Loading...
Minutes 08/05/2002 SPECIAL MEETING AUGUST 5, 2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Tom Stone Tom Moorhead George Roussos Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner County Attorney Asst. County Administrator Clerk to the Board Absent: Am Menconi Commissioner This being a Special Meeting held in E1 J ebel, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: VIS-0014, Castle Ridge Subdivision Justin Hildreth, Planner, presented file number VIS-0014, Castle Ridge Subdivision. He stated per Section 5-260.G: Variance from Improvement Standards, The Board of County Commissioners is the authority that decides variances from the improvement standards. Prior review by the Planning Commission is not stipulated in the Land Use Regulations. Staff recommendation is for denial. Mr. Hildreth stated this is a petition for a Variance from Improvement Standards, and for those requirements of Section 4-620 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations ("LUR") as noted in the attached Exhibit "A" which was submitted by the petitioner. These variances will be for the access road to the proposed Castle Ridge Subdivision. The Castle Ridge Subdivision proposes to use the existing Castle Lane and Knight Road for the access. These roads do not meet the road standards outlined in Article 4, Site Improvement Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The applicant is proposing to improve the two roads but not up to Eagle County standards. Eaele County Plannine Department This application is a precursor to a Preliminary Plan approval for the Castle Ridge Subdivision proposed to be accessed through Seven Castles Estates. The Planning Division recommends denial unless the applicant demonstrate that access will be adequate for emergency and service vehicles. Currently, Knight Road and Castle Lane are maintained and plowed by individual property owners. There is not a homeowners association or metro district that is responsible for the maintenance of the roads. The large service vehicles, such as trash trucks, cannot negotiate the current alignment. Emergency vehicles cannot access the full length of the existing Castle Lane. Eaele County Road and Brid~e Department The proposed lane widths are too narrow. Most full-size vehicles exceed this width measured mirror to mirror. The typical road section for the passing lane shows a section 22 feet wide, 16 feet for the road and 8 feet for the passing lane. An 8 foot passing lane is too narrow. The variations for the maximum grade requested seem extreme. Maintenance is difficult for roads with grades up to 12.9%. The maintenance of the roads is not addressed and these roads are not currently maintained by Eagle County. Basalt and Rural Fire District The houses will require water storage tanks and sprinklers because of the difficulty for emergency vehicle access. 1 08-05-2002 Vehicles should be able to pass the emergency vehicles in the passing lanes. If the road had adequate width, the variance for grade and surface type would be acceptable. The short length of the road makes the grade tolerable. Adjacent Property Owners As part ofthe Sketch Plan condition, the applicant was requested to consult with the property owners along Castle Lane and Knight Road to address these issues. This variance application conflicts with concerns outlined in several letters signed by many residents along Castle Lane and Knight Road. The residents have expressed concern regarding limited right-of-way, narrow lane widths, road surface type and the limited emergency access of Castle Lane and Knight Road. The existing roads, even with the improvements, are substandard and they are concerned about the consequences of additional traffic on these roads. The applicant received Sketch Plan approval for the Castle Ridge Subdivision on February 24, 2000. The proposed Castle Ridge Subdivision is a 4-unit subdivision on 18.22 acres to be off Knight Road and Castle Lane. These two roads were created in 1964 as part of the Seven Castle Estates Subdivision. From the Seven Castle Estates Plat, it does appear that it was intended that Castle Lane provide the access to the lot proposed to be the Castle Ridge Subdivision. Knight Road and Castle Lane are public roads not maintained by Eagle County because they do not meet Eagle County Road standards. Currently, no organization is responsible for the maintenance of these two roads. As a result maintenance on these roads is sporadically done by single homeowners when it deteriorates to unacceptable levels. The maintenance of these roads is not addressed as part of this variance application. As part of the Sketch Plan approval for the Castle Ridge Subdivision, the following condition was attached: "Road and right-of-way issues affect properties down-road ofthis approved development. In addressing these issues, the applicant shall consult with those property owners. At the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval, the applicant shall report the results of the consultations and present solutions to the road and right-of-way problems, subject to approval by the Eagle County Engineer. The road and right-of-way problems include the following: a. The existing width of the right-of-way through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision of 40 feet vs. the Eagle County standard of 50 feet. b. The surface of the existing road through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision of gravel vs. the Eagle County standard of pavement. c. The roadway width of the existing road through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision is approximately 14 feet vs. the Eagle County standard of 24 feet. d. The grade of the existing road through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision is 13 percent vs. the Eagle County standard of 8 percent with a maximum of 10 percent. e. The switch back radius on part of the existing road through Seven Castles Estates Subdivision is 30 feet vs. the Eagle County standard of 80 feet." Following the Sketch Plan phase, the applicant decided that a variance from the improvement standards would be required for the access road even with the proposed improvements. The applicant wishes to vary from these standards because the effects would not be compatible with the existing environment in the subdivision. Effects that would not be compatible with the existing environment include large cut and fills, changing the nature of the rural road to a more suburban road and taking of right-of-way from adjacent property owners. In Exhibit "A," the applicant has identified the specific variances from the improvement standards and the subsequent explanation of the hardships associated with the strict compliance to the standards. The applicant has identified right-of-way width, lane width, lane surface type, maximum road grade, and intersection slope as items that a variance is required. The specific locations ofthe requested 2 08-05-2002 variances are also identified in Exhibit "A." Determination of Road Classification: The first step is to decide the appropriate road standard is to classify the roads. Knight Road is classified as a Rural Residential Road. Castle Lane is classified as a Rural Minor Collector Type VI. These roads were not previously classified by Eagle County since they are not county roads. The classifications for these two roads were determined by the applicant's engineering consultant. Application Must Be Specific: In previous applications for variances from the road standards, the Eagle County Attorney's Office has requested that the application be very specific concerning the section of the LUR for which a variance is requested, the location of the variance, and the reason for the variance, including the hardship caused by attempting to comply with the LUR. The petitioner has provided this specific information in Exhibit "A." Should the Board of County Commissioners decide to approve the request for variance, Exhibit "A" will be incorporated into the Resolution. County Engineer: The County Engineer's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-61 0.A.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safetv and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an alternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity that reflect community values equal or better than that established by these standards. . . " For my evaluation, I interpreted the standards in the LUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values," since the LUR were adopted after extensive work and comment by the community. Board of County Commissioners: The Board of County Commissioners' responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260.G.2 ofthe LUR. It states, in part, "The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the petitioner of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. Hardship is not defined in the LUR. However, the definition of hardship in Webster's Dictionary implies that hardship is derived from some sort of privation or deprivation. The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the petitioner will be deprived of some or all of their right to use the land if the LUR is strictly followed. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: Assuming that the Board of County Commissioners will make a finding that the Rural Residential Road standard is appropriate, and that they wish to consider the request for variances, staff makes the following findings: 1. The petitioner HAS filed a petition for a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-260.G of the LUR' 2. The petition HAS been properly advertised and is ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. Variance Items Numbered 1 through 6, as shown in Exhibit "A," requested by the petitioner will not provide a road design that will perform equally, is equally durable, and/or be equally safe as that required by the Rural Residential Road Standards of the LUR. The following paragraphs explain staffs reasons for Finding No.3. Each standard that the applicant is asking for a variance for is listed and followed by the applicants description of the hardship and the staff s response. STANDARD NO.1: Road Right-of-Way width for Knight Road. [Section 4-620.J] The minimum right-of- way standard for a Rural Residential Road is 50 feet. The applicant is requesting a right-of-way width of 40 feet instead of the standard 50 feet for Knight Road. The applicant thinks it is a hardship to comply with standard because the cuts and fills required would be undesirable for the local residents. The issue of the narrower road Right-of- Way is interrelated with the request for a lane width 3 08-05-2002 variance, which is Standard No.2. [-] FINDING: Road Right-of-way width for Knight Road. The narrower road right-of-way width DOES NOT show equality of performance because it does not allow for appropriate lane widths once grading and drainage ditches are included in the right-of-way. STANDARD NO.2: Lane Width and Shoulders for Knight Road and Castle Lane. [Section 4-620.J] The minimum lane width for a Rural Minor Collector VI is 22 feet and for a Rural Residential Road is 24 feet. The applicant is requesting a road width of 16 feet with passing lanes of 22 feet including shoulders on Knight Road and Castle Lane. The applicant has stated that the hardship to comply with this standard is that there is only 40 feet of right-of-way currently in existence preventing meeting the standard without obtaining additional right-of-way. [-] FINDING: Lane Width and Shoulders for Knight Road and Castle Lane. There is NOT an equality of performance for a road when two vehicles cannot pass. With this proposal, one vehicle must pull over and stop to let another vehicle pass. STANDARD NO.3: Road Surface Type. [Section 4-620.J] The standard road surface type for both of these roads is asphalt. The applicant is proposing to keep the existing road surface as gravel. The stated hardship is that local residents have expressed the desire to keep the road gravel and the Board of County Commissioners required the applicant to incorporate local issues in road design. The correspondence the local residents have sent the Eagle County Engineering Department indicates that they would prefer to have the road "chip-sealed." [-] FINDING: Road Surface Type. Current county road standards do not allow for gravel roads as they are more difficult and expensive to maintain relative to paved roads. Therefore, the proposed gravel road is NOT as durable as asphalt and is more costly to maintain. STANDARD NO.4: Maximum Road Grade on Knight Road. [Section 4-620.J] The standard for the maximum road grade for a Rural Residential Road is 8%. The proposed road grade on Knight Road will be 11 %. The applicant states that the hardship in complying with this design standard because the topography on site would require major cuts, fills and retaining walls. [-] FINDING: Maximum Road Grade on Knight Road. [Section 4-620.J] It is difficult to accept steeper grades as equally safe is very difficult. Obviously, as grades steepen, it takes vehicles longer to stop in the downhill direction, thus having an obvious safety reduction. The effect of the road grade is further compounded by the request for a narrower road. Since the stretches with the steeper grade are relatively short, emergency services thinks the steeper grade would be manageable for there vehicles if the road is brought up to standard width. STANDARD NO.5: Intersection Slope [Section 4-620.J.5] The standard allowable intersection slope is 2% for 20 feet on either side of the intersection. The intersection of concern is Knight Road and Frying Pan Road. The applicant is proposing a 3% intersection road grade instead of the county standard of2% for the first 50 feet. This would be an improvement over the existing intersection grade of 6% for the first 50 feet. The applicant states that there is a hardship complying with the standard because the existing county intersection is 6% for the first 50 feet. [+/-] FINDING: Intersection Slope. The higher intersection grade will NOT provide an equivalent level of service but because of the low traffic volumes it will not have a significant impact on traffic or durability and should be manageable. ST ANDARD NO.6: Maximum Road Grade on Castle Lane [Section 4-620J] The maximum road grade for a Rural Minor Collector VI is 8% to 12%. The proposed road grade on Castle Lane is 12.9% compared with the road standard of a maximum of 12% for this type of road. The applicant states that the hardship in complying with this standard is that the existing road grade is 16% in some areas and the county standard is 12%. A maximum grade of 12.9% would be a vast improvement on this road. [-] FINDING: Maximum Road Grade on Castle Lane. Although this is not a large increase over the county road standard, accepting the steeper road as equally safe is difficult. As with Knight 4 08-05-2002 Road, the effects of the steeper road are compounded with the request for a narrower road. In conjunction with the narrower road request, this road will NOT be equal to a road built to the county road standard. Mr. Hildreth expressed that it his understanding that this is a hearing only and no vote will be made until the file is heard again tomorrow. Staff recommendation is for denial. He explained that though the roads were plated in 1964, they were never accepted by the County for ownership. He stated the applicant must demonstrate who owns the road before they can take this to preliminary plan. Commissioner Stone stated it is his experience in order for the Board to grant a variance the variance must be based on undue hardship to be faced by the applicant. He stated what the Board will need to hear is what is that hardship. Steve Isom, Isom and Associates representing Peter Fodor, stated the roads are considered to be public roads and shown on the plat as such. He stated no one has been paying taxes specifically for these roads. He stated the property is zoned rural residential as is much of the property in that area. He stated when it was zoned, this property was considered to have adequate access. He referred to the sketch plan approved. It is 17 acres and the use by right would allow eight primary and eight secondary units. They are asking for only four lots and no secondary units. He stated the plat has always shown this road as access to the property. He stated the density is very low. He suggested the only real concession was to keep the housing off the ridges. They moved the building envelopes lower down and provided a driveway access. Mr. Isom showed another map and stated when they received approval on the sketch plan they agreed that they would need to have variances on the roadway. Their intent was to build in the 40 foot right of way the best road they could for that sight. He spoke to the grades, stopping distance and access onto Frying Pan Road. He spoke to the hardship of providing a wider right of way. Other concerns deal with the hillside which are 15% to 16% slopes. He explained it is physically impossible to lessen the slope. He spoke to the first fifty feet and modifying it to the fullest capacity. One of the things in their discussions at sketch plan was to talk with the emergency services people. He stated they have the support from the Basalt Rural Fire Protection District and the change in the road width and the grades. He stated they asked they have a 5,000 gallon storage tank unit and they have agreed to that as well as the cul-de-sac and sprinkling systems in each home. They have recommended approval and feel this would be a large improvement over what is there today. Yance Nichols, Sopris Engineering, stated they used the criteria that the fire departments needed for services. He spoke to the area of the road and a retaining wall that will be needed. He spoke to the area where they are changing the slope of the road. He stated the other criteria came from looking at the slope, considering sight distance, and the intersections where they increased the radius. He showed the intersection and grade which are fairly steep. He spoke to drainage and the culverts they propose. He stated if they had 50 feet they could do grading instead of walls. He further commented that one ofthe conditions is the improvement of the road. He stated most of the subdivision is already built out. One of their goals was to get the emergency vehicles up there where they can't get now. They want to minimize the impact. He suggested pavement isn't possible. He stated the passing lanes are actually 28 feet wide. He stated they have a twenty foot platform. They did passing lanes because of snow conditions in the winter. He stated he is available for questions. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Isom to repeat for him why this is a hardship. Mr. Isom stated the hardship in their case is the plat provides for a 40 right of way. He stated in this type of right of way it would not be possible to meet County standards. He stated it is not possible to go with that road standard. He spoke to the grading that exists and that they only have one area where they can not meet the 12%. He spoke to the other area that leads to the Frying Pan. He stated to accomplish this would be a hardship and the actua11 % would minimize the road above. He stated most 5 08-05-2002 of this deals with topography. Chairman Gallagher asked about the sketch plan approval condition requiring them to work with the neighbors down road. He read the statement, "road and right of way issues that affect properties down road from this approved development in addressing these issues the applicant shall consult with these property owners." He asked for a summary of the results of those conversations. Mr. Isom stated Campbell Meyer went over to meet the neighbors and the general conscientious is that most people do not want additional traffic on the road. He spoke to a site visit he made in July and one of the neighbors staked out the right of way in front oftheir property to avoid existing vegetation. He stated they are willing to work with them. He stated they can't do a full County road profile and still have any leeway in moving the road around. Chairman Gallagher asked what number of the adjacent property owners Mr. Meyer spoke with. Mr. Isom stated he believes that Mr. Meyer came over at least twice and he did speak with Lucy Jukes about the move. Chairman Gallagher asked that individuals wishing to speak identify themselves and state whether or not they are home owners. Bob Johnson, an effected property owner, stated he is lot five on the intersection of Knight Road and Castle Lane. He thanked the Commissioners for coming over and thanked Mr. Isom as well. He thanked them for the notice that was issued. He stated it appears they have similarity in that they both have hardships. He stated for the developer it is an economic hardship and for them and the neighbors it is a hardship as well. He spoke to the future maintenance and the potential for future development. They want to be sure as this proceeds that they have adequate roadways for this and future developments. It is clear that the road is substandard and he sees this as being an opportunity for it to be corrected. He feels the report given by staff has a lot of merit. He stated there was representation that there were meetings with the neighborhood, and that did not take place. He stated Mr. Meyer did show up at a informal meeting at Lucy Jukes house. He stated this was an informal neighborhood got together and he doesn't believe it constitutes adequate notification. He stated they feel the increased traffic to this area is not being addressed nor are the future expenses. He stated this is in conflict with the Land Use Regulations that speaks to public safety and not increasing costs. He stated they are asking that if the County is to proceed with this, they will get a road that will be maintained by the County. He spoke to the hazards in the winter and they would like to see the road brought up to County standards. Chairman Gallagher asked ifhe has a concern with four units if the road is brought up to County Standards. Mr. Johnson stated no. Chairman Gallagher asked ifhe would be willing to give up five or ten feet of his frontage on the road to accommodate it being at County Standards. Mr. Johnson stated it would depend on the design ofthe road, retainage and landscaping. Pamela Ingrid, property owner, asked who will be paying for the road improvements. Chairman Gallagher asked if Ms. Ingrid is a property owner adjacent to the road. Ms. Ingrem stated she is not. Olwen Garcia, area resident, stated their house is not adjacent to the road but further up the road. She questioned the upkeep of the road and stated they are not opposed to the four units. She stated it sounds like a lot of work will be done and wants to know who will be maintaining it. Peter Sahula, a resident of 0099 Knight Road since March, 1984, stated he agrees with Eagle County staff that the variance should be denied as it does not meet County standards. He feels the only way a variance should be approved is if the County will approve it and take over the road maintenance. He spoke to the developer building retaining walls or widening to lesser standards. He stated if the County is willing to grant the variance then the County must maintain it. Knight Road and Castle Lane residents should not bear the burden. Chairman Gallagher asked if he would be willing to give up 5 to 10 feet of right of way to build 6 08-05-2002 the road to County standards. Mr. Sahula stated he believes he would have to be compensated for that. He stated he would not be happy with that. Perry Jukes, adjacent property owner, pointed out the property does go to the Frying Pan Road. He spoke to the old Stage Coach Road and that does have access to the property. He stated the road was built in 1984 and he is not sure what the standards were. He stated this road is servicing three different subdivisions. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Jukes ifhe would be willing to provide 5 to 10 feet of right of way to improve the road. Mr. Jukes stated it would not affect his property. Steve Burk, property owner on Knight Road, but not adjacent to the subdivision, spoke to the number of children that live on Knight Road that access the bus stops. He spoke to the bicycling and sledding in the area. He stated there are numerous times when traffic can not see the children on the road. He suggested if they can bring the road up to minimum County standards they can mitigate many of the danger problems that exist now. He spoke to it being a single lane road and that it is very unsafe. He stated all the traffic comes into the Frying Pan at the intersection. He suggested they should not settle for anything less than the minimum County standards. Neighbors have previously chipped in to do the maintenance and upkeep on the road. He stated they have used road base, but it does not hold up. He stated minimum standards include blacktop. He stated the most important thing they have in mind is the safety of the people in the subdivision and they must bring this road up to the minimum County standards. He asked if this road is to be approved, what materials will they use on the road and on the retaining walls. He spoke to spring thaws. David Clark, 2 Knight Road, stated they appreciate the Board coming over for the meeting. He stated he agrees with what has been said. He stated the only hardship to the developer is economic. The hardship to them involves the retaining walls and what they propose to do. He stated they feel the consultation requested was not carried forward. He stated the road surface is a serious issue. The road does need to be brought up to a standard that the County will be willing to maintain. Chairman Gallagher asked about parting with 5 to 10 feet to bring the road up to County standards. Mr. Clark stated he would not. Terry Griggs, area resident, stated as homeowners in the subdivision for the last 19 years they have noticed a need for improvement on the road. He stated it is their opinion that the variance as requested would do nothing but add to the problem. He stated the variances are an inadequate attempt to improve inadequate roads. He suggested they must be improved to the minimum standards of the County and then maintained by the County. Chairman Gallagher asked about giving up 5 to 10 feet of frontage. Mr. Griggs stated 5 feet possibly, but not 10 feet. Garret Royce, owner of lot #7 in Seven Castle Estates, stated this will effect him. His two concerns are the maintenance and upkeep of the road. He suggested that improving the road they have a further burden of cost to maintain. Thus far the maintenance has been an elective contribution. He stated the variance would ultimately require additional expense and on those people who elect to repair those. He stated if the road is brought up to minimal standards he would have no conflict with the subdivision. Chairman Gallagher asked about giving up 5 to 10 feet of frontage. Mr. Royce stated he would be happy with 5 feet. Kenny Smith, lives further up on Knight Road, stated he is in agreement with those who have spoken previously. Paul Anderson, property owner on Castle Lane, stated he is here to show support for his neighbors. He spoke to driving a two wheel drive up the road and in the winter and it is very dangerous. 7 08-05-2002 He stated if the road encroached on their property it would make it very steep. He suggested giving up 10 feet could pose a hazard for his property. Peter Sahula read part of a letter from Carla Nicholson who wrote that approval of the requested variances opens the door for the next big lot on the other side of Castle Ridge subdivision. She stated she would fine it hard to believe that the County would approve this for the benefit of one lot owner. Jim New, attorney from Glenwood Springs with Levenworth and Carp, spoke to the dedication on the plat and that it means nothing ifit was never accepted by the County. He believes the ownership lies with the existing homeowners. Chairman Gallagher questioned that since 1964 why they haven't formed an Improvement District and fixed the road. Steve Burke stated they have not established any type of organization to maintain the road because they have been able to do so themselves. As more houses have been built and more traffic on the road, traffic has become compounded and they can not longer manage the maintenance. He stated the road is deteriorating faster and faster. Chairman Gallagher asked if all of the lots from the 1964 subdivision have dwellings. Mr. Burke stated there are still vacant lots. Chairman Gallagher suggested that in 1964 the County probably did not accept the road as it didn't meet any standards. He asked for a show of hands of those that might be willing to form an Improvement District to improve the road. Mr. Burke stated that would be dependent on what type of road they will have. Chairman Gallagher suggested the road must be brought up to a standard that County will accept. He suggested what they are insinuating is that the last one in gets to pay. He suggested a reasonable solution may be to establish a Special Improvement District to improve the roads to the County level. Mr. Isom stated the map on the wall is not correct. He explained the difference and that the triangle is not part of the subdivision. He stated the old Stage Coach went up Taylor Creek and went through the property. He questioned if it has ever been vacated. Yance Nichols stated they are proposing drainage improvement and culverts that will alleviate some of the maintenance. He spoke to the walls and that they would require no maintenance. He explained they do this to reduce maintenance. The retaining walls are almost maintenance free. He stated the drainage is a critical part and believe culverts will be a great improvement. Chairman Gallagher asked the applicant to respond to the suggestion from Mr. New that this is a private road. Mr. Isom referred to the map and the dedication on the plat. He stated if someone had been paying taxes on the road right of way for the past 38 years, there would be a question on it, but a public road is not taxed by the County and the County has not been taxing it. He stated he would agree that it has been privately maintained. Tom Moorhead stated he does believe that it is an issue in either regard. He suggested that is an action they would have to take outside of this particular forum at this time. Mr. Isom suggested anyone who has received title, it would have been shown that this was a public road. Yance Nichols stated just by widening the road will not allow it to be improved to County standards. Chairman Gallagher stated the questions he has posed are to answer his concerns as to the willingness to cooperate and bring the road up to where it should be. Commissioner Stone stated he shares the same train of thought and that whether or not this subdivision is approved or these variances are approved, this road needs to be fixed. He questions how they can expect emergency vehicles to be able to get up there. He stated he would organize a group to build this road up to the County standards and thinks there is potential to get help from these guys to get it done. He asked they give considerable consideration to the need for an Improvement District and 8 08-05-2002 would encourage them to do that. He explained a special improvement district and a local improvement district. He suggested one sunsets at a point in time and the other does not. He explained the tax would be added on to the real estate taxes already being paid. He asked Mr. Isom about the grading and it being too difficult for them to establish their own access. He asked about maintenance since there is currently no organized maintenance schedule. Mr. Isom stated they have proposed a Homeowner's Association with the neighbors. He stated he likes the Special Improvements District, but feels if it is brought up to the standard they are proposing they could find a way to do it. He stated the use by right is two units and they are proposing two primary and two secondary units. Commissioner Stone spoke to up-zoning and what they are offering are a lot of improvements but he is not convinced that is good enough. He commented on the grades and spoke to the roadways that are public roadways elsewhere and are not maintained by the County. He stated even those are required to ask for variance as well. He stated this seems to be a pretty dramatic departure from those standards. He stated he is still having a difficult time coming up with being able to agree that they have gone far enough. Chairman Gallagher asked if this is subj ect to continuation. Commissioner Stone stated the hearing continues tomorrow and perhaps they might continue it further after tomorrow's meeting. He reiterated that they are required by law to make their decision at the Eagle County Building. Yance Nichols stated the standards they are proposing means a variance for Eagle County but it does comply with a number of surrounding Counties. He suggested the standards here are more strict. Chairman Gallagher questioned if the applicant might be interested in requesting a continuance to deliberate further with the neighbors. Gerad Royce, area property owner, stated it might be helpful for the developers to better explain their intentions and the types of materials that will be permitted. Chairman Stone stated the variance will not be in the materials. Commissioner Stone explained if all the homeowners were willing to put some money forward they could join with this applicant to bring the roads up to County standards. He explained it being a win win situation. He stated it would lessen the burden on them and perhaps they could look at this as an opportunity to do something that is long overdue. Chairman Gallagher closed the hearing. There being no further business to be brought before the Board this Special Meeting was adjourned. Attest: Clerk to the Boa 9 08-05-2002