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~~