Loading...
Minutes 09/29/09 PUBLIC HEARING September 29, 2009 Present: Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Jon Stavney Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney . Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board 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 There was none. Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the ftrst item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of September 28,2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for October 8, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meetings for July 21, July 28 and August 4, 2009 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. Resolution 2009-101 Regarding Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Two Rivers Village Phase II County Attorney's OffIce Representative E. Agreement between Eagle County and Mike W. Luark to Grant Road Right-of-Way Easement and Vacate Unnecessary Road Right-of-Way County Attorney's OffIce Representative F. Agreement between Eagle County and Levi F. and Amanda SchofIeld to Grant Road Right-of-Way Easement County Attorney's OffIce Representative G. State and Private Forestry Landowner Noxious Weed Control Materials Cost-share Contract Integrated Pest Management Representative H. Amended and Restated Fixed Base Operator Concession and Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Vail Valley Jet Center, LLC County Attorney's OffIce Representative 1 09/29/09 I. Agreement between Eagle County and Alison Casias, Special County Attorney and Counsel for Health & Human Services County Attorney's OffIce Representative J. Preconstruction and Construction Agreement for the Colorado River Road Bridge Rick Ullom, Project Management K. Resolution 2009-102 for the Approval of the Special Use Permit for the Sprint/Nextel EI Jebowl Telecommunications Facility, (Eagle County File No. ZS-2227) Sean Hanagan, Community Development L. Resolution 2009-103 for the Approval ofthe Special Use Permit for the Holy Cross Red Table Mountain Multi-User Telecommunications Facility, (Eagle County File No. ZS-2360) Sean Hanagan, Community Development Chairman Fisher stated that Item H would be pulled. Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there would be a work session next week on Item H with the general terms and conditions of the lease with the Jet Center. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-L, excluding Item H. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's OffIce Consent Agenda Renewals A. The Gashouse, Inc d/b/a Gashouse Restaurant #04-66775-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant 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. B. Connellys, LLC d/b/a E- Town Colorado #28-45422-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant 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. C. Larkburger, LLC d/b/a Larkburger #07-91989-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant 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. 2 09/29/09 D. Feather Petroleum Company d/b/a Stop and Save #18 #04-41335-0016 This is a renewal of a 3.2% Beer 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. Other E. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Osprey at Beaver Creek #04-51099-0010 This is a Manager's Registration for Osprey at Beaver Creek. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. wishes to register Russ Craney as the new manager. The application is complete and the necessary fees have been paid. Mr. Craney is reported to be of good moral character, based upon both the Sheriff and CBI reports. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for September 29, 2009 consisting ofItems A-E. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: REQUEST: EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: ST AFF REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF CONCERNS / ISSUES: Roaring Fork Rotary Club Foundation/Club Rotario Special Events Permit Rodeo Mexicano Elizabeth Ruiz, Event Manager Eagle River Center - 794 Fairgrounds Road, Eagle Kathy Scriver None DESCRIPTION: Roaring Fork Rotary Club Foundation, a non-profit corporation has requested a special events permit for an event being held at the Eagle River Center on October 11, 2009 10 a.m. - 9:30 p.m. Alcohol will be served from noon until 8:30 pm; additional time has been requested on the application for set-up and teardown. The Rotary Club will be serving beer in the designated beer garden area and TIPS certified members will be dispensing the alcohol. Diamate Security will be providing security personal for the entire event. The funds raised from the event will provide scholarships to local high school students attending Colorado Mountain College. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. All fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on September 18, 2009, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been fIled in the Clerk Office. 4. The applicant has provided a detailed alcohol management plan and diagram. 5. The applicant has provided proof of server training. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All fIndings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: 3 09/29/09 Ms. Ruiz stated that Club Rotario had been involved with 6 festivals in Carbondale without incident. This was a new event in Eagle and they were confIdent that the event would be a success. It was their intent to do two events a year and raise funds for local scholarships. Chairman Fisher wondered if the scholarships were only available to students in the Roaring Fork Valley. Ms. Ruiz stated that currently they were but they would like to expand to Eagle and GarfIeld County. Chairman Fisher asked about the rodeo events. Ms. Ruiz stated that the rodeo would include various competition events. There would also be kid's zone and live music. Salvador Balderas aka Compa Chava ofNRC Broadcasting stated that they had worked with the county to avoid any incidents. Roberto Hermosillo, rodeo event coordinator stated that some of the animal events had changed to prevent any animal cruelty. Commissioner Stavney asked about the location of the kid's area. Mr. Balderas stated that the location of the kid's area had yet to be determined. Commissioner Stavney asked if there would be a limit to the number of people allowed in. Mr. Hermosillo stated that there would be enough room for everyone. He was certain that anyone walking around the rodeo arena would be safe from harm. He invited everyone to attend the event. Mr. Balderas stated that they would like to hold this event annually. Chairman Fisher asked about the club members that would be serving alcohol and about the rotation. Ms Ruiz stated that people would be required to banded in the beer garden and servers would wear white caps and rotary shirts. There would be three people serving at anyone time. Chairman Fisher asked about the rodeo time. Mr. Hermosillo stated that the rodeo activities would start between 2:30 to 3:00 pm. The bands would begin playing early and food would also be available. He thought that a lot of people would attend the event more for the music than the rodeo, as the band was popular in Mexico. Chairman Fisher asked the cost to attend. Mr. Balderas stated that tickets would be $40 in advance, $50 at the door. Tickets were available at stores listed on the flyer and from club members. Commissioner Runyon asked if they had contacted any local rotary clubs and if so, were any participating. Mr. Balderas stated that none were helping with this event but he hoped that they could work together in the future. Commissioner Runyon encouraged them to work with the local rotaries. Chairman Fisher asked who would be providing the food. Ms. Ruiz stated that Fiesta Jalisco and an establishment from Rifle would be providing the food service. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Events Permit for the Roaring Fork Rotary Club event being held at the Eagle River Center on October 11, 2009, from 10:00 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. with liquor sales from noon to 8:30 pm. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Fisher requested that the applicant provide the Facilities Department with a report after the event. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. 4 09/29/09 Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of Health. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Board of public health Eagle County Board of Health Suzanne Vitale, Health & Human Services Rebecca Larson stated that this was the fIrst meeting as the Eagle County Board of Health after signing the resolution under senate bill 184, as a public health agency. She presented a PowerPoint highlighting the fundamentals of the agency and current issues. Chairman Fisher asked about senate bill 184. Mr. Merry stated that the state legislature decided that not every Coloradan was getting to access public health services. Core services, providing core services and funding of core services were still to be decided. Legislation took three different parts of public health and merged them into one. Dr. Werner stated the state wanted to help organize public health so there was more consistency across the state. Ms. Larson stated that there are three core functions; assessment, policy development and reaching the needs of the community based on the assessment. Dr. Werner spoke about the access to care crisis and that there were many people in Eagle County without medical care. Even though other services were available, it was still diffIcult to have voluntary participation by private physicians. Chairman Fisher asked about the local physicians currently accepting Medicaid. Dr. Werner stated that the only primary physicians in the county accepting Medicaid were Eagle Care Clinic and Eagle Valley Medical Center. There were no physicians in Glenwood Springs accepting new Medicare. There were fixed rates with Medicare and physicians had the option of accepting or not accepting Medicare. Medicare was not a desirable payer compared to private insurance companies. He stated that they were moving forward with a federally qualifIed health center providing health care for those people that weren't able to access it to in the community. Ms. Larson spoke about the new program and stated that they were on track with their education and the training getting up and going in January. Chairman Fisher asked about the application process with the Community Health Center designation. Ms. Larson stated that they needed to get governors designation as a medically underserved population ftrst. The application would be reviewed before being submitted. Dr. Werner stated that the challenge was working to provide all the needed information and demol:,>Taphics to insure an approval of the application. Commissioner Stavney spoke about Leadville's need for health care. Ms. Larson believed that bringing in community partners and county partners into the process would help strengthen the application. Commissioner Stavney suggested that a community healthcare facility in or near Minturn or Avon could be beneftcial. Chris Montero, Western Eagle County Ambulance District spoke. He stated that they'd been working diligently on the program model. Currently they were working with CMC on the education piece. They applied for $170,000-180,000 in grant funds and are currently working on two other grants that would bring in another $100,000-150,000 next year. Ms. Larson spoke about the flu season and that public health was working closely with the medical community, schools, businesses, and childcare facilities. Flu vaccines would be offered soon and she encouraged everyone to get their seasonal flu shot. In mid-October, the HINl vaccines would be available but quantities would be limited. Ms. Larson spoke about the next steps and improvement plan. The state would be doing a public health improvement plan and local health agencies would also need to develop a plan. The direction they would be taking would be was based on core services that the board of health would be determining at the end of the year. In 2010, there would be a capacity assessment. Dr. Werner credited the county for the health of the community. 5 09/29/09 Chairman Fisher thanked Dr. Werner for his guidance, leadership, and helpful in educating the county in its role as a government agency and providing public health. Other Planning Files PDA-2142 Willits Bend PUD Amendment Sean Hanagan, Planning NOTE: Tabled from 5/19/09,6/23/09,8/4/09,8/25/09,9/1/09, & 9/8/09 ACTION: The purpose of this PUD amendment is to change language within the text to include "residential" as a use by right as well as change language regarding mezzanines and how they are counted toward floor area ratio. FILE NO.!PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PDA-2142 / Willits Bend PUD Amendment 1712 Willits Lane Basalt, Colorado Willits Bend LLC Willits Bend LLC The Myler Law Firm, David Myler 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Willits Bend LLC request consideration of the following specific amendments to the PUD Guide: 1. Add "Residential" to the list of allowed uses set forth in Section IV.1 and remove Residential as a limited review use pursuant to Section V. 2. Amend the language in Line 4 of the definition of Floor Area in Section 111.12. to read.... to enclosed lofts and mezzanines, frreplaces, halls, habitable attics, bathrooms, closets and..... Consistent with Plat Note 5 on the Final Condominium/Subdivision Plat of Willits Bend Building 4 which was approved by the County on May 27, 2008, add the following new sentence to the end of the defInition: "Any mezzanines which may be installed within any unit shall comply with the requirements of Section 505 of the International Building Code. In particular, the clear height above and below the mezzanine floor construction shall not be less than 7 feet; the aggregate area of the mezzanine shall not exceed 1/3 of the area of the units; and the mezzanine shall be open and unobstructed to the unit except for wall not more than 42 inches high, columns and posts. No loft or mezzanine may be utilized as a bedroom. The square footage of a mezzanine which satisfies the foregoing requirements shall not be counted in determining the maximum building square footage for Willits Bend pursuant to this PUD Guide, provided, however, that the square footage of any mezzanine, whether or not enclosed, that is contained within a unit designated entirely for office use shall be counted in determining the maximum building square footage for Willits Bend". 6 09/29/09 The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the fact that (i) mezzanines and lofts cannot be used as bedrooms and (ii) enclosed lofts and mezzanines are to be counted as developable square footage but open mezzanines which satisfy the IBC requirements are not to be counted as developable square footage, unless they are incorporated into a purely office use. 3. Revise the Parking by Type of Use provisions in Section IX.5. for live/work units to provide that the minimum parking allotment requirements for the residential component of a live/work unit will he 1 space per 1 bedroom or studio unit, 1.25 spaces per 2 or 3 bedroom units; and 1.5 spaces for 4 or more bedrooms. In additional, the minimum parking allotment requirements for the non-residential component of a live/work unit would be one half of that otherwise required for that use. Since the occupant of the residential area within a live/work unit will be the same individual utilizing the work space, the parking allotment requirements would be adjusted to reflect that overlap. 4. Revise Section Xo4. To eliminate the cap on the number of residential units. The Developer does not propose to eliminate or increase the residential floor area cap of 24,000 square feet. Elimination of the cap on the number of units currently 16 units will allow for smaller residential units to be combined with work space in order to create true live/work units while not increasing the total amount of residential floor area. 5. In order to increase the potential for true live/work units, the applicant is also requesting that the 10% limitation on fIrst floor residential square footage, as set forth in Section x'3. of the PUD Guide be changed to 50% with all commercial frontage to face Widget Street. This amendment will not affect either the existing 500 square foot residential use limitation for an individual, ground floor unit or the overall residential square footage limit of 24,000 square feet. B. CHRONOLOGY: . Apri125th 2006 the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved the Willits Bend PUD in its current form. . January 26th 2009 Willits Bend PUD amendment fIle processed . July 16th 2009 fIle heard by Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission with the decision to table until August 20th to allow for follow up and additional data. . August 20th 2009 the RFVRPC voted unanimously to approve/recommend approval of the PUD amendment C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses I Zomlig: North: Mid Valley Medical Center Town of Basalt South: Crown Mountain Area Town of Basalt> . Resource East: Commercial (Mid Valley Business Town of Basalt Center) Residential ( Oak Grove Town Town of Basalt West: homes) RSL Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (POO) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (POO) Current l)evelopment: Mixed use community 7 09/29/09 Total Land Area: Acres: 4.5-acres Square feet: 196,020 sq. ft. Total Open Space Acres: I. 3 18-acres Percentage: 29.3 percent Usable Open Space: Acres: N/A Percentage: N/A Water: Public: Mid Valley Metro District Private: N/A Sewer: Public: Mid Valley Metro District Private: N/A Access: Via Willits Lane 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-240 Sketch Plan for PUD Section Purpose: For the Applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether the development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. The degree to which the plan conforms to the intent of applicable land use regulations and provisions of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan is determined, as is the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land uses. General agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, access, and the means of water supply and sewage disposal. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identifIcation of issues and concerns the Applicant must address if the project is to receive approval of a Preliminary Plan. Standards: Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch Plan application. Given its conceptual nature, standards that must be met at Preliminary Plan will likely not be fully addressed by sketch plan material. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards will be able to be met at Preliminary Plan. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be made for that Standard STANDARD: Unified ownership or controL [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The title to all land that is part of the PUD is not owned or controlled by one (1) person; the written consent of the owner of the lands that will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD, as amended, has been provided. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS [K] MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 8 09/29/09 D MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. The lists of allowable uses within the Willits Bend PUD are in compliance with current commercial and residential zone districts. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The Dimensional Limitations set forth in the current Willits Bend PUD will not change as a result of this PUD Amendment proposal. Conformance with PUD Intent ofPUD/Use ofPUD Zoning: Intent Yes Necessary for integration of mixed uses; Yes To allow for greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings; Yes To promote a more efficient land use pattern including an opportunity for public transportation and for safe, efficienl, compact street and utility networks that lower development and maintenance costs and conserve energy; Yes To increase open space; Yes The property is constrained- use of conventional standards limits quality desil:m; Yes To increase compatibility with neighboring developments; Other STANDARD: Section 5-240.F.3j, Variations Authorized, provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: No variations will be required as a result of this proposed PUD Amendment. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: 9 09/29/09 (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (h) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkinf! and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The applicant is requesting to take advantage of sub paragraph (a) Shared Parking above by requesting a parking allotment reduction. The applicant's justifIcation for the parking is that a true live/work confIguration would overlap with regard to per unit requirements and this live/work confIguration would reduce the need for parking spaces. The applicant will provide a "Best/W orst case scenario" model to demonstrate how the live/work configuration would impact parking needs for the development. Within the model the applicant will demonstrate all possible iterations that could result from allowable uses dictated by the current PUD guide. Staff is in general support of the applicants plan to reduce the need for parking spaces if the model provided by the applicant demonstrates a legitimate reduced need for parking than was originally proposed in the Willits Bend PUD. Staff feels that if a shred parking model was successfully proposed and executed that this would in fact increase the projects conformance to the master plan by encouraging a Walkable community with less reliance on the automobile to conduct normal business as well as daily activities. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Landscaping within Willits Bend will otherwise not be altered as a result of this PUD Amendment proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD ). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Signage provisions as delineated within the current Willits Bend PUD Guide will not be changed as a result of this PUD Amendment proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 10 09/29/09 STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 0; ~ <IJ ~ 15 I 8- B .., .1Il <'-l j Cl 130; 0; ..2~ '" ~ <IJ () J: If 'S ~ jp.. ~ ]8- ~ .~ ~! o.1Il ~ <'-l <'-lCl ~ Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X X X X X Not ApplicableINo ECLUR Requirements Does Not SatisfY ECLUR Requirements DeviationNIS Requested In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No Development within the Willits Bend PUD is already served with Adequate Facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fIre protection and roads. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)J - The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of irifrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (I) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly 11 09/29/09 connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal Snow Storage Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X X X X Does Not SatisfY ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirement DeviationNIS Requested The Improvements standards governing how Willits Bend has developed since its inception will not be altered as a result of this PUD Amendment proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)J - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Compatibility of the Willits Bend PUD with all existing and allowed adjacent land uses should not be adversely affected by this proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1 ~ ! i i ~ s I I FLUM ! .~ ~ .f! ~ rl ~ rl Q> Designation ~ ~ :e jf Q> 8 0 :g ij ! J 8 ~ ~~ 0 := ~ == ~ ~go: Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 Recommendations 12 09/29/09 I Doan<<_~m~ ofRecommendatlODS Not Applicable Below are the Recommended Strategies intended to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies. I x I I x I [ I I I I 13 Xl: Develooment · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". · "Work to identify and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services ". · "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". · "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". · "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". · "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". · "Analyze development applicationsfor conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". · "Continue to allow variations from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the surrounding community". · "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing". · "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts". The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD' s current level of compliance Xl: Housinf! · "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". · "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". · "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Planfor all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". · "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructurefor all new development applications". · ~~Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD'S current level of compliance. The square footage cap on "Residential" will remain unchanged. X3: Infrastructure and Services · "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub'~ · "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". · Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". · "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". · Encourage transit oriented development". · "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". · "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure". 13 09/29/09 . "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design ". "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate': "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". "Use House Bill 1 041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". . . . . . . . . . . . . The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD' s current level of compliance. X4: Water Resources · "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". · "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". · "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". · "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination". · "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible" · "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". · "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". · "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". · "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". · "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". · "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application". · "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". · "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". · "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". · "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identify and treat other non-point sources of pollution". · "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". · "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". · "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways ". · "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD' s current level of compliance X5: Wildlife Resources · "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man-made barriers to wildlife migration ". · Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". · "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". 14 09/29/09 · "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". · "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". · "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments ". · "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". · "Minimize site disturbance during construction". · "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". · ~~Require wildlife-proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD' s current level of compliance X6: Sensitive Lands · "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". · "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". · "A void the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification ". · Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". · "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". · "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". · "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved". The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD' s current level of compliance X7: Environmental Oualitv · "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". · "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". · "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the needfor daily commuting". · "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and pt'rmanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". · "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". · "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". · "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". · "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". · "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". · "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". · Implement energy efficiency guidelines. · Implement energy saving techniques. The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD's current level of compliance X8: Future Land Use MaD Desi1lnation The FLUM of the Eagle County Community Plan identifies the subject property as a "Community Center". "Community Centers are places where mixes of residential and non-residential activities appropriate to serve the Community Center and surrounding rural areas take place. Community facilities, commercial, residential and mixed use communities, are appropriately located within Community Centers as are community-oriented facilities". 15 09/29/09 EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance Xl Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x x x x x x Applicable Xl The subject property is not located in an area identified as a "unique landform". Overall, the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and ancillary documents. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F3.e (11)J - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. if development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. This fInding is not applicable. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS D MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 16 09/29/09 D MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. (Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]- The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition. the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ofways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (/) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. Open space as delineated within the current Willits Bend PUD Guide will not be changed as a result of this PUD Amendment. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. (Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. .9 S i .9 S 1 ., 11 '6 g ~ "g ~ [:.6'= ~:.6'= G> ~ =S.5=! tJl~ ~~ ~'Q o tIl co CQ.!!l J3'Q . j 1l ~.Sl -gi ,tj g" ~~ i) ~ 8 ~!~ o 0 iiil~ ~} Q 0 ~u Exceeds ECLUR Requirements 17 09/29/09 Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not ApplicableINo ECLUR Requirement Natural Resource Protections will not be altered as a result of this proposed PUD Amendment. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary Plan for a Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)J - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. Overall, the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and ancillary documents. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ST ANDARD: 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. ~ 'S .11l Q 8 ~ as ~ co 00 .13 ~'5 OQ., o'll .~ ~ li ~s ~ !8j riB Zl!:;oo o'll ... 11 6 nn 6 [1 lloo ! g J l rn Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not App\icableINo ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirements Deviations Requested X X X X X X X X ------ The existing Willits Bend PUD complies with all applicable standards and provisions of the Land Use Regulations utilized by Eagle County during the initial evaluation and approval of the Willits Bend PUD in 2006 and subsequent amendments. This proposal to amend the Willits Bend PUD will not alter Consistency with the Land Use Regulations. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS [K] MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 18 09/29/09 D MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS D 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. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. No ineffIciencies have been identifIed with respect to this proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. The Board of County Commissioners in 2006 determined that the subject property was suitable for development. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The compatibility of the Willits Bend Pun with surrounding uses will not be affected by this PUD amendment. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240. F. 2. a. (8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: A Proposed PUD guide settingforth the proposed land use restrictions. This requirement has been satisfIed. 19 09/29/09 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.m Amendment to Preliminarv Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3. m.] - No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provision of Section 24-67- 104(1)(e) Colorado Revised Statutes that: (1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not effect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or public interest; (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. In addition to the above requirements a Preliminary Plan for PUD may be amended, extended, varied or altered only pursuant to the standards and procedures established for its original approval. (1) The modification, removal or release of the provisions of the existing Willits Bend PUD Guide is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) The proposed PUD Amendment will not effect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Willits Bend Planned Unit Development or public interest; (3) This proposed PUD Amendment, if approved, will not confer a special benefit upon any one person but rather, may confer a uniform special benefit upon all owners of property located within the Willits Bend Planned Unit Development. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department: Please refer to the attached Engineering Department memorandum dated February 10th, 2009. These comments are incorporated as conditions of approval. Town of Basalt: Please refer to the attached response from the town of Basalt dated March 17th 2009 Note: Referrals were also sent with no response received to the Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County environmental Health, ECO Transit, Eagle County Housing Department, Eagle County Road & Bridge Department, RE-l Garfield County School District (Transportation), Eagle County Sheriff's OffIce, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Basalt & Rural FPD, Holy Cross Electric, NWCCOG, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Pitkin County and Water Conservation Board. C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELffiERATION: 20 09/29/09 On July 16th the RFVRPC heard and chose to table the fIle and requested the applicant to provide the commission with the following information :( All referenced information is included in the Board of County Commissioners packet) 1. Updated traffic study to quantify how the lifting the cap on residential units from 16 would impact development traffic. 2. A general visual overview of the Willits Bend PUD 3. A point-by-point response to the Town of Basalt's response letter dated March 17th 2009 4. Current build out use type with allotted parking distribution D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: 1. Currently approval of a residential unit in the Willits Bend PUD requires staff to process a Limited Review file. Allowing removal of this administrative process would free up valuable staff time and streamline the approval process. Tracking mechanisms currently exist to monitor the 24,000 square foot residential cap. 2. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the fact that (i) mezzanines and lofts cannot be used as bedrooms and (ii) enclosed lofts and mezzanines are to be counted as developable square footage but open mezzanines which satisfy the IBC requirements are not to be counted as developable square footage, unless they are incorporated into a purely office use. 3. The parking reduction rationale (included in the memo dated June 29th) asserts that the development is currently operating at a 25% parking surplus. The applicant is asking for what amounts to a 12% reduction in required parking. Eagle County Engineering has found this rationale to be acceptable. 4. This would not affect the total allowable square footage of the residential component ofthe PUD. The Allowable square footage would remain at 24,000 square feet. Lifting of the cap would allow additional smaller "attainable" units and could help to promote Live / Work configurations. 5. Maximum 50% of 1st floor area with all commercial (non~residential) facing Widget Street. Would help to ensure live-work feel. Benefits/Disadvanta2es Benefits: . Adding "Residential" to the list of by right uses would streamline the permitting and eliminate unnecessary use of staff resources needed to evaluate and process Limited review applications as well as encouraging mixed use. . Lifting the 16 unit residential cap would allow for a more market compatible square footage units and thus also provide for a potentially more "attainable" unit size without increasing the total square footage of the project. . Additional clarifying language regarding Mezzanines will streamline building permit review. Disadvantages: . The parking reduction request if improperly calculated and managed could create a burden on the residents of the development. E. Board of County Commissioners OPTIONS: 21 09/29/09 1. Approve the PUD Amendment 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 PUD Amendment 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 PUD Amendment if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specifIc direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the PUD Amendment 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 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. 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. 2. The applicant shall provide a detailed account of current owner configurations as well as provide documentation of each new owner fInish at time of building permit to include: new use confIguration and parking allotment changes. This documentation would provide evidence to Community Development of adequate parking for each new unit fmish. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the fIle. He reviewed the amendments and new submissions. With 30 residential units, there would be an excess of 24 spaces or 15% and this was consistent with the updated traffIc study. The applicant was not looking for unlimited residential, but a cap of 30 with no more than 24,000 square feet. Commissioner Stavney asked about cap changes. Mr. Hanagan indicated that the change was a cap of 30 units. Commissioner Stavney stated that amendment 4 would have that additional qualification. Chairman Fisher wondered if the Town of Basalt had weighed in. Mr. Hanagan stated that the Town was in favor oflifting the cap and with the exception of the 10% rule were in favor of the amendments. Commissioner Runyon wondered if staff was in favor of the fIle. He felt there were conflicting needs; residential, community, commercial, and the developer. He asked if any of these elements would be signifIcantly harmed by any of these changes. Mr. Hanagan stated that staff agrees with the board and felt these changes would improve the project for the stakeholders. He spoke about the homeowner's association restrictions and clarifIed that these would not be appropriate conditions for approval. Chairman Fisher asked about the Town of Basalt's comments. Mr. Hanagan shared the letter he had received from the Town of Basalt. Chairman Fisher spoke about the 10% limitation for ground floor residential units. She stated that the Town would not support the reduction in parking. Mr. Hanagan stated that the Town of Basalt's issues had been mitigated. 22 09/29/09 David Mylar added that they were comfortable with the cap of 30 residential units. They believed that they can achieve their objective with this cap. He spoke about the parking covenant that would require the residential occupant to also work in the unit. The parking would also drive the number of occupants per unit. Chairman Fisher wondered about having too many people living in one unit. She was concerned about people taking advantage of the option to live and work. She spoke about county covenants, which restricted no more than 4 unrelated people from living in one unit. Glen Rappaport stated that they had already dealt with issues of over use of parking spaces, barking dogs, motorcycles on the second floor etc. He felt that they would deal adequately with over occupancy issues should they occur. He added that the Town of Basalt did not have a clear picture of the project. He was seeing people interested in ground floor space who were artisans. Commissioner Stavney spoke about buildings b-l and b-2. He wondered about one of these becoming a green area or private park for children to play. Mr. Rappaport spoke about the park beside building 1 and that it was a better location than behind building 9. Commissioner Stavney stated that this could be handled as a building permit issue. This would make sense if the pad for building b-1 would become the park and the b-1 units would be absorbed into another building. Mr. Mylar clarifIed that only one person living in the unit would have to work there. They don't anticipate exceSSIve occupancy. Commissioner Runyon stated that this has come up at the county level before, but the issue was with verifIcation. He felt this was best handled by a homeowner's association. Commissioner Stavney stated that one of the conditions could include something in this spirit. Chairman Fisher spoke about limiting occupancy to two people in the covenants. Mr. Rappaport agreed that this was reasonable. Commissioner Runyon spoke about clarifying the restriction to no more than two unrelated adults. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve file number PDA-2142 Willits Bend PUD Amendment with the conditions recommended by staff taking into account all findings and adding to item number 4 that the residential cap allow up to 30 residential units, language added to covenants restricting occupancy to one person working in the space and no more than two unrelated adults could inhabit the space. The square footage in building B-1 could be transferred to building B-9 and the footprint for building B-1 be used as the park / open space for the project. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDP-2223. ZS-2222 Ute Creek Stora2e PUD Expansion Bob Narracci, Planning ACTION: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Zone Change is to add 54 Acres to the Ute Creek Storage PUD (fka Ute Creek Industrial Park). This application includes a total of III Acres which encompass the original Ute Creek Planned Unit Development inclusive of the proposed additional 54 Acres located to the south and east of the existing PUD. LOCATION: 0220 Ute Creek Road / Accessed from Hwy. 131 via Ute Creek Road past the Eagle County LandfIll. Approximately two miles northeast of Wolcott FILE NO.!PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: ZC-2222 and PDP-2223 / Zone Change and PUD Preliminary Plan CJC Properties LP & Ute Creek Industrial Park, LLS / Chris P. Jouflas Owner Knight Planning Services, Inc. / Tom Boni PLANNING COMMISSION DELffiERATION AND RECOMMENDATION: 23 09/29/09 At their hearing of September 16, 2009, the Eagle County Planning Commission (ECPC) set forth the following recommendations: a) That Condition No.3 suggested in the staffreport be revised to read, "The applicant commits to construct the on-site caretaker's residence and employ a caretaker or caretakers within 18 months from the date of Final Plat approval". Staff's suggested conditions have been modified accordingly. b) That Condition No.6 suggested in the staff report is revised to read, "All comments of the Colorado Geological Survey set forth in its letter dated June 26, 2009 shall be adequately addressed with application of the Final Plat. The provision of a geological mitigation easement on the north side of the northern-most lots (Lots, 40, 41, 42 and 43) satisfIes the Colorado Geological Survey's concern regarding protection of structures and activities occurring on the specified lots relative to the potential for landslide". The ECPC discussed this concern at length with the applicant and determined that the proposed geological mitigation easement sufficiently addresses the CGS landslide comment. c) That Condition No.7 suggested in the staff report be revised to read, "All comments of the Eagle County Engineering Department in its memorandum dated August 20, 2009 must be adequately addressed with application of the Final Plat. The Eagle County Planning Commission defers to the Eagle County Engineering Department regarding road improvement standard deviations." The ECPC strived to understand the road improvement standard deviations being requested by the applicant and the CDOT access issue. Ultimately, the ECPC deferred to the Engineering Department and the applicant agreed to comply with Engineering and CDOT requirements. d) That Condition No.8 be included as follows, "Prior to recording the Board of County Commissioner Resolution and the Ute Creek Storage Planned Unit Development Expansion Guide, the PUD Guide shall be revised to incorporate verbiage delineating specifIcally what types of activities may occur within easements as depicted on the PUD Preliminary Plan". e) That Condition No.9 be included as follows, "The location of the three water storage tank areas which are to provide water for frrefIghting purposes, as well as, potable water for the on-site caretaker's unit shall be identifIed on the PUD Preliminary Plan". t) The ECPC further recommends that the 'Solar Photovoltaic Farm' and Micro-Hydro Electric Generation Facilities' proposed as uses-by-right in the draft PUD Guide be moved from uses-by-right to uses requiring Limited Review (administrative review). The ECPC is concerned that lacking any specific details of the specific uses, that landowners / homeowners in the Bellyache Ridge and Red Sky Ranch communities be afforded another opportunity to provide comment relative to these specific uses once specific details are available. g) The portion of the draft PUD Guide pertaining to 'Parking' must be renumbered due to a typographical error and that an additional statement be provided stating that, "No parking outside the boundaries of the PUD is allowed". h) The portion of the draft PUD Guide pertaining to 'Re-Subdivision' include a statement that, "All lots which are conveyed into separate ownership remain subject to all regulatory provisions of this Planned Unit Development". Please note that the proposed PUD zoning, once approved, runs with the land, regardless of ownership however, the Planning Commission wanted this emphasized to prospective buyers and owners. i) The portion of the draft PUD Guide pertaining to 'Property Maintenance' be revised as follows: "Maintenance and repair of common or shared facilities (such as roads, drainage structures, storm water detention ponds, water storage, lot perimeter fencing, and open space) shall be provided through the Property Owners Association or through the l:1se of lease or rCfltal agreements. Pro rata assessments will be made on a yearly basis to provide for the day-to-day functions of the Planned Unit Development". Further, that the following paragraph be added to this same portion of the draft PUD Guide, "The Property Owners Association is responsible for hiring, managing and paying the salary ofthe on-site caretaker(s), as well as, on-going maintenance ofthe caretaker's dwelling unit, the lot upon which the caretaker's unit is situated (Lot 1) and the gated project entryway". Ultimately, the four Eagle County Planning Commissioners present voted unanimously to recommend approval of this PUD Preliminary Plan application with the conditions set forth in the staff report and as further modifIed above. 24 09/29/09 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The intent ofthis Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plan and Zone Change application is to: . Increase the size of the Ute Creek Storage PUD (flm: Ute Creek Industrial Service Park) by 54 acres from its previously approved size of 72 acres for a total of 126 acres. Please note that 15 acres of the original Ute Creek Industrial Service Park PUD have been conveyed to Honeywagon. Honeywagon is not participating in this PUD Amendment. As such, the revised total acreage encompassed by this Ute Creek Storage PUD is 111 acres; As proposed, private passive Open Space comprises 43% of the total land area within this PUD Preliminary Plan for the Ute Creek Storage PUD. (47.751 acres a/Open Space / 111 tatal acres = 0.43) If approved, the development will consist of 43 industrial lots on 63.25 acres (inclusive afroad rights-af-way). To reconfIgure several of the existing platted lots; To revise the PUD Guide to better reflect experience gained over the last ten years since the initial approval; To increase availability of space to companies that need staging or outdoor storage areas; To provide space for fIrms involved in the waste management operations within Eagle County; To allow a single-family home to be constructed near the entrance of the project for housing a full- time caretaker on site, and; To install a gated access into the project so that better control of on site activities will be possible. The zone change component of this application is to rezone the new land area being included within the Ute Creek Storage PUD Expansion from 'Resource' to 'PUD'. . . . . . . . . . Over the past thirteen years, the subject property has proven to be a viable location for this type of land use due to its centralized location in Eagle County and relative isolation with the Eagle County LandfIll as the closest neighbor. The industrial park has experienced a number of activities occurring on the site over the years which are not contemplated by the existing PUD. The owner's of the Ute Creek Industrial Park have been working with the lessees within the park over the last two years, since approval of the PUD Sketch Plan application, to clean up the property and bring it into conformance with the existing governing Planned Unit Development Guide; inclusive of removing junked vehicles, old tires, debris, improperly stored waste oil, proper fuel storage, etc. The park is notably improved now over its condition two years ago Due to uncontrolled access to the site, the park has also regularly received illegal (nighttime) dumping of assorted debris, old tires, old appliances, etc. The provision of full-time on site supervision and the gated ingress / egress, will eliminate the problem of uncontrolled dumping. The on-site caretaker will also serve to enforce the park operations amongst the various lessees to maintain compliance with the goveming PUD Guide over time. This application will assist in correcting aberrant activities within the PUD by providing greater clarifIcation of uses by right, how storage is to occur on the site, distinction between uses allowed by Limited Review (administrative) and Special Use (public process). Most notable is the proposal to employ a permanent on-site caretaker. The on-site caretaker's unit is to be constructed near the entrance to the Ute Creek Industrial Park. Ingress / Egress to the park will be controlled through the installation of a new gated entrance, located near the on-site caretaker's unit. B. CHRONOLOGY: The Preliminary Plan for the Ute Creek Industrial Park was approved (File No. ZC-264-94 and PD-314-94-P). 25 09/29/09 May 30, 1995: April 2, 1996: The Final Plat of the Ute Creek Industrial Park received approval. July 8,2003: Special Use approval was granted for Vail Honeywagon's permanent maintenance building. April 10, 2007: Board of County Commissioners approved the PUD Sketch Plan application for this proposal (File No. PDS-00048). March 31, 2009: Application for this Zone Change and PUD Preliminary Plan was received by Eagle County. C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Open Range / Resource West: Open Range (BLM) / Resource North: Open Range (BLM) / Resource South: Open Range (BLM) / Resource Existing Zoning: PUD and Resource Total Area: 111 +/- acres Water: Bottled Water or Trucked-in water via contract with the Edwards Metropolitan District. Sewer: Portable toilets, vaults or engineered ISDS. Access: Via Eagle County Road No. S-49 / aka: Ute Creek Road 2. STAFF REPORT D. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Engineering Department: In its memorandum dated August 20, 2009 the Engineering Department indicated that with some minor modifIcations to the PUD Guide (these modifications have been made and resubmitted by the applicant) and further information regarding the deviations from county standards necessary for the proposed internal road network as well as a road maintenance plan, the application otherwise is in good condition. Environmental Health Department: In a verbal response on September 5,2009, the Director of Environmental Health requested a condition of approval that Environmental Health be able to review and approve the DRAFT Ute Creek Storage Expansion Planned Unit Development Guide prior to recording. All comments of the Eagle County Engineering Department in its memorandum dated August 20, 2009 must be adequately addressed with application of the Final Plat. (Condition No.7) Colorado Department of Transportation: The CDOT requested additional traffic generation information to be able to evaluate whether or not a State Access Permit will be required where Ute Creek Road intersects with Hwy. 131. The applicant responded and due to the fact that the majority of traffIc on Ute Creek Road is due to the Eagle County LandfIll, the County Engineering Department has set traffIc study counters on the site to ascertain updated traffIc counts. The determination whether or not a new access permit is to be required must be resolved prior to Final Plat application. Colorado Geological Survey: . The applicant proposes that rockfall hazards be evaluated when development occurs. CGS concurs. . Potential Slope Instability in Lots 3 and 4. Setbacks from the steep bank slopes were recommended in 2006 (during Sketch Plan). Documents suggest that the applicant is willing to provide such setbacks. It would be prudent to have the setbacks fully dimensioned on the plat. 26 09/29/09 . Construction Related Slope Instability on Lot 15. Previous comments related to numerous driveways on steep slopes. Consolidation of the lots and use of an existing access mitigates most of the issues. If large cuts and fIlls are proposed in the future, a slope stability analysis should be required prior to grading. . Landslide Hazards adjacent to Lots 40-42. The applicant proposed to locate lots outside of mapped landslide areas. However; the geologic hazard evaluation by Young did not include a map. CGS was unable to verify that the landslide areas shown of the PUD correspond to those mapped by Dr. Young. It does appear that lots are located outside ofthe landslide areas outlined in Eagle County's geologic hazard maps. Even though lots may be located immediately outside mapped landslide areas, excavation in to the toe of an old stable landslide can cause renewed slope movement. Such excavation should not be done without an evaluation of slope stability. . CGS recommends that debris flow hazards be comprehensively provided as a public improvement by the developer versus on a lot-by-Iot basis by individual lot tenants. This recommendation is critical if occupied structures will be built in areas with potential debris flow hazards. Greater Eagle Fire Protection District: In its e-mail dated June 4, 2009 the District indicates that the applicant and the district have come to resolution regarding the District's requirements. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments: In its attached e-mail dated June 29, 2009 NWCCOG indicates that it has no issues or comments. NWCCOG evaluates land use proposal for compliance with the Regional 208 Plan inclusive of best management practicesfor stormwater management. Performance standards have been incorporated into the DRAFT PUD Guide to address drainage structures, culverts, erosion control devices, detention ponds and on-going maintenance. All lot owners or tenants wilhin the PUD are required to obtain a Colorado State Pollution Discharge Permit and fully comply with the National Pollution Discharge System Permit Requirements to ensure that stormwater entering the stormwater drainage system has been treated as may be necessary to remove pollution and ensure compliance with Federal Clean Water Standards. Additional Referrals were sent to the following agencies and Homeowner's Associations: . County Assessor's Office . County Attorney's Office . Eagle County Sheriff's OffIce . Eagle County Housing Department . ECO Transit . ECO Trails . Eagle County Landfill . Eagle County Road & Bridge . Eagle County Historical Society . Weed and Pest . WildfIre Mitigation Specialist . Colorado Department of Transportation . Colorado Division of Wildlife . Bureau of Land Management . U.S. Army Corp of Engineers . Natural Resources Conservation Service . Holy Cross Electric . Western Eagle County Ambulance District . Bellyache Ridge HOA . Red Sky Ranch HOA . Town of Eagle E. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 27 09/29/09 FILE PDP-2223 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (l)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire area affected by this PUD Preliminary Plan is in single ownership. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule, "for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. The uses proposed include all of those uses previously permitted within the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD plus the addition of Landscape Contractors Operations, Concrete Operations, Log Home Construction, Renewable Energy Generation, General Staging Areas for off-site construction projects, Waste Contractor's Storage and Maintenance Operations and one single-family residence to be utilized as an on-site caretaker's unit. Additional intended clarifIcation is also proposed in the draft PUD Guide with regard to Performance Standards, Non-Permitted activities, Fencing, Lighting, Open Space, specific uses by Lot and Fire Protection. More specifIcity has been provided with regard to uses by right, uses allowed by limited review and uses allowed by special review. The additional 54 acres proposed for inclusion into the Ute Creek Storage PUD are currently zoned 'Resource' ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)]- The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized, provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The dimensional limitations proposed are the same as those specified in the existing Ute Creek PUD (maximum FAR, maximum building lot coverage, maximum impervious area, minimum structural setbacks, maximum height, minimum building separation and minimum lot area). 28 09/29/09 The dimensional limitations proposed would also be applicable to the 54 acre land area proposed to be encompassed in the Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD which is not the same as the dimensional limitations required in the Resource zone district. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: O.ff-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parkingfor those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. Off street parking proposed is identical to the standards set forth in the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD which defer to the Eagle County Land Use Regulation standards. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] -Landscapingprovided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. VariationsFom these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. As specifIed in the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD, landscaping for the project will be minimal due to the fact that a viable source of water for the purpose of introducing landscape materials to the site is non- existent. Further, given the secluded location of the subject property, introduced landscaping would offer little benefIt to screen the site from adjacent properties. Nevertheless; a landscape plan has been provided for the area immediately surrounding the proposed caretaker's residence. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., SW5 Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD ). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. 29 09/29/09 Signage within the proposed development will comply with the standards set forth in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. As with the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD, permanent facilities for potable water supply and sewage disposal are non-existent. Bottled potable water and trucked-in water for fIre suppression and other applications is proposed. Individual sewerage collection vaults or individual engineered sewerage disposal systems are also proposed. Solid waste disposal can be easily handled at the nearby Eagle County Landfill. Electrical supply is available on the site. Fire protection will be provided by the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District. The Eagle County Sheriff's OffIce will provide police services. With the exception of the caretaker's unit, proximity to schools is not applicable, at the time of Final Plat; a fee in-lieu of school land dedication will be calculated based on one unit. (Condition No.2) The Western Eagle County Ambulance District did not respond to the referral for this proposal, although it is anticipated that the District would be the responder in the event of an emergency. Despite the absence of certain facilities, the Ute Creek PUD has adequately accommodated the uses allowed over the past thirteen years. It is reasonable to expect that the proposed expansion will function similarly. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of irifrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-o.fway, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. 30 09/29/09 (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. The property is currently served by adequate existing roadways. The applicant has demonstrated that newly proposed roads will meet applicable County standards with application for Preliminary Plan. Given the industrial nature of the proposed development, pedestrian pathways internal to the project would not serve to provide a legitimate purpose because the individuals working on the property are not inclined to take leisurely constitutionals. Nevertheless, numerous roads and trails into adjacent BLM land would offer a more inviting experience. Emergency vehicles can access the site from u.s. Highway 131 along Ute Creek Road to the subject property. The existing internal road network is suffIcient for this purpose. The proposed new road design requires deviation from the County road standards including surface material, width, grade, and drainage system (ditch vs. curb and gutter) for the roads. Please note that by virtue of approving this PUD Preliminary Plan application, the Board will have also granted the proposed road standard deviations. Access to the site is provided via Ute Creek Road (the Eagle County LandfIll Road). Secondary access is from Cache Creek Road which is a ranch road. If the surrounding property is ever developed, this ranch road will be upgraded to satisfy County standards. SuffIcient land area either adjacent to the road network or on each individual lot exists to accommodate adequate snow storage. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed expansion will be consistent with existing uses approved in 1996 and will employ greater control over on-site activities. As has been demonstrated over the past thirteen years, the subject property is a viable location for this type of land use due to its centralized location in Eagle County and relative isolation with the Eagle County LandfIll as the closest neighbor. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). 31 09/29/09 The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptuallevel, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "0 l/l c: OJ l/l t'O U "0 (ij "E ~ ~ c: OJ 0 t'O "E u OJ l/l ::J l/l l/l ....J OJ c: E u OJ 1) OJ OJ OJ E (Il ~ c. .E ~ Cl 2 l/l 0:: ~ c: 0 c: OJ ~ > c: ~ Ii; 0 ::J iii u ::J :;::; e OJ Qi c: 0 .00 .~ Ii; :s1 0 .(ii :2 > c: > 0 l/l :::l ~ 16 l/l c: .> (ij => 0 OJ OJ U OJ 0 OJ s: ~ OJ OJ c: ::J ....J <9 <9 0 w 0:: I E en 0:: en w 0 LL Conformance X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance X X X X X Not Applicable X General Development - "Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for fUture generations". The existing Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD and the proposed Ute Creek Storage PUD Expansion provide a continued need in the County for the types of industrial uses proposed. The location of the development and the uses contained therein minimizes negative visual impacts that might otherwise be located along the Eagle Valley floor. The site is visible from Bellyache Ridge and portions of Red Sky Ranch, however, lighting / glare, and not the specifIc on-site activities, are of greater concern when viewed from across the valley. The proposed development does propose to maintain approximately 43% of the land area involved in this application as open space and will serve to protect the Ute Creek Drainage channel and associated riparian areas. "Growth should be managed toward future sustainability - a healthy balance between economic success, quality of life and the preservation of the environment". This development proposes to expand to accommodate the needs of the County's growing economy. Appropriate location for the less desirable uses driving a healthy economy are accommodated by this development and is necessary consistent with the determination of the Board of County Commissioners in 1995. "Open corridors between towns and community centers should be preserved." This development helps to alleviate the pressure upon more highly visible properties within the Eagle Valley, thereby indirectly assisting with the goal of preserving open corridors. "Development should be fully responsible for the mitigation of development related impacts upon both the natural and built environments." This PUD expansion proposal provides an opportunity for the County to ensure that the property owner maintains full responsibility for the mitigation of development related impacts associated with the Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD through more rigorous enforcement, control and implementation of the governing PUD. Economic Resources - "A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's character and resources, should be fostered." This development will help to ensure that intensive commercial/industrial development occurs in a location that is compatible with surrounding uses. "Commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should be located within towns and community centers." The development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations should be allowed provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties. This proposed expansion is in response to demand for industrial use locations within the County and which would be incompatible with the character of existing town and community centers. 32 09/29/09 Housing - "Affordable worliforce housing should be located near job centers. ", and "Land use planning objectives should promote an appropriate amount of worliforce housing. ", and "Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's worliforce needs. " The proposed expansion does propose living accommodations for a future on-site caretaker of up to 2000 square feet. Staff suggests that the applicant agree to a maximum time period to construct this structure and employ a caretaker(s). (Condition No.3) The DRAFT PUD Guide also includes language requiring the provision of local resident housing at such time that any permanent habitable structure is introduced onto the site. Said plan would be reviewed concurrently with the required (also proposed) Limited Review or Special Use review process. At the time ofPUD Sketch Plan approval, the Board of County Commissioners approved the following aftordable housing mitigation: "After consideration of the existing yards located in the existing Ute Creek Planned Unit Development, we believe that a reasonable employee generation rate associated with these outdoor storage yards is one employee per two acres. The availability of these yards is not a fundamental need or requirement of most of the companies that locate here. Rather, it is a benefit perhaps allowing them to operate more efficiently. An inventory of the site shows that some of the yards are used for more permanent storage of materials while others are more actively used. Therefore, we believe that the availability of outdoor storage yards would reasonably relate to the addition of one full time employee per two acres of yard area. Based on the proposed expansion of the Ute Creek Industrial Service Park PUD to include an additional 18.9 acres of yard space, we calculate that this expansion would relate to 9.5 employees. The nexus established in the existing Eagle County Housing Guidelines is that a commercial or industrial development provide for 20% of the housing impact generated. Using Eagle County Housing Guidelinesformulas, 9.5 employees results in a demandfor 4.3 housing units. Understanding that Eagle County is considering raising the percentage requirement to (at least) 30%, the requisite number ofhousing units related to this 18.9 acre yard expansion would be 1.3 dwelling units. " In this instance, the Board determined that the on-site caretaker's unit will satisfy the housing mitigation guidelines. (Condition No.4) Infrastructure and Services - "To preserve mountain character, county roads should be adequate and safe for their intended use, but not over-designed." The roads serving the development provide adequate access for emergency responders. The proposed new road design requires deviation from the County road standards including surface material, width, grade, and drainage system (ditch vs. curb and gutter) for the roads. "Exemplary emergency and community services should be available to all residents, visitors and second home owners." This proposal was referred to the potentially affected emergency and service providers for comment. Please reference the attached e-mail dated June 4,2009 from Tom Wagenlander with the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District wherein the owners have annexed the Ute Creek Storage Expansion PUD into the District's boundaries and have worked out solutions regarding defensible space, dry hydrant locations, water storage for caretaker's facility and possible sprinkling of the structure, storage of flammable materials and gated entrance allowing quick access by the FPD. Water Resources - "Protect the long term viability of both ground and surface water sources. " This existing development and proposed expansion has operated without reliance upon either a public water system or well water and is proposed to continue in this manner. Landscaping introduced around the caretaker's residence shall be drought tolerant. 33 09/29/09 At Sketch Plan, the Department of Environmental Health requested the following to protect the long term viability of both ground and surface water sources: A Stormwater Management Plan shall be submitted to Eagle County Environmental Health for approval and must include the following: . SpecifIcs on what measures will be utilized to clean up any off site sedimentation. Should impacts be realized off-site, the development would be subject to the Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards as specifIed in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, as amended. . Require notifIcation to Eagle County Engineering and Environmental Health of any failure of the erosion control measures . SpecifIc information on what actions will be taken in the event the plan is insuffIcient or noticeable off-site impacts are realized. . Submit a detailed materials handling and spill prevention plan. . Contact information for the person available at all times, responsible for immediately addressing non-compliance issues. . Trash/waste storage implies enforcement through the County; it is recommended that maintenance of the property and its associated waste materials be a function of the Property Owners Association. . Due to the proximity of the site to Ute Creek and ground water resources, all ISDS systems will need to accomplish advanced wastewater treatment and be designed by a Registered Professional Engineer. Through this Preliminary Plan process the applicant has worked directly with the Department of Environmental Health and the PUD Guide addresses the above concerns. Prior to recording the Ute Creek Storage Expansion PUD, the Director of Environmental Health shall verify its accuracy. (Condition No.5) "Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented." This existing development and proposed expansion has operated without reliance upon either a public water system or well water and is proposed to continue in this manner. "Surface and groundwater supplies should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts. " The development will provide a buffer area of natural vegetation between the on-site activities and Ute Creek. "Aquatic and riparian habitats should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts. " The development will provide a buffer area of natural vegetation between the on-site activities and Ute Creek. Wildlife Resources - "The quality, integrity and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved." This proposal will preserve a signifIcant stretch of Ute Creek as open space thereby protecting wildlife habitat and riparian areas. "Broad development patterns and the cumulative impacts of incremental development on wildlife habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for in the decision making process. ", and "Measures designed to protect wildlife from human activities and disturbances should be implemented and enforced. " The Colorado Division of Wildlife did not respond to this Preliminary Plan application, however; at the time of Sketch Plan, CDOW provided the following comments: . The project is located in critical mule deer habitat (winter range, concentration area, severe winter range, migration corridor), elk winter range, bald eagle winter range and sage grouse overall range. . Wildlife habitat values have been impacted by the existing development but not to a signifIcant extent. 34 09/29/09 . The Wolcott area still provides a considerable amount of critical wildlife habitat. The Eagle County LandfIll and Ute Creek Industrial Park both had mitigation plans that have been implemented. . The project site consists of native sagebrush, mountain shrub, old pastures, and intermittent drainage. . Beyond the direct loss of habitat, the current use of the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park, by the nature of its operations, has had minimal wildlife impacts. . Since this project is only at Sketch Plan, the DOW cannot accurately assess the wildlife impact. For the County's and the applicant's use for future discussions, the following items require additional information: . Fencing - will the six foot high chain link fencing be around the entire property or individual lots? Six foot chain linkfencing will be allowed only around individual lots. The exterior boundaries of all open space areas will not be fenced. . Will the open space along Ute Creek be fenced to improve the riparian habitat? The PUD Guide requires lot owners or tenants to fence any boundary contiguous to open space prior to utilizing the adjacent lots. . Updated wildlife maps with the project overlay to accurately assess the number of acres to be impacted. Accurate, current maps have been provided with this application. . The level and extent of perimeter fencing to determine the impacts to mule deer migration corridor. All of the lots, with the exception of Lot 1, will be permitted to befenced along their perimeter boundaries. . A wildlife plan for the project. The proposed expansion will make more efficient use of the land located on either side of the existing roadways and extend the development to the east. Total new acreage added for development purposes is approximately 21 acres. The new lots proposed within the boundaries of the existing PUD are in an area previously covered by a Wildlife Mitigation Plan which required wildlife habitat enhancement at a rate of 1.5 acres: 1 acre. To address any new wildlife impacts created by this proposed expansion, a large open space area is provided primarily located on either side of the Ute Creek Drainage. This is a continuous area of approximately 42 acres creating a wide corridor along the south eastern side of the development. The vegetative character of this area is diverse and will be set aside for the permanent benefit of wildlife. A total of an additional 28 acres of open space is being permanently dedicated for the additional lot development acreage of21 acres. Given these measures, it is anticipated that the expanded project should continue to have minimal wildlife impacts. Sensitive Lands - "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard. ", and" The mitigation of natural hazards should be done in a manner that protects the integrity of the natural environment and the visual quality of the area. " The Colorado Geological Survey response dated June 26, 2009 offers the following comments in this regard: . Recent debris flow hazards in Lots 40-42. . Rockfall Hazards in Lot 42. The applicant proposes that rockfall hazards be evaluated when development occurs. CGS concurs. . Potential Slope Instability in Lots 3 and 4. Setbacks from the steep bank slopes were recommended in 2006 (during Sketch Plan). Documents suggest that the applicant is willing to provide such setbacks. It would be prudent to have the setbacks fully dimensioned on the plat. . Construction Related Slope Instability on Lot 15. Previous comments related to numerous driveways on steep slopes. Consolidation of the lots and use of an existing access mitigates most of the issues. If large cuts and fIlls are proposed in the future, a slope stability analysis should be required prior to grading. . Landslide Hazards adjacent to Lots 40-42. The applicant proposed to locate lots outside of mapped landslide areas. However; the geologic hazard evaluation by Young did not include a map. CGS was unable to verify that the landslide areas shown of the PUD correspond to those mapped by Dr. Young. It does appear that lots are located outside of the landslide areas outlined in Eagle County's geologic hazard 35 09/29/09 maps. Even though lots may be located immediately outside mapped landslide areas, excavation in to the toe of an old stable landslide can cause renewed slope movement. Such excavation should not be done without an evaluation of slope stability. . CGS recommends that debris flow hazards be comprehensively provided as a public improvement by the developer versus on a lot~by-Iot basis by individual lot tenants. This recommendation is critical if occupied structures will be built in areas with potential debris flow hazards. At Final Plat, it must be demonstrated that the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey have been addressed. (Condition No.6) At the time ofPUD Sketch Plan, the Colorado Historical Society indicated that no sensitive historic or archaeological sites are present in the project area. The proposed development will preserve 43% of the total land area involved as passive open space inclusive of Ute Creek and adjacent riparian areas. Environmental Ouality - "Lighting plans that reduce nuisance glare and protect the quality of the night sky should be encouraged. " The DRAFT PUD Guide introduces lighting standards requiring downcast fIxtures not to exceed 20 feet in height. Future Land Use Map (PLUM) - The Future Land Use Map found in the Comprehensive Plan defers to the Wolcott Area Community Plan which does not provide a specifIc recommended land use other than, "Proposed land uses (outside the Wolcott activity center)should resolve potential impacts through appropriate design measures and ensure compatibility with adjacent land uses. "The plan further states that, "The appropriate location for industrial uses within the Wolcott Area is in the vicinity of the Eagle County Landfill". WOLCOTT AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Administration and Process Natural and Cultural Resources Design and Character Land Use Conformance Xl X2 X3 X4 Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable XI Administration and Process: "Ensure detailed and comprehensive analysis of land use proposals to ensure adequate service, public safety and minimal impacts to natural resources by incorporating the following strategies: 1) "Development proposals for the Ute Creek basin should be reviewed under the Special Use Permit (SUP) or Planned Unit Development (PUD) process." The development is proposed as a PUD. 2) "All land use proposals should conform to the goals, policies, objectives and intents of this plan and all other applicable master plans, service plans, or land management plans." The proposal does conform to the goals, policies, objectives and intents of this plan and all other applicable master plans, service plans, or land management plans. X2 Natural and Cultural Resources: 1) Visual Quality. Ensure that impacts to existing visual quality are avoided by incorporating the following strategies: 36 09/29/09 a) Viewshed Protection: The proposed PUD Guide represents an improvement over the existing PUD Guide because it now adequately addresses the use of natural colors and nonreflective construction materials; sets forth on-site lighting requirements; performance standards fiir grading, revegetation, and on site storage. All of these items will aid in minimizing any visual impact when viewed from Bellyache Ridge or Red Sky Ranch. 2) Water Quality. Ensure that activities and development in Ute Creek avoids impacts to the quality of surface and ground water in the area by incorporating the following strategies: a) Water Service: Potable water, ifnecessary, will be bottled or trucked in and stored in cisterns, as is the case with the proposed caretaker's residence. Water for fire fighting purposes must also be made available by the lot tenants as may be necessary based upon the specific use and/or presence of structures. The fire fighting suppression systems will be reviewed and approved by the Greater Eagle FPD. b) Surface and Ground Water Protection: The proposed PUD encompasses a continuous area of approximately 42 acres creating a wide corridor along the south eastern side of the development. The vegetative character of this area is diverse and will be set aside for the permanent benefit of wildlife. The North West Colorado Council of Governments e-mail response dated June 29,2009 (attached) states that NWCCOG has no issues with the proposal. NWCCOG evaluates land use proposal for compliance with the Regional 208 Plan inclusive of best management practices for stormwater management. Performance standards have been incorporated into the DRAFT PUD Guide to address drainage structures, culverts, erosion control devices, detention ponds and on- going maintenance. All lot owners or tenants within the PUD are required to obtain a Colorado State Pollution Discharge Permit and fully comply with the National Pollution Discharge System Permit Requirements to ensure that stormwater entering the stormwater drainage system has been treated as may be necessary to remove pollution and ensure compliance with Federal Clean Water Standards. Standards have been included to regulate on-site storage of fuel and other petroleum products and site specific Hazardous Materials Contingency Plans are required prior to use or storage of any hazardous substance on any lot. These Plans constitute the Hazardous Substance Management Plan for the Ute Creek Storage Expansion PUD and shall be kept by the Manager and the Greater Eagle Fire Department. 3) Air Quality. Avoid impacts to the quality of the local air shed by incorporating the folio wing strategies: a) Emissions: Hazardous material handling plans are required on a case-by-case. Any structure requiring a building permit will be required to satisfy the EcoBuild regulations. b) Dust Control: The applicant is requesting a deviationfrom the requirement to pave all roads to minimize dust. The DRAFT PUD Guide specifies that the Property Owner's Association is responsible for controllingfitgitive dust on the access roads. The individual lot owners and/or tenants are responsible for dust mitigation on their respective lots. Grading and revegetation, as necessary, shall comply with all applicable grading and erosion control standards. c) Monitoring and Compliance: All uses must adhere to state and local standards for air quality preservation. 4) Sensitive Lands, Hazards and Habitat. Avoid hazard areas, and avoid impacts to sensitive lands, wildlife habitat and ecosystem integrity in the Ute Creek drainage by incorporating the following strategies: a) Mapping and Protection: The proposal addresses the comments setforth by the CDOW during Sketch Plan and by providing current wildlife mapping as well as 42 acres encompassing the Ute Creek Drainage and associated wetland / riparian areas. The Colorado Geological SUrvlY identified potential roclifall and landslide hazards; the proposal responds through avoidance and mitigation. The CGS recommends that debris flow mitigation be installed by the developer as part of the public improvements. (Condition No.6) b) Monitoring and Compliance: The Ute Creek Drainage will be protected as private, passive Open Space and the development-impact on wildlife has been mitigated via a Wildlife Mitigation Plan which required wildlife habitat enhancement at a rate of 1.5:1. Ongoing monitoring and compliance will be a primary responsibility of the storage/industrial park manager. 37 09/29/09 5) Cultural Resources. Preserve cultural and archeological sites in the Ute Creek Basin, incorporating the following strategies: a) Inventory and Protect: The Colorado State Historical Society does catalog sites of cultural and archeological significance but did not respond to this application. No readily apparent cultural or archeological resources were observed within the developable area of the proposed Ute Creek Storage PUD Expansion. X3 Desil!n and Character: 1) Character. Preserve andlor enhance the existing character of the Ute Creek Basin by incorporating the following strategies: a) Character of Developed Areas: The proposed expansion is consistent with the objective to maintain a perception of a well-kept and well-managed landfill, contractor storage and light industrial operations. b) Character of Undeveloped Areas: This proposal satisfies the objective of maintaining and lor work to enhance the quality and open character of undeveloped private lands in the Ute Creek basin. The proposed developable portion of the expansion area is located primarily in previously disturbed areas. The proposal also encompasses 47+ acres of private open space that will serve as a natural buffer from future development helping to maintain and enhance the quality and open character of undeveloped private lands.. 2) Development Pattern. Ensure an efficient, functional layout of developed areas by incorporating the following strategies: a) Efficiency and Visual Impacts: The proposed PUD does position land uses of the type proposed in a rationale and orderly fashion. Standards are proposed to ensure that visual quality and sensitive lands will not be negatively impacted. The existing and proposed road network is or will be designed and installed in a manner that assures safe, efficient access to all destinations, while avoiding impacts to visual quality, sensitive lands andcultural resources. The PUD proposed lighting standards that do not exist in the current PUD. b) Preservation and Open Space: The PUD proposal addresses wildlife, riparian and wetland preservation by placing a portion of Ute Creek into private open space. Management of this land is by preventing human intervention. X4 Land Use: 1) Compatible Mix. Maintain an appropriate mix of land uses based on demonstrated need that are compatible with landfill operations and the natural resources in the area by incorporating the following strategies: a) Adequate Infrastructure and Services: The proposed PUD does have adequate access, irifrastrncture and fire and life safety services available for the types and intensity of uses proposed. All necessary public infrastrnctures will be in place prior to the occupation of the expanded use area. The applicant has provided detailed analysis of the traffic impacts associated with the proposed expansion; addressing both on-site and offsite impacts. b) Compatibility with Landfill and Light Industrial Operations: The proposed expansion area and uses proposed are compatible with the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park and the Eagle County Landfill c) Land Use in the Event of a Land Trade: This strategy is not applicable. d) Sending Area for a TDR Program: This strategy is not applicable. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance X X X X X 38 09/29/09 Non Conformance Mixed X Conformance Not X Applicable Open Space Provision: 32.5% of the proposed project area is proposed as passive open space. Unique Character Preservation: The subject property is not located within and does not encompass any urlique land forms. Visual Quality: The location of the subject property is designated as 'Class 3 - moderately constrained'. As mentioned previously in this report, concern with the visual quality of the existing / proposed development when viewed from distant vantage points is relative to nighttime illumination and glare. The DRAFT PUD Guide incorporates lighting standards requiring downcast lighting of up to 20 feet in height. Further, lighting will be limited to that necessary for safety and security. Development Patterns: The existing / proposed development is consistent with established development patterns in this vicinity of Wolcott. Hazards: The Colorado Geological Survey response dated June 26,2009 offers the following comments in this regard: · Recent debris flow hazards in Lots 40-42. · Rockfall Hazards in Lot 42. The applicant proposes that rockfall hazards be evaluated when development occurs. CGS concurs. · Potential Slope Instability in Lots 3 and 4. Setbacks from the steep bank slopes were recommended in 2006 (during Sketch Plan). Documents suggest that the applicant is willing to provide such setbacks. It would be prudent to have the setbacks fully dimensioned on the plat. · Construction Related Slope Instability on Lot 15. Previous comments related to numerous driveways on steep slopes. Consolidation of the lots and use of an existing access mitigates most of the issues. If large cuts and fills are proposed in the future, a slope stability analysis should be required prior to grading. · Landslide Hazards adjacent to Lots 40-42. The applicant proposed to locate lots outside of mapped landslide areas. However; the geologic hazard evaluation by Young did not include a map. CGS was unable to verify that the landslide areas shown of the PUD correspond to those mapped by Dr. Young. It does appear that lots are located outside of the landslide areas outlined in Eagle County's geologic hazard maps. Even though lots may be located immediately outside mapped landslide areas, excavation in to the toe of an old stable landslide can cause renewed slope movement. Such excavation should not be done without an evaluation of slope stability. · CGS recommends that debris flow hazards be comprehensively provided as a public improvement by the developer versus on a lot-by-Iot basis by individual lot tenants. This recommendation is critical if occupied structures will be built in areas with potential debris flow hazards. At Final Plat, it must be demonstrated that the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey have been addressed. (Condition No.6) Wildlife: The Colorado Division of Wildlife did not respond to this Preliminary Plan application, however; at the time of Sketch Plan, CDOW provided the following comments: . The project is located in critical mule deer habitat (winter range, concentration area, severe winter range, migration corridor), elk winter range, bald eagle winter range and sage grouse overall range. . Wildlife habitat values have been impacted by the existing development but not to a significant extent. 39 09/29/09 . The Wolcott area still provides a considerable amount of critical wildlife habitat. The Eagle County LandfIll and Ute Creek Industrial Park both had mitigation plans that have been implemented. . The project site consists of native sagebrush, mountain shrub, old pastures, and intermittent drainage. . Beyond the direct loss of habitat, the current use ofthe existing Ute Creek Industrial Park, by the nature of its operations, has had minimal wildlife impacts. . Since this project is only at Sketch Plan, the DOW cannot accurately assess the wildlife impact. For the County's and the applicant's use for future discussions, the following items require additional information: 0/ Fencing - will the six foot high chain link fencing be around the entire property or individual lots? Six foot chain link fencing will be allowed only around individual lots. The exterior boundaries of all open space areas will not be fenced. 0/ Will the open space along Ute Creek be fenced to improve the riparian habitat? The PUD Guide requires lot owners or tenants to fence any boundary contiguous to open space prior to utilizing the adjacent lots. 0/ Updated wildlife maps with the project overlay to accurately assess the number of acres to be impacted. Accurate, current maps have been provided with this application. 0/ The level and extent of perimeter fencing to determine the impacts to mule deer migration corridor. All of the lots, with the exception of Lot 1, will be permitted to befenced along their perimeter boundaries. 0/ A wildlife plan for the project. The proposed expansion will make more efficient use of the land located on either side of the existing roadways and extend the development to the east. Total new acreage addedfor development purposes is approximately 21 acres. The new lots proposed within the boundaries of the existing PUD are in an area previously covered by a Wildlife Mitigation Plan which required wildlife habitat enhancement at a rate of 1.5:1. To address any new wildlife impacts created by this proposed expansion, a large open space area is provided primarily located on either side of the Ute Creek Drainage. This is a continuous area of approximately 42 acres creating a wide corridor along the south eastern side of the development. The vegetative character of this area is diverse and will be set aside for the permanent benefit of wildlife. A total of an additional 28 acres of open space is being permanently dedicated for the additional lot development acreage of21 acres. Given these measures, it is anticipated that the expanded project should continue to have minimal wildlife impacts. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X Applicable Land Use: The proposed development will set aside that portion of the property which Ute Creek runs through as privately owned open space. 40 09/29/09 Wildlife: Pursuant to the CDOW Sketch Plan response: Wildlife habitat values have been impacted by the existing development but not to a signifIcant extent; the Wolcott area still provides a considerable amount of critical wildlife habitat. The Eagle County Landfill and Ute Creek Industrial Park both had mitigation plans that have been implemented; the project site consists of native sagebrush, mountain shrub, old pastures, and intermittent drainage, and; beyond the direct loss of habitat, the current use of the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park, by the nature of its operations, has had minimal wildlife impacts. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. The proposed expansion is to occur in one phase. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]- The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-o.f-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Reg;ulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (/) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recrearional and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall 41 09/29/09 be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. 43% of the project area will be preserved as natural, passive open space. No manmade improvements to the open space are proposed or required. Said open space will remain in private ownership. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F,3,e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. The PUD endeavors to protect the natural resources while concurrently providing the type of industrial space necessary to serve Eagle County. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (l)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. Please reference the Comprehensive Plan evaluation detailed above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B 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 Develovment Standards. ...... 3 ~ 311 ~1 ~ ..9 ! ~ Artiele 4, Site Develop._ Standards COudidoDl 1.1 OJ ~ := ~. ! &31 il ~ 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) 42 09/29/09 3 bl 3 ill ~ ~ Bill .B ~ Artiele 4, Site Develo~nt Standards COnditiODS &31 &3 5 JJ. ~ 1. ~.! ($ t:I. Z ~ <> ar 'Bar ~ ~ ~~ JJ~ 0 .. X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) Condition No.6 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) 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) Satisfies Regional 208 Plan X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) New proposed roads require deviation. 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) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4- Condition No.2 7) ~ 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)] B 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 Earlie Countv Road CaDital ImDrovements 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. 43 09/29/09 (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. The proposed subdivision is located such that it would not result in a 'leapfrog' pattern of development and the site already has electric service. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B 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 public improvements to the area. No natural or human-made hazards have been identified that would preclude successful development of the subject property. The recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey are suggested as conditions of approval. (Condition No.6) ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please refer to the Compatibility discussion above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ECLUR Section: District Map 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations Official Zone Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. Standards: Section 5-230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. 44 09/29/09 STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l} Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following: Please reference the Comprehensive Plan evaluation detailed above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2} Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. Please reference the Compatibility evaluation detailed above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3} Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offiet the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi- modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. This proposed PUD expansion will make available additional acreage for construction contractors to store their equipment and supplies. The location is centrally accessible and is outside of the 1-70, U.S. lIwy 6, and Highway 131 view corridors. The site provides industrial/storage to serve the needs of the community with minimum visual and traffic impacts. The provision of this type of space reduces proliferation of these types of uses along the valley floor. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4} Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Over the past thirteen years, the subject property has proven to be a viable location for this type of land use due to its centralized location in Eagle County and relative isolation with the Eagle County Landfill as the closest neighbor. The industrial park has experienced a number of activities occurring on the site over the years which are not contemplated by the existing PUD. The proposed expansion will be consistent with existing uses approved in 1996 and will employ greater control over on-site activities. 45 09/29/09 The proposed expansion responds to an increased need, present economic conditions aside, for a centralized location to accommodate the county's industrial and construction related operations. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5} Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public usefacilities? As with the existing Ute Creek Industrial Park PUD, permanent facilities for potable water supply and sewage disposal are non-existent. Bottled potable water and trucked-in water for fIre suppression and other applications is proposed. Individual sewerage collection vaults or individual engineered sewerage disposal systems are also proposed. Solid waste disposal can be easily handled at the nearby Eagle County LandfIll. Electrical supply is available on the site. Fire protection will be provided by the Greater Eagle Fire Protection District. The Eagle County Sheriff's OffIce will provide police services. With the exception ofthe caretaker's unit, proximity to schools is not applicable, at the time of Final Plat; a fee in-lieu of school land dedication will be calculated based on one unit. (Condition No.2) The Western Eagle County Ambulance District did not respond to the referral for this proposal, although it is anticipated that the District would be the responder in the event of an emergency. Despite the absence of certain facilities, the Ute Creek PUD has adequately accommodated the uses allowed over the past thirteen years. It is reasonable to expect that the proposed expansion will function similarly. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS F. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: BenefIts: Provision of a relatively isolated, visually remote area for the types of more intensive land uses proposed is a benefIt to all residents and visitors to the county. By establishing a centralized, properly zoned location for these types of land uses to locate will help to reduce the quantity of non-conforming, in terms of zoning, industrial and contractor related storage uses on the Eagle Valley floor. Also, it helps to ensure that these types of services can continue to be available locally. This application will assist in correcting aberrant activities within the PUD by providing greater clarifIcation of uses by right, how storage is to occur on the site, distinction between uses allowed by Limited Review (administrative) and Special Use (public process). Most notable is the proposal to employ a permanent on-site caretaker. The on-site caretaker's unit is to be constructed near the entrance to the Ute Creek Industrial Park. Ingress / Egress to the park will be controlled through the installation of a new gated entrance, located near the on-site caretaker's unit. Disadvantages: Negligible increase in visual impact when viewed from Bellyache Ridge and Red Sky Ranch. Potential Geologic Hazards requiring mitigation. 46 09/29/09 G. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 5. Approve the PUD Preliminary Plan 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). 6. Deny the PUD Preliminary Plan 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). 7. Table the PUD Preliminary Plan request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specifIc direction to the petitioner and staff. 8. Approve the PUD Preliminary Plan 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 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. 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. 2. Prior to recording the Final Plat, fees in-lieu of school land dedication will be calculated based on one new residence and a current (not less than 6 months old) Summary Appraisal Report. 3. The applicant commits to construct the on-site caretaker's residence and employ a caretaker or caretakers within 18 months from the date of Final Plat approval. 4. Housing mitigation for this proposal was determined by the Board of County Commissioners at the time of Sketch Plan approval. It was determined that the provision of the on-site caretaker's unit satisfies the intent of the Housing Guideline in this instance. 5. Through this Preliminary Plan process the applicant has worked directly with the Department of Environmental Health and the PUD Guide addresses the above concerns. Prior to recording the Ute Creek Storage Expansion PUD, the Director of Environmental Health shall verify its accuracy. 6. All comments of the Colorado Geological Survey set forth in its letter dated June 26, 2009 shall be adequately addressed with application of the Final Plat. The provision of a geological mitigation easement on the north side of the northern-most lots (Lots, 40, 41, 42 and 43) satisfIes the Colorado Geological Survey's concern regarding protection of structures and activities occurring on the specified lots relative to the potential for landslide. 7. All comments of the Eagle County Engineering Department in its memorandum dated August 20, 2009 must be adequately addressed with application of the Final Plat. The 47 09/29/09 Eagle County Planning Commission defers to the Eagle County Engineering Department regarding road improvement standard deviations. 8. Prior to recording the Board of County Commissioner Resolution and the Ute Creek Storage Planned Unit Development Expansion Guide, the PUD Guide shall be revised to incorporate verbiage delineating specifIcally what types of activities may occur within easements as depicted on the PUD Preliminary Plan. 9. The location of the three water storage tank areas which are to provide water for frrefIghting purposes, as well as, potable water for the on-site caretaker's unit shall be identifIed on the PUD Preliminary Plan. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the fIle. He showed some maps and photos of the property and provided a summary of the proposal. The intent of the application was to increase the size of the Ute Creek Storage PUD by 54 acres from its previously approved 72 acres for a total of 126 acres. 15 acres of the original PUD had been conveyed to Vail Honeywagon and were not part of the PUD expansion request. As such, the total acreage for the Ute Creek Storage PUD was 111. Open Space comprises 43% of the total land area. The proposed expansion would consist of 43 industrial lots on 63.25 acres, which included the road rights. He presented a series of photos. Chris Jouflas explained the proposed confIguration. Mr. Narracci ran through the referral responses. He stated that the applicant had worked closely with Ray Merry through out the process and developed performance standards that had been built into the PUD guide. CDOT requested that the traffIc generation information be made available. He indicated that there would be three water tanks disbursed throughout the project. Mr. Jouflas stated that this was an add as you go system. They would start out with three water tanks near the entrance to the PUD and anyone who adds a structure or any type of increased frre risk would need to allocate for additional tanks. Mr. Narracci presented the Planning Commission comments and recommendations and stated that the conditions had been modified accordingly. Chairman Fisher asked about the water tanks and what could be constructed. Mr. Boni spoke about the annexation of the land. With any additional development on the property, the frre department wanted the ability to review and require that additional water storage be placed at strategic locations on the property. He assured the board that there would be additional review by the frre department for storage sheds. He stated that buildings such as a maintenance facility required a limited review procedure. He presented a PowerPoint slide show. He spoke about past conditions put on the fIle. They have had diffIculty managing the PUD because the guide didn't have the types of controls they would have liked it to have. The origin of this storage was for ancillary use for area contractors who needed a place to store materials or stage larger projects. This project served existing development and moved it away from the valley floor. Commissioner Stavney asked if all of these lots would be leased. Mr. Boni indicated that this was correct. The original PUD was approved in 1996. The existing facility is used at about 100%. He clarifIed that the open space would not be fenced. Commissioner Stavney wondered about the impediment to individual ownership of the lots. Mr. Boni stated that there would be a fmal plat fIled. Their attempt was to follow up with a fInal plat with the intention of not selling the lots immediately. Commissioner Stavney asked about water, sewer and other services. Mr. Boni stated that the concept in the beginning allowed for saleable property. The PUD guide says very clearly that this area was to be primarily used for contractor yards. If a person wanted to build a habitable structure it would need to secure water and sewer appropriate for the intended uses. Habitable structures would require a special review by Eagle County. Commissioner Stavney wondered about some properties becoming residences with regards to the sewer needs. Mr. Boni stated that the buildings would have sanitation and each would have to meet the environmental health regulations. 48 09/29/09 Commissioner Stavney stated that he understood the need for this type of storage. However, he was apposed to any residential PUD development. He sees the future allowing ownership as providing this type of scenano. Commissioner Runyon spoke about residential being precluded. Commissioner Stavney stated that if this had been a residential development there would be many more requirements. Mr. Boni stated that there would only be one residential unit allowed on lot 1. The only time someone could apply for a habitable structure it would need to go through Eagle County. He stated that there was a property owner's association and the Jouflas' would control this association. Chairman Fisher spoke about other things that could get out of control; dumping garbage or burying batteries for instance. She wondered if the PUD could be modified and whether there would be value to restricting the sale of these lots. The county did have jurisdiction but can't police the situation. Currently the PUD guide says that lots could be sold. She wondered if this could be restricted to no more than 50% of the lots could be sold. Mr. Jouflas stated that with a patchwork of owners would restrict a single owner from buying the entire PUD. Chairman Fisher asked for a control mechanism for the county. Commissioner Runyon stated that it seemed like there was a concern about the process ofthe county's land use regulations. He wondered who did the regulating and could not think of any situation in the county where the sub-divider was required to maintain ownership. Commissioner Stavney stated that the difference was that there were utilities and road standards in some areas, but all of these were not available in this remote location. Mr. Boni stated that if someone bought a lot he would be buying the right to use it as storage for his business. Bob Morris spoke about the general provisions of the land use regulations. He stated that it shall be unlawful to reconstruct, alter, maintain, or use any building or structure or use any land in violation of any regulation and/or any provisions of any zoning or general regulations of the land use regulations. There was a process, but the county doesn't like to be called in to enforce regulations. He believed that this right had to be reserved. Eagle County preferred that the homeowner's association police these matters. Commissioner Runyon wondered about restricting future sales. Chairman Fisher understood that the owner wanted to expand but she was concerned that in the past the property was not monitored for compliance. The owner now wants to add more spots. She suggested that as long as the Jouflas property has controlling ownership they would also have control of the uses on the property. There was the potential for 43 different property owners. Mr. Jouflas stated that it was standard practice to have someone manage the properties. He stated that this was also a reason they were doing this project - to get an on site manager to gain better control. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the need for the use. Mr. Boni stated that county staff had been very diligent with the requirements and regulations. He felt that they had gone a long way with this request. Mr. Narracci stated that in the future residential other than the caretaker unit would not allowed. Since it's an industrial park it would be a very diffIcult compatibility argument. Mr. Jouflas stated that the only entity they had ever sold to was Vail Honeywagon. Mr. Morris stated that he was uncomfortable restricting the sale of a property. With zoning, this could not be done. Chairman Fisher stated that this was a different type ofPUD. There weren't many industrial zoned PUDs without services in an area where there could be significant damage to the land and wildlife. Mr. Boni continued his presentation. He explained that additional controls would include fuel storage, minimum lot size, temporary structures and site plan, fIre protection, water quality control, and materials storage controls. The revised PUD guide included additional uses. This area was included in the comprehensive plan and was in compliance with the comprehensive plan and Wolcott Area community Plan. Any land that was disturbed would be re-vegetated with the ground seed mix recommended by the county and the DOW. The applicant was in agreement with the proposed conditions provided by staff. He addressed the planning Commission's concerns and stated that ultimately the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. The solar aspect was the only concern. The applicant has requested waiver of road impact fees and off site impacts because the uses proposed by the applicant were ancillary to current uses. The nature of the expansion would provide effIciently and tighten up the PUD guide. 49 09/29/09 Ty Ryan stated that the County Engineering Department supported the application and deviations requested by the applicant. Dust and erosion control would be addressed into the PUD. He suggested that an updated traffIc impact study from the private road and 131 intersection be performed in the future. He believed it was foolish to waive the road impact fees. Mr. Boni stated that there were traffIc counters in placed in May and the study determined that there was only a 13% increase. A recent traffic study in September was just received. However, the date had yet to been analyzed. Mr, Narracci stated that the only type of land use that the board had the discretion to waive the impact fee on was affordable housing however; the board did have the ability to relieve them of the future burden of helping to improve the intersection of Ute Creek and H wy 131. Commissioner Runyon asked Bill Andree to share his thoughts. Mr. Andree, Department of Wildlife stated that the only outstanding concern they had was for additional power lines because there would be a small impact to wildlife if too many more wires and poles were added. Mr. Jouflas stated that they would try to use the existing poles. Mr. Andree believed that an on site caretaker unit was an excellent idea and was a bigger benefIt than impact. Commissioner Runyon asked about the proposed solar farm. Mr. Jouflas stated that the solar farm idea was to provide a managed offset of green energy. It would generate about 25 kilowatts. This green power would be available to the tenants and generate income for the facility. The panels would be opaque and not reflect light. He foresaw 24-hour power. Commissioner Runyon wondered if Red Sky Ranch responded to the referral. Mr. Narracci stated that they had not responded nor was there a follow-up call. Commissioner Runyon asked about the location of the power lines. Mr. Jouflas stated that there were existing power lines and poles and they intended to use them. Commissioner Runyon stated that he deeply regretted the need to expand but it was a necessary evil and made sense. He wanted assurance that there would be a clear list of what could be done on the site. He asked Mr. Narracci if he was comfortable with the proposal. He asked that the size of the caretaker unit size to be clearly noted in the conditions. Mr. Narracci stated that the draft represented a signifIcant improvement over the one currently on record. He stated that he was comfortable with the current version. Mr. Boni stated that there were three prohibited uses and by default, any uses not listed would be prohibited. Commissioner Fisher stated that she didn't believe it was appropriate to waive the road impact fee until the results of a road impact studies were complete. Mr. Morris stated that it was his understanding that the board did not have the right to waive the fee. Mr. Narracci stated that if the traffic study indicated that something needed to be done at Ute Creek and Hwy 131 then the board could or could not hold the applicant responsible. Mr. Jouflas asked if the road impact fees were paid over time or was a one-time payment. Mr. Narracci stated that the board could work out a phased payment plan. This was something that could be worked out with the fInal plat. He asked the board if they thought the photovoltaic and micro hydro should be a use by right or if they agreed with the Planning Commission. Commissioner Stavney stated that he'd like staff to be able to offer suggestions as to height, etc. Chairman Fisher believed that staff input was necessary to make sure what was being done complimented everyone. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve file no. PDP-2223 and ZS-2222 Ute Creek Storage PUD Expansion including the 9 conditions recommended by staff and adding condition 10, that the applicant work with staff to tighten the actual uses and condition 11, to limit the maximum size of the caretaker unit to 1800 square feet plus a single car garage. Commissioner Stavney added that the PUD guide be amended to explicitly state no residential use. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 50 09/29/09 Human Resources Budget Lisa Ponder, Human Resources Recorded Attest: 51 09/29/09