HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/18/03
PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 18, 2003
Present:
Michael Gallagher
Am Menconi
Tom Stone
Jack Ingstad
Diane Mauriello
Teak Simonton
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Administrator
County Attorney
Clerk to the Board
These being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
Executive Session
Chairman Gallagher stated the first item before the Commissioners was an Executive Session.
Commissioner Stone moved the Board of County Commissioners adjourn into Executive Session
for the purpose of receiving legal advice on issues concerning negotiations on the Intergovernmental
Agreement between the Town of Gypsum and Eagle County and issues regarding negotiations on the
Pre-Annexation Agreement between Town of Gypsum and Eagle County; potential settlement in
Remonov and CO., v. Board of County Commissioners and concerning negotiations for the process of
tax appeal cases and arbitration and finally concerning purchase of real property located in the vicinity
of the justice center all of which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to c.R.S. 24-6-
402(4)(b)(c) and (e).
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
At the close of the discussion Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from Executive Session
and reconvene into the regular meeting.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated Chairman Gallagher had to leave to attend a meeting with the
Colorado Department of Transportation. He stated the next item before the Board was the Consent
Agenda as follows:
A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Weeks of November 17,2003 and December 1, 2003,
subject to review by the County Administrator
B. Approval of the Payroll for November 26,2003, Subject to Review by the County
Administrator
C. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meeting for
October 28, 2003
D. Agreement for Recycling Services between the County of Eagle and Waste
Management of Colorado, Inc.
E. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Western Eagle County Metropolitan
Recreation District
F. Resolution2003-144, for Release of Assignment of Certificate of Deposit for Road
Cut Permit No. 3059 for Donald J. and Marion Laughlin
G. Resolution 2003-145, Conferring Power of Attorney Upon Diane H. Mauriello,
County Attorney, Walter Mathews, IV, Deputy County Attorney, Bryan R. Treu, Assistant County
Attorney and Debbie Faber, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney In Fact for the County of
1
November 18, 2003
Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Letter of Credit No. 523 in the amount of $56,722.31 for the
account of PPG Red Sky Corporation drawn on Weststar Bank and Expiring on December 7, 2003
H. Agreement Concerning Miller Ranch Community Center
1. Memorandum of Agreement between Eagle County and Crown Mountain Park and
Recreation District - Tree Farm
J. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Crown Mountain Park and Recreation
District - Tree Farm
K. Resolution 2003-146, Approving the Amendment of Resolution No. 2002-165:
Resolution Establishing Regular Public Meeting Days for the Eagle Board of County Commissioners
for Fiscal Year 2003 and Establishing Days and Office Hours for County Offices to Transact County
Business for Fiscal Year 2003 and Designating Legal Holidays for Fiscal Year 2003
L. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Avis Rent A Car System, Inc.
M. Agreement with Wright Water Engineers to provide professional civil engineering
services for the Berry Creek Pond
N. Agreement with Easter Owens, a Colorado Corporation, to provide maintenance
services for the jail electronic locking system at the Eagle County Detention Center
0.2004 Colorado Discretionary Aviation Grant contracts to participate in air traffic
control tower construction and certification at Eagle County Regional Airport
P. Colorado Medical Assistance Program: Provider Enrollment
Q. Agreement Regarding Provision of Consulting Services for Eagle County between
County of Eagle and CommunityViz
R. Agreement Regarding Provision of Consulting Service for Eagle County between
Eagle County and Northwest Colorado Council of Governments.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent
Agenda.
Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, requested item N, the agreement with Easter Owens be
pulled from the Consent Agenda to be considered later.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented pulling item N, the
Agreement with Easter Owens to be considered later.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Agreement with Easter Owens, a Colorado
Corporation, to provide maintenance services for the jail electronic locking system at the Eagle County
Detention Center, and authorize the Chairman to sign the Agreement when received and approved by the
Attorney.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Plat and Resolution Signing
Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's
consideration:
Resolution 2003-147, To Approve a Limited Review Permit for a Tree Storage Facility
Eagle County File No. LR-00033~ The Board considered the Applicant's request on October 2St\
2003.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-147, to approve a limited review
permit for a tree storage facility, Eagle County File number LR-00033.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
2
November 18, 2003
Interest Report for Quarter 3 - 2003
Karen Sheaffer, Eagle County Treasurer, presented the Interest Report for the third quarter,
2003. Ms. Sheaffer stated things could be better. She related if the budget was revised down to $1.2
million they will make those figures. Interest rates are going up some but not a lot.
The Board thanked Ms. Sheaffer for her report.
Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Meeting
President Menconi stated the first matter before the Corporation was approval of the minutes of
August 26, 2003.
Board Member Stone moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 26,2003.
Board Member Roeper seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
President Menconi stated the next matter is approval of the Airline Agreement with Delta
Airlines.
Board Member Ingstad stated these Agreements are all three year agreements with the exception
of U.S. Air, which is a one year agreement.
Board Member Stone stated the Agreement with American Airlines ends at that time so they will
be able to negotiate with all of them at the same time.
Board Member Stone moved to approve of the Airline Agreement with Delta Airlines.
Board Member Roeper seconded the motion.
In discussion, President Menconi questioned if it was possible to include the other agreements in
this motion.
Ms. Mauriello stated the Board can include the agreements with Delta, Continental and
Northwest can be included. She related Mesa and US Airways are to have their agreements to her by
Federal Express today. She stated she will need a motion to authorize the President to sign those upon
receipt.
Board Member Stone amended his motion to include approval of the agreements for Continental
and Northwest Airlines.
Board Member Roeper seconded the amendment. The vote was declared unanimous.
Board Member Stone moved to approve the agreements with US Airways, Inc. and Mesa
Airlines and authorize the President to sign said agreements once they have been received and approved
by County Attorney.
Board Member Roeper seconded the motion.
In discussion, Board Member Ingstad stated he believes they have seen the signatures on the
agreements.
Ms. Mauriello stated she has only seen the signature of Mesa Airlines. She stated she has not
seen executed agreements with US Airways. She related she called their office this morning and they
have assured her the agreement was Federal Expressed yesterday.
Board Member Ingstad stated he believes they are okay with US Airways as they do not start
flying in until the next Board meeting. The issue with Mesa Airlines is that in the event they do not
receive a signed agreement, the lease will have expired with Air Wisconsin, does the Board want to
consider a higher rate.
Board Member Stone asked if they could limit that approval.
Board Member Ingstad stated he believes if they do not receive the document today, the Board
authorize a non signatory rate and begin billing them in advance. He related they have been dealing
with them for the past six months and things have not gone well. If the documents are not here today
they should pay a penalty.
3
November 18, 2003
Board Member Stone asked if there should be two motions. He stated they should give Mesa
Airlines until the end of the week.
Board Member Stone amended his motion to remove Mesa Airlines from the motion.
Board Member Roeper amended his second. The vote was declared unanimous.
Board Member Stone moved to give conditional approval ofthe Airline Agreement with US
Airways, Inc., contingent upon receipt of a signed agreement from Mesa Airlines no later than
November 21,2003. Furthermore if said agreement is not received by that date penalty charges will be
applied for them to continue to operate at the Eagle County Airport. Said payment shall be required in
advance.
Board Member Roeper seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Board Member Roeper presented the proposed 2004 Airport Budget. He referred to a slide
presentation as follows:
Eagle County Air Terminal Corp
2004 Budget
Operating and Maintenance
Expenses
Oepreciation
Bond I nterest Expense
Bond Principal
PFC Proceeds
COOT Loan proceeds-Tower
COOT loan payment - Principal
COOT loan payment -Interest
Miscellaneous Revenue
Interest Earnings
Total Operating Revenue
Cash Flows
Revenues as above
Operating and Maintenance
I nterest Expense as above
Interest accrued - not yet paid
Principal payment as above
PFC Proceeds as above
Interest Earnings as above
COOT Loan proceeds-Tower
COOT Loan payment
2004 2003
Requested Approved Increase
Budaet Budget (Decrease) I
2003
Actual
(9/30/03)
1,380,814 2,207,974 -827,160 804,264
840,000 840,000 0 608,000
1,667,152 1,761,280 -94,128 1,288,389
735,000 715,000 20,000 935,000
-605,600 -603,800 -1,800 -350,229
0 990,000 -990,000 -990,000
90,413 0 90,413 0
19,800 0 19,800 0
0 0
-48,000 -48,000 0 -194,976
4,079,579 5,862,454 -1,782,875 7,645,329
3,690,887 3,888,580 -197,693 3,004,245
3,690,887 3,888,580 -197,693 3,004,245
-1,380,814 -2,207,974 827,160 -804,264
-1,667,152 -1,761,280 94,128 -1,288,389
-735,000 -715,000 -20,000 -935,000
605,600 603,800 1,800 350,229
48,000 48,000 0 194,976
0 990,000 -990,000 990,000
-110,213
4
November 18, 2003
Positive (Negative) Cash
Flow
Income Statement (GAAP
Basis)
Revenues as above
Interest Earnings as above
Operating and Maintenance
Expenses as above
Less Capital expense
Depreciation as above
Interest Expense as above
PFC Proceeds as above
Net Income (Loss)
$451,308 $846,126
-394,818 $1,511,797
3,690,887 3,888,580 -197,693 3,004,245
48,000 48,000 0 194,976
-1,380,814 -2,207,974 827,160 -804,264
80,000 1,005,800 -925,800 4,032
-840,000 -840,000 0 -608,000
-1,686,952 -1,761,280 74,328 -1,288,389
605,600 603,800 1,800 350,229
0 0 0
$516,721 $736,926 -220,205 $852,829
Board Member Ingstad requested Mr. Roeper go through Exhibit B. He stated the County is
providing $300,000.00 to subsidize the Airlines that have agreed to the three year lease.
Ms. Mauriello stated there is an Exhibit B that is attached to the Mesa, Delta, Northwest and
Continental Agreements, which states there is no rent premium because they are entering into a three
year lease. On page one, that document shows the square footage for each of the carriers for their
specific space rent and joint use space of 36,328 square feet, and terminal rent which is the
$2,150,000.00 which relates to the bonds, or the ECAT subsidy of$300,000.00. This appears solely on
the documents for those signing a three year lease.
Board Member Ingstad stated the calculations were done by Steve Horton with Liebowitz and
Associates. He stated Mr. Horton has been very involved in the Airport negotiations and has been very
careful that the calculations can withstand challenge by the Airlines.
Board Member Roeper moved to approve the 2004 Airport Budget as presented.
Board Member Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Board Member Stone moved to adjourn.
Board Member Roeper seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and
reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Resolution 2003-148, Appointing Members to the Citizen's Open Space Advisory Committee
Cliff Simonton presented Resolution 2003-148, appointing members to the Eagle County
Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-148, appointment of members to the
Eagle County Citizens Open Space Advisory Committee.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
5
November 18, 2003
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene
as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Liquor License Consent Agenda
Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows:
A) 4 Eagle Ranch, Inc.
4 Eagle Ranch
This is a renewal of an optional premise license. This establishment is located
along Highway 131 in Bond. There have been no complaints or disturbances
during the past year.
B) Buxman Enterprises, Inc.
Village Market
This is a renewal of an optional premise license. This establishment is located
along Highway 6 in the Riverwalk Center in Edwards. There have been no
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
C) Edwards Discount Liquors, Inc.
South Forty Liquors
This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is located
along Edwards Village Blvd, next to Stop and Save in Edwards. There have been
no complaints or disturbances during the past year.
D) The Resort Company
The Terrace
This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located in
the Charter at Beaver Creek along Offerson Road. There have been no
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
E) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc.
Beano's Cabin
This is a renewal of a private hotel & restaurant license with optional premises.
This establishment is located on Beaver Creek Mountain. There have been no
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
F) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc.
Spruce Saddle Restaurant
This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license with optional premises. This
establishment is located on Beaver Creek Mountain. There have been no
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for November
18, 2003 as presented.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Beaver Creek Resort Company
Earlene Roach presented an application for a special events permit for Beaver Creek Resort for
December 6, 2003 from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. She related Environmental Health has a concern with the
lack of hand washing facilities at past establishments. She stated she has prepared a motion for the
6
November 18, 2003
Board including a condition that there is appropriate hand washing facilities at this event. This
application is in order and all fees have been paid. Staff recommended approval with a condition.
Mike Kloser, applicant, was present for the hearing. He stated he realizes there have been
concerns in the past and they are addressing this item with management. He assured the Board the
portable hand washing facilities will be at the event this year.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked about another comment regarding food temperature
requirements.
Ms. Roach stated that is a standard statement that all those letters have advising the applicant to
watch their food temperatures.
Mr. Kloser stated their premises is much smaller this year and is in the Beaver Creek Plaza by
the main fountain. He stated this event is the Beaver Creek World Cup Opening Ceremony. It used to
be called the Public Pic hosted by the Vail Valley Foundation.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve a special events permit for Beaver Creek
Resort Company for December 6, 2003 from 4:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Lodge at Cordillera
Earlene Roach presented managers registration for Paul Pas to or, Kensington Management
Company, d/b/a Lodge at Cordillera. Staffhas no concerns with this application. She stated this
application is in order and all fees have been paid. Mr. Pastoor is reported to be of good moral
character. Staff recommended approval.
Paul Pastoor, manager, was present for the hearing.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked for Mr. Pastoor's background in liquor service.
Mr. Pastoor stated he has spent the past 25 years in the hotel industry and managed his own
restaurant in New Mexico. He stated he has experience in Colorado at the Cordillera Lodge for the past
year.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked if the applicant has the Colorado Liquor Code.
Mr. Pastoor stated he does and has taken the required server training.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated in Eagle County the Board takes liquor service very seriously
and liquor violations can be deadly mistakes.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve a manager's registration for Paul Pastoor,
Kensington Management Company, d/b/a Lodge at Cordillera.
Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and
reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Public Hearing - 2004 Budget
Mike Roeper, Director of Finance, stated the next matter was the public hearing for the proposed
2004 County Budget.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated the Board has been having periodic work sessions and retreats
concerning the proposed 2004 budget. This is an opportunity for the public to have input on this budget.
7
November 18, 2003
Mr. Roeper presented a power point presentation concerning the proposed 2004 County Budget
as follows:
Highlights
2.5% reduction in General Fund
Staffing reduction of 5
One time internal transfers of $2 million
$15.5 million reduction in proposed spending
Merit Increases fully funded
No change in Health Insurance
Key Accomplishments
Bond Rating maintained at A level
General Obligation Debt only 6.4% of allowable (No additional debt)
Award for Financial Reporting Excellence
Balanced Budget (Expenditures=Revenue)
Healthy Fund Balances
Clean Audit Opinion
Solid, Safe Investment Portfolio
Increased Services with no new positions, no layoffs
Continued Employee Benefit Package
Conservative Spending Patterns
Budget Guidelines
Continue core business at a high level of quality
Keep revenue forecasts conservative
Maintain positive cash flow and healthy Fund Balance
Ensure County's ability to repay debt and not incur additional debt
Meet operational expenses
Maintain quality work force
Continue Capital Improvement Program
Revenue Assumptions
Sales Tax - 5% increase
Mill Levy - 6.999 -- No change
Property Tax - Down 2.7%
Licenses & Permits - Up 14.9%
Interest Earnings - 14.3% reduction
Proposed Budget
Revenue in $ millions (Total $79.2)
Property Tax Distribution
Eagle County 11.8%
School Districts 45.2%
Local Special Districts 37.9%
Towns 5.1%
Proposed Budget
Expenditures in $ millions (Total $78.2)
Where County Property Taxes Go
Road & Bridge 22.3%
Public Safety 18.2%
Health Services 7.6%
Debt Service 4.5%
Open Space 17.6%
8
November 18, 2003
General Govt. 29.8%
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked for public comment. There was none.
Chairman Pro-tern Stone stated the County is not as dependent on sales tax revenues as are other
entities. He believes the balanced group of revenue sources helps the County weather any storms. He
stated the 14.9% increase in fees at the Landfill seem huge but is not as much of an increase in dollars.
Mr. Roeper stated it is just not growth but several categories.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated the sales tax is 5% over this years actual. He asked how much it
would be over the budget.
Mr. Roeper stated it would be 11 %.
Mr. Ingstad stated the August numbers came in at 15% ahead of previous years. The economy
will be much stronger next year as it was this year.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked if there was a way to track the sales tax revenue from Home
Depot and Super Wal Mart.
Mr. Ingstad stated Avon was showing a 50% or more growth over the same period as last year.
It does not mean that Avon is getting all that money but the County's portion goes to the County.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked ifMr. Ingstad knew what that was in dollars.
Mr. Ingstad stated he believed it was around $150,000.00.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked where they go from here.
Mr. Roeper stated December 9,2003 they will be adopting the budget and approving the mill
levy.
PDA-00047 Edwards Medical/Shaw Regional Cancer Center
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated he was informed that one of the files on the agenda was to be
tabled today. He asked that it be tabled now before the rest of the agenda.
Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to
December 9, 2003.
Commissioner Menconi moved to table file number PDA-00047, Edwards Medical Shaw
Regional Cancer Center to December 9,2003 at the applicant's request.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
PDSP-00018 & ZC-00063 McCoy Springs @ Arrowhead
1041-0049 McCoy Springs @Arrowhead PUD
Joe Forinash, Planner, stated the presentation with file numbers PDSP-00018 and ZC-00063,
McCoy Springs at Arrowhead. He stated the Planning Commission recommended denial. Their
concerns include: wildlife impacts, setback issues, zone change in general, density, and suitability for
development.
Planning Commission deliberations included the following:
Location of proposed sidewalk with respect to right-of-way and any guardrail along Cresta Road.
Location of parking of truck which might be used to remove snow.
Ski house
Distance from dwelling units.
Who would be able to use parking spaces?
Impact of wildfire mitigation on nearby trees.
Possibility of ski house parking west of Cresta Road to allow skier house to be moved further
from McCoy Creek.
Lack of parking for people using the skier house
9
November 18, 2003
Appropriateness of ski house structure with residential uses between Cresta Road and McCoy
Creek.
Impacts on wildlife, especially as that relates to the elk herd that can be seen wintering in the
area.
Impacts of development in the vicinity of McCoy Creek.
Potential wildfire hazard on the site - adequacy of proposed mitigation.
Topography of the site - suitability for development.
Summer uses of ski trail, including public use.
Need for energy dissipaters inside debris flow tunnels.
Need for grates at either end of debris flow tunnels for safety.
Potential for rocks falling into developed area.
Whether all concerns of the Arrowhead at Vail Association (see letter from John Goodman dated
31 July 2003) have been addressed.
Proposed development as it relates to the Edwards Area Community Plan.
Adequacy of retaining walls and the associated maintenance easements.
Responses from adjacent property owners and whether their concerns have been addressed and
lack of response to revised development plan.
Potential safety of pedestrians at crossing near skier house.
Whether the proposed development meets the standards for a zone change, especially with
respect to resource protection, suitability for development, demonstrated need and public interest.
Number of variances and amount of mitigation required for the development.
Mr. Forinash stated this is a combined Sketch and Preliminary Plan for a residential development
on a 41 acre parcel. The original proposal included 11 single-family homes and a ski house/caretaker
unit. Three of the single-family homes and the ski house/caretaker unit were to be located between
Cresta Road and McCoy Creek. The proposal has been revised to include eight single-family homes
west of Cresta Road in two clusters of four homes each, accessed by private cul-de-sac roads from
Cresta Road. In addition, a lot to include an employee/caretaker unit, a free-market condominium unit,
and a common ski storage locker unit (all in a single structure) is proposed in the area between Cresta
Road and McCoy Creek to the east. A skier bridge and skiway is proposed to cross McCoy Creek near
the caretaker unit / condominium unit / common ski storage locker structure and provide access to an
adjacent skiway.
The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report:
2001 - Cresta Road and utility infrastructure were extended through the McCoy Springs parcel
to serve Arrowhead Mountain Lots in Development Area P ofthe Arrowhead at Vail PUD.
Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows:
Eagle County Engineering Department
Memo dated 30 Julv 2003
Construction drawings do not provide sufficient detail to verify compliance with the Land Use
Regulations. Information needed includes road and drainage design detail.
A supplemental sheet needs to be included to detail all drainage, retaining and bridge structures
to be constructed as part of the roadway.
Road approaches are required to intersect other roadways at ninety degrees for a tangent distance
of one hundred feet from the centerline intersections.
Driveways for lots 7 and 8 do not appear to meet the permissible angles with the right-of-way of
between 60 and 90 degrees.
Maintenance measures for proposed storm water structures, including access, schedules, costs
and designation of party responsible, have not been identified.
10
November 18, 2003
A Floodplain Development Permit and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit (or a letter
from the Corps indicating that the site is exempt) is required for the proposed bridge crossing McCoy
Creek.
McCoy Creek is a designated floodplain hazard area per the applicable FIRM map and will
require a Letter of Map Amendment for the proposed development.
The proposed development is located in a debris flow area. Concerns include:
Maintenance of the 4x4 and 6x6 culverts.
Manholes need to be included along both box culverts for maintenance access.
If these culverts clog, as potentially identified in the geological hazards report submitted by the
Applicant, an overflow surface channel needs to be implemented.
The lower vegetation near Cresta Road will be removed as the development is constructed,
reducing the amount of vegetated surface needed to trap sediment.
As designed, debris would be discharged onto Cresta Road and into McCoy Creek.
The design lacks sediment and debris catch basins prior to debris flow entering the basin.
A drainage map is required showing greater detail for 10 year and 100 year storm events and
volume flow rates for all drainage paths.
An erosion and sediment control plan should be included in the plan set.
Vehicle travel paths for emergency vehicles needs to be provided for McCoy Springs Trail and
McCoy Springs Court.
Vehicle travel paths need to be shown for all parking spaces at the proposed ski house.
A letter from the Eagle River Fire Protection District is required accepting the proposed
emergency access to the development.
An area ofthe parking lot (for the ski house) needs to be designated for snow removal, while still
allowing for vehicles to maneuver out of the parking area and on to Cresta Road.
All portions of retaining walls including soil nails or tie backs from MSE walls need to be within
the right-of-way or within a maintenance easement.
Other design and detail comments.
Various comments regarding the preliminary plat.
Memo dated 18 September 2003
It is not clear how the sediment is detained and removed from storm water flows prior to entering
McCoy Creek. The report by Golder Associates Inc. states that debris flows may contain material of up
to one foot in diameter and that "ungrouted riprap would not be expected to survive debris flood/flow
events." Sediment control basins, including calculations shall be provided.
Clarification is needed regarding how "periodically" the box culverts will be maintained, the
physical method used to clean the box culverts, and who is responsible for conducting the maintenance.
The erosion control plan needs more protection for prevention of debris flow onto Cresta Road.
Manholes need to be included along both box culverts for maintenance access, including at all
horizontal and vertical bends.
An emergency overflow surface channel needs to be implemented and shown on the Preliminary
Plans.
Easements of not less than 25 feet are required within the proposed development for
accommodation of water lines, sanitary sewer lines and storm water drainage.
A new delineation of the 100 year flood basin of McCoy Creek and a Letter of Map Amendment
will be required.
Detail showing the new gas line crossing McCoy Creek is required. Construction of the gas line
will also require a Floodplain Development Permit prior to construction.
The proposed I-phase Transformer UMl-3 is located too close to the base of where the 4x4 box
culvert will discharge.
11
November 18, 2003
The phone service line for Lot 8 needs to be relocated so that it does not extend underneath the
proposed riprap basin of the 4x4 box culvert.
A letter stating all variances being requested, and how each complies with the Land Use
Regulations is required.
A gas line easement needs to be shown on the preliminary plat for the two inch gas main running
along McCoy Creek and up to Cresta Road.
Other technical items.
Memo dated 24 October 2003
The Applicant has not demonstrated that the direct discharge of sediment laden run-off will be
equal or less than historical rates.
A Storm Sewer Maintenance Plan has been submitted, which, if followed, satisfies all concerns
regarding maintenance of the drainage facilities.
The construction plans which have been submitted are satisfactory for preliminary plan review.
Additional detail will need to be added for the review of the final construction plans.
The design the Applicant has provided requires variances from the Land Use Regulations for:
Tangent Length, Single Access, and Switchback Radius. Engineering has determined that the designs
will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and will be equally durable so that normally
anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased.
The design also requires variances regarding the width of utility easements and for detention and
treatment of run-off. The Applicant will need to demonstrate that a variance from these standards will
satisfy the applicable section ofthe Land Use Regulations.
Eagle County Surveyor
Various comments regarding the preliminary plat.
Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECa Trails)
No comments pertaining to this application.
Eagle River Fire Protection District
Memo dated 6 August 2003
Water supply is called out as being provided by Arrowhead Metropolitan District.
The Wildfire Hazard Assessment and Management Plan appear to meet Eagle County
requirements.
Road grades appear acceptable at less than 10%.
Requires a site plan showing vehicle turning radii and clearances for emergency vehicles based
on Pierce Quantum criteria.
Memo dated 19 August 2003
Based on previous comments, Alpine Engineering has reviewed the turning radius with respect
to emergency vehicle access. The review submitted confirms access and adequate turn-a-rounds.
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
The District has granted preliminary plan approval for this project.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
Applicant recognizes a need for a CPDES (Colorado Pollutant Discharge Elimination System)
permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. Such a permit requires a
Storm water Management Plan. A complete Storm water Management Plan has not been provided.
The erosion control plan to prevent sediment impacts during construction is provided.
Information provided in the companion 1041 application is not complete in this regard. Plans for erosion
control during construction and post-construction storm water control at the home sites should also be
part of the overall erosion control and drainage control plans.
NWCCOG suggests that Eagle County require as a condition of approval that the applicant
obtain and comply with the CPDES Storm water Discharge Permit to put Eagle County in a position to
meet the requirements of the CDPES permit.
12
November 18, 2003
Attachment K of the 1041 permit application does not identify the post development increase in
peak flows as a result of the proposed project, but instead indicates that because this development
disturbs only a small portion (0.001 %) of a larger, undeveloped watershed it should have no measurable
impact. Those discharges are likely to be erosive in force and may contain oil and grease from parking
lots, suspended solids, etc. Some form of detention or treatment should be provided.
The 1041 application indicates the intent to discharge storm water by spreading it out down slope
where the culverts discharge. Preliminary design for debris flow mitigation suggests grading should be
designed to minimize infiltration to reduce potential for soil collapse.
No real reason is given why the development is not located more than 50 feet away from the
identified wetlands, per Eagle County requirements.
The 208 plan suggests that the location for fuel storage and other hazardous materials be located
a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any water bodies, away from storm drains, and utilize a
containment system for on-site fuel storage.
Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)
Letter dated 1 August 2003
Expressed serious concerns about the four structures (3 home sites and the ski house/caretaker
unit) proposed on the McCoy Creek side of Cresta Road. There are no flow-regulating structures (i.e.,
dams) upstream on this site. It is very likely that the existing drainage channel has not yet adjusted its
profile to changed runoff and sediment load conditions caused by recent development within the McCoy
Creek watershed upstream of this site. Structures built too close to the channel are at risk of being
undermined by erosion, slope undercutting and channel migration. [Emphasis added by CGS.]
CGS strongly recommends that Eagle County require the applicant to evaluate channel and
floodplain hydraulics based on current and anticipated development plans, perform slope stability
analysis for slopes below all four proposed structures, and adhere to current county stream setback
requirements. [Emphasis added by CGS.]
On page 13 of the applicant's debris flow hazard mitigation report, Golder states "The stability
of the McCoy Creek Channel and banks should be investigated for final design. Some potential areas of
instability have been identified. . . but a thorough evaluation and development of mitigation strategies
has not been performed within the scope ofthis report." Several new town homes immediately north of
this site have been constructed too close to the McCoy Creek channel, and are at high risk of being
damaged by erosion and undercutting along McCoy Creek. All ofthe structures in the Cresta Town
homes development are vulnerable to damage caused by stream erosion, and should not have been
permitted so close to the creek without well-designed, engineered channel stabilization in place.
Golder's report provides a thorough evaluation of existing conditions and potential hazards on
the portion of the property that lies west of Cresta Road. Their report contains appropriate
recommendations for reducing the risk of damage to structures caused by hydrocompactive soils.
Golder's debris flow analysis and mitigation recommendations are also very good. CGS states as
its only debris flow-related concern relates to the proposed box culverts that carry flow across the debris
fans and past the proposed homes. It is unclear how Golder determined that the maximum particle size
of "material which has been transported to the areas proposed for development is relatively small,
generally less than one foot in average diameter", since trenching was not performed. A maximum size
of one foot is entirely possible, considering that the source rock is Eagle Valley Evaporite, but debris
flows can be extremely blocky and viscous.
The very long (275' and 245') box culverts propose across the north and south fans seem
susceptible to plugging by debris, will be difficult to maintain, and would be expensive to clean out.
Open trapezoidal surface channels, with short box culverts passing only under driveways and
streets, are preferred. . [Emphasis added by CGS.]
Letter dated 25 September 2003
13
November 18, 2003
CGS official met with Nancy Dessenberger of Golder Associates, Inc., to discuss concerns
previously outlined. Ms. Dessenberger has accurately summarized the conclusions of our discussion in a
letter dated 27 August 2003, with the following clarification.
lfEagle County elects to waive the 50-foot stream setback requirement for this project, hydraulic
and slope stability analysis would be needed for all structures within the waived setback zone to provide
a design basis for the engineered mitigation structures that would be necessary to protect homes from
potential damage caused by erosion, undercutting and slope failures. [Italics added by CGS.]
While open, trapezoidal surface channels, with short box culverts passing only under driveways
and streets, remain the preferred debris flow mitigation method for this site, Ms. Dessenberger provided
evidence that the proposed culverts have been appropriately sized according to site-specific debris flow
modeling.
It is imperative that a responsible party be designated to ensure that culvert maintenance,
including regular inspections and cleaning of the full length of both proposed culverts is
performed on an annual basis. This party should be identified prior to final plat approval, and a
building performance agreement should be in place prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy for
any structure within this subdivision. [Emphasis added by CGS.]
Colorado State Forest Service
Three of the four development areas are rated extreme wildfire hazard, with the fourth area rated
high wildfire hazard.
The location of the project in a natural chimney could potentially expose the project to extreme
wildfire behavior. Wildfires tend to get funneled through natural chimney features with rapid fire spread
and a concentration of smoke and super-heated gases.
All roads are designed to Eagle County specifications. Water hydrants are located within 500
feet. Fire resistive construction materials and class A roofing will be required.
Creating defensible space in accordance with the Eagle County Wildfire Regulations will
minimize the hazard to people and property. Implementation of a maintenance program will enhance the
defensible space.
Colorado Division of Water Resources
The proposed water supply will not cause injury to existing water rights so long as the District
operates according to the terms and conditions of their existing water rights decrees.
US Army Corps of Engineers
The 1995 wetland delineation information identified in the Planned Unit Development report
expired on October 4, 2000.
Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health,
Eagle County Housing Division, Eagle County Road & Bridge Department, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle
County Animal Control, Eagle County Address Coordinator, Eagle County 911 Coordinator, Eagle
County School District, Western Eagle County Ambulance District, Arrowhead Metro District,
Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Historical Society, US
Forest Service, Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA), CenturyTel, KN Energy, Holy Cross
Energy, Arrowhead at Vail HOA.
Staff findings are as shown on staffreport and as follows:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the
review of a Sketch and Preliminary Plan for a PUD:
STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land
that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (I) 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.
Warner Developments, Inc. is both the Applicant and the owner of the land that is to be a part of
the Planned Unit Development.
14
November 18, 2003
[+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)]
The title to all land that is part of a PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person.
STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD
shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as
a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or
Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation
in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations
may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized.
The uses proposed for this PUD are 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";
including single-family residential and accessory dwelling units, resort recreational facility, and
temporary uses (e.g., construction trailer and sales office).
[+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)]
The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are
allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural
and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at
the time of the application for PUD.
STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional
limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of
Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the
application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to
Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between
buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and
snowmelt between buildings.
Several of the proposed dimensional limitations are less restrictive than those specified in Table
3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations". Variations from these normal limitations are permitted
pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, if the Board of County Commissioners finds
that the Preliminary Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes and that the granting
ofthe variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved: [a] to obtain desired design qualities, [b] to
avoid environmental resources and natural hazards, [c] to create incentives for water augmentation, [d]
to provide incentives related to the County's multi-use trails system, [e] to extend incentives to assure
that long term affordable housing is provided, and [f1 provide incentives to develop certain public
facilities.
Minimum lot size of as little as 0.332 acres is being proposed, compared to a minimum of 35
acres for the Resource (R) zone district. In addition, certain building envelopes are within 7 12 feet of
side lot lines and 5 feet of front lot lines, compared to the normal limitations provided in Table 3-340 of
12 12 feet and 25 feet, respectively. These reduced front and side yard setbacks appear to primarily
accommodate the constrained homesites. One or more of the required bases noted above for a variation
for the front and side yard setbacks may be justified.
Three residential lots and the one ski house were initially proposed east of Cresta Road that
included building envelopes that were all much closer to McCoy Creek than the 50 foot live stream
setback specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations". The proposal has been revised
to include only one parcel east of Cresta Road (that is, Tract F) on which a single structure is proposed
which would include a 1,500 square foot employee/caretaker housing unit, a 600 square foot common
ski and boot storage locker room, a 2,600 square foot residential condominium unit, and six covered
parking spaces. The proposed structure would be outside of the 100-year floodplain, but within 40 to 47
feet of the high water mark of McCoy Creek.
The justification provided by the Applicant for a variation from the 50 foot live stream setback to
allow encroachment of as much as 3 to 10 feet into the setback is that the proposed building site is an
15
November 18, 2003
existing clearing and would require no significant tree clearing and no disturbance to wetland or riparian
areas. The Applicant further notes that the location of Cresta Road is such that it creates a "hardship" to
locating a building envelope that is completely out of the required 50 foot setback. The Applicant has
also noted that a significantly reduced live stream setback from McCoy Creek had previously been
allowed in the Arrowhead at Vail PUD.
The Vegetation & Wildfire Hazard Assessment & Management Plan prepared by Western
Ecological Resource, Inc., refers to and makes use of a wetlands delineation prepared in 1995 entitled
Wetland Permit Application for the Arrowhead Village & Terrell Creek Road Projects, which Staff
understands to include the construction of Crest a Road. The Army Corps of Engineers had noted that the
1995 "wetland delineation information" expired in 2000. A new delineation of the wetlands is being
completed by Western Ecosystems and has been forwarded to the Army Corps of Engineers for its
review. It appears that the revised delineation of the wetlands between McCoy Creek and Crest a Road in
the vicinity of Tract F will show that the wetlands are more confined than had been the case in 1995. As
a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated that the recent delineation of the wetlands along
McCoy Creek in the vicinity of the caretaker unit / common ski storage and locker facility /
condominium unit structure, as approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, does not extend any
further beyond McCoy Creek toward the proposed structure than had been the case in 1995. [Condition
# 1]
Strong concerns were raised by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) regarding the proximity
of four structures initially proposed immediately adjacent to McCoy Creek. More specifically, CGS
noted that:
[a] There are no flow-regulating structures (i.e., dams) upstream on this site. It is very
likely that the existing drainage channel has not yet adjusted its profile to changed runoff and sediment
load conditions caused by recent development within the McCoy Creek watershed upstream ofthis site.
Structures built too close to the channel are at risk of being undermined by erosion, slope undercutting
and channel migration.
[b] Several new town homes immediately north of this site have been constructed too
close to the McCoy Creek channel, and are at high risk of being damaged by erosion and undercutting
along McCoy Creek. All of the structures in the Cresta Town homes development are vulnerable to
damage caused by stream erosion, and should not have been permitted so close to the creek without
well-designed, engineered channel stabilization in place.
While the proposed development has been revised to reduce the number of structures east of
Cresta Road to the one containing the caretaker unit, common ski storage and locker facility, and a
condominium unit; and to move the structure as much as 40 to 47 feet away from McCoy Creek, CGS
continues to note that certain specific mitigation to protect homes from potential damage caused by
erosion, undercutting and slope failures would be required for any development within the 50 foot live
stream setback.
As a condition of approval, hydraulic and slope stability analysis should be provided prior to
issuing building permits for all structures within the 50 foot setback zone to provide a design basis for
the engineered mitigation structures that would be necessary to protect homes from potential damage
caused by erosion, undercutting and slope failures. [Condition # 2]
Granting of variations from the prescribed dimensional limitations by the Board of County
Commissioners may be appropriate.
[+] 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. Further, the Board MAY grant a variation from these dimensional
limitations pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized.
16
November 18, 2003
STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] -Off-street parking
and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street
Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant
demonstrates that:
a. Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the
PUD that do not require peak parkingfor those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of
residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or
b. Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be
less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loadinf? 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.
Three parking spaces are to be provided at each of the single-family dwellings. At the caretaker
unit/common ski locker facility/ condominium unit on Tract Feast of McCoy Creek, a total of six
parking spaces is proposed. This parking is sufficient to accommodate the two residential units in this
location.
The common ski locker facility is to be used exclusively by residents and guests of McCoy
Springs. No provision has been made for parking for skiers (residents of the lots west of Crest a Road
and their guests) living other than on Tract F. The site design has been revised to include a footpath and
sidewalks from the home sites west of Cresta Road to the common ski locker facility on Tract F. [See the
discussion below under Improvements (Section 5-240.F.3.e (7) and elsewhere regarding necessary
maintenance of the footpath and sidewalks.]
[+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)]
It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies
with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a
necessity for a reduction in the standards.
STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] -Landscaping provided in the PUD shall
comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaoing and Illumination Standards. Variations
from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed
landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the
PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive
streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area.
A landscape plan, including a cost estimate, for the intersections at Cresta Road of McCoy
Springs Trail and McCoy Springs Court has been provided with the application, and has been
subsequently revised. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirements of this Section.
[+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)]
It HAS been demonstrated that the landscaping proposed for the PUD complies with the
standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards.
STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD
shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D.,
Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develooment (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan
for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area
necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
A comprehensive sign plan is provided in the PUD Guide which allows [1] one sign, not to
exceed 10 square feet in size and 10 feet in height, within the boundary of the property in the vicinity of
each of the road entrances, and [2] an identification plaque not to exceed 5 square feet within or on entry
monuments at each driveway. The comprehensive sign plan is sufficient.
[+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)
17
November 18, 2003
The signs within the PUD will NOT be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations,
and may conflict with certain critical provisions of the Sign Regulations. However, the Comprehensive
Sign Plan IS suitable for the PUD
STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate
that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for
potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads
and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency
medical services.
[+] Potable water supply. - Water service is to be provided by the Arrowhead Metropolitan
District. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District has provided a "can and will serve" letter. The
Colorado Division of Water Resources has indicated that proposed water supply will not cause injury to
existing water rights so long as the District operates according to the terms and conditions of their
existing water rights decrees. With the approval of a separate 1041 permit, this requirement will be
satisfied.
[+] Sewage disposal. - Sanitary sewer services is to be provided by the Eagle River and
Sanitation District, which has provided a "can and will serve" letter. With the approval of a separate
1041 permit, this requirement will be satisfied.
[ +] Solid waste disposal. - Solid waste disposal services are generally available in the area.
[+] Electrical supvlv. - Electrical service will be provided by Holy Cross Energy.
[+] Fire protection. - This site is within the service area of the Eagle River Fire Protection
District (ERFPD). ERFPD has indicated that it is satisfied with the proposed development, and that it is
has been demonstrated that the site design provides access and adequate turn-a-rounds for emergency
equipment.
[+] Roads. - Eagle County Engineering has determined that the construction plans submitted
with this application are sufficient for preliminary plan review and approval. Additional detail will be
required prior to approval of the final plat. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide,
prior to approval of the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction
drawings which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 3]
Certain variances are required with respect to the design of the roads. Variances are required for
the minimum tangent length of McCoy Springs Court and McCoy Springs Trail at their respective
intersections with Cresta Road; for the lack of dual access to the public roadway system; and for the
reduced radius ofthe switchbacks on McCoy Springs Court and McCoy Springs Trail. In each of these
instances, Eagle County Engineering has determined that the designs proposed provide for an equivalent
level of public safety and are equally durable. As a condition of approval, variances for [ a] minimum
tangent length of McCoy Springs Court and McCoy Springs Trail at their respective intersections with
Cresta Road; [b] lack of dual access to the public roadway system; and [c] reduced radius of the
switchbacks on McCoy Springs Court and McCoy Springs Trail should be approved by the Board of
County Commissioners. [Condition # 4]
[+] Proximity to Schools - Public elementary and middle schools currently exist in the Avon and
Edwards area. A high school currently exists in Eagle-Vail. Schools are in reasonable proximity of the
site. A payment of cash-in-lieu of school land dedication will be required with this proposal.
[+] Proximity to Police and Fire Protection. and Emergencv Medical Services. - Public safety
services would be provided by the Eagle County Sheriff s Office, Eagle River Fire Protection District
and Eagle County Ambulance District. The proposed PUD is in reasonable proximity to these
emergency servIces.
[+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)]
With the recommended conditions of approval, it HAS been demonstrated that the development
proposed in the PUD SketchlPreliminary Plan will be provided adequate facilities for potable water
18
November 18, 2003
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.
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-of-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 Pathwavs. 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) Emergencv Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency
vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility
vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing
emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities.
(d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to
provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a
PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from
individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be
directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are
necessary to maintain the County's road network.
(e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removedfrom the
internal street network and from off-street parking areas.
As noted immediately above, Eagle County Engineering has determined that the construction
plans submitted with this application are sufficient for preliminary plan review and approval. Additional
detail will be required prior to approval of the final plat. As a condition of approval, the Applicant
should provide, prior to approval of the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and
construction drawings which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 3]
Further, as a condition of approval, variances for [a] minimum tangent length of McCoy Springs
Court and McCoy Springs Trail at their respective intersections with Cresta Road; [b] lack of dual
access to the public roadway system; and [c] reduced radius of the switchbacks on McCoy Springs
Court and McCoy Springs Trail should be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. [Condition
# 4]
Also noted above, the common ski locker facility is to be used exclusively by residents and
guests of McCoy Springs. No provision has been made for parking for skiers (residents ofthe lots west
of Crest a Road and their guests) living other than on Tract F. The site design has been revised to include
a footpath and sidewalks from the homesites west of Cresta Road to the common ski locker facility on
Tract F.
In order to make these footpaths and sidewalks useable, it will be necessary to regularly remove
snow. Otherwise, residents and guests using the common ski locker facility will be forced to walk within
Cresta Road itself, presenting certain hazards to these pedestrians. A sidewalk including numerous steps
is currently shown on the plans from the cul-de-sac on McCoy Springs Court (to the south) down the
hillside to Cresta Road, at which point it becomes a sidewalk which is adjacent to Cresta Road
19
November 18, 2003
continuing to a point across from the entrance to the caretaker unit / common ski storage and locker
facility / condominium structure. In addition, a footpath is proposed from the dwelling on Lot 4 (on
McCoy Springs Court) to intersect the sidewalk.
No design information has been provided for either the footpath or the sidewalks. It appears that
that the footpath will include minimal improvement. During the winter, when there is likely to be the
greatest pedestrian traffic from the individual dwellings to the common ski storage and locker facility,
adequate snow removal will be critical. At the same time, snow removal will be difficult for several
reasons: [1] the footpath may not readily lend itself to snow removal by even a small tractor; [2] the
sidewalk from McCoy Springs Court to Cresta Road, with the extensive number of steps, will most
likely have to be cleaned regularly by manual shoveling; and [3] the sidewalk along Cresta Road will
likely be where snow plowed from Cresta Road will tend to accumulate and be stored, making snow
removal more difficult. Unless a very diligent effort is maintained, often on a daily basis, there is a
significant possibility, due to accumulation of snow and difficulty of snow removal, that these pedestrian
routes will be unusable during the winter season when the need is greatest. In addition, there does not
appear to be an access easement provided for the sidewalk from McCoy Springs Court to Cresta Road.
As a condition of approval, construction plans for the pedestrian footpath and sidewalks,
satisfactory to the County Engineer, should be provided prior to approval of a final plat for this
development. [Condition # 3] Another condition of approval is that an appropriate access easement
should be provided on the final plat to accommodate the use of the sidewalk from McCoy Springs Court
to Cresta Road. [Condition # 5] As a further condition of approval, common walkways and steps shall
be maintained and snow removed as provided in the Snow Removal Maintenance Plan dated October
31,2003. [Condition # 6]
[+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - With the recommended condition, it
HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be
as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) safe, efficient access, (b)
internal pathways, ( c) emergency vehicles, (d) principal access points, and ( e) snow storage.
STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The
development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
Surrounding uses consist of open space and residential, the latter being located some distance
from this site. The proposed development is compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. \
[+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)]
The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land
uses.
STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be
consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
Environmental Open Space! Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM
Quality Recreation Housing Services
Conformance X1 X2
Non
Conformance
Mixed
Conformance
Not X X X X X
20
November 18, 2003
ij
Applicable
Xl - This proposal would permit development within the 50 foot live stream setback, but with an
appropriate variation to dimensional limitations may be deemed to be consistent with this provision of
the Master Plan.
x2 - The proposed development is in an area designated as "resort". The proposed use is
appropriate.
EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
Conformance Non- Mixed Not
Conformance Conformance Applicable
Land Use X1
Housing x
Transportation x
Open Space x
Potable Water and X2
Wastewater
Services and Facilities x
Environmental Quality X3
Economic Development x
Recreation and Tourism x5
Historic Preservation x
Implementation X4
Future Land Use Map X5
X 1 - This proposal would permit development within the 50 foot live stream setback, but with an
appropriate variation to dimensional limitations may be deemed to be consistent with this provision of
the Edwards Area Community Plan.
x2 - Adequate potable water and sanitary sewer service is available for the development.
x3 - This proposal would permit development within the 50 foot live stream setback, but with an
appropriate variation to dimensional limitations may be deemed to be consistent with this provision of
the Edwards Area Community Plan.
x4 - Public facilities and infrastructure is efficiently utilized. The proposed development has
demonstrated how it will maintain the effectiveness of the infrastructure.
x5 - The Future Land Use Map shows the site in an area appropriate for development at a gross
density of equal to or less than 1 unit per acre.
Land Use
Open Space
Unique Char.
21
November 18, 2003
Development
Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns
Conformance X1 X2 X3 X4 X5
Non
Conformance
Mixed
Conformance
Not X X
Applicable
X 1 - This proposal would permit development within the 50 foot live stream setback, but with an
appropriate variation to dimensional limitations may be deemed to be consistent with this provision of
the Open Space Plan.
X2 - With the recommended conditions, the proposed development will encourage development
which is sensitive to open space values, and provide areas along streams in a natural condition by
restrictin~ development in these areas.
X - The proposed development is compatible with preservation of the high visual quality of the
County.
X4 - This proposal would permit development within the 50 foot live stream setback, but with an
appropriate variation to dimensional limitations may be deemed to be consistent with this provision of
the Open Space Plan.
X5 - The proposed development is compatible with wildlife in areas critical to sustaining the
viability ofthe wildlife group.
EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN
Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use
Conformance X1 X2 X3
Non
Conformance
Mixed
Conformance
Not X X
Applicable
X 1 - With the recommended conditions, water quality impacts from run-off will be minimized.
X2 - This proposal would permit development within the 50 foot live stream setback, but with an
appropriate variation to dimensional limitations may be deemed to be consistent with this provision of
the Watershed Plan.
X3 - The development protects adjacent sensitive areas and open space.
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
22
November 18, 2003
Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the
Eagle County master plan. . .
Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes
Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of
government, there will be only limited success
It is important to preserve existing local residents housing
Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the
county
Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should
be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are
evaluated for other infrastructure needs
POLICIES:
ITEM YES NO N/A
1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit
organizations to develop housing for local residents
2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to X
address in collaboration with the municipalities. . .
3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local X
residents and workers in Eagle County
4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be
brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income
equivalent to or less than one average wage job X
5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. X
It is primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . .
6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for X1
local residents
7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating
increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first
preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the X
nearest existing community center. . .
8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in
proximity to community centers
9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged X
10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock X
11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local
residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public
assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be
limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements X
12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing
issue
X 1 - It is anticipated that the caretaker unit associated with the ski house would accommodate a
local resident.
[+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]
23
November 18, 2003
The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM).
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.
The PUD will be developed in one phase. Therefore, a phasing plan is not required.
[+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)
A phasing plan is NOT REQUIRED for this development.
STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD
shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards.
(a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be
devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD
shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every
one thousand (I,OOO) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of
residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three
hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle
County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan.
i Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-
ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space.
ii Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat
areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year 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.
(b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown
on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the
development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD.
(c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to
conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the
common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or
covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any
common open space
(d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or
nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and
cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance,
administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and
secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be
established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or
nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD.
Per this Standard, the recommended amount of open space for this development of 41 acres is
approximately 10.25 acres. The total open space is 32 acres, of which 4.863 acres is useable, that is, with
a slope ofless than 30 percent. Over half (2.745 acres) ofthe useable open space consists of Tract A,
which is most of the area east of Cresta Road except Tract F (caretaker unit / common ski locker facility
/ condominium unit). That part of Tract F which straddles McCoy Creek (excluding the structure) will
also be designated as open space, making both sides ofthe length of McCoy Creek as it crosses this
24
November 18, 2003
parcel open space. All of the open space will be owned by the McCoy Springs at Arrowhead
Homeowners Association.
While the total open space is approximately 78 percent of the site, only about 11.9 percent of the
site is useable open space, as defined in the Land Use Regulations. Given the extensive unusable open
space that will not be developed, Staff is satisfied that the intent of this standard will be met.
Proposed uses-by-right in the Open Space/Recreation Tracts (A & E) are "foot trails, picnic
areas, ski ways". [See page 6 of the PUD Guide received 9 October 2003.] The Open Space/Recreation
Tracts include most ofthe riparian area and those areas within the 50 foot live stream setback within the
development. As a condition of approval, all areas within the 50 foot live stream setback should be
protected in its natural state as provided in Section 3-340.C.6., Stream Setbacks, ofthe Land Use
Regulations, except as allowed for the caretaker unit / common ski locker facility / condominium unit
and the skier bridge. [Condition # 7]
[+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]
The applicant HAS demonstrated that the PUD will comply with the common recreation and
open space standards with respect to: (a) minimum area; (b) improvements required; (c) continuing use
and maintenance; or (d) organization
STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall
consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the
recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection
Standards.
Several considerations warrant attention in the review of this proposed development.
Harrington penstemon - Western Ecological Resources, Inc., has indicated Harrington
penstemon, a USFS sensitive plant species, may be present and has recommended an additional survey
to ascertain its presence or absence. The Applicant has indicated that its consultant will identify and
transplant any Harrington penstemon that may exist in the proposed development area following
approval of this preliminary plan.
Erosion and undercutting along McCoy Creek - Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) expressed
"serious concern" regarding the four structures (three dwellings and the ski house / caretaker unit)
initially proposed on the McCoy Creek side of Cresta Road and noted that "structures built too close to
the channel are at risk of being undermined by erosion, slope undercutting and channel migration." CGS
"strongly recommend[ ed] that Eagle County require the applicant to evaluate channel and floodplain
hydraulics based on current and anticipated development plans, perform slope stability analysis for
slopes below all four proposed structures, and adhere to current county stream setback requirements."
The proposed development has subsequently been revised to reduce the number of structures east
of Cresta Road to the one containing the caretaker unit, common ski storage and locker facility, and a
condominium unit; and to move the structure as much as 40 to 47 feet away from McCoy Creek. CGS
continues to note that certain specific mitigation to protect homes from potential damage caused by
erosion, undercutting and slope failures would be required for any development within the 50 foot live
stream setback.
As a condition of approval, hydraulic and slope stability analysis should be provided prior to
issuing building permits for all structures within the 50 foot setback zone to provide a design basis for
the engineered mitigation structures that would be necessary to protect homes from potential damage
caused by erosion, undercutting and slope failures. [Condition # 2]
Debris flow hazard mitigation - Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has also expressed concerns
regarding the proposed box culverts that carry flow across the debris fans and past the proposed homes.
CGS notes that the very long (275 feet and 245 feet) box culverts proposed across the north and south
fans seem susceptible to plugging by debris, will be difficult to maintain, and would be expensive to
clean out. Eagle County Engineering has raised related concerns regarding maintenance of the culverts.
25
November 18, 2003
However, in subsequent discussions between Golder Associates (the Applicant's consultant) and both
CGS and Eagle County Engineering, these concerns have been eased.
CGS maintains its position that open, trapezoidal surface channels, with short box culverts
passing only under driveways and streets are preferred, but has determined that the proposed culverts
have been appropriately sized according to site-specific debris flow modeling. CGS recommends that a
responsible party be designated to ensure that culvert maintenance, including regular inspections and
cleaning of the full length of both proposed culverts on an annual basis.
The Applicant has provided a Debris Flow Mitigation Facilities Operations and Maintenance
Manual dated October 2003, prepared by Golder Associates, which addresses regular maintenance of
the box culverts intended to channel debris flow on the site. The Homeowners Association will be
responsible for maintenance of the debris flow structures. Eagle County Engineering has determined that
the Manual, if regularly and properly implemented, should be adequate. As a condition of approval, the
Debris Flow Mitigation Facilities Operations and Maintenance Manual dated October 2003, prepared
by Golder Associates, should be regularly and properly implemented. [Condition # 8].
Wildlife - The proposed development is located within elk winter range, severe winter range and
winter concentration areas. The Applicant has proposed mitigation in the form of a one time contribution
of $4,432.67 to the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation Trust Fund (a correction from the initial
application). As a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated, prior to approval of a final plat for
this development, that the proposed payment to the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation Trust Fund
has been made. [Condition # 9]
Wetlands - The Vegetation & Wildfire Hazard Assessment & Management Plan prepared by
Western Ecological Resource, Inc., refers to and makes use ofa wetlands delineation prepared in 1995
entitled Wetland Permit Application for the Arrowhead Village & Terrell Creek Road Projects, which
Staff understands to include the construction of Cresta Road. The Army Corps of Engineers had noted
that the 1995 "wetland delineation information" expired in 2000. A new delineation of the wetlands is
being completed by Western Ecosystems and has been forwarded to the Army Corps of Engineers for its
review. It appears that the revised delineation of the wetlands between McCoy Creek and Cresta Road in
the vicinity of Tract F will show that the wetlands are more confined than had been the case in 1995. As
a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated that the recent delineation of the wetlands along
McCoy Creek in the vicinity ofthe caretaker unit / common ski storage and locker facility /
condominium unit structure, as approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, does not extend any
further beyond McCoy Creek in the direction of the proposed caretaker unit / common ski storage and
locker facility / condominium unit structure than had been the case in 1995. [Condition # 1]
A ski bridge is proposed across McCoy Creek in the vicinity of the caretaker unit / common ski
storage and locker facility / condominium unit structure east of Cresta Road. The Applicant has asserted
that an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit will not be required. No confirmation has been received
from the Army Corps of Engineers. As a condition of approval, if an Army Corps of Engineers 404
permit is required for any construction in the vicinity of McCoy Creek, such a permit shall be obtained
and all conditions and requirements of the permit should be adhered to. [Condition # 10]
[+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)]
The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis
documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of
referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been
considered.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the
review of a Sketch and Preliminary Plan for a Subdivision:
STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan.
See discussion above, Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)].
26
November 18, 2003
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)]
The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map
(PLUM).
STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The
proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of
these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone
Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards.
Article 3, Zone Districts
Except as modified under the provisions of a PUD and with the recommended conditions [see
discussions above], the proposed development complies with all of the standards and provisions of the
Land Use Regulations, including Article 3, Zone Districts.
Article 4, Site Development Standards
[+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
Three parking spaces are to be provided at each of the single-family dwellings. At the caretaker
unit/common ski locker facility/ condominium unit on Tract Feast of McCoy Creek, a total of six
parking spaces is proposed. This parking is sufficient to accommodate the two residential units in this
location.
The common ski locker facility is to be used exclusively by residents and guests of McCoy
Springs. No provision has been make for parking for skiers (residents of the lots west of Cresta Road
and their guests) living other than on Tract F. The site design has been revised to include a footpath and
sidewalks from the home sites west of Crest a Road to the common ski locker facility on Tract F. [See the
discussion above under Improvements (Section 5-240.F.3.e (7) and elsewhere regarding necessary
maintenance of the footpath and sidewalks.]
[+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2)
A landscape plan, including a cost estimate, for the intersections at Cresta Road of McCoy
Springs Trail and McCoy Springs Court has been provided with the application, and has been
subsequently revised. The Landscape Plan satisfies the requirements of this Section.
[+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3)
A comprehensive sign plan is provided in the PUD Guide which allows [1] one sign, not to
exceed 10 square feet in size and 10 feet in height, within the boundary of the property in the vicinity of
each of the road entrances, and [2] an identification plaque not to exceed 5 square feet within or on entry
monuments at each driveway. The comprehensive sign plan is sufficient.
[+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4)
[ +] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The proposed development is located within elk winter
range, severe winter range and winter concentration areas. The Applicant has proposed mitigation in the
form of a one time contribution of $4,432.67 to the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation Trust Fund
(a correction from the initial application). As a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated prior to
approval of a final plan for this development, that the proposed payment to the Colorado Wildlife
Heritage Foundation Trust Fund has been made. [Condition # 9]
The Vegetation & Wildfire Hazard Assessment & Management Plan prepared by Western
Ecological Resource, Inc., refers to and makes use of a wetlands delineation prepared in 1995 entitled
Wetland Permit Application for the Arrowhead Village & Terrell Creek Road Projects, which Staff
understands to include the construction of Cresta Road. The Army Corps of Engineers had noted that the
1995 "wetland delineation information" expired in 2000. A new delineation of the wetlands is being
completed by Western Ecosystems and has been forwarded to the Army Corps of Engineers for its
review. It appears that the revised delineation of the wetlands between McCoy Creek and Cresta Road in
the vicinity of Tract F will show that the wetlands are more confined than had been the case in 1995. As
a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated that the recent delineation of the wetlands along
McCoy Creek in the vicinity of the caretaker unit / common ski storage and locker facility /
27
November 18, 2003
condominium unit structure, as approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, does not extend any
further beyond McCoy Creek in the direction of the proposed caretaker unit / common ski storage and
locker facility / condominium unit structure than had been the case in 1995. [Condition # 1]
A skier bridge is proposed across McCoy Creek in the vicinity of the caretaker unit / common ski
storage and locker facility / condominium unit structure east of Cresta Road. The Applicant has asserted
that an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit will not be required. No confirmation has been received
from the Army Corps of Engineers. As a condition of approval, if an Army Corps of Engineers 404
permit is required for any construction in the vicinity of McCoy Creek, such a permit should be obtained
and all conditions and requirements of the permit should be adhered to. [Condition # 10]
[+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - CGS has determined that the proposed culverts for
channeling debris flow have been appropriately sized according to site-specific debris flow modeling.
CGS recommends that a responsible party be designated to ensure that culvert maintenance, including
regular inspections and cleaning of the full length of both proposed culverts on an annual basis.
The Applicant has provided a Debris Flow Mitigation Facilities Operations and Maintenance
Manual dated October 2003, prepared by Golder Associates, which addresses regular maintenance of
the box culverts intended to channel debris flow on the site. Eagle County Engineering has determined
that the Manual, if regularly and properly implemented, should be adequate. As a condition of approval,
the Debris Flow Mitigation Facilities Operations and Maintenance Manual dated October 2003,
prepared by Golder Associates, should be regularly and properly implemented. [Condition # 8].
CGS notes that, even with the reduced number of structures proposed between Cresta Road and
McCoy Creek and the increased separation from McCoy Creek, certain specific mitigation to protect
homes from potential damage caused by erosion, undercutting and slope failures would be required for
any development within the 50 foot live stream setback. As a condition of approval, hydraulic and slope
stability analysis should be provided prior to issuing building permits for all structures within the 50 foot
setback zone to provide a design basis for the engineered mitigation structures that would be necessary
to protect homes from potential damage caused by erosion, undercutting and slope failures.
[Condition # 2]
Eagle County Engineering has determined that the construction plans submitted with this
application are sufficient for preliminary plan review and approval. Additional detail will be required
prior to approval of the final plat. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to
approval of the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings
which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 3]
[+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) notes that
three of the four development areas are rated extreme wildfire hazard, and the fourth is rated high
wildfire hazard. The location ofthe project in a natural chimney could potentially expose the project to
extreme wildfire behavior. CSFS also notes that creating defensible space in accordance with Eagle
County Wildfire Regulations will minimize the hazard to people and property, and recommends
implementation of a maintenance program to enhance the defensible space. The application includes the
required Vegetation Management Plan, which conforms to the required standards of this Section. As a
condition of approval, the Wildfire Mitigation Plan should be required to be implemented. [Condition #
11]
The development has only one access, that being by way of Cresta Road. A variance from this
required improvement standard has been requested. Engineering has determined that the designs will
provide for an equivalent level of public safety and will be equally durable. As a condition of approval, a
variance for lack of dual access to the public roadway system should be approved by the Board of
County Commissioners. [Condition # 4]
[ +] Wood Burninz Controls (Section 4-440) - The proposed PUD Guide is silent with respect to
wood burning controls. Consequently, the provisions of this Section ofthe Land Use Regulations will
apply.
28
November 18, 2003
[+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The Applicant notes that the site is located within the
area designated as potentially sensitive, and states that the site would not be visible from 1-70. Exterior
lighting, other than at individual residences, is limited to entry sign illumination.
[+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - Taken together, various components ofthe
application constitute an adequate Environmental Impact Report.
[+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5)
The provisions of this Division are not applicable.
[+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6)
[ +] Roadwav Standards (Section 4-620) - As noted above, Eagle County Engineering has
determined that the construction plans submitted with this application are sufficient for preliminary plan
review and approval. Additional detail will be required prior to approval of the final plat. With variances
approved as requested, the requirements of this Section will be satisfied. As a condition of approval, the
Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the initial final plat for the development, complete
engineering and construction drawings which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 3]
[ +] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The site design has been revised to include a
footpath and sidewalks from the homesites west of Cresta Road to the common ski locker facility on
Tract F. As noted above, in order to make these footpaths and sidewalks useable, it will be necessary to
regularly remove snow. Otherwise, residents and guests using the common ski locker facility will be
forced to walk within Cresta Road itself, presenting certain hazards to these pedestrians.
No design information has been provided for either the footpath or the sidewalks. It appears that
that the footpath will include minimal improvement. During the winter, when there is likely to be the
greatest pedestrian traffic from the individual dwellings to the common ski storage and locker facility,
adequate snow removal will be critical. At the same time, snow removal will be difficult for several
reasons: [1] the footpath may not readily lend itselfto snow removal by even a small tractor; [2] the
sidewalk from McCoy Springs Court to Cresta Road, with the extensive number of steps, will most
likely have to be cleaned regularly by manual shoveling; and [3] the sidewalk along Cresta Road will
likely be where snow plowed from Cresta Road will tend to accumulate and be stored, making snow
removal more difficult. Unless a very diligent effort is maintained, often on a daily basis, there is a
significant possibility, due to accumulation of snow and difficulty of snow removal, that these pedestrian
routes will be unusable during the winter season when the need is greatest. In addition, there does not
appear to be an access easement provided for the sidewalk from McCoy Springs Court to Cresta Road.
As a condition of approval, construction plans for the pedestrian footpath and sidewalks,
satisfactory to the County Engineer, should be provided prior to approval of a final plat for this
development. [Condition # 3] Another condition of approval is that an appropriate access easement
should be provided on the final plat to accommodate the use of the sidewalk from McCoy Springs Court
to Cresta Road. [Condition # 5] As a further condition of approval, common walkways and steps shall
be maintained and snow removed as provided in the Snow Removal Maintenance Plan dated October
31,2003. [Condition # 6]
[+] Irrif!ation Svstem Standards (Section 4-640) - The requirements of this Section will be
satisfied.
[ + ] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - Eagle County Engineering has determined that the
construction plans submitted with this application are sufficient for preliminary plan review and
approval. Additional detail will be required prior to approval of the final plat. As a condition of
approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the initial final plat for the development,
complete engineering and construction drawings which are satisfactory to the County Engineer.
[Condition # 3]
[+] Excavation and Grading Standards (Section 4-660) - The Applicant will be required to
conform to the requirements of this Section.
29
November 18, 2003
[+] Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-665) - The Applicant will be required to conform to
the requirements of this Section.
[+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - Eagle County Engineering has noted that
certain utility easements along Cresta Road do not meet Eagle County standards for width. As a
condition of approval, it should be demonstrated prior to approval of this combined sketch/preliminary
plan that the proposed utility easements along Cresta Road either meet Eagle County standards or a
variance from improvements standards should be approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
[Condition # 12]
[ +] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - Water service is to be provided by the Arrowhead
Metropolitan District. Eagle River Water and Sanitation District has provided a "can and will serve"
letter. The Colorado Division of Water Resources has indicated that proposed water supply will not
cause injury to existing water rights so long as the District operates according to the terms and
conditions of their existing water rights decrees. With the approval of a separate 1041 permit, this
requirement will be satisfied.
[+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sanitary sewer services is to be
provided by the Eagle River and Sanitation District, which has provided a "can and will serve" letter.
With the approval of a separate 1041 permit, this requirement will be satisfied.
[+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7)
[+] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) - The Applicant intends to make a
payment of cash in lieu of a school land dedication.
[+] Road Imvact Fees (Section 4-710) - payment of road impact fees will be required pursuant to
this Section.
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)]
It HAS been demonstrated that the proposed subdivision 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 Standard
STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in
the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or
result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
(a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the
utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan.
Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan.
(b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate
population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines.
~ 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.
No inefficiencies have been identified with respect to this development.
[+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)]
The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public
facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed
to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources
and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and
existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
30
November 18, 2003
A number of factors related to suitability for development are discussed elsewhere in this Staff
Report. The property is suitable for development as currently proposed, with the recommended
conditions of approval.
[+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)]
The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography,
environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of
the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not
adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
Surrounding uses consist of open space and residential, the latter being located some distance
from this site. The proposed development is compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
[+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)]
The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and
SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant
shall submit the following: A Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions.
A revised PUD Guide was received on 9 October 2003. The proposed PUD Guide is generally
adequate. However, certain provisions are included in Section 4.3, Modifications to This Guide, which
should be revised for clarity and consistency with the Land Use Regulations. Consistency with the Land
Use Regulations in this instance has to do with reference to and use of existing procedures for amending
the PUD preliminary plan and related plats.
Under the Sub-Section of 4.3 entitled Maior Modifications, as a condition of approval, the
discussion should be modified to delete the criteria for a major modification (instead deferring to the
provisions of the Land Use Regulations) and to include the following:
Major modifications shall be defined and processed in accordance with Section 5-240.F.3.m.,
Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations.
Under the Sub-Section of 4.3 entitled Minor Modifications, as a condition of approval, the
discussion should be modified to delete the sentence regarding appeals to the actions of the Director of
Community Development with respect to minor modifications, and to include the following:
Applications for Minor Modifications shall be processed in accordance with Section 5-300,
Limited Review Use, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and may be approved ifit is found to
be consistent with the established goals of the McCoy Springs at Arrowhead PUD Guide and
Preliminary Plan.
Under the Sub-Section of 4.3 entitled Building Envelope Adiustments, the discussion should be
modified to delete any discussions of procedures which tend to establish a review procedure other than
one provided in the Land Use Regulations. As a condition of approval, the revised Sub-Section should
be modified to include the following:
Administrative Process for a Building Envelope Amendment - If it has been demonstrated that
[1] all property owners within 75 feet ofthe outer boundaries ofthe lot in which the building envelope
adjustment is being proposed and [2] the McCoy Springs at Arrowhead Design Review Board have
approved the proposed Building Envelope Adjustment, such an application may be processed in
accordance with Section 5-290, Minor Subdivision, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, as a
Type B Subdivision involving the subdivision of condominiums, town homes and duplexes. In addition
to other standards provided in Section 5-290, the Director of Community Development shall also be
required to determine that:
31
November 18, 2003
a. The proposed amendment will not substantially impact in an adverse manner that view
corridor of any property owner to whom notice of the proposed building envelope adjustment has been
sent, or the proposed change is required due to geologic or other hazard considerations;
b. The envelope change does not adversely impact wildlife corridors;
c. The envelope change does not adversely impact ridgelines nor create any increase in impacts
to ridgelines;
d. The envelope amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat; and
e. The envelope amendment is not an alteration of a restrictive plat note.
Public Process for a Building Envelope Adjustment - An application for a building envelope
adjustment which does not qualify for the Administrative Process shall be processed in accordance with
Section 5-290, Minor Subdivision of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, as an Amended Final
Plat. In addition to other standards provided in Section 5-290, the Board of County Commissioners shall
also determine that:
a. The proposed amendment will not substantially impact in an adverse manner the view corridor
of any property owner to whom notice of the proposed building envelope adjustment has been sent, or
the proposed change is required due to geologic or other hazard considerations;
b. The envelope change does not adversely impact wildlife corridors;
c. The envelope change does not adversely impact ridgelines nor create any impacts to
ridgelines;
d. The envelope adjustment is not inconsistent with the intent ofthe Final Plat; and
e. The envelope adjustment is not an alteration of a restrictive plat note.
[Condition # 13]
Otherwise, the PUD Guide is acceptable.
[+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)]
With the recommended conditions of approval, the Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that
demonstrates that the requirements of this Section have been fully met.
Requirements for a Zone Chan2.e. In Section 5-230.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the. . . Official Zone District Map or any other map
incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of
County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor." Based on the above analysis and other
available information, Staff makes the following findings as provided in this Section of the Land Use
Regulations:
(1) [+] Consistency with Master Plan. The proposed PUD IS consistent with the purposes,
goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan;
(2) [+] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment IS compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with the proposed development, it IS an
appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the
proposed zone district;
(3) [+] Changed conditions. There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to
modify the present zone district and/or its density/intensity;
(4) [+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from development
under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife
habitat, vegetation, and wetlands.
(5) [+] Community need. It HAS been demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a
community need.
(6) [+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment WILL result in a logical and orderly
development pattern, WILL NOT constitute spot zoning, and WILL logically be provided with
necessary public facilities and services.
32
November 18, 2003
(7) [+] Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAS changed
or IS changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the
area.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked when the change was made to the plan, before or after the
Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Forinash stated this is the same file seen by the Planning Commission.
Cliff Simonton continued with the presentation with file number 1041-0049, McCoy Springs at
Arrowhead PUD. He stated this 1041 application is for the extension of existing water and sewer lines
to serve a proposed development often (10) residential units on Cresta Road above (south of) the
Arrowhead PUD. Access would be via Cresta Road and two new roads, McCoy Springs Court and
McCoy Springs Trail, short access drives that each serve a cluster of four home sites located on the west
side of Cresta Road. The two remaining units, one an upscale condominium and the second a
caretaker's unit, would be constructed in a single structure on the east side of Cresta road near McCoy
Creek, which runs south to north (essentially parallel to and east of Cresta Road) through the east end of
the property. This same structure would accommodate a ski locker facility proposed to be used
exclusively by the residents of this development. A skier bridge would be constructed across McCoy
Creek at the location ofthe ski locker structure to provide ski-in / ski-out access to the Arrowhead Ski
Area.
While not within the boundary of the Arrowhead PUD, the subject 40 acre property is with in the
boundary of the Arrowhead Metropolitan District, and would be served by domestic water and sewer
lines owned and operated by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District.
Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report:
This 1041 proposal was referred to the following departments, agencies and homeowner's
associations for review and comment.
Eagle County Engineering
Eagle County Attorney's Office
Eagle County Environmental Health
Eagle River Water and Sanitation Eagle County Planning Commission
US Army Corp of Engineers
US Environmental Protection Agency
The Town of Avon
Colorado Geological Survey
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Colorado Division of Water Resources
Colorado State Forest Service
Colorado Health Department
Arrowhead Metro District
Arrowhead Homeowners Association
NWCCOG
As ofthe writing ofthis report, the following agencies had responded (see attached copies):
Eagle County Engineering: Memo of July 30, 2003
A letter indicating whether or not a 404 permit is needed from the Army Corp of Engineers is
required.
A flood plain development permit may be required for the proposed skier bridge.
A letter from the fire protection district accepting the proposed access configuration is required.
Reference a memo, sent July 30, 2003 to Joe Forinash, 30 items need to be resolved prior to the
project being found to conform with applicable land use plans (these are related to the companion
McCoy Springs PUD file, PDSP-00018).
33
November 18,2003
Noted that the project is in an area subject to hazards from potential debris flows and
hydrocompactive soils.
Memo of November 10,2003
An updated wetland delineation is required, and Eagle County Engineering will evaluate the
need for permits once this update is completed.
A determination as to whether or not a floodplain development permit will be required will be
based on the final design for the skier bridge and the updated wetland delineation.
Emergency access to the site is adequate.
All technical comments listed in the memo of July 30th have been addressed.
Eagle County Engineering acknowledges the comments of the Colorado Geological Survey
regarding debris flow mitigation and maintenance in their letter of 09/25/03.
The project has not yet satisfied the requirements for surface water quality. Water quality
features have been provided to improve the quality of water released from the site, however, on-site
detention requirements have not been met as basins designed to pond water are excluded to prevent
infiltration into hydrocompactive soils.
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (August 12, 2003)
As ability to serve letters has been obtained by the Applicant, the District has no further
comment on this file.
Colorado Geological Survey (July 31, 2003)
Noted serious concerns for the close proximity of proposed structures to McCoy Creek, and the
possibility that they would be subject to damage by erosion, slope undercutting and channel migration.
Recommended an evaluation of channel and floodplain hydraulics and a slope stability analysis
for structures near the creek.
Noted the thorough work done by Golder Associates regarding mitigation for the debris flow
hazard on the site. Sited continued concern, however, for the long box culverts proposed as a means to
carry flows through the project, and recommended open, trapezoidal surface channels, with short box
culverts passing only under driveways and streets, as a more preferred approach.
Erosion protection requirements will need to be determined based on channel velocities
calculated during final design.
Second Letter of September 25,2003
Hydraulic and slope stability analysis will be needed for all structures located within the 50'
setback adjacent to McCoy Creek.
The preferred debris flow mitigation remains open, trapezoidal surface channels, with short box
culverts passing only under driveways and streets. However, Golder Associates has provided
information indicating that the long box culverts have been appropriately sized according to site specific
debris flow modeling.
It is imperative that responsible party be designated to insure that culvert maintenance, including
regular inspections and cleaning ofthe full length of both culverts is performed on an annual basis. A
binding performance agreement should be in place prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
any structure within the subdivision.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments NWCCOG (July 22,2003)
Conformance with 208 Plan cannot be made because insufficient information is contained within
the application.
No Storm water Management Plan was submitted
Information not given regarding post development peak flow increases
Plans contain inconsistencies regarding the treatment of storm water released from the site,
stating that it will be allowed to spread out after leaving culverts, but noting that infiltration should be
minimized to reduce the potential for soil collapse.
34
November 18, 2003
Impacts from domestic water use should be minimal as the development is within a service
district and will use public water sewage treatment.
No reason is given to justify the encroachment by structures into the stream setback.
No erosion control plan is provided.
Additional information has been submitted, much of it related to the issues outlined above,
including a storm water management plan and an erosion control plan. Eagle County Engineering has
reviewed this additional information and found it appropriate and sufficient for preliminary plan
application
State of Colorado, Division of Water Resources (August 5, 2003)
No comment. Referenced a letter to Ray Merry dated March 30, 1998 that explained why the
Division is not responsible for providing comments on 1041 files.
Note: The referral response from the Division of Water Resources for the companion land use
file for McCoy Springs, PDSP-00018, indicated that no injury to existing water rights would result so
long as the Metro District operates according to the terms and conditions of their water rights decrees.
Colorado State Forest Service (August 6, 2003)
Three ofthe four development areas are rated extreme and the remaining area is rated high for
wildfire hazard.
The location of the project in a natural chimney could expose the project to extreme wildfire
behavior
Roads meet County specifications. Water hydrants are located within 500 feet. Fire resistive
materials and class A roofing will be required.
Creating a defensible space will help minimize the hazard to people and property.
Department ofthe Army, Corp of Engineers (August 7, 2003)
The 1995 Wetland Delineation referenced by the application has expired.
Project number 200375267 has been assigned should a 404 Permit be required.
Eagle River Fire Protection District (August 6, 2003)
Water supply is provided by the Arrowhead Metropolitan District
Wildfire Hazard Assessment and Management Plan appears to meet Eagle county Requirements
Road grades are acceptable at less than 10%.
Site plan showing vehicle turning radii and clearances for emergency vehicles is required
Letter of August 19, 2003
Adequate access and turnarounds have been provided.
Arrowhead at Vail Association Board of Directors (letters of July 28th and July 3rt, 2003)
Oppose the project, providing a variety of reasons including nonconformance with dimensional
limitations, steep slopes, geologic and wildfire hazards, large amounts of soil disturbance, stream bank
erosion hazards, impacts to riparian areas, there is not a demonstrated community need and it is not in
the public interest to encourage increased density in the area. Indicated special opposition to the homes
proposed for the east side of Cresta Road near McCoy Creek.
Letter of October 10, 2003
Noted changes made by the applicant to remove the homes from the east side of Cresta Road,
and indicated that the amended plan addressed many oftheir initial concerns. The Association does not
actively oppose this revised application.
Eagle County Planning Commission (Verbal response at work session of November 4,2003)
Expressed a concern for disruption to wildlife winter range, especially that used by elk, in the
area.
Noted the location of the proposed development in relation to steep slopes and a concern for
hazards associated with debris flows, poor soils, and wildfires.
Indicated a concern that approval of this project on such a "difficult" site would set a poor
precedent for future land use decisions as regards general development patterns.
35
November 18, 2003
Noted a concern for impacts to water quality given the close proximity ofthe project to McCoy
Creek.
Felt that the site was not suitable to this level of development.
Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.01, Permit Application Approval
Criteria for Matters of State Interest, and as more specifically described in the application for the
McCoy Springs 1041, the following analysis is provided. Note: The Approval Criteria is numbered and
indicated in bold. The Applicant's response to each criteria is summarized in standard text. Staffs
comment and/or response is summarized in italicized text. The resultant recommendation is indicated in
the findings box.
(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.
All permits will be obtained prior to site disturbance. A storm water discharge permit may be
required. No wetlands will be impacted, and a floodplain development permit and Army Corp 404 are
not required.
The proposed improvements will occur within existing easements and/or on property owned by
the Applicant. Reference the letter dated 08/07/03 from the Army Corp of Engineers and the memos
dated July 3dh and November 1 dh from Eagle County Engineering, a new wetland delineation and a
floodplain delineation through the project are required. These delineations will indicate whether a 404
permit will be needed for the development. A flood plain development permit is required for any bridge
structure crossing a creek.
The floodplain development permit cannot be issued by Engineering without a updated
floodplain study and detailed construction plans for the proposed skier bridge, which have not yet been
submitted. It should be possible, however, for the applicant to meet these requirements and obtain a
permit prior to site disturbance.
According to the Applicant, wetlands on the site have been recently staked by Ecological
Resources and surveyed by Alpine Engineering. The Army Corp was supposed to have visited the site
on Thursday, November 13, to verify the work in the field. Further, a review by Staff of staking done in
the field by the Applicant's engineer would indicate that the ski locker facility structure will not impact
any riparian areas. It would appear that the Applicant will be able to obtain all necessary permits prior
to site disturbance (see conditions #1 and #2).
[+/-] FINDING: (1) Rif!hts, Permits and Approvals While the Applicant HAS NOT provided
the necessary documentation to assure that all necessary property rights, permits and approvals will be in
place prior to site disturbance, it would appear that the Applicant will be able to meet the requirements
of this standard.
(2) The project will not impair property rights held by others.
Development does not extend past the boundary of the property owned by the developer. The
existing road that crosses the property will not be compromised by the development, and all utility
extensions will take place in dedicated easements and right-of-ways. The applicant has worked closely
with all adjacent property owners, the Arrowhead Homeowners Association and the Arrowhead Design
Review Board in designing the proposed layout.
The proposed improvements will occur on property owned by Warner Developments, Inc. within
easements dedicated to local service providers for utilities and infrastructure. Water and sewer service
for the new development will be provided by the Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District, which has
available potable water through existing rights and augmentation plans owned by the Arrowhead
Metropolitan District, and which has existing treatment capacity at the Edwards Sewer Treatment Plant.
36
November 18, 2003
Reference letter from Colorado Division of Water Resources dated 08/05/03, no injury to downstream
water users is anticipated.
[+] FINDING: (2) ProperfV ri1!hts of others The project WILL NOT impair property rights
held by others.
(3) The project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water
quality plans.
The project is consistent with current land use and water quality plans, with the exception of the
50' set-back from the stream in the vicinity of the proposed ski locker facility. A 13 foot encroachment
is proposed, however, no construction will extend into the McCoy Creek riparian zone. Provisions will
be added to the PUD Guide that will outline the use of pesticides, sediment control and other water
quality protection measures. A Storm Water Discharge permit will be obtained prior to construction.
Erosion control measures will be implemented before during and after construction. The plan conforms
to the Edwards Area Future Land Use Map, which indicates this area as Residential Low Density.
The area where the 13 foot encroachment into the stream setback is proposed is an area
previously disturbed as a historic roadbed. The ski locker facility will not require the removal of any
stream corridor trees, and will not impact any identified wetlands. The applicant has acknowledged the
need to comply with all provisions of the Regional 208 Plan, as identified in the referral response from
NWCCOG dated 07/22/03, and the recommendations ofCGS regarding slope stability and erosion
control, as detailed in their letter of 09/25/03 (see condition #3).
[+/-] FINDING: (3) Consistencv with plans The project IS consistent with relevant provisions
of applicable land use and water quality plans, with the exception of one structure which will encroach
on the required 50' stream setback..
(4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and
operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions.
Warner Developments, Inc. has been working in Eagle County for 25 years, developing other
successful developments like the Homestead PUD. All improvements will be paid for by the Developer,
with public improvements secured through a Subdivision Improvements Agreement (SIA).
[+] FINDING: (4) Expertise and financial capabilitv The applicant DOES HAVE the
necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all
requirements and conditions.
(5) The Project is technically and financially feasible.
The project is technically feasible as indicated by submitted engineering studies and plans. The
project is financially feasible given the perceived value of the resulting single family lots and homes.
The resulting residences will be similar in quality and appearance to the adjacent developments of
Cresta and Trailside (the Arrowhead Mountain Lots). The Developer will pay all costs, and there is no
debt associated with the project.
[+] FINDING: (5) Feasibilitv The Project IS technically and financially feasible.
(6) The project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazard.
Potential geologic risks from debris flows, avalanche, rock fall and hydrocompactive soils have
been identified, with the most significant being the hazard from debris flows. Proposed mitigation of
debris flows include berming and the construction of two large culvert systems to gather and direct
flows through the site. Mitigation for hydrocompactive soils includes engineered foundations and
assuring positive drainage from the site. Development will occur entirely outside the 100 year
floodplain of McCoy Creek
The site also has a high to extreme Wildfire risk, which will be mitigated through the paving of
roads, burying of utilities, the installation of fire hydrants, the creation of defensible space and the use of
fire resistive building materials and construction practices. All development will be accordance with
Eagle County Wildfire Regulations.
37
November 18, 2003
The Applicant's engineer worked closely with the Colorado Geological Survey to resolve
differences regarding the mitigation of debris flow hazards on the site. While the method preferred by
CGS was not utilized, CGS has indicated acceptance of the Applicant's plan (letter of 09/25/03), so long
as assurances are provided that the long box culverts designed to carry debris flows through the project
are inspected and maintained by a responsible party on an annual basis (see condition #4).
In addition, CGS has requested that a site specific hydraulic and slope stability analysis be
performed for any structure located within the 50' stream setback to assure proper engineering of
foundations and/or bank erosion protection improvements (see condition #3)
Access to the project has been found to be adequate by the local fire district (letter of 08/19/03),
and the Applicant will be required to adhere to applicable provisions of Eagle County's Wildfire Hazard
Regulations (see condition #5).
[+] FINDING: (6) Risk from Hazards As proposed and mitigated, The project IS NOT subject
to significant risk from natural hazard.
(7) The project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns.
The project will not adversely affect land use patterns. The project is essentially an infill
development, and is consistent with land use plans associated with patterns of development. The project
will cluster 10 dwelling units on 40 acres ofland, leaving approximately 30 acres as open space. The
primary access road and infrastructure is in place, requiring only short extensions of new service lines.
The proposed units will be designed to be similar in appearance and quality to the developed areas
above and below the subject property.
The Eagle County Planning Commission, in their referral comments of November 4th. indicated a
concern for the precedence set by allowing development of this sort on steep, hazard prone sites as it
relates to future land use patterns in the County. Staff would note that the Trailside development further
south on Cresta Road (Arrowhead Mountain Lots) is similar in density, design and topography.
[+] FINDING: (7) Land use Patterns The project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect
on land use patterns.
(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.
The existing road through the project is maintained by the Arrowhead Metropolitan District.
New roads proposed will be private, and will be maintained by the McCoy Springs Home Owners
Association. The project is small, and additional public transportation is not expected to be required.
Centralized sewer and water already exist in the road that travels through the property, which is included
in the boundaries of the Arrowhead Metropolitan District. The Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority
and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District have provided letters indicating a willingness to serve.
The necessary water system capacity has been included in the design of the Arrowhead Mountain Lots
(Trailside), a development approaching build-out above and south ofthe project. All service line
extensions and utilities will be paid for by the Developer.
[+] FINDING: (8) Service caoacities The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect
on the capability oflocal governments affected by the project to provide services, NOR WILL it exceed
the capacity of service delivery systems.
(9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of
the County.
The proposed development will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future
residents within the development area and source development area. All costs associated with the
project will be borne by the Developer. The construction of homes will be phased to match sales
activity, and the Developer does not anticipate carrying a significant tax burden for the project. The
parcel will have an increased valuation as a result of the development, and additional taxes will be paid
38
November 18, 2003
to the County. The area is already included in the Arrowhead Metro District service area for water and
sewer.
[+] FINDING: (9) Financial Burden The Project WILL NOT create an undue financial
burden on existing or future residents of the County.
(10) The project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of
the local economy.
The proposed development should generate more revenue for the community in the form of
employment and taxes. Construction equipment and materials will be contracted and/or purchased
locally. Owners of the new homes are expected to have above average incomes, and could contribute
generously to the local economy.
[+] FINDING: (10) Protection of Local Economv The project WILL NOT significantly
degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy
(11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational
opportunities and experience.
Currently there are no public or private hiking trails on the project. McCoy Creek is not used by
the public as a fishery, and its narrow confines provide little opportunity for human interaction. The
proposed skier bridge will allow residents to cross the creek on foot in the summer and on skis in the
winter to access recreational opportunities on the nearby Arrowhead Ski Area.
Hikers have been witnessed using Cresta Road. Some short term impacts and nuisance factors
will be encountered during the construction phase, with noise, dust and truck traffic being most
noticeable. These impacts will cease once the project is completed.
[+] FINDING: (11) Protection ofrecreational opportunities The Project WILL NOT have a
significant adverse effect on the quality 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.
Resource conservation techniques will be used on the project, as outlined in Eagle County Land
Use Regulations, the Uniform Building Code and the Eagle County Building Code. Further, the project
will be subj ect to the Arrowhead Mountain Guidelines, which have landscaping standards that
encourage the use of native species and restrict outside irrigation to 1000 square feet. Xeriscape
watering techniques are required, and water usage will be metered. In addition, the Upper Eagle
Regional Water Authority has implemented a Water Conservation Plan designed to encourage increased
efficiency in water use. This plan will be followed where applicable to this project.
[+] FINDING: (12) Resource Conservation The planning, design and operation ofthe Project
SHALL reflect principals ofresource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse.
(13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality.
During construction, air quality standards will be maintained in accordance with standard
construction practices. Less that 25 acres will be disturbed, and as such the project is exempt from
having to apply for an air pollution emission notice. No wood burning devises will be allowed, and only
new technology pellet and gas stoves will be allowed per Eagle county Standards. Increases in heating
and vehicle emissions from the proposed development is expected to be negligible
The proposed project is not expected to cause any adverse long term effect on ambient air
quality. Some short term impacts may result during construction.
[+] FINDING: (13) Air Oualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade air quality.
(14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality.
The project is proposed for a site that is not identified as a scenic area and that cannot be seen
from the Interstate 70 corridor or other areas of the Eagle River Valley floor. Homes will be built to
follow the Arrowhead Mountain Lots Design Guidelines, which require an even higher design standard
than that seen in much of Arrowhead. The new homes are close to the Arrowhead ski runs and Cresta
Road, and will not be noticeably different in appearance from existing homes in the area. The
39
November 18, 2003
establishment of defensible space for wildfire hazard mitigation will result in the modification of some
existing trees and native vegetation in proximity to the new homes
[+] FINDING: (14) VisualOualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade existing
visual quality.
(15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality.
A Storm water Management Plan, Best Management Practices and a Storm Water Discharge
Permit will be prepared and/or obtained prior to construction. During construction, possible short term
increases in suspended sediment in McCoy Creek will be minimized through use of erosion control
structures such as silt fences and straw bales. These construction practices, along with re-vegetation
after construction, should minimize and filter runoff from construction sites.
An erosion control plan sufficient for preliminary plan approval has been received, and
provision for the treatment of storm water runoff, utilizing overland flow through vegetated channels
has been included in the plans. While features have been provided to improve the quality of water
releasedfrom the site, basins designed to pond (detain) water are excluded to prevent infiltration into
hydrocompactive soils. As such, on-site detention requirements have not been met. The applicant will
request a variance from applicable County standards. Given the generally small amount of impervious
surface created by this plan, and the fact that McCoy Creek travels through several large golf course
ponds on its way to the Eagle River, no significant degradation in water quality is expected.
[+] FINDING: (15) Surface Water Oualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade
surface water quality.
(16) The Project will not significantly degrade ground water quality.
There are no known wells on the property and the project as proposed will not introduce
contaminants into the local ground water supply. As indicated by test bores, local aquifers exist at
elevations lower than any of the project's proposed excavation depths.
[+] FINDING: (16) Ground Water Oualitv The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade
ground water quality.
(17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas.
A Vegetation Assessment completed by Western Ecological Resource indicates 0.6 acres of
wetlands and 1.17 acres of riparian forest on the subject property, all associated with the McCoy Creek
stream corridor. Amended plans will avoid these areas completely, with the possible exception ofthe
Ski locker Facility and the skier bridge. The water quality of wetlands will be protected by
implementing water quality control devises during and after construction.
Reference the letter from the Army Corp of Engineers dated August 7, 2003, the Wetland
Delineation performed in 1995 has expired. A new wetlands delineation for the project is required
(memo from Engineering dated 11/10/03), which will then be used to determine whether any wetlands
permit will be required. The Ski Locker/Condominium/Caretaker structure is proposed to encroach
some 13 feet into the stream setback, however, it will be constructed on previously disturbed soils and
would appear to not encroach on riparian areas. Measures to protect the foundation of this structure
from flooding and stream bank erosion may. however, involve work within the riparian zone (see
conditions #1 and #3).
[+] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and Rivarian Areas As conditioned, the Project WILL NOT
significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas.
(18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its
habitats.
According to Western Ecological Resource, Inc., there are no State or Federal endangered
species present at the site. The area is delineated as elk winter habitat/concentration area, but is outside
areas used for calving or migration. The site is not designated as critical deer habitat. Only 15% of the
property is proposed for development, the rest will be left to support all wildlife species currently
present. The riparian area will not be impacted by the current plan. Habitat enhancement and other
40
November 18,2003
measures proposed in the Wildlife Mitigation plan for the project should help minimize elk winter range
impacts and other wildlife-related development effects.
The Eagle County Planning Commission, in their referral comments of November lh, indicated
considerable concern for the loss of native land that, according to the Applicant's consultant, "
represents foraging habitats that are moderately to heavily used (by elk) during winter".
Staff would note the lack of referral response from the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and would
assume that no significant impacts to terrestrial or aquatic wildlife will result from the proposed
development.
[+] FINDING: (18) Terrestrial or Aquatic Animal fife The Project as proposed WILL NOT
significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats
(19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat.
The proposed project will eliminate a total of approximately 5 acres of native vegetation. None
of the vegetation types that would be affected are rare or unique, and all are widely distributed in
western Colorado. Trees and shrubs would be thinned on an additional three acres for the purpose of
providing defensible space against wildfires.
There are no threatened, endangered or candidate plants in Eagle County or on the subject site.
However, Harrington Penstemon, a US Forest Service sensitive species could be present. If any
penstemon are found, the plants will be relocated to a suitable adjacent site.
[+] FINDING: (19) Terrestrial Plant Life The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate
terrestrial plant life or plant habitat.
(20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions.
Most natural drainage features are being retained, and where they are modified, channels and
culverts will be used. Soil erosion will be minimized by quickly revegetating disturbed areas, and
utilizing erosion control devises. Soils have been extensively studied and Golder and Associates has
made recommendations regarding the mitigation of possible debris flows and hydrocompactive soils on
the site. The project will not exacerbate any seismic concerns in the area
In their referral response of April] 0, 2003, the Colorado Geological Survey noted concerns for
structures built within the stream setback, and for the methods proposed to reduce the risk to damage
from potential debris flows.
The Applicant responded by directing their engineers to work closely with CGS to resolve soils
and geologic issues. CGS has subsequently written a second letter, dated September 25, 2003, indicating
acceptance of the plan with the condition that a hydraulic and slope stability analysis shall be provided
prior to the issuance of building permits for any structure located within the 50 foot stream setback (see
condition # 3) and the condition that debris flow mitigation structures designed for the project shall be
inspected and maintained by a responsible party on an annual basis (see condition #4).
[+] FINDING: (20) Soils and Geologic Conditions The Project WILL NOT significantly
deteriorate soils and geologic conditions.
(21) The project will not create a nuisance.
Some short term impacts and nuisance factors will be encountered during the construction phase,
with noise, dust and truck traffic being most noticeable. These impacts will cease once the project is
completed. The nearest residents are approximately 900 feet away.
[+] FINDING: (21) Nuisance The project WILL NOT create a nuisance
(22) The project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or
archaeological importance.
The project area is not identified as having any paleontological, historic or archaeological
features.
+] FINDING: (22) Paleontological, Historic or Archaeological areas The project WILL
NOT significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance.
23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials.
41
November 18, 2003
During construction, proper construction techniques following OSHA and EP A rules and
guidelines will be used to prevent any releases of hazardous materials from the site. No hazardous
materials are anticipated to be kept on site once the project is complete.
+] FINDING: (23) Hazardous Materials The project WILL NOT result in umeasonable risk
of releases of hazardous materials.
(24) 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.
The subject property has not been used for any agricultural, grazing or recreational uses since the
owner purchased the property in 1979, nor was it believed to have been used in this manner by previous
owners. Its topography is such that it does not lend itself to these uses. The property is currently zoned
Resource, and is depicted on the County's Future Land Use map as Residential Low Density, an
intensity of use consistent with other developments above and below this site on Cresta Road. Possible
benefits lost to commercial or industrial uses of the parcel are therefore not applicable.
The population continues to grow in Eagle County. This project is targeted at seasonal/vacation
home ownership, which continues to be in demand. The benefits to Eagle County, through tax revenues
generated by the residential development of this land, far outweigh any other foreseeable benefits of the
other permitted uses of this site.
Staff would note that some elk winter range will be lost, although its value may have been
diminished considerably when Cresta Road was extended south through the property some years ago.
[+] FINDING: (24) Benefits OutweiJ!h Losses The benefits accruing to the County and its
citizens from the project DO 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.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02, Additional Criteria Apvlicable
to Municival and Industrial Water Pro;ects, and as more specifically described in the application for the
Cordillera Southern Parcel Water Tank, the following additional analysis is provided.
The Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse
and conservation of water.
The project is included in the Upper Eagle Valley Water Authority service area, and will be
served by a central water facility. The Authority recently implemented a Water Conservation Plan,
which will be followed where applicable. Water use will be metered, and low flow fixtures and toilets
will be used as required by local codes. Exterior landscaping will utilize xeriscape techniques, and
irrigation will be limited to 1000 square feet per structure.
[+] FINDING: (1) Efficient Use The Project SHALL emphasize the most efficient use of
water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water.
The Project shall not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment
services or create duplicate services.
The project is included in the service area of existing central water and wastewater facilities, and
will utilize short extensions from existing lines which already pass through the project. Water capacity
for this project was considered in the design ofthe Arrowhead Mountain Lots, which exist further south
and above this location. The Developer has obtained a letter indicating a willingness to serve from both
the Water Authority and the Sanitation District. No other water systems will serve the affected area.
[+] FINDING: (2) Excess Cavacitv/Duvlicate Services The Project SHALL NOT result in
excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services.
The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in
the areas to be served by the Project.
The project will be located in an area of limited development potential given the steep terrain to
the west and the stream corridor to the east. Lines will be sized appropriately for the density proposed,
42
November 18, 2003
and no additional density is anticipated that would require water and sewer service via the lines for this
project.
[+] FINDING: (3) Necessitv The Project SHALL BE necessary to meet community
development and population demands in the areas to be served by the project.
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
The project is not indicated to be in an active aquifer recharge area. Sanitation will be
accomplished through connection to a domestic treatment system. Storm water will be directed off site
through stable channels and culverts, and infiltration of storm water in the vicinity of any structures will
be avoided due to the presence ofhydrocompactive soils.
[+] FINDING: (4) Protection of Aquifer RecharfIe Areas 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.
Special Use Permit Waiver In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1.2,
Waiver Provision of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, "the Special Review Use Permit
application for water and sewer proj ects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County
Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant showing that:
3.310.I.2.a. A permit application pursuant to Chapter 6, Sections one through five ofthe Eagle
County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle County
Permit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use permit application.
3.310.I.2.b Compliance with the Special Review Use permit requirements would be
unreasonably burdensome for the applicant.
The applicant has requested a waiver ofthe Special Use Permit requirements, as such application
would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective.
Commissioner Menconi asked about the recommendation for approval, it appears that many of
the conditions were to work in the concerns of the Planning Commission.
Mr. Forinash stated this is the same presentation as presented to the Planning Commission and
they chose to recommend denial. He stated the Planning Commission saw the development as not being
appropriate to the site. They were concerned about density, impacts related to the proximity of McCoy
Creek, slope, and a difference in judgment on a number of issues regarding wildlife impacts, setback
issues, suitability of the site and reconciling the approval with the seven findings the Board must make.
Commissioner Menconi asked ifthere was discussion between staff and the applicant concerning
if some of those concerns have been worked out. Number on was the location of the sidewalk in
anticipation of the guardrail on Cresta Road.
Mr. Forinash stated that has been resolved as there is no guardrail on that side of Cresta Road.
Commissioner Menconi stated the second concerned the location of truck parking.
Mr. Forinash stated they will be parked at the Caretakers unit.
Commissioner Menconi questioned the ski house which has concerns of distance from the Creek
and who will be able to use the parking.
Mr. Forinash stated there was discussion as to whether the residents will walk down to the ski
house and take advantage of that. There are some people who prefer to take a bus down to Arrowhead.
There were questions as to if that fully satisfied the Planning Commission. There is not parking at the
ski house for the eight units to the west of Cresta Road. Staff asked the applicant to include a pedestrian
access and that has been incorporated along with sidewalks. The applicants have provided a snow
removal maintenance plan.
Commissioner Menconi asked, in glancing down at the remaining items, does staff believe that
all of those concerns have been addressed.
43
November 18, 2003
Mr. Forinash stated all ofthe issues have been answered. The question on some of those was
had these been addressed or is this an appropriate use of the property. He stated he does not know if
those issues were sufficiently answered. The ski house was another issue. It is an issue as to whether
that is an appropriate use. Pedestrian access was questioned. This application requires skiers to walk
down to the site.
Commissioner Menconi asked what the applicant has a right to build on the property.
Mr. Forinash stated a single family and accessory dwelling or agricultural dwellings.
Chairman Pro-tern Stone stated it seems there are a few instances where the applicant will be
requesting a variance from the Improvement Standards. If the Board goes along with an approval of this
would they be requesting a variance after the fact.
Mr. Forinash stated the Regulations allows for variances in separate applications or as a part of a
PUD application
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated if this application is approved the applicant will have both sketch
and preliminary plan approval before any variances are approved.
Mr. Forinash stated within the materials submitted there is information on the variance requests.
Ms. Mauriello stated Mr. Forinash is saying the information the Board needs to grant variances is
included in the application. She stated it is imperative for the Board to understand exactly what they are
granting today.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone read from staff findings relating to the variances being requested. He
stated it is alluding to the fact that the variances would be a future approval and not a concurrent
approval as a part of this application.
Mr. Forinash stated the intent is that the variances be included as part of the application.
Rick Plyman, PJA Land Planning, introduced Bob Warner, Warner Developments. He stated
they do have variance requests on the design road standards. He stated generally in several applications
he has been involved with, they have requested variances as a part of the application in order to shown
the Board why they are requesting the variances.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated it generally has its own VIS file. He stated Cordillera is a perfect
example. Those items need to be addressed specifically for everyone's benefit.
Mr. Plyman stated staff engineers helped put the requests together which includes the reasons for
the requests and the hardships that would be incurred.
Ms. Mauriello stated for clarification, 5-270-G(1), the Board has the authority to approve,
approve with conditions or disapprove variances from Improvement Standards. It also allows an
applicant to submit an application or consolidate with the other applications. She read from the
standards as follows:
1. General. The Board of County Commissioners shall have the authority to approve, approve
with conditions, or disapprove variances from Article 4, Division 6, Improvement Standards. Any
person seeking a variance from the improvement standards shall file an application with the Community
Development Director, or shall consolidate said application with any other application the applicant is
submitting. The application shall be determined sufficient, and a staff report prepared pursuant to
Section 5-21 O.D, Common Procedure for Review of Applications.
2. Standards. In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the
application for Variance to Improvement Standards, 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. In approving or
approving with conditions said Variance, the Board of County Commissioners may impose such
conditions that are necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of this Subsection, these Regulations,
and the Master Plan.
"After the public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners shall approve or disapprove the
Exemption for Subdivision based on whether: the division is within the purposes of Section 5-280,
44
November 18, 2003
Subdivision; adequate access, potable water, and sewage are available; and whether the exemption will
not create hazards and the lot will contain a safe, adequate building site."
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated he would like specific discussion concerning the variances
during the applicant's presentation.
Mr. Plyman stated the McCoy Springs parcel is a 41 acre parcel and is an out parcel to the
Arrowhead property. It has been included in the Arrowhead Metropolitan District and the Arrowhead
Homeowners Association but from a zoning standpoint, it is not in the Arrowhead PUD. There are 9
units in the ski house including the employee unit. Originally the application was for a total of 11 units.
They met with the Arrowhead Metro District who wrote a letter supporting the proposal with concern of
the houses on the creek side. After submitting the application to the County, Arrowhead came back and
indicated they were not comfortable with the houses along the creek and asked they be removed.
While staffwas going through the review process, staffhad similar concerns with the homes on
the creek side. The applicant deleted the three building sites along the creek and moved the ski house to
one of the home sites that was less impacting. They have resolved the objections with the homeowners
association. The property has been under the current ownership since 1979. In 1998 the property was
included in the declarations and into the homeowners association. In 1999 it was included in the
Metropolitan District. In 2001 there was a final plat approval of the Arrowhead Mountain lots. The
road, utilities and infrastructure through this subdivision. With road access and utilities in place they
submitted their application for this proposal.
Mr. Plyman did a slide show presentation ofthe property. He stated they have an agreement
with Vail Resorts and Vail Arrowhead Inc. to cut a ski trail to the location of the skier bridge. It will be
a nine foot wide ski trail. The lower level of the ski house is a 1,500 square foot caretakers unit and a
600 square foot locker room. The mid level is all parking and the third level is a 2,500 square foot
condominium. They eliminated two units and three building sites. He stated there were questions of
how the parking would work. The furthest unit is a 550 foot walk to the ski house. They have also
purchased Alpine Club Memberships for all units. They can also call dial a ride which is included in the
Club Memberships. He stated 37 feet is the closest house to the stream. They only encroach by 13 feet.
He stated the old road bed contains a culvert rather than a stream bed. They have minimized the
impacts. He spoke to the Edwards Area Community Plan, They are proposing 9 free market units and
1 caretakers unit which is well below the suggested density. This project very much meets the Edwards
Area community plan and the County Master Plan. The entire project will be designed to the
Arrowhead Mountain Guidelines and incorporates the Bachelor Gulch designs. The setback issues, they
are encroaching on the 50 foot stream setback, it is not a long stretch of houses and they have been
sensitive with the design. The Planning Commission expressed concern with the zoning and he did not
understand that. This development area was indicated for future development. It has always been
considered a development parcel. The density is low. Multi family was eliminated from the plan. This
low density has some support from the Arrowhead homeowners. This parcel is suitable for
development. Colorado Geologic Survey wants to make sure that since they are enclosing the debris
flow the mitigation is correct. He related they believe all staff findings are positive.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked for public comment on the 1041 permit. There were no members
ofthe public to comment. He closed public comment.
Chairman Pro- Tem Stone read from the staff comments regarding the 1041 file and related there
are two findings that he believes are both positive and negative as follows:
"While the Applicant HAS NOT provided the necessary documentation to assure that all
necessary property rights, permits and approvals will be in place prior to site disturbance, it would
appear that the Applicant will be able to meet the requirements of this standard."
"The project IS consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality
plans, with the exception of one structure which will encroach on the required 50' stream setback."
45
November 18, 2003
Furthermore in a letter from Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, regarding the 208
plan, "Lane Wyatt comments are as follows:
"The application addresses water quality in very general and incomplete terms making it
impossible to determine the nature and magnitude of potential impacts or to evaluate the effectiveness of
mitigation measures.
The application confuses the need to evaluate peak flows from the development with changes in
peak flows in McCoy Creek.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated he would like the applicant to address all ofthese concerns.
Mr. Plyman stated the ski house does have an encroachment into the 50 foot setback. He stated
the referral response was based on the original application. They have changed the number of units in
that setback. He stated their hardship is the existing location of Cresta Road. He stated there is no
portion of that property, the creek side, that they could put a building without encroaching the setback.
They have pushed the building as close to the road as they can. The original easement is 50 feet wide.
Engineering staff asked them to set that at 60 feet. They responded they could not and staff allowed it to
be 50 feet.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated they take their 1041 authority seriously and give all files equal
consideration. He asked County Attorney, if they can allow this exception.
Ms. Mauriello stated they can.
Commissioner Menconi stated he has no problem with that exception.
Chairman Pro-tern Stone stated the other concern is with water quality.
Kent Crane, Alpine Engineering, stated most of the discussion has been on the NWCCOG
concerns with being close to the creek. In regards to the 208 plan, they are in conformance with that
except with the building setback. He stated a lot of the water quality features are identified on that
submittal.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked if they have measures to control and treat storm water.
Mr. Crane stated the two plans address that, the erosion plan and the drainage plan. The
applicant will be required to obtain a discharge and erosion permit.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Permit Authority approve File No. 1041-0049, McCoy
Springs at Arrowhead, waiving the requirement for Special Use Review and incorporating Staffs
findings, with the following conditions:
1) That, reference the letter from the Army Corp of Engineers dated 08/07/03 and the memo
from Eagle County Engineering dated 11/10/03, should the recently updated wetland delineation for the
property indicate the need for a 404 Permit, said Permit shall be in place prior to any construction on the
site.
2) That, reference the memo from Eagle County Engineering dated 11/10/03, updated flood plain
information be submitted and a flood plain development permit for the proposed skier bridge be
obtained prior to any disturbance on the site.
3) That, reference the letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated 09/25/03, hydraulic and
slope stability analysis shall be provided prior to the issuance of building permits for any structure
located within the 50 foot stream setback, and that the design of foundations and mitigation structures
shall be based on this information in order to protect structures from potential damage from erosion,
undercutting and/or slope failure.
4) That, reference the letter from the Colorado Geologic Survey dated 09/25/03, debris flow
mitigation structures designed for the project shall be inspected and maintained by a responsible party
on an annual basis.
5) That, reference the letter from the Colorado State Forest Service dated 08/06/03, the
Applicant's Wildfire Mitigation Plan shall be implemented consistent with Eagle County Land Use
Regulations.
46
November 18, 2003
6) That except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the applicant
in this permit application, correspondence, and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked for public input on the zone change and PUD files.
Dana Dunbar, Arrowhead homeowner, stated she has watched the development change since
1989. She stated she has no problem with the plan but questioned the need for a ski house but that is the
developers thought and if they want it they should be able to have it.
Ed Leavy, Arrowhead homeowner, voiced his support for the project and believes it is
appropriate to place 9 dwelling units on 41 acres. He believes a lot of time and effort has been put into
this plan.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone closed public comment.
Commissioner Menconi asked the County Attorney to explain the handout.
Ms. Mauriello stated she pulled page 164 from the packet showing the variance requests. She
asked the Board in considering this application, to balance the hardship to the applicant of not granting
the variance versus any impacts to the health, safety and welfare of the inhabitants. She requested the
Board follow the findings.
Commissioner Menconi asked if this was an alternative in finding number 4.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated it would also apply to number 12. He stated number 4 is
variances for minimum tangent lengths. Number 12 is proposed utility easements along Cresta Road.
Ms. Mauriello stated that was correct.
Mr. Crane spoke to the variance requests as follows
1. Tangent Length, both of the roads service four homes and one of the hardships is that this is a
very steep hill and will push that tangent length further back into the hill which impacts the land and
increases the height of the wall. Would it be safe and could fire trucks be able to get up there. He
pointed out turning diagrams for large fire trucks. He stated there is also a letter from Carol Mulson
speaking to adequacy of the access and the turn around.
2. Single Access, with the steep hillside for the ski hill it is not practical to provide that. He
stated there is a pedestrian skier emergency access on the hill. Cresta Road does have a physical
connection to the Arrowhead Mountain Road, so in the summer there is emergency access.
3. Switchback Radius, with the steepness of the hill and height ofthe retaining wall it will work
better with the land.
4. Utility Easement Width, the code requires a 25 foot minimum width. They do have some that
are smaller but in all cases the owners and operators of those utilities related it does meet their
retirements and they will own it and maintain it. To increase the width ofthe easements unduly burdens
the land.
5. On Site Detention, because of their small amount of pervious area there is no impact as far as
increased developed flows. Likewise the hydro-compacted soils would not be good to house ponds.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board, having heard evidence and received materials and
balanced the hardships to the applicant of not granting the adverse impacts on the health, safety and
welfare ofthe persons and the land, approve the following variances:
1) Tangent Length, Land Use Regulation 4-620.J.9.c (8)
2) Single Access, Land Use Regulation 4-620J.1.h
3) Switchback Radius, Land Use Regulation 4-620J.1.f
4) Utility Easement Width, Land Use Regulation 4-670.A
5) On Site Treatment Detention, Land Use Regulation 4-650.B.1.b
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion.
47
November 18, 2003
In discussion Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked that the McCoy Springs Variance Request Sheet be
labeled VIS Exhibit 1 and be attached to the motion.
Commissioner Menconi concurred and added that to the motion.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting
Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous.
Chairman pro-tem Stone asked about the wildfire hazard rating
Ben Garrett, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, stated when he originally looked at the site there
were several features included within this plan. The site in the beginning was rated in the extreme
category. After seeing the revised plan, the applicant has distanced themselves from all of the features.
There is one building that will require some mitigation. They have removed everything from the
chimney features. They are bringing in fire hydrants and water, a landscape plan has been developed to
mitigate the local hazard and they are using fire resistant materials. It is now considered to be in the low
hazard category if everything submitted is completed.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated condition number II reads the plan must be implemented.
Mr. Garrett concurred.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. ZC-00063, McCoy Springs at
Arrowhead, incorporating the staff findings.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. PDSP-00018, McCoy Springs at
Arrowhead, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions:
1. It shall be demonstrated that the recent delineation of the wetlands along McCoy Creek in the
vicinity ofthe caretaker unit / common ski storage and locker facility / condominium unit structure, as
approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, does not extend any further beyond McCoy Creek in
the direction of the proposed caretaker unit / common ski storage and locker facility / condominium unit
structure than had been the case in 1995.
2. Hydraulic and slope stability analysis shall be provided prior to issuing building permits for all
structures within the 50 foot setback zone to provide a design basis for the engineered mitigation
structures that would be necessary to protect homes from potential damage caused by erosion,
undercutting and slope failures.
3. The Applicant shall provide, prior to approval of the initial final plat for the development,
complete engineering and construction drawings which are satisfactory to the County Engineer,
including but not limited to roads, drainage structures and pedestrian footpath and sidewalks.
4. An appropriate access easement shall be provided on the final plat to accommodate the use of
the sidewalk from McCoy Springs Court to Cresta Road.
5. Common walkways and steps shall be maintained and snow removed as provided in the Snow
Removal Maintenance Plan dated October 31,2003.
6. All areas within the 50 foot live stream setback shall be protected in its natural state as
provided in Section 3-340.C.6., Stream Setbacks, of the Land Use Regulations, except as allowed for the
caretaker unit / common ski locker facility / condominium unit and the skier bridge.
7. The Debris Flow Mitigation Facilities Operations and Maintenance Manual dated October
2003, prepared by Golder Associates, shall be regularly and properly implemented.
8. It shall be demonstrated prior to approval of a final plat for this development, that the
proposed payment to the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation Trust Fund has been made.
9. If an Army Corps of Engineers 404 permit is required for any construction in the vicinity of
McCoy Creek, such a permit shall be obtained and all conditions and requirements of the permit shall be
adhered to.
10. The Wildfire Mitigation Plan shall be required to be implemented.
48
November 18, 2003
11. With respect to the PUD Guidelines for McCoy Springs at Arrowhead, those portions of
Section 4.3, Modifications To This Guide, entitled Major Modification, Minor Modifications and
Building Envelope Adjustments, shall be modified as set forth in the Staff Report in the discussion of
the Standard Section 5-240.F.2.a(8), Initiation.
12. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the
Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of
approval.
13. A Letter of Map Amendment for McCoy Creek shall be obtained from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) prior to issuance of a building permit for any structure on the
east side of Cresta Road.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
December 9, 2003.
Ch~' ~
49
November 18, 2003