Loading...
Minutes 12/21/09 PUBLIC HEARING December 21, 2009 Present: Peter Runyon Jon Stavney Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Christina Hooper Kathy Scriver Chairman Pro-Tem Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Sara Fisher Chairman 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 Pro-Tem Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of December 21,2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of Payroll for December 31, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative c. Resolution 2009-127 Establishing Regular Public Meeting Days for the Eagle County Board of Commissioners for Fiscal Year 2010 and Establishing Days and Office Hours for County Offices to Transact Business for Fiscal Year 2010 and Designating Legal Holidays for Fiscal Year 2010 and Establishing the Bi-weekly Payroll Schedule for 2010 Administration Representative D. 1041 Permit Application to Address Pending and Future Airport Improvements County Attorney's Office Representative E. Petition for Annexation of Land Known as the North Airport Annexation County Attorney's Office Representative F. Annexation Agreement between the Town of Gypsum and Eagle County - North Airport Annexation County Attorney's Office Representative G. Resolution 2009-128 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, and Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with Respect to Alpine Bank Letter of Credit No. 0360214133 in the Amount of$21,087.38 for the Account of Richard L. Mayne and Luanne Mayne for the Siloam Springs Development County Attorney's Office Representative 1 12/21/09 H. Non-Federal Reimbursable Agreement between Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, and Colorado Division of Aeronautics, Colorado Department of Transportation and Eagle County for Stand Alone Tower Display at the Eagle County Airport Control Tower Airport Representative I. Resolution 2009-129 for the Approval of an Amendment to the Cordillera Valley Club Planned Unit Development, (Eagle County File No. PDA-00067) Bob Narracci, Community Development Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes to the consent agenda. Mr. Treu provided background on items D, E, and F, the 1041 permit application and annexation of the north side of the airport to the Town of Gypsum. The agreement provides a sort of blanket approval of any projects for the next 50 years and cost effective to the county. Commissioner Stavney stated that he had not had the opportunity to review item I prior to the consent agenda. Mr. Treu did not believe it was a problem. Mr. Montag asked Mr. Anderson to speak about Item H. Mr. Anderson stated that the stand-alone tower display would provide display in the tower and allow for closer separation of aircraft and better runway usage. It would be the last enhancement on the foreseeable horizon for the airport with regard to air traffic management. The separation would be decreased by about 50% or 1 - 2 minutes of each other. The county and state would split the total cost 50/50. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-I. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Citizen Input Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Certification of Mill Levies Cindy Preytis, Finance Mr. Lewis stated that the board recently approved the mill levies for the county. The other 78 districts within the county were required to do the same by the 15th. Ms. Preytis received this information and re-ca1culated it to insure accuracy. At this time, the board was required by the state to certify those mill levies for all of the districts. Ms. Preytis stated that this process was an administrative review and if any erroneous information was provided, the county was not responsible. Her job was to report to state the gross amount that each district would be collecting by the 22nd. She was confident with the accuracy. Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon thought it was interesting to see the variations. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the certification of Mill Levies. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanImous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Chairman Pro- Tem Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 12/21/09 Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Airport Representative 1. Approval of 20 1 0 Budget Chris Anderson presented the 2010 budget for ECAT. He believed there were some good things on the horizon for 2010. Total income reflected a 4% increase over 2008 which was the last normal budget year. This increase reflected an income increase of about $198,000. The total operation expense was increased $157,000. He believed it was a balanced budget, the revenues were projected in a modest fashion, and the expenditures were realistic. Mr. Runyon asked about the increase over expenses. Ms. Preytis stated that it was a retained earnings scenario. All revenue was turned over to the trustee and the money that is available for capital and operations has to request in the form of this approved budget. Mr. Montag asked about the capital projects list and how it related to the budget. Mr. Anderson stated that they broke down the capital project listing into a 5-year plan and for 2010, they anticipate spending about $715,000. Some of the 2010 potential projects included a paid parking system, inline design for baggage handling, baggage system improvements, snow removal items, and hiring an interior designer for basic interior remodel. Mr. Stavney believed that a 10cal design firm might be willing to trade the work for an advertising opportunity in the terminal. Mr. Stavney moved to approve the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation budget for 2010 as presented including the draft capital improvements projects listing. Mr. Montag seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro- Tem Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ratification of Letter Regarding Energy Efficient and Conservation Block Grants: Retrofit Ramp-up and General Innovation Fund Programs, Topic 2 Funding Opportunity Announcement Number DE-FOA-0000148, Issued on October 19,2009 Alex Potente, Housing and Development Adam Palmer, Community Development Mr. Palmer provided an update on the recent grant application submitted on December 14 to the Department of Energy for the Recovery through Retrofit Program. They partnered with a number of other entities to submit this application. He was confident in the county's ability to get a significant portion ofthe requested 5 million dollars. The other partners included Pitkin County, Gunnison County, Town of Vail, Town of Eagle, City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village, Town of Basalt, Holy Cross Energy, Source Gas, City of Aspen Utility, Colorado Mountain Collage and the Eagle County Homebuilders Association to name a few. However, Eagle County was the lead applicant on this proposal. The goal was to increase the number of retrofitted homes in each county by 10% and each of those homes achieving a 20% or better energy efficiency reduction. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon stated that this was the type of program that the board supported and encouraged. However, he expressed some frustration that he knew nothing about the program before the other county commissioners. Commissioner Stavney wondered how this related to the lA ballot question passed by the voters. Mr. Palmer stated that the program would compliment that program passed by voters. They expected to launch the program in early April 2010 if funding was available in March. Mr. Potente stated that the program would provide kick off funds for the pay style program which 1 A approved. 3 12/21/09 Commissioner Stavney moved to approve Ratification of Letter Regarding Energy Efficient and Conservation Block Grants: Retrofit Ramp-up and General Innovation Fund Programs, Topic 2 Funding Opportunity Announcement Number DE-FOA-0000148, Issued on October 19, 2009 Chairman Pro- Tem Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Palmer apologized for not presenting the board with more detail. Commissioner Runyon believed that because this was a collaborative effort with other elected entities, the board needed to be fully involved. Abatement Hearings Assessor's Office Representative Petitioner 2005 De Maria Family Trust Andrew & Phaedra Seidel Family Trust Boothby Investments LLC Boothby Investments LLC Chase, Christopher R. & Susan Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Coleman, Mitchell K. Colorado Mountain Property LLC Dianes Trust Under 1995 IUT Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Harper, Jay V. & Deborah Hawthorne Service Center Co. LLC Holt, Aden Jackson Imprimis LLC James G. Benjamin Trust Jill A. Price Rev Trust L. Hade Trust Mosch Family Trust Murton Realty, LLC Nola S. Dyal Living Trust Orval A. & Dorothy J. Paul Orval A. & Dorothy J. Paul Orval A. & Dorothy J. Paul Richards Property Trust Russell Eldon - Lorraine Louise Hade S. Ward Bushnell- Partner, CKK Shirley A. Clothier Rev Living Trust Shirley A. Clothier Rev Living Trust Schmidt, Darrel Smith, W. Davis Schedule No. R057675 R057665 R057654 R057622 R057695 R057679 R057680 R057681 R057682 R057683 R057684 R057694 R057647 R057657 R057610 R057611 R057612 R057613 R057616 R057617 R057618 R057803 R057669 R057832 R057625 R057711 R057643 R057648 R057644 R057635 R057671 R057718 R057626 R057717 R057693 R057666 R057692 R057837 R057799 R057699 R057656 4 12/21/09 Split Rock Brightwater LLC Split Rock Brightwater LLC Stanczak, Stephen P. & Valerie Talbot, Heath West, Robert D. West of Vail LLC R057631 R057632 R057712 R057660 R057615 R057614 Mark Chapin, County Assessor spoke about the difference of opinion between the Assessor's Office and Brightwater property owners. Clearly, Brightwater was a development that had suffered from the poor economy. In analyzing filings 2 and 3 the Assessor's Office allowed an adjusted for golf memberships. Within the sales data, there were a number of lots within filing 2 that received a founder or charter membership, which was an investment device. In the settlement statements, the discount was a line item but in the doc fees and transfers declarations, it was not specified therefore the Assessors Office had a difficult time finding the right number based on the data. All of Brightwater, except filing 2 and 3 was at a vacant land or similar type value because of the lack of sales data or new development. Filings 2 and 3 both had adequate sales to support market value. The vacant land discount depended on the discount rate. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon asked if the discounted value was the basis of the appeals. Mr. Chapin stated that there were two elements contained in the abatement petitions, one was the golf membership, and the other was the charter or founder memberships. The other part being offered today was vacant land discount on 102 lots that were not improved. They were allowing the golf membership adjustment of $50,000 and the vacant land discount. However, they were not recommending that the investment portion be taken out. Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon stated that the county had not budgeted for this refund and wondered if it would be reasonable to expect this to go forward in future years. Mr. Chapin stated that it was likely that the sales in Brightwater would fall by 2/3 less in value. He expected that this development would see some of the lowest numbers. Commissioner Stavney asked if the list of suggested motions were accurate. Mr. Chapin stated that there were some last minute changes. Mr. Montag wondered if there was a specific period when dealing with this batch of abatements. Ms. Hooper stated that there were a number of petitions that were submitted over 6 months ago. Statutes require these petitions be acted on by the board within 6 months. The board initially heard the files within the 6 month time period and continued the matter based on the assessors request for more information. The applicants present agreed with the continuance. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon opened public comment. Carl Lupins spoke on behalf of Dianes Trust, R057657. He stated that properties in Brightwater were not salable, financeable, and no one was currently building on the property. The lot he represented was listed for sale for $100,000; the price was originally $385,000. It's been on and off the market with little to no interest. There was another adjacent lot offered for $110,000. He stated that his client did not consent to an extension or request one. He believed it was too late to deny the petition. Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon stated that when the files were extended he and his client were present and did not object to the extension. Mr. Lupin stated that he and his client were not asked and did not consent. Mr. Chapin stated that the doc fee dictated the real property sales price. He did not agree that there were other pieces to the sale. Ultimately the doc fee and transfer declaration support the number. The issue came down to what was the investors discount, should it come out, and why didn't it. Mr. Lupin believed the discount was minor and not at all appropriate to this situation. Mr. Chapin stated that each discount that his office calculated pursuant to the division of property taxations was mandated by state statute. Ms. Hooper stated that the board's decision could be appealed by the petitioner within 30 days. Kent Cramer spoke. He represented 14 lot owners. He applauded Mr. Chapin and his office. This hearing had brought up a couple issues, first he didn't believe the treatment of the golf club memberships were handled correctly. Secondly, he believed that the founder and charter memberships should have been discounted as well. 5 12/21/09 Mr. Chapin stated that the settlement statements were not clear. He believed that they adequately addressed the valuation. The value was estimated at that time and that was all they could do. He did not believe they had adequate information to support at change of the base value. Commissioner Stavney stated that due to the complexity of the files it may be best to allow the petitioners to take it to the next level. Mr. Chapin stated that they were currently seeking additional information to see what else they could do, if anything. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon believed that the files needed to moved forward and be dealt with by individuals that specialized in this sort of thing. Commissioner Stavney agreed with Commissioner Runyon. Mr. Cramer stated that working this out with the board ahead of time was more cost effective to the county. Mr. Chapin stated that the board needed to make a decision due to time restraints. Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon wondered ifit made sense to come to some agreement with everyone in order to save the county money in the end. Ms. Hooper stated that if the board was not comfortable with the Assessor's recommendations they could request permission of the petitions to continue this later and request that the Assessor review the numbers based on the testimony presented today. Mr. Chapin suggested that the board make a recommendation today which would allow the Assessor's Office 30 days to do further research. Ms. Hooper stated that for those files approaching the 6-month deadline, consent from the petitioners would be required for a continuance. Mr. Chapin believed that all the property owners should be treated the same and he had the authority to make that determination based on the current information. He believed the discount should be recalculated and the golf membership should come out. Mr. Montag expressed concern for the fiscal impact to the county. This was not anticipated in the recently adopted budget. These refunds would have to come out of unallocated reserves. Commissioner Stavney figured that the county could be refunding over $400,000 to tax payers out of the general fund. Chairman Pro-Tern Runyon believed that the county would deal with budget shortfalls if needed. Dixie Kozinski stated that the estimated refund totaled 1.2 million for filing 2 and filing 3 that included backing out the golf membership and adjusting the subdivider discount. Mr. Lupin believed he was entitled to a decision within 6 months because they followed all the process. Ms. Hooper stated that her recollection was that there was a conversation between he and his wife about this issue and they did in fact consent to move forward. She would have to review the record. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Petitions for Abatement/refund of Taxes for the following individuals and Schedule Numbers be approved for the tax years and for the reasons as set forth in the Assessor's recommendation sheets, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference: Petitioner Name James G. Benjamin Trustee Schedule No. R057711 Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Petitions for Abatement/refund of Taxes for the following individuals and Schedule Numbers be approved in part for the tax years and for the reasons as set forth in the Assessor's recommendation sheets, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference: Petitioner Name 2005 De Maria Family Trust Andrew & Phaedra Seidel Family Trust Schedule No. R057675 R057665 6 12/21/09 Boothby Investments LLC Chase, Christopher R. & Susan Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Clearwater Development Inc. Coleman, Mitchell K. Colorado Mountain Property LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Hares Ear LLC Harper, Jay V. and Deborah Hawthorne Service Center Co., LLC Holt, Aden Jackson Imprimis LLC Jill A. Price Revocable Trust L. Hade Trust Mosch Family Trust Murton Realty, LLC Nola S. Dyal Living Trust Orval A. Paul & Dorothy J. Paul Family Trust Orval A. Paul & Dorothy J. Paul Family Trust Orval A. Paul & Dorothy J. Paul Family Trust Richards Property Trust Russell Eldon-Lorraine Trust Hade Revocable Trust S. Ward Bushnell- Partner CKK Shirley A. Clothier Revocable Living Trust Shirley A. Clothier Revocable Living Trust Split Rock Brightwater LLC Split Rock Brightwater LLC Stanczak, Stephen P & Valerie West, Robert D. West of Vail, LLC Boothby Investments LLC Dianes Trust Under 1995 IUT Schmidt, Darrel Smith, W. Davis Talbot, Heath R057622 R057695 R057679 R057680 R057681 R057682 R057683 R057684 R057694 R057647 R057612 R057613 R057616 R057611 R0576 10 R057617 R057618 R057803 R057669 R057832 R057625 R057643 R057648 R057644 R057635 R057671 R057626 R057718 R057717 R057693 R057666 R057692 R057799 R057837 R057632 R057631 R057712 R057615 R057614 R057654 R057657 R057699 R057656 R057660 Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanImous. 7 12/21/09 Planning Files PDA-2563 Cordillera 11th Amended PUD Guide Bob Narracci, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this Plan Unit Development Amendment is to add clarity to the existing PUD Guide. This proposal does not introduce new or additional density or uses to the existing PUD, or otherwise substantively change the existing PUD. The proposed changes include corrections to typographical errors, replacement of inaccurate PUD Guide Maps, updates to reflect the current status of development approvals for the Lodge Parcel and the Village Center Parcel, and clarification of the treatment of the Lodge Parcel and the Village Center Parcel as a single planning parcel. The amendment clarifies the concept contained in the existing PUD that density shifts are permissible among the various planning parcels, so long as the actual maximum densities for the project are not exceeded. Specifically, the proposal clarifies that density is transferable between the Lodge Parcel and the Village Center Parcel, and that the permitted uses are the same for the Lodge Parcel and the Village Center Parcel, effectively treating these adjacent areas as a single planning parcel. This treatment reflects existing development and the contemplated completion of the Lodge at Cordillera. LOCATION: South of U.S. Highway 6, spanning between Edwards on the east and the Brush Creek Valley on the west. Access is via Squaw Creek Road. PDA-2563 / PUD Amendment Behringer Harvard Cordillera, LLC / Harry Rosenthal Owner The Law Firm of Otten Johnson Robinson Neff and Ragonetti, PC / Amanda Smith FILE NO./PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This Planned Unit Development Amendment proposal does not introduce new or additional residential density or land uses to the existing PUD, or otherwise substantively change the existing PUD. This Planned Unit Development Amendment application proposes to add clarity to the existing PUD Guide by: · Correcting typographical errors; · Replacing inaccurate PUD Guide Maps; · Updating the present status of development approvals for the Lodge Parcel and the Village Center Parcel; · Recognizing the Lodge Parcel and the Village Center Parcel as a single planning parcel; This amendment better defines the concept contained in the existing PUD that density shifts are permissible among the various planning parcels, so long as the actual maximum densities for the project are not exceeded. Specifically, that previously approved density is transferable between the Lodge Parcel and the Village Center Parcel, and that the permitted uses are the same for the Lodge Parcel and the Village Center Parcel, effectively treating these adjacent areas as a single planning parcel. This treatment reflects existing development and the contemplated completion of the Lodge at Cordillera. B. CHRONOLOGY: 8 12/21/09 The Cordillera PUD was originally approved in 1987 and has been amended ten times since with the last amendment occurring on September 23,2003. Each time the PUD is amended, the entire document and all prior entitlements are carried forward and supersede the prior amendment. C. SITE DATA: Agriculture and residential 'Resource' and 'Resource Limited' Agriculture, residential and BLM 'Resource' and 'Resource Preservation' Agriculture, residential 'Resource', 'Resource Limited', and' Agricultural Residential' Planned Unit Development (PUD) Mixed-use, residential, golf course cornmunity Substantially developed. The Village Center property is currently vacant with the exception of communit tennis courts. > 25% of total >25% Cordillera Metro N/A N/A N/A Cordillera Metro D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELffiERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: At their hearing on December 16, 2009, the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this proposed PUD Amendment. 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. 9 12/21/09 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. H 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, as well as, a Resolution of the Board of Directors of the Cordillera Property Owners Association approving this proposed Cordillera Subdivision Eleventh Amended and Restated Planned Unit Development Guide. ~ 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 effectfor 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. No new land uses are proposed. Uses-by-right specific to the Lodge Parcel and the Village Parcel will be better defined; however. ~ 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.3.j, 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. 10 12/21/09 Yes Necessary for integration of mixed uses; Yes To allow for greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings; To promote a more efficient land use pattern including an opportunity for public Yes transportation and for safe, efficient, compact street and utility networks that lower develo ment and maintenance costs and conserve ener ; Yes To increase open space; Yes The property is constrained- use of conventional standards limits quality design; Yes To increase com atibility with nei hborin develo ments; Other This PUD Amendment does not propose to alter the established Dimensional Limitations. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Section 5-240.F.3.f., 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: This PUD Amendment does not necessitate any Variations beyond those granted through the historic entitlement process. ~ 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 Parkinf! and Loadinf! Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loadinf! Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The minimum standards for off-street parking and 10ading as delineated in the current Cordillera PUD Guide will not change 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: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscapinf! and Illumination Standards. Variationsfrom these 11 12/21/09 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. Completion of development on the Lodge Parcel, as well as, future development ofthe Village Center Parcel will comply with all applicable landscape standards. ~ 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 Cordillera 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 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. .... ~ ~ ,,2;:.., J:>- :38: ~~ o'ii l?Jl8. ~.ra r/1Cl B ~i :g8. ~i5 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not ApplicablelNo ECUJR Re uirements Does Not SatisfY ECLUR Re uirements DeviationlVIS Requested In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services x x x x x x ~--- - ---- No Development within the Cordillera 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 12 12/21/09 STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient systemfor pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. x The Improvements standards governing how Cordillera has developed since its inception will not be altered as a result of this PUD Amendment proposal. Future development ofthe Village Center Parcel will likewise be held to the minimum county standards. ~ 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. Compatibility ofthe Cordillera PUD with all existing and allowed adjacent land uses should not be adversely affected by this proposal 13 12/21/09 ~ 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 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 ~ /.<//11 - e '" I fi ~ (,) '" ~.~ '" '" ....l 's u .~ u ~8 u ~ au ~ > '0 o ::J ]~ .... ::J .- 3 -.::: c:: 0 '" ~ ~ :0. ~ -;; ~ r; 0'" g :=..... fi 0 0 ~.~ ::I: .s 1ij ~~ ~..~. tn ~ i Exceeds Recommendations InCorporates Majority of Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 RecoInInendations Does not SatisfY Majority of RecoInInendations Not Applicable X X Below are the Recommended Strategies intended to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: 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". Xl: HousinJ! · "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". · "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". · "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". 14 12/21/09 · "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for 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". Due to the fact that this proposal does not entail additional density or land uses, it has been determined that no additional housing mitigation is required. 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". · "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". . 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". . 15 12/21/09 X5: . . . . . . . . . . . "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". . . . . . . 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". "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-proofrefuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". 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". X7: Environmental Ouality · "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 permanent 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". 16 12/21/09 · "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". · Implement energy efficiency guidelines. · Implement energy saving techniques. X8: Future Land Use MaD Desillnation The FLUM for the Edwards Area Community Plan reflects existing and approved land uses throughout the Cordillera PUD including: residential low density, residential medium density, recreation, golf course, and open space. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable The use of Best Management Practices for storm water management and protection ofthe Eagle River arc mandatory . X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 XIO XlI X12 Below are the Recommended Strategies intended to accomplish each of the stated Plan Policies: Xl: Land Use "The location and type of land uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental, and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and man made environment, ensures the timely, cost-effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". Xl: Housing "There is an adequate supply of safe and affordable housing to meet the needs of the Edwards Planning Area, including low and moderate income households and populations with special needs". Due to the fact that this proposal does not entail additional density or land uses, it has been determined that no additional housing mitigation is required. 17 12/21/09 X3: Transportation "The Edwards traffic circulation network has sufficient capacity to efficiently; conveniently and safely move people, goods and services throughout the Edwards Community and Eagle County with minimal adverse impact to the natural environment". X3: Transportation "The Eagle County Transit Authority and other entities cooperate to increase utilization of mass transit opportunities, provide a more viable alternative to the automobile user, and improve services to the non-driving public ". X4: Open Space ~~Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with land owners, developers, and other agencies and organizations". A majority of the Cordillera PUD land area consists of active and passive private open space. X5: Potable Water and Wastewater "Adequate potable water and sanitary sewer service is available for most existing and proposed development. When either is not available, private systems are are required to operate in such a manner as to protect the community and environment of Eagle County and the Edwards area". The subject property is served by public water and sanitation facilities. X5: Potable Water and Wastewater "Natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, surface water reservoirs and well-field zones are protected from environmental degradation". Natural groundwater resources will not be impacted due to the proposed PUD amendment. X6: Services and Facilities "Solid and hazardous wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner within the Edwards Planning Area". The proposed development is not anticipated to generate any hazardous wastes. X6: Services and Facilities "The Eagle County School Board, private schools, and Colorado Mountain College are supported and encouraged to provide a strong educational system". This Plan Goal is not directly applicable. X7: Environmental Ouality "Ecosystem management, multi-jurisdictional, multiple use and travel management issues within and adjacent to the Edwards Planning Area are a cooperative effort among all involved agencies and organizations". This Plan Goal is not directly applicable. X7: Environmental Quality "A technically and economically feasible drainage system with adequate protection from flooding, storm-water inundation, surface and groundwater pollution due to storm-water run off is ensured in a manner compatible with the policies contained herein". Best Management Practices for stormwater management will be employed. X7: Environmental Quality "Clean mountain air, scenic vistas and the visual qualities of the night sky are amenities of the Edwards area and are protected from environmental and scenic degradation". The proposed development should not affect the clean mountain air. Scenic vistas toward and from existing development relative to this project's affect on those vistas are subjective and vary depending upon one's perspective. X7: Environmental Ouality "Development activities that would damage or destroy unique natural resources are discouraged as is improvements on or near natural hazards". Remaining development of Cordillera is not anticipated to degrade natural resources and will avoid natural hazards. X7: Environmental Quality 18 12/21/09 "Riparian areas, wetlands and aquatic habitat located within the Edwards Planning Area are preserved and enhanced". Riparian areas, wetlands or aquatic habitat are preserved and enhanced throughout Cordillera. X7: Environmental Duality "Unique and rare upland vegetative communities as identified by Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado National Heritage Program, White River National Forest, and Bureau of Land Management are protected from environmental degradation, and native habitat of each community type and for each designated species are also protected to ensure that representative communities of each type remain intact within the Edwards Planning Area and adjacent public lands". The subject property has been previously disturbed and no unique or rare upland vegetative communities have been identified on the site. X8: Economic Development "Balanced, orderly and sustainable growth of the Edwards economy is supported and promoted". Cordillera residents and visitors indeed support the economy of Edwards and Eagle County. X9: Recreation and Tourism "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system". Cordillera is a private resort, recreation-based development. X9: Recreation and Tourism "Access to all public open spaces is preserved. All public open space is connected through an effective network of bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails that maintain a safe distance from the river". Cordillera is a private resort, recreation-based development. XIO: Historic Preservation "Historical and cultural resources in the Edwards area are protected and interpreted for future residents and tourists". No historical or cultural resources have been identified in areas previously approved for development. XII: Implementation "All capital improvement planning by service and infrastructure providers to the Edwards Planning Area supports the growth management goals and objectives of this Area Community Plan". The developer will be responsible for installing the public infrastructure necessary to support development of the Lodge Parcel and Village Center Parcel as well as mitigation of the impacts it would create. Xll: Implementation "Agencies and interest groups such as the Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Valley Regional Water Authority and the Eagle River Watershed Council cooperate to ensure the smooth enactment and realization of this plan". This goal is not applicable. Xll: Implementation "The community is supported in any grass-roots endeavor to incorporate". This goal is not applicable. X12: Future Land Use Map Desif!1lation The community-specific Edwards Area Community Plan Future Land Use Map identifies the subject property as appropriate for the type of development delineated by the existing Cordillera PUD and proposed amendment. 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 19 12/21/09 D 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. This finding is not applicable. ~ 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 of 25% 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 everyone 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-of-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 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. This proposed amendment to the Cordillera PUD will not alter the total amount of common recreation area and open space within the PUD. Over 25% of the total PUD area is devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or private and the PUD does provide a minimum of ten acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every 1,000 persons who are residents of the PUD. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS [K] MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 20 12/21/09 n MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS D 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. u 5 :fl 'fl .gd~ r:2~ x 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 st:: fi8. u x 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)] - 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 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)] - 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 Develo nt Standards. Exceeds 21 12/21/09 '" 8 1:1.. i oS Satisfies ECLURRequirements Not ApplicableINo ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Re uirements Deviations Requested x x x x x x x x ~-- ---- The existing Cordillera 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 Cordillera PUD in 1987 and subsequent amendments. This proposal to amend the Cordillera PUD will not alter Consistency with the Land Use Regulations. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (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 Countv 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 1987 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 SUn'ounding 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. 22 12/21/09 Compatibility of the Cordillera PUD with all existing and allowed adjacent land uses should not be adversely affected by this proposal. ~ 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. ~ 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 Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F .3.m] - No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon 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. (I) The modification, removal or release of the provisions of the existing Cordillera 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 ofland abutting upon or across a street from the Cordillera 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 Cordillera Planned Unit Development. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 23 12/21/09 B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Attorney's Office: An e-mailed quote from Robert Morris, Deputy County Attorney, relative to housing mitigation "I've reviewed Alex's letter, the current PUD and the proposed PUD Amendment. Alex has stated his view that the proposed amendment does not give rise to any additional affordable housing obligations under the current Housing Guidelines. He does not give a view on the correctness of the representation in the proposed PUD amendment that states that pre-existing affordable housing obligations have been met. I reviewed Resolution 93-78, and it does establish that Cordillera was accorded 34 housing credits for its participation in the Lake Creek Apartments Project, and that is sufficient to satisfy the pre-existing obligations established in the current PUD. The approval in the current PUD (which pre-dated the County adoption of the Affordable Housing Guidelines) for a number of caretaker units does not, in my opinion, create any affordable housing obligations, even though such units in some cases do in fact serve as affordable housing for some people. Consequently, the number of such units actually built is not relevant to the pending PUD Amendment application". Eagle County Engineering Department: Please refer to the attached Engineering Department memorandum dated December 4,2010. These comments are incorporated as conditions of approval. Eagle County Department of Housing: Please refer to the attached letter dated December 9, 2009. The letter states that, "Because this change merely reflects clarification of existing rights under the Cordillera lOth PUD Guide, the Eagle County Local-Resident Housing Guidelines do not apply to this proposed Cordillera II th PUD Guide". Note: Referrals were also sent with no response received to the Eagle County Assessor, ECO Trails, ECO Transit, Eagle County Road & Bridge Department, RE-50J School District, Eagle County Sheriffs Office, Eagle County Weed & Pest, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Colorado Division of Wildlife, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation District, ECAD, Holy Cross Electric, Centurytel, Colorado Historical Society, Eagle County Historical Society C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: This proposal clarifies and brings current the controlling PUD Guide for the entirety of the Cordillera development; with emphasis on the Lodge Parcel and Village Center Parcel. The end result will be a cleaner, more easily implemented and enforced PUD control document. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 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 ofthe 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 24 12/21/09 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: I) 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) Pursuant to the Engineering Department Memorandum dated December 4, 2009, any future development of the Lodge Parcel and Village Center Parcel will be required to comply with all necessary permitting processes. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the request. The amendment would better define the existing PUD and replace inaccurate outdated PUD guide maps. He presented the referral responses. He stated that all the requirements had been satisfied. The Planning Commission unanimously approved the application. A resolution of the board of directors of the Cordillera Property Owners Association approving the proposed PUD amendment was provided with the application. Eagle County Engineering Department noted that any development remaining on either parcels would require proper permitting. The Housing Department had indicated that the local resident housing guidelines would not apply to this proposed amendment. The amendment did not propose a change of land use. Tom Ragonetti, attorney for the applicant spoke. He stated that this was clearly a clean up amendment and an attempt to address transfers, types of uses, and intent to clarify the rights of the property. Commissioner Stavney asked if staff initiated the amendment. Mr. Narracci stated that it was initiated by the applicant. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the lot sizes. Mr. Narracci stated that the lodge site was 8.277 acres and the village center parcel was 23.2 acres. Commissioner Runyon asked what was allowable on the 23 acres. Mr. Narracci stated that the uses by right were determined in the 1990's and it was defined as a future development tract. The applicant would need to get the design review board to sign off and then they could come to the county with a final plat. There wasn't any additional density proposed. The applicant just wanted to market the residential product that was constructed on the village center parcel. Mr. Ragonetti stated that there was no addition density or uses being added. The existing PUD had a density transfer provision that would allow density to be transferred in and between all the parcels. Harry Rosenthal stated that there was 20,000 sq. ft. of commercial development allowed on the village center parcel. They thought about using some of that to expand the spa at the lodge in the future. So far there were no plans for the village center parcel. Chairman Pro- Tem Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the file PDA-2563 Cordillera II th Amended PUD Guide . Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00253 - Frost Creek I Salt Creek pun Bob Narracci, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this Amended Final Plat is to rename some of the roads existing within the Frost Creek Subdivision, change the addresses in the Land Use Table to match the new road names, add a 20 foot Drainage and Grading Easement for Bruce Creek Road and to adjust the boundary of Frost Creek. LOCATION: Situated on either side of Brush Creek Road, approximately 3.5 miles southeast from the Town of Eagle. 25 12/21/09 TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNERS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF PLANNER: Amended Final Plat AFP-00253 / Amended Final Plat Approximately 7 miles south of the Town of Eagle on Brush Creek Road Kummer Development Owner Matt Shoulders, Adams Rib Bob Narracci STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The intent of this amended final plat application is to: · Rename Hunter's View Lane to Hunter's View · Rename King's Pawn Drive to Squires Lane · Rename Borah Court to Borah Spur · Rename Red Bluffs Lane to Red Bluffs Way · Rename Squire's Court to Eagle Spur · Rename Metheny Court to Metheny Way · Rename Cottage Creek Lane to Cottage Link · Correct PUD boundary dimensions at the north and south ends of the property · Change the addresses in the Land Use Table to match the new road names B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential, Agricultural, Unimproved, State Land Board and BLM / 'Resource', 'Agricultural Residential', and 'Resource Preservation' Residential, Agricultural and BLM / 'Resource' and 'Resource Preservation' Residential, Agricultural / 'Resource', 'Agricultural Residential', and 'Agricultural Limited' Residential, Agricultural / 'Resource' PUD 1,106.5 +/- Acres Public Property Owner's Association Managed Individual Septic Via Brush Creek Road West: North: South: Existing Zoning: Total Area: Water: Sewer: Access: C. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290. G. 3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply. 26 12/21/09 e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci stated that this was simply a renaming of some streets. Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. AFP-00253 incorporating the Staff findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. . Chairman Pro-Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanImous. Attest: There being no further business before the"Bom;g~ the meeting was adjourned until January 5,2010. /. m~.f c.'\~ ''-- ..., .. '" Q - C. ~/". /~~. , .' $Af/=/. ~. ~ g ~ 1-c:~ G( 'v. /\0 'it: l' 0( fJ ~ Clerk to the Boar \*'... 0..7 Chairman XOl.op.,.Q. 27 12/21/09