Loading...
Minutes 07/08/08 PUBLIC HEARING July 8, 2008 Present: Peter Runyon Sara Fisher Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Christina Hooper Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Assistant 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 It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussing real estate matters and matters that may be subject to negotiation regarding Eagle River property in Eagle which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) and (e), Colorado Revised Statutes. It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussing real estate matters and matters that may be subject to negotiation regarding Lake Creek and B&B which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(a) and (e), Colorado Revised Statutes. It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Special Recognition - Jena Skinner-Markowitz and Scott Fifield for New Employee Orientation Video Chairman Runyon stated that the video was fabulous and thanked Ms. Skinner-Markowitz and Mr. Fifield for their work on it. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that the crew in the Communications Department was great and she could not have done it without the dedication and hard work of Scott Fifield and Josh Stowell. Commissioner Menconi stated that the video was brilliant and he'd like to see it aired on eco-TV to help people understand the depth of the organization. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that she believes the eco-TV was a move on the county's part and a great way to interact with the community. Mr. Fifield stated that everything that comes from the Communications Department is nothing short of a group effort - everyone is always willing to pull together as a team. Commissioner Fisher stated that it was due to the group efforts within the organization that Eagle County was on its way to becoming a model of excellence for mountain communities. She thanked Jena and Scott for their dedication and hard work on the video. Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the weeks of July 7 and July 14, 2008 (subject to review by the finance director) Finance Department Representative 1 07/08/08 B. Approval of payroll for July 17, 2008 (subject to review by the finance director) Finance Department Representative c. Participating Agreement between Eagle County and Timberline Helicopters for removal of lodgepole pine - Vail Valley Forest Health Project Eric Lovgren, Community Development D. Participating Agreement between Eagle County and Rocky Mountain Youth Conservation Corps for slash piling and forest residue cleanup - West Vail fuel break project Eric Lovgren, Community Development E. Participating Agreement between Eagle County and Cecil Logging for loading and processing of logs - Vail Valley Forest Health Project Eric Lovgren, Community Development F. Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Global Spectrum L.P. for the provision of consulting services for improvement of general operations to the Eagle County Fairgrounds Bruce Baumgartner, County Manager G. Ratification of the Collection Agreement between the USDA Forest Service, White River National Forest Eagle Ranger District and Eagle County Alex Potente, Housing and Development H. Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Asset Valuation Advisors, LLP for appraisal services County Attorney's Office Representative I. Resolution 2008-072 Concerning an Appointment to the Basalt Regional Library District Board of Trustees County Attorney's Office Representative J. Holy Cross Energy Right of Way Easement and Trench, Conduit and Vault Agreement Cooley Mesa Road Rick Ullom, Project Management K. Resolution 2008-073 Appointing Referees for the 2008 County Board of Equalization Rikki Vigil, County Attorney's Office L. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado Department of Transportation for Winslow Road Underpass Project Ben Gerdes, Engineering M. Encroachment Easement Agreement between Eagle County and Berry Creek Metropolitan District for Winslow Road Underpass Project Ben Gerdes, Engineering N. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Berry Creek Metropolitan District for Winslow Road Underpass Project Ben Gerdes, Engineering o. Resolution 2008-074 Supporting the Agreement between Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Transportation for the Eagle County Winslow Road Underpass Project Ben Gerdes, Engineering P. Resolution 2008-075 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney; Robert L. Morris,Deputy County Attorney; Cooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County 2 07/08/08 Attorney to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Colorado Capital Bank Letter of Credit No. 96006630 in the Amount of$307,969.60 for the Account of Arrowhead River Ranch County Attorney's Office Representation Q. Resolution 2008-076 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney; Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney; Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Colorado Capital Bank Letter of Credit No. 96006622 in the Amount of$164,785.95 for the Account of Arrowhead River Ranch County Attorney's Office Representation R. Resolution Approval of the Salt Creek Equestrian Facility. (Eagle County File No. ZS-00156) Lisa de Graaf, Community Development S. Resolution 2008-077 Special Use Permit to allow an addition of a full kitchen for a legal accessory dwelling unit. (Eagle County File No. ZS-00160) Lisa de Graaf, Community Development T. Minor Type B Subdivision 1 Berry Creek Ranch, Filing No.3, Are-subdivision oflot 47, block 2; The purpose of this plat is to re-subdivide lot 47 into two Y2 duplex lots. Both lots 47A & 47B will contain .189 acres for a total of .379 acres. (Eagle County File No. 5MB-00437) Terri Johnson, Community Development Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Christina Hooper, Assistant County Attorney stated that Item R should be pulled from the consent agenda to be revisited in the afternoon session when the board considers the planning file. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-T, tabling Item R until later in the afternoon. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Extended Family Stone, LLC dlbla The French Press This is a renewal of a Tavern License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. 3 07108/08 B. Wolcott Yacht Club, LLC dlb/a Wolcott Yacht Club This is a renewal of a Tavern License in Wolcott. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. C. 131 Smokehouse, LLC dlb/a 131 Smokehouse This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant License in Bond. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for July 8, 2008, consisting ofItems A-C. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Other Liquor APPLICANT: DBA: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: REQUEST: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: CONCERNS 1 ISSUES: Rick and Kelly's, LLC Rick and Kelly's Kelly Liken and Rick Colomitz, owners 27 Main Street #C101Edwards, CO Temporary Permit Kathy Scriver None DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a Temporary Permit for Rick and Kelly's, LLC dlb/a Rick and Kelly's. Rick and Kelly's, LLC has applied for a Transfer of Ownership from Frites, LLC. The applicant has submitted all of the required documents and associated fees for the transfer. The applicant is requesting a temporary permit to operate until the transfer of ownership process can be completed. ST AFF REPORT AND FINDINGS: 1. The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold has been previously licensed by the state and Local Licensing Authorities, and it was valid as of the date of receiving the application. 2. The applicant has applied on forms provided by the Department of Revenue and includes the name and address of the applicant, the names and addresses of the president, vice-president, secretary and managing officer, the applicant's financial interest in the proposed transfer, and the premises for which the Temporary Permit is sought. 3. A statement that all accounts for alcohol beverages sold to the applicant are paid - have been filed. 4. The application for the Temporary Permit has been filed no later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the application for the transfer of ownership and the appropriate fees have been paid. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the application. Kelly Liken and Rick Colomitz were present. Ms. Liken stated that they purchased the business formally known as Frites. The restaurant is now under new management. They plan to open within 10 days. They plan to create a neighborhoodgathering place for the 4 07/08/08 community of Edwards. She stated that she and her husband were very involved in the local community and believed that the Edwards area needed a place for families to gather. They would begin serving dinner and hoped to open for lunch and brunch by Labor Day. Commissioner Fisher stated that she noticed in the alcohol management plan that all staff would be TIPS trained. Ms. Liken stated that they have a policy that everyone be TIPS certified within 30 days of hire. Commissioner Menconi move that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the issuance of a Temporary Permit to Rick and Kelly', LLC dlb/a Rick and Kelly's, which will be valid until such time as the application to transfer ownership of the license is granted or denied or for one hundred twenty (120) days, whichever occurs first; except that, if the application to transfer the license has not been granted or denied within the one-hundred-twenty day period and the transferee demonstrates good cause, the local licensing authority may extend the validity of said permit for an additional period not to exceed sixty (60) days. Commissioner Fisher 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 Equalization. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Board of Equalization - Resolution 2008-078 Regarding Presentation of Reports of Valuation for Assessment of Taxable Real and Personal Property and list of actions on each real and personal property appeal Assessor's Office Representative Mark Chapin presented the Assessor report. The report included pre assessor level appeals for both real and personal property. The totals prior to appeals were $3,226,122,870 post appeals were $3,189,598,860. There were a total of 536 real property appeals and 45 personal property appeals. There were a total of 4,500 appeals over the year 2007. Chairman Runyon wondered if the report included commercial and agricultural properties. Mr. Chapin stated that the numbers included all properties. He stated that there were multiple categories and sub categories. All classes of property in Colorado were assessed at 29% with the exception of residential improved property, which is assessed at 7.96%. Commissioner Fisher wondered if the assessed values and appeals were a result of the reappraisal that took place last year and tax bills that came out last fall. Mr. Chapin stated that property owners in Colorado have the right to come in any given year and appeal their valuation. Typically, in Eagle County after a re-appraisal there is a much higher appeal workload. Commissioner Menconi thanked Mr. Chapin for his work on the report. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve Resolution 2008-078 Regarding Presentation of Reports of Valuation for Assessment of Taxable Real and Personal Property and list of actions on each real and personal property appeal. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of Equalization and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files 5 07/08/08 AFP-00276 Iron Oaks Lisa de Graaf, Planning Department The purpose of this Amended Final Plat is to revise and realign the driveway, and reconfiguration of the building envelope. ACTION: TITLE: FILE NOIPROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER! APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Iron Oaks Lot 3 AFP-002761 Amended Final Plat 416 Wolcott Springs Road, Wolcott, Colorado 81655 Rick Cunningham Hans BerglundlKeegan Winkeller A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The intent of this plat is to realign the driveway and vacate; and reconfigure building envelope to reflect that change. There is a platted road on the previous plat that was never constructed; the proposed road alignment is currently 'roughed-in' and will allow for slopes to be at 10% or less. A ridgeline analysis was completed and is in compliance. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Agricultural Residential West: Agricultural Residential North: Agricultural Residential South: Agricultural Residential Existing Zoning: Total Area: Agricultural Residential 12.4 acres C. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. The applicant has vrovided a letter of approval from the adjacent proverty owner that will also use the subject drivewav. This vlat mav be avproved bv the Board of Co un tv Commissioners for Plat and Resolution. ~ b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS NOT inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. Proposed improvements and/or off-site road improvements agreement ARE adequate. See attached letter from Eagle River FPD. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT Apply D. STAFF CONCLUSION: This application is satisfactory and all findings are positive. DISCUSSION: Ms. De Graaf presented the application. The intent of the plat was to re-align the driveway and re- configure the building envelope to reflect the change in the road. The new building envelope would be the same 6 07/08/08 size as the original envelope. She indicated that the applicant had satisfied all the minimum standards required for the amended final plat. Hans Berglund, representative for the applicant spoke. He stated that the current driveway did not meet code. The Eagle River Fire Department and neighbors approve of the new driveway design. He stated that the applicant intends on maintaining the 10% slope and would be installing standard highway signage. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve File No. AFP-00276 Iron Oaks incorporating staffs findings. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00176 - CME TranSDortation/Eae:le-Vail Lot Lisa de Graaf, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 6/24/08 ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to redevelop dirt lot for parking and storage of vehicles used by CME transportation. FILE NO.IPROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ZS-00176 1 Special Use Permit Colorado Mountain Express (CME) - Eagle-Vail Parking Lot Eagle-Vail on Highway 6 (next to Vail Daily building) Eagle-Summit Publishing Co CME Sid Fox 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting a Special Use Permit to utilize the site for transportation services as a "satellite facility" for parking vehicles used by CME. The Special Use will include parking, light vehicle maintenance and similar support services for the CME headquarters in Edwards. The Site will be upgraded in accordance with the attached site and landscape plan. No permanent structures will be constructed. The owner of the property is Eagle-Summit Publishing (Vail Daily) and has given permission to the applicant to proceed with obtaining the Special Use Permit. B. SITE DATA: CG Existing Use(s) Zoning South: 1-70 ROW Resource East: Commercial CG CG Commercial CG N/A Overflow parking/contractor's storage yard Dirt lot 7 07/08/08 Total Land Area: Acres: .91 Square Total Open StJace Acres: N/A Percentage: Usable Open Space: Acres: N/A Percentage: Water: Public: ERW& Private: SD Sewer: Public: ERW& Private: SD Access: Via State Highway 6 c. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: 2007 - In September of 2007, a commercial developer inquired about obtaining a Special Use Permit to allow for an "Auto Zone" store. It was never pursued. The lot is currently void of any structures. D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Eagle County Planning Commission heard this file on June 18, 2008. Although all supported the approval of this file, there were some concerns and discussion; they include: . Bear-proof trash containers . Sidewalk · Landscaping - the applicant will change from Cotton Wood trees to Aspen trees in the area next to Highway 6 Most of the discussion was in reference to on-site and off-site improvements, and the outcome was a change to the former condition 3, and an additional condition to address the bear-proof containers. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of ZS-00176 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit 8 07/08/08 STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. {Section 5-250.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 FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN <U Cj a 5 8 Q'til .- 8 g ... e: 5 ~~ til ~8 :.::l9 "00 =rs ;:::~ til ] H <U ;> '+:1 .~ 1Zl FLUM Designation CG Xl x X2 X3 x x x x x X1- Redevelopment is consistent with standards that encourage revitalization of underdeveloped and dysfunctional parcels. X2- No new employees will be generated by this proposal. The applicant claims to subsidize their employees over $300,000 annually and controls over 235 housing beds in the markets they serve. X3- CME provides a needed transportation link to air and ground travel in our community. Efficient access off Highway 6 allows easy on/off to 1-70. rn "0 J ~ I ~ x x EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. {Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriatefor its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Potential Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning Compatibility Issues Yes I No 9 07/08/08 North: Commercial CG X South: 1-70 ROW Resource X East: Commercial CG X West: Commercial CG X ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5-250.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 Avvlicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Apvlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. - There are no specific standards for Transportation Services or Vehicle, Aircraft and Pleasure Boat Sales, Storage, Service or Repair. However this use is allowed with a Special Use Permit. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4] 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. "0 <l) 0 a ~ I (.) (.) <I) if.if el ..c:: ~ .- > <I) ~ ~ C';= ::..:-g 0 <n <I) <I) t;l 0 "0 '0 G Eo-< cnQ Q......l 0 Z ~. Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X Xl X X X2 X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable X1- Striping is required on paved surface parking per Section 4-140, A. Xl- The possibility of glare from the parked vehicles was discussed with the applicant; if there are any complaints from citizens driving on 1-70 or Highway 6, or neighbors pertaining to glare, the applicant will need to make adjustments immediately. See Condition # 1. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 10 07/08/08 STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5] 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. <<) lZl '0 Z~ ~.g iO ~i 't:l = ij.2 S! 'fi 8- ] ~ Uf-o '! .l!Z > x x x x x x x ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.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. i5' 0:>- :>- lZl 5 ~ I,-a 'Ei.. lZl '0 !:!I.u ~ 0 S~ o@' @' -5 i:l-.1zI 00 i:l-. 00 Woo x Xl X X X Not Applicable X X Xl- The applicant has agreed to a collateral agreement for the on-site improvements. In addition, due to the pending plan for Highway 6 improvements and the requirement in accordance with the Highway 6 Corridor Feasibility Study dated March 2004, the applicant has agreed to provide staff with cost estimates for the required sidewalk and a I-time payment for this improvement. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. 11 07/08/08 . >> 5 ~ ~ ,a~ ., '" .- ....1-s ....1~ .~ g. ~ Article 4, Site Development Standards -'- U ., U5 Vi" .5:l ~.~ ~~ 'O~ J 0<...... ..~..= Z~ ., :;I '" :;I "'....1 U <:l" .- <:l" 8u '0 &h~ t;:! ., Vi~ 0... Z X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat. Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) 1 X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) 2 X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) 3 X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 12 07/08/08 D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to attachment dated May 27, 2008. . See Conditions No.3 Eagle County Dept. Environmental Health - Please refer to attachment dated May 28, 2008 . SeeConditionsNo.L2 Eagle County Transportation - Please refer to attachment dated May 15, 2008 . See Conditions No.2 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eaflle County: Attorney's Office; EC Trails; Housing; Road and Bridge Department; . Colorado State: CDOT . Service Districts; Eagle- Vail Metro District; Holy Cross; Fire District . Towns: Avon C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The benefits of this proposal include that CME is a part of the transportation infrastructure in Eagle County and provides a valuable service to its residents and visitors. The location ofthis parking lot will allow better service. In addition, this location is a compatible site for this use. The disadvantages may include glare and possible parking issues with an adjacent property. D. PLANNING COMMISSION OPTIONS: 1. Approve the CME Special Use Permit request without conditions ifit is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the CME Special Use Permit request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the CME Special Use Permit request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the CME Special Use Permit request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement ofthe use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (andlor other applicable master plans). Within one (1) year of issuance of a County Grading Permit, the sidewalk shall be installed per the 13 07/08/08 revised (6/19/2008) Site Plan, or as otherwise authorized by the County Commissioners, and the estimated cost of construction shall be recommended by the County Engineer and collateralized in a form acceptable to the County Attorney prior to beginning site improvements. DISCUSSION: Ms. De Graaf presented the application. She stated that the file had been before the board on June 24, 2008 and tabled due to a discussion the board had with the applicant on the pending plan for design of the Eagle- VaillHwy 6 corridor. The board wondered if the applicant would consider a five-year special use permit. The applicant requested more time to discuss this with investors. Sid Fox provided a recap of the June meeting. He stated that the applicant had revised the site improvement plan. The previous improvement plan had a significant amount of improvements. The applicant believes the new plan would allow time to determine the direction of the Eagle-Vail corridor plan. The scaled down version would include proper drainage, road base, sheds, fencing on the western property line, and dust control. The applicant believes even with the scaled back plan, there would be significant public benefit. The applicant requested a use permit for 5 years in duration. If after 3 years of operation the applicant wants to extend it to 5 years, he would commit to construct the sidewalk. Ms. De Graaf stated that there had been some discussion with the Deputy County Attorney regarding a Public Improvements agreement (PIA). This agreement would address the onsite and offsite improvements. Staffs first concern was the standards for a special use permit that were being omitted from the applicant's new proposal, such as paving, striping, lighting, landscaping, and sidewalk. The PIA would capture these items and be collateralized into an escrow and reviewed in 3-years. Mr. Morris stated that the plan would allow the applicant to recoup their investment and keep their investment within limits given that at the end of the 5-year period they may have to vacate. The 3-year trigger would allow them time to determine whether they would want to surrender this special use permit or continue operations the full length of the 5 years. He stated that the application met the criteria of the Eagle County land use regulations and was a workable arrangement. Commissioner Fisher stated that she was pleased with the proposal and it made the best possible sense. Chairman Runyon asked about the landscaping and suggested that trees be planted along Hwy 6 as soon as possible. Mr. Fox stated that it would be wasteful at this point. Jay Ufer, the applicant, recommended that landscaping be considered at the 3-year mark. Mr. Fox requested that any Hwy 6 landscaping be postponed until more is understood about the Eagle-Vail corridor design. Commissioner Fisher stated that revisiting the landscaping in 3 years would be reasonable. Ms. De Graaf stated that a resolution would be prepared with the proposed conditions outlined. Mr. Morris stated that it would he helpful to modify condition 9 and add in front of the phrase "letter of credit" in the phrase "site development plan." Engineering needs to review the layout of changes. Peter Fralick stated that the Engineering Department should have a chance to review the site plan and make sure erosion control measures, and dust control plans are in place. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve File No. ZS-00176 - CME Transportation/Eagle-Vail Lot, incorporating the suggested conditions that will be finalized between staff, the applicant, and the County Attorney's Office and brought back to the board in a resolution. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00156 Salt Creek/Frost Creek PUD. Equestrian Facility 14 07/08/08 Lisa de Graaf, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from 10/17/07, 12/18/07 & 1/8/08 The purpose ofthis Special Use Permit is to construct an equestrian facility and support structures. LOCATION: Situated on Brush Creek Road, approximately 6 miles southeast from the town of Eagle. FILE NO.IPROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ZS-00156/ Special Use Permit Salt Creek PUD Equestrian Facility Brush Creek Road & Old Salt Creek Kummer Development Same Bruce Gray 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The Salt Creek parcel encompasses 520 acres, about six (6) miles southeast of the Town of Eagle. The original Frost & Salt Creek PUD approved 21 single family lots for this parcel but was amended to relocate 20 of them to the Frost Creek parcel to allow for an equestrian facility on the Salt Creek Parcel. The Adams Rib Frost & Salt Creek PUD Development Guide, approved in 2005 (PDA-00056), a Special Use Permit process is required prior to the implementation of an equestrian facility. As an amenity to Adam's Rib Ranch, the equestrian facility may be open to the public for boarding and training in room provides. Operations will include boarding, grazing for horses, training, and other activities associated with ranching. The facility will board and pasture up to 30 horses. New infrastructure and buildings include a new entrance road (Adam's Rib Ranch Road) that will provide access to the arenas and houses. Structures associated with the facility are an indoor arena and stables, an outdoor arena, two (2) employee bunkhouses, a ranch manager residence and one (1) single family parcel that does allow for a accessory dwelling unit if desired. B. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: There were outstanding issues with this proposal, specifically the water use and agreement with the Town of Eagle. An EQR Table is attached and shows the use of water for the current proposal uses a total of 5.70 EQR's out of an allowable 6.0. Most of the issues that were discussed at the previous planning commission hearing (October 30,2007) were addressed in a response letter from Fred Kummer dated November 1, 2007 (attached). Please see the following "new" attachments in this staff report, as they relate to the former outstanding issues: . Email from Jill Carlson dated September 19, 2007 and the email response from Bruce Gray dated September 28, 2007 . Letter from Greater Eagle Fire District dated October 3, 2007 . The Salt Creek EQR Table . Letter from William Powell dated October 9, 2007 with regards to the water service agreement and ability to provide the equestrian facility with water . Updated letter from the CDOW dated August 7, 2007 SITE DATA: Vacant Resource Residential Resource 15 07/08/08 South: Vacant Resource Residential Agricultural Residential East: Vacant Resource/backcountry West: Residential ARI AL Vacant/Pasture Resource Existing Zoning: PUD Proposed Zoning: N/A Current Development: Vacantlagricultural Site Conditions: Pasture with riparian areas, Salt Creek Total Land Area: Acres: 520.3 Square feet: Total Open Space Acres: 472.8 Percentage: 91% Usable Open Space: Acres: 176.4 Percentage: 34% Water: Public: TOE Private: Sewer: Public: - Private: ISDS Access: Via Brush Creek Road C. CHRONOLOGY/BACKGROUND: . 2003 - ZC-00059 and PDSP-OOO 16 Zone Change and combined Sketch 1 Preliminary Plan approval was granted for the still in effect Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development. . 2003 - 1041-00044, granted to extend water line . 2004 - 1014-00057, Amendment to the 1041 above . 2005 - PDA-00056, Amendment to the Frost & Salt Creek PUD to move residential lots . 2007 - ZS -00156, Special Use Permit to allow for equestrian facility D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Eagle County Planning Commission heard this file on December 19, 2007. There was an extensive discussion with the applicants' representative, Bruce Gray and there were four (4) people who spoke at the public comment portion of the meeting. Their concerns include: . Impacts to wildlife and to 'sensitive' riparian areas . EVL T asked if the applicant would respond to their request of offering the subj ect parcel for a Conservation Easement. The applicant has not responded . Employee housing; why not use existing option at Adam's Rib headquarters rather than building new structures at the Salt Creek parcel; the proposed housing was not the intention of the previous PUD approval . The facility as a whole is too large to justify housing just thirty (30) horses In the deliberation from the Planning Commissioners', many items of concern were mentioned; they include: . The current proposal does not keep with the original intent of the Resolution that was approved; all Adam's Rib employees should be housed at Frost Creek or the Headquarter locations. At the very least only the few employees for the equestrian faculty should be housed at the Salt Creek parcel, this does not include golf related employees . Do not agree with trip estimates that were provided; believe they will be higher . No public benefit . The applicant is resisting the CDOW recommendations, which is not considered a good idea . Architectural drawings were asked of the applicant and were not provided 16 07/08/08 . It was asked of the applicant to move the trail out of the riparian area in Lot 1 (the single family lot); the applicant responded that this would encroach on the privacy of the residence and declined to move the trail . The new proposed road location and intent negatively impacts the riparian area and is not necessary due to potential access from Old Salt Creek Road The Plannine: Commission voted unanimouslv to recommend denial of file ZS-00156 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-25 a.B.]] 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 8f 'fjj ::I o ::r: 2 rn ti.! j~ .s53 rn "l:l I 53 rn ...J FLUM ,e8 u e > 6c Designation .fOiol ~ ;e ;g~ ... .- 5 .- C3 ~~ ~ :::l lZl 1-Ll0' Eagle Area Communi Plan X X2 X3 X X X X Xl X en Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable Xl- Although this proposed development does not provide housing opportunities for the general public; it does provide housing for employees of the equestrian facility and/or Adam's Rib Ranch. 17 07/08/08 X2- The original approval of the Frost & Salt Creek PUD, wildlife protection and mitigation was addressed by means of the creation and approval ofthe Adam's Rib Frost and Salt Creek PUD Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, within the PUD Guide. This document must be followed with regards to this proposal. X3- Concerns regarding grazing rotation will be addressed in the conditions. EAGLE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN o N Vi ~l:l .- tS Ij oU ueel eel o g 5 Q.. .- rn~ c .... o (,) Q..o O~ eel~ Q ~ 0<: e 0 c ;;- 0-+= .... .- .- '" ~ c w~ c o .::! e e Q.. 0.9 e 0 o ;;- (,) 0 wO o ~t>ll ~.~ ~g <:::z:: 5 ~'.c 5 <<l .~ -g -'.~ .g ~ u.... Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable Xl- The applicant must follow the Adam's Rib Frost and Salt Creek PUD Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan, within the PUD Guide. x x Xl x x X EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN 5 0 !;j 5 c g e'~ e ~ "i Q..s Q..", '" t ::;l l:l rn .- o t ~ .9E "0 '" 6-0 ].- I "0 Q.. C .- o 0 ~ 8 o 1; .- '" .~ ] t~ Q...... 8J: ....lU OQ.. >0' OQ.. Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority X X X X X X of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. Potential Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning Compatil)i1it)i Issues Yes No North: Vacant Resource Residential Resource X South: Vacant Resource Residential Agricultural X Residential East: Vacant Resource/ X backcountry West: Residential ARI AL Vacanti Resource X Pasture 18 07/08/08 The Salt Creek parcel is surrounded primarily by agricultural and rural residential land use. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5-250.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 Avvlicable to Particular Residential. Aflricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. Section 3-310. V. There are no specific standards for an equestrian facility, however this use is allowed with standards in the Frost & Salt Creek PUD Guide ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4} 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. j t r=: f-< 5 c-- =8 ~ 'I.) ~ '! '+:1 ~ '" j '.. '0 .J:J <3 z 6 :> t:.-i. x x x x x x x x x Not Applicable ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5} 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. u '" c: 'I.) '5 a.S ~ t -0 00 5~ i Q ~ z... u!'.g 'i 0 '0 0 0 (j e i~ '! :3fEo .a ~ g .~.~ .~ ! f '" <::) ai.iS ~a :> Uf-< Exceeds ECUJR Requirements 19 07/08/08 Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X Xl X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable XI - A manure management plan will be addressed in the conditions. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ] 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. ... ~ l3 a ~ '" .~ (1) ;>, ~;>, \j j]: (1) _ i -g (1) '" ~8: ~ "E~ o ::3 ~~ t:l..t:l.. t:l..oo t:l.. Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X Xl X X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X XI - Water restrictions, with regards to development will be addressed in the conditions. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7] I . h h d d . A . I 4 S' D I The proposed Special Use shall S d d comply Wit t e appropriate stan ar sm rtlc e , Ite eve ODment tan ar s. "5 ~ ~ "Q~ (1) '" .- d~ ....:l!l wi & ~ Article 4, Site Development Standards U5 00 (1) ~ 8 ~8 _t:x: '" (1) &1. ~ ~t:x: "E.. "d ... ~ (1).- t+=i .- ",:::l 8 50 '" ::3 'i g- (1)....:l '0 ~ (1) ou ~t:x: oot:x: o~ Z X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) I X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) 20 07/08/08 X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) 2,3 X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) 5 X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS C. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to attachment dated June 26, 2007. 1. The applicant has been in talks with Tom Wagenlander of the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District and is awaiting a letter with conditional approval. Please provide the Engineering Department a copy of Tom's letter. 2. The applicant still has not shown the alignment or design for the access to the Indoor Arena/Stable and Bunk Houses. In order to minimize site disturbance, these structures are best served by one road with driveways splitting off to reach each structure. The Engineering Department can work with the applicant to determine a road design that will best serve these structures. 3. The limits of the pasture areas are still a concern. The applicant has explained that the perimeter of the pastures will minimize the impact on wetlands. Using the mapping that has been performed by the applicant, it would be simple to fence the pasture areas to be outside of known wetlands. This is related to a recommendation in the Environmental Impact Report that grazing be limited when soils are wet (this 21 07/08/08 extends beyond wetlands to consider times of rain or high water). Perhaps this concern could be addressed as a condition of approval for this application. 4. The Environmental Impact Report, prepared by Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC, recommends that grazing in the riparian corridor be avoided. The fencing of the pastures needs to minimize the impacts on the riparian corridor as well. 5. The applicant has committed to not providing any direct access between the Stable and the Outdoor Arena to protect Salt Creek. This should be included as a condition of approval for this application. If this should change in the future, a non-vehicular bridge for the crossing of Salt Creek may be considered. 6. As mentioned in the Environmental Impact Report, manure management is an important aspect of the environmental protection of this site. Prior to the commencement of operations, a management plan shall be developed to adhere to Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards, as well as the expectations of the Eagle County Environmental Health Department. A copy of this plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Department. 7. The applicant has explained that the shallow utilities will cross Brush Creek and Salt Creek at the bridge or culvert location respectively, but this is not reflected completely in the plans, leaving the option for other crossings. We expect that these utility crossings - including but not limited to proposed natural gas, cable, telephone, and electricity - will be made with the road crossings of both creeks. This will minimize damage to the sensitive wetland areas around Salt Creek and Brush Creek. Unless completely impractical, this should be a condition of approval for this application. 8. The water system has been designed and illustrated on the plans, but there is no commitment or discussion for water service in the application. Who is providing the potable water service for the site? 9. There is no explanation for disposal of wastewater from any of the proposed facilities on site. The original PUD included an ISDS study for individual residences spread out on multiple acre lots. While the current proposal decreases the overall density on the site, the impact in the area of the bunk houses will be much greater than what was anticipated with the original study. A new wastewater study is needed to assess the impacts and viability of the current proposal. 10. To provide dual access to the site as well as access to the proposed trail head, Old Salt Creek Road shall be improved and maintained. Should this application receive approval, the Engineering Department will work with the applicant to determine how to best address the improvements and maintenance of Old Salt Creek Road. 11. Prior to any site disturbance, all necessary permits shall be acquired, including a Colorado Discharge Permit, Army Corps permit for disturbance of wetlands, County Grading Permit if not an SIA and any other applicable permits. Items one through nine (1-9) must be addressed for the review of this application. Items ten and eleven (10 & 11) are not required at this time and can be addressed should this project move forward. Eagle County Environmental Health - Please refer to attachment dated June 27,2007. o To assure this property is included into the Master Association in order to make sure the ISDS systems are of the same technology and the responsibility for installation, maintenance and repair remains with them. o To assure that this property is governed by the Water Quality Monitoring and Mitigation Plan that was developed for Frost Creek - some slight amendment may need to occur to this plan to include this parcel. o To assure the stream and wetlands are effectively protected from agricultural uses as there currently appears to be no plans to fence off riparian areas and in order to get to the riding area from the barn, it appears that a stream crossing is necessary. o Along the same line, road crossings should minimize riparian and wetland impacts. o The same environmental controls placed on Frost Creek are carried forward to the Salt Creek parcel. ECO Trails- Please refer to attachment dated June 25, 2007. 1. The trail alignment seems to go through directly through some riparian area. In the text they say the alignment was "approved by ECO Trails". We discussed in a conceptual sense and they asked that they be allowed to come back later with details. Now is detail time. The trail should travel on the outskirts of that area and avoid taking out any riparian. Here, unlike in other places, it's flat and they that that design 22 07/08/08 option and are not hemmed in by road, highway, steep slopes, etc. It seems that fit could be made in the field since it is just a portion of the length, if engineering will accept that option. 2. Will (or is) the road connection from Brush Creek to the trail now paved, I can't recall. Should be paved so that travel encouraged from Brush Creek Road to trail. 3. Directional signs to the trail from Brush Creek Road should be installed by developer. 4. Safety signage and pavement markings should be installed on southern end where trail meets Brush Creek Road 5. All standards of Chapter 4, Regional Trails Plan apply 6. Trail maintenance not by County, can be handled in same manner as Frost Creek (by developer) but needs to noted as public trail in PUD guide and plat. 7. What is timeline on this construction? 8. Trailhead to Trail Gulch should be improved at same time as rest of property NWCCOG - Please refer to attachment dated June 13,2007. My review was focused on water quality protection, and I have a couple general comments. 1. A manure management plan is mentioned on page 22, under Tab 4 information. This would be a good idea from a water quality standpoint if animals are stabled and not kept out to pasture. 2. Overall, there should be little risk of sediment and stormwater impacts from construction actIvitIes. However, if the total disturbed area, including any phasing, is greater than 1 acre the developer needs to obtain a stormwater discharge permit from CDPHE. It appears that the residential facilities and indoor arenas alone will be over an acre. A stormwater discharge permit will require the development of a Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP). The SWMP will require more detail on erosion and stormwater control than is provided in the erosion plans in Tab 7, pages 5-9. The link below outlines CDPHE's requirements. Eagle County may want a condition of approval that the applicant obtain and comply with the CDPHE permit. That would enable to County to enforce the SWMP requirements, given that the State is unlikely to inspect the site, but will help minimize duplication of requirements. State of Colorado Engineer - Please refer to attachment dated June 13, 2007. Water use estimates were not provided - No letter of commitment was provided from the Town of Eagle. Pursuant to CRS 30-28-136(1)(h)(II), a municipality or quasi-municipality is required to file a report with the county and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included. See the Guidelines for Subdivision Water Supply Plan Reports (online at www.water.state.co.us/pubs/policies/memo subdivisions. pdt) for the necessary information. State of Colorado Geological Survey - Please refer to attachment dated June 25, 2007 Karen Berr's and my previous referral response letters discussed numerous development constraints, including slope instability, surface flooding, shallow groundwater, collapsible soils, rockfall and debris flow hazards, and erosion and sediment control issues. All of these concerns remain valid for the site, but I agree with HP Geotech's conclusion (page 5) that most of the property is suitable for the proposed recreational development. HP Geotech's Geologic Site Assessment contains a good description of existing conditions and potential development constraints, including moisture-sensitive (collapsible and/or settlement-prone) soils, sinkholes, flood-prone areas, debris flow hazards, and potential slope instability. I agree that additional, site-specific evaluation and mitigation will be needed to reduce potential risks associated with these hazards. In addition, I have one specific recommendation: Proposed indoor arena. According to available geologic hazard mapping, the proposed indoor arena and common bunkhouse are located within a mapped debris fan area. Potential concerns include: surface and subsurface drainage, frequency and control of mudflows and debris flows, and hydrocompaction. The proposed indoor arena appears to be located directly within the mouth of the Trail Gulch drainage, and 23 07/08/08 appears to be at high risk of debris flow damage at its current proposed location, especially in the event of a wildfire. If this structure cannot be constructed elsewhere on the property, we would like to review the applicant's site specific hazard evaluation, analysis, mitigation design, and construction drawings for the proposed indoor arena, when available, to verify that the potential debris flow hazard has been mitigated. CDOT - Please refer to attachment dated June 6, 2007 I have reviewed the Adam Rib PUD. It did have an traffic study (LSC dated November 20, 2006). Based upon the TIS, it doesn't look like the development will increase traffic by more than 20% at an of the access points onto SH 6. However, I do not know if the traffic distribution was agreed upon by local government, but I feel it will more than likely not effect any SH 6 intersections by more than 20%. Therefore, it doesn't appear to need an access permit; however, Eagle County is the issuing authority. CDOW - Please refer to attachment dated June 29,2007. This project is located in wildlife habitat that is designated deer and elk wither range in addition to being an area that bald eagles use for resting and hunting. The area also encompasses wetlands and riparian area habitat types. This habitat type supports a greater diversity and number of wildlife species than any other habitat type found in Colorado. The data that this proposal is using to describe the existing conditions is based upon "a compilation of field work done at the site from 1993 to 1996, with follow up visits in 1997 though mid 2002; and the Natural Diversity Information System website." That means that current conditions are being based on data that is five years old. Within that five year time frame there has been continuous development surrounding the project site which has affected movement patterns and patterns of use by wildlife within the area. Some of the new development includes the continued build out of Cordillera, the development of Eagle Ranch, and the construction phase for the Frost Creek PUD and golf courses. All of these changes have altered wildlife use within the area and on the Salt Creek property. Generally, the assessment that both deer and elk use the native hillsides parallels lto the valley floor is correct and these hillsides and low bench area are recommended to be left in a native vegetative state. The deer and elk use the hillside for feeding, resting and thermal cover but the project needs to be designed with fences that do not impede or restrict the movement of wildlife across and through the property. These hillsides also are areas that produce large mast crops, berries and acorns that black bears will use and seek out. The protection and enhancement of the existing riparian/wetland area will provide for a diversity of wildlife species including birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The existing fishery would also benefit from this type of management. The only impacts to the bald eagles mentioned in the proposal were that the "only potential food sources for bald eagles on the site would be fish or waterfowl neither of which is abundant on the site." The Division of Wildlife witnessed this particular area being used' a pair of bald eagles feeding in the field, on two separate occasions during the winter of2007. This may not seem significant but does demonstrate that the property does receive use from this species. This special use permit application bases its wildlife impacts on the fact that this project plan is better than the original plan with 21 residences. However, this plan will also have an effect on wildlife whether less the original plan or not there is no designated mitigation for that loss described further than to say that "impacts on the available acreage are relatively small." Implementing the following recommendations would reduce the impacts to wildlife from this project: . Fences constructed on the property should not exceed 42 inches in height with a 16 inch space between the ground and the first wire or board and a space of 12 inches between the top two wires or boards to insure the unrestricted movement of wildlife across and through the property. The exceptions would be fencing for the specific purpose of excluding wildlife from stored agricultural forage and privacy fencing directly adjacent to and limited to an area of 5000 sq.ft next to the one 38 acre residence. . All structures, arenas, boarding stalls and saddling area need to be located at the recommended Eagle County riparian set backs of 75 feet. Riparian/designated wetland area should be fenced and protected from livestock use. 24 07/08/08 . Development near a wetland or riparian site should establish a buffer zone to ensure that construction and development impacts do not degrade the site. During all construction activities silt fencing should be placed to guarantee no disturbance occurs. . A minimum 75 ft. set back from the high water mark of any stream plus any additional riparian habitat should be maintained. . Spanning structures should be constructed for any crossing structures planned for wetlands, riparian or waterway. . If development is unavoidable in wetlands or riparian areas construction should be restricted to the time period of August 1 to September 30. . Vegetation on the proposed site should be maintained at present levels within the NRCS guideline. . Outside storage of trash should only be allowed when in bear-proof receptacles or structures. . Compost piles should be prohibited unless stored in a bear-proof receptacle. . There should be no dumps or disposal of refuse within the development unless at a centralized bear- proof trash compactor or bear-proof trash storage facility. . Pet food should not be left outside since it can be an attractant to black bears. Seasonal use restrictions for sensitive habitats may be necessary but are dependent upon the design of the development. The use of important seasonal habitats by humans can create a negative impact to wildlife. Areas that may require seasonal closures to human activity include wither range, migration corridors, production area, nesting areas or other critical habitats. The Division would also point out that active signage and enforcement of these closures is critical and must be assumed by the HOA. . Winter range closures should be closed to human activity from December 1 until April 30. . Riparian and wetland areas should be closed to human activity from March 1 to July 1 for the breeding, nesting and rearing of the wildlife species associated with this habitat. The Division suggests that the number of acres of wildlife habitat impacted by this project be determined and then various mitigation alternatives could be reviewed. While the preferred method would be to provide mitigation for the impacted acres on site, there are alternatives which the Division is available to discuss with Eagle County and the developer if desired. Colorado State Forest Service - Please refer to attachment dated July 10, 2007. On June 18th I visited the Salt Creek site of the Adam's Rib PUD and Equestrian Facility south of Eagle CO. The overall fire hazard is low. This is given that the development is restricted to the flat pasture land on the west side of the parcel. Any development in the pinyon pine/juniper on the steep slopes on the east side of the parcel would significantly increase the wildfire hazard. This low rating is also based on the availability of water from Brush Creek and Salt Creek. Placing fire hydrants within 1000 feet throughout the development will also help to mitigate fire hazard. The addition of Adam's Rib Ranch Road adds an additional ingresslegress which helps mitigate wildfire hazards by aiding in evacuation should a wildfire occur. Primary roads should be wide enough to allow access for fire suppression equipment and personnel, 22024 feet wide minimum. The use of Class A rated roofing material and noncombustible sidingldecks on all structures will also contribute to this low rating. I would recommend moving several of the bunk houses and the common buck house on the east side of the development further away from the slope. This would allow for maximum defensible space between the bunk houses and the pinion pinel juniper fuel type which is extremely prone to wildfire. Town of Eagle - Please refer to attachment dated August 1, 2007. . As you are aware the Town has a First Amendment to Water Services Agreement for water service to the Frost CreeklSalt Creek PUD. In this agreement the Town will provide water to one (1) single family ranch house on a residential lot, one (1) detached Accessory Dwelling Unit and an equestrian center and related shooting sport facilities. The current proposal with the three (3) bunkhouses and ranch manager residence is in excess ofthe agreement between the Town and 25 07/08/08 Kummer Development. In order, for water to be provided to the special use it will be required that the current Water Services Agreement. The next Town Trustees meeting is Tuesday, August 14th. As an aside, Kummer Development did represent to the Town during negotiations of the First Amendment to Water Services Agreement that the proposed single family dwelling was to be the Ranch Manager residence. . The application proposes the ADU to be located on a separate parcel from the sign family residence. Under this design the ADU or "Ranch Manager Residence" is not an ADU. It is not accessory or integral to the single family residence as required by the PUD. Furthermore, the ADU proposed is 3,500. The maximum size of an ADU in the PUD is 1,000 square feet. Lastly, it is on a separate parcel that is conveyable separate and apart from the single family structure. . According to the PUD the intent for both the equestrian center use and single family residence was to preserve the ranching characteristics of the land. For example, the design or layout of uses would be similar that of a traditional ranch headquarters where both working and living occurred in a concentrated area. A good example would be the Adams Rib Ranch headquarters just south of this proposal off of Brush Creek Road. The current design is opposite with uses spread over a large area and separate by large distances. Also, the PUD states that Salt Creek will be developed in manner that favors open space and natural resources. To that end, all improvements, roads, trails, buildings should be located not to impact natural resources (creeks, floodplains, wetlands and riparian areas). . Equally important to site design are the architectural plans for all proposed buildings. The application provides only a rendering of one of the propose bunkhouses. It should be required that all architectural plans be provided and that the design of the structures that has a style representative of traditional western Colorado ranches. Architecture plays an important role in helping this project achieve the intent of the PUD for the Salt Creek development. . Grazing limitation and standards should be required to prevent overgrazing of pasture lands and grazing taking place in the most sensitive areas ofthe site, such as the wetlands and riparian areas. . The application seems to be outside of the established PUD criteria for both the single family and equestrian facility uses. If the Applicant desires to continue with this application the County should require both a PUD amendment and special use permit review. Specifically, the proposed bunkhouses and ranch manager residence are the uses and structures that do not meet the adopted and approved PUD guidelines. . Resolution No. 2005-016 of the Board of County Commission required certain conditions to be met by Kummer Development as part of their PUD approval. One of the conditions is important to the Town of Eagle, as follows: . Prior to final plat approval, the applicant should agree to participate in the funding of a traffic signal at the intersection of Brush Creek Road/Bull Pasture Road and Capitol Street. The Town requests that the County amend this condition to allow for this funding to be directed to a traffic signal at an intersection as determined by the Town of Eagle. For example, Frost Creek and Salt Creek traffic can and will use the streets within the Eagle Ranch neighborhood. This condition will lead to traffic signals being warranted in this area of Town long before one is ever needed at the Brush Creek Road/Bull Pasture Road and Capitol Street intersection. This condition should be met and agreement in place prior to any approval of this special use application. . Location and design ofthe Trail Gulch trailhead needs to be included with this special use application and constructed at the same time as the Salt Creek trail. . This application has been submitted at an opportune time for a dialogue to be opened regarding land conservation in the Brush Creek Valley. Conserving natural resources and rural character is a major goal of the adopted Eagle Area Community Plan (the "EACP") and it appears that this same 26 07/08/08 goal will exist as the update ofthe EACP is finalized in the fall of this year. Furthermore, current development applications, which include this application and Upper and Lower Ranch pose a major challenge toward protecting important natural resources and rural character in the Brush Creek Valley. To that end, the County should take the lead in coordinating a major land conservation effort for the Brush Creek Valley. It could be a project that benefits both the private and public interests. On the public side, approximately 2,000+ acres could be conserved as open space, protecting both natural resources and rural character. The private side (i.e., Kummer Development) could be granted a density transfer of Upper and Lower Ranch units to Frost Creek to further support this major golf course community and to the JHY Parcel or Haymeadow Parcel to support community workforce housing efforts. The Town understands that this is much beyond the scope of review for a special use, however, all players are at the table with this application and it seems that timing, community and political values are aligning to make this far fetched idea a reality. In addition to these responses, we also received letters from Charles P. Ridgeway - please see letter attached dated June 29th, 2007 and an email from Ted & Lori Seipel dated August 15,2007. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Road and Bridge Department; Sheriff's Office; Historical Society; school district . Federal: BLM; Army Corps of Engineers . Service District: Century Tel; KN Energy; Holy Cross Electric; Ambulance District . HOA: Eagle Ranch Town of Eagle - Please refer to letter dated October 9, 2007. The First Amendment to the Water Service Agreement - Frost Creek Property, dated August 24,2004, between the Town of Eagle and the Kummer Development Corporation allows for up to 6EQR of water sue on the Salt Creek property. The current plans for the Salt Creek have buildings that will use 5.7 EQR of the 6.0 allowed. The Town believes the current PUD application to be in conformance with the aforementioned agreement. State of Colorado Geological Survey - Please refer to email dated September 19, 2007 The Indoor Arena and Stable building has been moved outside of the mapped debris flow hazard area, and the common bunkhouse has been deleted. This satisfies the debris flow concerns presented in CGS's letter dated June 25,2007. However, I noticed that basements are planned for the Ranch Manager's Residence and the two Bunkhouses. Based on HP Geotech's borings, the close proximity of Salt Creek, and the presence of wetlands in the area, groundwater should be expected to occur, at least seasonally, at very shallow depths beneath the site. Since finished floor elevations must be maintained at least 3 to 4 feet above maximum anticipated groundwater levels, full-depth basements may not be feasible and should not be considered unless more detailed information is obtained about seasonal depths to groundwater. Foundation perimeter drains will probably be needed to prevent excessive wetting of collapsible soils surrounding foundation elements. Greater Eagle Fire Protection - Please refer to letter dated October 3,2007 REF: The Salt Creek/Frost Creek PUD, Equestrian Facility and surrounding structures. WE accept this PUD with the following points. 1. All buildings in this new PUS need to be spinklered. See previous letter dated August 11, 2007. If and agreeable site is located for a fire station, we would be willing to re-evaluate the need for the buildings (other than the equestrian center) to be sprinklered. 27 07/08/08 2. Provide fire hydrants with a minimum flow of 1500 gpm at each end of the indoor arena. (These hydrants are currently shown on the Salt Creek PUD engineering drawings). They need to be diagonal from each other. 3. An all weather drivable surface area around the indoor arena that allows emergency vehicle access to all sides of the arena. Currently, the plan shows a driveway around the arena as requested. Actual dimension will be addressed during the building plan review. 4. Turning radii appear to meet Greater Eagle Fire Protection District's vehicle requirements. A minimum of 20 feet road width will be required on dead-end roads up to 500 feet long and 26 feet road width up to 750 feet long. Once a more detail construction plan is submitted we can better determine road requirements. 5. Bridges will have to meet the minimum weight requirements of GVW 75,500 lbs and/or GA WR weights of27,000 lbs. 6. As discussed with Adam's Rib, Old Salt Creek Road from its intersection with Salt Creek Road to the Trail Gulch trailhead will be improved. This will also provide secondary access to the facility. C. SUMMAR": The proposed equestrian facility is generally in compliance with the Adam's Rib Frost & Salt Creek PUD Guide. It is consistent with surrounding uses in the area. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER'S OPTIONS: 1. Approve the Salt Creek equestrian facility SUP request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines ofthe Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the Salt Creek equestrian facility SUP request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the Salt Creek equestrian facility SUP request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the Salt Creek equestrian facility SUP request with conditions andlor performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. The ownerlapplicant must comply with the Adam's Rib Frost and Sah Creek PUD Wildlife Mitie:ation and Enhancement Plan, within the PUD Guide, and/or the suggestions in the CDOW letter dated August 7,2007, whichever is more restrictive. 2. A manure management plan will be in place and shall adhere to Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards, and be approved by Eagle County prior to grading permit Issuance. 28 07/08/08 3. For riparian protection, grazing shall be limited when soils are wet and grazing rotation annually must be implemented to reduce degradation to the pastureland, enforced by the Adam's Rib Frost and Salt Creek PUD Wildlife Miti2ation and Enhancement Plan 4. All six (6) points in the letter dated October 3,2007 from the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District shall be considered conditions and shall be implemented prior to issuance of either the building permit or grading permit, whichever comes first. 5. No development or structures shall be erected on the Salt Creek parcel beyond the scope of work proposed within this Special Use Permit without prior approval from the Town of Eagle and Eagle County Community Development department. This includes any development that requires potable water. 6. If the EQR's differ from what has been provided by the applicant ("Salt Creek EQR;s") an amendment to the Water Agreement with the Town of Eagle must occur. 7. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 8. Trail alignment needs to be moved completely out of riparian area - subject to County Staff approval prior to grading permit. 9. A Trail Easement to connect between Old Salt Creek Road and the existing approved trail on the Salt Creek parcel must be in place prior to the grading permit issuance. PDF-00I00 Salt Creek/Frost Creek PUD Final Plat Lisa de Graaf, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: FILE NO.IPROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENT ATIVE: Tabled from 2/12/08, 3/11/08, 4/22/08 5/6/08, 5/20/08, 6/3/08 & 6/24/08 The purpose of this final plat is to establish land use on Salt Creek parcel. PDF-00I00; Final Plat Salt Creek Final Plat South from the Town of Eagle on Brush Creek Road Kummer Development Owners Bruce Gray, Kummer Development 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REOUEST: The intent of this plat is to create a new lot with two (2) building envelopes (residential, support structures); a new road and trail and other easements. This Plat is concurrent with the approval of an equestrian facility. The Frost Creek & Salt Creek PUD approved in 2005 and required a Special Use Permit process to allow for the development of the an equestrian facility. B. SITE DATA: North: South: AgriculturallV acant AgriculturaVVacant Residential Resource AgriculturaV Residential Resource Resource Residential 29 07/08/08 East: AgriculturallV acant Resource/ Backcountry - - West: Residential ARI AL AgriculturaVVacant Resource Existing Zoning: PUD Proposed Zoning: N/A Current Development: AgriculturallV acant Site Conditions: Vacant pasture with riparian areas, Salt & Brush Creeks Total Land Area: Acres: 520 ac Square feet: Total Open Space Acres: 472 ac Percentage: 91% Water: Public: TOE Private: Sewer: Public: - Private: ISDS Access: Via Brush Creek Road C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: · 2003 - ZC-00059 and PDSP-00016 Zone Change and combined Sketch / Preliminary Plan approval was granted for the still in effect Adam's Rib Frost Creek and Salt Creek Planned Unit Development. . 2003 - 1041-00044, granted to extend water line . 2004 - 1014-00057, Amendment to the 1041 above · 2005 - PDA-00056, Amendment to the Frost & Salt Creek PUD to move residential lots . 2007 - ZS -00156, Special Use Permit to allow for equestrian facility 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-280.B.5 Subdivision Final plat Section Purpose: At the meeting on the Final Plat for Subdivision, the Board of County Commissioners shall review the Final Plat, the submittal materials, provide both County staff and the applicant an opportunity to comment, and approve or disapprove the Final Plat for Subdivision based on whether it conforms to the approval given to the Preliminary Plan for Subdivision and the standards in Section 5-280.B.3.e., Standards., considering specifically the adequacy of required improvements and the acceptance of areas dedicated for public use and easements. Standards: 5-280.B.5.b (3) and 5-280.B.3.e Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, it has been found that: (1) This final plat conforms to, and is consistent with the intentions, representations and conditions as approved with the Preliminary Plan for the subdivisionIPUD. (2) Required improvements are adequate including roadways, pedestrian and recreation pathways, and infrastructure. 30 07/08/08 (3) Areas dedicated for public use and all anticipated easements are as approved in the Preliminary Plan and are acceptable as presented in the Final Plat application. Section 5-280.B.3.e: STANDARD: Consistency 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. ons rate Recommendations Not Applicable 8 (,) '" '" Q 8 FLUM i ,"- u bll 4) ~ 0 8 e .6 ~ a ~!i Designation U g = g ~~ -eo ~ ~ :='(1) ~ 0 ~~ ::x:: ~~ ~~ Eagle Area Community Plan X X X X X X X X X <ld18 S 5~ 4) 1'~ FLUM ~~ ~~ 'ailS. Designation ....- "2- ~(;J ]i .---rI) o ~ ~5 ~ c:: ~~ ~o <::t: u~ X X X X x x EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN 1:: 4) '" 1 ~ 5 ~ o! ::x:: ;i X X X X X x x 31 07/08/08 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Development Standards. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) 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 Eaflle Countv Road Caoital Imorovements Plan. (2) 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. (3) 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future improvements to the area. The areas subject to construction are developable. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The findings the Special Use Permit effectively demonstrated that this project is sufficiently compatible for development in this area of Eagle County. Approval of this Final Plat does not modify any previous finding. 32 07/08/08 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (6)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Sketch or Preliminary Plan 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 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Any outstanding issues surrounding the above Findings are the result of the accompanying Special Use Permit and should be resolved prior to the approval to the Final Plat. B. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the PDF-OOIOO request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the PDF-00I00 request ifit is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the PDF-00I00 request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the PDF-00I00 request with conditions and/or performance standards ifit is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Ms. De Graafpresented File No. PDF-00100 Salt Creek/Frost Creek PUD Final Plat and File No. ZS- 00156 Salt Creek/Frost Creek PUD, Equestrian Facility. She stated that the purpose of the final plat was to create one 9-acre single family lot, a building envelope for a manager residence, an equestrian facility, a pasture parcel, new road alignment, open space conservation easement, trail easement, various set backs, irrigation easements and utility easements. The plat is concurrent with the approval of the special use permit for the equestrian facility, which has been approved, however the resolution was before the board today. She provided a brief history of the subject parcel. She indicated that the applicant had met all of the minimum standards required for a final plat. Mr. Morris stated that the last time the board looked at the file for approval of the special use permit, the applicant agreed to a conservation easement for a large portion ofthe property. The contemplation at that time was that the Eagle Valley Land Trust (EVLT) and the County would be co holders of the deed and the applicant would be the grantor. Staff wrote up a condition that at that time was accepted by the applicant. The applicant agreed that the start of construction would have to wait until the precise terms of the deed had been worked out. He stated that 33 07/08/08 all sides had been working on the terms of the conservation easement and had tried to narrow the areas of possible differences between the EVL T and applicant. There were two large tracts included in the conservation easement. The wetland tract was under consideration but it was determined that it would not be feasible. Since that time there had been some fundamental differences between the Eagle Valley Land Trust and the applicant. The Eagle Valley Land Trust requested absolute discretion in deciding whether the grantor was in compliance. In this case, for reasons that are largely historical there was a degree of uneasiness on both side about whether there would be conflict over the years in terms of whether the land in the conservation easement would be properly administered. He suggested that the lawyer for the applicant and the representative of the EVL T explain the area of dispute. Boots Ferguson, representative for the applicant responded. He stated that the applicant had received the first version of the conservation easement and sent back his suggested comments. He then received an email back from the EVLT that indicated that one of his comments was unacceptable and there would be no reason to move forward if the property owner stood by this position. The issue was the exercise of absolute and sole discretion by the EVLT. Mr. Ferguson believed that a fair middle ground would be that the absolute discretion of the EVLT would be exercised in good faith. He believed that was an appropriate standard for the conduct of any body in the business world. The land has been a subject of emotional controversy for 30 years. He believed that all the parties had worked hard to calm the emotional waters and come to the table with a rational approach moving forward. The applicant has property that is open for public use and he didn't believe he should be held responsible for the public's conduct if they had no authority to enforce their actions. Mr. Morris requested clarification. He asked the applicant if they would be comfortable with putting into the deed of conservation, a provision that "all parties in exercising their rights and fulfilling their obligations under the easement would act at all times in good faith". Mr. Ferguson stated that the applicant would absolutely be satisfied. Cindy Cohagan, Executive Director of the EVLT spoke. She stated that they would be willing to add a good faith clause and work under a good faith clause in exercising their sole discretion in protecting the conservation values of the property. Mr. Morris suggested that the board take what had been offered by the parties and proceed. He stated that condition number 10 would go back to it's original language which specifies that Eagle County and EVLT would hold the conservation easement. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. ZS-00156 Salt Creek/Frost Creek PUD, Equestrian Facility as presented in the resolution before the board with the addition of condition 10. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve File No. PDF-OOIOO Salt Creek/Frost Creek PUD Final Plat. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00177 - Airport Solar Proiect Adam Palmer, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is for a 752-kilowatt solar photovoltaic project at the Eagle County Airport. The project would include a 50-kw roof-mounted system on the existing terminal roof, as well as a 702-kw ground-mounted system located to the northwest of the airport runway. LOCATION: Eagle County Regional Airport FILE NO.IPROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: ZS-OOl77/ Special Use Permit Minor Eagle Airport Solar Eagle County Regional Airport Eagle County 34 07/08/08 APPLICANT: Staff REPRESENTATIVE: Staff 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Proposed for construction at the Eagle County Regional Airport is a 752-kilowatt solar photovoltaic project which if constructed would provide around 60% of the electricity needs at the airport. The project would consist of a 702-kw ground-mounted system combined with a 50-kw roof-mounted system on the airport terminal. The roof mounted system will consist of amorphous flexible adhesive panel technology which would integrate into the existing standing seam metal roof. The remainder of the project will be a ground-mounted system constructed to the northwest of the runway in an area that gets excellent solar access, without obstruction or potential for future airport construction. At the time of this submittal, staffis awaiting FAA approval for construction of the system. Once FAA approval has been received, we will be looking at breaking ground on the project in August or September of 2008, to be completed by December 2008. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Zone District Map Official The project meets the standards necessary for approval of a special use permit pursuant to Section 5-250.B in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as follows: 1. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan: Section 3.9.6.d ofthe Comprehensive Plan makes the following recommended strategies applicable to this project: . Prioritize renewable energy as an optimal energy source. . Examine the feasibility of renewable energy generation in Eagle County. . Encourage the development of alternative energy supply options including, but not limited to, wind, solar, micro-hydro, biomass, and geothermal. The proposed solar project would directly support these recommended strategies in the comprehensive plan. 2. Compatibility: The roof-mounted panels would require no structural changes to the existing terminal building and would be integrated within the existing architecture of the building. To this end, this component of the project would appear to be compatible with the existing structures and character of the surrounding land uses. The ground-mounted system would have a maximum height of 8 feet and angled toward the south at 40 degrees to maximize efficiency. While the exact manufacturer and design ofthe panels have not been finalized at the time this is being written, it is assumed the panels will be fixed (non-moving). Also, the design of photovoltaic panels is to minimize any glare or reflection, since, by their nature, they are more efficient when they absorb 35 07/08/08 3. Zone District Standards: The Eagle County Regional Airport PUD allows for utility structures and uses within it. The PUD requires 12.5' setbacks from the property line which the project will comply with. The airport has additional height and construction restrictions for the area proposed for the ground-mounted system which preclude it from future buildinglstructural uses. However, the panels at 8' in height are well within these height restrictions and lower than the 12' perimeter fence surrounding the airport property. 4. Design Minimizes Adverse Impact: The design of the ground mounted panels would not be creating any noise or vibration. The primary concern the ground-mounted panel design faces is creating glare for pilots landing aircraft. However, the flat matte finish of the panels, and location northwest of the runway mitigates these concerns since pilots only approach the runway from the east. This issue is being fully considered and analyzed by the FAA through 7460.1 Form and Process. While an official response from the FAA is not available at the time this is being written, preliminary discussions with them have been favorable. Also, the construction of the panels will be strong enough to adequately handle snow and wind loads in our climate, but frangible in case of an airplane collision, the panels and mounting racks would collapse or break. 5. Design Minimizes Environmental Impact: While the terminal roof-mounted system would not have significant environmental impacts, the ground-mounted component of the project would require some light grading of the area. This area was previously graded/disturbed during the construction of the airport. Some gravel will be brought in for the project to improve the site and abate dust/mud. However, most of the site will be undisturbed other than the footers for the panel racks and will remain in its current state as bunched grasses and bare dirt. The project lies within the scope ofthe original Environmental Impact Study completed for the airport. 6. Impact on Public Facilities: The project would be providing clean local renewable energy to the Eagle County Regional Airport public facility. 7. Site Development Standards: As mentioned above, the ground-mounted panels would be constructed outside the 12.5' setback requirement, and below height maximums. The height restriction for the proposed location is within a 'glass ceiling 8. Other Provisions. NA B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: See attached letter from Eagle County Engineering. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Assessor; ECO Trails/Transit; Environmental Health; Housing Division; Road and Bridge Department; School District; Sheriff's Office; Wildfire Mitigation Specialist; . Colorado Division of Wildlife; Forest Service; Geological Survey; Water Conservation Board; . Bureau of Land Management; Natural resource Conservation Service (USDA); US Army Corps of Engineers; US Forest Service; . Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum. Response from Town of Gypsum was verbal over the phone with Lana Gallegos who had no issues with the proposal as long as the FAA approval was received for the project. c. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: · Provides clean local renewable energy to the grid, offsetting 60% of the airport's electricity use. · Would be the largest solar system on the Western Slope. 36 07/08/08 · Provides a powerful environmental message to all of the visitors using the Eagle Count Regional Airport. · Requires no upfront cost to Eagle County. Power generated from the system would be purchased at a comparable rate to current electric costs. The rate would be locked in, unescalating, for 20 years. Disadvantages: · The potential for glare to pilots. However, with the location of the panels and matte black finish, this issue should be adequately mitigated. DISCUSSION: Mr. Palmer reviewed the details of the solar system proposed for the airport. He stated that the system would provide 60% of the electricity needs of the Eagle County Regional Airport. Construction would begin late August, and completion was expected December of2008. The proposal was presented to the Eagle County Planning Commission and their recommendations included; a storm water management plan, special review provision for a one-year analysis, and that gravel base is laid down for the areas impacted by vehicles during construction and a glare visional analysis. He provided details of the system. He stated that a final letter of approval from the FAA had not been received. The FAA's primary concern was glare. A roof-mounted system was being proposed. The bulk of the system would be located to the north of the runway and west of the air traffic control tower. The panels would be mounted on the terminal roof. He presented a sketch of the proposed design. He did not expect any significant impact to aircraft. The panels would be fixed with no moving parts. He stated that Stratton Flats had indicated no concerns with the solar system. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. ZS-Ol77 with the following conditions: 1. Stormwater Management Plan be analyzed and revised if necessary prior to construction. 2. Special review provision to allow for one-year analysis after completion of system if materials create adverse impacts. Any such impacts will be mitigated accordingly. 3. Gravel base be laid down for areas of vehicular access between panels and around inverters to reduce potential for dust/erosion. 4. Glarelvisual analysis be completed to demonstrate potential for glare onto adjacent properties during all times of day and seasons. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher stated that Keith Montag recently discussed the project with Governor Ritter and Senator Salazar and both expressed interest in attending the ribbon cutting ceremony. Public Hearing - Bellyache Road closure Adam Palmer, Community Development FILE NO.IPROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PR-14711 Planning Review Bellyache Road UselAccess East of Town of Eagle and Bluffs Subdivision BLMIEagle County Staff Staff 37 07108/08 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Eagle County Road #21 is a dirt road accessing BLM property from the Bluffs subdivision, which is in the Town of Eagle. The road is Eagle County right-of-way on BLM property. The road travels 4.9 miles from its beginning where it meets a locked gate at private property and is classified as a rural access road by Eagle County Engineering. The 1984 Glenwood Springs Field Office of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Resource Management Plan restricted vehicle use to designated roads and trails year-round except for snowmobiles operating on snow. The designation was aimed at protecting soils and vegetation in an erosion hazard area. The supplemental travel plan did not designate any motorized use off County Road 31, which bisects the area from east to west. The BLM initially signed the area and published maps showing the area without designated motorized routes off County Road 21. Eventually BLM management fell behind the fast-paced population growth and the subsequent heavy use, which destroyed signage and closures. In the fall of 2002, the ECO- Trails back country subcommittee submitted a management proposal for the 1683-acre area that limited motorized vehicle use. The proposal spawned a January meeting of concerned stakeholders. The stakeholders agreed to make the area more aesthetically appealing and develop a system of non-motorized trails. Four action items arose from those discussions: 1. Clean-up the trash and litter. 2. Close unauthorized motor vehicle routes. 3. Rehabilitate the hill climbing scars on the hillside in view of the Town of Eagle. 4. Develop a hikelbike trail system In May of 2003, the stakeholders organized a trash cleanup that removed over 50 tons of debris from the area. The stakeholders also signed and barricaded unauthorized motorized routes. Hundreds of volunteers and an estimated $500,000 made this effort possible. Historic uses in this area include hunting, mountain biking, motorized recreation (including motorcycles, ATVs, and 4x4s), hiking, and camping. In addition, 2 utility easements exist in the area: one is for a Holy Cross Energy power utility line, and the other is for a cellular communications facility located on a spur road roughly I-mile up Bellyache Road. During Memorial Day weekend this spring, an off-road vehicle drove over closed areas, damaging blockades, signage, and vegetation. This spawned homeowners in the Bluffs to request a work session with the Board of County Commissioners and they voiced the following concerns: litter/trash/carcass dumping vandalism/partying erosion into Bluffs Road and private property illegal motorized use on roads in the Bluffs and in town motorized use in closed areas/non-motorized trails user conflicts safety At the June 3rd work session the BOCC proposed a temporary closure to motorized vehicles on Bellyache Road to protect the homeowners in the Bluffs until September 15,2008; after which a permanent long-term solution could be attained. The BOCC requested additional information from the BLM, CDOW, Town of Eagle, and other stakeholders and users of the area. They also requested a public hearing to further discuss the issue. 38 07/08/08 The Town of Eagle placed this item on the Town of Eagle Board of Trustees hearing agenda June 24th. At this meeting, significant public comment was received regarding the issue. The Board of Trustees recommended against a seasonal motorized closure, and outlined increased enforcement, education, and potential realignment of the road as mitigation effortslpotential solutions to the issues identified. 2. STAFF REPORT The 2007 Eagle County Quality of Life survey highlighted outdoor recreation as a primary contributor to quality of life in the area. The 2007 Town of Eagle Community Survey identified types of recreation enjoyed by the Eagle community specifically. The top activities included hiking (78%), walkingljogging (76%), alpine skiing/snowboarding (71 %), mountain biking (56%), roadlbike path cycling (56%), golf(56%), fishing (44%), and snowshoeing (41 %). Motorized vehicle recreation use was mentioned by 19% of respondents (hunting was not listed, although fishing (44%) was). The intensity of use has increased on public lands in general and in the East EaglelBellyache area in particular as population growth continues. Eagle County total population grew 22% from 2000 to 2006. The Town of Eagle population grew 67% during the same period, and dwelling units increased 70%. As the Town of Eagle continues to grow, so will uses on public lands, impacts on the environment and conflicts between users. It is Staffs goal to recommend solutions, which can: 1. Reduce the potential for threats to the public health, safety and welfare 2. Eliminate or mitigate impacts to public lands in the form of vandalism, trash dumping, and erosion 3. Protect values, which contribute to quality oflife in the area. A letter from the Town of Eagle was received by Staff and outlined many issues and sentiments voiced at the June 24th hearing. One line item in that letter stated the following: "The county road (21) is the only public motorized access route to the entire area." Staff believes this statement to be incorrect, since the following motorized access points exist which access extensive areas of public land in the Eagle Area Community Plan: 1. Hardscrabble Road 2. Spring Creek Road 3. Second Gulch in Eagle Ranch 4. Sylvan Lake Road 5. Yeoman Park Eagle County Road and Bridge currently grades Bellyache Road for maintenance and repair to ruts created by vehicles. A set schedule does not exist but this is normally done once or twice a year. Staffhas researched other areas in Eagle County facing similar issues as the BellyachelEast Eagle area. One such location is Berry Creek Road north of Edwards. In 2002, articles were in the Vail Daily (one article is included as an attachment) regarding this issue. Similar issues were identified: 1. Rutting of the road, 2. cost to the USFS for grading/re-grading, 3. increase in intensity of use from multiple user groups, 4. construction of mid-to-high density homes nearby, 5. trash/litter/vandalism In this instance, the Forest Service gated the road from the end of rifle season (mid-November) through May 1 st to mitigate these issues but still allow for motorized access through summer and fall. 39 07/08/08 One primary difference between Berry Creek Road and the Bellyache Road, however, is that Berry Creek Road connects to numerous other roads and large areas ofUSFS property, while Bellyache road is a 4.9 mile dead-end road in a relatively landlocked area with Diamond S property to the east, Adam's Rib property to the south, Eagle River and private property to the north, and the Town of Eagle to the west. In order for motorized use to continue without closure and to accommodate future growth, it is recommended that a use plan outlining best management practices, road improvements, enforcement plan (including voluntary self- enforcement as well as public enforcement), education and communication, and proactive cleanup efforts, be created to mitigate potential impacts. Staff estimates the following baseline measures would need to be in place to respond to current and expected future increased intensities of use (costs are estimates): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Road base application for the first mile of road: Grading once per year: S ignagel gatelbarrier repair/replacement: New signage kiosk/education/maps: Enforcement: ~ time officer: Volunteer clean-up efforts $41,800 $6500 $2000 $2500 $25,000 $0 Total: $77,800 On-going: $33,500/year In addition, it is expected that a motorized best management plan would recommend closure of the road during mud seasons to mitigate impacts when the soil is fragile and to reduce maintenance costs. Cost of a new gate: Installation: $2000 $2000 TOTAL: $4000 Another concept discussed at the Town of Eagle hearing was realignment of the Bellyache Road so that access does not go through the Bluffs subdivision. While Staff believes this alternative would reduce some of the safety issues of illegal motorized use on local residential streets and would have been a better design of the access when the Bluffs was going through the public entitlement process, the re-route would most likely be quite costly since it would require significant cutting and filling, would require construction on BLM property, and would not address other issues cited earlier in this report. Cost estimates to engineer and re-route the road range from $50,000 to $100,000. Much of the off-road motorcycle and A TV use in the area is from local residents in Upper Kaibab, the Bluffs, and older neighborhoods along Third Street and downtown Eagle. It is believed that a majority of these users are accessing the area illegally by operating these vehicles on public roads, which are not street legal. This conclusion is based on the fact that there is very limited parking at the beginning of Bellyache Road, and this parking/staging area is rarely used for OHV access. In order to adequately support off-road motorcycle and A TV use, an adequate parking area would be necessary to accommodate large vehicles and/or trailers. Other parking areas exist at the nearby school and pocket park which can be used by non-motorized users, but these other parking areas do not solve the problem of illegal OHV use on public streets. Currently the public is using a private vacant lot next to the Bellyache Road access point for parking. This lot could be purchased and used for parking. It is currently for sale advertised at $170,000. The Colorado Division of Wildlife supports keeping Bellyache Road open and says that motorized access is necessary to reach projected harvest numbers. However, they do not support a seasonal closure, which would not affect motorized use during hunting season. The reasoning for this as it pertains to wildlife has not been made clear. Their email comments are attached. 40 07/08/08 Staff has also spoken with utility easement leaseholders accessing the cellular communication facility via Bellyache Road. Staff would recommend that these users of the road would retain motorized access to repair and maintain their communication facility as is allowed through there utility easement with BLM. Those which Staff spoke with did not have an issue with closing the road to motorized vehicles as long as they retained access, and preferred closure so that the ruts on the road would be reduced and vandalism to the gate to the communication facility would be reduced. This gate preventing vehicular access to the communication facility has been destroyed and repaired three times this spring. To this end, it is Staffs recommendation that a temporary closure until September 15th not be implemented to respect Town of Eagle and other comments, and since it would be logistically difficult to construct a gate and have it in place for any length of time prior to September 15th. However, Staff does recommend seasonal closure to motorized vehicles from November 30lh through July 1 sl since it offers the most reasonable balanced solution. The closure would be for public motorized vehicles only and would still allow for emergency and utility access. It addresses safety concerns in the Bluffs subdivision and on Bellyache road during those times. It greatly reduces the potential for erosion by keeping vehicles off the road during winter, spring thaw and late fall. It gives the revegetation work and spur road closures a chance to take. It also reduces liability and saves money by not having to invest in additional enforcement, road realignment, roadbase and grading. The seasonal closure would still allow for motorized access from July 1 sl through November 301h. This allows for some motorized recreation to occur outside of hunting season, and allows for motorized use through hunting season as supported by user comments at the Town of Eagle hearing. In addition, Staff asks for additional input from stakeholders and users of the area to meet aforementioned goals which include: 1. Reduce the potential for threats to the public health, safety and welfare. 2. Eliminate or mitigate impacts to public lands in the form of litter, dumping, and erosion. 3. Protect community values which contribute to quality of life in the area. Staff requests that a best management plan be submitted by users of the area for hunting to address issues raised during hunting season which include: . Litter and carcass dumping . Tents and vehicles at camp sites blocking trails . Target practice in appropriate locations . Hunter and other user safety education Additional input and establishment of best management practices, including implementation plan, monitoring, and evaluation, may adjust closures of the area accordingly. Staff is willing and able to hear proactive ideas for solutions as a long-term solution is reached for this area. DISCUSSION: Adam Palmer presented the file. He stated that Eagle County Road #21 alkla Bellyache Road was a dirt road accessing BLM property from the Bluffs subdivision. He provided a brief history as presented in the staff report. Recently residents living in the Bluffs requested a work session with the Board of County Commissioners to voice concerns related to litter, carcass dumping, vandalism, erosion, illegal motorized use, safety issues, and user conflicts. He stated that the BoCC could control access if so desired. At a June 3rd 2008 work session the BoCC proposed a temporary seasonal closure to motorized vehicles until September 15, 2008 to address some immediate safety concerns. The BoCC requested some additional input from the BLM, CDOW, Town of Eagle, and the public. The Town of Eagle responded to the request and had a hearing on June 24. At this meeting, significant public comment was received and the Town Board of Trustees voted against a temporary or seasonal closure. Staff was asked to look at what it would take to realign the road and/or educational programs that would help eliminate user conflict. He provided a number of photos of litter, animal carcasses, erosion damage, illegal 41 07/08/08 fire pits, shooting targets, road rutting, camping, and off road vehicle damage in the subject area. The road ends at the Diamond Star Ranch, which is currently gated. Staffs goals for the property are to reduce the potential threats to the public, eliminate or mitigate impacts to public lands, and protect values, which contribute to quality of life in the area. He spoke about other motorized access points, which exist in the Eagle Area Community Plan. He outlined a few options: A. No action; B. Enforcement and Education Plan, with no closure; C. Enforcement and Education Plan, with a seasonal closure; D. Year around motorized closure. Mr. Palmer presented the estimated costs for each of the options. Additional parking next to the access point was also considered. Staff estimated the cost for realignment of the road to Polar Star to be $50,000- $100,000. Staff supports an education plan and a seasonal closure to motorized vehicles from November 30th through July 1 st. The closure would still allow for emergency and utility access and motorized access from July 1 st through November 30th. Snowmobiles would be permitted during the winter months. Staff supports a spring clean up event. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. He stated that there would be a three-minute time limit for all public comment. Chairman Runyon stated that he had a request to read a letter written by Bailey Wiemer, 394 Whiting Road Resident. Her letter stated that she opposed any closure of the road and believed people should be able to access the land however they chose, so long as they respected their surroundings and people around them. Ed Woodland, Eagle Mayor spoke. He thanked the board for the opportunity to discuss the matter. He read a letter into the record that was submitted by the Town of Eagle too the BoCC. He spoke about the town public meeting held on June 24. He stated that after listening to substantial public testimony, the Eagle Board of Trustees deliberated and voted unanimously to recommend that the county road maintain its current status, although a seasonal closure may be appropriate if certain safety measures were unsuccessful. He presented various viewpoints and issues presented at the meeting. Some of the implementation measures included, stepping up enforcement of traffic regulations in the Bluffs Subdivision and asking the public to be more vigilant in identifying law offenders and users who damage the public resource. Additionally the town believes an educational campaign needed to occur prior to the consideration of any closure. The TOE believed that any seasonal closure should be performed in conjunction with the BLM and CDOW. He stated that some discussion was held regarding changing the access point. The town believes this alternative would need considerable evaluation. Terry Quinn spoke. He stated that he'd resided in the Eagle area since 1977. He was opposed to any closure of the road to vehicular use. He followed the development of the Bluffs and the subdivision was approved subject to a number of conditions. The vehicular access was one of them. He believed that a lot of what had been presented was not relevant. He didn't believe that punishing people who drove up the road for the littering is a suitable matter of public policy. Dan Wolfe, Attorney on for the Bluffs spoke. He stated that the primary concern was for the safety of the people who live in the Bluffs. He believes the safety concerns trump any deal that may have been made in the past and the current situation is an accident waiting to happen. The residents believe there is a solution that would accommodate the various interested parties. The Bluffs residents believe the best solution is the relocation of the current access and a temporary seasonal closure was appropriate now until a permanent solution could be worked out. Ray Long, Chairman for the Elk Foundation and Eagle County employee spoke. He would like to protect the children just as much as the residents do. He proposed option E, a new access point around the subdivision onto Polar Star. He estimated the cost to be $25,000 - $30,000. He believed this would decrease erosion and provide plenty of parking. Bill Jones spoke. He's lived in Eagle since 1977. He agreed with Mr. Quinn earlier comments. He supports option E. He believes that traffic could be eliminated by creating a new access point. He was opposed to any closure. He believed that the public was entitled to use public property and closing it down would be the wrong approach. 42 07/08/08 Don Gress spoke. He'd lived in Eagle County for 30 years. He'd hunted on the parcel for 45 years. He opposed any closure of the road. He agreed with all the previous speakers. He was concerned that hunting season beginning in August. He believed there needed to be some clarification as to deer season, elk season, etc. If it goes to a season closure, he believed that July 1 st was too conservative. He believed Mayor June would be more appropriate. He supports any enforcement in the Bluffs and would support a neighborhood watch program. Todd Shainholtz spoke. This is his 24th summer in Eagle. He would like to see the area remain open. He believes there's a need for an elk and deer harvest. He believes that less than 1 % were abusing the area. He believes enforcement of the area was important. The land is federal property and should be open to all Americans. He stated that there were hunting groups that come out year after year to hunt the land. He believed that if there were to be a seasonal closure the road should be open the first of May. Jim Sutherland spoke. He'd been a resident for 20 years. One of the reasons he purchased his home was because of the BLM access was directly across the street. He believed the re-vegetation project was a success. He supported option E. He spoke about the need for hunters to access the property for scouting pre hunting season. Bob Egan, Eagle resident spoke. He wondered how many of the access points the county controls and which one would be next on the list. He believed that the developer should have dealt with any erosion problems. He agreed with the Town Board's recommendations. He didn't believe the traffic issues in the Bluffs were any different than they were in Eagle Ranch or other places. He stated that the subdivision was brought into a public assess area not the reverse. Glenn Padgett, Gypsum resident spoke. He spoke about the erosion damage caused by bikes and water run off. He believed the issue was a cover up for something else. He stated that safety for kids is top priority but closing the road is not right. He supported option E. Frank Farren spoke. He agreed with option E. Mike Trujillo spoke. He agreed with Mr. Quinn however, he was concerned with the traffic and the unsafe behavior of motorized vehicles coming through the subdivision to access the county road. He stated that the Bluffs residents were also concerned with the erosion at the east end of the development due to motorized vehicles. He stated that he would indorse some of the measures of options B, C, and D, but would prefer option E, the realignment of the road. Maryann Michaelis, resident of the Bluffs spoke. She stated that she supported the comments made earlier by Mike Trujillo and Mr. Wolf. She stated that they are not trying take away anyone's right to hunt, however, she was concerned with the erosion and stated that the HOA had been having to deal with the problem. She spoke to a neighbor who ran on the trails frequently that told her that carcass dumping was a tradition in the area. She supported forming a group to explore all the options. James Dienglewinz, Bluffs resident spoke. He stated that one of the reasons he bought there was because of the access road. He uses the road on a regular basis and does not believe it should be limited to any single use. Safety is a concern however he believed there was an unsafe trend of people speeding through the area and he didn't believe the BLM road was the cause. Closing the road to motorized access makes no sense to him. Ryan Vanderlinden, Eagle resident spoke. He lives at the corner of Second St. and Bluffs Dr., he witnesses residents ofthe Bluffs subdivision running stop signs and speeding through the school zone on a regular basis. Although he has only lived in the area since January he had never witnessed a single off road vehicle going up the road. Recently the police department circulated a notice to the residents stating that there had only been a couple of documented cases of ATV's being on the road. He believes this does not justify a road closure. Tom Ehrenberg spoke. He stated that he'd been using the area for the 15 years. He believed it's an enforcement issue. He would support a season closure up to mid May. He stated that he would be happy to get a group together to work towards a solution. Chris Blankenship, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District spoke. He stated that the district was opposed to a complete closure of the road. The road provides a secondary access to the Diamond Star ranch and Cordillera. Their main concern is public safety for everyone. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Blankenship to explain why the secondary access ranked higher than public safety. Mr. Blankenship stated that Diamond Star Ranch had only one road in and one road out. If the road were blocked, they would have nowhere else to evacuate. He believed by increasing enforcement and educating people it would minimize the impacts to the area. Craig Westcott, Department of Wildlife spoke. He would like to see the motorized access road remain open. The road supports two functions during hunting season, it's great for day usage and for those who camp longer, the road allows them to haul their equipment. He stated that he'd seen very little off road activity off the 43 07/08/08 designated routes. He doesn't believe that the hunters are causing any more problems than the dog walkers who don't pick up their dog poop. He stated that hunting is a safe sport. If there are erosion problems, they could be addressed with temporary closures. He did not believe that anyone-user group was causing all the problems. Commissioner Menconi asked who responded to emergencies on Bellyache Road. He wondered about the expected response time. Mr. Westcott stated that the presently BLM was the law enforcement agency. He was one law officer and covers 11,000 square miles. Legislation just passed this last year that gave the DOW a lot more teeth on off road vehicle use. He stated that there was an officer on call 24 hours a day. Debbie Darrough spoke. She stated that she agreed with the previous speakers. However, she is concerned with option E. She believes the Town police just need to step up enforcement in the Bluffs. Steve Bennett, Associate Field Manager with BLM out of Glenwood Springs was present. He stated that his office had jurisdiction over the BLM lands in Eagle County. He stated that they were committed to working with the county on looking at alternatives. They are not in favor of a seasonal closure. Chairman Runyon wondered how the road became an Eagle County road rather than a BLM road. Mr. Bennett stated that the county claimed jurisdiction on the road and gave it a county road number. Liz Barton, Eagle resident spoke. She stated that her family uses the land a lot during all seasons however she would support a seasonal closure. Chairman Runyon wondered the cost of option E., Brad Higgins stated that option E was not discussed with hirti: He urged the board not to pay attention to the number previously stated. Before this option could be considered, the county would have .to meet with adjacent property owners and come up with an accurate number. ; Commissioner Menconi thanked everyone for taking 'the: time in take part on the issue. In his experience, this was the first time a public safety issue had reached this level of interest and concern. He believed that there was a definite public safety issue for the residents of the Bluffs. He stated that this was not an issue between motorized verses non-motorized use. He believed that the people who had come forward are in fear of the severity of what could happen. His concern was not with the littering on BLM land but the access through the neighborhood leading to the BLM land. He believed the erosion should have been mitigated in the planning. He recommended putting public safety first, and an immediate temporary closure restricting everyone until a solution could be found. He suggested that the county use open space funds or other funds to purchase the adjacent lot and prepare it as a parking area. Commissioner Fisher thanked everyone for their time. She believes that the best solution was to step up enforcement in the residential community. She believes looking at an alternate access was worth pursuing but didn't want to move one problem into someone else's backyard. She believes there was potential in purchasing the adjacent lot for parking and accessing the area. However, she wondered who would pay for it. She stated that signage and educational opportunities were important and suggested a registration point before entering the land might be helpful. She placed urgency on the matter and suggested that a solution be discussed as soon as possible. She believed that shutting the road down and disrupting the use may postpone the solution phase. Chairman Runyon stated that he tended more towardsCommissions Fisher views. He believed that enforcement and education was key. He believed there was an erosion problem and that a season closure from December 15 - May 15th may be an appropriate time period. He was in favor of creating a community focus group. He believed that a secondary access should be explored. He believed that sound management would be the better measure. Commissioner Fisher asked Mike Trujillo if some of the suggestions would mitigate some of his concerns. Mr. Trujillo stated that he was a little concerned that the activity from the Town of Eagle had been scarce and they would appreciate them being more pro active. They would support a seasonal closure after the end of hunting season and a re opening of the road late Mayor end of June. He would support working with a committee to come up with a permanent solution. Commissioner Fisher wondered if a temporary closure while discussion took place would be beneficial. Mr. Trujillo stated that he would be comfortable with working with the town to step up enforcement and not putting the temporary closure in place now. He encouraged a seasonal closure to address the erosion issues. He hoped to fast track some solutions. Mr. Woodland stated that he believed the traffic in the Bluffs subdivision was the problem. He would like to get citizen input, come up with more solutions, and provide better enforcement. He spoke about the erosion control and stated that he believed that alternative solutions could be implemented. He does not support a seasonal closure. 44 07/08/08 Commissioner Menconi stated that he appreciated the Town of Eagle for stepping up enforcement and education. He would support the purchase of a parking lot and entertained a budget appropriation for the purchase of the property. He wondered ifthere had been any investigation into a secondary access. Ty Ryan, County Engineer stated that he would examine the design and cost of another access route. Commissioner Menconi encouraged everyone to submit his or her email addresses for updates on the progress. Jim Efferson, county employee spoke. He stated that he would be willing to work on the committee to find a solution. His biggest concern for a temporary closure is how long it would before it became a permanent one. Mr. Palmer stated that he would coordinate a meeting date with Tom Ehrenberg. Commissioner Fisher encouraged Mr. Trujillo to monitor what goes. Attest: Chairman 1'here being no further business before . DlLpu"f\. 45 07/08/08