to C.RS. 24-6-402(4)(b) & (e), and
discussion of a personnel issue, which is an appropriate topic pursuant to C.RS. 24-6-402(4)(f).
Commissioner Menconi 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 week of July 29,2002, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of July 2,
2002
C) Resolution 2002-097, Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty
Period for Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 18
D) Resolution 2002-098, Final Release of Collateral and Termination fo the Warranty
Period for Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 30
E) Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization
F) Holy Cross Energy Underground Right-of-Way Easement for Berry Creek 5th Filing
G) Contract with the Colorado Department of Public Health for Tuberculosis Direct
Observed Therapy
H) Agreement between the County of Eagle and Ed PF AB Construction for the
renovation of the Early Head Start Classroom at the Basalt Middle School
I) Agreement with the Family Visitor Program for Early Head Start
J) Lease Amendment between Eagle County and Moon Beam LLC, d/b/a Travel Vail
K) Holy Cross Letter Agreement for electrical service, extension along Valley Road to
Tract C Recreation Facility
L) Resolution, conferring Power of Attorney upon the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter
of Credit No. 361 in the amount of$108,592.83 for the account MRLD, LLC, drawn on Weststar Bank,
to expire on August I, 2002
M) Resolution, conferring Power of Attorney, upon Attorney's Office to draw on Letter
of Credit No. 838-2352, in the amount of$2,500.00 for the account of Jay E. Livran and Susan K.
1
07-30-2002
Livran for Road Cut Permit No. 2872, drawn on 1 st Bank of Avon, to expire August 4,2002
N) Resolution 2002-099, honoring Pete Seibert and his contributions to Eagle County
and the skiing community.
Chairman Gallagher asked if the Attorney's Office had comments with the Consent Agenda.
Torn Moorhead, County Attorney, stated item E, petitions to the BOE, needs to be pulled and
handled separately. He stated there is an amendment that is requested by the Assessor. He stated item L
and M have been satisfied and can be removed from the agenda.
Commissioner Stone requested item N, the Resolution honoring Pete Seibert be pulled and
handled separately.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, removing items Land
M as those have been satisfied. Item E and N shall be pulled and handled separately.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Item E, Petitions to the BOE
Tom Moorhead stated there is a change with one of the findings. There was a recommendation
from the hearing referee as to the property owned by Kevin and Jennifer Fight. The referee
recommended a total adjusted value of$2,568,039.00.
Bruce Stresinger, Attorney's Office, stated on the adjusted improvement value, the software used
in the Assessor's Office can not formulate a number that ends in a digit. The numbers must be rounded
off. He suggested the amount be adjusted to show the $39.00 as either $40.00 or $30.00.
Jon Harrison, Appraisal Coordinator, stated the Assessor's Office has no preference as to the
amounts.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the petitions to the BOE with the amendment to schedule
number, R017818, Kevin A. and Jennifer L Fight, rounding off the recommendation of the Hearing
Referee from $2,568,040.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Item N, Resolution 2002-099, recognizing Pete Seibert
Commissioner Stone stated the next matter is Resolution 2002-099, honoring Pete Seibert and
his contributions to Eagle County and the skiing community. He read the resolution for the record as
follows:
"Whereas, Pete Seibert joined the U.S. Army in 1943 and served in the 10th Mountain Division,
which is forever inexorably linked to the glorious history of Eagle County and this Great Nation; and
Whereas, Pete Seibert was a long time resident of Eagle County and great visionary; and
Whereas, Pete Seibert was a pioneer in the ski industry and through his vision, dedication,
inspiration and perseverance was instrumental in the founding of the Vail ski resort; and
Whereas, Eagle County is now home to Vail Mountain, which hosts 1.6 million skier days
annually, and also Beaver Creek which hosts 700,000 skier days annually; and
Whereas, Pete Seibert has had a profound influence on the lives of everyone who has lived in or
visited the Vail Valley.
Now, therefore be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners ofthe County of Eagle,
State of Colorado:
That, Eagle County honors Pete Seibert for his innumerable contributions to Eagle County and
the sport of skiing.
Moved, read and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State
of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 30th day of July, 2002."
2
07-30-2002
Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-099, honoring Pete Seibert.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Plat & Resolution Signing
Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's
consideration:
Resolution 2002-100, To Approve The Sketch Plan for Heritage Park Planned Unit
Development (Eagle County File No. PDS-00031). The Board considered the Applicant's request on
July 9th, 2002.
Commissioner Menconi asked about the hearing in July and the resolution presented.
Mr. Simonton stated the proposed resolution recognizes the outcome of the meeting in July.
Mr. Moorhead stated this Resolution reflects that the motion for approval ofthe sketch plan was
already taken and the sketch plan approved. This resolution is the formal action of the Board. He stated
the vote by Commissioner Menconi in opposition to the proposal was recorded.
Commissioner Menconi asked if approval of the Resolution would confuse the issue.
Mr. Moorhead stated he has not had the issue previously.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-100, approval of the Sketch Plan for
Heritage Park PUD, file number PDS-00031.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as
the Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Consent Agenda
Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda for July 30, 2002
as follows:
A) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc.
Trappers Cabin
This is a managers registration for Steven Rose. Mr. Rose previously was
the manager at Inn at Beaver Creek, and previous to that was the manager
at Spruce Saddle. He is reported to be of good moral character.
B) Extended Family Stone LLC
The French Press
This is a renewal of a tavern license. This establishment is located in
Riverwalk in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances
during the past year.
C) CNSC, Inc.
Main Street Grill
This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is
located on Main Street in Riverwalk, Edwards. There have been no
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
D) Edwards Liquor Mart, Inc.
Riverwalk Wines and Spirits
This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is
located in Riverwalk next to Village Market. There have been no
3
07-30-2002
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
E) Mountain Musher, Inc.
Bond Liquor
This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is
located along Highway 131 in Bond. There have been no complaints or
disturbances during the past year.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for July 30,
2002, as presented.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
The Shortstop
Earlene Roach stated the owner of The Shortstop, Michael Stascavage, is present to submit his
alcohol management plan to the Board.
Michael Stascavage, applicant, brought up item number 7 on the stipulation previously signed by
himself. It states that while on duty he nor his employees may not consume alcohol. He stated as the
owner, he believes he is on duty 24 hours per day seven days per week.
The Board accepted the alcohol management plan and instructed staff to prepare a letter for Mr.
Stascavage describing on-duty and put a copy in the file.
Colorado White Water Association
Earlene Roach presented a special events permit for Colorado White Water Association for
August 16, 2002 from 4:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m., August 17, 2002 from noon to 1 :00 a.m. and August 18,
2002 from noon to 8:30 a.m., and will be held in the hay meadow at Rancho Del Rio.
This application is in order and all fees have been paid. This is a first time applicant in Eagle
County but has held events in Grand County. In speaking with Grand County, the first year this
applicant held the permit they did not control their boundaries too well however the second year, after
discussion with the local authority there, they controlled it very well. They have not had problems with
service to minors or over service.
Paul Teft, applicant, stated this event is a long running event in Gore Canyon. He stated they
have joined with a music festival and also do their awards ceremony.
Chairman Gallagher asked about their plan.
Mr. Teft stated they will be serving beer and cocktails. A security company has been contracted
who is out of Aspen. He stated they will have a minimum of 15 security people. He stated all servers
will be TIPS trained and everyone will be carded and banded. He stated the premises will have snow
fencing and utilize security for boundary control. He stated they will have an ambulance during the
white water race but do not plan one for the event. He hopes they have 1,000 people, including staff, per
day.
Chairman Gallagher stated he will require the applicant to speak with the ambulance district and
fire district to make them aware of the event.
Commissioner Stone asked about the perimeter fencing.
Mr. Teft stated it is ski fence and they will also monitor the boundary with security.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve a special events permit for Colorado White
Water Association for August 16, from 4:00 p.m. to 12:30 a.m. and August 17 from noon to 1 :00 a.m.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
4
07-30-2002
Piney River Ranch
Earlene Roach presented a transfer of ownership of hotel and restaurant license with optional
premises for D & L Ranches, Inc., d/b/a Piney River Ranch. She requested this matter be tabled to
August 20, 2002, as the premise was not posted.
Commissioner Stone moved the Board table the transfer of ownership of a hotel and restaurant
license with optional premises for D & L Ranches LLC, d/b/a Piney River Ranch to August 20, 2002.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene
as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
National Association of Counties Awards
Chairman Gallagher stated the next matter on the agenda was the National Association of
Counties Awards. The awards are as follows:
Best of Category Award
The Eagle County Down Payment Assistance Program
David Carter, Housing
Category; Community / Economic Development
Chairman Gallagher stated Eagle County is famous for its world class resorts, Vail and Beaver
Creek. However, these expensive vacation destinations have inflated local real estate prices beyond the
point of affordability for many local residents. As a result, the Eagle County Government developed its
Down Payment Assistance (DP A) Program to enable local residents and employees to realize the dream
of home ownership. Depending on their incomes, applicants can apply for up $20,000 towards a down
payment. Interest and principal payments are returned to the fund so that the program can one day
become self-sufficient. Contributions to the program are provided by local banks, realtors, governments
and the Colorado Division of Housing. From 1998 through 2001, the program enabled 67 households to
afford home ownership. The success ofthe program is made possible through the cooperative efforts of
Eagle County Government, banks, mortgage lenders and the Colorado Housing Assistance Corporation.
Achievement Awards
Masterpiece in Motion, an interactive CD-Rom
Jack Ingstad, County Administrator
Bill Lopez, Information Technologies
Category; Civic Education and Public Information
Eagle County wanted to develop a marketing product that could be easily updated and have a
long shelf life, unlike the static format of brochures and magazines where the entire publication is out of
date once information changes. Eagle County chose an innovative CD-Rom format because it offered
direct links into the County website, where specific information could be changed easily and often. It
also allowed for exciting video footage, which would showcase this resort county's spectacular scenery,
attracting visitors and reminding locals why they chose to live in Colorado's Ski Country. By doing
most of the work in house and asking for permission to use some of the video footage taken from a local
real estate company, the County was able to produce 10,000 copies of a CD-Rom in a four color shrink
wrapped cover for less than the amount budgeted for the County's previous four color brochures.
Breaking Down Barriers, a collaborative approach to traffic
Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer
Category; Transportation
5
07-30-2002
It was an alarming site. Vehicles were sitting at a standstill in the driving lane of Interstate 70,
the major east west thoroughfare through Colorado, wanting to exit at the Edwards interchange. The
solution to this problem typically would have taken 18 months to two years to complete. There is a
certain outlined protocol that must be followed by both Eagle County and the Colorado Department of
Transportation in terms of budgeting, approval, design, and construction. Both Eagle County and CDOT
reinvented their internal procedures for the Edwards Interchange Retrofit to improve public safety by
turning a project that could have taken years into one that was completed in weeks. The traffic
improvements dramatically reduced the amount of time vehicles had to wait at the intersections as well
as completely eliminated the traffic backups on the through lane of 1-70. The improvements won the
support of the residents of Edwards, CDOT and Eagle County. This venture redefined the working
relationship between Eagle County and CDOT, not only for this project but for those in the future.
Through this process, Eagle County demonstrated how counties can work hand in had with state
agencies to facilitate change rather than obstruct it. These two government entities successfully broke
down all existing barriers and forged a new era in County and State relations.
Exemplary Customer Service
Keith Montag, Director of Community Development
Category; Civic Education and Public Information
The Community Development Department strives to enhance and streamline the County's
planning procedures by providing exemplary customer service to the public, our clients, other
departments and agencies as well as our appointed and elected officials. Several basic customer service
elements have been implemented to fill gaps in the availability of existing services. In so doing,
administration of routine planning functions have been notably improved and cost effectiveness has been
realized through streamlining of typically cumbersome administrative process. Exemplary Customer
Service has facilitated a greater understanding of the regulatory requirements and land use expectations
which, in turn, has benefitted the County's citizens, development community, the appointed and elected
officials and staff. As a result, the County's decision makers are better positioned to make effective,
consistent determinations with regard to land use issues. Also realized is an increased level of
intergovernmental cooperation and coordination in addressing shared problems.
Eagle Valley Child Care Association
Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health & Human Services
Category; Human Services
The Eagle Valley Child Care Association is a 501(C)3 organization formed by Eagle County, the
Town of Vail and local employers to address needs for quality, affordable child care in the Eagle Valley.
The 501(C)3 is the outgrowth oftwo years of community child care task force work that included
government, businesses, child care providers and parents of children in child care.
The project is based on an Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Vail and Eagle
County, signed in July 2001. The Eagle Valley Child Care Association was incorporated in October
2001, the 501(C)3 application filed on November 16,2001 and the first child care program, Vail Child
Care, opened December 3,2001. The purpose ofthe Eagle Valley Child Care Association is to jointly
plan, develop and operate child care programs to increase child care capacity, to enhance the quality of
child care, to improve the access to care for parents and employers and to provide incentives and
technical assistance to providers of quality child care.
Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District Service Plan
Diane Mauriello, Deputy County Attorney, stated this was the presentation of the Planning
Commission recommendation for the Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District Service Plan. She
stated the Planning Commission recommended approval. This Board is now required to set a public
hearing and suggested it be August 13,2002 at 1 :30 p.m.
6
07-30-2002
Commissioner Menconi moved to schedule a Public Hearing for the Cordillera Valley Club
Metropolitan District Service Plan to August 13,2002 at 1 :30 p.m.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
1041-0043, Donovan Parcel
Cliff Simonton presented file number 1041-0043, Donovan Parcel. He stated topics discussed by
the Eagle County Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting of July 17, 2002 include the
following:
Conformance of the plan with provisions of the Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan.
Storm water quality management, and the need to maintain and service proposed on-site storm
water detention facilities over the long term.
Storm water quality management, and the potential impacts from domestic pets.
Compliance of the proposed water service plan with the present day recommendation for in-basin
augmentation.
The characteristics and operation of the proposed grinder pump/low pressure sewer system.
Long term service and maintenance requirements of the proposed low pressure sewer system.
Sewer system failure scenarios, and back-up capacities and service response time in the event of
the same.
At the close of deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended approval, and added three
permit conditions to the four proposed by Staff. These additional conditions are indicated in grey on
page 28 and 29 of this report.
This 1041 application is for the extension of water and sewer lines to serve the Donovan Parcel.
It is being processed in conjunction with a companion Planned Unit Development Sketch/Preliminary
Plan application for a 20 unit housing project, Eagle County file # PDSP-00015.
Rick Hermies, Arrowhead Valley Development, Gregg Brown, DHM Design, and Phil Harris
and Leslie Hope, High Country Engineering were present for the hearing.
Mr. Simonton stated the proposed development is located 1.3 miles east ofthe US Highway 6
and Edwards Spur Road intersection on US Highway 6. A ranch house and barn are the only structures
currently on the site, and it is used by Vail Honeywagon to stage garbage truck and dumpster operations
(a non-conforming use in the Resource district). Access to the site is proposed via a private drive that
will intersect with Highway 6 approximately 550 feet east ofthe soon to be constructed intersection of
US Highway 6 and Miller Ranch Road.
The proposed development consists of twenty (20) single family homes onlO.3 acres. No
phasing is proposed, and the project is anticipated to be completed by 2004. The site is within both the
Arrowhead and Edwards Metropolitan District boundaries. Details of this arrangement have not been
provided. Both districts are members of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority.
The proposed water extension entails the installation of approximately 2450 linear feet (600 off-
site and 1850 on-site) of 8 inch water main, which will provide an estimated 20,400 gallons per day of
domestic treated water. Project water mains will not make direct connection to those in the nearby
Highway 6 road-right-of-way, but will instead be extended through easements from the edge of
Riverdance Subdivision, an existing Arrowhead development to the east. Water from the Eagle River
will be treated by an Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority conventional surface water treatment plant.
The proposed sewer extension will install approximately 3000 linear feet of low pressure sewer
main which will collect an estimated 18,000 gallons per day (peak) of wastewater from the development.
Plans for homes with full basements preclude the use of a gravity sewage system, as sewer lines on the
project would have to be over 20 feet deep. Each home will instead be equipped with its own grinder
pump, located outside the home in a sump designed to hold (in the event of power outage or pump
failure) 220 gallons, or approximately one third of a day's discharge. The Homeowner's Association
7
07-30-2002
will be responsible for maintenance ofthe system, and is expected to contract the work through a private
plumbing company.
Wastewater from the development will be delivered to an existing public system manhole via the
low pressure main, and then transported by gravity to the Edwards Wastewater Treatment Plant, which is
operated by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. The plant will discharge treated wastewater
effluent back into the Eagle River.
This 1041 proposal was referred to the following departments, agencies and homeowner's
associations seeking review and comment:
Eagle County Engineering, Eagle County Attorney's Office, Natural Resource Conservation
Service, Colorado Division of Water Resources, Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Department of
Health, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Water Conservation Board, Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments, Eagle County Historical Society, Eagle River Fire Protection District, Berry Creek
Metropolitan District, Edwards Metropolitan District, Arrowhead Metropolitan District, Upper Eagle
Regional Water Authority, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Eagle County School District,
Arrowhead at Vail HOA.
As of the writing of this report, the following agencies had responded:
Eagle County Engineering: May 28, 2002 and June 25, 2002
The storm water pollutant removal criteria in Section 4-650 of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations (ECLUR) need to be addressed. This pertains directly to 6.04.15 1) m) and 6.05.15 l)d) of
the ECLUR, which discusses the protection of surface water resources.
An approved Section 404 wetland permit has not been obtained, and it would appear that the
application for a wetland permit for the Donovan Parcel was denied.
A letter dated June 7, 2002 from High Country Engineering addressed a number of items related
to this application's companion file, PDSP-00015. Items # 1 and # 16 of this letter (attached) respond
to the above items. On June 25th, a second response from Eagle County Engineering provided the
following:
The applicant is asking for a variation from the improvement standards for storm water retention
requirements. Any site development standards not being met must be outlined as a variation in the
application.
Several homes are shown within the FEMA flood plain. To correct this deficiency, a Letter of
Map Amendment (LOMA) must be obtained.
As ofthis date, Eagle County has not received verification from the Army Corp of Engineers that
the Applicant has satisfied the Section 404 permit requirements.
A second access point is proposed to connect with Miller Ranch Road.
Design work for all retaining walls has not been submitted at this time.
A Highway Access Permit has been applied for but has not been issued because of two issues
requiring correction with the Applicant's traffic report.
A landscape permit for proposed berming and landscaping in the Highway 6 ROW has not been
received.
A response to this memorandum, providing essentially a status report of work on identified
issues, was received on July 2, 2002, and is attached.
Engineering delivered a third memo on July 17, which listed the following:
The applicant is asking for a variation from the improvement standards for storm water retention
requirements.
A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) must be obtained.
Eagle County has not yet received verification from the Army Corp of Engineers that the
Applicant has satisfied the Section 404 permit requirements.
A second access point is proposed to connect with Miller Ranch Road. This access should align
8
07-30-2002
with the proposed access to the Logan Park PUD.
A Highway Access Permit is required.
A landscape permit for proposed berming and landscaping in the Highway 6 ROW is required.
The Applicant has met those storm water detention criteria necessary for the protection of water
quality, but not those related to the prevention of damage to downstream facilities from flood surge (this
has been deemed unnecessary since the project delivers storm water run-off directly to the Eagle River).
The Applicant has received a State Highway Access permit, which includes provision for landscape
improvements within the ROW
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District: June 3, 2002
The Eagle River Water and Sanitation District has forwarded a letter to us indicating their ability
to serve the project. Edwards water rights and augmentation plans allow for the diversion of up to 1183
acre feet per year for Edwards customers. Arrowhead's rights allow for the diversion of 461 acre feet of
water for Arrowhead customers.
Water service to the Donovan Parcel will be contingent upon conveyance of water mains,
dedication of water rights, payment in lieu of water rights, and payment of applicable fees.
The letter from the District did not provide information regarding the source of augmentation
water that will be required to supplement the water needs of this project.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments: The letter from Robert Ray of May 8,2002
responded to a referral for the Applicant's combined sketch/preliminary plan file. Several comments in
this letter regarding wastewater disposal, however, are also relevant to this 1041 application.
NWCCOG raised questions about the operation, maintenance and reliability of the proposed low
pressure sewer system. How would the failure of one grinder pump impact the entire system? How
would pump failure alarms work in the event no one was home? What mechanical protection might exist
to ensure property and human health protection in the event of a back flow?
Mr. Ray also spoke to concerns for storm water management, and the protection of riparian areas
adjacent to the Eagle River corridor.
High Country Engineering responded to Mr Ray's concerns in letter dated June 14, 2002 and
July 10, 2002 attached.
A second letter from NWCCOG, authored bv Mr. Lane Wyatt. was sent in specific response to
the 1041 file. This letter, dated June 10,2002, provided the following comments:
A CPDES (Colorado Pollution Discharge Elimination System) discharge permit will be needed,
and Eagle County should require the Applicant to obtain one as a condition of approval. Eagle County
should enforce its provisions as the State is inadequately staffed to do the same.
Post-development storm water peak flows should not exceed pre-development levels. No post-
development treatment of storm water runoff is being proposed to protect the Eagle River (said treatment
usually results in the maintenance of pre-development storm water flows).
Designs or activities that would concentrate a water flow and send it down the steep embankment
(to the north) should be avoided unless adequate protection or stabilization is provided to prevent
erOSIOn.
If soil is exposed on the steep embankment to the north it should be revegetated with native
speCIes.
The wetlands that have been deemed "not jurisdictional" are still wetlands, and Eagle County is
not limited to protect only jurisdictional wetlands. It may be possible to mitigate these losses with
enhancements in the river corridor.
The June 14th letter from High Country Engineering responded to issues regarding storm water
management and control. A separate letter, responding to the concerns of Mr. Rick Olsen (below),
provided specifics regarding landscaping and revegetation. Reference enforcement of a CPDES permit
on this site, Eagle County will require strict adherence to the Applicant's Storm Water Management
9
07-30-2002
Plan.
Natural Resource Conservation Service: The letter from Rick Olsen of April 17, 2002
responded to a referral for the Applicant's combined sketch/preliminary plan file. One comment,
regarding water rights, is relevant to this 1041 application.
How reliable is the water right in the Terrill and Ford Ditch? Has its use on this site been
properly memorialized?
High Country Engineering responded to these concerns in a letter dated June 17, 2002, attached.
IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6.04.15 OF THE EAGLE COUNTY LAND USE
REGULATIONS, AND AS MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION
FOR THE DONOVAN PARCEL WATER & WASTE WATER SYSTEM. Note: The Applicant's
response to each finding is summarized in standard text. Additional information provided by the
Applicant is summarized in italicized text. The resultant finding of the Eagle County Planning
Commission is indicated in BOLD CAPS.
a. Major extensions of domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be permitted in
those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such
extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the
development area and source development area to sustain such growth and development;
(+) FINDINGS: The use proposed to be served by utility extensions is single family residential.
The subject property will be located within the service areas of both the Arrowhead Metropolitan
District and the Edwards Metropolitan District, and will be served by the Eagle River Water and
Sanitation District (ERWSD). ERWSD provides full contract operation and management services to the
Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority which in turn provides water to various metropolitan districts
within the valley. The ER WSD has provided a letter indicating that they have sufficient capacity to the
serve the anticipated development with potable water. The proposed extension of water distribution and
wastewater collection systems will connect the subject property to existing systems.
The applicant has represented that there are no environmentally sensitive areas on the property,
other than those within the flood plain ofthe Eagle River. No development activities are proposed
within the flood plain setback.
The proposed development will generate a small increase in Eagle County's overall population.
As such, a commensurate increase in vehicular traffic and exhaust emissions is expected. Air quality
impacts from the development itself are expected to be insignificant.
Funding for the proposed extension will be provided by the developer, Arrowhead Valley
Developers. Operation and maintenance of the water facilities will be managed by the ERWSD.
Operation and maintenance of the sewer system is proposed to be handled by the homeowners
association through contract with a local plumbing company.
In a letter from High Country Engineering dated July 10, 2002, additional information
regarding operation and maintenance of the proposed sewer system was provided. It is estimated that
the cost to be incurred by the home owner's association will range from 25.00 to 35.00 per household
annually.
Regarding environmental capacity, Eagle County Environmental health initially raised concern
regarding the general level of activity proposed for the site and its proximity to the Eagle River.
The Applicant responded by noting that on-site storm water conveyance and detention facilities
will be grass lined which will serve to filter and improve the quality of runoff water prior to its being
discharged to the river. Also, maintenance of all common formal landscape areas will be handled by a
professional landscape maintenance company via contract with the homeowner's association.
Presumably, professional maintenance would entail limited and controlled use of fertilizers and
pesticides which could potentially compromise the environment.
Considerably more information regarding the operation of the low pressure sewer system was
10
07-30-2002
provided during public hearing. Information regarding tap fees, homeowner's fees, resort fees and
taxation that would be the responsibility of future home owners as a result from the overlapping special
districts was also detailed by the Applicant.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other
applicable Regional, State or Federal land use or water plan;
(+) FINDINGS: The Donovan Parcel is consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan, and an
application for PUD is being made concurrently with this file. The development is surrounded by other
PUD's, and therefore is consistent with development of the surrounding area. The development is
within current Metropolitan Districts that have the ability to serve the site.
In a letter dated July 3, 2002 from DHM Design Corp. (attached), the applicant points out that
the Future Land Use Map designates the subject site as appropriate for 'Resort' development. Among
the uses deemed appropriate in the Resort category is residential use. The proposed development, albeit
a freestanding PUD, will be part of the Arrowhead Metro District and will enjoy the recreational
amenities of the Arrowhead Resort.
Information from High Country Engineering in a letter dated July 10, 2002 was submitted to
help clarifY points related to storm water management, and a full explanation of the project's
conformance with provisions of the 208 Regional Water Quality Management Plan was provided during
public hearing. A memorandumfrom Eagle County Engineering dated July17, 2002 indicates that all
County drainage standards related to water quality will be met, although the Applicant is requesting a
variance from standards related to storm water detention and storm surge.
Conformance with the 208 Plan recommends the inclusion of policies for the management of
household pets and pet waste; the Applicant has indicated that the number of domestic pets allowed per
residence will be limited through covenant restrictions.
To better assure compliance with provisions of the Storm water Management Plan, Staff
attached condition #2 to the permit.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water
rights of upstream or downstream users within the development area and source development
area;
(+) FINDINGS: The Donovan Parcel is located within the boundaries oftwo special districts.
Surface and subsurface water rights will be made available through the Upper Eagle Regional Water
Authority to the Districts providing water, and will therefore be protected through accumulated water
rights and augmentation plans of the District.
The water provider is ultimately responsible for assuring non-injury of downstream water users
through adequate perfection of water rights. The applicant has provided a letter from the Eagle River
Water and Sanitation District stating that the District has capacity to serve the site. In a referral
response to the Applicant's sketch/preliminary plan, however, the Colorado State Engineer sited the
absence of water use estimates, the absence of letters of commitment from affected Districts, and the
absence of a Subdivision Water Supply Plan Report from the Metro District proposing to serve the site,
as required by CRS 30-28-136. Lacking sufficient information, the State Engineer was unable to
comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights. The Applicant responded to the State with
a letter and information dated June 14th. While follow-up response from the State has not been received,
it would appear that issues related to domestic water supply and non-injury to existing rights, to the
degree that the Applicant is responsible, have been satisfied.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
11
07-30-2002
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are
available for efficient operational needs;
(+) FINDINGS: Water is proposed to be supplied to the site by an established Metropolitan
District with membership in the Upper Eagle River Water Authority. The Colorado Department of
Health reviews the water supply system operated by the Upper Eagle River Water Authority on an
annual basis and has found that system to be adequate in terms of quality and capability.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near
operational capacity;
(+) FINDINGS: No proposed water treatment plants are a part ofthis application.
f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater
than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity;
(+) FINDINGS: No proposed sewage treatment plants are a part of this application.
g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water
and sewage services or create duplicate services;
(+) FINDINGS: The proposed systems are extensions of existing distribution and collection
systems. There will be no creation of duplicate services.
A letter dated July 8, 2002 from the Arrowhead Metropolitan District has been submitted which
indicates that the Donovan Parcel is included within the District. The Eagle County District Court
approved the Order of Inclusion on March 5, 2002. The Donovan Parcel is also within the Edwards
Metropolitan District, however, the Applicant has provided evidence that no duplication of services will
result.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level
of treatment is such that replacement is warranted;
(+) FINDINGS: The replacement of any system is not requested by this plan.
i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for
such development;
(+) FINDINGS: The Donovan Parcel will have 20 single family units. Assuming 2.73 persons
per household, approximately 55 persons will reside on the site at full build-out.
The Applicant provided census information regarding historic population and growth trends for
Eagle County indicating that the County has been the fourth fastest growing county in Colorado with a
population increase of 90 percent during the last decade. A population projection was provided by the
Applicant indicating a similar 90% growth for the next ten years. The Applicant asserts that population
growth trends clearly demonstrate a need for housing within the area.
For the purpose of long range planning, Eagle County currently projects a growth rate of
approximately 3% per year over the next 10 years. This projected rate of growth seemingly implies that
a housing development of this nature will be needed.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit
conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division;
(+) FINDINGS: A new facility or facilities is not a part of this application. Present waste water
treatment plants have the capacity to service this development. No violation of permit discharge
conditions is anticipated.
12
07-30-2002
k. Appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution
system that will serve existing and proposed needs;
(+) FINDINGS: With the exception of the 600 feet of water line that will be extended from the
Riverdance Subdivision to the east, all of the proposed water and sewer extensions are located within the
subject property. The proposed on-site water distribution and wastewater collection systems will be
placed entirely within utility easements. An easement also exists for the off-site waterline extension.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
l. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or
agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development;
(+) FINDINGS: A ranch house and barn are located in the center of the property, much of which
has historically been used for livestock grazing. In addition, Vail Honeywagon, Inc. uses the property as
a storage site for garbage trucks and dumpsters, a non-conforming use on the property, which is currently
zoned Resource. The Applicant has represented that the visual aesthetics of the site will be improved as
a result of development.
The proposed residential development will provide additional high-end housing to future
residents of Eagle County. Existing agricultural and nonconforming uses will be replaced by 20 homes,
associated residential uses, and landscaping. Present agricultural uses provide open space (albeit
somewhat compromised by the existing non-conforming uses on the site) on the valley floor, pastoral
views, and a briefbreak in development along US Highway 6 between the communities of Avon and
Edwards. On the other hand, the residential uses proposed for this parcel are consistent with adjacent
uses, and can be viewed as a reasonably appropriate in-fill project.
To better assure compliance with provisions for site restoration and landscaping, Staff attached
condition #3 to the permit.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral downstream
surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission as established on May 22,1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent
standards subsequently adopted;
(+) FINDINGS: During construction, there is a temporary risk of increased sedimentation due to
runoff from disturbed areas. This risk will be effectively minimized through the use of Best
Management Practices designed to dissipate erosion of drainage channels and disturbed areas which will
prevent sedimentation from entering streams. All disturbed areas will be reclaimed and revegetated once
construction is complete so that sedimentation from the area can be expected to return to pre-
development conditions. The developer has represented that they will comply with the standards of the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit for site construction.
Given the low elevation of the homes in relation to the adjacent sewer lines, a low pressure
sewage disposal collection system utilizing individual grinder pumps in each home is proposed. This
system is to be maintained by the Homeowners Association through contract with a local plumbing
maintenance company. It has been represented that these systems have a solid track record within the
State of Colorado and are virtually maintenance free.
Wastewater generated from the proposed development will be pumped to an existing manhole
south and east of the property where it can be collected and conveyed to the Edwards Wastewater
Treatment Plant. The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District provides advanced wastewater treatment
at this site, and discharges treated effluent in compliance with water quality standards established by the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Compliance with these standards helps
maintain the water quality of the Eagle River.
13
07-30-2002
Reference the memo from Eagle County Engineering of July 17, 2002 all requirements for
drainage standards related to the maintenance of water quality in the adjacent Eagle River have been
met.
The potential for grinder pump failure and a release to the environment of sewage effluent was a
concern, especially given the close proximity of this project to the Eagle River. Wet-wells capable of
holding 220 gallons are proposed, with the intent that they "hold" effluent in the event of a mechanical
failure or power outage. In a letter dated July 10, 2002 from High Country Engineering, more
information has been provided about the proposed sewage system including other existing western slope
developments which have employed the proposed technology. Included in the July 10th letter are
testimonials of the efficiency of these types of systems from the managers of these systems. Considerably
more information regarding the operation of the low pressure sewer system was provided during public
hearing.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING. AS AN ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARD,
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONS # 5,
# 6 and #7 TO THE PERMIT.
n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new
service areas will not violate Federal or State air quality standards;
(+) FINDINGS: Short-term air quality impacts with slight increases in airborne particulate levels
near the proposed development will occur during the construction phase. During construction, air
quality standards will be maintained in accordance with standard construction practices. Air quality
impacts from the development itself are expected to be insignificant. Following construction all areas
will be re-vegetated to prevent wind and water erosion.
The proposed development will generate a small increase in Eagle County's overall population.
As such, a commensurate increase in vehicular traffic and natural gas appliances is expected. Additional
vehicle traffic will result in increased fugitive dust and tailpipe emissions. To mitigate fugitive dust
emissions from vehicle traffic, all roads within the development will be paved.
Reference the letter from the Colorado Department of Public Health and the Environment (May
31, 2002), the proposed project is not expected to cause an adverse long term effect on ambient air
quality.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas,
steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forest and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game
migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and
endangered species, public out-door recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or
archaeological importance;
(+) FINDINGS: The site is located on a flat bench that exists approximately 20 feet above the
level ofthe Eagle River, which borders the property to the north. The riparian community that exists on
this property is largely contained within the flood plain set back of the river, and has been avoided by
home sites. Virtually all wildlife use that occurs in the riparian corridor should continue following the
build out of the proposed development. It has been represented that certain corridor components could
improve with the cessation of equestrian grazing.
With the exception of the riparian area along the river, the Eagle County Master Plan does not
identify the Donovan Parcel as being within environmentally sensitive land, and the project does not
contain any critical wildlife habitats as delineated on the Colorado Division of Wildlife Resource
Information System maps. The Colorado Division of Wildlife was contacted and has not requested any
14
07-30-2002
special restrictions on the property.
Historic irrigation on the site will cease, and rights are proposed to be converted to domestic use
for summer consumption. Water requirements during the winter will require the use of augmentation
water owned by the Arrowhead Metropolitan District. This combination should prevent stream
depletions downstream.
A storm water management plan has been submitted detailing the methods that will be employed
to help control erosion and contain storm water runoff. In addition, the development ofthis project,
from roads and infrastructure to finished homes, will be completed by the applicant, Arrowhead Valley
Developers. This will better ensure consistent application of best management practices throughout the
life of construction.
Early investigations identified a wetland area on the bench near the eastern end of the property.
An initial application for a Section 404 wetland permit was denied. It has been asserted that the
wetlands were created by an old irrigation ditch and were of poor quality because of overgrazing. The
irrigation has been turned off now for over a year. A representative of the Army Corp visited the site
and determined that this wetland is a non-jurisdictional wetland (not within the jurisdiction of the Army
Corp of Engineers), and that it should dry out once irrigation has ceased. Homes have been sited to
avoid this area.
At the time of the writing of this report, Staff has received a copy of an E-mail from Mark
Gilfillan to Nicola and Danny Johnson that indicates that the Corp will send a letter verifying the non-
jurisdictional status of the wetland. A copy of the letter has not been received (memo from Eagle County
Engineering, July 17, 2002).
The potential for grinder pump failure and a release to nearby aquatic habitats of sewage
effluent is a concern, especially given the close proximity of this project to the Eagle River. Please
reference the July 10th letter from High Country Engineering and testimonials with regard to the
reliability and function of this technology. Considerably more information regarding these systems was
also provided during public hearing.
Although the water provider, in this case the Arrowhead Metropolitan District, is ultimately
responsible for assuring non-injury of downstream water users through adequate perfection of water
rights, the Colorado State Engineer was unable to verify non-injury to downstream water rights as a
result of information provided in the application. The Applicant has provided a letter from the Eagle
River Water and Sanitation District stating that the District has capacity to serve the site, and has also
responded to the State with a letter and additional information dated June 14th. It would appear that
issues related to domestic water supply and non-injury to existing rights, to the degree that the
Applicant can be held responsible, have been satisfied. The source of augmentation water, however, has
not been provided, which leaves Staff unable to verify that the proposed development will not
significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats downstream in the Eagle River through depletion of flows.
No unique areas of geologic or archaeological importance have been identified within the area
proposed for development. Two somewhat "historic" structures, a ranch house and a barn, currently
exist on the property. These structures date from the 1940's and were part of a homestead that ranched
and farmed this part of the valley. There are no plans to retain the structures on-site. It is the
Applicant's understanding that the current owner of the property has plans (has "reserved the right'') to
move one or both structures to a location off site.
The Eagle County Historical Society did not respond to the referral request for this file. As such,
one may assume that the existing structures have little historic value.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING. AS AN ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARD,
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONS # 5 ,
# 6 AND #7 TO THE PERMIT.
p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not
15
07-30-2002
significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other
nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors;
(+) FINDINGS: Some short term nuisance factors associated with construction activities will
result. Following construction and reclamation activities, the proposed development should not result in
any significant detriment to the existing scenic characteristics of the area. A landscape berm is proposed
to protect the development from noise produced by traffic on Highway 6.
The relative degree of "nuisance" resultant from the need for long term maintenance of a
pressurized sewage system driven by 20 individual grinder pumps was discussed at length during public
hearing, with considerable information provided by the Applicant.
An argument may be made that the proposed "scenic characteristics" of up-scale medium
density housing development versus the scenic characteristics of the existing 'ranch and ranch land'
(understanding that the present use of the property as a staging site for the Honeywagon trash collection
business is non-conforming) would actually represent an improvement of the overall scenic quality of
the site. It is not anticipated that the proposed development would generate or be subject to any undue
auditory, ocular or olfactory impacts.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
q. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution systems will not
create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and
the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and
future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue
financial burden" will result;
(+) FINDINGS: The developer will pay for all project facilities. There will be no impact to the
public for the cost of securing an adequate supply of water, as this project is being developed under
existing water rights held by the District, and water rights being conveyed to the District from the
affected property.
Reference the July lOth letter from High Country Engineering with regard to costs associated
with on-going maintenance and operation of the proposed sewage disposal system.
Water rights associated with the property have not, as yet, been converted to domestic use, and
the State Engineer has received insufficient information to determine non-injury to downstream water
users. Assuming that existing agricultural rights can be converted, an additional 2.47 acre feet of water
will be removed from available augmentation water during the winter months to serve this project.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
r. The development site of a proposed major extension of an existing domestic water or
sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snow
slides, landslides, avalanches, rock slides or other disasters which could cause a system operation
breakdown;
(+) FINDINGS: Four faults lie within a 12 to 29 mile range ofthe site. Most seismologists
consider the risk of a strong earthquake generated by those faults or other faults within a 100 mile radius
of the site to be low to insignificant during the next 100 to 200 years. The area proposed for
development is located on a flat bench in the middle of a wide valley, and is well out of the 100 year
flood plain. It is also quite distant from source terrain that might generate snow slides, rock slides,
landslides or avalanches.
Utility service will be provided via underground lines and will not be subject to injury by fire.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
s. Any proposed domestic water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing
16
07-30-2002
water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health;
(+) FINDINGS: The proposed development and associated distribution system is capable of
providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
t. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the
proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area;
(+) FINDINGS: There are no visible elements of the proposed water and sewer distribution system,
since all piping would be underground. The proposed residential development is generally consistent
with existing developments in the area. A small increase in the overall population of Eagle County, and
commensurate increases in traffic and exhaust emissions, will result.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
V(b). PROPOSED FINDINGS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 6.05.15
(EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER
PROJECTS)OF THE EAGLE COUNTY LAND USE REGULATIONS, APPROVAL OF THE
PERMIT APPLICATION:
a. The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated;
(+) FINDINGS: Eagle County has been one of the fastest growing counties in the State. The
proposed residential development will provide 20 new homes, and will be built by one developer to
ensure consistent quality and design, and is designed in a land use pattern similar to the surrounding
Arrowhead community developments.
During public hearing the Applicant indicated that 10 of the 20 proposed units are already
under contract pending approval of the project.
For the purpose of long range planning, Eagle County currently projects a growth rate of
approximately 3% per year over the next 10 years. This projected rate of growth seemingly implies that
a housing development of this nature will be needed.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
b. Assurances of compatibility of the proposed water project with Federal, State, Regional,
and County planning policies regarding land use and water resources;
(+) FINDINGS: The Donovan Parcel is consistent with Eagle County Master Plans and the 208
Regional Plan. With the use of efficient planning and development techniques, the development will
conform to these plans. The site is within current Metropolitan Districts that have the ability to serve the
development. A PUD application will be submitted concurrently with this application.
In a letter dated July 3, 2002 from DHM Design Corp. (attached), the applicant points out that
the Future Land Use Map designates the subject site as appropriate for 'Resort' development. Among
the uses deemed appropriate in the Resort category is residential use. The proposed development, albeit
a freestanding PUD, will be part of the Arrowhead Metro District and will enjoy the recreational
amenities of the Arrowhead Resort.
Information from High Country Engineering in a letter dated July 10, 2002 was submitted to
help clarify points related to storm water management, and a full explanation of the project's
conformance with provisions of the 208 Regional Water Quality Management Plan was provided during
public hearing. A memorandum from Eagle County Engineering dated July 17, 2002 indicates that all
County drainage standards related to water quality will be met, although the Applicant is requesting a
variance from standards related to storm water detention and storm surge.
Conformance with the 208 Plan recommends the inclusion of policies for the management of
17
07-30-2002
household pets and pet waste; the Applicant has indicated that the number of domestic pets allowed per
residence will be limited through covenant restrictions.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
c. Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water,
including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban
development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation
systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge
areas;
(+) FINDINGS: Measures and policies intended to assure efficient utilization of water resources
include: I) individual lot metering; 2) a graduated rate schedule; 3) native grass plantings where
possible; 4) guidelines for landscaping, irrigation and maintenance.
The development has been designed in a manner that will protect groundwater and groundwater
recharge areas from pollution. A drainage plan and storm water management plan has been prepared to
ensure water quality. All wastewater generated by the development will be collected and processed by
the Edwards Wastewater Treatment Facility which is required to meet State Discharge Requirements.
An explanation of how the measures and policies planned to assure efficient utilization of water
resource will work was provided during public hearing. Raw water is available to this site via an
existing irrigation ditch, but is not proposed for irrigation of landscaped areas. No recycling or re-use
of water is proposed.
On-site storm water detention and appurtenances will be grass lined which will serve to filter
and improve the quality of runoff water prior to being discharged from the site. Also, maintenance of all
common, formal landscape areas will be handled by a professional landscape maintenance company via
contract with the homeowner's association. Presumably, professional maintenance would entail limited
and controlled use of fertilizers and pesticides which could potentially compromise the environment.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
d. Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water
resources;
(+) FINDINGS: Water quality will be protected in accordance with National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System permit requirements. During construction of the proposed water main
extension, standard practices designed to prevent erosion and sedimentation will be utilized. All
disturbed areas will be properly restored and revegetated. On-site improvements will conform to an
approved drainage plan to convey storm water to appropriate locations. A Storm water Management
Plan has been prepared to address types of erosion control and to ensure water quality.
On-site storm water detention and appurtenances will be grassllined which will serve to filter
and improve the quality of runoff water prior to being discharged from the site. Also, maintenance of all
common, formal landscape areas will be handled by a professional landscape maintenance company via
contract with the homeowner's association. Presumably, professional maintenance would entail limited
and controlled use of fertilizers and pesticides which could potentially compromise the environment.
Additional information from High Country Engineering in a letter dated July 10, 2002 was
submitted to help clarify the above points. Significant information regarding the long term safety and
reliability of the proposed low pressure sewer system was also presented during public hearing.
To better assure compliance with provisions of the Storm water Management Plan, Staff
attached condition #2 to the permit.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING. AS AN ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARD,
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONS # 5 ,
18
07-30-2002
# 6 AND #7 TO THE PERMIT.
e. The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the
Colorado Department of Health;
(+) FINDINGS: The proposed water system will be an extension ofthe Arrowhead
Metropolitan District water system, which provides water under contract with the Upper Eagle River
Water Authority. The Authority's water supply system is regularly monitored by the Colorado
Department of Health and the water quality meets or exceeds all drinking water standards.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
f. The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease the
quality of peripheral or downstream surface water resources in the source development area
below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division on May 22,1979, and
effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted;
(+)FINDINGS: During construction, there is a temporary risk of increased sedimentation due to
runoff from disturbed areas. The developer will comply with the standard National Point Discharge
Elimination System Permit, effectively minimizing risk through the use of Best Management Practices
designed to dissipate erosion of drainage channels and disturbed areas. This should prevent
sedimentation from entering streams. All disturbed areas will be reclaimed and revegetated so that
sedimentation from the area can be expected to return to pre-development conditions.
Wastewater generated from the proposed development will be collected and treated by the Eagle
River Water & Sanitation District. The District provides advanced wastewater treatment and discharges
treated effluent in compliance with water quality standards established by the Colorado Department of
Public Health and Environment. Compliance with these standards helps maintain the water quality of
the Eagle River.
Reference the memo from Eagle County Engineering of July 17, 2002 all requirements for
drainage standards related to the maintenance of water quality in the adjacent Eagle River have been
met.
The potential for grinder pump failure and a release to the environment of sewage effluent was a
concern, especially given the close proximity of this project to the Eagle River. Wet-wells capable of
holding 220 gallons are proposed, with the intent that they "hold" effluent in the event of a mechanical
failure or power outage. In a letter dated July 10, 2002 from High Country Engineering, more
information has been provided about the proposed sewage system including other existing western slope
developments which have employed the proposed technology. Included in the July 10th letter are
testimonials of the efficiency of these types of systems from the managers of these systems. Considerably
more information regarding the operation of the low pressure sewer system was provided during public
hearing.
To better assure compliance with provisions of the Storm water Management Plan, Staff
attached condition #2 to the permit.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING. AS AN ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARD,
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONS # 5,
# 6 and # 7 TO THE PERMIT.
g. The proposed development and the potential diversion of water from the source
development area will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands, and wetlands,
groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical
wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting area and
the habitats or rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas,
and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance;
19
07-30-2002
(+) FINDINGS: A wildlife and habitat analysis has been prepared and resource maps reviewed
which discuss the above. No significant deterioration of aquatic habitats, marshlands, and wetlands,
groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife
habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting area and the habitats or
rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas, and unique areas of
geologic, historic or archaeological importance is expected.
Early investigations identified a wetland area on the bench near the eastern end of the property.
An initial application for a Section 404 wetland permit was denied. It has been asserted that the
wetlands were created by an old irrigation ditch and were of poor quality because of overgrazing. The
irrigation has been turned off now for over a year. A representative of the Army Corp visited the site
and determined that this wetland is a non-jurisdictional wetland (not within the jurisdiction of the Army
Corp of Engineers), and that it should dry out once irrigation has ceased. Homes have been sited to
avoid this area.
At the time of the writing of this report, Staff has received a copy of an E-mail from Mark
Gilfillan to Nicola and Danny Johnson that indicates that the Corp will send a letter verifying the non-
jurisdictional status of the wetland. A copy of the letter has not been received (memo from Eagle County
Engineering, July 17, 2002).
The potential for grinder pump failure and a release to nearby aquatic habitats of sewage
ejjluent is a concern, especially given the close proximity of this project to the Eagle River. Please
reference the July 10th letter from High Country Engineering and testimonials with regard to the
reliability and function of this technology. Considerably more information regarding these systems was
also provided during public hearing.
Although the water provider, in this case the Arrowhead Metropolitan District, is ultimately
responsible for assuring non-injury of downstream water users through adequate perfection of water
rights, the Colorado State Engineer was unable to verify non-injury to downstream water rights as a
result of information provided in the application. The Applicant has provided a letter from the Eagle
River Water and Sanitation District stating that the District has capacity to serve the site, and has also
responded to the State with a letter and additional information dated June 14th. It would appear that
issues related to domestic water supply and non-injury to existing rights, to the degree that the
Applicant can be held responsible, have been satisfied. The source of augmentation water, however, has
not been provided, which leaves Staff unable to verify that the proposed development will not
significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats downstream in the Eagle River through depletion of flows.
To better assure compliance with provisions of the Storm water Management Plan, Staff
attached condition #2 to the permit.
No unique areas of geologic or archaeological importance have been identified within the area
proposed for development. Two somewhat "historic" structures, a ranch house and a barn, currently
exist on the property. These structures date from the 1940's and were part of a homestead that ranched
and farmed this part of the valley. There are no plans to retain the structures on-site. It is the
Applicant's understanding that the current owner of the property has plans (has "reserved the right") to
move one or both structures to a location off site.
The Eagle County Historical Society did not respond to the referral request for this file. As such,
one may assume that the existing structures have little historic value.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING. AS AN ADDITIONAL SAFEGUARD,
HOWEVER, THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED THE ADDITION OF CONDITIONS # 5 ,
# 6 AND #7 TO THE PERMIT.
h. The salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Section 6.05.13
(16) and (17) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith,
20
07-30-2002
if any, have been paid;
(+ ) FINDINGS: Wastewater will be treated by the ERWSD, who comply with all discharge
standards of the Colorado Department of Health and the Colorado Water Quality Control Division.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
i. The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed
development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the
development area and source development area;
(+) FINDINGS: The development of20 single family homes will use a central water supply and
distribution system, and central sewage collection system to serve domestic and irrigation water
requirements. The land use pattern will be similar to surrounding Arrowhead community developments.
The property is included in both the Edwards and Arrowhead Metropolitan District boundaries. The
applicant has been informed that these Districts have adequate water supplies to meet all demands for
this development.
The Eagle County Master Plan does not identify the Donovan parcel as being within
environmentally sensitive land. A storm water management plan has been submitted, and areas
disturbed during construction will be appropriately revegetated. A small increase in the overall
population of Eagle County, and commensurate increases in traffic and exhaust emissions will result, but
these impacts are expected to be insignificant.
BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOUND SUFFICIENT
EVIDENCE TO MAKE A POSITIVE FINDING.
V(c). PROPOSED FINDINGS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER II, ARTICLE 3,
SECTION 3.310.1 OF THE EAGLE COUNTY LAND USE REGULATIONS, APPROVAL OF
THE PERMIT APPLICATION:
c. Major new domestic water or sewer systems, major extensions of such systems, and
municipal and industrial water projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of
County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant that:
2. That compliance with the special use permit requirements would be unreasonably
burdensome for the applicant.
(+) FINDINGS: The applicant has requested a waiver ofthe Special Use Permit requirements,
as such application would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective.
Gregg Brown spoke to two conditions and possible re-wording. He stated condition number 4
was discussed at Planning Commission which speaks to storm water detention facilities. He stated they
would like the following added to the end of the condition, "with regard to storm water management and
erosion control measures",
Mr. Simonton concurred.
Mr. Brown stated condition number 5 speaks to the amount of storage for the grinder pump
system. He requested that be changed to "24 hours of additional storage and 300 gallons".
Chairman Gallagher questioned the time between failure and repair. He asked what was built
into the system for those two items.
Leslie Hope stated they are looking at two different systems. She explained the systems to the
Board. When the alarm gets triggered, there is a visual and audio alarm both inside the house and
outside the structure. There is also an auto dialer which will tell the contract personnel relating the
problem. She spoke to the four inch sewer line being three feet below the basement level. She stated the
main system comes from the house, gets pumped out and goes through another check point.
Chairman Gallagher asked about the lift.
Ms. Hope stated it is approximately 24 feet.
Chairman Gallagher stated a power outage will not only disable the pump but it will also disable
21
07-30-2002
the alarm.
Phil Harris stated these systems will have a battery backup and will still dial out with the
problem.
Commissioner Stone asked where the lines are going. If and when Logan Park gets built will the
lines be going downstream.
Mr. Harris stated they will tie in at the east end of the property. He stated the existing sewer will
cross the Highway to the South, then it will flow west.
Commissioner Stone asked why they are pumping uphill.
Mr. Harris stated this property is on a plateau below the existing gravity system and they will
have to pump uphill in any direction they go.
Commissioner Stone questioned pumping the sewer across the road rather than uphill to the end
of the property.
Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, spoke to regional facilities. He stated his concern was
to make sure there is no public health issue it these failed. He stated that is the reason for backup power.
He stated at some point downstream there may be an easier way to get the sewage downstream.
Commissioner Stone questioned a plumbing service company. He spoke to a private sanitation
district monitoring the systems.
Mr. Merry stated he also has concerns with Homeowners Associations monitoring the systems.
Commissioner Stone stated he is looking for a better long term solution. He spoke to annual
operating costs. He spoke to the Colorado River Ranch who ended up forming a district to take care of
these issues.
Chairman Gallagher questioned the difference between 20 opportunities for failure rather than
one opportunity for failure.
Rick Hermies stated in reviewing the possibilities it was their concern that if one breaks down
they would all break down. If they each have a station they would be responsible for maintenance. They
were concerned about all of them breaking down at the same time.
Gallagher stated he is concerned that they are not homeowners here, they are homeowners
elsewhere and there will be a management company managing the property.
Mr. Harris stated Eagle River Water and Sanitation District will not take care of a lift station.
Mr. Hermies stated they did have an idea to prevent backup into the home with dropping the
floor in the mechanical room which would hold 600 gallons.
Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none.
Ms. Hope stated their firm did handle Logan Park in the very beginning. She stated Logan Park
is gravity sewer and will be traveling west. It is still higher than their lowest unit.
Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, stated the Logan Park property is enough higher they can
get the waste across the street. She stated the property in question would either have to have a grinder
station of lift pumps.
Commissioner Stone asked about sending the sewer back to the east to eventually come back to
the west.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated she believes both applicants should look at combining systems.
Chairman Gallagher asked if they can tell what the lift would be to Logan Park.
Ms. Hope stated the lift to Logan Park would be 11 feet.
Commissioner Menconi questioned comments from NWCCOG. He asked if the bullet points
have been taken care of and if not which ones have not been.
Mr. Merry stated condition number one will be a requirement, two and three have been satisfied.
Justin Hildreth, Community Development Project Manager, stated the plan does appear to
comply with the 208 in the local regulations.
Commissioner Menconi asked if there had been work done with regards to the Eagle River
Watershed Plan.
22
07-30-2002
Mr. Simonton stated there is specific work done through the companion file, which requires a
complete review. He stated the watershed Plan was a part ofthe review.
Commissioner Menconi asked why has the Planning Commission brought up protection of the
river banks and the riparian corridor.
Mr. Simonton stated the recommendation before the Board is only from the Planning
Commission. He stated the preservation of the riparian corridor was handled through the river setback.
Commissioner Menconi asked about the new proposed 401 Regulations.
Mr. Merry stated there are three main issues to be discussed. 1. How the water goes through this
site. The applicant has addressed that. 2. What kind of mitigation exists for the sewer systems. The
applicant has tried hard to address that. 3. Regarding the water and where it comes from. This still
needs to be addressed.
Commissioner Menconi stated if driving by this property, one would they think this is a wetland
area.
Mr. Merry stated there are no jurisdictional wetlands on this property. He stated non-
jurisdictional wetlands are created by irrigation. Ifthe irrigation stops the wetlands go away.
Chairman Gallagher asked where the storage is.
Ms. Hope stated 100% of the augmentation plan comes from the Eagle Park Reservoir.
Chairman Gallagher asked County Attorney ifthe first two digits ofthe case number is the year.
Mr. Moorhead answered that was correct.
Commissioner Stone questioned the sewage treatment.
Mr. Merry stated he was concerned with possible failure and that it would not result in a release.
His secondary concern is high level alarms with auto dialers. He stated there is one in Gypsum that did
not work. If no one is home they will not know. Capacity is another concern, if the pumps fail how will
they get the sewage to where it needs to go. Backup power would eliminate the need for storage.
Commissioner Stone questioned maintenance.
Mr. Merry stated he does not have an answer. Maybe a contractual agreement with the County or
someone would make him feel better. He stated he would like to be assured that someone is going to
take care ofthe problems that arise.
Commissioner Stone stated he would really like to have a better answer also. In many instances
lift stations are required but maybe a district should be responsible for maintenance.
Mr. Hermies stated they can certainly go back to the single lift station. He stated they had a plan
originally on the west side of the property. They request if the District is to be responsible for
maintenance then the Homeowners Association would be responsible for the cost of repairs.
Commissioner Stone stated it would make sense ifthe applicant had a contract with the Water
and Sanitation District that they will maintain or monitor the system.
Chairman Gallagher asked if Arrowhead had anything to do with the sewage development.
Mr. Hermies stated they do not have anything to do with this property.
Commissioner Stone stated he prefers a single lift station, it be looked at with Logan Park to
have a regional solution, and the maintenance of the system be carried out by the Eagle River Water and
Sanitation District.
Mr. Merry stated the District does the receiving end of wastewater services.
Chairman Gallagher questioned the sanitation district not doing lift stations.
Commissioner Stone asked if this property was or was not a part of the Sanitation District.
Mr. Merry stated they have policies of what they will and will not service. There is a point at
which they maintain and service the lines. Their policy is to not accept the lift stations.
Commissioner Stone asked if there was any way to contract with them.
Mr. Merry stated he believes there is.
Mr. Herrnies stated if they have one lift station he believes they will be able to contract with the
District.
23
07-30-2002
Commissioner Stone moved to close the hearing for file number File No. 1041-0043, Donovan
Parcel, having made all findings positive in accordance with Sections 6-04-15 and 6.05-15 of the Land
Use Regulations, with the following conditions:
1. Except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the applicant in this
permit application, correspondence, and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions
of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
2. Development ofthe site must adhere to provisions ofthe Storm Water Management Plan dated
February 21,2002 and amended June 20,2002.
3. Development of the site must adhere to recommendations for site landscaping submitted by
Rick Olsen, Natural Resources Conservation Service, dated 4/17/02.
4. Development of the site must adhere to recommendations set forth in the memorandum dated
May 8, 2002 from Northwest Colorado Council of Governments and dated July 17, 2002 from Eagle
County Engineering, with regard to storm water quality and erosion control measures.
5. An appropriate lift station with the appropriate capacity be installed to service the entire
development. Services for maintenance of the lift station shall be contracted with the Eagle River Water
and Sanitation District, with all costs to be paid by the Homeowners Association. The sewer line for this
development shall be one that will coordinate with the sewer lines from the Logan Park Subdivision.
6. Development of the site must provide a program to insure the scheduled inspection and
cleaning of the proposed storm water run-off detention structures.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDSP-00015 Donovan PUD Sketch / Preliminary Plan
ZC-00065, Donovan Zone Change
Cliff Simonton presented file numbers PDSP-00015 Donovan PUD Sketch / Preliminary Plan
ZC-00065, Donovan Zone Change. He stated topics discussed by the Eagle County Planning
Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting of July 17, 2002 include the following:
The appropriateness and purpose of the requested variance to setback requirements.
The density of the project.
The public land that exists between the project's north property line and the southern edge of the
Eagle River, and the possibility of providing public access.
Protection of the riverbank and associated riparian corridor.
The compatibility ofthe project with adjacent uses, in particular, the uses proposed for the Berry
CreeklMiller Ranch property across the river to the north.
At the close of deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended Denial of the project, siting
density as their primary concern. It was suggested that no variation be granted for distances between
buildings, and that 15 homes would be preferred over 20.
Please be advised that the recommendation for 15 homes as opposed to 20 is not premised upon
any language found in the Eagle County Master Plan or Edwards Community Plan.
Mr. Simonton stated John and Diana Donovan, represented by Arrowhead Valley Developers,
(the Applicant) propose a Planned Unit Development residential community on approximately ten (10)
acres of land located 1.3 miles east of the intersection of US Highway 6 and the Edwards Spur Road,
immediately adjacent to and north of US Highway 6. The subject property is relatively narrow in the
north/south dimension, with approximately 1500 feet of highway frontage. It is bordered to its north by
the Eagle River. Zoning is presently Resource (R), and a zone change to PUD will be required.
The development would consist oftwenty (20) single family homes located along a private drive.
Buildings would be constructed within platted building footprints, and the remainder of the property
would be shared as a general common element. A landscaped berm is proposed along the south frontage
to serve as both an audio and visual buffer between the new homes and activities on US Highway 6.
24
07-30-2002
Design criteria and architectural guidelines for the proposed structures will be patterned after the
Arrowhead at Vail Design Guidelines, and home construction will be subject to the approval of the
Arrowhead at Vail Design Review Board.
Access to the homes is proposed via a single entrance from US Highway 6. An emergency
access is proposed at the west end of the project, connecting the internal private drive with the future
Miller Ranch Road.
Water lines are to be extended west from the Riverdance Subdivision, with water provided by the
Arrowhead Metropolitan District. Sewage disposal will utilize individual grinder pumps outside each
home and a privately maintained low pressure collection system, which will deliver effluent to an
existing Eagle River Water and Sanitation District manhole east of the site. A 1041 application
associated with the applicant's proposed wastewater treatment and potable water delivery systems has
been filed concurrently with this application (Eagle County File No. 1041-0043).
The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows:
The site is home to an old house and barn that has served the surrounding ranch land since at
least the 1940's. Reference a letter from the property owner dated October 18,2001, the property has
been used for agricultural purposes for perhaps 120 years. More recently, the site has served as a single
family residence and as the staging and storage area for the Honeywagon trash service operation, a non-
conforming use. No Eagle County land use decisions pre-date this application for the affected parcel.
Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report:
ECO Transportation / Trails (5/24/02)
Would prefer that the existing ECO trail that parallels Highway 6 be left in place, widened to I 0'
(given the new development), and surfaced with an additional 1.5" of asphalt.
If the trail is to be moved it should be replaced with a 10' wide trail built to ECO trail standards.
If the trail is to be moved, the Eagle County tax payer should be reimbursed for the cost of the
existing trail, which was built in August of 2001.
Winter and Spring would be the best time for reconstruction of the trail. Details of scheduled
construction should be required.
A second memo from ECO Transportation /Trails was received on July 17, 2002, essentially re-
stating the above, with the addition, however, of 1) a request for $30,000 to recapture some of the
public's investment in the existing trail, 2) a request to keep the trail open at all times during
construction of the project, and 3) the desire of ECO Trails to retrieve some items that were installed as
a part of the existing path (culverts, culverts parts, fencing, etc.)
Eagle County Engineering Department Engineering's memo of April 25, 2002, identified 31
sufficiency items to be addressed. The Applicant has worked with due diligence (see related letter,
attached) to satisfy the items listed. A second memo, dated June 25, 2002 listed issues that had not yet
been addressed. The most recent memo, dated July 17,2002 listed the following:
The Applicant is asking for a variation from improvement standards for the storm water
detention requirements. All variations must be clearly indicated in application materials.
A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) is required for those homes located in the mapped FEMA
flood plain. The Applicant has agreed. If the LOMA is not obtained before final plat, it will be
collateralized.
Verification in the form of a letter from the US Army Corp of Engineers that the wetland area
below an irrigation ditch is non-jurisdictional is required.
The secondary access point proposed along Miller Ranch Road needs to align with the proposed
Logan Park Road.
A State Highway Access Permit has been applied for but has not been granted pending correction
of the Applicant's traffic report.
Evidence of an agreement with CDOT for berming and landscaping in the US Highway 6 ROW
25
07-30-2002
has not been received.
On July 17th, the Applicant provided a copy of their recently obtained State Highway Access
Permit. Storm water detention has been provided to conform to regulations related to protecting water
quality, but has not been provided to the degree required to prevent damage to downstream facilities
from a storm surge. It is believed that this storm surge criteria is not necessary, since storm flows from
this site will be directed to the Eagle River. The Eagle River has ample capacity for storm surge runoff.
Eagle County Environmental Health Concerns identified verbally by Environmental Health
include the following:
Intensity of use and lack of sufficient buffer between project and the Eagle River;
The use of grinder pumps and potential for failure and release to the environment from a low
pressure sewer system in close proximity to the Eagle River;
The appropriateness and/or long term effectiveness of assigning maintenance of the grinder
pump/low pressure sewer system to a private Horne Owner's Association;
The potential for duplication of services due to the proposed overlap of Special District
boundaries, and;
The conformance of the plan to the 208 Regional Water Quality Plan for site drainage and storm
water retention. These concerns are discussed in greater detail in the companion 1041 file.
Eagle County Housing Department (5/08/02)
Based on number of homes proposed, suggested the Applicant include four (4) Local Resident
Housing Units (20% of 20) to be constructed on site.
Suggested that an additional unit be built based on number of jobs created by the residential
development.
The Applicant and Eagle County Housing have since agreed on a Cash in Lieu payment of
$150,000, which includes a credit for the Applicant's contribution to the local Habitats for Humanity
Program (see attached letter dated June 18, 2002).
Eagle County School District (5/28/02)
Land dedication would amount to .2899 acres. The District will instead accept cash-in- lieu-of-
land payment of$15,220.
Eagle River Fire Protection District (5/01/02)
The road at the east end ofproject narrows to 16 feet. This should remain 24 feet unless
accepted by the County as a driveway serving the last 3 homes.
Hydrant placement appears adequate.
Adequacy of access has been verified.
Given the similarity to Arrowhead, It is understood that a fire alarm system is required for each
residence.
Fire resistive construction should be used, including Class A roofing material.
Landscape trees and shrubs should not be planted within 15 feet of any structure.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) (5/08/02)
Has questions regarding the operational reliability ofthe grinder pump sewer system, the
effectiveness of the related "alarm" system, and the potential for health or property damage from an
accidental discharge.
Recommends against home owner associations "operating" wastewater collection facilities. The
fact that ER WSD refuses to maintain any part of the system might suggest the use of an alternative
method.
Storm water Management Plan lacks information on impervious surfaces, increases in runoff,
soil types and erosivity. It does not appear that drainage analysis and design criteria are consistent with
NWCCOG's model water quality protection standards.
Drainage plans are not consistent with statements in Storm water Management Plan. Located
26
07-30-2002
immediately adjacent to the Eagle River, detention of storm water to protect water quality should be
required.
Recommends that NWCCOG's post construction storm water standards be applied.
No soil disturbance should occur within the 50 foot setback from the river.
Four homes are shown to be within the FEMA 100 year flood plain. The 208 Plan recommends a
25 foot setback from the designated flood plain.
Two wetlands outside the riparian area have been identified. The 208 Plan recommends no
disturbance in these areas, and that adequate buffers (minimum of25 feet) be provided between the
wetlands and development.
Voiced concern for the protection of mature riparian vegetation located along the north edge of
the property from owners who might engage in "vegetative clearing activities" for the purpose of
creating view corridors to the river. Design guidelines for the proposed project do not provide for the
protection of this area.
The Applicant responded to the concerns of NWCCOG in a letter dated June 14, 2002
(attached). Detail was provided regarding the low pressure sewage systems, and discussion offered on
storm water management and riparian and wetland issues.
Colorado Geological Survey (5/07/02)
Air photo interpretation and subsurface investigation should be included as part of site- specific
geotechnical investigations.
Erosion and bank failures may occur on 30% slopes to the north. A construction setback should
be established from the northern slope crest, as determined by a geotechnical engineer, to minimize
potential damage near foundations.
Hazards observed on site should not preclude development of the proposed subdivision.
A copy of a letter from Koechlein Geotechnical Consulting Engineers was received on July 17,
which stated that with appropriate investigation and engineering, structures could be built up to the
identified 50 foot setback from the river. Please see attached.
Colorado Division of Water Resources (4/30/02)
Water use estimates were not provided.
Letters of Commitment from the district intending to serve the site were not provided.
A summary of existing water systems and capacities was not in the Appendix as claimed.
A subdivision Water Supply Plan Report was not submitted.
We cannot comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights due to insufficient
information.
The Applicant responded to the concerns of the State Engineer in a letter dated June 14, 2002
(attached). While follow-up response from the State has not been received, it would appear that issues
related to domestic water supply and non-injury to existing rights, to the degree that the Applicant is
responsible, have been satisfied.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (4/17/02?)
Plan lacks a seeding recommendation and revegetation plan
A list ofthe types and amounts of native plants to be used should be submitted.
Questioned the reliability of the Applicant's water rights in the Terrill and Ford ditch.
The Applicant responded to the concerns of the Natural Resources Conservation Service in a
letter dated June 17, 2002 (attached). It would appear that issues identified by NRCS related to
revegetation and the use of native plant species in landscaping will be satisfied.
Additional Referral Aeencies, not responding:
Eagle County Assessor; Eagle County Attorney; Eagle County Road and Bridge; Eagle County
Sheriff; Eagle County Historical Society; Eagle County Animal Control; Eagle County Ambulance
District; Emergency 9-1-1; Colorado Division of Wildlife; Colorado Health Department; Colorado
27
07-30-2002
Department of Transportation (has been working closely with Eagle County Engineering); Arrowhead
Metropolitan District; Holy Cross Electric; Town of Avon Upper Eagle River Water Authority, Colorado
State Forest Service.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the
review of a Preliminary PUD: The review of a Combined Sketch /Preliminary Plan for PUD provides
an opportunity for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts of
the plan, as well as to determine the sufficiency of detailed plans, permits and construction drawings for
the project.
Consideration is given as to whether the application of a PUD to the site will result in significant
improvements that would not otherwise be available through conventional subdivision, and whether the
improvements proposed by the PUD are generally compatible with surrounding uses. Issues and
concerns that should be addressed relevant to the approval of a Final Plat are identified at this time.
Staff utilizes the Standards for Sketch and Preliminary Plan for PUD, as detailed under in Eagle
County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-240.F.3.e., and the Standards for Sketch and Preliminary Plan
for Subdivision, as detailed in Section 5-280.B.3.e in the review of a PUD Sketch Plan application. The
reader will note that there is some redundancy as these standards are applied. Pluses and minuses
appearing before each Finding indicate where Staffhas found that the proposed development meets that
Standard ([+]), will not be able to meet that Standard ([-]), is of mixed conformance ([+/-]), or that the
Standard does not apply ([n/a]).
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 John F. and Diana
Donovan.
[+] 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.3j, Variations Authorized.
Proposed uses in the PUD generally include:
Residential - single family homes
Passive recreation/open space
Temporary Real Estate Office
Temporary Construction Trailer
The site is located in the Resource (R) zone district. The uses proposed are designated as
allowed uses in this zone district.
Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, of the Land Use Regulations, provides that
variations may be granted by the Board of County Commissioners if it finds that the Preliminary Plan
achieves one or more of several specified purposes and that the granting ofthe variation is necessary for
that purpose to be achieved. Those purposes include [I] obtaining desired design qualities, [2] avoiding
environmental resources and natural hazards, [3] providing incentives for water augmentation, [4]
providing incentives for improvements to the Eagle County trails system, [5] providing incentives to
assure long term affordable housing, or [6] providing incentives to develop public facilities.
It appears that the first purpose noted above, i.e., to obtain desired design qualities, would be
28
07-30-2002
satisfied by allowing the uses otherwise not allowed in these zone districts. Under this purpose, a
variation is allowed which permits the integration of mixed uses. The uses not otherwise allowed in
these zone districts are consistent with the overall proposed development. Staffhas determined that a
variation to allow temporary real estate sales office and temporary construction trailers may achieve the
purpose of obtaining desired design qualities and that the granting ofthe variation is necessary for that
purpose to be achieved.
[+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] All of 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 ofthe application for PUD. However,
variations ofthese use designations MAY BE authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations
Authorized.
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 property directly beneath each residence will be privately owned. All other land outside of
the building footprints will be owned "in common" and managed by a homeowner's association.
Lot lines in this instance are secondary in nature. The location of and separation between
residences in the proposed layout will therefore be controlled by the platting of building footprints
Through a Minor B Subdivision application, which will be made after foundations have been installed.
As such, future modifications to homes in this development that change the footprint of a building in any
way will require an amendment to the final plat.
Some homes have been positioned as close as 15 feet apart. The County's standard 12 ~ foot
setback from lot lines results in a 25 foot minimum separation between structures in all other zone
districts.
Some building foot prints are positioned 15 feet from the proposed local road, and the
preliminary plat indicates a building setback from the local road of 10 feet. Current Land Use
Regulations specify a minimum 25 foot front yard setback from a local road in all zone districts.
Portions of home sites #11, #12 and #13 are located within the 50 foot setback that would normally be
required from the ROW of US Highway 6.
The Board of County Commissioners has considerable discretion in the establishment of
appropriate setback standards within a proposed PUD. Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations
Authorized, any dimensional limitation standard that will not be met within the proposed plan must be
detailed in the application. A discussion regarding the basis for granting these variations is also
required. Setbacks and any other variation from standard should be specifically discussed in the PUD
Guide as well.
Referencing Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, the Board of County Commissioners
may determine that the variations proposed for this project allow for the "obtainment of desired design
qualities". The Obtain Desired Design Qualities section of the Land Use Regulations includes the
"integration of mixed uses", "allowing greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings" and
"to promote more efficient land use patterns and increase open space" in support of "desired design
qualities". No long term integration of uses is contemplated by this plan, however, the proposed
variations in setback would allow a greater density of homes to be positioned on the property.
The plan presented does not conform to that portion of the Obtain Desired Design Qualities
29
07-30-2002
section that states "as a general rule, 20 feet between buildings shall be considered the minimum
appropriate spacing". This standard provides necessary access and fire prevention, and ensures proper
ventilation, light, air and snow melt between buildings. The local fire authority has reviewed these plans
and did not indicate concern for road or front yard setbacks or separation between structures.
In correspondence received July 9,2002, the Applicant presented the following justifications,
pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f.(3), Basis for Granting Variations, for the variations from dimensional
limitations being requested:
a. Obtain Desired Design Qualities: The variations allow for a tighter clustering of homes
thereby providing adequate land for landscape buffering and physical separation from the highway and
the Eagle River. This cluster arrangement and architectural style is compatible with other surrounding
development within the Arrowhead Resort. The reduced setbacks do not impede access or fire
protection, do not adversely limit proper ventilation, light, air or snow melt between buildings, nor cause
adverse effects from noise between buildings. The entire residential development area is designed to
minimize these potential conflicts. Windows, decks and entries are arranged to mitigate the potentially
negative effects of clustering, while the surrounding open space buffers are a benefit to the residents of
the development and the surrounding community.
b. Trails: The County's Public Bike Trail will be reconstructed as part of this
development. The majority of the trail will be constructed at an elevation higher than the highway and
portions of the trail will be aligned further away from the highway. The reconstructed bike trail will be a
safer and more enjoyable pedestrian experience.
c. Affordable Housing: A donation will be made to assist the County with providing
affordable housing.
d. Public Facilities: As described above, the existing bicycle trail will be reconstructed for
a safer and more enjoyable experience.
Staff would note that the variations being requested do not, in and of themselves, provide for b) a
contribution to the trails system, nor do they, in and of themselves, provide c) opportunities for
affordable housing, nor do they, in and of themselves, provide d) an incentive for the development of
public facilities.
[+] 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 ofthe
application for PUD. Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, the Board MAY grant
variations to the proposed dimensional limitations as part of the approval of this 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.
A minimum of four parking spaces, two inside a garage and two out, are provided for each
residence. No loading areas will be required.
[+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] Off-street parking
and loading provided in the Pun DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street
30
07-30-2002
Parking and Loading 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.
Pursuant to Section 4-220.C, a detailed landscape plan has been provided. The Plan indicates that
the number of trees prescribed by the ECLUR will be exceeded. The number of shrubs proposed,
however, is fewer than that prescribed by the ECLUR'
Briefmention is made in the application of the intent of illumination within the project. The
PUD Guide is silent with respect to illumination, as set forth in Section 4-250, Illumination Standards,
of the Land Use Regulations. Sheet L-7 of the Landscape Plan set does include illumination details.
Illumination will occur only on the individual residences and on the Subdivision Entry Monument.
Section 4-250 provides standards for controlling illumination to prevent intense glare or direct
illumination that would create a nuisance, detract from the use or enjoyment of adjoining property or
cause traffic hazards to motorists. It is understood that the standards for lighting will be patterned after
those used by the Arrowhead development, and that applicable requirements will be met.
[+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] The landscaping and illumination
standards provided in the PUD and Landscape Plan DO satisfy the intent 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.
Sign standards are mentioned in the application, sheet L-7 of the Landscape Plan set illustrate the
entry feature sign. The proposed Pun Guide is silent with respect to signs. The Applicant is required to
comply with all the requirements of Division 4-3, Sign Regulations, of the Land Use Regulations.
[+] 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.
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 supolv. - Two special districts are intended to serve this site, a situation unique
to Eagle County. The site is currently within the boundaries of the Edwards Metropolitan and is
proposed to be incorporated soon into the Arrowhead Metropolitan District. The service and financial
implications of this arrangement have not been made available. A 1041 application, providing a separate
analysis of the adequacy and efficiency of services proposed, has been submitted by the Applicant and
will be reviewed concurrently with this file.
Water use is estimated to be 20,400 gallons per day at build out. Water will be delivered to the
site via the extension of water lines owned by the Arrowhead Metropolitan District from the Riverdance
Subdivision to the east. Existing irrigation water rights on the property will be conveyed to the
Arrowhead Metropolitan District for eventual augmentation. Water over and above that available
through transfer of existing rights will be required for the project, and is proposed to be obtained through
payment offees-in-lieu-of-rights. A letter specifying the details of these arrangements, and indicating
31
07-30-2002
the ability and willingness of the district to serve the proposed project, has been received from the Eagle
River Water and Sanitation District.
In their referral response, The Colorado Division of Water Resources (State Engineer) was not
able to determine non-injury to decreed water rights due to a lack of sufficient information. The
Applicant responded to the concerns of the State Engineer in a letter dated 4/30/02. While no response
from the State has been received, it would appear that sufficient, legal potable water is available through
existing water rights and augmentation water owned by special districts serving the site. The water
provider is ultimately responsible to assure non-injury to decreed water rights.
[+] Sewage disposal. - The Applicant is proposing a privately maintained low-pressure
wastewater transmission system, utilizing individual grinder pumps in each home. This is necessitated
by the elevation of the subject parcel in relation to existing lines and the desire of the Applicant to
include full basements in each home. A gravity system serving the homes as proposed would require
sewer lines over 20 feet deep, and the use of a lift station at a terminal point.
The use of a low pressure sewer system to serve a 20 home subdivision is unprecedented in Eagle
County. Both NWCCOG and Eagle County Environmental Health have raised questions regarding the
appropriateness of grinder pump systems in close proximity to the Eagle River, and concern exists for
the potential for release to the environment in the event of system failure.
This discussion occurs in detail within the companion 1041 Permit Application and Staff Report.
[+] Solid waste disposal. No service provider is proposed. Given the close proximity of this site
to Edwards and Avon, it is reasonable to assume that service for the removal of solid waste will be
readily available.
[ +] Electrical s upp Iv . - The Applicant has demonstrated that electric service can be provided by
Holy Cross Energy.
[+] Fire protection. - The development is in an area served by the Eagle River Fire Protection
District. Referral response received from the District made several recommendations, none of which
preclude development of the property as proposed. The district did suggest the incorporation of fire
resistive construction and the avoidance of landscape trees and shrubs within 15 feet of any structure as a
means of lessening fire hazard.
[ +] Roads. - Primary access is proposed from US Highway 6, approximately 600 feet east of the
intersection of US Highway 6 and the new Miller Ranch Road. Acceleration and deceleration lanes are
proposed. Individual homes will be accessed from Donovan Parcel Road, a paved, 24- foot-wide
internal local street. A secondary emergency access connects the west end of Donovan Parcel Road to
Miller Ranch Road. No emergency entrance is proposed for the east end ofthe project. Two turn
around areas have been provided for emergency vehicles, and have been deemed adequate by fire
officials. Road easements on the final plat should be expanded to include these turn-around areas.
A CDOT Access Permit (permit # 302067) has been obtained for the project.
[ +] Proximitv to Schools - Elementary schools exist in the communities of Avon and Edwards.
The Berry Creek Middle School is located north of the site just across the Eagle River. The new
Cemetery Bridge (Miller Ranch Road) will include a pedestrian path that will connect lands north and
south of the river. The nearest high school is Battle Mountain, located approximately 5 miles to the east.
Plans for the Berry CreeklMiller Ranch parcel include a new high school and a new elementary school at
some point in the future.
[+] Proximity to Police and Fire Protection. and Emergencv Medical Services. - Emergency
services are to be provided by the Eagle County Sheriff, the Eagle River Fire Protection District, and the
Eagle County Ambulance District, respectively. The site is easily accessed and no concerns were
indicated through referral response.
[+] 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
32
07-30-2002
facilities for potable water, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, and will be
conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards
applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, 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.
(d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for
smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts
a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots,
units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected
with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to
maintain the County's road network.
(e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal
street network and from off-street parking areas.
[ +] Safe, Efficient Access - Plans for access have been reviewed by Eagle County Engineering
and various emergency service providers. Reference the memorandum from Eagle County Engineering,
construction drawings need to be updated to match turn radius information on the preliminary plat and
Staff would note that road easements have not been properly configured to accommodate emergency
vehicle turnarounds on the preliminary plat. This will be required at Final Plat. Related standards have
otherwise been met.
[+/-] Internal Pathways - No internal trails are indicated. It would appear that residents will be
expected use the Donovan Parcel Road ROW to access dwelling units and common areas, and to link to
other trails in the area. A trail providing access from Donovan Parcel Road to the Eagle River for the
exclusive use of Arrowhead residents is proposed between buildings #17 and #18. The County bike path
that currently exists between the subject property and Highway 6 to the south is proposed to be
demolished and reconstructed within and along side the landscape berms as a part ofthis project. A
portion of this new trail will be constructed on the subject property, the rest is slated for the Highway 6
ROW. A CDOT permit to construct landscape improvements within the ROW will be required.
[+] Emergency Vehicles - Two vehicle turn-arounds on Donovan Parcel Road are proposed and
have been found adequate for emergency vehicles, although easements have not been properly
configured to accommodate them on the preliminary plat. A secondary emergency access is proposed
for the west end ofthe project.e[ +] Principal Access Points - Standards related to this section have been met. An Access Permit
33
07-30-2002
has been obtained for the project.
[+] Snow Storage - Sheets L-3 and L-4 of the Landscape Plan Set indicate provisions for snow
storage.
[+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] 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 and, ( 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 property proposed for development sits north across Highway 6 from the northwestern
comer of the Arrowhead Resort PUD. The Arrowhead PUD includes a commercial core, and a variety
of residential developments interspersed between golf course tracts, water features and other open space
areas. The portion ofthe Arrowhead development across the street from this project is predominantly
open space/golf. To the north ofthe subject property is the Eagle River corridor, which is presently
closed to public access via the subject property, but is open to access from the Berry CreeklMiller Ranch
side. Fishermen use this side, and kayaks and rafts float through during the spring runoff season.
Further north across the river is a portion of the Berry CreeklMiller Ranch development which is slated
for open space and public schools. To the east ofthe property is an open space tract which separates this
parcel from the Riverdance Subdivision, a high-end Arrowhead development. To the west is the
approved but as-yet undeveloped Logan Park PUD, which is intended to become a high quality clustered
single family residential neighborhood of five small (.24 to.5 acre) lots.
While not proposed as a part of Arrowhead, this development will be served by the Arrowhead
Metropolitan District. Architecture is proposed to be very similar to that of Arrowhead, and all plans
for construction will require the review and approval of the Arrowhead Design Review Board.
The proposed residential development will create a small increase in traffic on Highway 6.
Landscape berms are proposed to screen the property from areas to the south, although approval to
construct these berms as proposed within the highway ROW has not yet been obtained from CDOT.
Views of the area from the north will be reasonably screened by mature trees growing along the bank of
the Eagle River. It has been represented that the experience of people using the reconstructed County
bike trail on the southern edge of the property will be enhanced by berms and landscaping proposed..
[+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The
development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be
consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
THE 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
Non
Conformance
Mixed X
Conformance
Not X X
Applicable
34
07-30-2002
Environmental Quality Guiding Policy 2 - The applicant must demonstrate that proposed
building sites are not located in the flood plain. A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) from FEMA is
required prior to Final Plat approval. Guiding Policy 3 - The proposal does conform to the Regional
208 Plan. Information has been provided with regard to the long term reliability and suitability of the
low pressure sewage system, but questions regarding the maintenance of this system by the home owners
association remain (This issue is discussed, at length, in the companion 1041 Application and Staff
Report) .
Open Space/Recreation Guiding Policy 3 - Development of this property will remove a visual
open "corridor" that exists between the communities of Avon and Edwards along the Highway 6 travel
route, although the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) contemplates no separation between these
communities. Guiding policy 4 - Public access to a narrow strip of public lands on the south bank of
the Eagle River is not yet proposed as a part of this development.
Development Guiding Policy 6 - Sheet L-2 of the Landscape Plan Set indicates that 25%
(consisting ofland which is less than 30 % slope) of the site will remain as private open space.
Affordable Housing Guiding Policy 1 - Affordable housing is not proposed, however, the
Applicant has reached agreement with the County for a fee-in-lieu-ofhousing payment.
Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Future Land Use Map designates this area as Resort.
Residential uses are allowed within this designation.
Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife
Cooperation Provision Preservation Ouali tv Patterns
Conformance X X X X X X
Non
Conformance
Mixed
Conformance
Not X
Applicable
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
Open Space Provision. Sheet L-2 of the Landscape Plan Set indicates that 25% (consisting of
land which is less than 30 % slope) of the site will remain as private open space.
Unique Character Preservation The site is presently home to one of the Eagle Valley's original
ranch homesteads. Related structures will not be retained. The Eagle County Historical Society,
however, did not respond to referral requests.
Water Water Wildlife Recreation Land Use
Quantity Quality
Conformance X X X
Non
Conformance
Mixed X X
Conformance
Not
Applicable
EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
35
07-30-2002
Recreation Opportunity exists to provide public access to the Eagle River along the northern
edge of this property. No public access is currently indicated on the preliminary plat.
Land Use The Watershed Plan calls for the County to encourage and support local ranching
activities, as a means of preserving open space adjacent to the Eagle River. While used as pasture for
horses for many years, the site is not presently used as a "ranch". The viability of this site for ranching
activities is questionable.
EDWARDS SUB-AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
Development Economy Housing Circulation Recreation
Concepts
Conformance X X X X
Non
Conformance
Mixed X
Conformance
Not
Applicable
Development Concepts The Community Plan suggests that openness should be preserved by
clustering development. The plan proposed is not clustered on the affected property, but may be
perceived as clustered when taken in context with the surrounding area. The community plan
recommends that the river corridor be kept free from development, and that the river terraces should be
used as amenities. "Clustering helps preserve open fields and natural areas".
Housing A mix of housing types is not contemplated by this plan. Alternate energy concepts,
which are encouraged, are not proposed.
EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There
should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior
citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are:
Housing is a community-wide issue
Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the
Eagle County Master Plan.
Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes
Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of
government, there will be only limited success
It is important to preserve existing local residents housing
Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the
county
Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should
be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are
evaluated for other infrastructure needs
36
07-30-2002
POLICIES:
ITEM
YES
I NO I N/A I
1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit
organizations to develop housing for local residents
2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in
collaboration with the municipalities. . .
3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local X
residents and workers in Eagle County
4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be X
brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income
equivalent to or less than one average wage job
5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is X
primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . .
6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local X
residents
7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating X
increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first
preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or ifnot feasible, in the
nearest existing community center. . .
8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in
proximity to community centers
9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged X
10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock X
11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local X
residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public
assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be
limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements
12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue
The applicant, with input from the Eagle County Housing Department, has agreed to provide
$150,000 for the purpose of future affordable housing development.
Conformance with the Master Plan is mixed. Additional information and clarification, combined
with certain conditions of approval, including but not limited to those suggested in this Staff Report, will
increase the degree of conformance. The project does conform to uses delineated by the Future Land
Use Map.
[+/-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The Applicant
HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the PUD is consistent with all sections of related Master Plans, but
HAS demonstrated that the PUD is consistent with 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.
Phasing is not proposed. All site improvements are to be implemented by a single development
company as a single project, which is anticipated to be completed with two years. It has been suggested
37
07-30-2002
that demolition and reconstruction of the ECO bike path adjacent to the property be completed in the
winter and spring months to reduce impacts to users.
The Applicant will be required to construct public improvements in accordance with Section 5-
240.F.3.e (11), Phasing and other Sections of the Land Use Regulations, and will be required to provide
a phasing plan and cost estimates, sufficiently detailed to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer,
prior to approval of the final plat for the development.
[+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) As this is a single phase development, a
detailed phasing plan HAS NOT been provided for this development. Information regarding planned
public improvements will be required for the purpose of determining appropriate guarantees prior to
approval of the final plat.
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.
(1) 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.
(2) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas,
riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that
are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable
by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently
accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD.
(3) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown
on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the
development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD.
(4) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue
to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the
common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or
covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any
common open space.
(5) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association
or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and
cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance,
administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and
secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be
established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or
nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD.
A separate open space tract is not proposed. Areas outside of building footprints are to be
general common areas and will be owned and managed by the home owner's association. A recent re-
calculation of "usable"open space by the Applicant generated a figure of 25%, which meets the
minimum recommended by Land Use Regulations. This calculation excluded roads, driveways, front
and side "yards" of homes and areas of30% or steeper slopes. The "recreational value" of the open
space area depicted as a narrow east-west strip in immediate proximity to the north side of homes #10
through #20 is questioned, however, as it is essentially in the back yard ofthese homes. The Applicant
38
07-30-2002
should demonstrate that the proposed layout for open space conforms to the general intent of related
standards.
The Applicant is required to provide all information pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.e (12),
STANDARDS for Common Recreation and Open Space. The PUD guide is silent to related items, and
does not specify uses or restrictions to use within open space areas. A development schedule specifying
when related improvements are to be installed is required. Evidence that specific restrictions and or
covenants intended to ensure the continued use and maintenance of open space areas have been
developed is also required.
[+/-] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It HAS
been fully demonstrated that The PUD will comply with the common recreation and open space
standards with respect to minimum area. It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed
development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to:
( a) Improvements required;
(b) Continuing use and maintenance; or
(c) 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.
The referral agencies that have responded regarding this application are indicated on page two,
three, four and five of this report. The Applicant is required to demonstrate the manner in which the
recommendations made by the Applicant's own analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of
all referral agencies, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan.
1. Per Eagle County Environmental Health and NWCCOG, sufficient demonstration of the
reliability and suitability of a low pressure sewer system is required. The applicant has provided this
information and testimonials from other western slope developments of the reliability and suitability of
such systems.
2. Eagle County Engineering, Eagle County Environmental Health and NWCCOG have raised
concern regarding the plan's conformance to storm water retention and water quality issues. Additional
information has been submitted by the applicant, and has been found sufficient by the Engineering
Department.
3. Per Colorado Geological Survey and the Geologic Hazards Assessment Report by Church and
Associates, Inc, a geotechnical analysis establishing a safe building setback from the river bank edge is
required. The Applicant has responded with a letter from Koechlein Consulting Engineers indicating
the suitability of the river bank for home construction.
4. Additionally, a letter confirming the non-jurisdictional nature of wetlands identified on site,
and the fact that an Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit is not necessary, is required. An e-mailed
response from the Army Corp. indicates that the existing wetlands are indeed non-jurisdictional. An
official letter indicating the same is "in the mail ".
[+] 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 discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]
39
07-30-2002
[+/-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The Applicant
HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the PUD is consistent with all sections of related Master Plans, but
HAS demonstrated that the PUD 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 Development Standards.
Article 3, Zone Districts
Except as noted elsewhere, the proposed PUD does comply with the standards of Article 3, Zone
Districts.
Article 4, Site Development Standards
[ +] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
Related standards will be met by the proj ect as proposed.
[+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2)
As discussed above under Landscaping [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)], a detailed landscape plan and
lighting plan is required.
[+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3)
A comprehensive sign plan as specified in Section 4-340.D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit
Development (PUD), is required.
[+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4)
[+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The Applicant has provided a Wildlife Analysis as
required in this Section. The application was referred to the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW),
without response.
[+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - Comments of the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)
are summarized on page 4 of this report. The Applicant has provided a letter from Koechlein Consulting
Engineers addressing the concerns for the proximity of foundations to the steep river bank.
[+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has not
provided a referral response on this application. General wildfire comments are included in the referral
response from the Eagle River Fire Protection District, and are discussed to a degree in application
materials. The applicant will be required to submit a final landscape plan that responds to wildfire fire
safety issues, will be required to submit a development schedule for the selective thinning of the wooded
area to the north, and should incorporate fire resistive construction as deemed appropriate by Wildfire
Hazard Ratings. The Applicant has verbally agreed to abide by the forthcoming Eagle County Wildfire
Regulations.
[ +] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The Applicant will be required to meet related
standards at application for building permit.
[+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - Related standards are not applicable to his project.
[+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - The Applicant has submitted information
related to the development of an Environmental Impact Report which does fulfill the requirements of
Section 4-460.E.
[nla] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) - Related standards do
not apply
[+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6)
[+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - No deficiencies have been noted in referral responses
by the County Engineer.
[+/-] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - With the exception of the bike path which
is proposed to be reconstructed along US Highway 6, no trails or sidewalks are proposed for this project.
Detailed construction plans for the bike path, per standards acceptable to ECO Trails, are required.
40
07-30-2002
[ +] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - Irrigation system plans have been submitted.
[+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - A Stormwater Management Plan has been submitted
and found sufficient by the Engineering Department.
[ +] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - It appears that the requirements of
this Section have been satisfied.
[ +] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - It appears that the requirements of this
Section have been satisfied.
[ +] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - It appears that the requirements of this Section
have been satisfied.
[+/-] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Concern has been raised regarding
the long term reliability of a low pressure grinder pump system. Additionally, the maintenance of the
system by a private homeowner's association is not recommended. The Applicant has provided
additional information regarding the reliability of this technology. The 1041 Permit application has been
submitted by the Applicant, and will be reviewed concurrently with this file.
[+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7)
Section 4-700, School Land Dedication Standards - As referenced by the referral response of
5/28/02, cash- in-lieu of land payment of $15,220 will be required at the time of approval of a final plat.
Pursuant to Section 4-710, road impact fees will be payable at the time of application for
individual building permits.
[+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)]
The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of
the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not
limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development
Standards.
STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in
the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or
result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
(a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's
service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed
road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan.
(c) 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.
(d) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the
entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service
into an otherwise un-served area.
It would appear that the plan as submitted meets the requirements ofthis standard.
[+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed
subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the
delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in
a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed
to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources
and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and
existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
Colorado Geologic Survey found no site conditions that preclude the development of the
property, but did recommend site specific geotechnical investigations to determine the risk associated
with the location of homes close to the edge of the steep bank of the Eagle River. A letter from
41
07-30-2002
Koechlein Geotechnical Consulting Engineers (July 16, 2002) has been submitted which addresses
concerns for bank stability.
[+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS been
demonstrated that the property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for development, considering its
topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential
development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not
adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
Please see earlier discussion on page 14 under Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)
[+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)]
The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and WILL
NOT adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area.
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."
This development is proposed to be patterned after similar residential areas in the Arrowhead
Resort. The proposed PUD Guide addresses proposed uses, dimensional limitations, landscaping, signs,
site lighting and open space maintenance.
[+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD guide
that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section have been fully met.
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 ofthe 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:
[+/-] Consistency With Master Plan. The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the
PUD is consistent with all sections of related Master Plans, but HAS demonstrated that the PUD is
consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
[ +] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment to the zone district map IS
compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and PUD IS an appropriate
zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed
zone district.
[ +] Changed conditions. The existing use of the land for the operation of a trash disposal
company is no longer appropriate for this site given the surrounding uses.
[+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed development will not adversely effect the
natural environment and as described previously will improve the conditions in some ways. Water
quality should be improved by the construction of detention facilities, grass lined swales, and up to date
storm water facilities. The existing equine uses will be removed, which will improve water quality and
vegetation. Air and noise impacts will be negligible for a development of this limited size and efficient
layout. Wildlife habitat will be preserved and wetlands will not be impacted.
[+] Community need. It has been represented that real estate sales indicate the need for
additional single family housing ofthe quality proposed in this development. The relocation ofthe
commercial operation currently on the property will also benefit the surrounding community.
[+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment DOES result in a logical and orderly
development pattern, DOES NOT constitute spot zoning, and IS logically provided with necessary
public facilities and services.
[ +] Public interest. It HAS been sufficiently demonstrated that the area to which the proposed
42
07-30-2002
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.
Mr. Brown spoke to internal paths. He stated they believe that sidewalks would not be
appropriate for this small of a subdivision. They are providing a natural path from the development
down to the river. He pointed out the location on a map. He spoke to consistency with the Master Plan.
Mr. Brown stated the application to CLOMA has been completed.
Ms. Hope stated CLOMA has 90 days to issue their approval.
Mr. Brown stated they would like the Board to re-word condition number 5 to read "a letter map
amendment from FEMA is required to issue building permits for units 14 through 16." He showed the
flood plain on a map.
Commissioner Menconi asked if there was any distinction between naming the lots and leaving
the distinction as it is.
Mr. Brown stated rather than tieing it to final plat and tying it to those certain units, this would
allow them to get started on the other units.
Commissioner Gallagher asked who on the staff can determine if the property is in the flood
plain.
Mr. Hildreth stated they had to do a flood plain delineation study and it was determined it was
not in the flood plain.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if it is the County Regulations or FEMA that requires the
property to not be in the flood plain.
Mr. Hi1drith stated the FEMA map is a part of the Regulations. He stated that map needs to be
amended.
Mr. Brown spoke to the Eagle River Water Shed Plan having to do with recreation. They are in
agreement to create a public way to the river.
Chairman Gallagher asked if that path compares with the current path.
Mr. Brown stated they do not show it that way currently and they will come a little bit to the east.
Commissioner Menconi asked how someone gets to the path from the Highway.
Mr. Memies stated the easement will connect with the property owned by Eagle County.
Mr. Gregg spoke to livestock, cash in lieu fees and open space. He stated he has been working
with staff and the allowed uses in the open space will be outlined in the PUD Guide. He stated this plan
is consistent with County Regulations. Mr. Gregg spoke to density comparisons in the surrounding
areas. He compared their property with others in the area.
Chairman Gallagher asked for public comments.
Tom Leanhart, president ofthe Arrowhead Property Owners Association, stated they are in
support of this proj ect as they believe it supports the surrounding development. He stated they recognize
that Highway 6 is very busy but feel this development will have minimal impact. He stated they have
agreed to take this development into the Arrowhead Association and they would have to follow the
design guidelines and will place a berm along Highway 6 for esthetic purposes.
Chairman Gallagher closed public comment.
Commissioner Menconi asked about recreation and open space. He stated he does not see
amenities for the homeowners. Would that be the amenities that are in Arrowhead.
Mr. Brown stated that was correct.
Commissioner Menconi asked if these are 5,000 square foot homes and questioned the selling
pnce.
Mr. Hermies stated between 1.75 and 2.2 million. He stated they currently have 12 preliminary
contracts if this project moves forward.
Commissioner Menconi questioned the agreement with the Eagle County Housing Department.
He also asked about the donation to Habitat for Humanity.
Mr. Hermies stated it is a three year committment for $25,000 per year.
43
07-30-2002
Commissioner Menconi asked if the contribution was made by a participant of this development.
Mr. Hermies stated if was several different companies.
Commissioner Menconi asked how the arrangement was made.
Mr. Hermies stated he recieved a letter from Laurie Bower, who had a formula she used. He
stated they support Habitat for Humanity.
Commissioner Menconi asked about the installments of the $150,000. He recommended the
$150,000 in two installments, one within 90 days and one within one year. He stated this is not a
requirement on the file. He stated the amount of20% is lower that what is recommended in the Housing
Regulations.
Commissioner Stone asked about the effect of the new access off of Highway 6 and the
proximaty ofthat access.
Ms. Migchelbrink explained the access being proposed has not changed.
Commissioner Stone stated he remembered a discussion concerning moving the access.
Ms. Migche1brink stated what was proposed by CDOT was at the end of the property to keep a
separation distance from Cemetery Road.
Mr. Hermies stated they do have the access permit from CDOT.
Commissioner Stone questioned emergency vehicles.
Mr. Hermies stated the fire department has okayed this plan indicating it was exactly what they
needed.
Commissioner Stone asked how the access was to be controlled.
Mr. Hermies stated the access will look like all secondary accesses to Arrowhead.
Commissioner Stone questioned the emergency access through the gates.
Mr. Hermies stated there is a transponder for access.
Commissioner Stone stated he originally thought they would have the developer pay $7,500 at
each building permit
Mr. Hermies stated they are okay with the suggestion by Commissioner Menconi.
Commissioner Stone spoke to condition number 5, that should be changed to read prior to
building permit. He stated he does not have a problem with density and would like to see resolution for
the public access along the river bank, maybe with signage that indicates it is only public access to a
certain point. He is trying to avoid future conflict with river users.
Mr. Hermies stated they will continue to work with staff for a resolution for that issue.
Commissioner Stone stated there should also be access to the river next to the bridge, then along
the rivers edge.
Mr. Simonton stated they have a meeting coming up with regard to the bridge design. He stated
there may be some steepness issues.
Chairman Gallagher stated he did not believe you could access the entire river back.
Mr. Hermies stated midway through it is too steep to access.
Chairman Gallagher stated he has no problem with the payment in lieu of as suggested by
Commissioner Menconi.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. ZC-00055, Donovan Parcel,
incorporating the staff findings.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. PDSP-00015, Donovan Parcel,
incorporating the staff findings with the following conditions:
1. That at application for final plat approval, the Applicant provide evidence that all
recommendations made by the Eagle River Fire Protection District in their letter of 5/01102 related to
fire safety and wildfire mitigation have been appropriately addressed. Vegetative manipulation for the
purpose of reducing fuel loads on the river bank to the north will be required prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the project.
44
07-30-2002
2. That at application for final plat approval, the Applicant provide evidence that the design,
alignment and construction schedule for the bike path proposed to replace the existing ECO Trails bike
path adjacent to the property has been approved by the Eagle County Transportation and Trails
Department.
3. That within 90 days of final plat approval, the Applicant make the first installment payment of
fees-in-lieu-of-housing in the amount of$75,000. That within 1 year of the day of final plat approval, or
at the time of the last building permit issuance, whichever comes first, the Applicant make the second
installment payment offees-in-lieu-of-housing in the amount of$75,000.
4. That the Final Plat include a note requiring site specific geotechnical engineering for each
building location within the PUD prior to building permit issuance.
5. A note on the final plat shall require the applicant provide evidence that a Conditional Letter
of Map Amendment (LOMA) has been obtained from FEMA indicating that lots 14 through 16 are
outside of the flood plain, that home sites are outside the mapped flood plain of the Eagle River at the
time of building permit issuance.
6. That at the time of final plat approval, the Applicant provide payment of fees-in-lieu-of-school
land dedication in the amount of$15,220.
7. That all material representations made by the Applicant in submitted materials and in public
meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other
conditions.
8. At the time of final plat approval, the applicant shall work out with staff the recreational
easement, from the County property to the public access of the South bank of the Eagle River.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
LUR-0042, Wildfire Regulations
Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number LUR-0042, Wildfire Regulations. He
stated beginning on the 15th of February, 2000, the Chief Building Official initiated a series of meetings
with the seven Local Fire Authorities Having Jurisdiction within Eagle County's boundaries. Also
present at some of these meetings was Mike Harvey of the Colorado State Forest Service. The purpose
of these meetings was to construct a regulatory framework designed to mitigate the threat of wild land
fire upon new development and new construction located within the Wild land/Urban Interface. The
Colorado State Forest Service defines the Wild land/Urban Interface as:
"Any area where man-made buildings are built close to or within natural terrain and flammable
vegetation, where high potential for wild land fires exist."
The scenic views, rugged mountains, expansive forests and warm dry summers are several of the
qualities which make Eagle County a desirable place to live. These same desirable attributes also serve
to produce severe wildfire hazards. Together, fuels, weather and topography define the fire environment
and when combined with characteristics of access and water, determine the ease at which a wildfire will
start, the speed at which it will spread, the intensity at which it will bum and the time in which it can be
controlled.
Subdivisions and other development have created a situation where a wild land fire can involve
more buildings than any amount of fire equipment can possibly protect. Many existing residences in
remote areas of Eagle County are already subject to serious wildfire danger. Additionally, many heavily
vegetated, privately owned large land holdings remain undeveloped in Eagle County. It is reasonable to
expect that future growth pressure will push residential development ever further into potentially
hazardous wildfire areas.
Due to man's ever increasing presence in the WUI areas, when wild land fires do occur they are
extinguished as quickly as possible to prevent the destruction of homes. This tends to aggravate the
overall problem because forests rely on fire to maintain good health. Fire thins trees and brush and
45
07-30-2002
eliminates dead material. Fire suppression to protect homes and population has interfered with this
natural process. Since forest fires in WUI areas are not allowed to bum freely, the result is an increase in
vegetation density which provides more fuel for fires. The more dense the vegetation becomes, the
greater the intensity with which it will burn, increasing its destructive and dangerous potential.
Aside from the obvious threats to both life and property, additional costs associated with wildfire
in the WUI include wildlife habitat destruction, watershed damage, air quality problems, recreation
impacts, aesthetic impacts and costs to the general population in tax dollars required to suppress fire and
restoration after a fire.
Per the USDA Forest Service and the USDI Bureau of Land Management, WUI wild land fires
nationwide have destroyed in excess of 10,000 homes and 20,000 other structures and facilities since
1970. These wildfires have cost our government agencies in excess of$20 billion to suppress and the
insurance industry another $6 billion in restitution.
A significant amount of the existing development and lands remaining to be developed within
Eagle County are considered to be threatened by the potential for devastating wildfires. As such, the
county has embarked upon a process to implement new Wildfire Regulations. The proposed Wildfire
Regulations represent two elements of a three part approach which has been designed to minimize the
inherent risks of wildfire on development located at the wild land/urban interface. The three elements
comprising Eagle County's approach to Wildfire Management include: 1) Land Use Regulations; 2)
Building Resolution and; 3) Educational.
For the purpose of to day's hearing, we will be discussing amendments proposed for the Eagle
County Land Use Regulations and the Building Resolution (Please note that the Eagle County Building
Resolution has been adopted and incorporated as a separate chapter of the Land Use Regulations).
The proposed Land Use Regulation amendments anticipate that all new development in Eagle
County will be required to incorporate wildfire mitigation measures designed to reduce the overall
wildfire hazard rating before construction or individual lot sales may occur. Proposed wildfire
mitigation measures include:
Creating Defensible Space around the perimeter of new developments;
Creating Fire Breaks within new developments;
On-site management of fuels or vegetation, removing dead and diseased trees and strategic
thinning of vegetation to help promote overall vegetation health while minimizing the hazard;
Strategically locating building sites to avoid high or extreme hazard areas;
Minimum standards for Emergency Vehicle access and turnaround areas;
Minimum standards for Fire Fighting water supply;
Water supply will be provided via fire hydrants in developments served by water distribution
systems.
In developments not served by water distribution systems, water tanks, cisterns and/or dry
hydrants will be provided.
The proposed Building Resolution amendments anticipate that all new construction or additions
to existing structures will trigger a requirement that individual Defensible Spaces be created around the
new construction and existing structure. Depending upon the level of hazard rating, varying degrees of
fire resistive construction and sprinkling may also be required for the new construction or additions as
well as the existing structure.
Education is a key component to the County's wildfire program designed to generate public
awareness of the hazard potential and what measures individual property owners may take to help
protect their homes and property. The educational component, however, is not part of the proposed
regulation amendments.
Following is an itemization of each proposed modification to the Land Use Regulations and
Building Resolution:
46
07-30-2002
Chapter 2: Land Use Regulations
Article 2 - Definitions
SECTION 2-110. DEFINITIONS: The purpose of these proposed amendments is to define the
terms 'Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction' and 'Wild land/Urban Interface'.
It is necessary to clarify that within Eagle County, fire related emergencies are (initially) handled
by anyone of seven entities falling into one of the following categories:
Town of Vail Fire Department;
Special Districts formed for the purpose of Fire Protection or;
The Eagle County Sheriffs Office which, is responsible for responding to fire related
emergencies which do not occur within the jurisdiction of either the Town of Vail or any of the
established Fire Protection Districts.
A definition of Wild land/Urban Interface is inherent to the purpose and intent of these proposed
regulations.
Article 4- Site Development Standards
SECTION 4-430. DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO WILDFIRE HAZARDS:
The purpose of this proposed amendment is to set forth the applicability and minimum
requirements for:
A Vegetation Management Plan which is proposed as a requirement for all new development in
Eagle County;
Procedures for review of the Vegetation Management Plan by the Colorado State Forest Service;
Explicit minimum requirements for a Fire Fighting Water Supply within all new developments;
Appropriate references to other applicable portions of the Land Use Regulation with regard to
internal and external Access for new developments.
SECTION 4-620. ROADWAY STANDARDS: The purpose of the amendments proposed in
this section are to:
Provide minimum standards for emergency vehicle turnaround areas;
Update cross-reference information to the AASHTO publication entitled A POLICY ON
GEOMETRIC DESIGN OF HIGHWAYS AND STREETS which, sets forth preferred designs for cul-de-
sacs and turnarounds;
Clarification of the requirement of Dual Access;
Bolster the requirements for emergency vehicle access on public and private access approaches
and driveways.
SECTION 4-680. WATER SUPPLY STANDARDS: The purpose of the proposed
amendment is to:
Provide minimum requirements for Fire Fighting Facilities with regard to Water Supply. This is
accomplished by cross reference to the appropriate section of the Land Use Regulations.
SECTION 5-240. PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) DISTRICT: The purpose of
this amendment is to include a Vegetation Management Plan as a document required for processing both
Sketch and Preliminary level Planned Unit Development applications.
SECTION 5-280. SUBDIVISION: The purpose of the proposed amendments is to:
Require that a developer be made responsible for providing fire hydrants, water tanks, cisterns
and/or dry hydrants within the development capable of providing a fire fighting water supply;
Properly reference the appropriate section of the Land Use Regulations pertaining to Water
Supply;
To include a Vegetation Management Plan as a document required for processing a Preliminary
Plan for Subdivision;
To delete language which is inconsistent with the intent of these proposed Wildfire Regulations.
Chapter 3 - Ea~le County Buildin~ Resolution
47
07-30-2002
The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Building Resolution are to establish minimum
design and construction standards for the protection of life and property from fire within the Wild
land/Urban Interface. These provisions are meant to aid in the prevention and suppression of fires,
lessen the hazards to structures from wild land fires and lessen the hazards to wild lands from structure
fires, as well as, to improve the ability of fire fighters to save individual structures.
The proposed changes to the Building Resolution introduce wholly new concepts and as such,
represent a substantial addition to the existing language as opposed to amendments of existing language
and requirements.
The proposed amendments include the following sections:
GENERAL - To set forth both the Purpose and Applicability;
DEFINITIONS - To define terminology used throughout the body of the proposed regulation;
PROCEDURES - For hazard rating assignment and inspection;
REQUIRED MITIGATION - Establishes minimum standards for:
Vegetation Management. Site specific Defensible Space requirements;
Construction. Fire resistive construction materials, fire rated roofing materials and sprinkling
may be required for new construction depending upon the severity of the wildfire hazard rating present
on the site in question;
Additions. Additions to existing structures will trigger a requirement that defensible space be
created around the existing structure, as well as, the new addition. Also, the new addition may be
required to be constructed of fire resistive construction materials and be sprinkled depending upon the
severity of the wildfire hazard rating present on the site in question;
Exterior Decks. Decks requiring a building permit may be required to be constructed of fire
resistive materials depending upon the severity of the wildfire hazard rating present on the site in
question;
Roofing or Siding of Existing Buildings. When re-roofing or re-siding an existing structures
requires a building permit, fire resistive materials may be required depending upon the severity of the
wildfire hazard rating present on the site in question.
PERMIT FEES - A fee for Wild land Hazard Mitigation inspections has been proposed.
Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows:
REFERRAL RESPONSES: The proposed amendment package was referred out to the
following agencies:
County Engineering Department, County Assessor's Office, County Attorneys Office, County
Department of Environmental Health, Weed & Pest, Cooperative Extension, County Sheriff s Office,
Board of County Commissioners, Eagle County Planning Commission, Roaring Fork Valley Regional
Planning Commission, Colorado State Division of Local Affairs, Colorado State Department of Health,
Colorado State Forest Service (Mike Harvey), Colorado State Forest Service (Scott Woods), Colorado
State Forest Service (Conservation), Colorado Division of Wildlife, Bureau of Land Management, U.S.
Army Corp of Engineers, U.S. Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service, US West/PTI,
Public Service Co./KN Energy, Holy Cross Electric, Town of Vail Fire Department, Basalt & Rural Fire
Protection District, Gypsum Fire Protection District, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District, Town of
Minturn Fire Department, Eagle River Fire Protection District, Eagle Valley Homebuilders Association,
Three Rivers Home Builders Association, Colorado Division of Insurance, Western Information &
Insurance Service, Vail Board of Realtors, Glenwood Springs Association of Realtors, .
Vail Associates, Cordillera (Lance Badger), NWCCOG, Knight Planning Services, Isom and Associates,
Braun and Associates, Inc., PJA Land Planning, The Land Studio, Sid Fox and Company, Johnson and
Kunkel, Alpine Engineering, Peak Land Surveying, High Country Engineering, Lines in Space, White
Surveying, Starbuck Surveying, Benchmark Engineering, Sopris Engineering, Intermountain
Engineering, Marcin Engineering, Eagle Valley Surveying, Meyer Land Systems, Town of Avon, Town
48
07-30-2002
of Basalt, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Red cliff, Town of Vail,
additionally, these proposed regulations were referred out to all 82 Home Owner's Associations
currently registered with Eagle County's Community Development Department. Responses were
received from the following agencies, firms or individuals:
Army Corp of Engineers: The referral response indicated that, "in accordance with Section 404
of the Clean Water Act, a Department of the Army permit is required for any discharge (including
mechanized land clearing) of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States". 'Waters of the
United States' are defined as the territorial seas; perennial and ephemeral streams; lakes, ponds,
impoundments; and wetlands. This response from the Army Corp is consistent with their response to all
proposed land use applications. The Army Corp was included as a referral agent for these proposed
regulatory amendments in hope that the Army Corp would respond to the potential for increased erosion
due to accelerated run-off which would occur in the aftermath of a wildfire event.
Town of Basalt: The Town's response favorably indicated that, "The existing code and proposed
amendments generally support Town of Basalt philosophies on growth and new development including
that developments will be properly and adequately served by emergency service agencies. The overall
goal being improved safety for homeowners, visitors, and emergency service providers". The Town
further "endorses the general concepts included in the regulations as a significant step in helping to
assure public safety, one ofthe critical purposes of zoning and development review". The Town also
supports the educational component of the overall implementation strategy.
Additionally, the Town offered eight comments and questions:
"In addition to revising the submittal requirements to require information on wildfire protection,
do the approval criteria for these various applications make reference to wildfire protection as a standard
that must be met?" SECTION 4-430. DEVELOPMENT IN AREAS SUBJECT TO WILDFIRE
HAZARDS sets forth the requirement under Applicability.
"Reference to recommendations from the Colorado State Forest Service should also include
denial of development review requests where the level of mitigation does not provide acceptable levels
of safety." The regulations imply that acceptable levels of safety are a key component to the County's
overall evaluation of all land use proposals. Every property presents unique circumstances which must
be evaluated by County Staff and weighed by the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners.
"Roadway Standards and access requirements should clarify that failure to meet the required
standards and/or provide dual access points may constitute the basis for denial of a development review
request. Should the dual access requirement be eliminated when a development or roadway serves only
a very limited number of units?" Again, the regulations imply that dual points of access is a key element
of a new development proposal. Pursuant to Section 5-260.G of the ECLUR, The Board of County
Commissioners shall have the authority to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove variances
from Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovement Standards. The Board could utilize this authority in instances
where it is not possible for a given development to provide dual points of access but, where the
developer is providing an alternative which may benefit a larger vicinity (i.e.: An off-site water tank or
road improvements which will help to improve fire fighting capabilities and access for existing
developed areas which are currently substandard. Further, in small developments with a limited
number of units, the Board may again choose to utilize their variance authority.
"Maximum grades for driveways should clarify where the grade is measured (i.e. centerline of
each driving lane) as road grade will become significantly steeper on the inside lane ofa curved section
ofroadway." In discussion with the Eagle County Engineering Department, the maximum grades, as
recommended in the ECLUR are acceptable as is. The recommended curve radii, measuredfrom
centerline, are proposed to be substantially reduced from a minimum 60 to 80 feet to a minimum of 45
feet. Development review requirements should include establishment of building envelopes in
49
07-30-2002
locations where the implementation of defensible space and requirements for removal of vegetation will
result in the least amount of environmental degradation. Planning Staff does work with applicants for
new development to establish building envelopes, when necessary, to contain site construction in logical
locations which are free from hazard and which protect a site's attributes to the greatest extent possible.
Nevertheless, language has been added to the proposed regulations to require the use of building
envelopes as necessary.
The regulations appear to have the potential to negatively impact environmental protection goals
depending on site specific variables. We recommend that the County consider establishing study areas
where serious wildfire safety is a concern and where significantly lower densities and limits on
development may be appropriate in order to protect natural habitats. The County's goal over the next
year is to develop a Wildfire Hazard Map which would identify existing hazard conditions on all
privately owned and adjacent publically owned lands. In general, one may expect that the higher the
wildfire threat becomes the less conducive to development the property would be.
"The Commission (Basalt) felt that the defensible space requirements could be lightened in
certain cases where other mitigation measures are provided. By way of example, requirements for the
use of fire resistive building materials, provision of pressurized water systems and fire hydrants or
upgraded access such as wider paved roadways may off-set the need for requiring as much removal of
vegetation. Such adjustments could help to avoid unnecessary environmental damage such as soil
erosion and debris flow potential." Staff is of the opinion that fire resistive construction, pressurized
water systems, sufficient access AND Defensible Space are all indispensable elements of a
comprehensive wildfire mitigation plan. Further, properly executed Defensible Space does not equate
to denuding a site of all vegetation, therefore, soil erosion and debris flow should not exceed historic
rates.
"The Commission (Basalt) expressed appreciation for the referral and interest in the future of the
proposal. Please continue to provide the Town with updates on the progress of your deliberations."
Robert Warner. Jr.: Mr. Warner's response indicates that, "1 would like to say that 1 am totally
behind the concept of strengthening our land use regulations as it relates to wildfires and water systems".
Mr. Warner feels that the County should first develop a wildfire hazard map before attempting to
develop land use regulations aimed at controlling the wildfire hazard. This way, we would know which
areas to focus on and could more realistically evaluate what should and should not be done. He suggests
that the County should not rush into adopting these regulations in the next several weeks because it will
negatively affect developers, builders, architects and homeowners who now may have a substantial
amount of time and money into design of a new homes. If these regulations were to be approved, a
complete redesign may become necessary. Mr. Warner's letter is most pointed with regard to the
proposed changes to the Building Resolution. He feels that requiring one hour fire rated construction
would be ineffective in achieving the intended goal. He also references the fact that the proposed code,
if adopted, would likely conflict with the longstanding practices of numerous Design Review Boards.
These are all conscientious comments which should be considered by the Planning Commissions and the
Board of County Commissioners.
Homestead Owners Association: Concerns were expressed with regard to sprinkling, fire
resistive construction and defensible space as they may relate to the Homestead. The response seemingly
indicated that the author had not seen the proposed amendment package. The Homestead HOA was
sent a referral package along with the other 82 HOA 's during the original referral period which,
spanned from April r to May Ft.
PJA Land Planning (Rick Pylman): Ricks, verbal comments centered around the proposed
requirements for defensible space on smaller lot subdivisions where it may not be possible to create a
minimum 70 foot defensible space and the necessity to make a distinction between areas such as the
Homestead and Singletree which are developed primarily on the valley floor and which are separated
from any 'wild land' areas. Staff is aware of the discrepancy which Rick pointed out. The proposed
50
07-30-2002
regulations have been adjusted to exempt properties located within a 'low hazard rating' from the
requirement of creating a defensible space. This will solve the problem in small lot subdivisions where
the hazard rating is low. There may still be a few platted lots within subdivisions such as the
Homestead and Singletree which are located in WUI areas.
Singletree Design Review Board (John Perkins): Mr. Perkins' verbal comments were virtually
identical to those of Rick Pylman with PJA Land Planning.
Cordillera (Lance Badger): Mr. Badger submitted a letter indicating support for the concept of
wildfire regulations with several poignant questions:
"What does 'fire resistive' construction mean? Does it mean non-wood siding, as some have
suggested, or does it mean a one-hour assembly? If it means a one-hour assembly then are windows
allowed? Assuming one can find one-hour glass windows for a house, can they ever be opened and
would it then not defeat the purpose?" Pursuant to Section 3.13.2 of the proposed regulations, Fire
Resistive Construction can mean non-combustible or 518" drywall under combustible materials.
Openings in exterior walls are not regulated by this regulation.
"Most Design Guidelines within local communities call for roof overhangs to be between 18"
and 24". Will the new regulations conflict with the covenants of these communities regarding the
dimensions of the overhangs? Does the overhang (eve) have to be constructed as a one-hour assembly
as it relates to fire-resistive construction? If so, what does the detail look like, given that eves are
typically vented? Can a one-hour assembly be designed with a cold roof? Has any architect reviewed
the proposed regulations and offered comments?" Roof overhangs may remain the same dimensions.
Roof overhangs in moderate, high and extreme hazard zones would be either of non-combustible
materials or 518" drywall underneath combustible materials. Vents are to be located on the verticalface
of the eves, gable ends, or roof jacks. Yes, at least two architects have reviewed and commented at
length - both are members of the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission.
"Will an addition to a home require that the entire house be fitted with a sprinkler system in
houses which currently do not have fire suppression systems (sprinklers), or will only the addition be
required to add such a system?" As currently proposed, Section 3.13.4.3 'Additions' would require that
the entire building, including the addition, be equipped with a sprinkler system if the total floor area
exceeds 6,000 sq. ft. in a moderate hazard zone or 4,000 sq. ft. in a high or extreme hazard zone.
"What happens to the sites that are only served by wells instead of a central water supply? Wells
are typically limited to 15 GPM by the State, and any sprinkler system would require fire storage. What
kind of storage would be required for the necessary fire-flows?" If a sprinkling system is required by
Section 3. 13.4.2.b or 3. 13.4.2.c then, adequate water storage will be required.
"How are non-habitable additions treated (i.e. a garage addition or storage shed)?" As currently
proposed, Section 3.13.2 'Definitions', 'Building Size', the area of an attached garage accessory to a
dwelling may be excluded provided the garage is separated from the dwelling by a full one-hour
occupancy separation. The definition proposed for 'Defensible Space " further states that a defensible
space shall also encompass, and extend from, all buildings on the property located within a 50 foot
radius of the affected building.
"Does conformance with defensible space extend to the less of: The proposed defensible space
dimension, property line or building envelope? Since many ofthe approved PUD's supercede and
replace the ECLUR's in its entirety, the building code would be the only applicable and enforceable
regulation. As a result, the building code in certain cases would conflict with the PUD's, Wildlife
Mitigation Plans and homeowner covenants regarding disturbance outside of building envelopes, in
wildlife corridors, elk calving sites, open space parcels, etc. Will the building code have language
addressing these potential conflicts?" As currently proposed, under Section 3.13.2, 'Definitions' the
definition of Defensible Space indicates that Defensible Space shall extend pursuant to Table A or to the
property lines, whichever is less. We cannot require mitigation on property which is not owned by the
applicant. Staff, as yet, has not identified a single PUD Guide which contains restrictions on alteration
51
07-30-2002
of the landscape outside of a building envelope. Some specifically allow decks, patios, hot tubs, etc.
outside of building envelopes. With regard to wildlife corridors and wildlife impacts; buildable single-
family lots have rarely been created in these areas. The wildlife corridor areas etc. are typically
intended to prevent disturbance due to building, grading and access. The strategic manipulation of
vegetation within these areas (if applicable) can be accomplished in a manner so as to not compromise
the intent of a Wildlife Mitigation Plan which is to protect wildlife and their movements. Homeowner
covenants cannot be less restrictive than the County's regulations, therefore if these regulations are
adopted, various Homeowner Associations will need to bring their covenants into accord with the
County's minimum regulations.
"Has the Colorado Division of Wildlife made any official comments regarding the proposed
regulations?" A referral was sent to CDO W during the referral period which extended from April rt to
May Ft. No response was received.
"If the County approves a building permit on a lot which increase the risk of injury to an adjacent
home, does the County have any liability? Will not any approved building permit increase the risk to
existing adjacent homes, if the setbacks are less than the defensible space?" Per our County Attorney,
the County would not incur liability.
What happens in attached housing situations (i.e.: one duplex owner conforms and the other does
not)?" In the instance where each one half duplex owner also owns and singularly controls one half of
the 'lot' upon which the entire duplex is located then, the wildfire regulations would apply to only the
half of the duplex and lot in question. In instances where each one half of the duplex represents a lot
held in single ownership and the remainder of the 'lot' upon which the entire duplex is located is owned
jointly by both one half duplex owners then, any alteration to the commonly owned 'lot' would require
the concurrence of both one half duplex owners. Defensible Space would need to be implemented on the
entire 'lot '.
Eagle River Fire Protection District: The Eagle River Fire Protection District was integrally
involved in all meetings pertaining to the proposed wildfire regulations. In review of drafts ofthe
proposed regulations up to the point of sending them on referral, the District was in support. The
District's has since indicated 'qualified' support for the proposed regulations with reference to the
comments set forth in Mr. Warner's letter of response. (Please note that Mr. Warner and Mr. Badger
both sit on the ERFPD 's governing Board).
Gypsum Fire Protection District: The Gypsum F.P.D. submitted a letter urging the adoption of
the Wild land/Urban Interface code as proposed. The Board of Directors and the Fire Chief reviewed
and discussed the code and fully support it.
Greater Eagle F.P.D.: The Board of Directors, Staff and Volunteers ofthe Greater Eagle F.P.D.
express their full support of the proposed Wildfire Regulations with regard to Wild land fire
management in Eagle County. The response indicated that these regulations are necessary and desirable
in order to reduce the potential for loss of homes in the WUI areas of the County. To date all fire
protection agencies in the County have been working with people in their own areas to try educating
property owners. This proposal will begin to really help all the fire agencies in the valley with an ever-
growing problem of homes built within the previously undeveloped wild lands. It will also begin to
reduce the chances of a possible catastrophic fire moving through new development and destroying it.
Recently we have learned that the USFS and BLM are trying to begin fuel management proj ects near the
existing subdivision of Eby Creek Mesa and surrounding area. This will be a great step in reducing the
threat to a very high hazard subdivision.
Knight Planning Services. Inc.: In a letter from Tom Boni, he commends the County for
identifying an area that needs additional regulations to promote overall public safety. Tom questions the
proposed regulations with regard to the Eagle County Road Standards because there are a different set of
circumstances where a development is located in a low hazard area, provided with adequate municipal
water service, fire hydrants, and are within close proximity to fire stations. Tom believes that separate
52
07-30-2002
routes of entrance and exit into development is warranted where there is a significant fire hazard, the
development is of significant size or, when there are other implications affecting public safety. There
are many existing examples within our medium density subdivisions where 25 - 40 homes exist on
streets or on a combination of streets that have one access connection to the surrounding community.
This is generally a result of topography and ownership patterns. These neighborhoods are attractive and
safe. Tom suggests language with regard to the requirement for Dual Access in order to provide
flexibility: For small developments in areas served by municipal water service and located in areas that
have a manageable fire hazard rating and other requirements that are satisfactory (upon review and
approval) by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, may be served by once access roadway.
Section 4-620.J.9.(4) Access Approaches and Driveways states that, "Driveways shall not serve more
than three units." This existing regulation accommodates access for new development of up to three
residences (and three accessory dwelling units) without 'triggering' the requirement for dual points of
access. Staff believes Dual Access is a critical element of a comprehensive wildfire code and should be
applicable to all new development which exceeds three lots. That portion of the proposed regulations
pertaining to Dual Access has been adjusted to make it clear that the Board of County Commissioners
may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the requirement for Dual Access. This variance may be
granted either as part of a newly proposed development as part of the routine review or, by separate
request of the developer in instances where a singular point of access may be exceptionally problematic.
Eagle County Ambulance District: The ECAD has requested that the proposed regulations
include language which would require that all gated communities provide a standardized code for access
by ambulance, fire and law enforcement agencies. Through discussions with the County's Emergency
Management Officer, Staff has come to realize that the current practice of non-standardization is a real
problem.
Please see attached referral responses and letters.
FILE LUR-0042
1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations: the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including the
applicable towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs.
2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Notice of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations: Public notice HAS been given.
3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations:
(a) The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land
Use Regulations, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map.
(b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided.
4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D Standards of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations as applicable:
(a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and
Future Land Use Map of the Eagle County Master Plan.
(b) The proposed amendments DO address a demonstrated community need.
(c) The proposed amendments ARE in the public interest.
These proposed regulations were reviewed by the Eagle County Planning Commission (ECPC)
during three separate hearings (May 15th, 22nd and June 5th). The ECPC had numerous questions and
offered many suggestions for clarification and refinement of the proposed regulations, no substantive
alterations were made. Following the three ECPC meetings, the ECPC unanimously recommended
approval of the proposed regulations with five conditions:
1) Add language in each of the reference for access clarifying that an applicant may request from
the BoCC a variance from improvement standards with regard to dual access. This adjustment has
53
07-30-2002
already been incorporated and was made available for review by the RFVRPC
2) On Page 3, under Maintenance, include language which requires that firebreaks, turnaround
areas and emergency access routes be maintained. This adjustment has already been incorporated and
was made available for review by the RFVRPC
3) On Page 5, under Cul-de-Sacs and Turnarounds, remove reference to the number of units
served and retain the sentence which states that, "Due to mountainous terrain, it may be necessary to
have dead end roads which, exceed 1,000 feet in length". This adjustment has already been
incorporated and was made available for review by the RFVRPC
4) A recommendation to the Board to include a 90 Day Grace Period from the time of adoption
prior to the regulations coming into effect. The ECPC recommends that this time be utilized to issue
press releases and to notify all building firms, architects and Design Review Boards of the new
regulations.
5) A recommendation to the Board to hire a consultant to complete a fire hazard rating map
within one year from the date of adoption.
6) The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission (RFVRPC) reviewed the proposed
regulations during two separate hearings (May 16th and June 6th). The RFVRPC also had many questions
and offered many suggestions for clarification and refinement of the proposed regulations. Following
the two RFVRPC meeting, the RFVRPC unanimously recommended approval of the proposed
regulations with five conditions:
a. Provide alternatives for creating Defensible Space in Moderate Hazard fire danger
areas which, allow either a 30 foot clear area or a 15 foot clear area within a minimum 70 foot radius of
strategically managed vegetation per Table A. Staff is inclined to go with the recommendation of the
Colorado State Forest Service with regard to the minimum amount of necessary Defensible Space. The
CSFS recommends a minimum of 70 feet on flat ground (Please reference Table A). The first 15 feet
immediately around a structure should be kept free of all trees and other obstacles. The CSFS has
repeatedly stated that anything less than 70 feet would be ineffectual.
b. Make the following adjustments to the proposed regulations:
c. On Page 3, change Item C to read Building Design versus Structural Design. This
adjustment has already been incorporated.
d. On Page 6, Item (1) Add language indicating that driveways are not required to be
paved. The ECLUR 's currently do not require that driveways be paved, additional language is not
necessary.
e. On Page 11, Section 3.13.4.1.a states that, "Otherwise within this zone, plant 'nothing'
within 3 to 5 feet of the structure." There are things you can plant (i.e. lawns and flowers). Also, What
constitutes an 'individual' spruce tree? Language with regard to what may be planted near a structure's
foundation has been incorporated. Staff believes that the term 'individual' is self explanatory.
f. On Page 12, under Moderate Hazard Construction, indicate that eaves and soffits shall
be of fire resistive construction as opposed to one-hour rated. Soffit assemblies are not Iated because the
building code doesn't deal with soffits. This adjustment has already been incorporated.
3) A recommendation to the Board to include a 90 Grace Period from the time of adoption prior
to the regulations coming into effect. The RFVRPC recommends that this time be utilized to issue press
releases and to notify all building firms, architects and Design Review Boards of the new regulations.
4) A recommendation to the Board to hire a consultant to complete a fire hazard rating map in
less than one year from the date of adoption.
5) Revisit the regulations after the mapping is complete.
Mr. Narracci stated at the last hearing the Board had a number of concerns they wanted staff to
look into. He stated the Board has a list of those points and staffs recommendation. He reviewed the
bullet points for the Board.
54
07-30-2002
1. 45 foot turn radius for emergency vehicles. He stated that is the radius that most fire districts
use.
Chairman Gallagher asked if the future looks like this radius will continue to serve.
Carol Mulson, Eagle River Fire Protection District, stated the new trucks they purchased had
tighter turning radius so the 45 feet will work.
Barry Smith, Emergency Management Officer, stated they have had discussion with the BLM
and the Forest Service and have received good cooperation.
Chairman Gallagher asked about the ability to defend property across property.
Mr. Smith stated Colorado does allow defensible space measures to take place. He stated the
Federal Agencies must conduct an Environmental Impact Study before measures can be taken.
Mr. Narracci stated another important issue is how these regulations can be applicable with
PUD's. In speaking with the Attorney's Office, the regulations are in two sections, a new development
section and a new construction section. The new development section could not be applied to existing
PUD's. Under the building resolution they will supercede anything that was approved previously with a
PUD. However as an option, the Board could grandfather in PUD's. They did add a sentence on page
10, under applicability, these regulations would apply to all development and new construction. These
will supercede unless the PUD language is stricter, then those would apply.
Mr. Narracci stated the next point was to modify the provisions for obtaining a wildfire rating.
On page 11, staff or the local Fire District or the Colorado State Forest Service, using correct criteria,
has been added to the section and will be performed on a case by case basis.
Chairman Gallagher stated he has no ability to determine the denfensibilty of risk. Should it say
certified members.
Mr. Narracci concurred. He stated the next point was the minimum standards ofthe insurance
providers.
Mr. Smith stated the insurance organizations have related wildfire issues are not addressed. The
only requirement is for water supply.
Mr. Narracci stated State Farm bases thier ratings on zip codes and on a full time manned station.
Within the 10 mile radius, they do offer breaks for sprinkling, and new construction is given discounts
for fire measurers. They do not recognize defensible space. They do however continue to monitor the
property and make recommendations.
Chairman Gallagher stated one of the things the public likes to associate with regulation is
reduced insurance rates. He asked if they can tell anyone these regulations will reduce rates.
Steve Nickoli, State Farm Insurance, stated one of the reasons they made the change to move
away from ISO, is to go on-line for a ratings base and review each property. The basis is protected
versus unprotected. If a home is unprotected, it still can be written a policy but there has to be wildfire
mitigations. In Eagle County, overall the rates did come down somewhat. The protection class index
worked closely, hand in hand, but from their standpoint they had to make a change. The ISO rating
basis goes on the risk of fire and insurance. It makes more sense to change the way they insure
properties.
Mr. Smith stated with the 2002 wildfire season, insurance companies were not writing new
policies. He stated a couple of homeowners in Bellyache Ridge 2 were advised they needed to make
changes in their fire protection or would face significiant increases.
Mr. Narracci spoke to the next point, the Wildfire Hazard Map. He stated on the first paper of
the regulations there is a definition. He stated the Board also wanted a time frame in which the staff
would respond in implementing these regulations.
Dan Stanek, Building Official, stated there will be approximately 2,000 homes. He stated they
recommend the County hire a Wild Land Mitigation Specialist for the Building Department. He stated
approximately 1,600 permits will be issued this year and 500 ofthose will require a wild land site rating
and 190 will require additional mitigation. He stated it will take over 2,000 man hours to do this.
55
07-30-2002
Chairman Gallagher asked what kind of response was Douglas County having with their
applicants.
Mr. Narracci stated it was difficult to obtain a copy of the job description. He spoke to square
footage trigger points.
Mr. Stanek stated included in the Board's packets is the response from the Districts.
Mr. Smith spoke to sprinkling and related a 4,000 square foot structure requires 2 engines and
personnel to adequately suppress a fire. 6,000 square feet would require an additional engine.
Mr. Narracci spoke to the more fire resistant materials that have been referenced by the Forest
Service publication which includes all types of fire resistent plants and trees.
Mr. Simonton stated there are approximately 120 smaller shrubs, i.e. plants, grasses and 25 larger
trees and shrubs listed. He stated evergreen trees are not listed.
Mr. Narracci spoke to penalties and related they would be treated as with any code enforcement
Issues.
Chairman Gallagher stated the problem will be that five years from now things have grown, etc.
Mr. Narracci stated there will be three visits to the the site and the third will be after the home is
finished and has defensible space. In five years they can pull up the plans and see what it is supposed to
look like. Code enforcement also listens and investigates complaints from the neighbors.
Mr. Narracci stated the next point was hazard rating & mapping.
Mr. Smith stated the purpose of the map was to use it as a tool. He stated little hazards may not
need a site survey. They want to identify the risky areas prior to development. The map will be used as
a guide. Procedures of the map would follow topography, water availability, access, utilities, vegetation
cover and wildfire availability. He stated the slope class can be identified from the GIS maps. Access,
they look at driveways, road width, maximum grade, ingress and egress routes and secondary means of
access. Utilities they would look at above or below ground. He stated on fuels they would look at fuel
type and stand continuity. Water availability, they are looking at 250,000 gallons per minute. 1 and ~
inch lines flow 125 gallons per minute. Mr. Smith stated the process for developing the hazard map was
personnel from the County and local fire departments will collect the data after being trained by the
Forest Service and compile the data on the GIS maps. The water availability data is already out there.
Chairman Gallagher asked if one of the other areas of consideration, rather than topography
would it be exposures.
Mr. Smith stated exposures would be considered as part of the fuels.
Mr. Narracci stated the Board had asked if staff would provide more information on the Roaring
Fork Planning Commission recommendation. He stated on page 14 they were suggesting, based on the
categories, that in a low category there would be no mitigation required. For those in moderate areas
they would have choices of a clear area or a 15 foot clear area mitigated according to Table A. In
discussions with the Forest Service, 70 feet is the minimum amount necessary for defensible space.
When applicable - as of the date they become active, any building permit before that date would
be exempt. New development proposals these regulations would apply.
35 acre parcels be included - 35 acre parcels are exempt from review and therefore these
regulations would not apply but at the time of building permit. Defensible space and sprinkling would
also apply.
Mr. Simonton stated disputes will be handled by staff to the degree possible. Staff is proposing
criteria that will be made available and will be in laymans terms. He stated existing standards will have
impacts. Design Review Boards will find it necessary to revisit their covenants.
Mr Narracci spoke to clustering home sites. Not every property would lend itself to a clustering
. type of arrangement. Making clustering an aspect of these Regulations may not be a good idea.
Commissioner Menconi asked if it would be possible to make an option available in the
regulations.
Chairman Gallagher stated the idea of using clustering for mitigation could be appropriate but
56
07-30-2002
sometimes causes other problems. Across the board is not necessarily a good thing.
Menconi questioned testimony regarding clustering.
Mr. Smith stated Mr. Vroman stated clustering sometimes have shared water systems which
could be a positive.
Commissioner Menconi stated it is a case by case basis.
Mr. Smith stated in some situations it would make sense.
Mr. Simonton stated there will be the opportunity to discuss clustering and it may be
advantageous for the developer to look it.
Commissioner Stone stated it does not make sense to mention clustering in the regulations.
Mr. Narracci spoke to discussions with Design Review Board's. He reviewed those discussions.
Chairman Gallagher asked about the time frame.
Mr. Stanek stated it could add a week to the process. He stated currently the time frame is 4
weeks or less.
Commissioner Stone asked about the minimum square footage that would require sprinkling. He
stated it will cost an awful lot of money to add sprinklers to an existing house.
Mr. Narracci stated if the Regulations are approved, a lot of real estate transactions would
become contingent upon hazard ratings. One suggestion was to include representatives of the
Homeowners Associations at the discussions. He spoke to consistency with the hazard rating. Staff has
left it down to the site specific survey
Chairman Gallagher asked about supervision and review.
Mr. Narracci stated for the interim Mr. Smith would be the person with the information. They
should be revisited at a later time. He spoke to defensible space on smaller lots. Entire subdivisions
could enter into an arrangement with the County to implement subdivision wide mitigations as opposed
to the proposed mitigations. The subdivision would then be exempt from the regulations.
Commissioner Stone stated the merit is that the process is speeded up. Making defensive
communities is hard and how is a hazard rating of low going to apply.
Chairman Gallagher stated he agrees with all ofthat but the "in lieu of regulations".
Mr. Simonton stated the purpose of that is to get the community to a low rating.
Mr. Narracci stated the overall hazard rating would go down. He related Mr. Harvey stated he
was not adverse to the idea but they would have to implement those concepts as stated in the regulations.
Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment
Jack Hunn, Vail Resorts, stated he is involved with design and construction. He stated he gets
involved with all their construction. They are in contact with a lot of people trying to understand these
regulations. He stated they are the largest employer in the County. They have developed a great number
of affordable housing units. The appreciate the work by staff but they remain concerned if these
regulation are adopted. The cost of construction will increase for every home and this will serve as a
dis-incentive over time for people to improve their properties. Over time this may adversley affect
property values. He stated they have a better understanding of the regulations but are concerned that this
regulation is ready for adoption. Primarily because the mapping has not been done. They have spoken
with developers who do not know about this. The maps have not been done. They feel that before this
is adopted, the criteria should be understood and the mapping should be done. Irrigated landscaping,
homes that have sprinkling, heated driveways. The regulations should anticipate the possibility of a
community wide mitigation effort. There should be a provision for an entire community working out the
mitigation to not have a patchwork quilt type of community. Homes will be visible from the 1-70
corridor. They requested the County postpone adoption of the regulations today and take some more
time to complete the mapping.
Chairman Gallagher asked to what point would they negotiate mitigation.
Mr. Hunn stated they would suggest some relief from property by property compliance. In
Beaver Creek most of the homes are not sprinkled. Response time is shorter as there is a fire department
57
07-30-2002
and security on duty.
Chairman Gallagher stated from what he's heard, it is more important to maintain what the
people have moved here for rather than adhereing to the regulations.
Jack Hunn stated he is most concerned with the piece meal way oflife in Beaver Creek. If there
were more of a community setting where they had uniform compliance that would be a better way.
Chairman Gallagher asked, is the motivation sufficient to have development wide compliance
even if the Regulations are passed as written.
Mr. Hunn stated the communities they have helped develop would have that preference.
Commissioner Stone stated there should be recognition that the DRB have guidelines that
counter these regulations. He asked what resolution can they suggest to have compliance.
Mr. Hunn stated they would bring their guidelines into conformance with the regulations.
Commissioner Stone stated there will have to be adjustments to regulations of the Design
Review Boards.
Peter Halstead, area resident, stated he lives in Lake Creek and represents most of the neighbors.
He stated the homeowners have come here to live in the woods. What they really are here for is the
safety and the nature. He stated by adopting these regulation the Commissioners are trying to make
Eagle County Safe.
Chairman Gallagher stated they are trying to protect the homes from fires and visa versa
Chairman Gallagher closed public comment.
Commissioner Stone suggested this be tabled to allow the Board to review the comments made
today and make their suggestions. He stated it may not work well have the Forest Service review
everything.
Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number LUR-0042, Wildfire Regulations, to August
29, 2002.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
August 6, 2002.
~-Y{
Chairman ~
58
07-30-2002