Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/29/06 PUBLIC HEARING August 29, 2006 Present: Peter Runyon Tom Stone Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Walter Mathews Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the Miller Ranch Guidelines, open space proposal summary and a potential conflict of interest in legal representation regarding Barbara Green, all of which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e), Colorado Revised Statutes. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Special Recognition for employees and others who "Go Above and Beyond to Promote Good Will in Eagle County" Nora Fryklund, Human Resources Chairman Runyon recognized several Eagle County employees and citizens for their help with the Eagle County Fair and Rodeo. Employee Wellness Challenge Recognition Nora Fryklund, Human Resources Commissioner Menconi stated that fifty-six Eagle County employees completed the "Exercise America National Parks Challenge". The program was sponsored by the county's Employee Wellness Committee and was designed to help all of us live a healthier, more active lifestyle. To participate in the challenge, employee exercise regularly kept track of their progress. Those who completed the simulated trip around eight of America's national parks were eligible for a random drawing for prizes. The winner of the "Super Challenge" for the summer of 2006 was Leslie Kehmeier from GIS. Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of August 28, 2006 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department 1 8/29/06 B. Approval of the payroll for August 31,2006 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department C. Approval ofthe minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meetings for May 23,2006, May 30, 2006 and June 20, 2006 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. Tipping fee agreement between B&B Excavating and Eagle County County Attorney's Office Representative E. Resolution approving second modification of Miller Ranch Housing Guidelines County Attorney's Office Representative F. Resolution 2006-091 in recognition of service to the Home Rule Charter Commission and support staff County Attorney's Office Representative G. Tenth Amendment to Fixed Base Operator Concession and Lease Agreement between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and Vail Valley Jet Center, Inc. County Attorney's Office Representative H. Resolution 2006-092 for Release of Assignment of Certificate of Deposit from Lake Creek Metropolitan District to Eagle County for permit to construct in the public way No. 19669 County Attorney's Office Representative I. Agreement between Eagle County and Vail Recreation District Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services J. Trail Easement and Improvements Agreements between Eagle County and Ralph E. and Sherri L. Seago Ellie Caryl, Eco Trails K. 5MB-00390, Ridge at Las Vistas Phase I; A Resubdivision of Tract B-4, Las Vistas at Singletree Phase N (Berry Creek Ranch Filing No.3). Tract B-4, Las Vistas at Singletree Phase N, (a part of the original Lot 22, Berry Creek Ranch Filing No.3) in order to create four (4) dwelling unit/townhome lots; a future development tract (Tract B-7); and a common area, driveway, utility, drainage and access easement (Tract B-6). Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development L. Eagle-Vail Filing No.1, Lot 25, Block 3. The purpose of this Plat is to subdivide Lot 25, Eagle-Vail Filing 1, Block 3 to create four (4) townhome lots to be known as Lots 2SA through 2SD. Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development M. Resolution calling for the Home Rule Charter Commission to begin a second attempt to present a charter to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County County Attorney's Office Representative Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that Item E would be pulled for additional modification. Item G would also be pulled awaiting completion of a survey and at the request of Commissioner Stone, Item M was pulled as well. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-M, omitting Items M, G, and E. 2 8/29/06 Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone thanked the Board for removing Item M from the Consent Agenda. He wondered if the reason for the second attempt was to avoid a special election. Mr. Treu stated that a letter received from Don Cohen dated July 21, 2006 requesting an extension but did not state a specific reason. Commissioner Stone stated that he would not be voting for the resolution. Resolution 2006-093 calling for the Home Rule Charter Commission to begin a second attempt to present a charter to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County County Attorney's Office Representative Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2006-093 calling for the Home Rule Charter Commission to begin a second attempt to present a charter to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County. Chairman Runyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Stone voting against the motion. Citizen Input There was none Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office APPLICANT: DBA: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: CONCERNS / ISSUES: Delta Whiskey, Inc. Splendido at the Chateau David A. Walford, Owner 17 Chateau Lane in Avon (Beaver Creek) Kathy Scriver None DESCRIPTION: This is an application for Transfer of Ownership of a Hotel and Restaurant License. This license is currently held by Vista Hospitality, Inc d/b/a Splendido at the Chateau and is located in Avon (Beaver Creek). The license expires September 19,2006. The applicant currently possesses a Temporary Permit issued on June 27, 2006. STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS ESTABLISIDNG THE NEIGHBORHOOD fhis step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership. 3 8/29/06 NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD .ThiS step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership. OTHER FINDINGS ~ This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been filled out, and all fees have been paid. ~ The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold are currently licensed by the state and local licensing authorities and were valid as of the date of receiving the application. ~ The applicant is reported to be of good moral character. ~ Applicant is currently operating under a temporary license issued by this Board. ~ An affidavit of transfer and statement of account for all alcohol beverages sold has been filed and signed by both parties. ~ The applicant is over 21, fingerprints are on file, and his Personal History Record is on file. ~ Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on August 16th, 2006. At least 11 days prior to the hearing. Publication of the notice is not required for a transfer of ownership. ~ The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. ~ The premises are not for the sale of fermented malt beverages at retail where, within one year preceding the date of the application, a license has been denied at the same location for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. ~ The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. Ms. Scriver presented the application. She stated that the applicant currently possesses a temporary permit issued by the Board June 27, 2006. Posting was performed on August 16th and no complaints had been received. All the necessary fees had been paid and the required documents received. She indicated that staff had no concerns with the transfer and recommended approval. Chairman Runyon requested that David Walford provide some background. Mr. Walford, owner spoke. He stated that he had been in the valley for many years and operating the restaurant as general manager since 1994. The transfer would allow him to become sole owner. Commissioner Menconi moved that the local licensing authority approve the Transfer of Ownership of the Hotel and Restaurant license from Vista Hospitality, Inc. d/b/a Splendido at the Chateau to Delta Whiskey, Inc. d/b/a Splendido at the Chateau. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re- convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: DBA: The Rumpus Room, Inc. The Rumpus Room 4 8/29/06 REPRESENTATIVE: William (Bill) Woodruff, Owner/Manager Sterling Bradbrook, Owner 1140 Edwards Village Plaza II B201-203 in Edwards Kathy Scriver None LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: CONCERNS / ISSUES: DESCRIPTION: This is an application for Transfer of Ownership of a Hotel and Restaurant License. This license is currently held by Tavolaccio, Inc d/b/a Tavolaccio and is located in Edwards. The license expires September 12,2006. The applicant currently possesses a Temporary Permit issued on June 27,2006. STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS ESTABLISIDNG THE NEIGHBORHOOD This step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership. NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD This step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership. OTHER FINDINGS ~ This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been filled out, and all fees have been paid. ~ The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold is currently licensed by the state and local licensing authorities and was valid as of the date of receiving the application. ~ The applicant is reported to be of good moral character. ~ Applicant is currently operating under a temporary license issued by this Board. ~ An affidavit of transfer and statement of account for all alcohol beverages sold has been filed and signed by both parties. ~ The applicant is over 21, fingerprints are on file, and his Personal History Record is on file. ~ Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on August 16th, 2006. 11 days prior to the hearing. Publication of the notice is not required for a transfer of ownership. ~ The premises are not within SOO feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. ~ The premises are not for the sale of fermented malt beverages at retail where, within one year preceding the date ofthe application, a license has been denied at the same location for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. ~ The premises are not within SOO feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. Signing of the Abstract of Assessment Joyce Mack, Assessor S 8/29/06 Ms. Mack stated that under state statute CRS 39-S-123 she is required to report the total abstract of assessment. The total taxable assessed value for 2006 was $2,28S,241,360. Mr. Treu stated that statues requires that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners sign a certification that all the Board of Equalization hearings have been concluded and those findings are included in the assessment. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the signing of the Abstract of Assessment. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Presentation of County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (audited financial statements) by independent auditors Mike Roeper, Finance Department Mr. Roeper introduced Mike Jenkins, an independent auditor out of Glenwood Springs. Mr. Jenkins presented the County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and provided the results of the County's 200S operations. The results were solid, the County has a low dept level, and strong fund balances. The County is well positioned to deal with future challenges. Basalt Regional Library District request for approval of a mill levy increase question for the November general election ballot for operating costs for a new library Britton Lund & Lee Leavenworth, Basalt Regional Library District Polly Pollard, President of the Basalt Regional Library Board spoke. She provided the Board with a proposed resolution. The facility was originally built to serve 3,000 residents and is currently serving 10,000. They started looking at building a new library 6 years ago realizing that the library was too small. She stated that they currently have an agreement with the town of Basalt should the bond issue pass. Commissioner Stone stated that the resolution that was distributed and the one previously submitted were different. He requested an explanation. Mr. Treu stated that the Board would not be able to approve the resolution without further review. Jim New, attorney for the Basalt Regional Library District spoke. They are requesting two separate issues on the ballot, one for bonding and the other to raise the mill levy. Chairman Runyon wondered what would happen if they were to lose the bonding but raise the mill levy. Mr. New stated that the mill levy does not commence until 2008. The authorization would sit out there for a few years allow another chance to go for the general obligation bond. The money would not be collected until they had a new facility to apply it too. Resolution 2006-094 providing for the submission to the registered qualified electors of Eagle County, Colorado, a question to authorize a property tax increase of up to 1.5 mills for the purpose of providing and improving the quality, availability, and affordability of Early Childhood Services and facilities, said question to be submitted at the election to be held November 7, 2006; prescribing the form of ballot question for submission at said election, providing for certification of the election question to the County Clerk and Recorder 6 8/29/06 County Attorney's Office Representative Mr. Treu stated that the resolution varied somewhat to the ones provided in the Boards packets. Commissioner Menconi thanked the committee who worked towards bring the ballot initiative forward to the citizens of Eagle County. He stated that as the population grows the need and the current service gaps are significant. Without support in those gaps, the services will force families to leave the community, place children at risk, and further threaten the quality of our schools. The funds would be spent in the areas of childcare and learning, healthcare, emotional and social support and in family support. He indicated that this is not a childcare tax, but a childhood development initiative that helps all kids and families in Eagle County and in all the different areas that are of need. Beth Riley, manager of the Eagle Care Medical Clinic spoke. She stated that the current needs exceed capacity. The hospital has been pro-active in trying to meet those needs. The population is growing and the needs are so great that this ballot initiative would really help meet those needs. 86 children under the age of 5 were turned away in the last year because staff was unable to serve them. She is disappointed that in the press a lot of discussion relates to ballot initiative being a childcare tax. She stated that it's not about finding cheap babysitting for young children it's about creating an opportunity to build an effective, real mechanism for comprehensive multi-disciplinary approach in order to improve health and social outcomes in our community. She's not sure that the ballot initiative would give funds to Eagle Care but the initiative would help improve health outcomes in the community. Jill McQueeny spoke. She expressed her appreciation for those who documented the need and was on hand to answer any questions. She encouraged the Board to keep a system's approach. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the resolution providing for the submission to the registered qualified electors of Eagle County, Colorado, a question to authorize a property tax increase of up to 1.S mills for the purpose of providing and improving the quality, availability, and affordability of Early Childhood Services and facilities, said question to be submitted at the election to be held November 7, 2006; prescribing the form of ballot question for submission at said election, providing for certification of the election question to the County Clerk and Recorder and making the change requested by the County Attorney of a temporary mill levy in the title of the ballot question. Commissioner Stone stated that he supports the healthcare. Be believes the ballot initiative will fail for the lack of specificity. There is no guarantee that even a portion of the money would go towards affordable healthcare. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Stone voting against. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to continue the Transfer of Ownership of the Hotel and Restaurant license from Tavolaccio, Inc. d/b/a Tavolaccio to The Rumpus Room, Inc. d/b/a The Rumpus Room until September S, 2006 at 11 :00. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files 7 8/29/06 SMA-00027 Belle Terre Minor Subdivision Joe Forinash, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 7/25/06 and 8/1/06. Request to table to 9/12/06 ACTION: Subdivide 3.1 acre site into 3 lots for subsequent development of 6 single family, duplex and a triplex dwellings on the lots. LOCATION: 3496S Hwy 6 (North ofHwy 6, west of Reserve Road) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests file be tabled. Commissioner Stone moved that the Board of County Commissioners table File No. SMA-00027 Belle Terre Minor Subdivision and File Number VIS-0030 until September 12, 2006, at the applicant's request. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. VIS-0030 Belle Terre Minor Subdivision Kelly Miller, Engineering Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from 8/1/06. Request to table to 9/12/06 Approve a Variance from the Improvement Standards for the requirement of two points of access. LOCATION: 3496S Hwy 6 (North ofHwy 6, west of Reserve Road) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests filed be tabled. LUR-0066 Amendment to Eae:le County Buildine: Code Dan Stanek, Building Department ACTION: Consider amendments to the Eagle County Building Code LOCATION: N/A TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: LUR-0066; LOCATION: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Eagle County Land Use Regulations Amendments (ECLUR) Amendment to the ECLUR Unincorporated Eagle County Eagle County Staff Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION This amendment is to allow for modification of the Eagle County Building Resolution as follows: A. Minor modifications to the 2003 International Building Code, 2003 International Residential Code, & 2003 International Mechanical Code 8 8/29/06 B. Updating the 2000 Uniform Plumbing Code to the 2003 International Plumbing Code C. Updating the 2002 National Electrical Code to the 200S National Electrical Code D. Adding the 2003 International Fuel Gas Code STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: The proposed amendment package was referred out to the following agencies: . County Attorneys Office . County Department of Environmental Health . County Engineering Department . Town of Vail Fire Department . Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District . Gypsum Fire Protection District . Greater Eagle Fire Protection District . Eagle River Fire Protection District . Eagle Valley Homebuilders Association . Department of Local Affairs . NWCCOG . Town of Avon . Town of Basalt . Town of Eagle . Town of Gypsum . Town of Minturn . Town of Red cliff . Town of Vail . Additionally, these proposed regulations were referred out to over 600 Homeowner's Associations, Architects, Contractors, Plumbers and Developers that are associated with Eagle County's Community Development Department. Responses were received from the following agencies, firms or individuals: . One response was received from Northwest Colorado Council Of Governments lead elevator inspector: Recommends Eagle County adopts by reference ASME A17.1S 200S and ASME A17.1A 2005, updating new standards for elevator codes B. STAFF DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: The proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including the applicable towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs, and their recommendations have been considered. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Notice of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.06 Board action of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation: The Building Resolution, as proposed, is in general conformance with the policies and regulations of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B Initiation of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: 9 8/29/06 (a) The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. (b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided. 5. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as applicable: (a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use Map of the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) The proposed amendments DO address a demonstrated community need. (c) The proposed amendments ARE in the public interest. DISCUSSION: Mr. Stanek presented a briefPowerPoint presentation that included the request summary, referrals received, and the Planning Commissions Recommendations. One response was received from Northwest Colorado Council of Governments lead elevator inspector recommending that Eagle County adopt new standards for elevator codes. Mr. Stanek indicated that the Eagle County Planning Commission, Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission, and Staff all recommended approval of the file. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approve File No. LUR-0066 Amendment to Eagle County Building Code incorporating all staff findings. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00230 Cordillera Lot 1. Filine: 4 Adam Palmer, Planning Department Amendment to the existing platted building envelope ACTION: LOCATION: 123 Granada Hill STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF CONTACT: AFP-00230 / Amended Final Plat 0123 Granada Hill (Cordillera) Vail Capital Partners III, LLC Vail Capital Partners III, LLC Steve Wujek, Marcin Engineering Adam Palmer STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 10 8/29/06 A. SUMMARY: An amended final plat, which would relocate the building envelope. The Applicant states that the amendment is necessary to be able to accommodate a house design in compliance with the Cordillera PUD and according to property access and topography. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential / PUD West: Residential / PUD North: Residential / PUD South: Residential / PUD Existing Zoning: Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: Total Area: Access: PUD (Planned Unit Development) 1 (no change) 1.6 acres Granada Hill 2. STAFF REPORT A. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Staff has made the following findings: STANDARD: Adjacent Property. [Section S-290.G.3.a.] -- Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the proposed amendment adversely affects adjacent property owners. The following adjacent property owners have been notified: Kensington Partners; John and Judith Pachi; Barbara Pessel; Robert and Leslie Nathan; Vail Capital Partners III, LLC; Cordillera Property Owners Association; and Cordillera Metropolitan District. The following responses were received: John and Judith M. Pachi letter opposing proposed amendment (attached) Barbara Pessel phone call and letter opposing proposed amendment (attached) Vail Capital Partners III, LLC letter supporting proposed amendment (attached) Cordillera Metropolitan District letter supporting proposed amendment (attached) Since the proposed building envelope affects a ridgeline, 3-dimensional analysis has been done by the Eagle County GIS department to assess the potential impact of the building envelope amendment. The proposed envelope is closer to the predominant ridge visible from I-70 and elsewhere along the valley floor to the east. The existing building envelope has a 30-foot height limit established as a 'glass ceiling' from the corners of the building envelope above which construction cannot occur. When placing a maximum build-out of the existing building envelope on the property it is visible from I-70. However, when placing the maximum build-out of the proposed building envelope, it is difficult to see any difference from the existing building envelope from vantage points on the valley floor. The proposed building envelope also moves closer to lots 21, 22, and 23 of the Alquezar Villas phase III. The subject lot has significant amount of aspens, conifers, and underbrush which effectively screen the existing and proposed building envelope from lots 21 and 22. However, the area between the existing and proposed building envelope and lot 23 has sparse vegetation. The applicant has agreed to plant and maintain no less than five 5-gallon native conifers and five 5- gallon aspens or deciduous trees to provide effective visual screening between it and lot 23. 11 8/29/06 The applicant has also agreed to leave existing vegetation in place other than that required for construction and wildfire mitigation to maintain visual buffers between it and adjacent properties. The proposed amendment would not significantly affect lot 2 to the south of the property, and there is sufficient buffering between the building envelopes with existing vegetation. The lot is visible from properties to the west, including the Lodge at Cordillera. However, since the proposed building envelope would move the home further to the east, setback further from Granada Hill and more tucked in to existing vegetation, it is expected that the structure would pose less of a visual impact than currently platted to properties to the west. Given the above discussion, Staffhas determined that the amended final plat does not adversely affect adjacent property owners. [+] FINDING: Adjacent Property. [Section 5-290.G.3a.] The Amended Final Plat DOES NOT adversel affect ad'acent STANDARD: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.] - Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. The Cordillera PUD Guide states that the "building envelopes [are] specifically identified for each lot to minimize impacts". Impacts specifically identified for consideration in conjunction with an amended final plat in Cordillera are ridgelines and view corridors. Given the discussion above regarding ridgeline impacts and view corridors, Staff finds that the proposed building envelope does not adversely impact ridgelines and/or view corridors and is consistent with the Final Plat. [+] FINDING: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.] The ro osed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section S-290.G.3.c.] - Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the proposed amendment conforms to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. The plat conforms to the applicable requirements. 1+] FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-90.G.3.c.] The proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, olicies and uidelines. STANDARD: Improvements Agreement [Section S-290.G.3.d.] -Adequacy of the proposed improvements agreements and/or off-site road improvements agreement when applicable. STANDARD: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section S-290.G.3.e.] - If the amendment is an alteration of a restrictive plat note at least one of the following criteria must be met: (1) That area for which the amendment is requested 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; or (2) That the proposed amendment is necessary in order to provide land for a demonstrated community need. 12 8/29/06 There are no relevant plat notes. [+) FINDING: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.e.] This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive lat note. Pursuant to Section 1.05.3.vi., Public Process: Buildine: Envelope Amendment, of the Cordillera Subdivision Tenth Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Control Document dated September 23, 2003, the Staff has made the following findings: STANDARD: [Section 1.05.3.vii.1.] - 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 amendment has been sent, or is required by geologic or other hazard considerations. As discussed above, the proposed building envelope amendment will have sufficient buffering between it and adjacent properties in the form of existing vegetation and landscaping plan. The proposed envelope does move closer to the exposed side of the ridgeline, however, through 3- dimensional visual analysis and that the proposed envelope is contained within existing vegetation, it is not expected that the ridge line impact of the proposed change would be significant. [+] FINDING: [Section I.05.3.vii.l.] 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 amendment has been sent, or is required by eolo ic or other hazard considerations. STANDARD: [Section 1.0S.3.vii.2.] - The envelope does not adversely affect wildlife corridors. Wildlife corridor easements do not affect the parcel. Both a trail and utility easement and a blanket ski, utility, drainage, and equestrian easement exist on the eastern portion of the lot which would be unaffected by the proposed amendment. [+) FINDING: [Section I.05.3.vii.2.] The envelo e does NOT adversel effect wildlife corridors. STANDARD: [Section 1.0S.3.vii.3.] - The envelope change does not adversely impact ridgelines nor create any increase in impacts to ridgelines. The topography of the lot is such that the predominant ridge line faces east and runs north to south. The proposed building envelope moves closer to this ridgeline. However, the envelope would still be contained within existing vegetation on the property. Also, through visual 3- dimensional analysis done by the Eagle County GIS department, it does not appear that the envelope amendment would affect impacts to ridgelines. STANDARD: [Section 1.0S.3.viiA.] - The envelope amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. The Cordillera PUD Guide states that the "building envelopes [are] specifically identified for each lot to minimize impacts". Impacts specifically identified for consideration in conjunction with an amended final plat are ridgelines and view corridors. Given the discussion above, Staff 13 8/29/06 finds that the proposed building envelope does not significantly impact view corridors or ridgeline impacts and would therefore be consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. It may also be noted that the wildfire hazard rating for the area where the existing building envelope is located and proposed is Moderate. [+] FINDING: [Section 1.05.3.vii.4.] The enve\o e amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. STANDARD: [Section 1.0S.3.vii.5.] - The envelope amendment is not an alteration of a restrictive plat note. There are no relevant plat notes. In/a] FINDING: [Section l.05.3.vii.5.] The envelo e amendment is NOT an alteration of a restrictive lat note. DISCUSSION: Mr. Palmer presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included the applicants request, chronology, and vicinity map, current plat of Lot 1 and explanation of surrounding land uses. The applicant requested a change to the building envelope. They believe the amendment is necessary in order to accommodate a house design in compliance with the Cordillera PUD as well as improve property access and topography. Several photos where shown that illustrated the existing lot lines. A 3-dimensional analysis was shown to illustrate various views from surrounding lots, ridgeline and I-70 and Hwy 6. Mr. Palmer indicated that staff recommended approval. Matt Reid, Vail Capitol Partners spoke. He stated that the existing envelope was laid out in such a manner that it would be prohibitive to getting any type of structure passed by the Cordillera Design Review Board. They would be mitigating some of the density issues. The square footage would remain the same. The applicant's goal is to gain a usable footprint with good driveway access. Nanette Kyte, spoke on behalf of John and Judith M. Pachi. Ms. Kyte stated that she believes the plat that was presented to the Cordillera Design Review Board was off scale, this would put the building envelope would be much closer than proposed. Joy Maddox, spoke on behalf of Barbara Pessel, Lot 1 resident. Ms. Pessel believes that the amendment would result in a loss in vegetation and impact their only view corridor. Mr. Reid stated that the Cordillera DRB had been informed and had approved the building envelope proposal. The amendment would also accommodate outdoor usage. Mr. Palmer stated that some of the vegetation between the properties would be affected. Commissioner Menconi wondered if a compromise could be met. Ms. Kyte stated that she believed the applicant could put the same shape of home down where the original building envelope was away from the ridgeline. This would not impact the Pessel's total view corridor. They don't have a problem with the shape of the home, it's the location. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Palmer ifhe was aware of the opposition from the neighbors. Mr. Palmer stated that he was aware of the opposition but it was his opinion after several visits to the property that the change would not adversely affect the adjacent properties. Mr. Reid stated that the applicant might be able to omit the top northeast corner. Ms. Maddox expressed concern for the proposed two-story deck, which would be directly facing the backyard of the Passel home. Chairman Runyon stated that because the property owners are opposing the change, he doesn't believe there's enough evidence to illustrate a need for change. Commissioner Menconi wonders if the Cordillera DRB used view corridors as a consideration. Mr. Palmer stated that they do consider view corridors. He believes the existing vegetation is dense and the change would not affect the neighbors view corridor. 14 8/29/06 Ms. Kyte stated that the Pachi's view would not be affected to the west; the proposed home would just be closer. Mr. Reid stated that he would be willing to work a compromise and remove the northeast corner of the building envelope. Mr. Morris suggested an approval subject to the staff determining the distance. Ms. Kyte requested that the building envelope be consistence with the total building package including the two-story deck. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. AFP-00230 Cordillera Lot 1, Filing 4, incorporating the staff findings and making it subject to staff approval with regards to the compromise of the northeast corner being changed and any decking be taken into account and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone stated that any decking would not be removed, just taken into account. This would amend the exterior of the building envelope to show a reduction on the northeast corner. SUF-00018 Sweetwater Ranch pun Bob Narracci, Planning Department ACTION: To create a lot for use as a ski lake, one residential lot and open space LOCATION: Dotsero South side of Interstate-70 and U.S. Highway 6 adjacent to the east bound on- ramp of Interstate-70. FILE NO. / PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: SUF-00018 / Subdivision Final Plat Sweetwater Ranch / Mike Young Owner Isom & Associates / Stephen Isom STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: A final plat to subdivide the subject 41.737 acre Sweetwater Ranch property into: 1) Lot 1 (20.776 acres) - The existing water skiing lake and ancillary uses such as ski boat storage, boat slips, changing rooms, restroom facilities and picnic area. 2) Lot 2 (16.161 acres) - Lot 2 comprises the land area surrounding the water skiing lake and encompasses an existing structure that is an ancillary residential use. This application also contemplates, on Lot 2, a residential building site for one single-family home and one accessory dwelling unit; both of which are currently allowed under the existing 'Resource' zoning., and; 3) Lot 3 (4.80 acres) - Private Open Space. The 'open space' correlates to the Eagle River, as well as portions of the north and south banks of the Eagle River. 2. STAFF REPORT A. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-280. B.5.b(3), Final Plat for Subdivision - Action bv the Board of County Commis~ IS 8/29/06 The Final Plat DOES conform to the approved Preliminary Plan for Subdivision for the Sweetwater Ranch Planned Unit Development, and Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e, Subdivision Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following findings are made: (1) Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan; (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES 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; (3) Spatial Patterns Shall Be Efficient. 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. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines ARE sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions ARE allowed only when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. (4) Suitability for Development. 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. (5) Compatible with Surrounding Uses. As previously found with the PUD Sketch Plan, PUD Preliminary Plan, and the PUD Preliminary Plan Amendment; this proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. (6) Conformance with Preliminary Plan Approval. All conditions of approval established with the Preliminary Plan have been satisfied. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included a vicinity map and several photos ofthe property. The applicant's request is to subdivide a 41.737-acre property in to three lots. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the lot was being split for tax reasons. Mr. Narracci stated that the applicant would like to subdivide for liability reasons. They would like to remove the ski lake from the balance of the property. 16 8/29/06 Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. SUF -00018, incorporating the Staff findings, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00062 St. Clare of Assisi PUD Joe Forinash, Planning Department ACTION: Amend PUD to allow existing (16) and proposed (14) employee housing rental units to be condominiumized and sold separately to employees of St. Clare and other qualified buyers. LOCATION: 31710 & 31720 Hwy 6 and 24 (south ofHwy 6, east of Square Creek Road) FILE NO./PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PDA-00062 / PUD Amendment Archdiocese of Denver St. Clare of Assisi Parish Kevin Wall (Parish Administrator) Brian O'Reilly, Esq. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions (S-O) PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: The Planning Commission sought clarification of the need for the change, whether the proposed change would still address the initial goals for the employee housing, any likely unintended consequences, and what the initial sales price of the units would be. St. Clare representatives reported that most of the units are currently rented to residents of the community at-large, since the teachers that have live in the units have preferred to buy their homes and have moved elsewhere in the County. The sales price initially contemplated is $240,000 per unit. The Planning Commission also inquired regarding when the CCRs would be drawn up. There was some consensus that the units should also be available for purchase by employees ofthe Vail Valley Medical Center and various non-profits in the community. With these additions regarding eligibility, the availability for sale ofthe units would still meet the need in the community for affordable housing. The rationale seems sound, but the details of the deed restriction need to be worked out. In addition, Eagle County has the administration of these programs "down pat". 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: An amendment to the PUD Guide which would allow the 16 existing and 14 proposed employee housing rental units to be condominiumized and sold separately to employees of St. Clare and other qualified buyers. The housing units are located on the Tract A portion of the PUD. B. CHRONOLOGY: 1996 - Zone change to PUD and PUD Preliminary Plan approved for St. Clare of Assisi PUD. 1996 - Final plat approved for St. Clare of Assisi PUD. 1997 - Reviewed by Planning Commission to ensure that the proposed phases were in conformance with the Preliminary Plan. 1999 - Site layout, architecture, and so on, were reviewed by Planning Commission. 17 8/29/06 2000 - Early Learning Center, employee housing, elementary school landscaping plan and re-location of the soccer field were reviewed by Planning Commission. C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Undeveloped; Church and school/Resource; PUD West: Open space / PUD North: Church and school / PUD South: Undeveloped / Resource Existing Zoning: PUD Total Area: 20.12 acres Water: Edwards Metropolitan District Sewer: Upper Eagle Valley Sanitation District Access: U.S. Highway 6 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department . No comment Eagle County Housing Department [Verbal comments from the Director of Housing] . The deed restrictions should be identical to those in place for Miller Ranch in the Berry Creek Miller Ranch PUD. . In the interest of consistent application of the deed restrictions, Eagle County should administer the deed restriction program. Other Referrals have been made to Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Holy Cross Energy, Edwards Metro District, KN Energy, Qwest. B. FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section S-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. All of the real property is owned by the Archdiocese of Denver, which has consented to the application by the St. Clare of Assisi Parish. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section S-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 18 8/29/06 use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3- 320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule",Jor the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. The proposed amendment would continue to allow multi-family residential uses on the site. The only difference would be in the form of ownership of the units. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] All of the proposed additional uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. No changes in dimensional limitations are proposed as part of this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section S-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 Loadinf! Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkinf! and Loading Standards. applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. less The (such The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the adequacy of off-street parking and loading. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found at the time that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved that adequate, safe and convenient parking and loading was being provided. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the adequacy of the existing off-street parking and loading. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section S-240.F.3.e (S)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and 19 8/29/06 surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the landscaping within the PUD. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the approved PUD Preliminary Plan HAS been determined to have complied with the standards in effect at the time the Preliminary Plan was approved. With the recommended condition, the proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT impact existing landscaping or require additional landscaping. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing signs nor require additional restrictions on sign other than those already provided in the St. Clare of Assisi PUD Guide. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in the PUD Guide, currently in effect for the St. Clare of Assisi PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section S-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for P UD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate facilities were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, nor will it affect the location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate facilities were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the provision of adequate facilities with respect to potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, or location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, 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 20 8/29/06 of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate improvements were to be made. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely effect the adequacy of these improvements nor warrant additional improvements. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate improvements were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect improvements 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed amendment to convert the rented units to individually owned units will not adversely affect the compatibility with the surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD HAS been determined to be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect this compatibility. STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section S-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The following analysis with respect to the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM applies only to the changes proposed in the PUD Amendment, as submitted by the Applicant. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Environmental Quali Open Spacel Development Recreation Affordable Housin Transportation Communit Services FLUM Conformance x x 21 8/29/06 x x x x x Affordable Housing - The workforce housing provided pursuant to this Pun amendment would continue to be located near local work centers, be restricted to local residents and include long term price controls, and contribute to diversity and sizes of dwelling units. The PUD amendment would not result in a reduction in the number of attainable workforce housing units for sale or rent, but would result in a conversion of renter-occupied units to owner-occupied units. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County=s vision for housing are: ~ Housing is a community-wide issue ~ Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . ~ Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes ~ Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success ~ It is important to preserve existing local residents housing ~ Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county ~ Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM YES NO N/A l. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and x 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 x one average wage job 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is x primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local x residents 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference x 22 8/29/06 ~ ITEM YES NO N/A will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits x on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue t== It has previously been found that the PUD is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed PUD Amendment would continue to provide workforce housing, but would result in a conversion of renter-occupied units to owner-occupied units. Staff also finds that the proposed PUD Amendment is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. STANDARD: Phasing [Section S-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Phasing is not required for this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT required for this PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. a. Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty- three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. i. Areas that Do Not Count as Oven Svace. 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 Oven 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 23 8/29/06 not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. b. Imvrovements 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. Orffanization. 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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate common recreation and open space were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of these amenities. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It has previously been determined that the development DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect common recreation and open space within the PUD with respect to (a) minimum area; (b) improvements required; (c) continuing use and maintenance; or (d) organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section S-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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate protection of natural resources were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on natural resources. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS previously been determined that applicable analysis documents were adequately considered prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. With the recommended condition of approval, adequate protection of natural resources HAS been provided for. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section S-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. See discussion above, under Consistency with Comprehensive Plan [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (I)] The PUD IS consistent with the Com rehensive Plan, incIudin , but not limited to, the Future Land Use Ma 24 8/29/06 The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section S-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, findings were made to warrant the zone district change to PUD based on the applicable Land Use Regulations. The proposed PUD Amendment is also consistent with the provisions of Article 3, Zone Districts, of the current Land Use Regulations. Article 4, Site Development Standards When the Preliminary Plan was approved, it had been demonstrated that applicable site development standards had been satisfied. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the earlier finding. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS previously been found that the development complied with the regulations, policies and guidelines of the Land Use Regulations applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect compliance with these standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section S-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development would have an efficient spatial pattern. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the spatial pattern in any way that causes inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS previously been found that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD satisfied the requirements of the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time with respect to efficient spatial patterns. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT adversely affect the spatial patterns in the area. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section S-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. 2S 8/29/06 When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the area was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment does not alter the suitability of the property. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been determined that the site was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT alter the suitability of the property. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (S)] - 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. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS previously been determined that the development is compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the compatibility ofthe resulting development with surrounding uses. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." The Applicant has provided hat portion of the PUD Guide which would require amendment. If this PUD amendment is approved, a complete PUD Guide, with the approved revisions, will be required prior to approval of the Board resolution memorializing the amendment. At that time the resolution is approved, a favorable finding will be applicable. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant IS required to submit a PUD Guide which incorporates the necessary revisions to effect the proposed PUD Amendment Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m., Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] - No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon afinding by the County. . . that (1) the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The proposed PUD Amendment satisfies the requirements of this Standard. [+] FINDING: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F. 3.m . ] The proposed PUD Amendment (1) IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation ofthe entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. c. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 26 8/29/06 Housine: Guidelines. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish a framework for discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. The Housing Guidelines were subsequently amended on July 12, 2005, by Board Resolution 2005-90. The sole purpose of this PUD amendment is to allow the condominiumization of the existing and approved housing units on the site so that they may be sold individually. Presently, the units are required to be rented in priority order first to persons employed within the St. Clare of Assisi Parish, second to persons employed full time in Eagle County and finally to members of the general public for not less than 30 days. The proposed priority for the sale of the units would be as follows: Any entity wholly owned by the Archdiocese of Denver (the owner of the site); Employees of the Archdiocese (presumably including employees of the St. Clare of Assisi Parish); Employees of any municipality or quasi-governmental entity located within Eagle County; Persons employed at least 30 hours within Eagle County; Retired persons over age sixty (60) who have worked in Eagle County for at least five years. Full-time residents of Eagle County. Price appreciation ofthe units would be limited to 4 percent per year, and improvements would be limited to no more than 10 percent of the purchase price over each ten year period. The proposed Deed Restriction Agreement is similar in many respects to other deed restrictions of this type in Eagle County. The Director of Housing has requested that, for the sake of consistency among all such deed restriction in Eagle County, the deed restrictions for St. Clare of Assisi be identical to those in place for Miller Ranch in the Berry Creek Miller Ranch PUD. As proposed, the Archdiocese would administer the deed restriction program. The Director of Housing has requested that, for the sake of consistent application of the deed restrictions, the deed restriction program be administered by Eagle County. As a condition of approval, the applicable deed restrictions and other applicable elements of the housing program should be revised to be essentially identical to those in place for Miller Ranch in the Berry Creek Miller Ranch PUD and the deed restriction program should be administered by Eagle County. [Condition #2] DISCUSSION: Mr. Forinash presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included the applicant's request, vicinity map, background, master plan and several photos of the housing units. The applicant is requesting approval of an amendment to the PUD guide that would allow the 16 existing and 14 proposed employee housing rental units to be condominiumized and sold separately to employees of St. Clare and other qualified buyers. Mr. Forinash explained the proposed deed restrictions. Staff recommends that the applicable deed restrictions and other applicable elements of the housing program be revised to be essentially identical to those in place for Miller Ranch in the Berry Creek Miller Ranch PUD and that the deed restriction program be administered by Eagle County. If Eagle County were to administer the program it would make it much easier if there were a constant set of deed restrictions in place through out the county. Documents would have to be satisfactory to the Director of Housing and County Attorney. The applicant has expressed to staff that they believe that the deed restrictions that are applicable to Miller Ranch are complex and would not be appropriate for this development. Brian O'Reilly, Attorney for the applicant spoke. He explained the reason for the application. He stated that they agree with the proposed conditions but requested changing some language. He's not crazy about the fact that the requirements of who could buy and sell are in a set of rules that could be changed. He believes that trying to ask the Archdiocese to accept a set of rules that could be changed in the future is unacceptable. The applicant 27 8/29/06 has to know what they are agreeing to. He believes that the Archdiocese being a neighbor would want some control if they were not happy with the tenants, the owners, and enforcement of the rules. Commissioner Stone wondered who they would prefer to be the administrator. Mr. O'Reilly stated that the Archdiocese would like a shared control and retain some enforcement rights. Commissioner Stone stated that he believes that staff s condition was meant to help ease the administration responsibility. Mr. O'Reilly stated that the applicant doesn't want to lose 100% of the control forever. They would like the ability to keep their list of priorities. KT Gazunis, Housing Director stated that if the wording in the resolution were changed to be essentially similar to those in place, as opposed to identical, it would cover everything. She stated that they are essentially taking affordable rental housing and converting it into affordable work force housing to sell with similar requirements to those at Miller Ranch. Commissioner Menconi wondered why they would want any kind of deed restrictions on the units. Mr. O'Reilly stated that they are subject to the existing PUD which restricts the units to rental and gives a similar prioritization as to who can rent. They are interested in serving those same individuals. The sales price for the units would be $240,000 per unit. Ms. Gazunis stated that the Housing Department supports the pricing. Kevin Wall, Parish Administrator spoke. He stated that part of the goal in selling the units would be to payoff money owed to the Archdiocese. The Archdiocese would not consider any other projects until the dept is paid. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stone moved that the Board approve File No. PDA-00062 St. Clare of Assisi PUD, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. 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. 2. The applicable deed restrictions and other applicable elements of the housing program shall be revised to be similar to those in place for Miller Ranch in the Berry Creek Miller Ranch PUD and the deed restriction program shall be administered by Eagle County with an acceptable oversight by the Archdiocese. The Final wording would be worked out with the Staff and County Attorney. 3. Prior to presentation to the Board of County Commissioners of a resolution pertaining to this PUD amendment, the Applicant shall provide a revised PUD Guide, deed restriction and related documents, Condominium Declaration, and Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CCRs), as necessary, which are satisfactory to the Director of Housing and the County Attorney. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00143 Gracious Savior Lutheran Church Joe Forinash, Planning Department ACTION: Special Use Permit to allow the Eagle County School District (RES OJ) to relocate the existing pre-school programs from Edwards Elementary and Avon Elementary Schools to this site. LOCATION: Southeast corner of Intersection ofHwy 6 and Lake Creek Road FILE NO./PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: ZS-00143 / Special Use Permit Gracious Savior Lutheran Church Gracious Savior Lutheran Church 28 8/29/06 REPRESENTATIVE: Pylman and Associates, Inc. (Rick Pylman) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions (S-O) PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: The Planning Commission discussed whether there would be a need for the number of pre-school children to exceed the 60 that have been proposed. Karen Strakbein, representing the School District reported that two of the modular units would have two IS-child pre-school spaces and the third modular would be teacher space. If needed, the District could create a fifth IS-child pre-school space in the teacher's modular, resulting in a total of 7 S children. If so, a total of 11-12 staff persons would be required. The Planning Commission supported increasing the maximum number of pre-school children and staff persons to accommodate this possibility. There was also some discussion regarding whether fencing was necessary to keep the pre-school children from wandering from the site. It was determined that, while fencing might be beneficial, it was not necessary. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Special Use Permit application to allow the Eagle County School District to relocate to this site the pre-school programs that have been located at Edwards Elementary School and Avon Elementary School utilizing three of the four existing modular units which have been utilized by Vail Christian High School. The Applicant has confirmed that, contrary to the application material, the fourth modular unit will not be used for the pre-school program and has been removed from the site. B. CHRONOLOGY: 1983 - Special Use Permit approved for a church, community center, day care center and parsonage on this site. 1997 - Temporary amendment approved to the existing Special Use Permit to allow three modular classrooms to be added to the site for use as by Vail Christian High School. 2003 - Amendment approved to the existing Special Use Permit to allow the addition of a fourth modular unit and extension of the special use permit to operate the private high school until 30 June 2006 or until a permanent facility is available for Vail Christian High School. [Note: Vail Christian High School will relocate to a new facility at the Vail Christian High School PUD further west of this site on Highway 6.] C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Vacant / PUD West: Agricultural/Resource North: Highway 6, gravel mine / Resource South: Vacant / PUD Existing Zoning: RSL (Residential Suburban Low Density) Total Area: 2.017 acres Water: Edwards Metro District Sewer: Eagle River Sanitation District Access: Lake Creek Road, U.S. Highway 6 2. STAFF REPORT 29 8/29/06 A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering . The site includes access to Highway 6. A copy of the existing CDOT access permit for the site should be provided and it should be verified that the proposed change of use will not increase traffic in a way that would necessitate a new access permit. . The proposal does not appear to include any new construction on the site of additional parking lots, drives, buildings, or other site improvements. No construction plans for site improvements were included with the application, and are not required if no site construction is proposed. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist . The wildfire hazard rating for Gracious Savior Lutheran Church is Low. This rating is based on fuel types present, topography, slope, access, and water supply/ . The fuel types present on this site which have a very low combustion potential and the absence of slope contribute to a low rating. ECO Trails . No comment. Eagle River Fire Protection District . There are no fire department issues associated with this request. Additional Referral Aeencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Road and Bridge Department, Eagle County Weed & Pest Division, ECO Transit, Eagle County Ambulance District, Eagle County School District (Administration), Eagle County School District (Transportation), Colorado Department of Transportation (Local and Grand Junction Offices), Homestead HOA. B: STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan [Section S-2S0.B.l] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standardsfor building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CIl ~CIl ~ CIl ...J ~ 0 ~ ~ E- ~ ~ 1ii E-~ 1ii u uffl Uu 0 CIl ...J ~ ::s ~> CIl ~ ~~ ~ ::E """ -u 0 ~ z>- ~ 0 ::Ep::: E-P::: ~~ ...J o~ Z CIl~ p::: ...J~ E- OE- Ci5 ~CIl ~ p;::- ~ ~ Zo 00 Ci5 _...J ~ 6 > OCll ~ ~o E- ...JCIl 1ii ~~ ~ &l~ 0 25~ <: ~~ ...J 0 0 ::r: ~ CIl ~CI ~ CONFORMS x x x 30 8/29/06 DOES NOT CONFORM MIXED CONFORMANCE X NA x x x x x x Governance. Eagle County's Core Values have been appropriately communicated to the applicant through the planning process. The community at large is aware of the proposal, and has been provided adequate opportunity to be involved with the decision making process. Development. With the recommended conditions, the proposed use preserves a high quality of life, a diverse and sustainable economy, the area's scenic beauty, a healthy natural environment and a vibrant, well designed community. However, the proposed use should be considered temporary until a more appropriate facility is located elsewhere. Economic Resources. The proposed use generally contributes in the short-run to a sustainable economy. Housing. No workforce housing is proposed which is directly associated with this special use permit. Infrastructure and Services. This policy is not applicable. Water Resources. This policy is not applicable. Wildlife Resources. This policy is not applicable. Sensitive Lands. This policy is not applicable. Environmental Quality. This policy is not applicable. Future Land Use Map (FLUM). This site is located in an area designated on the FLUM as Public Services and Facilities, which may also include semi-public uses such as schools and churches. Consequently, the proposed development is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. STANDARD: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. During the review of the previous special use permit, it was noted that other uses in the immediate vicinity south of Highway 6 are residential, open space and agricultural. Both schools and churches are appropriate uses in residential neighborhoods and no problems regarding compatibility have previously been identified. Nonetheless, with both the church and the modular units being used for school purposes, the site is being fully utilized and there is little open space between the buildings and adjacent uses. Public rights-of-way exist on the north and west (Highway 6 and Lake Creek Road, respectively). Open space tracts owned by the Homestead Owners Association are immediately adjacent to this 31 8/29/06 site to the east and along a portion of the south property line. In addition, a residential lot also owned by Gracious Savior Lutheran Church is also adjacent to the south. This latter lot could, however, at some point be built on and used for residential purposes. While the operation of a pre-school program would generally be a compatible use on this site in the short run, it is not an appropriate use on a permanent basis. Consequently, as a condition of approval, this Special Use Permit should expire no later than 30 June 2011 or the termination of School District operations on this site, whichever occurs first. [Condition # 1] [+) FINDING: Compatibility [Section 5-250.8.2] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section S-2SO.B.3] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. When the fourth modular unit was added to the site in 2003, the maximum total impervious area for the site was exceeded. This was resolved by using in the calculation of the impervious coverage ratio the area of Lot 4, in Filing 3 of the Homestead PUD, which was vacant and adjacent to the south of the church/school site and is owned by Gracious Savior Lutheran Church. With the removal of the fourth modular unit, this is no longer an issue. From the outset, permitting Vail Christian Schools (VCS) to operate a high school on this site was intended to be a temporary use until VCS could develop a permanent site. The initial Special Use Permit approved in December 1997 was valid until June 2003, a total of five full school years. In 2003, the Special Use Permit was extended until June 2006 or until a permanent location for VCS was found, whichever occurred first, and has now expired. The concern about the permanent nature of the school on this site was related to the intensity of the use of the site. While the earlier use of the site for a high school has not created any particular problems that Staff is aware of, the concern regarding the intensity of uses continues to have merit. Consequently, the proposed use by the Eagle County School District should be limited in time and be considered a transitional arrangement until the School District is able to find a permanent location for its mid- valley pre-school programs. As a condition of approval, this Special Use Permit should expire no later than 30 June 2011 or the termination of School District operations on this site, whichever occurs first. [Condition # 1] The School District proposes that its activities under this special use permit would include up to 60 pre-school students and 9 staff members. By comparison, the Vail Christian High School operation had 89 students, 10 full time faculty, 3 part time faculty and 2 administration personnel. As a condition of approval, the pre-school operation on this site should be limited to 60 pre- school children and nine staff members. [Condition # 2] The proposed Special Use meets all other standards for the RSL zone district. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.8.3] With the recommended condition, the proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards of the zone district in which it is located, and DOES meet the standards a licable to the articular use, as identified in Section 3-3 I 0, Review Standards A licable to Particular 32 8/29/06 Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section S-2S0.BA] - The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. The Special Use Permit under which the Vail Christian High School operated since 1998 limited the number of student vehicles to be parked on-site to 40. The parking requirement for the pre- school operation would be limited primarily to staff and parents dropping off and picking up students. (See the discussion below under Division 4-1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards.) Consequently, the impact due to traffic and parking is expected to be less than has been the case. No other significant adverse impacts are anticipated. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4] With the recommended condition, the design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section S-2S0.B.S] - The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. No adverse environmental impacts are noted or expected to occur. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities [Section S-2S0.B.6] - The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The site is adequately served by public facilities. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Site Development Standards [Section S-2S0.B.7] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4: Site Development Standards. Pluses and minuses in the margin indicate where staff has found that the proposed development meets the Article 4 standard ([ + D or does not meet the standard ([ -D, or the standard does not apply ([ nla D. [+] Division 4-1 , Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards 33 8/29/06 While the proposed use is not a day care center as that term is defined in the Land Use Regulations, certain aspects of the operation are similar, including the spaces needed for parking and for drop-off and pick-up of children. For a day care center, the Land Use Regulations require one off-street parking space for each employee in addition to the parking requirements for the principal use of the site. In addition, a day care center is required to have one designated drop-off/pick-up space for every six children which are to be available during operating hours of the center. Even with the larger number of high school students and the larger faculty and administrative staff for the earlier high school operation, parking was deemed to be adequate, even considering the week day parking needs of the church. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, there should be no fewer nine parking spaces reserved for pre- school staff members and lO parking and for drop-off and pick-up of children available at all times when the pre-school is open. [Condition #3] Otherwise, the site is adequate to meet the parking and loading and snow storage standards during the normal hours of operation of the school. [+] Division 4-2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards Landscaping has previously been provided on this site and appears to be adequate. No additional landscaping requirements are necessary. [+] Division 4-3, Sign Regulations All signs will be required to conform to the Sign Code. [+] Division 4-4. Natural Resource Protection Standards [+] Section 4-410. Wildlife Protection The site is not located in any mapped critical wildlife areas. [+] Section 4-420. Development in Areas Subiect to Geologic Hazards No geologic hazards have been identified. [+] Section 4-430. Development in Areas Subiect to Wildfire Hazards No significant wildfire hazard is noted on the site. [+] Section 4-440. Wood Burning Controls The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [n/a] Section 4-4S0. Ridgeline Protection This site is not located on land designated on the Eagle County Ridgeline Protection Map. [n/a] Section 4-460. Environmental Impact Report An Environmental Impact Report is not required for this Special Use Permit. [+] Division 4-S, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. [+] Section 4-S20: Noise and Vibration Standards The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. 34 8/29/06 [+] Section 4-S30: Smoke and Particulate Standards The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [+] Section 4-540: Heat, Glare. Radiation and Electrical Interference The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [+] Section 4-SS0: Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [+] Section 4-S60: Water Ouality Standards This Section is not applicable. [n/a] Division 4-6. Improvements Standards [n/a] Section 4-620: Roadwav Standards Existing road improvements will be adequate. [n/a] Section 4-630: Sidewalk and Trail Standards No required sidewalks or trails are being recommended as part of this Special Use Permit. [n/a] Section 4-640: Irrigation System Standards This Section is not applicable. [n/a] Section 4-6S0: Drainage Standards This Section is not applicable. [n/a] Section 4-660: Excavation and Grading Standards This Section is not applicable. [n/a] Section 4-66S: Erosion Control Standards This Section is not applicable. [n/a] Section 4-670: Utility and Lighting Standards This Section is not applicable. [n/a] Section 4-680: Water Supply Standards This Section is not applicable. [n/a] Section 4-690: Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards This Section is not applicable. [+] Division 4-7. Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. [n/a] Section 4-700: School Land Dedication Standards Since this Special Use Permit application does not involve the subdivision ofland, the provisions of this Section are not applicable. [+] Section 4-710: Road Impact Fees The change in the nature of the school use - from 89 high school students, 13 full and part-time faculty and two administrators to 60 pre-school students and nine staff persons 3S 8/29/06 appears to represent a reduction in "traffic generating development" as that term is used in this Section. Consequently, payment of a road impact fee should not be necessary. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. I STANDARD: Other Provisions [Section S-2S0.B.8] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The proposed use complies with this standard. [+] FINDING: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. DISCUSSION: Mr. Forinash presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included the applicant's request, vicinity maps, background, site map, and photos of the area. The applicant is requesting approval of a Special Use Permit that would allow the Eagle County School District to relocate the pre-school programs that have been located at Edwards Elementary School and Avon Elementary School utilizing three of the four existing modular units, which have been utilized by Vail Christian High School. The program was initially proposed to accommodate up to 60 pre-school children and require 9 staff persons. The Planning Commission recommended the special use permit be time limited and limited to 7S pre-school students and 12 staff. He indicated that both the Staff and Planning Commission findings were positive and recommended approval with conditions. Rick Pylman, representative for the applicant spoke. He explained that the pre-school program had been on the chopping block and this option would allow the program to continue. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stone commended the applicant for coming up with the solution. He believes it compliments the area. Commissioner Menconi stated that it's great that the area is being utilized for educational purposes. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. ZS-00143, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. This Special Use Permit shall expire no later than June 30, 2011, or the termination of School District operations on this site, whichever occurs first. 2. The pre-school operation on this site shall be limited to 75 pre-school children and 12 staff members. 3. There shall be no fewer 12 parking spaces reserved for pre-school staff members and .w 13 parking and for drop-off and pick-up of children available at all times when the pre-school is open. [Note: The Planning Commission recommended 10 parking spaces for drop-off and pick-up of children. Staff recommends 13 parking spaces be required per the Day Care Center standards of the Land Use Regulations.] 36 8/29/06 4. 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. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SUP-00009 and ZC-00083 Emma Farms Subdivision Joe Forinash, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from 7/17/06 Zone change from Resource (R) to Agricultural Residential (AR) and preliminary plan approval for a subdivision for S residential lots in Eagle County portion of parcel of from 6014 acres each around a 6S acre agricultural open space parcel in both Eagle and Pitkin Counties. Agricultural uses would be preserved. Water would be from wells; wastewater treatment would be by individual systems. LOCATION: 3004 Emma Road, West of Hooks Lane (south ofEl Jebel, west of Basalt) at the Eagle-Pitkin County Line. TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: OWNERS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Emma Farms Subdivision SUP-00009 / Subdivision Preliminary Plan ZC-00083 / Zone Change Conrad N. Cerise; Lavania Cerise; Rory N. Cerise; Lucy Cerise Emma Farms, LLC The Land Studio, Inc. / Doug Pratte STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Change: Subdivision Preliminary Plan: Approval Approval with conditions PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Zoning Change: Approval (4-0) Subdivision Preliminary Plan: Approval with conditions (3-1) PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Landscaping was a major point of discussion, primarily to provide visual buffering of the dwellings and related structures. However, in the interest of creating a sense of over-landscaping around the structures, selective landscaping in terms of numbers and types of vegetation was thought to be important, including the use of deciduous trees such as cottonwood. On the other hand, the use of taller grasses up to near the edge of the access drives was thought to be a sensitive way to buffer these improvements. Some Commissioners thought that the maximum floor area of 8,2S0 square feet is too much and should be reduced to 6,000 to 6,SOO square feet. The Applicant clarified that the proposed 8,2S0 square feet included garages, basements and any covered space in excess of S feet in height. It was noted that the maximum size of agricultural buildings in the accessory building envelopes would be 1,200 square feet. Whether any accessory dwelling units (ADU) should be required to be within the primary structure was also discussed as a means to limit the apparent extent of the buildings on the site. The Commissioners inquired whether the access through Pitkin County which would serve Lots 1, 4 and S has been approved. The Commissioners also considered whether the access drives, including that which passes through Pitkin County, should meet driveway standards for the respective Counties or be required to be constructed to meet Eagle County road standards. There was some sentiment that the proposed construction of the north access drive is appropriate since visual impacts are important, although one Commissioner preferred that the 37 8/29/06 drive along the north property line would better be eliminated altogether in favor of an extended south drive which would access all of the lots. The contemplated agricultural uses for the area within the proposed conservation easement were discussed. The Applicant clarified that the proposed agricultural building envelopes within that area were provided for in the draft conservation easement. In response to a request from Leroy Duroux that the final plat for this subdivision include an easement for an existing irrigation ditch that runs along the west side of Hooks Lane. The initial motion by the Commission failed by a 2-2 vote. This motion which failed differed from the successful motion primarily with respect to the maximum size of structures. The unsuccessful motion would have limited structures to 6,SOO square feet for the primary dwellings plus 1,000 square feet for accessory dwelling units and 1,200 square feet for agricultural buildings. The successful motion limited the area for all buildings to 8,2S0 square feet per lot, including the agricultural buildings, and requires any ADU s to be part of the primary structure on the lot. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The proposed development consists ofa cluster subdivision of five home sites in Eagle County ranging in size from 6 acres to 14 acres, situated around approximately SO.4 acres of agricultural hay meadow also located in Eagle County. The total area of the parcel is 136.2 acres, of which 106.4 acres are located in Eagle County. An additional 28.8 acres in common ownership is adjacent to the south in Pitkin County and is proposed for two residential dwelling units and similar agricultural uses. This subdivision preliminary plan application consists only of that land located in Eagle County. Two points of access are proposed, one serving the residential lots near the north property line (Lots 2 and 3) and another, which is located partially in Pitkin County, serving the balance ofthe residential lots in Eagle County (Lots1, 4 and S). However, the access roads/drives do not join to form an access loop through the property . B. CHRONOLOGY: November 2005 - Subdivision Sketch Plan approved. C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Agricultural; residential / AL; RR West: Agricultural/Resource North: Agricultural; residential/Resource; PUD South: Agricultural; residential / AFR-1O (Pitkin County Zone District) Existing Zoning: Resource Proposed Zoning: Agricultural Residential (AR) Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: S (in Eagle County) Total Area: Minimum Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: Percent Usable Open Space: 106.4 acres (plus 28.8 acres in Pitkin County) 6 acres (residential) 10 acres for residential use No common recreation and open space is proposed 38 8/29/06 Water: Sewer: Access: Individual or shared wells Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) Hooks Lane 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department . The "south driveway" identified on the project plans should not be permitted as a driveway and should be improved to an appropriate roadway standard. This proposed driveway will actually serve a total of 5 residential lots, with 3 lots located in Eagle County and 2 additional lots located in Pitkin County, therefore exceeding the maximum number oflots to be served by a shared driveway (maximum 3) per the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR). . The proposed driveways do not meet the requirement of ECLUR Section 4-620.1.9 for driveway turn around design and spacing. The proposed driveways and design must specifically be approved by the local fire authority having jurisdiction, or be re-designed to meet the ECLUR. . The proposed site design does not meet the requirements of ECLUR Section 4-6S0 Drainage Standards. No permanent water quality treatment measures have been provided to address pollutant and particle (i.e., sediment) removal. . The Geologic Evaluation performed by CTL Thompson identifies areas of rock fall and debris flow hazards in the areas of Lots 3, 4,S and 6 (Lot 6 on the Pitkin County portion ofthe property), contrary to statements made in Section 4-420 of the Site Development Standards discussion on Page 8 of the application materials. Rock fall and debris flow mitigation measures should be constructed by the developer of the property, and should not be left as the responsibility offuture lot owners. All mitigation measures necessary should be shown on the preliminary engineering plans for the site. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist . Most of the site has been given a Low wildfire hazard rating. However, due to topographic "chimney" features off-site to the west of the site, Lots 3, 4 and 5 are in an area rated Moderate. Town of Basalt . Due to the Planning and Zoning Commission meeting schedule, Town Staff was not able to formally present this referral to the Commission. Town Staff met with Doug Pratte, planner for the Applicant and received an update on the plan. This response also incorporates individual comments from some of the Commissioners. This letter responds to the new plan by referencing the Commission's original letter which is attached. . The Town continues to support the agricultural conservation easement and supports maintaining as large an easement area as possible. (Comment #1) . The Town supports the Applicant's reduction in density by 2 lots. The Town continues to support additional clustering subject to compliance with the proposed agricultural zoning. The justification for the zoning change and related increases in allowed density should be more fully established. (Comment #2.a) . Building envelope restrictions allow only agricultural buildings in the secondary envelopes which are subject to greater rock fall and debris flow hazards. Additional definition of agricultural buildings should be included in the PUD Control/Design document or clarified through the underlying agricultural zoning. Avoidance of hazard areas is still recommended while it is noted that the PUD Control/Design document contains extensive guidelines on geologic hazard mitigation. These sections should be maintained as an important part of any final PUD approvals and should include requirements for additional site specific geotechnical analysis and engineered plans consistent with the PUD Control/Design Document and the recommendations of the Geologic Evaluation prepared by CTL Thompson. (Comment #2.b) . The PUD Control/Design Document contains extensive guidelines on wildlife protection and minimizing ecological impacts. These sections should be maintained as an important part of any final PUD approvals. (Comment #2.c) 39 8/29/06 . Trail issues should continue to be discussed with input from the Mid Valley Trails Committee. (Comment #2.d.& e) . Technical findings by the County and the Applicant's Water Attorneys should be part ofthe ongoing and final PUD reviews. (Comment #2.f) . The PUD Control/Design Document contains extensive guidelines on technical issues including drainage, erosion and sediment control. These sections should be maintained as an important part of any final PUD approvals. (Comment 2.g) . The Application contains size limitations for structures and accessory dwelling units on the residential lots. The Applicant proposes an 8,2S0 sq. ft. limit on homes. A maximum size of S7S0 sq. ft. would be more consistent with both the Pitkin County and the Town of Basalt limits. The PUD should also ensure that any future accessory dwelling units be located in the primary building envelope and attached to another structure. The size limits and height restrictions on agricultural and accessory buildings for the residential lots are supported. The conservation easement allows agricultural buildings within designated envelopes and should include reasonable limits on building size and height. (Comment 3) . At the next available Planning and Zoning Commission meeting we will review the past referral comments and this letter with the Commission. If there are any additions or edits from the Commission we will contact you as soon as possible. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District . General . The District understands that the proposal provided seven new lots overall, with five being in Eagle County and two in Pitkin County. The District serves both counties. The submittal provided by Eagle County shows the five lots for Eagle County but does not indicate where the other two lots will be located and it is not known presently how they will be incorporated with the rest of the infrastructure planned for the development. The development is rural in nature with the closest municipal water supply a mile away near the Basalt Industrial Center. . The applicant has provided a draft Design Guideline that has wording toward a Fire Protection Plan and Water supply within Exhibit K, which will be specifically referred to below. Access for the development as proposed will be via an all weather roadways having a width of 16 feet and having pullouts that are consistent with both Eagle County and Pitkin County standards. The applicant has been made aware of the sprinkler requirements associated with the road width and the number of buildings served as stipulated within the International Fire Code adopted by Eagle County. . Water supply for manual fire suppression is to consist of two 20,000 gallon tanks with corresponding dry hydrant assemblies. The locations of the tanks are acceptable and the hydrant located West of Lot 1 is of great benefit to the existing ranch buildings. An additional hydrant will be needed at the intersection of Hooks Lane and Lot 1 to meet the distance requirements of the applicable Fire Code provisions. The applicant has been made aware of the sprinkler requirements associated with their choice volume reduction toward water supply requirements. . Applicable Codes . The subdivision is subject to the applicable provisions of the International Fire Code as adopted by Eagle County and the Basalt Fire District. Section S03 deals with fire apparatus access that applies surface, width, grade and turning radius requirements. Section S08 and its companion Appendix B require an adequate and reliable water supply is available to all buildings within the subdivision. . The basic road specification for this application per Section 503 is an all weather maintainable surface capable of handling the imposed loads of apparatus, (7S,000 lbs), approved turnarounds and an unobstructed width of 20 feet. The fire code official is allowed to consider modification to these provisions provided all buildings are sprinklered with an approved automatic sprinkler system. . The water supply section of the International Urban Wildland Interface Code is very specific in application to all ofthe subdivision except Lot 3. The required water supply for all buildings within the subdivision is 4S,000 gallons. A reduction of SO% is allowed when buildings are provided with an approved automatic sprinkler system. The developer chose the reduction pathway. . The Code Adoption of the Basalt and Rural Fire District as well as Pitkin County both requires that all buildings over S,OOO square feet in area be sprinklered with an approved automatic sprinkler 40 8/29/06 system. Considering the potential for large buildings being allowed for this application we require that this be part of the final plat. . Conditions for approval . The application specific to the Eagle County portion with the submitted plans produced by Colorado River Engineering and the Eagle County "Design Guidelines that have been prepared specifically for Lots 1 through S" is acceptable to the Fire District provided the following conditions are complied with: . An additional hvdrant is installed along the intersection of Hooks Lane and Lot 1. In discussions with the Engineer Nathan Bell it is feasible to tie off the hydrant located at the curve west of Lot 1 and extend the line out to the intersection. This will allow responding firefighters to be within hose laying distance toward Lot 2 as well as provide an additional option of safety for fire suppression within the existing ranch complex. . Exhibit K Section B, 3,b of the Design Guidelines shall be amended to read, "All newly constructed structures shall be required to install approved automatic sprinkler systems." For the most part all residences and detached structures deemed accessory to residential use, such as garages would be sprinklered to the modified 13-D design as amended by the Eagle County Building Department. . Exhibit K Section A, 6 below the Statement, "Prior to the start of residential construction or the storage of combustible residential construction materials on the site", shall be amended to read, "The water storage tanks for emergency manual fire suppression shall be installed in the emergency tank easements located south of Lot 1 and southeast of Lot S per the following detail. . Exhibit K Section B, 3, c shall be added statin~, "For Lot 3 any fire department recommendation for individual structure water supplv and storage shall be accessible to fire department vehicles from the exterior of the structure through a Fire Department approved mechanism (such as a dry hydrant). The fire protection district prior to building application for such proiect shall determine the amount of storage capacity. . Exhibit K should have the following additional statement. "The tanks shall be kept full, maintained, and serviceable for emergency use at all times. Annual testing shall be conducted on the dry hydrant svstem to ensure operational readiness. Testing and maintenance shall comply with the provisions ofNFP A 2S, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water Based Fire Protection Systems." . The Code Adoption of the Basalt and Rural Fire District as well as Pitkin County both require that all buildings over S,OOO square feet in area be sprinklered with an approved automatic sprinkler svstem. Considering the potential for large buildings being allowed for this application we require that this be part ofthe final plat. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments . The focus of the review is on water quality protection. . Overall, NWCCOG does not have any concerns with the proposal. The applicant has made an effort to reduce impervious areas which is helpful from a water quality standpoint. The stormwater runoff analysis provides evidence that there will be very little change in hydrology due to increased . . ImpervIOUS areas. . In addition, it appears that applicant considered NWCCOG's comments on the Sketch Plan for this project and has provided drainage and erosion control design standards. Colorado Division of Wildlife [CDOW has indicated that thefollowing comments providedfor the Sketch Plan are applicable] . The Emma Farms site is primarily irrigated agricultural land and contains no critical wildlife habitat. . The property does lie adjacent to critical winter range and winter concentration areas for mule deer and elk and will see use by both species. . Black bears, mountain lions, coyotes, raccoons, skunks and a number of other animals are likely to inhabit or use the property. . While this proposal does not appear to significantly impact wildlife, steps should be taken to reduce those impacts and potential conflicts with wildlife. The recommendations in Section 7.0 41 8/29/06 (Recommendations to Minimize Ecological Impacts) of the wildlife analysis by Jonathan Lowsky of Wildlife & Wetland Solutions, LLC, will help to reduce the impacts of this proposed development. . In addition, a noxious weed monitoring and treatment plan should be implemented. Colorado Geological Survey . CGS has reviewedJhe application for Subdivision Preliminary Plan and Zone District Amendment for Emma Farms prepared by The Land Studio (S/3/06). The application contains additional or updated information, including a Geologic Evaluation prepared by CTL/Thompson (1/17/06, revised) and a Final Plat prepared by Bookcliff Survey Services (2/28/06). . Since the CGS letter dated August 24, 200S, the number oflots on the property has been reduced from nine to five. Of particular interest is the reduction of lots on the western part of the parcel from five to three. The western part of the site contains rockfall and debris flow hazard. The CTL/Thompson geologic hazard map shows debris flow hazard affecting the primary building envelope on lot Sand debris flow and rockfall hazard affecting the primary building envelope on lot 4. The proposed mitigation is a catchment structure on the order of 10 to IS vertical ft and 15 to 20 ft in width. CTLIT states this could either be a trench, berm, or a combination of both, or an MSE wall. . The following recommendations would mitigate the hazards, but should be designed once the home designs for the lots have been completed for optimal effectiveness: . Trench design should include a provision for cleanout, i.e., there should be some access to the trench for a front-end loader or backhoe. . The slopes of the trench/berm should be steep enough to prevent rocks from bounding out. . Obtaining a building permit should be contingent on providing an acceptable mitigation design; a certificate of occupancy should be contingent on satisfactory completion of the mitigation. . A plat note should state that construction on lots could require mitigation for rockfall and debris flow. Colorado State Forest Service . The CSFS maintains the low wildfire rating for Emma Farms given on September 2S, 200S. A low rating means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. . The majority of this property consists of irrigated pastureland, which greatly contributed to the low fire wildfire rating. Low housing density, lack of slope, and good road access also help keep fire danger low. . However, even with this low rating, CSFS suggests that dual access be considered and noncombustible roofing materials be used. Refer to Colorado State Extension Bulletin No. S.S28 Mountain Pine Beetle also found at www.ext.colostate.edu. Colorado Division of Water Resources . The applicant proposes to provide water service through individual wells pursuant to an augmentation plan or a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District and surface diversions under existing water rights. However, household and irrigation water use estimates were not provided. . Sewage will be through individual systems. . Inadequate information was provided concerning the physical adequacy of the water supply. . Statute requires the subdivider to submit "adequate evidence that a water supply that is sufficient in terms of quality, quality, and dependability will be available to ensure an adequate supply of water for the type of subdivision proposed". Adequate evidence is usually provided in the form of a water resource report, prepared by a professional engineer or water consultant, which addresses the quality, quantity, and dependability issues. A report of this nature was not provided. . Based on the above, it is the Division's opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(l), that material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits for the proposed wells pursuant to a court approved plan for augmentation or pursuant to the Basalt Water Conservancy District's temporary substitute supply plan. . Due to the lack of information, the Division is unable to comment on the physical adequacy of the water supply. 42 8/29/06 . Also, the use of the irrigation water rights must not result in an expansion of use, and approval of a change of water right application by the water court may be necessary if the place of use is changed. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Housing Department, Eagle County Road & Bridge Department, Eagle County Weed and Pest, Roaring Fork School District (Transportation and Administration), Mid Valley Trails Committee, Basalt Water Conservancy District, Colorado Department of Transportation (Grand Junction Office), Colorado Department of Transportation (Local Office), Water Conservation Board, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA),U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Qwest, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy, B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN C/J ~C/J ~ C/J ...l ~ 0 ~ ~ f-< ~ z ffi f-<~ <: ffi u S:lffl Uu 0 C/J ...l ~ ::E ~> C/J ~~ ::E gJ ~ i:l... ::E~ " :==~ > z>- ~ 0 f-<~ Z C/J~ ~ r:: ~t: ...l O::J [;i ~C/J ~ ...l~ ~ ~ 5~ 00 [;i _...l ~ > iii ~ f-< ~~ "",0 ~ ...lC/J ffi 0 &lgJ 0 ~~ ~gJ ...l " 0 ::r: C/J ~CI "'" CONFORMS x x x x x x x DOES NOT CONFORM MIXED CONFORMANCE x x x NA Remarks: See below. Governance. Eagle County's Core Values have been appropriately communicated to the Applicant through the planning process. The community at large is aware of the proposal, and has been provided adequate opportunity to be involved with the decision making process. Development. The proposed development generally satisfies the policies regarding minimal impact to quality of life attributes, consistency with the capacity of physical, environmental and social resources, clustering of development and preservation of open areas Economic Resources. The commercial component of the development is agricultural and is commensurate with local growth. Agricultural lands have been mostly preserved. Environmental impacts have been mitigated. Iousing. Payment in lieu of local resident housing is proposed, and will allow a diversification of housing located ear local work centers. 43 8/29/06 Infrastructure and Services. The development will bear its own infrastructure costs. However, development away from the community centers in El Jebel and Basalt does not foster public transportation and other motorized and non-motorized modes of transportation. Vater Resources. The development will result in protection of ground and surface water, and will not result in loss of water to out of basin uses or a diminishment of minimum in-stream flows. Aquatic habitats and riparian areas will not be negatively impacted. Wildlife Resources. The proposed development will protect the quality and interconnected nature of wildlife habitat in Eagle County. Potential impacts to wildlife habitat have been considered and mitigation incorporated into the design of the development. The design of individual home sites will incorporate wildlife friendly measures. Measures are provided to protect wildlife from contact with human activities and influences. Sensitive Lands. Areas of significant natural hazard have largely been avoided and mitigation is provided to further mitigate the hazards that are present. Minimal impacts to landscapes of visual value will occur. Most of the agricultural area will be preserved in a conservation easement. A conservation easement is proposed to preserve the agricultural open space portion of the subdivision. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should demonstrate, prior to approval of a final plat, that a conservation easement has been created in a form and manner satisfactory to the County Attorney. [Condition # 1] In response to questions which came up during consideration of the Subdivision Sketch Plan regarding the "long term viability of 'sustainable ranching'" within this development, the Applicant's response relates to the proposed conservation easement and the long term availability of water rights for agricultural use. The conservation easement provides that if it is determined in the future that agriculture is no longer an economically feasible or desirable use of the property, the agricultural portion of the site will revert to open space, and the Applicant will reseed the hay fields and any heavily disturbed areas with native vegetation species to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and to ifOvide forage and habitat for wildlife. There appears to be no detail regarding long term irrigation and naintenance of the open space. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to approval of a final plat, how long term irrigation and maintenance of the open space will be provided in the event that the agricultural portion of the site reverts to open space. [Condition # 2] Environmental Quality. The environment will not be significantly impacted with respect to air quality, lighting or noise. However, by its design the development will not encourage walking or biking or accommodate service by mass transit. Future Land Use Map (FLUM). At the time the Sketch Plan for this proposed subdivision was considered and approved, FLUMs from both the Eagle County Master Plan and the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, taken together, supported the development. The former showed low density development on the east part of the site along Hooks Lane and the latter showed low density development at the toe of the hills on the west part of the site and beyond. The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan includes a FLUM which defers entirely to the FLUM in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. While the FLUM of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, taken by itself, is not as permissive as that of the two plans taken together, it can reasonably be concluded, given the densities involved, that the proposed development is consistent with the FLUM of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan and in turn the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN Housing Transportation Community Facilities Environment x Non Conformance x 44 8/29/06 ~ c.n~~" x x x Not Applicable Housing. The proposed development would preserve some open space by clustering development on a limited portion of the site and leave a majority of the site (including areas on residential lots outside of the building envelopes) in open space, but would not, in and of itself, result in a diversity of housing and lot types and sizes. Payments in lieu oflocal resident housing, however, will ultimately contribute to greater diversity. Transportation. The proposed development would minimize transportation impacts on agriculture, open space, wildlife and environmentally sensitive areas, but would not provide access to public lands. Community Facilities. The proposed development would address impacts on schools, housing and roads, and would provide compensation or mitigation, but does not address any potential need for community parks and/or playfields. Environment. The proposed development would retain a significant portion of the agricultural land for agricultural use, maintain existing irrigation ditches and water rights for open space irrigation, maintain existing water quality, limit wood burning, and generally locate development at the toe of slopes. El Jebel / Basalt. At the time the Sketch Plan for this proposed subdivision was considered and approved, FLUMs from both the Eagle County Master Plan and the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, taken together, supported the development. The former showed low density development on the east part of the site along Hooks Lane and the latter showed low density development at the foot ofthe hills on the west part of the site and beyond. The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan includes a FLUM which defers entirely to the FLUM in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. While the FLUM of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, taken by itself, is not as permissive as that of the two plans taken together, it can reasonably be concluded, given the densities involved, that the proposed evelopment is consistent with the FLUM of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. ~isual Development Hazards Coooeration Provision Preservation ualitv Patterns Conformance x x x Non x Conformance Mixed x Conformance x x .. .. Open Space Provision. The development is sensitive to open space values. Open space and recreation land would be found entirely on private parcels. No common open space and recreation areas would be provided. Visual Quality. The development is compatible with preservation of the high visual quality of the County. Development Patterns. The development does not occur adjacent to the existing community and therefore would detract from open space values in the outlying area. Hazards. Development will not occur on slopes greater than 40 percent or which present natural hazards. vildlife. The development does not occur in areas of critical wildlife habitat. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN 4S 8/29/06 VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a community-wide issue . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes . Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success . It is important to preserve existing local residents housing . Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county . Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs 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 address in collaboration X with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers x in Eagle County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. x Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the x responsibility of . . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage oftheir units for local residents Xl 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- x site where feasible, or ifnot feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock x II. 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 x provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue Xl - The Applicant proposes to make a payment of cash in lieu based on the provisions of the Local Resident Housing Guidelines. Overall, the proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] This proposal IS consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations. 46 8/29/06 STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section S-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 The site is currently zoned Resource (R), which would allow one residential unit per 3S acres. Approval of the zone change application would result in Agricultural Residential (AR) zoning. The proposed development would conform with the requirements of the AR zone district. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Given the size of the lots and the Design Standards for Parking and Loading Areas which have been provided with the application, it appears that the requirements of this Section will be satisfied. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) A satisfactory Conceptual Landscape Plan has been provided as required under this Section. The extent of the common area landscaping consists of coniferous trees and deciduous shrub materials to be planted north or the North Driveway (northeast corner of the site) to filter views of the residence on Lot 2 and diffuse headlights from the Lot 2 driveway. A Detailed Landscape Plan will be required with the application for a final plat. The application includes Design Guidelines which requires conformance with Pitkin County Lighting Standards, which are generally more specific than the standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. As a condition of approval, all lighting on the site should adhere to the more restrictive Lighting Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations or the Pitkin County Land Use Code. [Condition # 3] [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) The proposed Design Guidelines provide restrictions on signs in addition to this Division 4-3 of the Land Use Regulations. The additional restrictions are to be enforced by the Design Review Board. All signs within the development will be required to comply with this Division. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The Wildlife Analysis provided with the application reviews various potentially adverse impacts to wildlife and concludes that [l] it is unlikely that the proposed development of this site will result in any significant direct or indirect loss of important habitat, [2] the proposed building envelopes are all sited to completely avoid significant wildlife habitat, [3] all of the proposed building envelopes are situated at least 300 feet from any field verified elk or mule deer habitat, [4] no legally protected, sensitive, or economically important wildlife species will be affected by the proposed project, and [S] wetlands and waters of the U.S. will be completely avoided and no riparian habitat will be impacted. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) generally concurs, but notes that steps should be taken to reduce any potential impacts and avoid potential impacts with wildlife, including implementation of [1] the recommendations of the Applicant's wildlife consultant and [2] a noxious weed monitoring and treatment plan. As a condition of approval, the Recommendations to Minimize Ecological Impacts contained as Section 7.0 47 8/29/06 of the Wildlife Analysis: Emma Farms Subdivision, dated February 11,2006, should be implemented within the development. [Condition # 4] As a further condition of approval, the Applicant should develop, prior to approval of a final plat, subject to approval by the Director of Community Development, and implement a noxious weed monitoring and treatment plan. [Condition # S] [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has reviewed the report provided for the Applicant prepared by CTL I Thompson Incorporated. In addition to the recommendations provided in the report provided by CTL I Thompson, CGS provides additional recommendations to minimize the debris flow and rockfall hazards associated with the building envelopes on Lot 4 and Lot S. As a condition of approval, the recommended mitigation recommended in the Geologic Evaluation prepared by CTL I Thompson, dated January 17,2006, and the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated June 7, 2006, should be implemented in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) notes that it has given this site a low wildfire hazard rating. Nonetheless, CSFS suggests that dual access be considered and that noncombustible roofing materials be used. The Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist rates the site low, but notes that Lots 3, 4 and 5 are in an area of moderate wildfire hazard due to chimney features off-site to the west ofthe site. No other recommendations for mitigation have been provided. The proposed Design Guidelines require approval of roofing materials by the Fire Marshall prior to approval of a building permit. However, the Design Guidelines would represent private requirements. As a condition of approval, noncombustible roofing materials should be used throughout the development. [Condition # 7] The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District has also provided several recommendations regarding protection of property and lives from wildfire and fire. As a condition of approval, the recommendations of the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District, in its letter dated June 7, 2006, should be incorporated into and be considered to be a part of the approved subdivision preliminary plan. [Condition # 8] As proposed, a drive would provide access to Lots 2 and 3 along the north boundary of the development and a separate drive would provide separate access to Lots 1,4 and 5 further south. This latter access would be routed partially through the Pitkin County portion of the site. However, the two separate drives would not be connected, leaving the development without dual access. When the Sketch Plan for this development was considered, there was some discussion regarding the visual impact of a connecting road. Nonetheless, this Section requires separate routes of entrance and exit into a new development unless a variance is granted. In the absence of a variance, as a condition of approval, an emergency access connection should be provided, constructed to standards satisfactory to the County Engineer, between the drive accessing Lot 3 to the drive accessing Lot S. [Condition # 9] [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The proposed Design Guidelines would allow one new technology wood burning device per household. The development will be required to meet the requirements of this Section. [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-4S0) - This site is not located on land designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Revort (Section 4-460) - An adequate Environmental Impact Report has been provided. 48 8/29/06 [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) No commercial or industrial uses are proposed. This section is not applicable. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadwav Standards (Section 4-620) - A condition of the Sketch Plan approval required the Applicant to have worked with the Engineering Department to identify adequate roadway standards and other appropriate improvements. Based on the application material, it appears that the required consultation has not occurred. Another condition of approval required the Applicant to examine internal road, drive and access alternatives, specifically with respect to the proposed drive along the north property line and an extended drive parallel to the toe of the slope along the west property line. Alternatives have not been provided. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 10] The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District has set forth certain if its requirements related to access, which it appears the Applicant has agreed to meet, including access by all weather roadways having a width of 16 feet with pullouts that are consistent with Eagle County standards. Access to Lot 1 (the south lot near Hooks Lane) and Lots 4 and S (the southern lots near the toe of the slope to the west) are proposed to be accessed by a drive that is partially located in Pitkin County. A 1041 application is currently pending with Pitkin County to allow the proposed drive. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to approval of a final plat, that legal access will be provided to Lots 1,4 and S. [Condition # 11] [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - No trails or sidewalks are proposed as part of this development along Hook's Lane or Emma Road. There has been no referral response from the Mid Valley Trails Committee. [+] Irrigation Svstem Standards (Section 4-640) - The Applicant has indicated a general intent to meet these standards, and intends to modify irrigation methods to minimize impacts on individual sewage disposal systems. This Section requires that the irrigation delivery system be reviewed and approved by the Director of Environmental Health. As a condition of approval, the irrigation delivery system should be reviewed and approved by the Director of Environmental Health prior to approval ofa final plat. [Condition # 12] [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has indicated that it has no concerns with this proposal. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 10] [+] Excavation and Grading Standards (Section 4-660) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has indicated that it has no concerns with this proposal. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 10] [+] Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-665) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has indicated that it has no concerns with this proposal. As a 49 8/29/06 condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 10] [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 10] [+] Water Supplv Standards (Section 4-680) - Water service is proposed to be provided from exempt individual or shared wells pursuant to an augmentation plan or a contract with the Basalt Water Conservancy District and surface diversions under existing water rights. Household and irrigation water use estimates have not been provided. Shared wells will be operated and administered by the individual homeowners. The Colorado Division of Water Resources notes that inadequate information is provided concerning the physical adequacy ofthe water supply. Consequently, the Division's opinion, pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1 )(h)(l), is that material injury will occur to decreed water rights unless the applicant obtains and maintains valid well permits for the proposed wells pursuant to a court approved plan for augmentation or pursuant to the Basalt Water Conservancy District's temporary substitute supply plan. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of a final plat for the development, evidence satisfactory to the Director of Community Development of the physical adequacy of the water supply. [Condition # 13] [+] Sanitary Sewage Disvosal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sewage disposal will be handled through engineered individual sewage disposal systems. However, there is no clear indication that the standards proposed in the Design Guidelines for such systems will require denitrification of the wastewater and that it be pressure dosed into shallow trench configurations, as required in Condition #16 ofthe Sketch Plan approval. As a condition of approval, all Individual Sewage Disposal Systems should be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer to accomplish denitrification of the wastewater and be pressure dosed into shallow trench configurations. [Condition # 14] [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) [+] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) - The Applicant will be required to conform to the standards of this Section at the time the final plat is considered. [+] Road Impact Fees (Section 4-710) - The Applicant will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.BJ.e (2)] It HAS been demonstrated that, with the recommended conditions, the proposed subdivision MAY 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. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section S-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 Imvrovements Plan. SO 8/29/06 (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. The proposed development does not create inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, nor does it result in a "leapfrog" pattern of 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 "Ieapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section S-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. Given the above analysis, the property is suitable for development. [+] 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 S-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. The property immediately to the east of this site (Rather Subdivision) is residential, zoned Agricultural Limited (AL) which requires a minimum lot size ofS acres. The Crown Mountain Estates and the Dreager Subdivisions which are north of that (northeast of the subject property) are also residential and zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a minimum lot size of 2 acres. To the north of this proposed development is Red Rock Ranch PUD, a residential and agricultural development zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). The area to the west is zoned Resource (R). These existing uses are consistent with and compatible with the proposed zoning and use. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and should not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Official Zone District Map are as follows: STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section S-230.D.l.] Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following: Section 3.2 General Development Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies a, C, e, f, g, h, I and k Policies b, c, d, e, f, h,}, m and 0 Sl 8/29/06 Section 3.4 Housing Policies a, d, e, g and n Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a, c, g, Lj, k, m and 0 Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, J, g, hand i Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a, c, e and g Section 3.9 Environmental Quality Policies a, c and d Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy a Section 4 Adopted Area Community Plans All relevant goals, policies and FLUM designations Additionally, all relevant goals & policies of the following plans or such equivalent plans and/or future plans, which may be in effect at the time of application for zone change, shall also be considered: Eagle County Open Space Plan Eagle River Watershed Plan Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan Eagle County Trails Plan (Roaring Fork) Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan Eagle County Airport Sub-Area Master Plan. Refer to the discussion above under Section S-280.B.3.e (1), Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l.] - The proposed amendment DOES adequately consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and IS consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations. STANDARD: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section S-230.D.2.] Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. The property immediately to the east of this site (Rather Subdivision) is residential, zoned Agricultural Limited (AL) which requires a minimum lot size of S acres. The Crown Mountain Estates and the Dreager Subdivisions which are north of that (northeast ofthe subject property) are also residential and zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a minimum lot size of 2 acres. To the north of this proposed development is Red Rock Ranch PUD, a residential and agricultural development zoned Planned Unit Development (PUD). The area to the west is zoned Resource (R). These existing uses are consistent with and compatible with the proposed zoning and use. [+] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2.] - The proposal DOES provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and pennissible land uses surrounding the subject property. STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section S-230.D.3.] Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation; public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. The Applicant notes that the proposed five home sites on 106.2 acres preserve open space with limited development and are compatible in density with the surrounding neighborhood. The Applicant further notes that the conservation of the agricultural land and the retention of the hillside open space is proposed to retain the rural character of the rural residential area. Additionally, the Design Guidelines and Covenants contain provisions to insure that the proposed Emma Farms project complies with the public's interest in retaining the rural character of the Emma area. S2 8/29/06 Staff notes that mitigation for local resident housing impacts is also proposed, and is generally satisfied that the public benefits offset the impacts of the proposed uses. [+] FINDING: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.0.3.] - The proposal DOES address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4.] Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community. The Applicant notes that the proposal is consistent with recent rezoning in the area and with other residential parcels contiguous to the site. Similar to other adjoining subdivisions, this proposal includes the preservation of a significant amount of agricultural open space. Staff is satisfied that circumstances in the area have changed sufficiently to warrant the proposed zone change. [+] FINDING: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.0.4.] - The proposal DOES address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community. STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section S-230.D.S.] Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? The property is served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities. [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.0.5.] - The property subject to the proposal IS served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities. C. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Housine Guidelines. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish aframeworkfor discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. The Housing Guidelines were subsequently amended on July 12, 2005, by Board Resolution 2005-90. The Applicant proposes to satisfy housing mitigation requirements by payments of cash in lieu pursuant to the Local Resident Housing Guidelines. Payment for inclusionary housing is proposed at the time the final plat is approved, while payment for employment linkage is proposed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each dwelling. The latter is better paid at the same time road impact fees are paid, that is, prior to issuance of the respective building permits. As a condition of approval, local resident housing mitigation should be satisfied by payments in lieu in accordance with the then current Housing Guidelines, with the payment for inclusionary housing due prior to approval of the final plat and payment for employment linkage due prior to issuance of the respective building permit for each residential unit. [Condition # IS] DISCUSSION: Mr. Forinash presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included a vicinity map, site plan, surrounding zoning/density map and various photos of the Emma Farms site. In 200S, the subdivision sketch plan was approved. At this time, the applicant is requesting an approval of a zone change from Resource to Agricultural Residential and a subdivision preliminary plan for 5 residential lots and an agricultural parcel of 50+ acres on a 06-acre site located in Eagle County. The balance of the site (30 acres) is located in Pitkin County and is roposed to consist of two additional home sites and agricultural open space. Zoning was a point of discussion at sketch plan. The lots proposed for Emma Farms are 6-14 acres and compatible with the surrounding area. The property access moves through the Pitkin County portion of the site and the applicant was required to get a 1041 53 8/29/06 permit from Pitkin County. Lots 6 and 7 would be located in Pitkin County in the southeast corner of the property. Water would be provided through individual or shared wells and sewer treatment would be by engineered individual systems. In regards to local resident housing, the applicant has agreed to a payment in lieu pursuit to agle County housing guidelines. The applicant has agreed to seek a variance from improvement standards for the bsence of dual access for the site. There were two-easement documents proposed. Staff recommends approval of the zone change with conditions. Doug Pratte, planner spoke. He introduced the staff and gave a brief explanation of the Emma Farms context map. At sketch plan, the applicant had proposed 7 home sites in Eagle County and that number was reduced to S. A conservation easement has been coordinated with Aspen Valley land trust for SS acres in Eagle County and an additional 9 acres in Pitkin County. Design guidelines and covenants have been established. An existing residence on the Pitkin County side would be used for an employee unit for the ranch; it conforms to a category-housing unit in Pitkin County for a rental unit. Two historic residences on the Pitkin County side are on the historic inventory list and would be renovated per the historic home requirements. The applicant has adopted Eagle County's design guidelines into the Pitkin County properties because the standards are much stronger. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. Susan Wolfe, Pitkin County senior planner spoke. She explained the Pitkin County review process and stated that they would like to work together when properties are in both counties. Pitkin County recently adopted a new land use code and because the application was submitted prior to the new code, it was reviewed under the old code. Lot 6 and 7 are in Pitkin County. The visual impacts were considered by the Pitkin County Board. The design guidelines were acceptable by their standards. The residential structure would be limited to S7S0 square feet with a separate agricultural building of 2000 square feet. There would be an additional 3000 square feet for new agricultural buildings and a small amount for expansion of the existing buildings. She stated that they look forward to working with Eagle County on the Emma master plan and future coordination on these types of applications. Ann Austin Clapper, area resident spoke. She believes that the proposed home sizes are large compared to the homes in the surrounding area. She is concerned with the zone change because it may allow more density. She vould like assurance that any subdivision that might be approved later would include the conservation easement. :he opposes the additional agricultural parcels that if used could block the view corridor. Jenny Parker, adjoining neighbor spoke. She stated her concern for wildlife impact. She is concerned with large homes, buildings, and density bordering BLM land. She opposes the two additional agricultural parcels. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Chairman Runyon asked about the additional one-acre agricultural buildings and their use. Mr. Pratte stated that they were coordinated with Aspen Valley Land Trust and would be used for the agricultural business Chairman Runyon recalled the applicant working with Adam Gillespie to secure a conservation easement. Mr. Pratte stated that Mr. Gillespie had certain requirements and if those requirements were not met, he was not willing to negotiate. Chairman Runyon wondered why they would require the two additional structures that are proposed for the agricultural parcels if they had the use of the historic barns and buildings. Mr. Pratte stated that it would allow for flexibility but there was nothing proposed for the two parcels at this time. Mr. Waldeck stated that the reason the two building envelopes were put in Eagle County was that they were not sure that they would get a 1041 approval from Pitkin County. If they are successful, in Pitkin County, it would allow the agricultural buildings to be built there and they wouldn't need the two lots in Eagle County. Lot 7 has three homes, two are historic, and one is a ranch manager's home, the lot would not be sold to allow for further developed. Chairman Runyon wondered about the long road. Mr. Waldeck stated that the road would be paved and as narrow as code would allow. Mr. Pratte added that they did agree to keep the road gravel. The road is required to be a certain ,lassification in order to meet fire district standards. A landscape plan was included in the design guidelines. Commissioner Stone wondered if the applicant had made all the changes that were requested at sketch plan. 54 8/29/06 Mr. Forinash stated that the changes were addressed in one way or another. Some were included in the conditions. Commissioner Stone stated that he would support the file with an additional condition that the two one acre gricultural parcels be removed if they are successful in Pitkin County. Commissioner Menconi wondered about the agricultural taxing that came up in the Pitkin County Board meeting. David Myler stated that the Eagle County portion of five individual lots would be considered subdivided properties and taxed as vacant subdivided lots until there's a residence and then they'll be taxed as residences. The property in Eagle County that is subject to the conservation easement would qualify as an agricultural exemption. Ms. Wolfe stated that the issue for the Pitkin County BoCC had been that once a 3S-acre parcel had a 5750 square feet residential development on it, there would be a concern about it still being able to maintain an agricultural tax classification. Mr. Myler stated that the two home sites in Pitkin County would be connected to larger lots where all of the current agricultural activity takes place, they intend to continue with that activity. They object to Pitkin County presuming that they would not. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Pratte to explain the long-term community benefit. Mr. Pratte stated that the biggest community benefit is preservation of the agricultural land, and water rights that could not be sold. The subdivision would have covenants and be integrated into the landscape. This is an attempt to try to continue to keep agriculture in the area. They've also committed to deed restrict a unit on the Pitkin County side. Mr. Myler stated that the preservation of the historic buildings is a community benefit as well. Ms. Parker stated that she would like the two agricultural building removed from the plan. She wondered were the second home on lot 6 would be located. Mr. Myler stated that the applicant had applied for two building envelopes. There wouldn't be a second house on Lot 6, there was a secondary building envelope that was referred to but it would be non structural building. Commissioner Menconi stated that Mr. Pratte and Mr. Myler are a couple of the finest people to represent n applicant, both have been consistent in their integrity. He's in agreement with the proposal as it stands but rould like the two one acre agricultural parcels eliminated. D. SUGGESTED MOTION: [Two motions are required.] Commissioner Stone moved that the Board approve File No. ZC-00083, incorporating the staff findings. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved that the Board approve File No. SUP-00009, incorporating the staff findings and with the following conditions and one additional condition that dependant upon Pitkin County's approval for two agricultural use buildings on the Pitkin County side of the property. The two one acre-building sites would be deleted from the plat. 1. The Applicant shall demonstrate, prior to approval of a final plat, that a conservation easement has been created in a form and manner satisfactory to the County Attorney. 2. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to approval of a final plat, how long term irrigation and maintenance of the open space will be provided in the event that the agricultural portion ofthe site reverts to open space. 3. All lighting on the site shall adhere to the more restrictive Lighting Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations or the Pitkin County Land Use Code. 4. The Recommendations to Minimize Ecological Impacts contained as Section 7.0 of the Wildlife Analysis: Emma Farms Subdivision, dated February 11,2006, shall be implemented within the development. SS 8/29/06 S. The Applicant shall develop, prior to approval of a final plat, subj ect to approval by the Director of Community Development, and implement a noxious weed monitoring and treatment plan. 6. The recommended mitigation recommended in the Geologic Evaluation prepared by CTL I Thompson, dated January 17,2006, shall be implemented in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer. In addition, a note shall be included on the final plat which reads as follows: Construction on certain lots may require mitigation for rockfall and debris flow. The geologic hazard map in the Geologic Evaluation prepared by CTL/Thompson, dated January 17,2006, shows debris flow hazard may affect the primary building envelope on Lot S and debris flow and rockfall hazard may affect the primary building envelope on Lot 4. The proposed mitigation is a catchment structure on the order of 10 to IS vertical feet and IS to 20 feet in width. The CTL/Thompson report states this could either be a trench, berm, or a combination of both, or an MSE wall. Appropriate mitigation satisfactory to the Eagle County Engineer shall be designed prior to issuance of each respective building permit and built prior to issuance of issuance of a temporary or permanent certificate of occupancy and shall include the following features: . Trench design shall include a provision for cleanout, i.e., there shall be some access to the trench for a front-end loader or backhoe. . The slopes of the trenchlberm shall be steep enough to prevent rocks from bounding out. 7. Noncombustible roofing materials shall be used throughout the development. 8. The recommendations of the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District, in its letter dated June 7, 2006, shall be incorporated into and be considered to be a part of the approved subdivision preliminary plan. 9. Prior to final plat approval, the Applicant shall obtain a Variance from Improvement Standards with respect to dual access to the site. 10. The Applicant shall provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. 11. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development, prior to approval of a final plat, that legal access will be provided to Lots 1,4 and S. 12. The design and location of Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be subject to review and approval by the Director of Environmental Health with respect to existing and proposed irrigation of the site. 13. The Applicant shall provide, prior to approval of a final plat for the development, evidence satisfactory to the Director of Community Development of the physical adequacy of the water supply with the understanding that the Applicant intends to first test the existing will on the property for water quality and quantity to provide evidence of the physical adequacy of the water supply. 14. All Individual Sewage Disposal Systems shall be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer to accomplish denitrification of the wastewater and be pressure dosed into shallow trench configurations. IS. Local resident housing mitigation shall be satisfied by payments in lieu in accordance with the then current Housing Guidelines, with the payment for inclusionary housing due prior to approval of the final plat and payment for employment linkage due prior to issuance of the respective building permit for each residential unit. S6 8/29/06 16. 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. he following conditions were added by the Planning Commission: Attest: 17. Any accessory dwelling units shall be attached to the primary structure and the total floor area on each lot, including accessory dwelling units and the agricultural buildings, shall be no more than 8,2S0 square feet. 18. The final plat shall show a dedicated easement for the existing irrigation ditch along the west side of Hooks Lane in the vicinity of Lot 1 and Lot 2. 19. Appropriate conifer and evergreen trees shall be incorporated into the design guidelines to soften the view of the structures of the subdivision. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. tSY'. 57 8/29/06 y~~