Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/22/03 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 22, 2003 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Teak Simonton Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on pending water matters and for the purpose of answering specific legal questions and developing strategies that may be the subject of negotiations concerning water matters with the Upper Eagle Water and Sanitation District, Water Authority, Vail Resorts and Eagle River Assembly, and concerning negotiations with the School District concerning Berry Water, which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e). Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9:10 a.m. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9: 3 8 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of April 21, 2003, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioner meeting of March 25, 2003 C) Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Change Order WIC Program D) Eagle County Core Services Plan for 2003-2004 E) Daniels Fund Grant Award for Early Childhood Coaching and Consultation Program F) Approval of the Continuation Application for Early Head Start G) Agreement between Eagle County and Heart of the West Counseling LLC H) Resolution 2003-046, authorizing Brad Higgins, Eagle County Fair and Rodeo Manager, to enter into and execute Agreement for five thousand dollars or less, concerning the 2003 Eagle County Fair and Rodeo I) Grant of Release to MKK Consulting Engineers, Inc. from Eagle County and the Eagle Riverview Affordable Housing Project 1 04-22-2003 J) Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle, Traer Creek Metropolitan District and Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District for the construction of pedestrian Trail Improvements along Highway 6 K) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Contract. Chairman Gallagher asked the Commissioners if there were any questions on the Consent Agenda. He stated he would like to remove item K from the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Stone asked the Engineer about item J, the Agreement with Traer Creek Metropolitan District and Eagle Vail Metropolitan District. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, stated they finally have it signed by all parties. She stated they are 90% complete with the plans and are shooting for a construction date of June 15,2003. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated there were no changes or revisions. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda items A through J. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2003-047, To Approve the Zone Change and Combined Sketch and Preliminary Plan for the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development (Eagle County Files No. ZC-00059 and PDSP-00016). The Board considered the Applicant's request on March 25th, 2003. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2003-047, to approve the zone change and combined sketch and preliminary plan for the Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development, file numbers ZC-00059 and PDSP-00016. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Consulting Agreement, Airplanners LLC Mark Davidson, Airport Manager, presented a Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Airplanners LLC. He explained the agreement to the Board. He stated Section D, Page 2 was revised to protect the County by excluding future seasons and providing compensation only if the consultant executes an agreement for air service during the period of the agreement. Chairman Gallagher asked about agreeing to pay a lump sum of $34,000.00 as opposed to a little here and a little there. Commissioner Stone asked about the compensation and bonus expenses. He referred to the $1.00 per seat. He stated he believes it was to be taken out and a lump sum put in. Diane Mauriello stated this is compromised language and the concept is $1.00 per seat for all inbound flights, excluding United Airlines or its affiliates during the summer months. Additional protective language was added that it is only good during the term of this agreement. Commissioner Stone stated he believed it would be better to indicate a certain amount rather than $1.00 per seat. Chairman Gallagher stated if there is another airline there would be another agreement. Ms. Mauriello stated the feeling from the consultant, is if they are able to bring another airline forward for the summer, they would like to be compensated at $1.00 per seat. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Airplanners LLC. 2 04-22-2003 Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Stone stated he is not going to approve this as it was not what was originally discussed. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. Commissioners Gallagher and Menconi voting aye and Commissioner Stone voting no. American Airlines Air Service Agreement Diane Mauriello presented the American Airlines Air Service Agreement. She requested this matter be tabled to April 29, 2003. She stated the document is in its final form but has not been received. Commissioner Stone moved to table the Air Service Agreement with American Airlines to April 29,2003. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Consent Item K, Section 8 Housing Voucher Program Chairman Gallagher asked how many housing choice vouchers will there be and are they controlled by Eagle County or will they be in the pool? Ms. Mauriello stated the State is requesting this document be returned by April 28th. This agreement is calling for ten vouchers and will be supervised under the Garfield County Program. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Consent Item K, Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Contract. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows: A) Marko's Pizzeria of Edwards Colorado Marko's Pizzeria This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located along the Edwards Access Road in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Wolcott Yacht Club Grill LLC Wolcott Yacht Club This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located along Highway 6 in Wolcott. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) Wolcott Yacht Club Grill LLC Wolcott Yacht Club This is a manager's registration for Jennifer Kwiatkowski. Ms. Kwiatkowski has worked in liquor establishments for several years, at Cowboy Catering which is Tom McNeil who used to be at Mulligans at Eagle-Vail and for Cordillera Golf Club. She is reported to be of good moral character. 3 04-22-2003 D) Gwendolyn J. Braatz Fireside Lodge This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located along Highway 131 in Bond. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. E) Hyatt Corporation Hyatt Regency Beaver Creek This is a change in trade name to Hyatt Corporation, d/b/a Park Hyatt Beaver Creek. This establishment is located in the village at Beaver Creek. F) Hyatt Corporation Park Hyatt Beaver Creek This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located in the village at Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. G) Gore Range Brewery LLC Gore Range Brew Pub This is a renewal of a brew pub license. This establishment is located along Edwards Village Blvd in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for April 22, 2003, as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Government Earlene Roach presented an application for special events permit for Eagle County Government. She stated this application is for the Oyster Feed on May 10, 2003 from 5:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m., and the 2003 Eagle County Fair for July 26, 30 & 31, 2003 from 5 :30 p.m. to midnight, August 1, 2003 from 4:00 p.m. to midnight, August 2,2003 from 1:00 p.m. to midnight and August 3, 2003 from noon to 5:30 p.m. The Board has copies ofthe Alcohol Management Plan. Staff has no concerns with this application. The application is in order and all fees have been paid. Richard Kessler, Nathan Nelson and Brad Higgins, applicants, were present for the hearing. Mr. Kessler stated they have worked with Ms. Roach and have everything under control. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Nelson what his responsibilities were. Mr. Nelson stated he is in charge of selling alcohol. Chairman Gallagher asked about his experience. Mr. Nelson stated he has nine years working as a bartender and has worked with the beer sales for the Fair for five years. Chairman Gallagher asked ifhe was a participant in the Alcohol Management Plan. Mr. Nelson answered yes. Chairman Gallagher asked if Mr. Nelson had a problem with anything in that plan. Mr. Nelson answered no. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve a special events permit for Eagle County Government for May 10, 2003 from 5 :00 p.m. to 11 :30 p.m., July 26, 30 & 31, 2003 from 5 :30 p.m. to midnight, August 1,2003 from 4:00 p.m. to midnight, August 2,2003 from 1:00 p.m. to midnight and August 3,2003 from noon to 5:30 p.m. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 4 04-22-2003 Red Sky Ranch Golf Club Member Clubhouse Earlene Roach presented a new application for a new private hotel and restaurant license with optional premises. This applicant currently has a hotel & restaurant license but is changing the premise and would like to become private. Thus the reason for the new application. The first order of business is to establish the neighborhood and then the needs of the neighborhood. Staff recommends the neighborhood be the Red Sky Ranch PUD, Lots 1 through 89. Also included in this application is a managers registration for Harry Johnson. As this applicant has a license currently at this location and there have been no problems in the past, staffhas no concerns with this application. Chairman Gallagher asked if the memberships in the club were limited to residents. Julie Papengelis, applicant, answered no. Commissioner Stone questioned the map of the golf course and stated it appears that some of the lots are not included. Ms. Papengelis stated the residential lots are not part of the licensed premise but are included in the neighborhood. Chairman Gallagher questioned the difference between private versus public license. Ms. Papengelis stated the member clubhouse will remain closed to the public during golf days. The golf clubhouse will remain open to the public during golf days. Chairman Gallagher asked what kind of a license does the guest clubhouse have Ms. Papengelis stated under Colorado Law, they can open a private license to the public. Commissioner Stone asked if this was the appropriate license. Ms. Roach stated it is the only way for the applicant to close to the public. Chairman Gallagher asked if they could be open to the public also. Ms. Roach stated they can have a private license and be open to the pubic but they cannot have a regular restaurant license and close to the public. Ms. Papengelis stated they are contractually obligated to the Ritz Carlton to provide tee times for their guests. Commissioner Stone moved the Board establish the neighborhood as the Red Sky Ranch PUD, Lots 1 thru 89, for Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., d/b/a Red Sky Ranch Golf Club Member Clubhouse. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present at this time. Max Scott, Oedipus, Inc., handed out the petition and related this application is unique, in that the neighborhood is the PUD. The lots in total are 63, 25 thru 50 are not developed. He stated a mailing was done to the property owners. He stated they telephoned everyone Those not able to contact were called three times. There is some redundancy but that will be cleared up. There are a total of 49 people who participated. 47 of those favored the issuance which averages out to be 96%. He continued to explain the signature gathering process. Chairman Gallagher asked if a telephone survey serves the needs. Ms. Roach stated that is up to the Board. She stated the applicant did send out signature pages also. Mr. Scott stated they received a number of those back but also did the telephone survey as a follow up. Chairman Gallagher asked if the Attorney had any concerns with accepting this survey. Ms. Mauriello stated it is entirely up to the Board and she see no legal problems with a telephone survey. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board establish the needs of the neighborhood as evidenced by the submitted petition and testimony at this hearing, for Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., d/b/a Red Sky Ranch Golf Club Member Clubhouse. 5 04-22-2003 Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ms. Roach stated this application is complete and there have been no complaints or disturbances at this location. Also included in this file is an application for manager's registration for Harry Johnson, who is reported to be of good moral character. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Johnson to describe his experience in the service of alcohol. Mr. Johnson he has been in the restaurant business for 35 years in California. He stated he moved to Colorado in 1976 and has been involved with management of restaurants in Vail Village and Beaver Creek. He stated for the past four years he has been the general manager at Cotton Ranch in Gypsum. Chairman Gallagher asked about the alcohol management plan and if Mr. Johnson intends to make changes to that document. Mr. Johnson answered he does not. Commissioner Stone asked when the County approved on-line TIPS training? Ms. Roach stated it was done with the last resolution that modified the Liquor and Beer Policies for Eagle County. Commissioner Stone asked if Ms. Roach had reviewed the program. Ms. Roach answered she had and believed it was an excellent program. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve a new private hotel & restaurant license with optional premises for Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., d/b/a Red Sky Ranch Golf Club Member Clubhouse. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve a manager's registration for Harry Johnson, Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., d/b/a Red Sky Ranch Golf Club Member Clubhouse. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Abatement Hearings Bryan Treu, Assistant County Attorney, stated this abatement wants to have their parcels classified as agriculture for 2001. They purchased the property in late June of 200 1 and would have to show they were grazing the property with permission of the pervious owner in order to obtain that classification. He stated they had the same problem at the State last year. Two or three weeks ago he went to Denver and repeated the same hearing for this petitioner for 2002 and they have not received the order back. Statutes require the Board rule on abatements within six months and must hear the abatement today. Chairman Gallagher asked about the petitioner. Mr. Treu stated the petitioner will not be present. Mark Chapin, Deputy Assessor, presented petitions for abatement for Piney Ranches Trust, schedule numbers R006628, R006748, R006749, R017857, R017861, R017872, R017876, R017878, R017879, R017882, R017907, R018043, R018044, R018047, R018052, R018217, R018218, R018223, R018226, R018238, R018241, R018242, R018246, R018357, R018359, R018361, R018676, R018841, R018842, R018843, R018844, R021139, R026037, R026093, R032335, R042414, R042554. He stated the subject property consists of 37 parcels in Horse Mountain Ranch. The petitioner, Piney Valley Ranches Trust contends that the subject parcels are presently and have been used as agricultural grazing land by Piney Valley for the years proceeding the 2001 assessment year. According to the Assessor's 6 04-22-2003 records, all of the subject parcels have been classified and valued as vacant land from 1994 through 2002. The 37 parcels were purchased by Piney Valley in June of 200 1. Prior to that time the property had been owned by Horse Mountain Ranch, LLC. Horse Mountain did not appeal the vacant land classification or attempt to have these parcels reclassified as agricultural land in any of the years of ownership from 1994 to 2002. In fact, Mr. Mitch Morgan, one of the primaries in Horse Mountain, recently submitted a letter, of which the Board has copies, to the Attorney's Office in regard to the alleged agricultural use of the property. Mr. Morgan states in this letter that Piney Valley never had his permission to use the property agriculturally. Based on this information, the classification of the subject property was correct for 2001 as vacant land. Pursuant to C.R.S. 39-10-114, the assessment is neither illegal, erroneous or in error. The Assessor recommends the abatements be denied. Commissioner Stone moved to deny schedule numbers R006628, R006748, R006749, R017857, R017861, R017872, R017876, R017878, R017879, R017882, R017907, R018043, R018044, R018047, R018052, R018217, R018218, R018223, R018226, R018238, R018241, R018242, R018246, R018357, R018359, R018361, R018676, R018841, R018842, R018843, R018844, R021139, R026037, R026093, R032335, R042414, R042554, Piney Ranches Trust, as recommended by the Assessor. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. VIS-00020, Heritage Park PUD Subdivision John Vengrin, Engineering Department, presented file number VIS-00020, Heritage Park PUD Subdivision, variance from Improvement Standards. He stated per Section 5-260.G: Variance from Improvement Standards, The Board of County Commissioners is the authority that decides on variances from the improvements standards. Prior review by the Planning Commission is not stipulated. This is a petition for a Variance Permit from the requirement of Section 4-620.J.1.h of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations ("LUR") as noted in the attached Exhibit "A" (see pages 7-14) which was submitted by the applicant. The variance will allow the Heritage Park PUD Subdivision to be served by a single point of access. Mr. Vengrin stated his file was originally scheduled to be heard at the Board of County Commissioners (Bock) meeting of March 25,2003. Due to objections by some members ofthe public that they would be unable to attend on that date because it was spring break for the local schools, and that they had previously scheduled vacations with their children, the applicant requested that the file be table to the April 15, 2003 meeting. The Applicant Request for Tabling form is attached to this report (see page 20). At their meeting of March 25,2003, the BoCC decided to table this file to the meeting of April 15, 2003. Mr. Guida currently has an approved Sketch Plan (Resolution 2002-100 is attached to this report, see pages 31-37) for this property known as the Heritage Park PUD Subdivision. The Sketch Plan, as approved, proposes to make use of the property's access to Allen Circle as the sole means of ingress and egress. Condition No.1 in Resolution 202-100 states, "Prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan, the applicant must either provide a secondary point of ingress I egress OR, a Variance from the Improvement Standard (VIS) that requires dual access points must be approved by the Board of County Commissioners." The applicant has decided to seek a variance. He is proposing to construct an entrance road meeting Eagle County's standard of a Suburban Residential Road. This road would consist of a 36-foot wide swath of unobstructed right-of-way to accommodate normal traffic flow as 7 04-22-2003 well as emergency traffic. This would be accomplished by providing a 24-foot wide paved asphalt surface and two 6- foot wide areas behind the curb that would be unencumbered by landscaping, utilities, or above ground features. Mr. Guida decided to bring the variance application forward for a decision prior to submitting a Preliminary Plan application for the Heritage Park PUD. He requested to vary from the standard in order to lessen hardships associated with strict compliance with the standard and to minimize adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected. According to Mr. Guida, every attempt has been made to acquire an easement from adjacent property owners to gain direct access to either Lake Creek Road or Homestead Drive. The attempts have been unsuccessful. It is interesting to note, that the parcel of land under consideration, often known as the Allen Tract, did at one time have an access easement to Lake Creek Road across the parcel of land to the west. The Allen's traded away the easement for some land which was added to the Allen Tract. It must have seemed at the time that the easement was of no consequence since the Allen Tract had an access to the public road system at Allen Circle, and since a single point of access has long been the standard for subdividing land in the State of Colorado. In previous applications for variances from the road standards, the Eagle County Attorney's Office requested that the application be specific concerning the section ofthe Land Use Regulations for which a variance was requested, the location of the variance, and the reason for the variance. The applicant provided information in Exhibit "A" (see pages 7-14) that addresses these requirements. Normally, variances are considered at Preliminary Plan, when more detailed drawings are available. The applicant prefered a decision on the variance prior to submitting a Preliminary Plan application, before expending the considerable effort required at Preliminary Plan. Should the BoCC decide to approve the request for variance, Exhibit "A" (see pages 7-14) will be incorporated into the Resolution. The section for which the variance is requested is as follows: "Section 4-620.J.1.h Dual Access. The applicant shall be required to provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shall be a secondary emergency ingress/egress from any development. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles." This section was approved for revision on December 17,2002. The revision was documented in Resolution 2003-009. The effective date of the revision is April 21, 2003. The applicant based the application on the revised wording, although technically the original text applies to this case because it has been judged to be complete prior to Apri121, 2003. The new text for the applicable section is as follows: "Section 4-620.J.1.h Dual Access. The applicant shall provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shall be a usable and unobstructed (with the exception of breakaway barriers) secondary emergency ingress/egress for all new development or redevelopment capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles commonly operated by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles. Depending upon the length of the road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography, and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard." Although the application includes information regarding length of road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography, and the recommendation ofthe Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the BoCC is not limited to consideration of these information items in the context of the revised Section 4-620.J.1.h, since the revisions to this section are not effective until April 21, 2003. The Board should base their decision on the regulations in place prior to April 21, 2003. 8 04-22-2003 Section 4-620.J.1.h begins by stating, "The applicant shall be required to provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system... ." This ostensibly strong statement is immediately followed by the qualifier, "... unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions." The application is specifically for a variance from the requirement for a secondary emergency ingress/egress. Before the BoCC can consider the variance request they should make a finding that the applicant is "prevented by topography or other physical conditions" from providing two points of access. If the BoCC cannot make this finding, then the variance application is moot, and a second point of access will need to be provided. It seems that any property that has only one access point, as required by law, immediately qualifies as having a physical condition that prevents a developer from providing the second access point. This physical condition being the fact that the developer is compelled to negotiate with adjoining property owner(s) in order to develop the property. If the adjoining owner(s) are against the proposed development, they can effectively forestall the progress ofthe development. The Engineering Department is of the opinion that the applicant has demonstrated that the property is physically prevented from providing a second point of access. The County Engineer's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-610.A.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an alternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity which reflects community values equal to or better than that established by these standards... ." For the purpose of my evaluation, I interpreted the standards in the LUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values", since the LUR were adopted after extensive work and comment by the community. The Engineering Department is ofthe opinion that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed alternative to the second access point will be equally durable, and will provide a level of service and safety equal to the requirement. This is supported by letters from Carol Gill-Mu1son, Deputy Chief of the Eagle River Fire Protection District, and from Lyn Morgan of the Eagle County Ambulance District which are attached to this report (see pages 22 & 23). The BoCC's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260.G.2 of the LUR. It states, in part, "The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected." Hardship is not defined in the LUR. However, the definition of hardship in Webster's Dictionary implies that hardship is derived from some sort of privation or deprivation. The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the applicant will be deprived of some or all of their right to use the land if the LUR is strictly followed. The requested variance will affect the property ofthe Allen's. The Allen's have given their consent to Mr. Guida to apply for the variance. If this variance request is granted, it shall apply only to the Allen Tract, and to land use applications based on the approved Heritage Park PUD Sketch Plan. Should the land uses on the Allen Tract or the Heritage Park PUD Sketch Plan undergo a substantial change, the variance would have to be reconsidered. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-260.G of the LUR. 2. The petition has been properly advertised and is ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. The road design proposed by the petitioner will provide a road design that is equally durable and equally safe to the requirement for a second emergency access. 9 04-22-2003 4. The property is/is not encumbered by a topographic or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from providing a second point of access. 5. The applicant has/has not demonstrated hardship to the developer and the public if there is strict adherence to the requirement for a second emergency access. 6. The applicant has/has not demonstrated that the hardship of not granting the variance exceeds any currently perceived adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, or adverse impacts to the affected lands. Mr. Vengrin handed out some recently received letters and e-mails to make them a part ofthe record. He stated this file is being heard under the old Land Use Regulations since it was completed before the new Land Use Regulations were approved. Commissioner Gallagher asked about significant differences in the two Land Use Regulations. Mr. Vengrin pointed out the differences in the Regulations. He reviewed the changes for the Board. The major difference is the language is changed to reflect some ofthe requirements regarding Wildfire Regulations regarding a secondary emergency access. Commissioner Gallagher asked the County Attorney to explain the differences between the bottom of page two and the top of page three in the staffreport.. Diane Mauriello read as follows: "Prior to amendment, Section 4.620-J-.1h, Dual Access; the applicant shall be required to provide two points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event, there should be a secondary emergency ingress / egress from any development. All dwellings and other structures will be accessible by emergency and other vehicles." She stated that is the provision in which the applicant is seeking a variance from. Mr. Vengrin stated staff recommends approval with conditions. Tom Boni, Knight Planning Services, introduced Jim Guida, applicant, David Despo, Engineer and Michael Sheldon, Attorney. He began by saying the application for in-fill development is always somewhat difficult because there is neighborhood it must fit into. Regarding two points of access, they approached the Homestead Homeowners Association to gain access across some of the open tracts. The Homeowners Association denied this request. Fred Green was approached to help with an access who also stated he was not interested. Mr. Boni did a power point presentation starting with a short history of this property and stated when this was sold, part of the contract was that access would be provided through Tract B. Mr. Boni described the project and access to the project through Tract B. He spoke to staff findings. He spoke of the cul-de-sacs in the subdivisions, and the turnaround measurements in those. He stated the two cul-de-sacs comply with County Regulations. He stated another section of the Regulations, regarding a secondary ingress and egress is where they are seeking a variance. He recapped reasons why some of the regulations require one or two access points. Length of road, fire hazard rating, topography, fire department recommendation and number of units proposed playa part in determining the number of points of access. He spoke of the section that applies to this request for a variance and stated this is what Staff presented and what the applicant is requesting. He continued with his power point presentation showing other cul-de-sacs in Eagle County. He spoke of Section 5.260.G indicating what the Board of County Commissioners shall consider when hearing a variance. He stated he has submitted letters of approval from fire districts and the emergency medical district. He stated there would be no adverse impacts on the land if this request for variance is approved. Commissioner Stone asked the applicant to explain in more detail the demonstration of hardship to the developer. Mr. Boni stated the hardship to the developer is (1) he has been denied access to the property by adjacent property owners, (2) and the regulations allow for a cul-de-sac design and there are many cul- de-sacs serving more units. 10 04-22-2003 Jim Guida, developer, stated he tried to find other access to this property and received denial. He has contacted Fred Green on three different occasions and was denied any access all three times. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, spoke to the hardship in part by the regulation and resolved in part by the regulations regarding two access points. He discussed the issues that might arise when the regulations were written, and hardships that will apply to the intent of the regulations. Commissioner Stone commented on an anonymous letter regarding Commissioner Menconi's attendance at the Homestead Homeowner Association meeting. He stated the County Attorney stated there is not a conflict of interest. He stated he did not expect Mr. Menconi to recuse himself from this file. Commissioner Menconi replied that there was no discussion of this file at the meeting. Commissioner Stone reviewed the three findings the Board must make in order to approve a variance. One of those is the demonstration of a hardship to the developer and the public if there is strict adherence of the requirement for a secondary emergency access. Jeannie Huff, member of Homestead Homeowners Association, stated she was present when the Sketch Plan was approved and was assured there was protection to the residents. Why would the Board impose conditions if the Board intends to approve a variance anyway. She stated Tract B is in the Homestead PUD and they should abide by the rules of the PUD. She asked the Board to meet the conditions that were listed in the sketch plan and not approve the variance. She addressed the issue of Commissioner Menconi attending the Homeowners Association meeting and the rotation of Chairman which was the reason Mr. Menconi was in attendance. Steve Wickum, president of Homestead Homeowners Association, wanted to clarify three points. He stated Mr. Guida asked for a variance of the open space with a steep pitch, assuring them it would be engineered to mitigate that pitch. He stated the study should be done before a request is made. That request was denied. He stated that the problem with Fred Green's denial was already in existence when Mr. Guida asked Mr. Green. Commissioner Stone asked if Mr. Wickum had a general feeling if the request for alternative access would have been granted ifMr. Guida had proven it could be done. Matt Lindvall, property owner in Homestead, stated he looked over the Board findings and found it surprising that the seller of Tract B gave up the right to a second access. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship to himself except for financial hardship that was created by the applicant. Mr. Lindvall stated there is a hardship on the public and the adjoining community. There is a health and safety issue regarding having only one access to this property. Jim Green, Homestead resident, stated he wanted to clarify some points. He asked how many more cars can be on this street. He spoke of the examples of other cul-de-sacs used by the applicant and stated these examples were engineered. He spoke of the unsafe roadway where the access out of Heritage Park intersection Homestead Drive on a blind curve on an 8% grade. That is unbelievable. Rika Moore, Homestead resident, stated she is directly affected by this and spoke to her support of the other Homestead residents. She stated she is completely against approval of this variance. Mike Claymon, Edwards resident, spoke of Tract Band if part of Homestead PUD and Homestead should have significant input to this project. He added his support to the other Homestead residents in asking for denial of this variance. He discussed the manner in which Homestead was asked about giving Mr. Guida access and added that he believes Mr. Guida has not done everything he can do to obtain access. He reviewed the section ofLUR regarding the balancing of hardship on persons. He requested the Board deny this file. Chairman Gallagher asked when the current owner gave up the secondary access. Mr. Claymon answered 1988. Scott Wirth, Homestead resident, urged the Board to deny the request for variance. He spoke to Homestead, gravel, asphalt, construction materials, and construction workers. He does not see a 11 04-22-2003 hardship to the developer. He stated the developer has not met any of the three criteria and only one is grounds for denial. Stephanie Uberbacher, area resident, stated all the work going on around her home makes her sick. A lot ofthe homeowners in Homestead will be financially impacted with the second access. Dave Lach, area resident, stated he agrees with everything being said so far. He pointed out on a map the old proposed access. He spoke with Barbara Allen who used to own the property who did not think it was necessary to have two accesses. Times change and situations change. Mr. Guida wants to develop and must have two points of access. There will be 264 car trips per day with this development. Elizabeth Myers, area resident, stated she is the Administrator for the Homeowners Association. She stated they agree with everything that has been stated. She stated the only hardship to Mr. Guida is financial. Peter Runyon, area resident, pointed out this is a circle. 90% of the people will be going out on the east side rather than the west side. It is a small road. Extra traffic will cause problems. Chairman Gallagher closed Public Comment. Chairman Gallagher asked whether or not this property is in Homestead and if it is subordinate to the covenants and regulations. Mike Claymon stated only the access road is part of Homestead PUD. Dave Despo, Engineer with DLD Engineering, addressed the health, safety and welfare issues that have been raised. He stated the access will be designed with Eagle County Regulations and AASHTA. He spoke to the 8% grade and related the approach to Allen Circle will be an uphil12% grade. Chairman Gallagher asked about the length of the road. Mr. Despo stated approximately 200 feet. Chairman Gallagher stated the last 20 feet of that road would be 2% upgrade. Mr. Despo stated they would start from Heritage Park on an 8% grade then gradually flatten out and end up on a two percent uphill grade. By the time you got to Allen Circle it would be flat. Ifthere were an emergency access, it would only be for emergency vehicles. All the traffic would follow Tract B access. The Traffic Engineer has related the total vehicular traffic would increase on Allen Circle by approximately 400 vehicles per day, which is only 50% ofthe threshold for that road. They are giving a 36 clear foot zone also. That will allow for meeting the needs of emergency vehicles. Michael Shelden, Attorney, stated staff is recommending the variance be approved. He stated staff is addressing some of the findings that must be met in their recommendations. There is a physical condition. There is another broader point of view that the Board should consider in making this overall decision. It comes from the regulations. The standards section of the regulations and the zoning section of the regulations. He stated their application is under the standards section. 5-260-G.2 says the Board shall balance the hardship ofthe applicant taking into consideration the adjacent property owners. This is a balancing act. The neighbors say it would not be a hardship to them if it is less units. If it is more unity it affects their health, safety and welfare. They are speaking about fire and emergency access. There are topographical constraints. The Board should try to balance everything. Commissioner Stone asked if Mr. Sheldon could speak about the secondary access the Allen's gave up. Mr. Sheldon stated Barbara Allen was kind of the leader. Originally there was intention to use the Lake Creek access. Fred Green did not want that. There was pressure on Fred Green's part to not allow this. It related to water rights. Commissioner Stone wanted to get a feeling about giving up the second access. Jim Guida, applicant, stated he has more knowledge about what transpired and how the Lake Creek access got into the hands of Fred Green. He stated basically Mr. Green muscled a Texas farmer with law suits and litigation into trading an acre of ground for the access. Mr. Allen pinned into the contract that access to the ten acre Tract B. George Petrie, Attorney for the Allen's, wrote a letter 12 04-22-2003 indicating the 10 foot access road to the ten acres seemed inadequate for its eventual development. The letter also wondered ifit would be feasible to build a road through Tract A of Homestead Drive in the northeast comer. Ten days later, it states they were satisfied that the fifty foot access road was adequate for the development of the ten acre tract. They now indicated it is not feasible to build a road through tract A, to the northeast comer of this property. He stated this it is his right to have access to this property. They far exceed what is currently allowed for other area cul-de-sacs. He stated he has related he would do the engineering if they allowed his to have the access. The Homeowners Association will not grant access. He has the legal access that was granted 25 years ago. Chairman Gallagher asked about the vehicle trips that were 264 trips per day and another speaker related there would be 400 trips per day. Mr. Despo stated the 400 includes the Allen Circle traffic. Chairman Gallagher asked if the road specifications meet County requirements including the 8% grade. Mr. Vengrin stated it does meet the standards of a second access but meets all others. He stated they do not want the 8% grade coming down to the connection road and the applicant has provided for that. Chairman Gallagher spoke to snow removal and snow plowing. He spoke to balance which should be taking it off one side and putting it on another. He has not heard the developer say he is willing to take anything offhis scale. Mr. Knight stated this is a very narrow discussion at this time. When this project was started the density was larger. It has been significantly reduced. They worked with the regulations to conform to the neighborhood and sacrifice what they needed to. Chairman Gallagher stated he does not perceive following the rules and regulations is giving up anything to balance. Mr. Knight stated they complied initially with lowering the density. Mr. Sheldon stated what they have done is provide open space directly behind the neighbors homes. They widened the access point through Tract B. Commissioner Stone stated there was a reference made that he related the applicant must come back with either a secondary access or apply for a variance. That is why the applicant is here today. He stated he tends to agree with the concept that whether it is 12 homes or 24 homes that does not make a difference as far as impacts. He looks at the community impacts and those within the PUD. If the road is not wide enough for 24 homes it will not be wide enough for 12 homes. It sounds like the applicant did try to acquire a second access but was turned down. He believes a second access through the open space would scar the hillside. He stated in Cordillera, most of the roads do not meet the standards but Cordillera has proven they could have much safer access. In either case it is unnecessarily adding pavement and will have scarring that is unnecessary. He stated the Commissioners are the governing body of land use decisions. He questioned if Allen Circle could handle the level of service and if that level could be approved. Access is a big part of that. He read parts from the TDA Colorado, Inc. letter dated February 15, 2002, regarding the level of service and the number of car trips per day on Allen Circle. It appears the applicant is encumbered by topographical areas and the unwillingness of surrounding property owners to put in a new access. He stated the biggest impact is a change in the status quo. That issue is to be taken up at a later date. For the people who eventually are going to be living in Heritage Park, will they be safe, will they have a hardship. The only one that is a judgment call is how to define hardship. The LUR do not define hardships in definite terms. He quoted some items from the staff report. He stated they need to look back to the easement for that piece of property. They have been lead to believe that it would be a hardship in a change of intent of what the access easement was made for. Chairman Gallagher stated he believes the property is encumbered by physical conditions and the property owners are not willing to grant access. The applicant demonstrated hardship to the 13 04-22-2003 developer and it is undeniable. This also requires that there be a demonstration of hardship to the public. He does not find a hardship to the public. Also, the third finding is that by not granting the variance there will be adverse effects on affected lands. He stated that land was always supposed to be an access route. Where do they draw a line around those affected. He prefers to draw the line around those on Allen Circle. The impact between 24 and 12 residents appears to double the impact. The construction will extend over a five year period which will further impact people. The fact that people don't want building in their back yard is not something he is going to consider. He asked ifthere were improvements that can be made on Allen Circle to mitigate the impacts. Mr. Vengrin stated construction traffic can be controlled somewhat but is not sure what they could do with Allen Circle to make it better. He suggested traffic control at the intersection with Homestead Drive. Chairman Gallagher asked if Allen Circle is designed to handle the increase in traffic. Mr. Vengrin stated the standards are 750 trips per day. Chairman Gallagher stated it comes back to a demonstrated hardship. Mr. Guida stated they had previously committed to construct a sidewalk on one side of Allen Circle and would also supply a monthly construction schedule. Chairman Gallagher stated five years takes a kid from toddler to second grade. Mr. Guida stated Homestead is still being developed 25 years later. Commissioner Stone asked ifthey can make a positive finding on this with conditions. Ms. Mauriello stated conditions are permitted. She spoke to finding number five, the standards state the Board shall balance the hardships on the applicant. With respect to finding number five, there is no reference to "public". She stated condition number six goes to the balancing of adverse impacts. Chairman Gallagher apologized for the inconvenience to the public for the mis-quoted finding. Diane Mauriello read the upgraded findings for all those in attendance. 4. The property is or is not encumbered by a topographic or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from providing a second point of access. 5. The applicant has or has not demonstrated hardship to the developer ifthere is strict adherence to the requirement for a second emergency access. 6. The applicant has or has not demonstrated that the hardship of not granting the variance exceeds any currently perceived adverse impacts on the health, safety and welfare of persons affected and the adverse impacts on the lands affected. Commissioner Stone asked if the Attorney could provide the Board with the appropriate language for denial or approval of the variance. Ms. Mauriello stated with respect to finding number four, for denial, the Board would find the property is not encumbered by a topographical or other physical condition. In that event they would then have to have a secondary point of access. With respect to finding number five, for approval, the Board would find the applicant has demonstrated hardship to the developer. Commissioner Stone stated for denial it would then be that they have not demonstrated hardship. Ms. Mauriello stated that was correct. With respect to finding number six, the Board would find, for denial, the applicant has not demonstrated the hardship of not granting the variance has not out weighed, etc. Chairman Gallagher stated he was approached during the break by a member of the public with more comments about the traffic. Mike Claymon stated he wanted to clarify two things, traffic on the north end of Allen Circle would triple and not double. Also, the Homestead and the neighbors have not said they do not want development on this property. They know there will be development there sometime. Chairman Gallagher stated his comments were not meant to imply that they did not want any building but rather wanted the density cut in half again. 14 04-22-2003 Mr. Boni stated there have been three letters written by TDA Colorado as a result of the project reducing its density since it was originally submitted to Eagle County. It started with 44 units. Also in a third letter to Mr. Vengrin they updated their original report due to the decrease in density. The overall point is that in all three letters. They have been well below the threshold of the possible volume of traffic generated on a public street. Commissioner Stone asked how Allen Circle compares with this access. Mr. Vengrin stated it is nearly the same. Mr. Boni stated the pavement will be the same but they will have curb and gutter and sidewalk. They also will have the clear zone. Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant could guarantee that it is equal to or better than Allen Circle. Mr. Sheldon answered yes. Commissioner Stone stated he has been asking himself throughout this process is what makes this different than the original PUD. Mr. Sheldon stated it is not different. The only reason it was not processed is because in the sales contract it was exempted. Mr. Boni stated if you look at the immediate neighborhood, Lathram Circle, Allen Circle and Castle Peak Drive, their density is lower and the roads are equal to or better than. Commissioner Stone stated he would like the applicant to reiterate what they have proposed to do in the way of mitigation. He has heard the applicant say they reduced the density and will put in a sidewalk. Mr. Boni stated currently there are no sidewalks in Allen Circle. They will be providing sidewalks on the north side from their access road to the end of Allen Circle. The second improvement, over and above the suburban road will be a 36 foot clear zone. Third, they modified the designs of Heritage Park, and will create a linear park that will buffer the homes. Commissioner Stone spoke to construction times and schedule. He questioned a one way street. He asked if that was possible. Mr. Vengrin stated he would have to investigate that. Mr. Guida stated at every juncture through this process they were responsive to all suggestions. The request for limited construction hauling times is no different and makes sense. Commissioner Stone spoke to degradation of Allen Circle with additional construction traffic. There may be a requirement that a baseline be judged or maybe Allen Circle gets repaved. Mr. Sheldon stated they would agree to a baseline degradation study. Commissioner Stone stated he believes it would be a travesty to install another road if they could find another way rather than scar the hillside. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Mike Cacioppo, area resident, stated he has been complaining about sidewalks for years He spoke to the one way street. Kids would only have to look one way. He stated he wants it in writing. The sidewalk needs to be the entire length of Allen Circle. Scott Wirth stated he was wondering about the access on the difference between 24 and 26 feet wide. He questioned snow removal. Why is the construction traffic not included in the traffic studies. He stated he did not like the one way idea, why destroy both ends of Allen Circle. With the sidewalk, they will have to cross the construction traffic to get to the sidewalk. Mike Claymon stated the pavement on Allen Circle is 23 feet wide. He has measured it. He spoke to this being developed and there be potentially two accesses. Commissioner Stone stated he was comparing this with other Homestead areas. Mr. Claymon stated there was discussion on who it affects, and related there are people outside the Heritage Park PUD that will be affected. 15 04-22-2003 Dave Lach stated for seven years they had access off of Lake Creek Road and if Mr. Green used undue pressure to make Mr. Allen sign the contract there may be a way to get it back. He stated he does not believe there would be a scar. Matt Lindvall stated it is uphill from Allen Circle to the other parcel. It will take the problem from one spot to another. He takes exception to not allowing public comment in the decision making. Chairman Gallagher stated for the record they do not now nor will they ever ignore public comment. Elizabeth Meyers stated every road in Homestead feeds into the main road in Homestead, except this property. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Mr. Guida stated he does not know what transpired between Hollis Allen and Fred Green. He stated Tract A is their legal and right access for their property. He stated he does not know the difference between 12 or 24 units. He stated he is concerned with possible impacts of what he is about to do. He has continually tried to address everyone's concerns. He will not stop trying to do that. He stated he is responsible and can get it right. He is willing to sit down and discuss the matter with other area owners. Commissioner Menconi thanked everyone for taking time out of their day to be present and make comments. He spoke to finding number six and he does not believe the applicant has demonstrated a hardship. In the testimony he has heard, he believes the applicants hardship is less of a concern than the health and safety of the other residents in the area. Chairman Gallagher reviewed the findings. His concerns come down to the health safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the neighborhood. The emergency districts have let the Board know that a second access is not necessary. He stated it them comes down to access. He stated he appreciates the other property owners indicating if the application was for twelve units they would not be complaining. The increase in residential traffic stays within the design of the street. There is not a basis to deny. They had what he thought a requirement for the hardship on the public but that has been rightfully removed from the findings. He stated he cannot find a reason legally to deny a variance. However he would request some additional conditions. He suggested a sidewalk along the entire Allen Circle. There are 16 residences that would use the sidewalk on the outside circumference and six on the inside circumference. He does not believe a one way street is good during the construction phase. He stated after construction they may consider a one way street at that time. He suggested a designated and uniformed traffic controller. Someone that everyone in construction knows they have to obey Commissioner Stone stated there needs to be a timeline on how long the conditions exist. Chairman Gallagher stated while they have the foreign traffic they would need to have that available. The applicants will limit construction times. Commissioner Stone agreed with the sidewalk, and it should be installed with the start of construction of the infrastructure. He stated as far as the traffic controller, it has to be tied into something, either by a certain number of years or connected with issuance of building permits. Mr. Guida stated there could be very strict construction ingress and egress times. Chairman Gallagher stated that is a way to deal with it. It is for the life ofthe construction and not just the infrastructure. Commissioner Stone asked about snow plowing. He suggested they increase the size ofthe sidewalk on the side going into Heritage Park so that an emergency vehicle can drive on it. Chairman Gallagher stated the applicant has represented a 36 foot wide clear space. It is that 36 feet that the emergency vehicles do not have a problem with. Commissioner Stone asked about the degradation of the street. He questioned the warranty period on new construction. Mr. Vengrin stated it is two years. 16 04-22-2003 Chairman Gallagher stated at the last hearing he related he would not approve anything without two points of access for emergency vehicles. The Fire Chiefs and Ambulance District took that away by stating what was being proposed was satisfactory to them. Not being able to find a demonstrated hardship to the public and that was erroneously in the findings. There is no basis for the Board to turn this down. The impact to the neighborhood will be mitigated and the improvement to the neighborhood will be beneficial. He stated the traffic control and restrictions of delivery times will be beneficial. Commissioner Stone asked if the Engineering Department could speak to crosswalks. Do they add to the safety of the street. Mike Claymon stated as he read the condition of the sketch plan approval, the condition states secondary access not secondary emergency access. The issue seems to be traffic. A secondary access would reduce the traffic through Tract B. Chairman Gallagher stated it was his hope at that time that Tract B would be the emergency access and the applicant would be able to find another access. That did not happen. The Board concurred to break from this hearing and take a couple of other items then return to finish up this file. AFP-00159, Lots 29 & 30, Berry Creek Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number AFP-00159, Lots 29 & 30, Berry Creek. She stated the intent of this plat is to reconfigure the shared lot line between Lots 29 and 30. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. The following adjacent properties have been notified: James and Kathy Thomson, Robert Nault, Rob Levine, Mitch and Leanne Perry. No letters of opposition have been received by the Community Development Department, from any of these owners, prior to the distribution of this Staff report. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS NOT inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. Proposed improvements and/or off-site road improvements agreement ARE adequate. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT Apply Chairman Gallagher asked about the map. Chairman Gallagher called for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. AFP-00159, Lots 29 & 30, Berry Creek, incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present at this time. Earth Day Chairman Gallagher stated the next matter on the agenda was the presentations for the winners of the Earth Day Poster Content. He stated all prize winners will receive aT-shirt and all students who 17 04-22-2003 made a poster will receive a certificate of participation. One hundred and thirty eight students from four schools participated in this year's contest with the theme being Water Conservation. Chairman Gallagher presented the prizes from the Eagle County Charter Academy as follows: Shelby Almegard Third prize One movie ticket Alexandra Feeney Second prize Jet Center Ball Cap, movie ticket Tessa Allen First Prize Gift certificate, Pazzos Pizzeria, movie ticket Commissioner Menconi presented the winners from Gypsum Elementary School as follows: Zoe Haney Third prize One movie ticket Erika Kelly Second prize Jet Center Ball Cap, one movie ticket Malaree Ray First prize Gift Certificate, Stop & Save, movie ticket Commissioner Stone the winners from St. Clare's Elementary School as follows: Haley Monica Third prize One move ticket Alexis Ellsworth Second prize Jet Center ball cap, one movie ticket Micaela McGuckin. First prize Gift certificate, Pazzos Pizzeria, one movie ticket. Chairman Gallagher presented the winners and prizes for Edwards Elementary School as follows: Martin A1marez Third prize One movie ticket Amelia Rodriquez Second prize Jet Center ball cap, movie ticket Yara Villegas First prize Gift certificate, Pazzo's Pizzeria, movie ticket Commissioner Menconi presented the winners for the over all category as follows: Anna Ruby Moran, Edwards Elementary School, third place, receives a gift certificate for Gore Range Brewery and two movie tickets Jessica Kline, Gypsum Elementary School, second place, receives a family swim pass for American Lodge and two movie tickets. Commissioner Stone presented first prize to Forrest Cole, Eagle County Charter Academy, who receives a gift certificate for Main Street Grill and two movie tickets. Chairman Gallagher presented the grand prize winner to William Thompson from St. Clare of Assisi, who received two lift tickets for Vail Resorts, gift certificate for the Gashouse Restaurant and two movie tickets. The Commissioners thanked all of those who participated and thanked everyone for coming. 1041-00047, Town of Eagle Water Tank Ross Easterling, Planner, presented file number 1041-00047, Town of Eagle Water Tank. He stated the Town of Eagle proposes to install a new 423,000 Gallon, above ground storage tank above the Upper Kaibab subdivision. The new tank will serve the Upper Kaibab subdivision and the new subdivision called "The Bluffs." The new tank will replace four 25,000-gallon tanks. He spoke to need of the project as follows: 1. The Upper Kaibab subdivision should have fire storage of at least 1,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for 2 hours. This would require a minimum of 180,000 gallons, 80% more storage than currently provided by the existing tanks. 2. The future Bluffs subdivision cannot be served adequately by the existing 100,000 gallons of storage provided by the existing tanks. The Bluffs subdivision is already approved and within the Town of Eagle boundaries. 3. The new tank will be a component in improving fire protection at the existing elementary and middle schools on 3rd street. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: 18 04-22-2003 Eagle County Planning Commission: As of the date of this writing (April 14, 2003) Staffhas not consulted with the Eagle County Planning Commission. A work session, or discussion with the Planning Commission is scheduled for Wednesday, April 16, 2003. Colorado Geologic Survey (CGS): The proposed water tank site is located just east of the Kaibab Subdivision. The site is characterized by moderate slopes to the west south-west. The site geology consists of a relatively shallow mantle of colluvium overlying the Eagle Valley Evaporite Formation. The following condition was described in the referral and observed during the site visit: I) Slope Stability. The grading plans for this project show an unretained, twenty-foot tall cut slope located on the upslope side of the proposed water tanle The HP Geotech report recommends that permanent, unretained cut slopes should be graded at 112: 1 (H : V) or shallower. The plans indicate that the slope should be cut at 1 : 10 (H : V), which is much steeper that the recommended slope configuration. I strongly suggest that the proposed grading plan is reviewed by an engineering geologist so that a suitable method of slope reinforcement I stabilization can be incorporated into the plan. I strongly suggest that Eagle County Planning require the site developer to show that the proposed grading plan will produce stable cut and fill slope configurations. Additionally, any slope retaining or stabilization method should be designed to accommodate the soil and bedrock conditions specific to the site. (Letter attached) Eagle County Engineering Department: "The Eagle County Engineering Department has reviewed the submittal received on March 19,2003 and has no comment at this time." (Memo attached) Natural Resources Conservation Service: Recommended that a "complete revegetation/erosion control plan in conjunction with a weed control plan be submitted for review and approval prior to final plan approval. 6.04.01 Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest. A Permit to conduct a designated activity of state interest or to engage in development in a designated area of state interest shall be approved if the Project complies with the following general criteria and any additional applicable criteria in sections 6.04.02 or 6.04.03. If the Project does not comply with anyone or more of these criteria, the Permit shall be denied or approved with conditions. In determining whether the Project complies with these criteria, or if conditions should be imposed, the Permit Authority may utilize the considerations in Appendix "A." (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project the applicant will have obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion, defer making a final decision on the application until outstanding property rights, permits and approvals are obtained. FINDING (+): The applicant has submitted copies of all access easements, and construction and maintenance easements. These documents indicate that the adjacent properties owners have agreed to the construction and long-term operation of the system. (2) The Project will not impair property rights held by others. FINDING (+): The applicant has submitted evidence that all access easements, and construction and maintenance easements are in place that will protect the property rights of adjacent owners during construction and operation of the system. (3) The Project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. FINDING (+): The project is consistent with the Town of Eagle Water System Master Plan as well as the Eagle Area Community Plan. The land use decisions, and developments that the proposed infrastructure serves are the purview of the Town of Eagle. (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. 19 04-22-2003 FINDING (+): The Town of Eagle continually operates and manages their water treatment plant and distribution system in compliance with the State of Colorado's Water Quality Control Divisions requirements for a public drinking water system. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. FINDING (+): The project is technically and financially feasible. The application and engineering drawings have been reviewed by the Eagle County Engineering Department. The "Summary Water Budget Statement" (submitted with the application under tab "S") allows for $2,298,000 in capital expenditures in the year 2003. The estimated cost for this proposal is $400,000. In addition, the operating revenues and tap fees outlined in the "Summary Water Budget Statement" do not indicate a significant increase in the rate structure; tap fees or debt service over years 2001,2002, and 2003. (6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. FINDING (+): The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) noted that the slopes proposed are in excess ofthe recommended slopes set fourth in the Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical subsoil study. The application states: "As recommended in the Subsoil Study, the geotechnical engineer will review the engineering plans prior to construction-to ensure applicability between the Subsoil Study and the final placement and design of the tank and associated earthwork. The geotechnical engineer also will observe and verify suitable conditions and construction during installation. The construction ofthe Tank will require a Building Permit from the Eagle County Department of Community Development. As part of the building permit submission a soils and foundation report and engineering plans will be required. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. FINDING (+): The land use, or development, that the improvements proposed in this application will serve have been approved by the Town of Eagle. The Project will increase water pressures and fire-flow, which benefit the developments and the Town. (8) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services, or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. FINDING (+): The project will benefit the Town of Eagle in that it will enable them to improve fire flow and water pressures in their distribution system. (9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. FINDING (+): The project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents ofthe County. The "Summary Water Budget Statement" (submitted with the application under tab "S") allows for $2,298,000 in capital expenditures in the year 2003. The estimated cost for this proposal is $400,000. In addition, the operating revenues and tap fees outlined in the "Summary Water Budget Statement" do not indicate a significant increase in the rate structure; tap fees or debt service over years 2001, 2002, and 2003. (10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. FINDING (+): The Project will benefit the local economy by improving the efficiency (both financially and physically) and effectiveness ofthe Town of Eagle's water system. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. FINDING (+): The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. 20 04-22-2003 FINDING (+): The project reflects principles of resource conservation in that: Water meters are required on all residences. The Town of Eagle plans to re-visit their rate structure to encourage additional conservation. The Town of Eagle implemented voluntary odd/even watering days during Summers 2000, 2001, and 2002. Raw water irrigation is encouraged for any new development proposals where feasible. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. FINDING (+): There may be some dust associated with the construction phase of the project. The applicant has represented that "fugitive dust emissions from the earthwork operations will be controlled through moisture control or other means of mechanically preventing air releases of dust from the site." (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. FINDING (+): The project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The tank diameter is 50' and the height is 28'. The existing tanks are on the ridgeline and the new tank will be placed to the south and east of the existing. The existing tanks will be removed. (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. FINDING (+): Surface water will not be degraded by the Project. The potential for sediment loading will be mitigated through use of best management practices such as straw bales and silt fencing. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. FINDING (+): The Project will not degrade groundwater quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands, and riparian areas. FINDING (+): The project will not significantly degrade wetlands. There are no wetlands nearby. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. FINDING (+): The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. The project does not involve any large-scale grading. (19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. FINDING (+): The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. The project does not involve any large-scale grading. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. FINDING (+): The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. (21) The Project will not cause a nuisance. FINDING (+): The project will not cause a nuisance. In the event that explosives are necessary nearby residents will be notified in advance. Construction and construction traffic to and from the site will be short-term and should not have significant nuisance impacts. The applicant has represented that dust suppression measures will be employed to control fugitive dust. (22) The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance FINDING (+): The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance. Metcalf Archeological Consultants, Inc. stated that they know of no historic or prehistoric site listed in the State files for he project area. Metcalf recommenced that a field inventory be conducted after the snow melts in the spring, prior to construction. The applicant has represented that Metcalf will conduct the field inventory prior to construction. (23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous (24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. FINDING (+): This finding is not applicable. The land use decisions that resulted in land use changes from agricultural to the residential and commercial uses associated with the Upper Kaibab subdivision and the Bluffs were made by the Town of Eagle. 6.04.02 Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Proiects. In addition to the general criteria set forth in section 6.04.01, the following additional criteria apply to municipal and industrial water projects: 1. The Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. FINDING (+): This "additional" approval criteria applies only to conservation of water. The following conservation policies are part of the Town of Eagle's water conservation measures. Water meters are required on all residences. The Town of Eagle plans to re-visit their rate structure to encourage additional conservation. The Town of Eagle implemented voluntary odd/even watering days during Summers 2000, 2001, and 2002. Raw water irrigation is encouraged for any new development proposals where feasible. 2. The Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. FINDING (NA): This finding in not applicable since no additional capacity to the water treatment facility is proposed. 3 The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. FINDING (+): The population of the Town of Eagle is expected to increase from 3,032 to 5,014 by the year 2020. The Project is necessary to meet community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development. 4 Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. FINDING (NA): This finding is not applicable. Storm water and sanitation systems are not considered in this application. Commissioner Stone asked if there were comments from the Planning Commission. Ross Easterling, Planner, stated they wanted to know how the tanks were filled. He related the Town has a pump station that will fill the tanks. He stated there was also a question about the process of emptying tanks. There were no other comments. David Despo, DLD Engineering, stated they did not have a presentation but would answer any questions. He stated draining of the tank will only occur through a designated piping trench outpost system to the north. It will drain down the hill and will disperse the flow in a non-concentrated manner. Chairman Gallagher spoke to fire hydrants and fittings. Mr. Despo stated they will have those. He stated a hose would have to be connected to the hydrant and drain in the same route. Chairman Gallagher called for public comment. There was none and he closed public comment. Commissioner Stone asked about the kind of cut that will be made into the hillside. He asked about a scar and whether there a revegetation process. 22 04-22-2003 Mr. Despo stated the Colorado Geological Survey included a letter concerning the vertical cut. He stated the studies show a 20 foot cut. The tank has been moved and has narrowed down the cut to ten feet. All construction plans will be reviewed and it will be monitored during the process. Commissioner Stone questioned the visual aspects of the proposed tank. Mr. Despo stated the wall helps hide the tank. They are also putting it into the hillside which will help hide the tank. Willie Powell, Eagle Town Manager, stated they have been involved in discussions with the Homeowners Association and have purchased property from them. He stated the tank can only be seen from Upper Kaibab Subdivision. He stated the assumed color is a dark green and will fit into the Pinion Juniper Forest. Commissioner Stone stated Eagle County always takes every 1041 permit very seriously. Just because a 1041 Permit is issued for a particular applicant, he does not want anyone to think the County does grant easy permits over another applicant. Commissioner Stone moved the Eagle County Permit Authority approve file 1041-0047, Town of Eagle Water Tank, and waive the requirement for Special Use Review pursuant to Section 3-310 (1) 2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as such a requirement would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant and serve no further legitimate planning or land use objective. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. In discussion, Chairman Gallagher asked how far the tank was from the Town limits. Mr. Powell stated approximately 'l'2 mile. Chairman Gallagher asked about the pipeline and if it was included in this application. Mr. Despo stated the pipeline is currently in place. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Herita2:e Park Diane Mauriello stated this is the continuation of the Heritage Park application. The Board suggested certain conditions which she read for the record as follows: 5. The applicant shall complete preliminary design of a 4 foot sidewalk within the right-of-way for the entire length of the outside of Allen Circle for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners at Preliminary Plan. If approved, the applicant shall install the sidewalks. Any appropriate pedestrian markings will be provided by the applicant in accordance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 6. The applicant shall obtain all permits for construction within the public way. 7. The applicant shall provide a designated traffic control representative for the purpose of receiving complaints, directing and coordinating traffic during construction times to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners at preliminary plan. Further, the applicant shall limit the hours of large vehicle access to the property for a time period acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners at preliminary plan. 8. At the commencement of construction, an assessment of overall condition index of the northerly portion of Allen Circle, will be determined. Upon completion of the two year warranty of the roads contained within Heritage Park, the condition of Allen Circle will be reassessed. All necessary repairs will be made by the applicant in conformance with Eagle County Road Standards to return the road to the baseline standards. 9. The applicant shall include within its Homeowners Association Covenants a requirement that the Heritage Park Association remove snow from the 8 foot clear areas on each side of Tract B. Also included will be other maintenance as needed to maintain the 36 foot wide access. Commissioner Menconi asked if Mr. Guida is the owner of the property. Mr. Guida stated he has the property under contract. 23 04-22-2003 Commissioner Menconi asked if non-approval of this file would allow the applicant to back out of the sales contract. Mr. Guida answered no. Ms. Mauriello advised the variance is the subject oftoday's hearing. Commissioner Menconi stated if the applicant does not own the property then what is the hardship. Mr. Guida stated if the PUD does not go through he might be able to get out ofthe contract. He stated he would have to give it some thought. He has been under contract for 26 months. He stated it is a legal matter and the contract is over two years old. He does not believe he could get out of the contract. Commissioner Menconi stated typically there would be some type of stipulation. If the applicant does not own the property there would be no hardship. Mr. Knight stated variances go with the property and not the owner. Commissioner Menconi stated when someone buys a property and intends to up zone that property, they should think through the process before going under contract. He asked if the applicant had thought through the process. Mr. Guida stated he did not think through the process nearly to the depth they are at now. He stated he was actively looking when this property went under contract. He stated this is a first time application for him. This is his first development. Commissioner Menconi stated it is his job to determine hardship. He wanted to reiterate the hardships of others. Mr. Guida stated his hardship is to try and find and or create another access. Commissioner Stone stated he believes there is a demonstrated hardship. He stated it is not just hardship but it is strict adherence. They went from 48 to 24 units and to make everyone happy they would have to go from 24 to 12. He stated that is asking a lot. Commissioner Menconi stated where he sees the ambiguity, is in the paragraph showing their duties. This is an applicant who is trying to up zone a property and they are trying not to speak to it because this is a variance hearing. The applicant is not the owner of the land. It is the Boards charge to determine what right he has to use the land. Mr. Guida stated he is fully authorized to represent the Allen's interest when it concerns the property. Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number VIS-00020, Heritage Park PUD Subdivision, a request for a Variance Permit from the strict interpretation of the Road Improvements Standards in Section 4-620.J.l.h of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as noted in the attached Exhibit "A" (see pages 7-14 of the staff report). This variance will be within the area known as the Heritage Park PUD Subdivision, incorporating the following staff findings: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a Variance Permit from the Improvement Standards in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-260.G ofthe LUR. 2. The petition has been properly advertised and is ready for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. 3. The road design proposed by the petitioner will provide a road design that is equally durable and equally safe to the requirement for a second emergency access. 4. The property is encumbered by a topographic or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from providing a second point of access. 5. The applicant has demonstrated hardship to the developer if there is strict adherence to the requirement for a second emergency access. 6. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of not granting the variance exceeds any adverse impacts on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, or adverse impacts to the affected lands. 24 04-22-2003 The following conditions shall be a part of this motion: 1. This variance is valid only for a Preliminary Plan, Final Plat or other land use application which will conform with the Sketch Plan submitted and approved with File PDS-00031 by Resolution 2002-100. 2. The approval ofthis variance by Eagle County is not an endorsement ofthe Heritage Park PUD Subdivision beyond what was approved as a Sketch Plan. 3. The 36-foot wide clear and unobstructed area proposed as part ofthis variance application must be incorporated into the roadway design for a Preliminary Plan and Final Plat of the Heritage Park PUD Subdivision. The applicant shall include within its Homeowners Association Covenants a requirement that the Heritage Park Homeowners Association remove snow from and maintain the 6 foot wide clear areas on each side ofthe pavement on Tract B. Further the Subdivider of Heritage Park shall remove snow and maintain the entire 36 foot wide area on Tract B until accepted for maintenance. 4. Except as otherwise modified by this application, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 5. The applicant shall complete preliminary design of a 4 foot sidewalk within the right-of-way for the entire length of the outside of Allen Circle for presentation to the Board of County Commissioners at Preliminary Plan. If approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant shall install the sidewalks prior to any ground work on the site. In addition, the applicant shall be responsible for providing any appropriate pedestrian markings in accordance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations.. 6. The applicant shall obtain all permits for construction within the public way. 7. The applicant shall provide a designated traffic control representative for the purpose of receiving complaints, directing and coordinating traffic during construction times. Further, the applicant shall limit the hours of large vehicle access to the property for a time period acceptable to the Board of County Commissioners. The proposed hours for large vehicle access shall be presented to the Board of County Commissioners at Preliminary Plan. 8. At the commencement of construction, an assessment of overall condition index of that portion of Allen Circle used by construction traffic, will be determined. Upon completion of the two year warranty of the roads contained within Heritage Park, the condition of Allen Circle will be reassessed. All necessary repairs will be made by the applicant in conformance with Eagle County Road Standards in an effort to return the road to the baseline standards. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Commissioners Gallagher and Stone voting aye, Commissioner Menconi voting no. Resolution 2003-048, Designation of Earth Awareness Week Chairman Gallagher stated the next item on the agenda was Resolution 2003-048, designating the week of April 20, 2003 through April 26, 2003, as Earth Awareness Week. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-048, designating the week of April 20,2003 through April 26, 2003, as Earth Awareness Week. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00032, Siloam Springs Cliff Simonton presented file number PDS-00032, Siloam Springs. He stated topics discussed by the Eagle County Planning Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting of April 2, 2003 include the following: The need to control visual impacts on the site (via pud standards for screening and outdoor storage) given the projects position as a "gateway" to Eagle County 25 04-22-2003 The number of variances (or "deviations") from road standards that would be required. Maintenance responsibilities for the access road. Safety surrounding the use of the box culvert by cars, pedestrians and bicyclists. The lack of dual access to the property. Options to the use of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems on the site. The size of several ofthe proposed lots relative to the development's "rural" setting. At the close of deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended denial of the project, citing a general policy of discouraging the use of ISDS in proximity to a live waterway, a concern for ISDS and the possibility of high ground water on the site, and the lack of a study by the Applicant regarding the feasibility of tying the project into the domestic sewage treatment system proposed for the Two Rivers development. The applicant is proposing to create a planned unit development (PUD) on a 42.3 acre parcel located approximately 1 mile west ofDotsero. Current zoning on the property is Resource. Six (6) lots, ranging in size from 1.3 acres to 5.8 acres, are proposed on that portion ofthe property located in- between the Colorado River and the 1-70 ROW corridor. The topography in the area proposed for homes slopes gently to the south, terminating in a relatively steep bank adjacent to the river. The lot lines extend into the water, and no public access to the river corridor is proposed. Vegetation on the property is sage and desert shrub, with areas of willow and tamarisk adjacent to the water. The balance of the parcel exists in and south of the Colorado River, and would be dedicated as open space. Factoring out the railroad ROWand slopes steeper than 30%, approximately 20 acres ofthis open space area would be deemed "usable". This includes approximately 6 acres inundated by the river. No access is proposed to cross the river to open space land areas. The usable flat portion ofthis land is elevated some 90 feet above the valley floor, and cannot be seen from the residential portion ofthe property. It is visible to west bound motorists from an elevated section ofI-70 in the Dotsero interchange area. The proposed open space land is indicated on County Master Plan Maps as deer winter range. A single family home presently exists on the property, and would be situated on proposed Lot # 6. To the east ofthe existing home is a second home located on a two (2) acre parcel owned by Michael and Kathie Moore. This tract was exempted from subdivision by the Board of County Commissioners in1979 (file Se-224-79, The Bair Exemption), and would end up positioned at the east end ofthe new PUD. This exempted parcel is not a part ofthe subject property. Access to the newly created lots would be via an existing single-lane, 11 foot high by 12 foot wide by 192 foot long box culvert under 1-70, and approximately 1800 feet of State maintained frontage road. The frontage road is approximately 18 feet wide, and terminates at the edge ofthe Moore property. A 30' access easement was created in 1979 across this parcel (the Bair Exemption), which the Applicant would utilize to reach the proposed lots. Approximately 1000 feet of new road would need to be constructed, terminating in a cu-de-sac on Lot 4. The final three lots to the west would utilize a common driveway. A variance from roadway standards, approved separately by the BoCC, or a deviation from those same standards, approved as a part of the PUD Preliminary Plan, would be required for I) a single point of access, 2) the dimensions of the box culvert, 3) sub-standard turn radiuses at the ends of the box culvert, 4) the narrow frontage road and 5) any portion of new road that does not conform to applicable standards. Water is proposed by individual wells, sewage disposal would be by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS). A 3 to 6 foot high landscaped berm is planned to be constructed along the 1-70 right- of-way to serve as a visual screen and sound barrier. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: No land use applications predate this file. The existing home on the property has been in place since The Bair Exemption Plat, that 2 acre parcel bounded on three sides by the subject property, was approved in July of 1980. 26 04-22-2003 Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Note: Referral responses reflect an analysis of the Applicant's initial site plan, which has since been modified to indicate a new arranJ:ement of lots (see attached). Eagle County Engineering (01/06/03) There is a concern that Lot 3 and Lot 6 may not contain adequate building sites. Lot lines may need to be relocated to better fit drainages and drainage easements. Drainage easements should be indicated on the site plan. Legal access across the existing 2 acre lot needs to be demonstrated. Ownership of the Railroad right of way needs to be determined. Existing access does not meet Eagle County standards. Access will have to be improved, or a deviation from standards will have to be approved at Preliminary Plan. Eagle County Environmental Health No formal response. However, the applicant has met with Environmental Health, who recommended an evaluation of the property by a professional geologist. A subsequent report by a Dr. Robert Young (10/16/02) indicated no finding of soil conditions that would preclude development of the site for residential uses. Eagle County School District RE 50J (12/20/02) Cash in lieu ofland is requested, and has been calculated for 6 lots to be $2,174, payable at final plat. Colorado Geological Survey (01/14/03) Disagrees with the assessment made by Dr. Robert Young, the geologist hired by the applicant, that no "obvious geological hazards" exist on the property. Noted strong evidence that the property is undergoing active erosion along the river bank. Voiced concern that the 50 foot setback line indicated on the site plan is a) vaguely defined and b) probably insufficient to prevent damage to proposed homes from risks associated with river bank erosion, undercutting and caving. Recommended that building envelopes be developed as far away as possible from the top of the steep slopes that define the river channel, and stated that a site-specific hydrologic analysis should be used to determine whether a larger setback will be enough to provide adequate protection, and to determine the need, feasibility and design of riverbank protection. Regarding floodplain mapping, CGS suggested the developer hire a qualified geologist to evaluate floodplain hydraulics and to verify the accuracy of the mapped flood zone. Noted the possibility of flooding, erosion and bank cutting along the channels that drain the large culverts that convey flow under 1-70 on to this property. Again suggested the use of building envelopes located as far as possible from active channels. Soil perk tests were performed at a time of severe drought. Ground water levels should be expected to rise to very shallow depths during higher water events, which may necessitate the use of engineered septic systems. Colorado Department of Transportation (two e-mails, one dated 01/08/03, the other 01/10/03) There are major drainage easements on Lot 6 and on Lot 3, possibly making these lots unsuitable. Several major storm events have over-topped the roadway in the area with mud and debris. CDOT will assume no responsibility for property damage resulting from future weather related events. The proposed access road will have to be permitted by CDOT, as this project will result in a change in use. CDOT will not be responsible for the roadway extension. CDOT will not be responsible for roadway noise mitigation. No noise walls will be built (adjacent to 1-70) at a later date. The box culvert under 1-70 may present problems for material deliveries for construction. The interstate right-of-way in this area is an A-line, which cannot be crossed. Future owners will not be allowed to access the property for any reason directly from 1-70. 27 04-22-2003 Restrictions present on this property should be clearly conveyed to future buyers of the proposed lots. The developer should be required to extend the existing 48 inch pipe across Lot 3, installing a type D style inlet in the interstate ROW, and continuing the pipe uninterrupted to a point beyond the proposed private drive. There is concern that the development as proposed will cause flooding damage. Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources (01/10/03) Neither a copy of the contract with the Colorado Water Conservation District nor water use estimates were provided in the application. The Colorado River is over-appropriated. Therefore, a plan for augmentation is required. Due to the lack of a court approved augmentation plan, the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (12/30/02) Proposal conforms to the policies and recommendations ofthe Regional 208 Plan. No mention is made of obtaining a Colorado Pollution Discharge Elimination System (CPDES) permit, which is required for projects disturbing more than one acre. Monitoring and inspection access ports are recommended on ISDS leach fields. ISDS systems should be pumped once every five years. Grading and drainage should result in sheet flow runoff. Any concentrated runoff should be treated (retained) prior to release to the river. Army Corp of Engineers (01/06/03) A wetlands delineation for the property has not been conducted. An Army Corp of Engineers Section 404 permit will be required for any work proposed within an identified wetland area. Colorado State Forest Service (01/15/03) Wildfire hazard rating is low Shrubby fuels on the property will carry fire during extreme fire activity. Defensible space should be created around all structures. Class A roofing is recommended. Access to the lots should be improved to accommodate emergency equipment. Fire District (Gypsum) (12/12/02) Water for fire protection has not been considered. Given the restricted nature of the box culvert under 1-70, water tanker shuttle operations are not practical. Some form of dry hydrant, tank storage or hydrant system should be considered. Colorado Water Conservation Board (12/24/02) Responded with concerns that a careful flood plain study be conducted, as it is not clear by materials submitted how the applicant is planning to address flood plain mapping. Detailed flood plain information for the site should be coordinated to assure accurate mapping, and minimal inconsistency between any independent analysis being conducted and the on-going flood plain study by Eagle County. The application should conform to the technical requirements of Eagle County, the Colorado Water Conservation Board and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. Additional Referral A2:encies (No Response): Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Road & Bridge, Eagle County Animal Control, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Assessors, Eagle County Housing, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Natural Resources Conservation District, BLM, US West/PTI, Public Service Company, Holy Cross Electric, Town of Gypsum. Public Letters/Comments: Two letters have been received, both with concerns for the plan. 1) Mr. Michael Moore, owner of the Bair Exemption property which is surrounded on three sides by the land proposed for subdivision, submitted a letter dated January 21,2003. He and his wife are 28 04-22-2003 opposed to the plan, listing a number of observed problems:river bank erosion has threatened his property The culvert that crosses the interstate and empties into the drainage channel located east of his home is prone to siltation and clogging. The constricted nature, poor quality and general lack of maintenance on the frontage road (south of the interstate) used to access his property. The box culvert, which prevents the availability of a variety of services (listed in the letter) to the site. The box culvert, and safety issues related to a lack of visibility at the entrances. Mr. Moore provided considerable discussion on a number of topics to support his position. He stated that he would be more receptive to the project if required access improvements could be made, to include enlarging the box culvert tunnel or creating a connection to the Two Rivers Project to the east. 2) Mr. Craig Bair submitted a letter dated February 1 st, and noted the limited access to the property as a result of the box culvert. Mr. Bair cited conflicts that have occurred between the "public" and livestock, which must use the box culvert to travel from one side of the interstate to the other in the Spring and Fall. His primary concern is that he protect the right granted to him by the state highway (CDOT) for the continued use ofthe box culvert as a travel route for sheep, "without further confrontation" . Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F., Procedure for Development Review: Section 5-240.F.l.a., Sketch Plan states "The purpose of sketch plan review is for the Applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether the development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision." The degree to which the plan conforms to the intent of applicable land use regulations and provisions of the Eagle County Master Plan is determined, as is the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land uses. General agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, access, and the means of water supply and sewage disposal. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the Applicant must address if the proj ect is to receive approval of a Preliminary Plan. Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch Plan application. Given its conceptual nature, standards that must be met at Preliminary Plan will likely not be fully addressed by sketch plan material. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards will be able to be met at Preliminary Plan. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague, or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be indicated for that Standard. Pluses and minuses appearing before specific Standards indicate where it has been found that the proposed development currently meets that Standard ([ +]), does not currently meet that Standard, but may be able to meet that standard at application for Preliminary Plan ([ +/-]), does not presently meet and likely will not be able to meet that Standard at application for Preliminary Plan ([ -]), or the Standard does not apply ([n/a]). STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The subject property is owned by two separate entities, the Thelma C. Bair Revocable Trust and Richard and Luanne Mayne. Demonstration of "control" via assigned power of attorney or written consent has been received (please see power of authorization letter 02/13/03, attached). 29 04-22-2003 [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] It HAS been demonstrated that the title to all land that is part of this PUD is owned or controlled by one (1) person STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. Proposed uses in the PUD include: Residential - single family homes Open Space All uses proposed are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use, or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Districts Use Schedule" within the existing Resource (R) zone district. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F. 3j, Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The dimensional limitations proposed for the PUD are not as specified in Table 3-340 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations for the Resource (R) zone district. A minimum lot size of 1.3 (?) acres is proposed, as are set backs of 20 feet from local roads and 10 feet from the edge of pavement of private roads. The Resource zone district (R) has a minimum lot size ofthirty-five (35) acres, and a minimum front yard setback of25 feet from a local road as specified in Table 3-340. A variation from dimensional limitations will be required. Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: (a) obtains desired design qualities; (b) avoids environmental resources and natural resources; ( c) incentives for water augmentation; (d) incentives for trails; (e) incentives for affordable housing; and/or (f) incentives for public facilities. The Board of County Commissioners has considerable discretion in the establishment of appropriate setback standards within a proposed PUD. Referencing the above, it may be determined by the Board that the variations proposed for this project allow for the "obtainment of desired design qualities". The Obtain Desired Desif!n Oualities section of the Land Use Regulations lists "integration of mixed uses", "allowing greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings" and "promoting more efficient land use patterns and increase open space" in support of desired desi!im qualities. No integration of uses is contemplated by this plan, nor is a variety of building types or designs. However, given the somewhat constrained nature of the property, the proposed variations in setback and lot sizes may allow a more efficient land use pattern. 30 04-22-2003 Any dimensional limitation standard that will not be met within the proposed plan must be detailed in the application for Preliminary Plan. A discussion regarding the basis for granting these variations is also required. Setbacks and any other variation from standard should be clearly identified in the PUD Guide. The Applicant will be required to request specific variations from zone district dimensional limitations at application for Preliminary Plan approval, with appropriate justification, and should also include the specifics of these variations in the PUD Guide for the project. [+/-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, the Board MAY grant variations to the proposed dimensional limitations as part of the approval of the Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkinf? 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 ofthe 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. While specific information regarding parking has not been submitted, it is assumed the off-street parking and loading standards can be met. The Applicant will be required to clearly demonstrate this at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It has NOT been fully demonstrated that Off-street parking and loading provisions provided in the PUD will comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. However, the Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate that provisions for parking and loading will comply with applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan. 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 streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Landscaping associated with a visual barrier/sound protection berm is proposed along the northern boundary ofthe property between the proposed building sites and Interstate 70. This plan is discussed at a level adequate for Sketch Plan review. Landscaping and lighting standards are also included in the draft PUD Guide. The applicant will be required to submit a detailed Landscape Plan at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] The Landscape Plan DOES NOT, at present, adequately delineate specific areas that will be disturbed, or how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will preserved or replaced, or how the areas disturbed will otherwise be re- vegetated. However, these details MAY BE addressed at the time of Preliminary Plan application. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Rewlations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD ). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for 31 04-22-2003 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 development contemplates residential and open space uses only. As such, and at this time, no signs are proposed. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] No signs are contemplated by this plan. The sign standards applicable to the PUD SHALL be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Potable water supply. Potable water is proposed from individual wells through contract with the Colorado River Conservation District. As detailed in the referral response from the State Engineer (01/10/03), the Colorado River is over-appropriated, and a court approved water augmentation plan is needed. Prior to Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate that related approvals and permits are in place and that they are sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed PUD. The Applicant has provided additional detail regarding potable water supply for the proposed development in their letter dated February 19,2003, attached. Sewage disposal. Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) are proposed. Preliminary soils investigations would indicate that ISDS will work, although the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) warns of the possibility of a shallow water table during high water events in the adjacent Colorado River. Per the revised layout plan (please see attached) there is some concern for the viability of lots 4 and 5 given their size, especially when one considers the space that will be required for river setbacks, front yard setbacks, a well, a home, parking, and two septic leach fields, one primary and one alternative, on each lot (response from Eagle County Engineering, 01/06/13, and CGS, 01/14103). The creation of Lot 5 may also restrict the ability of the existing home on Lot 6 to develop an alternate leach field site should the existing field fai1. NWCCOG (12/30/02) has recommended installing inspection access ports on the leach field and the pumping ofthe system's tanks once every five years. The Applicant is required to demonstrate the viability of each lot as it pertains to the development of single family home sites utilizing individual wells and Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. The Applicant has provided additional detail regarding the type of ISDS systems that would be required for the proposed development in their letter dated February 19, 2003, attached. Solid waste disposal. The use of bear-proof trash containers is specified in the draft PUD Guide. It is Staffs understanding that the existing homes are not serviced for trash, due to the fact that service providers are unable to negotiate the box culvert with their trucks. A viable long term solution is required. The Applicant has provided additional information regarding trash service for the proposed development in their letter dated February 19, 2003, attached. Electrical supply. Information regarding electrical supply was not submitted. The existing two homes in the area are currently served. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate that the development will be provided adequate electrical service with appurtenant easements and facilities at application for Preliminary Plan approva1. Fire protection. The Gypsum Fire Protection District (phone conversation with Dave Vroman) has indicated that they use the dimensions of the box culvert accessing the proposed development as a standard for dimensioning any new fire truck purchased by the department. In their referral response, however, it was noted that an adequate source of fire fighting water for the development has not been addressed (12/12/02). The Applicant will be required to demonstrate that the development will be 32 04-22-2003 provided adequate fire protection and a reliable fire fighting water supply at application for Preliminary Plan approval. The Applicant has provided additional information regarding fire protection for the proposed development in their letter dated February 19, 2003, attached. Roads. A variance or deviation from road standards will be required. The site presently has one point of access. That access is via a twelve foot wide by eleven foot tall box culvert under 1-70 and approximately1800 feet of CDOT maintained frontage road. The frontage road is approximately 18 feet wide (a minimum of20 is required), and its asphalt is in poor condition. The radiuses of turns at both entrances of the box culvert are sub-standard. The topography in the vicinity of the northern entrance to the box culvert prevents any re-alignment of the approach road, and a reflective mirror has been recommended to be installed on a nearby cut bank in such a manner that vehicles will be able to "see" oncoming traffic. Some modification of alignment is proposed at the south entrance to allow northbound cars to see into the culvert before entering - exiting cars will still be required to make a hard right turn. Approximately 1000 feet of new roadway would be required to be constructed on the property by the developer. A platted access easement exists on the Bair Exemption property which would be utilized to cross that property to the six new lots to the west. The use of the platted easement to serve greater densities than the existing single family residence to the west is not restricted by the plat. No secondary access is proposed, as required by Eagle County Land Use.Regulations, Section 4- 620.J.1.h. This section also specifies that "all dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by..... service vehicles". There is concern that certain types of service normal to residential subdivisions may not be able to negotiate the restricted access (see letter from Mr. Michael Moore, 01/21/03). The Colorado State Forest Service has mentioned that access should be improved to accommodate emergency service vehicles (01/15/03). CDOT will not allow any access directly from the interstate (01/08/03), and will require a new access permit for the frontage road. The Applicant has provided additional detail regarding access by certain service providers for the proposed development in their letter dated February 19, 2003, attached. Additionally, a traffic study submitted by TDA Colorado, Inc. discusses a potential for headlight glare and traffic orientation perception problem along a 250 section of the access frontage road where it exists at approximately the same level as, and only 40 feet from, the east bound lane of Interstate 70. TDA recommends a suitable continuous headlight screen be installed in this area to mitigate this problem. A second letter was submitted by TDA dated February 3, 2003 which suggests a modified approach to the "headlight glare and traffic orientation problem" (please see attached). Staff is concerned with the viability of the site for increased residential development given the single point of access, the restricted nature of the access and the potential for complications in equipment, materials and service delivery. Demonstration of access conforming to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, or a variance or deviation from applicable standards, is required. Proximity to schools. lJolice and fire protection. and emerf!ency medical services. The nearest schools, police and fire protection are located in the Town of Gypsum, approximately 8 miles to the east. The nearest medical facilities/doctors office is located in Eagle, 15 miles to the east with the nearest hospital in Glenwood Springs, 20 miles to the west. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the development proposed will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, electrical supply, and fire protection, and that it will be will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. However, the Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate that applicable standards will be met at application for Preliminary Plan. 33 04-22-2003 STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-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 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. While of minimal concern in this low lying area ofthe County, a plan for Snow Storage has not been submitted and will be required at application for Preliminary Plan. As previously discussed, safe, efficient access is a concern. A variance or deviation from roadway standards will be required for the single lane box culvert, associated curve radiuses, the State maintained frontage road, which is only18 feet wide, and the new internal road proposed for the development where it crosses the Bair Exemption. No internal pathways are proposed. The Eagle County Trails Plan proposes a bike trail along the frontage road on the north side of Interstate 70 through this area. Any linkage of pathways to it from this project would require the use of a narrow asphalt road that has no shoulders and the box culvert. The box culvert would be especially unsafe for bike or pedestrian traffic, since there is no internal sidewalk or lighting. In their deliberation of April 2, the Eagle County Planning Commission noted that pedestrians and bicyclists would be more likely to use the tunnel as attractive commercial and recreational facilities come on line in the Two Rivers Development to the east. It has not been fully demonstrated that the site will be accessible by emergency and/or service vehicles, and it has not been demonstrated that the box culvert under 1-70 will provide the "smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic" contemplated by this standard. The Applicant has provided additional information regarding access by service providers for the proposed development in their letter dated February 19, 2003, attached. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The site is bounded on three sides by open range land zoned Resource (R) and to the north by the 1- 70 corridor. Two residential homes exist, one on the subject property and one on land bounded by the 34 04-22-2003 subject property (the Bair Exemption). While additional houses might be compatible with the homes already on the site, this standard infers compatibility with "surrounding" land uses. With the exception ofthe interstate corridor, the lands surrounding this property are undeveloped. The eastern boundary of the subject property is located approximately1500 feet to the west of the west end of the recently approved Two Rivers PUD. The three platted parcels at the western end of Two Rivers are slated for recreational uses and a sewer plant, and so the distance from the proposed subdivision to similar residential development is considerably further that 1500 feet. However, the development of the Two Rivers Project to the east provides an opportunity for a finding of compatibility. When "spatially experienced" at highway speeds, this development may appear to be an extension of the Two Rivers development. The Applicant provides additional discussion regarding compatibility in their letter dated February 19, 2003, attached. As mentioned in the referral response from CDOT, the noise generated by Interstate 70 is expected to increase in the future, and will not be mitigated through any action of the State. Residential developments in close proximity to the interstate highway, however, are not uncommon in Eagle County. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may change. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Qulllity Recreation Housing Services Conformance Non X Conformance Mixed X X X Conformance Not X X X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Qualitv - Guiding policy 2, pg 62) The risk associated with flood hazards from the Colorado River to the south and the drainages to the north has not been fully assessed. A wetlands study has not been submitted (Army Corp of Engineers, 01/06/03), and no measures have been proposed to protect riparian areas along the adjacent river corridor. Open SpaceIRecreation - Guiding policy 3, pg 66) the proposed development will occur in the open space "break" currently present between Dotsero and the mouth of the Glenwood Canyon. Three remote residences currently exist in the area, one to the north ofthe 1-70 corridor and two to the south. Development - Guiding policy 1, pg 68) Development of the subject property is not consistent with the FLUM, which indicates "Rural", or densities of one unit per 35 acres. The FLUM does provide that small concentrations of homes may occur in rural areas. Staff would note that the site of the approved Two Rivers PUD to the east is also indicated by the FLUM as "Rural". FLUM - The Future Land Use Map indicates this area as "Rural", specifying densities of one unit per 35 acres. PUD's are not listed as zone districts that would fit in this land designation. The FLUM 35 04-22-2003 does provide that small concentrations of homes may occur in rural areas, so long as they are surrounded by large open space tracts. Staff would note that the approved Two Rivers PUD to the east is also indicated by the FLUM as "Rural". EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Cooperation Open Space Provision Unique Char. Preservation Visual Quality Development Patterns Hazards x Conformance x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable x x x x x Visual Quality - the open space visual quality Map indicates this area as "moderately constrained" for development, with the river corridor being "prohibited" from development. It is noted that the visual quality map shows much of the approved Two Rivers PUD similarly constrained and/or prohibited to development. Development Patterns - The area to be developed is, and will be, considerably separated from an existing community. It could be viewed, however, as a detached suburb of the Two Rivers residential development. Hazards - Natural hazards have been identified on the site by the Colorado Geological Survey. The subject property could be impacted by flooding, river bank and drainage channel erosion and by debris flow events. CGS has indicated that the standard 50 foot setback from the high-water mark may not be sufficient to protect property on the site. These hazards, however, may be able to be mitigated. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: Housing is a community-wide issue Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success It is important to preserve existing local residents housing Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county [+/-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be consistent with all policies of applicable Master Plans. The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate full conformance to all applicable Master Plan Guiding Policies at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs 36 04-22-2003 While the Applicant presents this project as one that will result in "moderately priced" homes in the lower valley area, with "lots priced below the average lot price", no specific provisions are offered as a means to assure this end. The restricted nature of the single access to the site may necessitate more costly home construction methods. Manufactured homes, for example, would not be able to negotiate the box culvert. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. No plan for Phasin2: has been submitted. The Applicant will be required to construct public improvements in accordance with Section 5-240.F.3.e (11), Phasing and other Sections of the Land Use Regulations, and will be required to provide a phasing plan and cost estimates, sufficiently detailed to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer, prior to approval of the final plat for the development. [+/-] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS NOT been proposed for this development. A specific Site Development Schedule sufficient to meet the requirements of this standard, to include guarantees for all public improvements, WILL BE required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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. (1) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (2) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, 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 ofthe PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (a) 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 ofthe PUD. (b) 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. !Q 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 37 04-22-2003 established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. A separate open space tract of approximately 20 acres (approximately 47%), to include much of the river and lands south ofthe river, is proposed. Some usable land exists to the east ofthe Bair Exemption parcel, although a CDOT drainage feature and easement take up some of the available space. Much of the "usable" land area exists on a bench located approximately 90 vertical feet above the river, and south of the railroad ROW which parallels the river's south bank. This area is indicated on County maps as deer winter range. No improvements or access to this open space area are proposed. Specific restrictions and/or covenants intended to ensure the continued use and maintenance of open space areas were not submitted. Clarification is required with language in the PUD Guide, which lists "recreation for the residents of the PUD" as an open space use. Lacking access, recreation opportunities for residents on proposed open space areas across the river would seem unavailable. [+/-] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It HAS been fully demonstrated that The PUD will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to minimum area. It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Improvements required; (b) Continuing use and maintenance; or (9 Organization. The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate conformance to all applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. The referral agencies that have responded regarding this application are indicated on page three, four and five of this report. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate the manner in which the recommendations made by the Applicant's own analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of all referral agencies, as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the PUD has considered 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. However, adequate consideration MAY BE demonstrated at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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 on pages 14 and 15, "Consistency with Master Plan." [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] 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 Develooment Standards. Article 3. Zone Districts [+] Uses - Uses proposed, Residential and Open Space, are consistent with those allowed by right, by limited review or by special use in the Resource zone district. 38 04-22-2003 [+/-J Lot dimensions - Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized for a PUD, a Variation would be required for lots smaller than 35 acres, which is the minimum allowed in the Resource (R) zone district. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+J Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) The Applicant has not provided a Comprehensive Parking Plan for this proposed PUD. Parking should be addressed in the PUD Guide. Given the proposed uses, density, and lot sizes, conformance to related standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval should not be a problem. [+J Landscauin2: and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) The Landscaping Design Standards provide that landscaping in a PUD shall be provided in a manner which is most consistent with the character planned for the development and the unique ecosystem and specific environment in which the development is located. The Standards go on to indicate that for developments that contain lots larger than two (2) acres, "landscaping should include preservation or replacement of existing trees, shrubs and ground cover and re-vegetation of areas that are disturbed by development. " While the Applicant has provided some information, what areas will be disturbed and how existing shrubs and groundcover will be preserved, replaced or how grounds will otherwise be re-vegetated has not been fully addressed. The Applicant is required to provide such information as part ofthe detailed landscaping plan at Preliminary Plan application. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Signs are not proposed for the development. To the extent that signs are used, it is reasonable to expect that they can conform to this Division of the Land Use Regulations. A comprehensive sign plan, as specified in Section 4-340.D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), is required at application for Preliminary Plan. [+/-] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified at the writing of this staff report regarding wildlife. Any conflicts subsequently identified will need to be addressed at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [-] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - In their referral response of 1/14/03, the Colorado Geologic Survey disagreed with the findings of the Applicant's geologist, Dr. Robert Young, noting several potential hazards on the site. CGS found evidence that suggests that accelerated erosion is occurring along the river bank south of the proposed lots. Damage from flooding and high water tables from the Colorado River, and flooding and debris flows from drainages to the north of the property were also listed as potential hazards by CGS. Lacking additional study, the degree to which identified hazards might render the site or portions of the site unsuitable, or prohibitively expensive to develop, is not known. Demonstration that identified hazards can be reasonably avoided or mitigated is required. The Applicant has provided additional information regarding geologic hazards for the proposed development in their letter dated February 19, 2003, attached. [+/-] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has noted a low wildfire hazard on this site, but indicated that shrubby fuels on the site would carry a fire during extreme fire activity. Provisions related to wildfire protection have been included in the application, including a proposal to require a clear zone of 15 feet around structures, and a mandate to use Class A roofs. CSFS also recommended that access for emergency equipment be improved. The issue of access for all types of emergency vehicles needs to be resolved, as does the fact that the site has only one point of access. [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The use and control of wood burning devises is adequately discussed, and will conform to Eagle County standards. 39 04-22-2003 [N/A] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not within a designated ridge line area as depicted on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - The Applicant has requested exemption from the requirement to submit an environmental impact report. No environmental quality issues have been identified at the time of this report. If significant environmental issues are subsequently identified, an EIR will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. As identified by the referral response from the US Army Corp of Engineers (01/06/03), a wetlands delineation for the property has not been done. [N/A] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) The proposed development includes no commercial or industrial uses. These standards do not apply. [+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [-] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - Only one point of access is available for this project, rendering the proposal, in its present form, in non-compliance with Section 4-620.1 .1.h. In addition, and as discussed on pages 12 and 13, a variance or deviation from dimensional roadway standards will be required. The proposed access will not be able to meet standards for minimum width, vertical clearance and turn radii. The use of a small, one lane box culvert under 1-70 presents potential problems related to automobile safety, to safety and access by pedestrians or bicyclists, and to access by service providers that the Applicant may not be able to fully mitigate. The Applicant has provided additional information regarding access to the proposed development in their letter dated February 19,2003, attached. [-] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - No internal or connecting sidewalks or trails are proposed. Plans for access to public transportation, and connection to proposed County bike and pedestrian trails should be submitted at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - Limited outdoor irrigation is contemplated, based on the anticipated approval of a water supply plan. The Applicant will be required to demonstrate the extent to which the standards of this Section are applicable and how they will be met at the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The Applicant should be able to meet applicable standards. A full drainage report and storm water control plan will be required at the time of application for Preliminary Plan. Per the referral response from NWCCOG (12/30/02), a Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit will be required, as more than one acre will be disturbed. Maintenance of proposed drainage and storm water control systems should be addressed in the PUD guide. [ +/ -] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The plan does not, at present, address all aspects pertaining to grading and erosion control. The Applicant is required to demonstrate that applicable standards will be met at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - It does not appear that proposed plan will have particular difficulty in meeting these standards which should be detailed at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Lighting standards should also be included in the PUD Guide. [ +/ -] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - Please see earlier discussion under Adequate Facilities on pages 10 and 11. Potable water is proposed to be provided by wells. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has indicated that a water augmentation plan will be required prior to the issuance of water rights and/or well permits for this development (01/10/03). An copy of a court approved plan will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Water for fire protection is not contemplated by the plan in its present form. The use of a tanker shuttle operations is not practical given the restricted nature of the box culvert, and the fire department has requested a storage tank, dry hydrant or other hydrant system be used on the site (12/12/02). A fire fighting water supply plan, approved by the Gypsum Fire Protection District, will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 40 04-22-2003 The Applicant has provided additional information regarding the potable water supply and fire protection for the proposed development in their letter dated February 19, 2003, attached. [+/-] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sanitary Sewage Disposal is to be provided by Individual Sewage Disposal Systems. Several of the lots (#4 and #5) are quite small, and the viability of these lots to support residential units, wells and septic systems will need to be demonstrated. The configuration of the new Lot 5 may also restrict the ability of the existing home on Lot 6 to develop an alternate leach field site should the existing field fail (see revised lot layout plan, attached). This Section requires compliance with Eagle County Individual Sewage Disposal System Regulations and is subject to review by the County Environmental Health Manager. The Applicant is required to demonstrate at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. The Applicant has provided additional information regarding sewage disposal for the proposed development in their letter dated February 19, 2003, attached. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Reference response from the School District (12/20/02), cash-in-lieu of school land dedication in the amount of $2174.00 is preferred. Payment will be due as a part of Final Plat Approval. Road impact fees will be assessed at the time of application for building permit per applicable Eagle County regulations. FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed PUD complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions ofthese Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. However, the Applicant MAY BE able to meet applicable standards at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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. 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. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. The proposed development should not create any of the inefficiencies, duplications or leapfrog development patterns contemplated by this standard. The Applicant is required to demonstrate fully at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision will 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. The Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrate conformance to this standard at application for Preliminary Plan approval. 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. Two significant concerns have emerged from referral responses and the on-going analysis ofthe project regarding the suitability of the site for development. One has to do with access - specifically, a) the restricted nature of the single access to the site, a box culvert under the Interstate, that might 41 04-22-2003 preclude the delivery of services normal and/or necessary to support a residential subdivision and b) the fact that the configuration of the box culvert and its approaches may create safety problems. Concerns for vehicle safety center on the single lane nature of the box and the fact that it is difficult to see into the culvert prior to entering it from the north. This is well documented in the letter from Mr. Michael Moore (01/21/03) who sites specific experiences. In addition, the box culvert was not designed with pedestrian or bicycle traffic in mind. In its present condition, people attempting to negotiate the culvert using these modes oftransportation would be at considerable risk. As such, and at this time, it has not been demonstrated that reasonable, safe access standards can be met. The second concern is related to hazards, and the possibility of damage to the site from flooding and erosion events. As discussed in their referral response of 01/14/03, the Colorado Geological Survey found evidence of accelerated bank erosion along the Colorado River, and voiced concern for possible (eventual) damage to personal property as a result. A similar potential for erosion and erosional damage was identified by CGS adjacent to the two drainage ways that traverse the property from north to south, one on the proposed Lot 3 and the other on the proposed open space area east of the Bair exemption parcel. Occasional large storms in the area can result in significant flows in these otherwise dry channels, including debris flows. CGS recommended a site specific hydrologic analysis be conducted, and that homes be placed within building envelopes as far from the river and drainage ways as possible to avoid hazard areas. Any work to stabilize the river bank will require a Section 404 Army Corp of Engineers (letter of 01/06/03). Given these concerns, and again at this time, it has not been fully demonstrated that standards related to the avoidance of natural hazards can be met. As previously discussed, the suitability of Lot 4 and Lot 5 for residential home sites in terms of physical space (referral letters from Eagle County Engineering, 01/06/03, and CDOT, 01/08/03) has not been adequately demonstrated. [+/-] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS NOT been sufficiently demonstrated that the property proposed to be developed is suitable for development, considering its environmental resources and natural and manmade hazards. The Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate compliance with the provisions of this standard at application for Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please note earlier discussion on pages 14 and 15. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." The purpose of a Planned Unit Development zone district, as provided in Section 5-240.A., Purpose, is: "to permit variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards ofthe Land Use Regulations." This Section goes on to say that this purpose is to be achieved through the application of performance standards that: Permit integration of uses; Establish more efficient land use patterns; Preserve lands; Maintain water quality and quantity; Contribute to trails system; Establish incentives for affordable housing; and Be consistent with the Master Plan. 42 04-22-2003 The Applicant has submitted a draft PUD Guide. The proposal has been reviewed to determine whether one or more of the performance standards listed above are being served by techniques such as clustering of building sites, protecting open space and/or view corridors, or some other benefit which justifies the use ofPUD zoning. The applicant may be able to demonstrate that the benefits of establishing a low density PUD in this area of Eagle County, with the setting aside of 20 acres of land to be maintained in perpetuity as open space, outweigh the anticipated impacts, and that proposed development does create a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations, at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] FINDING: PUD Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD guide and MAY BE able to demonstrate that the requirements of this Section can be fully met at application for Preliminary Plan approval. Furthermore, the Applicant MAY BE able to demonstrated that the purposes ofPUD zoning are being served by the proposed development. Requirements for a Zone Chan2:e It has been recommended by the Eagle County Attorney that these considerations be reviewed at PUD Sketch Plan, even though zone changes are neither granted for a PUD at Sketch Plan nor may they be "formal" findings. It is almost impossible to avoid confronting these requirements at this stage since they are fundamental to the location's appropriateness of the proposed land use in the first place, and must be found at Preliminary Plan. Staff, therefore provides a list of criteria which must be met for a zone change, pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards. for amendment to the Official Zone District Map: Consistency With Master Plan. Compatible with surrounding uses. Changed conditions. Effect on natural environment. Community need. Development patterns. Public interest. Chairman Gallagher asked who owned the property beyond the Bair property. Mr. Simonton stated Mr. Mayne also owns that parcel but it is quite small and has a significant drainage easement. The applicant has determined this property is not developable and will become part of the open space. Commissioner Menconi questioned if the white area in the picture was snow or the river. Mr. Simonton stated it is ice on the river. Tom Boni explained the dirt moving, construction of a sewer treatment plant and a water treatment plant. There is quite a bit of light industrial to the east. There is not any other private property that can be developed in this area. That is based on land use ownership and topographic constraints. This proposal is adjacent to the Two Rivers development He spoke to compliance with the Master Plan. What is being constructed is 273 suburban single family lots, 160 multi family lots, etc. There is the development of a community in Dotsero. He stated they researched the file to answer some of the questions the Planning Commission is asking. He stated this frontage road and box culvert was carefully written in a Court stipulation indicating it would be built to County standards. In the beginning the culvert was planned to be a fully functional County road. They have agreed to provide a plat indicating the culvert will also be used to move sheep. He spoke to the concerns about the convenience of this site. With its location up against 1-70 they are 15 minutes from Gypsum. Lot 6 has been relocated to the West. With regards to ground water concerns they agreed to a secondary treatment through ISDS. Improvements to the safety of the underpass have been looked at and specific recommendations have been made, with the placement of a mirror and a turn out on the South side. Mr. Boni stated they had met with the expert on the ISDS systems who has given recommendations. They have also done a perk test which showed a consistent material and had the appropriate rates. The 43 04-22-2003 land form looked uniform. In regards to connection with the Two Rivers Plant, it would be expensive and is not warranted. He reviewed prior hearings for the Board. Mr. Boni continued with his power point presentation. Richard Mayne, applicant, spoke to the Lot 5 flood damage and related the only time they have had any problems with the river is in excess water years. He spoke to the culverts, one being plugged for years and the other never having run water through it. He stated the dirt and debris have never filled that in. He stated he has a daughter that lives on lot 6 that has 5 children. He stated they are not allowed to play on the northern frontage road. As far as school busses are concerned, the kids are picked up at Stephen's Nursery in Dotsero. He stated he has had a lot of interest in purchasing the lots. Terrill Knight stated when Mr. Mayne started this application he wanted to help the locals. They were not interested in installing a bridge. They have worked quite extensively with staff. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi asked about a letter form Mr. Moore, who questioned the maintenance of the road and who will take care of that road. He asked if that would be the responsibility of CDOT. He asked if the applicant was willing to help out in the maintenance. Mr. Mayne stated he will be working on CDOT to keep the road taken care of. Commissioner Menconi asked about the culvert. Mr. Mayne stated they are going to bring the culvert up to the standards. He stated in all the trips he has made through the culvert, he has never had to wait on a car. Commissioner Menconi asked if the applicant plans to maintain that road. Mr. Mayne stated he is going to remind CDOT that it is their duty to maintain that road. Commissioner Menconi asked how long the culvert was. Mr. Simonton stated 195 feet. Commissioner Menconi asked for recommendations from staff. Mr. Simonton stated they see no way of improving the culvert and will follow the Engineer's recommendation. Mr. Knight spoke to the improvements to the culvert and stated they are not planning on improvements except for the mirrors and the widening of the turn on the South side. He stated the Highway Department has committed to maintain that road. He stated ifthey do not they will have to form a Homeowners Association to perform the maintenance. Commissioner Menconi asked about the recommendation of removing a lot to increase the area to a consolidated septic system. Mr. Simonton stated there was an underlying opinion with the Planning Commission they were not happy with this many lots. They had the idea that one less lot could be planned creating the possibility of a combined septic system. Commissioner Menconi asked for Mr. Simonton's opinion Mr. Simonton stated he has received no response from Engineering. The flood plain is also not shown at this time. Discussion followed on the size ofthe lots. Commissioner Menconi spoke to trash removal. Mr. Simonton stated their concern is that individuals could obtain trash removal services. It was suggested that maybe a trash removal company with a smaller truck could get through the site. Commissioner Menconi asked if Two Rivers complied with the Master Plan. Mr. Simonton stated part of the Two Rivers property was shown on the Land Use Map Commissioner Menconi asked ifthis complies with the Master Plan and the Future Land Use Map. Mr. Simonton stated the average lot size is one unit per seven acres. He stated the Land Use Regulations do allow for clustering and obviously have been modified by Boards of Commissioners in the past. Commissioner Menconi asked about the box culvert. 44 04-22-2003 Justin Hildrith, Engineering Department, stated most ofthe problems can be mitigated. Commissioner Menconi asked about the type of variances. Mr. Hildrith stated they revolve around the box culvert and the frontage road. He stated there are roughly nine cars for 6 units. Commissioner Menconi asked about the type of homes people will be allowed to build. Mr. Mayne stated they are looking at modulars, log homes, etc but they are trying to keep it affordable. Commissioner Stone stated in the way of full disclosure, Mr. Mayne is his neighbor and a friend. He stated he helped him with a horse caught in a ditch. Because of that it makes it difficult to make comments. In general terms he believes they are trying to do too much with the property. It would be very expensive to built a bridge to access the property across the river. He has real concerns with the safety issues with the box culvert. Right now there are no problems but there are only a couple of homes there. He stated he tries to apply consistent principals and levels of review to all subdivisions. If these conditions existed in Heritage Park he would not have given his approval. He related the problems revolve around the use of the road. If Mr. Mayne gets approval that road will have to be brought up to County Standards. It will not be appropriate to indicate that CDOT will have to do it. He believes they would have to require the developer to bring the road up to standards. He stated there are problems with traffic, sewage disposal and emergency access. At the same time he would like the applicant to have some development potential. He is not sure about the number of lots. The Board must apply consistent standards. They could fix the sewage disposal systems with engineered systems. He does not know how they can solve the access issues. He stated the County Road & Bridge Department would have real problems trying to maintain this road. Chairman Gallagher stated he appreciates the effort to offer lots to locals. He shares Commissioner Stone's concerns. There is too much planned for the site. It seems three or four would be more appropriate and the placement of those homes might address some of the concerns. He stated he did not understand the change in use. Mr. Hildreth explained there are currently two properties that access the road. When you change the use of the road the property owners would have to maintain it. Chairman Gallagher stated if Mr. Mayne wants to continue with less lots, share ISDS, the hydrogeology around the erosion needs to be studied. There are sufficient land below the flood plain where a dry hydrant can be installed. He stated the north approach does not look like granite walls but rather packed mud. He asked if it was impossible to improve that turn. Mr. Knight stated it is pretty stable as it stands and it is on CDOT property. Commissioner Menconi stated there are seven usable acres. He questions ifthe cul-de-sac stops where the natural drainage is. He questioned how people are going to get to their homes. Mr. Boni stated there was an existing culvert under the Interstate and they would use the same size culvert under the driveway. Commissioner Menconi stated he was going to suggest reducing the lots to 3. Mr. Knight stated they ran the road to serve all the lots they could. Mr. Mayne stated his goal was to create more affordable lots. He stated if reducing the number they would not have the same product or the same market. Mr. Simonton stated as a PUD, it is not necessary to fill the space north ofthe river with lots. That space could be dedicated as open space. Mr. Knight stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to May 13,2003 Commissioner Stone moved the Board table File No. PDS-00032, Siloam Springs, to May 13, 2003, at the applicants request. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 45 04-22-2003 G-000I5, W. Lake Creek Drive Vacation John Vengrin presented file number G-OOOI5, West Lake Creek Drive Vacation. He stated the Eagle County Planning Commission, at their meeting of March 5, 2003, recommended approval to the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners of this petition for vacation of rights-of-way for Lake Court, and portions of West Lake Creek Drive subject to conditions which were in the staff report, and recommended three additional conditions: 6. That a restoration plan including use of native grasses, erosion control, and weed control be presented with the road construction plans so that at the proper time it will be initiated, 7. That the resolution for the approval of this petition state that there will be no loss of public access as a result ofthis vacation, and 8. That the deed of easement state that it is granted in perpetuity. These recommended conditions have been incorporated into the conditions of approval described in Section VII of this report. Mr. Vengrin stated this is a petition for the vacation of the road rights-of-way for Lake Court, and a portion of West Lake Creek Drive as shown on the attached Exhibit A. These rights-of-way are considered to be public and are therefore subject to the requirements of Section 5-2200 Public Way and Easement Vacations. Please note that some of the documents submitted with the petition reference West Lake Creek Road. These references should be to West Lake Creek Drive. A previous staff report dated November 20,2002, contained a petition to vacate Ridge Road and North Ridge Road, as well as Lake Court and portions of West Lake Creek Drive. The petition has since been amended to exclude Ridge Road and North Ridge Road from the proposed vacation. Also, the Brickman Family Trust is no longer a petitioner, because the remaining roads proposed for vacation are not adjacent to their property. The Brickman Family Trust is now an affected landowner which was to be notified at least 15 days prior to the Planning Commission meeting. In order to allow the hearing by the Planning Commission to commence on March 5, 2003, the Brickman Family Trust waived the notice requirement. A letter from James R. Brickman, trustee for the Brickman Family Trust, with a fax machine date of February 24,2003, is attached to this staff report. When the Tenderwild Plat was recorded in 1971, numerous road rights-of-way were created and dedicated to Eagle County. Later that same year, the Tenderwild Plat was subsequently amended to abandon the lots, but the rights-of-way were allowed to remain. Except for West Lake Creek Drive from West Lake Creek Road to Ridge Road, Eagle County does not maintain the roads within these rights-of-way. This petition will vacate portions ofthese rights-of-way created by the Tenderwild Subdivision. The petitioner intends to construct a new portion of roadway, forming a cutoff from the existing West Lake Creek Drive to what is now called Ridge Road. After this cutoff is constructed, they will rededicate portions of what is now West Lake Creek Drive and Ridge Road, and the new cutoff roadway to Eagle County for use as a public road. This new easement will allow the public to access the point where Eagle County ends maintenance by a slightly different alignment. Eagle County will continue to maintain West Lake Creek Drive to that point. . The petition, if approved, will result in the more efficient use of land in the area by vacating redundant or unnecessary rights-of-way, and returning the land to the adjacent landowners. Legal descriptions for the rights-of-way to be vacated and to be created have been provided by the applicant, and are attached to this report as Exhibits A and B. These legal descriptions will be used to construct quit claim deeds which will be recorded with the vacation resolution. This file was tabled at the Planning Commission Meeting of November 20, 2002, to January 22, 2003, at the request of the applicant. The Planning Commission did not have a quorum at the meeting of January 22,2003, and the file was pushed back to February 5, 2003. At the meeting of February 5, 2003, the file was again tabled by the Planning Commission to the meeting of March 5, 2003. Finally, 46 04-22-2003 at the March sth meeting, the Planning Commission conducted the public hearing and made their recommendation of approval with conditions. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Land Surveyor: Comments were received from Greg J. Eldridge of Johnson, Kunkel, & Associates, Inc. in a letter dated November 12,2002. This letter is attached to this staff report. Eagle County Planning Division: The Planning Department reviewed this application, and according to a memorandum dated October 24, 2002 had no comments. Eagle County Road and Bridge Department: Eagle County Road and Bridge department currently maintains the portion of West Lake Creek Drive from West Lake Creek Road to Ridge Road. At the intersection of West Lake Creek Drive with Ridge Road, there currently exists a clear area large enough for snowplow drivers to turn around. If the Road and Bridge Department is to continue maintenance of West Lake Creek Drive, they request that the clear area remain available as a turnaround for snowplows. Eagle County Attorney: Bryan Treu of the Eagle County Attorney's Office reviewed this application, and according to an e-mail dated November 13,2002 had no comments. Holy Cross Energy: No response. CenturyTel: No response. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District: No response. Kinder/Morgan: No response. Edwards Metropolitan District: No response. Qwest: No response. Adjacent and Affected landowners: Mr. Richard S. Talley responded by a letter dated November 6, 2002. He opposes the vacations until his legal counsel can review the application. He requests that the petition include documents rededicating the re-routed West Lake Creek Drive to Eagle County, and that Eagle County continue to maintain the roadway. Mr. Scott Mitchel, in a telephone conversation ofPebruary 24,2003, expressed concern that the new portions of the road will be dedicated by deed of easement rather than as a right-of-way. Mr. Mitchel is an owner of property served by West Lake Creek Drive. His comments are documented in a letter dated March 4, 2003 from Colorado Paradise LLC which is attached to this report.. Mr. Kirk Mitchel also responded with a letter which is attached to this report. Staffhas the following concerns regarding the vacation of the rights-of-way as requested by the Petitioners: Eagle County currently maintains the portion of West Lake Creek Drive from West Lake Creek Road to Ridge Road. At the intersection of West Lake Creek Drive with Ridge Road, there currently exists a clear area large enough for snowplow drivers to turn around. If the Road and Bridge Department is to continue maintenance of West Lake Creek Drive, they request that the clear area remain available as a turnaround for snowplows. The owners of private land which is accessed using West Lake Creek Drive request that Eagle County continue to maintain West Lake Creek Drive to the point of current maintenance. Since the new road construction will be dedicated to and maintained by Eagle County, Eagle County has an interest in how the road is constructed. Construction drawings for the new construction must be approved by the Eagle County Engineering Department. Prior to beginning construction of the proposed new portion of West Lake Creek Drive, the petitioners should enter into a Construction Improvements Agreement (CIA) with Eagle County. Collateral in the amount of 100% of the estimated cost of construction will be required at the time the CIA is executed. The proposed vacation of the rights-of-way will necessitate the creation of two private access easements across portions of Tract 7-1. Deeds for these easements must be recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder prior to the vacation becoming effective. Access to the Brickman property from West Lake Creek Drive is provided by an existing private easement. 47 04-22-2003 Engineering Staff suggests that the vacation become effective after the following documents are recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder: a) a Resolution ofthe BoCC, b) quit claim deeds for the vacated easements, c) deed or deeds of easement for relocated rights-of-way or easements, d) certification by the Eagle County Engineer that the newly constructed portion of West Lake Creek Drive has been satisfactorily constructed, and e) acceptance ofthe newly constructed portion of West Lake Creek Drive for warranty by Eagle County. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a vacation of road rights-of-way in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-2200. 2. Proper Public Notification for the petition has been issued in conformance with Section 5- 2200.CA.a and the petition is ready for consideration by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. 3. The petition has demonstrated the vacation request to be in the general interest ofthe public's health, safety, and welfare, not to be in violation oflaw, and to be in compliance with the Land Use Regulations, and the Master Plan. Staff does recommend approval. Chairman Gallagher asked the difference between a deed and a deed of easement. Walt Mathews, Deputy County Attorney, explained a deed is something to convey property, fee simple. An easement deed is a strange character, where it is an easement which conveys certain rights agreed to but it does not deed fee simple, they would not own the land. Chairman Gallagher asked about the road the applicant is vacating Mr. Vengrin stated those roads were dedicated by plat and are public right away. Mr. Mathews stated those roads were dedicated by the plat as a public right of way. Ms. Mauriello stated the plat note spells out precisely what is being dedicated for public use. She stated she has not evaluated the plat in question. Chairman Gallagher asked if the adjacent property owners would be losing or gaining any property. Mr. Vengrin stated there is a map in the staff report on page 7 and identifies the parcels in that area. Chairman Gallagher asked who owned lot 7-1. Mr. Vengrin stated that property is also owned by Mr. Levine. The Yakely Estate is owned by Mr. Levine, 10-1 is owned by Mr. Levine, 7-1 is owned by Mr. Levine and the Tract west ofthat is owned by his sister. Commissioner Menconi asked on the map, who owns the property where the existing road is shown in blue. Mr. Vengrin stated that is Mr. Levine. Chairman Gallagher stated all the surrounding property shown in Red, Yellow and Blue is owned by Mr. Levine. Commissioner Menconi asked about where the road leads to. Mr. Vengrin stated the road leads to the trailhead and what was called the Tenderwilde Subdivision. He stated the Forest Service has an easement. Commissioner Menconi asked if the public can come down and access the trailhead. He questioned is there would be interruption in getting to the forest. Mr. Vengrin stated they will still be able to reach the forest and the County will continue to maintain the road to that point. Commissioner Menconi asked about impacts to the two letter writers, Scott and Kirk Mitchell. Mr. Vengrin stated their property lies to the South of this. They were concerned about the deed of easement. 48 04-22-2003 Mr. Mauriello stated the plat does indicate there was dedication to the public. She discussed the different ways that rights of way can be dedicated to the public. It can be the easement deed, a fee simple deed or by the plat. She stated it will also require it be quitclaimed back to Mr. Levine. Mr. Vengrin stated Kirk Mitchell believes there are a lot of other events that need to take place. Mr. Mathews stated the main concerns ofthe Mitchell's were reading Statutes concerning vacation of public highways. He believes they have a problem with the deed of easement. The second concern is they have requested to see the deed of easement before it is passed. They wanted to know about the language. He stated he had seen the language they were suggesting and have adopted that language. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, reviewed past happenings ofthe property and the roads in this subdivision. He stated the plat has already been vacated but the easement was not. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Mr. Mathews stated Wendell Porterfield had to leave but wanted to comment on a letter sent in by his client, Kirk Mitchell. He stated the Board has the letter. Ms. Mauriello stated Mr. Porterfield wanted the Board to be aware that his clients preference was a fee simple dedication. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Chairman Gallagher asked if the applicant was reluctant to give a fee simple deed. John Dunn, Attorney representing the applicant, stated if you deed in fee simple it implements the Subdivision Regulations. It is really not necessary. He stated the Statute they are talking about requires two things to create a road. One is a dedication and the other is an acceptance. He stated the Statute is vague as to what dedication is. The important thing is that the Statute be complied with. They have been very careful with this process.. It is no different from the conveyance. The deed of easement and acceptance creates a public road. An easement is sufficient for road purposes and is often more cleaner. Chairman Gallagher asked if the applicant was willing to give unconditional deed of easement. Mr. Dunn answered yes. Mr. Mathews stated the conditions came from the Planning Commission. He stated they wanted the easement to be perpetual. Chairman Gallagher stated he was concerned about vehicle rights of way and such. Mr. Mathews gave a brief history and it has been the practice to try and get fee simple for road dedications but sometimes that is not possible. In that case you do a deed of easement. Chairman Gallagher stated he is concerned that the Attorneys may not see something in the future Ms. Mauriello stated they did careful research including contacting other counties. She stated she has not reviewed the precise language of the dedication. Mr. Mathews stated he was the one that reviewed the precise language. Chairman Gallagher asked about the net loss in acreage to the County. Mr. Vengrin stated he does not have that calculated. Mr. Braun stated he can come up with that very quickly. Commissioner Stone asked about Mr. Dunn's assertion that fee simple ownership triggers some kind of subdivision process. Mr. Mathews stated in this case it does. Commissioner Stone asked about a PUD amendment and shares the concern in not taking a complete action. If there is a process that protects the County and other property owners beyond this property it would be better. Chairman Gallagher stated as a governmental entity they should be able to come up with a process to get a deed. 49 04-22-2003 Commissioner Stone stated he is not comfortable with the deed of easement. He suggested tabling this to a later date and take the time to fully explore other opportunities. The result could be that the easement could be the best way to go. Chairman Gallagher stated the issue with him is protection for the public use. He stated he wants it to have the same status at both ends. Commissioner Stone stated it is kind of odd that this section of road will have a different conveyance than the properties on either side. Ms. Mauriello stated they can speak to the Planning Department for other ideas. What the easement is intended to do is act as a dedication and an acceptance. You will end up with the same thing as the dedication on a plat. Commissioner Stone stated the only way to be comfortable with the easement, is if it said that it provides all of the powers that a fee simple deed does. Commissioner Menconi stated it is his understanding that this deed of easement is better than what they have currently. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board table, file number G-00015, West Lake Creek Drive Variance, for two weeks to May 6, 2003 at the applicants request Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until April 29, 2003. 50 04-22-2003