Loading...
Minutes 12/17/2002 PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 17,2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the first item on the agenda was an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn into an Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and developing strategies for negotiations which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402 (e) concerning summer flights. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9:07 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the weeks of December 16 & 30, 2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for the week of December 26,2002, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes ofthe Board of County Commissioners meeting of November 26,2002 D) Resolution 2002-173, approving the amended and restated Articles of Incorporation of the Golden Eagle Elderly Housing Corporation E) Resolution 2002-174, authorizing the distribution of monies from the School Land Dedication Fund to Eagle County School District RE-50-J F) Child Support Enforcement Legal Services Agreement G) 2003 Payroll Schedule H) Trail Easements for the West Edwards Trail 1) Resolution 2002-175, to accept the West Edwards Trail as part of the Regional Trail System J) Lease Agreement with Crown Mountain Recreation District. Commissioner Stone asked about item J, the lease agreement with Crown Mountain Recreation District. He asked if that is an official district at this point in time. Brian Treu, Assistant County Attorney, suggested the lease may be appropriate with 1 12-17-2002 specifications. Commissioner Stone stated he would prefer to not enter into the lease until they are a legitimate district. Chairman Gallagher concurred and stated they would remove this item from the agenda. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator asked about letting the proposed district use room 218 in the Community Center building. Chairman Gallagher suggested they deal with the district after the Consent Agenda. He asked there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Brian Treu stated there were none. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented except item J. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher returned to item J and the question posed about using room 218 in the Eagle County Building in E1 Jebel. Jack Ingstad stated they have had a request from Crown Mountain to use a room on the second floor ofthe Community Center. Commissioner Stone stated he is certainly willing to have the group representing Crown Mountain use the room in the Community Center, but he is concerned with the agreement until they become an official entity. Brian Treu stated he understands the formation may be January 1. He stated he has some concern about letting anyone use the facility without a lease. Mr. Ingstad stated they meet again on January 7 and this could be tabled until that time. Commissioner Menconi moved to table item J, the Lease Agreement with Crown Moutnain Recreation District to January 7,2003. Commissioner Stone seconded. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2002-176, To Approve a Special Use Permit for the Pearch Accessory Dwelling Unit (Eagle County File No. ZS-00100). The Board considered the Applicant's request on November 19, 2002. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-176, to approve a Special Use Permit for the Pearch Accessory Dwelling Unit, file number ZS-00100. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2003 Office Supply Bid Julie Snyder Eaton, Finance Department, and Jamaica Stump presented the 2003 Office Supply Bid. She stated they advertised for bid in the Eagle Valley Enterprise for three weeks. Ten proposals were sent out and eight were received back. Staff is recommending Corporate Express for all general office supplies, Corporate Express Imaging for toners, ink cartridges and printing supplies, and Paper Wise for all green bar and cop paper. By using these vendors the County will see an average savings of 54.7%. Chairman Gallagher asked what type of time response they receive. Ms. Stump stated the next day. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Corporate Express for all general office supplies, Corporate Express Imaging for toners, ink cartridges and printing supplies, and Paper Wise for all green 2 12-17-2002 bar and copy paper. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Certification of Mill Levies Julie Snyder-Eaton, Assistant Finance Director, stated the next matter before the Board was the certification of mill levies for all taxing districts in Eagle County. These taxing districts are made up of 54 local improvement districts, 7 Towns, 3 School Districts, 1 Junior College and Eagle County Government. She stated per State Statute, the County is required to complete the Certification of Levies and Revenue form, which complies and summarizes all certifications received and return it to several Colorado State Departments and Divisions by December 22, 2002. Chairman Gallagher asked for questions. There were none. Commissioner Stone moved the Board sign the Certification of Mill Levies as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-177, Sixth Supplementary Budget Mike Roeper, Finance Director, presented Resolution 2002-177, adopting a sixth supplementary budget and appropriation of anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2002, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated monies between various spending agencies. He stated this is the final supplementary for 2002 and is primarily to cover health insurance increases and additional sales tax received from the Roaring Fork Valley Transportation in the amount of $28,000. The total supplemental is for $528,000. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-177, adopting a sixth supplementary budget and appropriation of anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2002, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated monies between various spending agencies. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda for December 17, 2002 as follows: A) X Bar Fly, Inc. Sato Sushi This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located on Edwards Village Blvd, in the area of Gore Range Brewery. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Resolution 2002-178 Amending the Eagle County Liquor & Beer Policies to include Learn2 Serve program for server training, eliminating the 15% for petitions, combining this resolution with Optional Premises & Bed & Breakfast Permits. Bryan Treu related the Commissioners must consider the Resolution amending the Beer and Liquor Policies as the Board of County Commissioners and not as the Liquor License Authority. Commissioner Stone moved to approve item A of the Liquor License Consent Agenda. 3 12-17-2002 Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-178, Amending the Liquor & Beer Policies Ms. Roach spoke to the resolution and explained the changes. The optional premise regulations and bed & breakfast regulations were added to this resolution. The Learn2Serve program was added as an option for server training. Also included was the elimination of the 15% requirement for signatures on the petitions establishing needs of the neighborhood. Commissioner Stone asked instead of the 15% requirement. Ms. Roach stated in the beginning there was no requirement on the number of signatures required on a petition. The resolution was amended to allow for the requirement of 15% ofthe inhabitants ofthe neighborhood being required on a petition. The census report is what was being used and it unfortunately did not break up unincorporated Eagle County. The Board will have the option to deny a petition ifthey would like to see more signatures. In large areas of the County, she has recommended the applicants get as close to 1 00 signatures as they can. In smaller areas, they have submitted what they can actually provide. Commissioner Stone questioned as a department, what would be acceptable. He asked about the Board's discretion. Ms. Roach stated the Board can request the applicant provide more signatures. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the definition of neighborhood and his request to have that reviewed. Ms. Roach stated they are currently working on better definitions of neighborhoods. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-178, amending and re-adopting the Eagle County Beer and Liquor Regulations. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Airport Master Plan Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated the next item on the agenda was the Airport Master Plan. She requested that the item be tabled due to additional information being received today. Commissioner Stone moved to table discussion on the Airport Master Plan until January 7,2003. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00040 Red Sky Ranch Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number PDA-00040, Red Sky Ranch. He stated the Red Sky Ranch Planned Unit Development consists of two 18 hole championship golf courses and related facilities and 87 single family home sites on 780 acres of land in Wolcott. During the construction process, several opportunities for refinement of the approved PUD have been realized. This proposal is to make the following modifications to the originally approved PUD Guide: Employee Housing: The Red Sky Ranch approval includes a commitment to provide on site employee housing in the form of a three bedroom home with an attached apartment. The location for this home was to be on Tract H near the main entrance to Red Sky Ranch. One of the proposed amendments is to relocate the housing units away from the project entryway in areas which will provide 4 12-17-2002 the future occupants a greater degree of privacy. The three bedroom home is to be located along Bellyache Ridge Road near the driving range and teaching facility on the eastern 'Fazio' course. A new Tract V is to be defined for this purpose. This home will provide housing for the on site property manager. The studio apartment is to be incorporated into the golf maintenance facility on the western 'Norman' course and will be used for a member of the golf course staff. On Tract H, a small office building for the property manager will be constructed. This proposed small office building represents the only net gain in development from the existing, approved PUD. Norman Golf Course Maintenance Facility: The original approval identified a location adjacent to the 9th Hole of the 'Norman' course for a golf maintenance facility. As road and golf course construction has progressed, it has become apparent that this site is not appropriate for the maintenance facility. The difficulty of access reduces the viability of this site. It is proposed to designate the originally approved maintenance facility site to 'Open Space' and to relocate said maintenance facility to what was originally approved as residential building Lot 69. The lot line common to both Lots 69 and 70 will be adjusted to make Lot 70 slightly smaller. The Lot 69 lot lines are to be eliminated and incorporated into the adjacent golf course tract. Norman Course Hole No.1 Revision: Hole number one is a Par 3 hole immediately adjacent to the clubhouse site. Originally, this golf hole was aligned in an east to west direction. During construction, the golf course architect realigned the hole in a north to south direction. As such, the hole now encroaches into an area which is designated as Open Space. This three acre open space tract (OS-8) will be re-designated as golf course tract and part of two residential lots (discussion follows). A two acre portion of golf course tract that was intended for this hole will be amended to open space. Relocation of Two Residential Lots: The relocation ofthe maintenance facility to Lot 69, in addition to a consolidation of Lots 10 and 12 into one lot (preViously approved by the Board on October 22, 2002/ File No. AFP-00146) has made two of the 87 originally approved home sites available for relocation. It is proposed to recreate these two single family lots adjacent to Hole No. 1 ofthe 'Norman' course. The lots, if approved, will be enumerated as Lots 88 and 89 respectively. There will be no net gain in residential density from the existing PUD approval. With all of the above anticipated alterations taken into account, the amount of acreage dedicated to residential development will increase by approximately Yz acre, the golf course tracts will decrease by approximately 1.5 acres and Open Space will increase by approximately one acre. The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report: October 1998 - The Board of County Commissioners approved a Special Use Permit for the Jouflas Ranch Golf Course to include an 18 hole golf course and a club facility. March 2000 - Board of County Commissioners approved the Sketch Plan for this proposed Planned Unit Development. January 2001- Board of County Commissioners approved a zone change and the Preliminary Plan for the Planned Unit Development. July 2001 - Board approved the Red Sky Ranch Final Plat. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering - Response dated October 22, 2002 indicated that direct access off of Bellyache Ridge Road to serve the proposed caretaker Tract V is not allowed without the specific approval of the County Engineer. A second response dated October 31, 2002 indicates that the County Engineer would find the access point acceptable if the applicant can demonstrate that it can be constructed safely. The County Engineer has approved the proposed access to Tract V. Colorado State Forest Service - The referral response indicated that the proposed changes will not alter the overall wildfire hazard analysis for the Red Sky property. Previously, the CSFS determined that the hazard rating is high. The CSFS further notes that the terminus of several roads has an inadequate "T" turn-around area. These turn-around areas will not accommodate most emergency 5 12-17-2002 vehicles. CSFS recommends that the local fire district inspect the turn-around areas. Please note that the internal roadway system, including the "T" turn-around areas, was constructed pursuant to the engineering plans which were approved with the Red Sky Ranch Final Plat. The Eagle River Fire Protection District approved the internal circulation system at that time. Colorado Geological Survey - The referral response, dated October 31,2002 indicated that the new lots will not be located in an area with a high hazard constraint. However, CGS recommends that the lots should go through the same soils and foundation investigation prior to building permit issuance as with the other lots in the Red Sky development. Colorado Division of Wildlife - The Colorado Division of Wildlife referral response, dated October 23,2002 indicated that the creation of Lots 88 and 89 appear to be a negative impact to the wildlife protection standards that were reviewed and approved as part of the original Red Sky Ranch PUD approval. The width of the original wildlife corridor is currently 1300 feet wide between Lots 68 and 16. By creating Lots 88 and 89 the distance will be reduced to 650 feet in width between Lot 89 and Lot 16 and 775 feet between Lot 88 and Lot 16. CDOW recommends that a minimum of 1000 feet be maintained for the corridor. Subsequent to receipt of this referral response, the Applicant met on site with Bill Heicher, District Wildlife Manager. Bill and the Applicant were able to reach agreement on preserving the viability of the wildlife corridor through the installation of additional landscaping buffer adjacent to Lots 88 and 89, as proposed. As of this writing, a landscape plan had not yet been provided to demonstrate how this buffering is to occur. A landscape plan for the purpose of buffering the wildlife corridor from future building sites which, satisfies the concerns of the Colorado Division of Wildlife must be submitted as a condition of approval. Natural Resources Conservation Service - Responded with 'No comment'. Referrals were also sent to the following agencies, with no response received: Eagle County Attorney's Office, Eagle County Department of Health, Eagle County Assessor's Office, Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Department of Transportation, US West/PTI, Public Service Co./KN Energy, Holy Cross Electric, Eagle River Fire Protection District, Bellyache Ridge Homeowner's Association. Additionally, 18 Adjacent Property Owners AND 33 Internal Property Owners were notified ofthis PUD Amendment proposal. One ofthe Adjacent Property Owners, Mr. Larry Litchliter, requested additional information and indicated that none of the proposed amendments would affect his property. Three Internal Property Owners also requested additional information: Mr. & Mrs. Larry Condie, Mr. Leigh Lachman and Mr. John Purchase. Upon receiving the additional information, none have offered further comment. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: I Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section ~-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. Due to the fact that Red Sky Ranch Planned Unit Development is already well under development, all of the land that is the subject of this PUD Amendment is no longer owned or controlled by one person. However, the application has been filed by Vail Resorts Development Company, on behalf of the PUD as a whole. Additionally, each of the Internal Property Owners has been notified of this proposal. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part ofthis PUD IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person. HOWEVER, the Applicant is Vail Resorts Development Company, on behalf of the PUD as a whole. 6 12-17-2002 STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. The only use proposed with this amendment, which was not already considered with the original approval is that of the small administrative office building on Tract H. The current PUD Guide specifies that up to 4,000 square feet of employee housing be allowed on Tract H. Since it proposed to relocate the employee housing elsewhere within the PUD, the use of Tract H for a maximum 4,000 square foot administrative office facility seems to be a logical use ofthe site. Because this type of use was not allowed by the Resource zone district at the time when the original PUD Guide was approved, the Board must authorize a variation to include the use pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f, Variations Authorized. By virtue of the Board's action to approve this proposed PUD Amendment, inclusive of the administrative office building, the Board will have authorized the variation. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] All ofthe uses proposed in this PUD Amendment ARE NOT uses that are already designated as allowed uses in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at this time. By virtue of the Board's approval ofthis application for PUD Amendment, the proposed additional use will be acknowledged as a use-by-right within the PUD, as specified. 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. No change to the existing standards for dimensional limitations is proposed. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. At the time of the approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan, it was found that adequate, safe and convenient off-street parking had been provided. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found at the time that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved that adequate, safe and convenient parking and loading was being provided. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the adequacy of the existing off-street parking and loading. 7 12-17-2002 STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely impact existing landscaping. A landscape plan developed by the applicant, with the assistance of the Colorado Division of Wildlife was prepared that will provide additional landscaping to adequately buffer the wildlife corridor from the two new proposed home sites. The CDOW has approved ofthe proposed landscape plan. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the approved PUD Preliminary Plan DOES comply with the standards in effect at the time the Preliminary Plan was approved. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT impact existing landscaping. The introduction of additional landscaping WILL help to mitigate the any undue impacts on wildlife. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing signs nor require additional restrictions on signs other than those already provided in 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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that adequate facilities were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of these facilities. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS previously been found that adequate facilities were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval ofthe Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the provision of adequate facilities with respect to potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, or location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-ol-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for 8 12-17-2002 that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that adequate improvements were to be made. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely effect the adequacy of these improvements. Additional improvements are necessary to ensure adequate ingress/egress to the proposed employee housing site off of Bellyache Ridge Road. The Eagle County Engineer has approved this point of ingress/egress. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS previously been found that adequate improvements were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval ofthe Preliminary Plan for the PUD. As conditioned the proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect improvements regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development was compatible with other development in the area. [+] 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. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect this compatibility. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). It has previously been found that the PUD is in conformance with the Master Plan, and all applicable sub-area Master Plans. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter attributes that affect conformance with current Master Plan documents. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Master Plan. 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 9 12-17-2002 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 required for this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT required for this PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum often (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. i. Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ol- ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. ii. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that adequate open space was being provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely impact existing common recreation and open space. In fact, a net gain in open space will be realized pending approval of the PUD amendment. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It has previously been found that the development DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect common recreation and open space within the PUD with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; 10 12-17-2002 (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that recommendations regarding geology, soils, wildfire and wildlife were considered to mitigate hazards and protect resources. As conditioned, the proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely impact natural resources. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS previously been found that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents were considered prior to approval ofthe Preliminary Plan for the PUD. As conditioned, the proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect natural resources. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD Amendment IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, findings were made to warrant the zone district change to PUD based on the applicable Land Use Regulations. The proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the provisions ofthe approved PUD. Article 4, Site Development Standards When the Preliminary Plan was approved, it was found that the applicable site development standards had been satisfied. The proposed PUD Amendment does not create any non-compliance. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS previously been found that the development complied with the regulations, policies and guidelines of the Land Use Regulations applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT create any non-compliance with any provisions of the current Land Use Regulations. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. 11 12-17-2002 When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development would have available a "full range of public services", and promote maximum "economy of development". The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the spatial pattern in any way that causes inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS previously been found that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD satisfied the requirements of the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time with respect to efficient spatial patterns. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT adversely affect the spatial patterns in the area. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. When the Preliminary PIan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the area was "compatible with the characteristics" ofthe proposed use. The proposed PUD Amendment does not alter the suitability of the property. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found that the site was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT alter the suitability of the property. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely affect the compatibility of the PUD with surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS previously been found that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the compatibility of the resulting development with surrounding uses. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." A draft amended Planned Unit Development Guide is provided. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] The Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section are fully met. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] - No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon afinding by the County. . . that (1) the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The modifications proposed by this amendment of descriptive text within the PUD Guide will not create a discernible difference in the nature of the development. The proposed amendment is consistent with the existing PUD, will not affect nearby property owners, and would not be granted solely to confer a special benefit on anyone individual or property owner. [+] FINDING Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] The proposed 12 12-17-2002 PUD Amendment (1) IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment ofland abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Bob Narracci presented slides and maps to support the staff report. Rick Pylman. P J Land Planning, representing Vail Resorts Development Company, stated moving through construction they have found that they didn't like some of the original designs. They committed to building on-site housing in the form of a 3 bedroom house with an attached studio apartment at the entrance, on Tract H. As roads and the entrance were built and defined who would live in these buildings, they determined that the location of the housing wasn't desirable. These units were under the glare ofthe entry to Red Sky Ranch. He stated they found a location a bit further up Belly Ache Ridge Road they feel this is a better location, away from the entrance. They are keeping the option to put a small metro district office on Tract H. The studio unit would be moved to the west side of the Golf course maintenance facility. With regard to moving the maintenance facility on the west side, there was a location picked out but as the road was constructed that site drops away steeply and the site would be disturbed greatly. They would rather put that into open space and put the maintenance facility elsewhere. The decision was made to remove one residential lot, #69 and change the property line between lot 69 and lot 70. From a visibility and disturbance standpoint, this was a better location for the maintenance facility. The golf course architects didn't like the way hole #1 was laid out in an East West direction and was changed to a North South direction. A PUD amendment will be needed to make this change. Lot 69, becomes the maintenance facility and Lot 88 was renumbered and those will be in what is know as the T-Box area. He stated they eliminated lots 67 and 12. Mr. Pylman stated when it is all said and done, the total acreage of710 will increase by Yz acre, the golf acreage decreases by 1 and 12 acres. The open space increases by 1 acre. He stated he believes they meet the criteria for a PUD Amendment. They have addressed the conditions as recommended by. Commissioner Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi clarified there would not be a loss in employee housing but rather a movement from one location to another. He asked ifthere were any restrictions that could be put in place for the size of the maintenance facility. Bob Narracci said there was that opportunity. Commissioner Menconi asked if there were plans for the housing units. Rick Pylman stated the maintenance facility would be started in the Spring, assuming this application is approved. The studio unit will be incorporated into that facility. At some point in the summer they will start the three bedroom unit on the golf course tract. Commissioner Menconi asked for indication of size of living quarters for employees to support a 4000 square foot maintenance facility. Mr. Pylman stated they had some conceptual designs. Joe Malone, Vail Resorts Development Company, spoke about their intent to build a 900 square foot studio and 1500 square feet for the three bedroom housing unit. Commissioner Menconi asked about garages available for the housing units. Mr. Malone stated they will have a two car garage. Commissioner Menconi asked would the applicant be willing to commit to a garage and the size of the units? Mr. Malone stated they will commit to the 1,500 square foot unit with garages. He stated they are still in the design process with the studio units. Commissioner Menconi asked when construction will start. 13 12-17-2002 Mr. Malone stated it will start in the fall. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Malone to refresh his memory about required square footage and the time line for the housing units. Mr. Malone stated the requirement was 4 units within 4 years of the approval according to the PUD guidelines. Nothing has been concluded at this point. Mr. Pylman read from the PUD Guidelines as follows: "VRDC will reserve a specific number of off-site Red Sky Ranch seasonal employee housing units. The summer seasonal demand for units by Red Sky Ranch employees coincides well with the availability ofVRDC controlled units during non ski months. The closest employee housing units to Red Sky Ranch is Lake Creek Village Apartments in Edwards, therefore, VRDC will allocate at least five of these apartments to serve the housing needs of seasonal employees at Red Sky during the summer golf season." Mr. Pylman stated there is a commitment of existing employee housing units related to the Red Sky Ranch development. Mr. Malone stated there is a significant penalty for not building the housing units. Commissioner Stone asked for clarification about whether or not the applicant still intended to build the units instead of making payment in lieu. Mr. Pylman stated that was correct. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. PDA- 00040, Red Sky Ranch, incorporating staff findings and with the following condition: 1. Adherence to the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey in their referral response dated October 31, 2002. That a Plat Note be incorporated into the Amended Final Plat which requires that a site specific soils and foundation investigation be performed on each of the two proposed residential lots prior to building permit issuance as with the other lots in the Red Sky Ranch development. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-OOl02, New York Mountain Project Bob Narracci stated the next matter was file number ZS-00102, New York Mountain Project. He stated the applicant did not post the property properly and this file needs to be re-advertised. He related there is no action required by the Board at this time. LUR-0042, Wildfire Regulations Bob Narracci 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 ofthe Colorado State Forest Service. The purpose ofthese meetings was to construct a regulatory framework designed to mitigate the threat of wildland fire upon new development and new construction located within the Wildland/Urban Interface. The Colorado State Forest Service defines the Wildland/Urban Interface as: "Any area where man-made buildings are built close to or within natural terrain and flammable vegetation, where high potential for wildland fires exist." The scenic views, rugged mountains, expansive forests and warm dry summers are several of the qualities which make Eagle County a desirable place to live. These same desirable attributes also serve to produce severe wildfire hazards. Together, fuels, weather and topography define the fire environment and when combined with characteristics of access and water, determine the ease at which a wildfire will start, the speed at which it will spread, the intensity at which it will burn and the time in which it can be 14 12-17-2002 controlled. Subdivisions and other development have created a situation where a wildland 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 wildland fires do occur they are extinguished as quickly as possible to prevent the destruction of homes. This tends to aggravate the overall problem because forests rely on fire to maintain good health. Fire thins trees and brush and eliminates dead material. Fire suppression to protect homes and population has interfered with this natural process. Since forest fires in WUI areas are not allowed to burn freely, the result is an increase in vegetation density which provides more fuel for fires. The more dense the vegetation becomes, the greater the intensity with which it will 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, WUl wildland 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 wildland/urban interface. The three elements comprising Eagle County's approach to Wildfire Management include: 1) Land Use Regulations; 2) Building Resolution and; 3) Educational. 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 15 12-17-2002 new construction and existing structure. Depending upon the level of hazard rating, varying degrees of fire resistive construction may also be required for the new construction or additions as well as the existing structure. Education is a key component to the County's wildfire program designed to generate public awareness of the hazard potential and what measures individual property owners may take to help protect their homes and property. The educational component, however, is not part of the proposed regulation amendments. Following is an itemization of each proposed modification to the Land Use Regulations and Building Resolution:. Chapter 2: Land Use Re2ulations Article 2 - Definitions SECTION 2-110. DEFINITIONS: The purpose of these proposed amendments is to define the terms 'Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction' and 'WildlandlUrban Interface'. It is necessary to clarify that within Eagle County, fire related emergencies are (initially) handled by anyone of seven entities falling into one 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 ofWildlandlUrban 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 ofthe Land Use Regulation with regard to internal and external Access for new developments. Section 4-620. Roadway Standards: The purpose ofthe amendments proposed in this section are to: 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 ofthe 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 ofthis 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: 16 12-17-2002 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 - Eaele County Buildin~ Resolution The purpose of the proposed amendments to the Building Resolution are to establish minimum design and construction standards for the protection of life and property from fire within the WildlandlUrban Interface. These provisions are meant to aid in the prevention and suppression of fires, lessen the hazards to structures from wildland fires and lessen the hazards to wildlands from structure fires, as well as, to improve the ability of fire fighters to save individual structures. The proposed changes to the Building Resolution introduce wholly new concepts and as such, represent a substantial addition to the existing language as opposed to amendments of existing language 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 ofthe 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 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 depending upon the severity of the wildfire hazard rating present on the site in question; Exterior Decks. Decks requiring a building permit may be required to be constructed of fire resistive materials depending upon the severity of the wildfire hazard rating present on the site in question; Roofing or Siding of Existing Buildings. When re-roofing or re-siding an existing structures requires a building permit, fire resistive materials may be required depending upon the severity of the wildfire hazard rating present on the site in question. Permit Fees - A fee for Wildland Hazard Mitigation inspections has been proposed. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows. 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 Sheriffs 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 WestlPTI, 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, 17 12-17-2002 Three Rivers Home Builders Association, Colorado Division of Insurance, Western Information & Insurance Service, Vail Board of Realtors, Glenwood Springs Association of Realtors, Vail Associates, Cordillera (Lance Badger), NWCCOG, Knight Planning Services, Isom and Associates, Braun and Associates, Inc., PJA Land Planning, The Land Studio, Sid Fox and Company, Johnson and Kunkel, Alpine Engineering, Peak Land Surveying, High Country Engineering, Lines in Space, White Surveying, Starbuck Surveying, Benchmark Engineering, Sopris Engineering, Intermountain Engineering, Marcin Engineering, Eagle Valley Surveying, Meyer Land Systems, Town of Avon, Town of Basalt, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Redcliff, 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 ofthe United States". 'Waters ofthe United States' are defined as the territorial seas; perennial and ephemeral streams; lakes, ponds, impoundments; and wetlands. This response from the Army Corp is consistent with their response to all proposed land use applications. The Army Corp was included as a referral agent for these proposed regulatory amendments in hope that the Army Corp would respond to the potential for increased erosion due to accelerated run-off which would occur in the aftermath of a wildfire event. Town of Basalt: The Town's response favorably indicated that, "The existing code and proposed amendments generally support Town of Basalt philosophies on growth and new development including that developments will be properly and adequately served by emergency service agencies. The overall goal being improved safety for homeowners, visitors, and emergency service providers". The Town further "endorses the general concepts included in the regulations as a significant step in helping to assure public safety, one of the critical purposes of zoning and development review". The Town also supports the educational component of the overall implementation strategy. Additionally, the Town offered eight comments and questions: i. "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. ii. "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. iii. "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. 18 12-17-2002 iv. "Maximum grades for driveways should clarify where the grade is measured (i.e. centerline of each driving lane) as road grade will become significantly steeper on the inside lane of a curved section of roadway." In discussion with the Eagle County Engineering Department, the maximum grades, as recommended in the ECLUR are acceptable as is. The recommended curve radii, measured from centerline, are proposed to be substantially reduced from a minimum 60 to 80 feet to a minimum of 45 feet. v. Development review requirements should include establishment of building envelopes in locations where the implementation of defensible space and requirements for removal of vegetation will result in the least amount of environmental degradation. Planning Staff does work with applicants for new development to establish building envelopes, when necessary, to contain site construction in logical 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. vi. 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. vii. "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." Staffis 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. viii. "The Commission (Basalt) expressed appreciation for the referral and interest in the future of the proposal. Please continue to provide the Town with updates on the progress of your deliberations." Robert Warner. Jr.: Mr. Warner's response indicates that, "I would like to say that I am totally behind the concept of strengthening our land use regulations as it relates to wildfires and water systems". Mr. Warner feels that the County should first develop a wildfire hazard map before attempting to develop land use regulations aimed at controlling the wildfire hazard. This way, we would know which areas to focus on and could more realistically evaluate what should and should not be done. He suggests that the County should not rush into adopting these regulations in the next several weeks because it will negatively affect developers, builders, architects and homeowners who now may have a substantial amount of time and money into design of a new 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 19 12-17 -2002 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 rt to May r. PJA Land Planning (Rick Pylman): Ricks, verbal comments centered around the proposed requirements for defensible space on smaller lot subdivisions where it may not be possible to create a minimum 70 foot defensible space and the necessity to make a distinction between areas such as the Homestead and Singletree which are developed primarily on the valley floor and which are separated from any 'wildland' areas. Staff is aware of the discrepancy which Rick pointed out. The proposed regulations have been adjusted to exempt properties located within a 'low hazard rating' from the requirement of creating a defensible space. This will solve the problem in small lot subdivisions where 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: a. "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. b. "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. c. "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. d. "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. e. "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. f. "Does conformance with defensible space extend to the less of: The proposed defensible space 20 12-17-2002 dimension, property line or building envelope? Since many of the approved PUD's supercede and replace the ECLUR's in its entirety, the building code would be the only applicable and enforceable regulation. As a result, the building code in certain cases would conflict with the PUD's, Wildlife Mitigation Plans and homeowner covenants regarding disturbance outside of building envelopes, in wildlife corridors, elk calving sites, open space parcels, etc. Will the building code have language addressing these potential conflicts?" As currently proposed, under Section 3.13.2, 'Definitions' the definition of Defensible Space indicates that Defensible Space shall extend pursuant to Table A or to the property lines, whichever is less. We cannot require mitigation on property which is not owned by the applicant. Staff, as yet, has not identified a single PUD Guide which contains restrictions on alteration of the landscape outside of a building envelope. 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. g. "Has the Colorado Division of Wildlife made any official comments regarding the proposed regulations?" A referral was sent to CDOW during the referral period which extended from April rt to May r. No response was received. h. "If the County approves a building permit on a lot which increase the risk of injury to an adjacent home, does the County have any liability? Will not any approved building permit increase the risk to existing adjacent homes, ifthe setbacks are less than the defensible space?" Per our County Attorney, the County would not incur liability. i. 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 of the proposed regulations up to the point of sending them on referral, the District was in support. The District's has since indicated 'qualified' support for the proposed regulations with reference to the comments set forth in Mr. Warner's letter of response. (Please note that Mr. Warner and Mr. Badger both sit on the ERFPD 's governing Board). Gypsum Fire Protection District: The Gypsum F.P.D. submitted a letter urging the adoption of the Wildland/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 Wildland fire management in Eagle County. The response indicated that these regulations are necessary and desirable in order to reduce the potential for loss of homes in the WUI areas ofthe 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 wildlands. It will also begin to reduce the 21 12-17-2002 chances of a possible catastrophic fire moving through new development and destroying it. Recently we have learned that the USFS and BLM are trying to begin fuel management projects near the existing subdivision of Eby Creek Mesa and surrounding area. This will be a great step in reducing the threat to a very high hazard subdivision. Knight Planning Services, Inc.: In a letter from Tom Boni, he commends the County for identifying an area that needs additional regulations to promote overall public safety. Tom questions the proposed regulations with regard to the Eagle County Road Standards because there are a different set of circumstances where a development is located in a low hazard area, provided with adequate municipal water service, fire hydrants, and are within close proximity to fire stations. Tom believes that separate routes of entrance and exit into development is warranted where there is a significant fire hazard, the development is of significant size or, when there are other implications affecting public safety. There are many existing examples within our medium density subdivisions where 25 - 40 homes exist on streets or on a combination of streets that have one access connection to the surrounding community. This is generally a result 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 ofthe 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. 22 12-17-2002 (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 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. 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: 1) 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. 2) Make the following adjustments to the proposed regulations: i. On Page 3, change Item C to read Building Design versus Structural Design. This adjustment has already been incorporated. ii. 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. iii. 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. iv. On Page 12, under Moderate Hazard Construction, indicate that eaves and soffits shall be of fire resistive construction as opposed to one-hour rated. Soffit assemblies are not rated because the 23 12-17-2002 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 buildingfirms, 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. Chairman Gallagher asked for an update from staff regarding the progress in this proposed regulation. Mr. Narracci stated this is the 5th Board hearing on this matter. He stated at the last meeting each of the Commissioners delineated the changes they would like made. Those changes have been made and that is what is before the Board today. Commissioner Stone stated there were some public meetings that were held regarding this issue and he requested information about the feedback that was given. Mr. Narracci said there have been no changes made based on this feedback. There were comments made that the regulations should go further. He stated Mr. Falkenburg was concerned about the retroactivity provisions. He provided some information about log homes. Six inch logs would provide the same protection as an 8 inch log. Dan Stanek, Chief Building Official, concurred that 6 inches would be sufficient to meet the requirements for the construction. This change would be made on page 11 ofthe November 26th version; under fire resistance construction, the first sentence. Mr. Narracci stated that the October 10th document represented changes made since the last meeting. They are highlighted in green. Commissioner Menconi asked about how the regulations would affect additions to homes. Mr. Narracci stated that on page 14 of the document from October 10th these requirements can be found. In order to add on to a home, it would require defensible space, incorporate fire resistance construction, all roofs would be of class A materials, decks, eves and soffits shall be of fire resistant construction, vents shall not be in the horizontal shaft. Commissioner Menconi stated that regardless ofthe size of an addition these conditions would have to be met. Mr. Narracci stated that new roofs would have to use fire resistant construction. Commissioner Menconi asked what type of roofing would comply. Mr. Stanek stated a class B or A rated roof, in high risk only a class A rated roofwould suffice. Commissioner Stone asked about the definition of fire resistant construction, and remarked that the document only speaks to shell, exterior walls and the roof. How do you define fire resistant construction of a deck? Mr. Stanek stated a one hour heavy timber. He stated heavy timber is three inch wood or better. Commissioner Stone stated that he could not find this requirement in the document anywhere. Chairman Gallagher suggested that the details of possible construciton materials not be listed in the document. It would be desireable to make reference to the document providing the details ofthese requirements. Commissioner Stone asked about pitched roofs, are they a requirement, and are flat roofs not an option? Mr. Narracci responded this is a recommendation from the Colorado State Forest Service. This is the existing language in the regulations. Commissioner Stone stated that on a practical basis, if the Colorado State Forest Service could require an owner to have a pitched roof does that mean that the owner is bound by that recommendation? Mr. Narracci stated that this section would not bind the owner. This section of the recommendations are for the Board's review of a new subdivision. 24 12-17 -2002 Commissioner Menconi asked about the sections referring to fire hydrants. Would it apply to all developments and PUD's or would it vary according to the hazard risk. Is there a delination of number of or requirements for hydrants depending on zoning? Mr. Narracci stated those are detailed in the Uniform Fire Code. Commissioner Menconi asked about roads. Mr. Narracci stated the regulations require these items anyway. The Board would need to consider these requirements when deciding whether or not to approve a new PUD or Subdivision. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Mr. Narracci directed the Board to the November 26th edition with respect to representatives of the public expressing concern about the defensible space requirements. Staffmet with the Forest Service and Carol Molsen of Eagle River Fire Protection District to rework the language. This would allow communities to develop their own comprehensive wildfire mitigation plans and to establish time frames to do so. The idea was to bring the entire hazard rating down for an entire subdivision. This would give members of a subdivision more incentive to comply with these conditions. With these types of plans there are opportunities to get the Forest Service involved. The Board could then decide if these plans would provide adequate protection for these subdivisions. Commissioner Menconi asked Carol Molsen to step to the microphone. He asked her about this compromIse. Carol Molsen, Eagle River Fire Protection District, responded they were concerned about the patchwork effect. She felt that this approach would ensure an earlier timetable for compliance. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Molsen what her preference would be for adoption of these regulations. Ms. Molsen stated she is in favor of this alternative for the subdivision. That takes care of a lot of other areas in the County. There are a lot of areas that do not have alternatives and she would like to see those regulations adopted as well. Mr. Narracci stated that comprehensive plans would be submitted to the County and processed as a special use. He suggested it would be a role for a Wildfire Mitigation Specialist to provide feedback to the Board during the decision making process. This staff person would need to make sure the plan was being implemented in a time frame specified by the Board. Chairman Gallagher clarified that on new construction, subdivision protection, individual property protection in the form of defensible space, roads, fire, water supply, etc, the equal or better alternative gives new construction that is coming to the Board, the same protection or better. The regulations can or cannot include the equal or better alternatives and still accomplish the fire protection goal. If the Board should see fit to accept an ordinance to make the regulations applicable to existing construction, at that point existing subdivisions would have to comply. Commissioner Stone suggested the Board move for approval for the regulations with some modifications. There is no silver bullet to make a house safe from fire. There will be great difficulty enforcing the defensible space because something may be in compliance now but may not be in the future. For this to be ultimately effective, annual visits will be necessary. You don't have to get a permit to plant a tree. How do they come up with a management solution for this issue. That being the case it gets difficult to enact an ordinance that would be retroactive. The other problem is that person A's house has a defensible perimeter but persons Band C do not. With winds there are no guarantees. There is a need to work with public land authorities to develop defensible water sheds. Commissioner Stone suggested a possible amendment to the proposed regulations. He proposed a short discussion on the County providing free service to homeowners at County cost to make recommendations for homeowners to improve defensible space. He felt there would be a better response from concerned homeowners. There are no guarantees but it would be nice to have the largest effect possible. Chairman Gallagher inquired about the continued enforcement. There is a commitment from the 25 12-17-2002 fire districts to enforce the continued policing of the County. He stated visiting every place in the County would be burdensome. Chief Dave Vroman, Gypsum Fire District, stated a partnership with local fire authority is the way to enforce the code. He urged the Board to adopt the code with the addition of the equivalency for the community risk of site specific reduction based on the comprehensive mitigation plan. They would do the maintenance. They have committed in writing for a certain number of man hours to accomplish this goal. Commissioner Stone expressed surprise at this agreement. Chief Vroman stated those letters were to be in the Board's packets. Chairman Gallagher apologized that this commitment had not been passed on to all Board members. He expressed desire to have folks going door to door to help with education and perhaps the fire authorities could help with this. Commissioner Stone discussed the need for the County to share the cost with the fire authorities. Chairman Gallagher believes there is good support at the national level. Kathy Kahlow, Eagle Ranger District, stated she agrees with what Commissioner Stone was saying. They recognize that this is a community problem and no one will be able to solve the problem alone. They are willing to work with the Counties to decrease the risk. Commissioner Stone spoke about the need to coordinate with the Towns in the future. Chief Vroman stated that these regulations would be taken to the town of Gypsum in January 2003. Chairman Gallagher requested that copies ofthese regulations be sent to all ofthe Towns and the Metropolitan Districts. Commissioner Menconi suggested the letter also states the consolidation with the Fire Districts. Chairman Gallagher stated there is no agreement with the local fire authorities but there is a letter of intent. He asked if the regulations as written, are sufficient as written, to use and prosecute if necessary. Ms. Mauirello stated that there is a difference between building code provisions and other provisions. In terms of enforcement, a letter could be written requiring corrective action. The State Statute allows any person to require compliance. Chairman Gallagher stated the County would be the enforcer, the public would be the reporter. Cliff Simonton asked about the subjective nature of the defensible space. Would a photo inventory be appropriate. Staff might struggle with changes in landscaping over time. Chairman Gallagher stated that he was working on an agreement that would require that the County would be the "Godfather" and would provide training to enforcement agencies. They would do education, compliance and enforcement of the provisions. He stated that if the regulations are adopted they would be a start. He stated he would not mind tabling this to nail down the details. Commissioner Menconi thanked Chairman Gallagher, staff and all those other entities for working on these regulations. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board of County Commissioners approve file number LUR- 0042, Wildfire Regulations, incorporating all Staff findings and the following recommendations of the Eagle County Planning Commission and the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission: 1) The Wildfire Regulations will not become effective for 90 days from the date of Resolution adopting said regulations. 2) The Board hire a consultant to complete a fire hazard rating map within one year from the date of Resolution adopting said regulations. 3) An agreement with the Fire Districts for a certain number of man hours for maintenance and enforcement be reached within 90 days. Commissioner Stone asked for a clarification on page 13. Which language is being proposed in the motion. 26 12-17-2002 Mr. Narracci stated during the discussion at the last hearing, it was determined there should be more of a progression from low, moderate and high hazard rating mitigation. Commissioner Menconi responded that it would include the alternative language section. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Stone wanted to make sure that the definition of fire resistant construction was clarified. The definition as written falls short. He is still uneasy about the financing sollution for these regulations. Chairman Gallgher stated that he is under the impression that the fire authorities will take care of the majority of the cost without undue burden on the citizens. Commissioner Stone questioned a requirement that an agreement and a plan for enforcement in a period of time. Chairman Gallagher stated 90 days should be sufficient. Commissioner Stone asked if Commissioner Menconi would amend his motion to add a condition that an agreement with the Fire Districts and a plan for enforcement be reached within ninety days. Commissioner Menconi accepted the amendment and added that condition to his motion. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher thanked all of those for their help with these regulations. Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the next item is for an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone moved that the Board adjourn into an Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discuss negotiations with the Water Authority concerning Berry Creek water, which is an authorized purpose under the Colorado Revised Statute, Section 24-6-402 (e). Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present at this time. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until January 7, 2003. Attes . Clerk to the 27 12-17-2002