Loading...
Minutes 10/19/10 PUBLIC HEARING October 19, 2010 Present: Sara Fisher Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Jon Stavney Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney Kathy Scriver 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: Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of October 18, 2010 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Resolution 2010 - 128 Concerning Appointment to the Eagle County Planning Commission Bob Narracci, Planning C. First Amendment to Lease between County of Eagle and State of Colorado, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs County Attorney's Office Representative Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Robert Morris, Deputy County Attorney stated that there were no changes. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -C. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Fisher noted that item C would consolidate the existing leases with HATS to accommodate for the pending expansion. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Third Quarter Interest Report Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer Ms. Sheaffer presented the report. She believed that the county would be in good shape if /when the economy improved. She stated that the principal was intact. The budget had been changed for the interest revenue and she believed that they would make the million - dollar budget for the general fund. Chairman Fisher asked about the interest revenue 3 years. Ms. Sheaffer stated that in 2008, the fourth quarter interest was over a million dollars. Last year it was $566,000. She believed that in this environment the best that could be done was to hold onto the principal and wait for interest rates to rise. Chairman Fisher thanked Ms. Sheaffer for her diligence. Commissioner Runyon believed that Ms. Sheaffer did a fabulous job of watching after the people's money. 1 10/19/2010 Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Airport Representative 1. Approval of August 24, 2010 meeting minutes Mr. Runyon moved to approve the meeting minutes of August 24, 2010. Mr. Montag seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Consideration for execution: a. Fourth Amendment to Agreement for Operation of Ground Transportation Services between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Hy- Mountain Transportation, Inc. b. Fourth Amendment to Agreement for Operation of Ground Transportation Services between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Delivery Acquisition, Inc. Mr. Anderson spoke about the first two amendments, as they were related. Both amendments would extent the agreements for an additional year. The increase in rent was based on CPI increase. What was being increased was the minimum annual guarantee. Mr. Runyon wondered when the last time an RFP was circulated. Mr. Anderson stated that the last time the airport issued and RFP for ground transportation services in the terminal was in 2004. At that time, there were 3 companies that were eligible to b id under the bid requirements. At this point, there were good agreements in place with good rent. There were only 2 companies out there able to meet the walk up on call and demands of the terminal. He believed this was a benefit to the terminal revenue wise. Ms. Fisher asked Mr. Anderson to explain trip charges. Mr. Anderson stated the trip charge was a charge that a vehicle would incur as it entered the airport; the charge was $7 -8 per trip. During the winter months, they pay the monthly minimum or the trip charges for that month, whichever was greater. Mr. Runyon believed the CME charges were high. He wondered if the county had any control over the pricing structure. He believed the county needed to look at comparables to determine what was appropriate. Mr. Anderson stated that the pricing control was a function of supply and demand. He believed that prices were comparable with the other transportation agencies. Ms. Fisher requested that there be a discussion with CME in the near future to identify the numbers and have a healthy dialog with them. She believed that CME had always been generous in providing locals rate. The ultimate goal was to keep Eagle County the airport of choice. Mr. Anderson stated that he would be happy to initiate that discussion. c. First Amendment to Agreement for the Performance of Janitorial Services at the Eagle County Airport Terminal Mr. Anderson spoke about the First Amendment to Agreement for the Performance of Janitorial Services. The amendment would extend the Service Master Janitorial contract for 5 years, but it still ran year to year. There was also a 60 -day termination clause for both parties. The company dropped the total contract cost for the 5 years by about 8.5 %. He believed they provided the necessary services where others had failed. Chairman Fisher applauded the company and believed them to be reputable, trustworthy, hard working, and took great pride in their business. 2 10/19/2010 Mr. Stavney moved to approve Items A -C as discussed. Mr. Montag seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3. Other Business Mr. Anderson spoke about a storage room lease between ECAT and G2 Secure Staff, the ground handler for American Airlines. This was a month -to -month tenancy at $4.80 per sf per month, or $432 a month. Commissioner Stavney wondered if it would get in the way of the new baggage inspection system. Mr. Anderson stated that it was not any where near any of the modifications. Mr. Montag moved to approve the storage room lease between ECAT and the G2 Secure Staff. Mr. Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 4. New Business Mr. Anderson stated that employment wise this was the second best summer. The Eagle County Airport had come back to only being about 3.3% down from last year in inbound seat capacity. Mr. Runyon asked about the flight guarantees and how much money if any would need to be dispersed. Mr. Anderson stated that Eagle County, rather than proposing a minimum revenue guarantee, offered a flat rate. There would be about $80,000 distributed. Mr. Stavney clarified that this money was not from the General Fund. Mr. Stavney asked about the progress with the baggage inspections system and alarm system upgrade. Mr. Anderson stated that the alarm system installation was complete and the inline baggage screening system was moving forward. He anticipated the first stakeholder meeting under the detail design process in November. Mr. Stavney wondered if anyone had contacted HAATS (High - altitude ARNG Aviation Training Site) about educational opportunities. Mr. Anderson stated that they had looked many different options of educational pieces that could be done on both sides of the terminal. They were moving forward with that as well. Ms. Fisher spoke about the HAATS facility. She felt complimented by the construction team, as they'd asked her to weigh in on the applicants. She looked forward to continuing this partnership. Mr. Montag asked about the Master Plan. Mr. Anderson stated that the initial independent fee estimate came back extremely low. They further defined the scope adding more detail and resubmitted the contract. He anticipated negations to be complete in the next 3 weeks or so. After negotiations were complete between Eagle County Airport and the consultant they would make a formal recommendation to the FAA for approval. $560,000 was the consultant's estimate for the proposed services. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re- convene as the Eagle County Liquor License Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Savage Peak, Inc. d/b /a D'Oro #28- 65241 -0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management P lan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. 3 10/19/2010 B. Vail Food Services, Inc. d/b /a Game Creek Club #13- 32488 -0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License on Vail Mountain. 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 Ritz - Carlton Hotel Company, LLC d/b /a Ritz - Carlton Bachelor Gulch #41- 17214 -0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Bachelor Gulch. 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. 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. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for October 19, 2010 consisting of Items A -D. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Fine Line Foods, Inc. d/b /a Fine Line Bar & Grill REPRESENTATIVE: Ben Levy, Owner LOCATION: 60 El Jebel Road #101, El Jebel REQUEST: Transfer of Ownership STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested the Transfer of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License currently held by Atlas Pizza, LLC. The applicant is currently operating under a temporary permit issued by the local licensing authority, July 6, 2010. LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the fees have been paid. 2. Whether the applicants are of good moral character 3. If applicant plans to make any physical change, alteration or modification of the licensed premises, whether the premises, and if changed, altered or modified, will meet all of the pertinent requirements of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Codes, including, but not limited to the following factors: a. the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants; b. the possession, by the licensee, of the changed premises by ownership, lease, rental or other arrangement; c. compliance with the applicable zoning laws of the county; and 4 10/19/2010 d. compliance with the distance prohibition in regard to any public or parochial school. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees have been paid. 2. The state and local licensing authorities have previously licensed the premises where such alcohol beverages will be sold and such licenses were valid at the time the application for transfer of ownership was filed with the local licensing authority. 3. The applicant is reported to be of good moral character. 4. The Affidavit of Transfer and Statement of Compliance has been received. 5. The applicant is over 21, fmgerprints are on file. 6. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, October 8, 2010, 10 days prior to the hearing. 7. Publication of the notice is not required for a transfer of ownership. 8. The applicant does not wish to make any physical changes, alterations, or modifications to the licensed premises, which would alter the licensed premises, or the usage of the licensed premises. STAFF CONCLUSION: The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for a transfer of ownership and all findings are positive. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the application. Chairman Fisher asked Mr. Levy about the storage area and whether the stairs to his storage area serviced any other areas of the building. Mr. Levy stated that the stairs serviced apartments in the upper level of the complex but there Would be no public access to his facility. Chairman Fisher applauded him for having his servers TIPS certified. She encouraged him to invite the Sheriff's Office to do regular walk throughs and confer with staff with regards to new and improved ways to identify false IDs. Mr. Levy stated that officers had already been in. The point of sales system they used had an identification verification built into the system. Commissioner Runyon spoke about the walk -in cooler and emphasized keeping it locked at all times. Mr. Levy stated that re- stocking was done after business hours. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the reference to "fine line" Mr. Levy stated that it referred to skiing. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority, incorporating staffs findings, approve the transfer of a hotel and restaurant liquor license currently held by Atlas Pizza, LLC d/b /a Atlas Pizza to Fine Line Foods, Inc. d/b /a Fine Line Bar & Grill. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5 10/19/2010 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. Planning Files ZC -2757 Lane Property Zone District Amendment Scot Hunn, Planning NOTE: No board action required. The hearing date for this application has been reschedule to November 16, 2010 at 5:30 p.m. in the El Jebel Community Center ACTION: The purpose of this Zone Change is to re -zone (down -zone) approximately 128 acres of a 200 acre property from Planned Unit Development (PUD) Zone District to Resource (R) Zone District. LOCATION: 401 Tree Farm Drive; located along Hwy. 82, due east of the intersection of Hwy. 82 and El Jebel Road, in El Jebel. Mr. Montag stated that there was no board action required. Commissioner Stavney noted for the viewing public that this was not the Tree Farm development application it related to the surrounding parcel that as part of the process was requested by the Town of Basalt and neighbors that it be re -zoned from PUD to resource. VIS -2692 Berlaimont Estates Ben Gerdes, Engineering NOTE: Tabled from 09/21/10 & 10/05/10 ACTION: The purpose of this Variance from Improvement Standards is for a road to provide access to a private in- holding within the White River National Forest. LOCATION: Berlaimont Road, Edwards Area TITLE: Berlaimont Estates Road FILE NO.: VIS -2692, Variance from Improvement Standards RELATED FILE NO.: IAR -2130 OWNER: Berlaimont Estates, LLC APPLICANT: Berlaimont Estates, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Michael English, English and Associates Inc. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Berlaimont Estates, LLC (Applicant) owns a 680 -acre in- holding within the White River National Forest. The property is currently undeveloped and has historically been used for grazing. The Applicant desires to plat the 680 -acre track into nineteen, 35 -acre residential lots. Each lot could be developed with a single - family and an accessory dwelling unit. Section 4- 620.J.9.c(4) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations require that access roads serving more than three residences meet applicable Eagle County Road Standards. The Applicant is seeking several Variances from Improvement Standards including Dual Access (ECLUR 4- 620.J.1.h), Emergency Vehicle Turnaround Areas (ECLUR 4- 620.D.10.d) and Road Improvement Standards (ECLUR 4- 620.J). 6 10/19/2010 B. CHRONOLOGY: December 11, 1979 Spring Creek Ranch, LLC purchased the property for $182,500 June 16, 2005 CR Nevada Associates, LLC purchased the property for $5,865,000 March 6, 2008 Berlaimont Estates, LLC purchased the property for $9,500,000 IAR -2130 - Interagency referral from White River National Forest to provide 2008 - 2009 input on the proposed Berlaimont Estates application for an access easement. April 9, 2010 Applicant submits application for variance to improvement standards to Eagle County June 28, 2010 Applicant requests that the April 9, 2010 application for variance to improvement standards be withdrawn. July 14, 2010 Applicant re- submits application for variance to improvement standards to Eagle County C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: USFS — White River National Forest _ West: USFS — White River National Forest North: USFS — White River National Forest _ South: USFS — White River National Forest Existing Zoning: Resource Proposed Zoning: Resource _ Proposed No. of Dwelling 19 primary and up to 19 accessory Dwelling Units Units: Total Area: 680 acres _ Water: Individual Cistern — Potable water trucked to each residence Sewer: Individual Septic _ Access: Moonridge Drive 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES The referral notice was distributed on August 9, 2010 and Adjacent Property Owners Letters were distributed on August 26, 2010. The following section referenced the comments of all responses to Eagle County prior to the date of this writing: Eagle County Engineering Department — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated August 27, 2010 and follow up correspondence from the Applicant dated September 7, 2010. Colorado Division of Wildlife — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated August 27, 2010 Colorado Geological Survey — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated August 31, 2010 Berry Creek Metropolitan District / Singletree Property Owners Association — Please refer to attached referral response e-mail dated August 27, 2010 Mark Blickenstaff— Please refer to attached Adjacent Property Owner response e-mail dated September 1, 2010 Todd Williams - Please refer to attached Adjacent Property Owner response e-mail dated August 29, 2010 7 10/19/2010 Bill Anderson- Please refer to attached Adjacent Property Owner response e-mail dated September 25, 2010 B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Section 4 -600 of the ECLUR defines the purpose of improvement standards as the minimum design criteria and standards for infrastructure development in unincorporated Eagle County. The criteria and standards are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of Eagle County. The Applicant is proposing a 19 lot 35 -acre residential development with an estimated average daily trip (ADT) generation of 245 vehicles per day (see No 4. of Alpine Engineering's referral response letter dated September 7, 2010). The proposed ADT corresponds with the Eagle County roadway functional classification of Rural Minor Collector, Type V. The ECLUR Improvement Standards set the geometric dimensions for the design of each classification of roadway. In order to achieve the desired design the applicant is requesting the following Variances from Improvement Standards: 1. Dual Access. ECLUR Section 4- 620.J.1.h: With the exception of properties proposed to be served from the public roadway system by driveways or by urban cul -de -sacs, two (2) points of ingress / egress to the public roadway system shall be provided, such that in the event a road within the subdivision becomes impassable, all properties will continue to have access to a public roadway system. Both points of access should be open and available for daily usSecondary emergency access points must be kept free of obstruction, and must be maintained to assure year round use. Depending upon the length of the road, the wildfire hazard rating, the number of units proposed, the topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from this required improvement standard. The Applicant has cited the following conditions that they contend represent a hardship to the Applicant if a variance to the Dual Access requirement is not granted: 1. The limitation on access across National Forest System (NFS) lands to one access roadway. The property constitutes and in- holding within the White River National Forest and as such may be granted a permanent easement for year -round access to accommodate "reasonable use and enjoyment" as required by the Alaskan National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). A permanent easement, granted under this act and reviewed through NEPA, however, would allow only one point of entry and one access roadway, largely following existing Forest Service roads. 2. Limitation of access through adjoining private properties. There are no adjoining private lands through which a secondary access could be established that would not also necessitate access through NFS lands that are limited by the condition described in the previous paragraph. 3. The exceptional topographic conditions approaching and within the property. As contemplated specifically in Sections 5 -260 and 4 -620 of the ECLUR, access to the property is characterized by exceptional topographic conditions that make access design more challenging. Three cross - sections through the site (see Figures 4, 5 and 6 of the application) show the general character of the existing terrain. Even if a second access point could be established, the slope gradients between the property and the nearest access to the County Roadway System would make such access impractical for emergency use. 4. The consideration of visual and environmental factors. The establishment of a permanent easement for access across the NFS requires careful consideration of a variety of visual and environmental • 8 10/19/2010 resource parameters. Beyond the limitations identified above, a second access point would only increase the potential for visual or environmental impact. 2. Emergency Vehicle Turnaround Areas. ECLUR Section 4- 620.D.10.d: Emergency vehicle turnaround areas shall be required on rural cul -de -sacs at the initial 1,000 foot mark and at 1,000 foot intervals for the remaining length of road. The Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction may recommend an alternative spacing plan for the turnaround areas. The turnaround areas shall be constructed in accordance with Section 4- 620.D.11, Vehicle Turnarounds. The Applicant has proposed 14 Emergency Vehicle Turnarounds along the 5.32 mile roadway. These turnarounds are spaced at intervals between 945 -feet and 4,050 -feet. The Eagle River Fire Protection District (ERFPD) has reviewed the proposed turnaround plan and in a memorandum dated March 15, 2010 stated that the "turning movements depicted in the submittal appear to accommodate the department's ladder truck." 3. Road Design Standards. ECLUR Section 4 -620: The proposed road is estimated to carry an average of 245 vehicle trips per day. This volume corresponds to the Eagle County Rural Minor Collector, Type V standard. This road would have 10 -foot paved driving lanes with 3 -foot gravel shoulders on each side. The Applicant has requested variances to geometric road design standards as listed in the table below. In addition, they are requesting a variance from the maximum road speed. The ECLUR recommends a design speed for this type of road of 20mph. The Applicant is proposing a design speed of 30mph with adequate speed reduction signage where necessary. Through referral, the Engineering Department has also identified the spiral curve lengths and the distance between switchbacks as variances that would be required based on the proposed design. Alpine Engineering has committed to meet the minimum spiral curve lengths where possible and consider use of simple tangent curves at locations with little tangent deflection. In addition, Alpine Engineering has provided an alternate switchback design that provides the necessary stopping sight distance betw een curves. Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Section 3.7 of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Wildlife Resources states as its Goal: Preserve and / or enhance the quality of wildlife habitat, and the vitality of wildlife populations in Eagle County. Section 3.7.2 Wildlife Concerns lists the following policies: a) The integrity, quality and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved. b) The well -being of wildlife species of economic importance should be actively monitored and protected. c) The well -being of wildlife species of less economic importance and those on the rare and endangered species list should be actively monitored and protected. This section further lists elk, mule deer and sage grouse as species considered for protection. The Division of Wildlife in their referral response expressed their concern for the impacts of the Berlaimont Road on these species. Section 3.7.3 Development Impacts lists the following policies: d) Development in areas critical to the continued well being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed. 9 10/19/2010 e) Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts. Section 3.7.4 Habitat Protection at the Landscape Scale lists the following policies: f) 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. 3.7.5 Habitat Protection at the Site Scale lists the following policies: g) Wildlife friendly measures should be incorporated into the design of individual home sites and neighborhoods. h) Measures designed to protect wildlife from contact with human activities and disturbances should be implemented and enforced. i) Access to public lands and opportunities for public land recreation should be balanced with the need to preserve quality wildlife habitat. C. STAFF FINDINGS: Section 4 -600 of the ECLUR defines the purpose of improvement standards as the minimum design criteria and standards for infrastructure development in unincorporated Eagle County. The criteria and standards are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents and visitors of Eagle County. Further, Section 4- 610.A.2 of the ECLUR states: Standards Are Not Inflexible. These design criteria and standards provide a certain level of performance; however, they are not inflexible. If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be show to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity which reflects community values equal to or better than that established by these standards, said alternative may be recommended for approval by the County Engineer. In evaluating the proposed alternate the County Engineer shall follow the procedures in Section 5- 260.G., Variance From Improvement Standards. The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased. However, we must also consider that the Board of County Commissioners has adopted Resolution No. 2009 -115 in response to numerous and substantial public safety concerns recommending strict enforcement of the ECLUR Improvement Standards with the opportunity for the applicant to appeal to the board for a Variance to these Standards. The applicant has made an effort to follow the existing Forest Service roads and where possible an alignment that minimizes visual impacts to the 1 -70 corridor. However, a decision on these Variance requests must account for wildlife protection, wildfire protection and access for emergency services. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that if the BoCC finds that a Variance to Improvement Standards is justified, the sub - standard geometric features of the proposed road can be mitigated. However, the impact of the road raises issues of wildlife impact and mitigation that the Engineering Department would rely on the Division of Wildlife to answer. Additionally, we would rely on the ERFPD for the sufficiency of the proposed emergency vehicle turnarounds and the necessity of Dual Access for the performance of Emergency Services to the development. Board of County Commissioners Findings The Board of County Commissioners must make the following finding in order to approve or deny this file: (ECLUR 5- 260.G.2.) Findings for Variance from Improvement Standards Request 10 10/19/2010 In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for Variance from Improvement Standards, the Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. In approving or approving with conditions that are necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of this Subsection, these Regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [VARIANCE] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [VARIANCE] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [VARIANCE] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [VARIANCE] 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). DISCUSSION: Mr. Gerdes presented the request and summarized the variance request. The Applicant was seeking 3 variances from improvement standards which include dual access (ECLUR 4- 620.J.1.h), 14 emergency vehicle turnaround areas (ECLUR 4- 620.D.10.d) and road improvement standards to increase the speed to 30 mph (ECLUR 4- 620.J). The property was a horseshoe shaped property above Edwards. Forest Service roads currently access the property. The applicant would like to subdivide the property into 19, 35 -acre lots. He stated that the board should balance the hardships to the applicant. The board may impose conditions that were necessary to insure compliance. The first hearing on the application was October 5, 2010. The applicant was proposing a 5.3 miles. Andy Skillman spoke on behalf of the applicant. He introduced the landowner and other members of the team. He presented 3 items to add to the record, the first item was a letter dated today from certified wildlife biologist Rick Thomson, the July 22, 2010 binder titled "Variance from Improvement Standards, Eagle County Land Use Regulations ", and the applicant's March 10 set of engineering designs from Alpine Engineering. He explained the concept plan and the proposed alignment of the building envelopes. Chairman Fisher stated that one of the reasons the file was tabled was to allow Chief Charles Moore from the Eagle River Fire Protection District to weith in on the file. Commissioner Stavney stated that much of the board's consideration hinged on public safety, access to wild fires, and structure fires. Chief Moore stated that he did not have any concerns with the way the road was being constructed but he was a big supporter of dual access. He was uncertain about many of the details such as the size of the structures, water supply, etc. He expressed concern for the water resources and getting people in and out quickly. 11 10/19/2010 Chairman Stavney explained that during the building process, there would be more details provided and additionally Chief Moore would have some control over what the applicant could and could not do. He wondered if Eagle River Fire would fight the fire differently if there were only 3 structures such as hunting cabins. Chief Moore stated that there was never a case where they would not respond. In a rural type of application the best amount of water that they could deliver was 500 gallons a minute. He spoke about the other developments within the county that had limited access. He believed that this was a new standard of care and a different principal. He expressed concerns for their 2 wheel drive vehicles accessing the property during inclement weather. Eric Lovgren, Eagle County wildfire mitigation manager stated that the wildfire regulations required a hazard mitigation plan based on slope and fuel. There was a water storage requirement as well. The state forest service could also review as necessary. He had spoken to the developer about creating a community wildfire protection plan and they had committed to working with the county on developing a suitable mitigation plan. Commissioner Stavney asked about the Eagle County Building Department requirements regarding sprinkler systems, water storage, etc. and the Fire Districts ability to review. Mark Austin, Eagle Could building department plans examiner stated that there were currently no requirement for fire sprinkler systems. If there were no fire hydrant within 600 ft. of the property, they would require water storage. Water storage was based on the total volume of the building/buildings. The water systems were approved by the Fire District. Mr. Lovgren expressed concern for the lower section of the road. Some of the largest fires in the state had been in these moderate hazard areas impacted by winds. He agreed with Chief Moore, it was a good road but the road provided poor access. He believed they could mitigate the hazard through fire resistant construction, defensible space, water storage, community wildfire protection plans and pre- attack planning. His biggest concern was getting emergency responders in and getting residents out. He encouraged a secondary egress route orjeep road and the maintenance of the secondary road during all seasons. Chairman Fisher asked about the Accessory Dwelling Units and the ability to house animals on the 35 acres parcels. Mr. Morris stated that in general the county had no control over development of residential units on 35 -acre parcels. This was unlike the customary planning file. However, the county did have jurisdiction over building permits within the development. As this property was zoned resource, it allowed one residential unit and one accessory dwelling unit per 35 acres with various other structures. The developer had not indicated how many accessory dwelling units would be allowed or the home sizes. Without knowing the details, it was difficult to assess the problem of having only one road. He stated that the dual access road requirement was harsh in the sense that there must be a second access road available for daily use unless it was not possible. Under the language of the existing land use regulations, the board could grant a variance. Since there was no emergency access road the applicant was requesting a complete various from the dual access requirement. This raises the question - is it impossible for the applicant to get Forest Service approval for dual access. So far, the Forest Service had not said one way or another. At this time, the board could only consider the risk of not having dual road access. Mr. Gerdes stated that this road was similar to other roads in the county. Commissioner Runyon stated that looking at the map the property was near the Cordillera Valley Club property and wondered if they had contacted them. Michael English stated that the new owners of CVC were not open to allowing the applicant access to their private land. Commissioner Stavney believed it was somehow possible to get a secondary access at a cost. Mr. English believed that if money was no object a secondary road might be possible. One way would be to come down from the CVC but then they would be dealing with private land ownership. He sat with the Forest Service on many occasions and the bottom line was they would work with them on a single access only. Chairman Fisher believed that the ultimate cost was human life. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Bill Andree, DOW — District Manager spoke about the creation of the road and his views regarding wildlife. He stated that the property was totally surrounded by severe winter range and was a major migration corridor. The migration corridor was considered to be the second largest in the state. He believed the speed limit would create an issue for wildlife and vehicle collisions. The sage grouse would also be affected. Chairman Fisher spoke about the historic use of the property. Mr. Andree stated that the property was used for cattle grazing. • 12 10/19/2010 Kim West spoke about her experience in the back roads. She requested that the board deny the road variance. She believed that there would be several animal species affected by the road. She believed the road was criminal. She spoke about the heavy vehicle traffic and the limited water rights. She believed the impact could be felt for generations. Kevin Moriarty requested that the board deny the application. The property was remote area and there was a lot of wildlife in the area. He believed there would be a lot of water runoff and this would impacts his road. If the board was to approve the application, he requested that the applicant be required to put in gutters and drainage. Lauren Anderson requested that the board take their time reviewing all the details before making a final decision. Mike Thul spoke. He spoke about the enjoyment time he'd spent in the area. He believed that paving the road would be a great improvement. He believed there would be minimal impact. He responded the DOW comment and believed that if the board were to always listen to the DOW comments there would be limited development all together. The reality was that this was not public land. He spoke about the proposed structures and believed that there would be specific insurance requirements. He was not aware of the dual access requirement and wondered if it was realistic. He supported high -end development and wondered why the county would not support it as everyone had something to gain from it. Scott Davis spoke about public safety. He questioned the regulations and whether they would increase public safety or was a lever to do what was reasonable to create that safety. He believed that all the safety issues were solvable with reasonable means. As a citizen, he would like to see the board create a balance. Chairman Fisher stated that she appreciated the input. She explained that the applicant was asking that the rules that would mitigate some of the safety concerns not be required. By asking for those variances, they were pushing the safety envelope. Commissioner Stavney stated that the road standards were not in place to prevent development. They were in place to insure safe development. Deborah Vigil believed that the applicant had gone above and beyond their call of duty in making the road more accessible to the public. She understood the need for dual access but there were many examples of single access developments throughout the county. She supported the development and encouraged the board to allow the applicant the right to access their property. Commissioner Stavney wondered if a denial would cause a proven hardship. Mr. Morris stated that the owner had the right under federal law to access the property for reasonable use. They did not need dual access for 3 units on the property but the applicant was requesting access to reach 19 units with accessory dwelling unit. It raises the question whether this met the impossibility standards. It also raised the question as to whether it was a hardship that someone buys a piece of property knowing that the county would require dual access and knowing the Forest Service would have to approve the access. The board's job was to enforce the regulations. David Neely, District Ranger, Eagle Holy Cross - Forest Service stated that whatever decision the board made would factor in on their decision. The direction they were provided was that they provide access for reasonable use and enjoyment of the property. It did not mandate that they consider proposed or future uses. If the variance were not granted, there would still be access to the property. Gail Newman, adjacent property owner spoke about her water rights dating back to 1893. She felt that the applicant had mistreated her. She encouraged the board to stand by their regulations or they shouldn't have made them. Chairman Fisher understood the public's interest in providing jobs but explained that a lot of revenue came from hunters. Those dollars were the second or third largest revenue source coming into the state. If the county lost the deer and elk, it would also risk losing millions of dollars into the community. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Ken Sharp addressed the drainage concerns. He stated that moving the road would improve the road and minimize drainage. Mr. Skillman stated that the landowner was committed to addressing any concerns. He believed that change could be unsettling but it could also bring opportunities to the community. There would be no change to the zoning and there were federal laws that allowed landowners to access their property for reasonable use and enjoyment. 13 10/19/2010 Chairman Fisher believed that the road standards were in place when the property owner purchased the property. She was challenged by the mindset that the 19 lots were a given. The 19 lots could only be developed if the access requirements were met. She believed that if the board denied the variance the applicant would only be permitted to build 3 homes. Mr. Morris stated that to his knowledge there was no case saying one had to provide access for maximum development of the property. Access was a given in the case. If the board chose to deny the application for the variance, the applicant would have to get approval from the Forest Service. Mr. Skillman presented the benefits of the proposal. They were not proposing change only improvements to the road. He believed there were ways to mitigate. He read the letter submitted by Chief Moore and believed there would be way to address Chief Moore's concerns. Chairman Fisher asked Chief Moore to clarify his comments in the letter. Chief Moore stated that if he knew what the resources were going to exist he might be fine with a single access road. Mr. Skillman stated that the landowner was willing to contribute to the reasonable cost of additional service needs by the Fire District. They believed there were opportunities for helicopter landing zones and a place to stage a helicopter on the property. There was an intension to work with county officials to develop a community wildlife plan, shelter plan, and address water resource issues. The applicant suggested that an appropriate condition of approval be added requiring the landowner and the appropriate county officials to develop mutually acceptable plans to address the safety issues prior to any road construction. There was an active desire by the landowner who intended to live on the property to work at all steps with county officials. The applicant believed that the hardship was very real and any adverse impacts on health and safety could be mitigated through careful planning. Chairman Fisher stated that mitigation was based on promises and many unknowns. She thought these unknowns should be understood before the approval of a variance. She wondered about the water rights and the current water resource. Michele English stated that there were 2 active springs and water rights on site. Additionally, water could be purchased if needed. Commissioner Runyon believed this was difficult decision. Their bottom line on this file was safety. The applicant spent a huge amount of money on the property with eyes open. The county regulations were meant to protect public safety and he was disinclined to grant a variance. Commissioner Stavney believed that it was time for the board to make a decision so the applicant could move forward. He spoke about the applicant's request for a conditional approval seemed uncertain. Mr. Morris stated that he was reluctant to approve the file with conditions. He stated that the board could either grant or deny the file. There had been a lot of additional information introduced and he believed it would be wise to review the information if the board was inclined to approve the file. Chairman Fisher found it difficult to understand that there was any hardship since the owner purchased the property three years ago. She believed that 2 exits were vitally important. She suggested a motion that the board instruct staff to work with the county attorney to create the appropriate document so that in a subsequent meeting they could move forward on the denial of the three variances. Mr. Morris stated that a resolution could be prepared in the usual way incorporating the board's decision and the resolution could be adopted at a subsequent hearing. Commissioner Runyon moved to instruct staff to create a resolution incorporating the board's reasoning and final decision to deny the three variances. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 14 10/19/2010 PDS -2313 Eagle River Meadows Scot Hunn, Planning NOTE: Tabled from 01/26/10, 03/30/10, 05/25/10, 06/08/10, 07/06/10, 08/24/10, 08/31/10 & 10/5/10 ACTION: The purpose for this Sketch Plan is for a mixed use Planned Unit Development inclusive of residential, commercial, medical, and office uses. Proposal also includes active and passive recreational and open space uses. LOCATION: Former "B &B Gravel Mine" site generally situated along Hwy 6 Edwards, Colorado, NW 1/4, Section 5, Township 5, Range 82. REFERENCE: Staff Report in 8/24/2010 minutes 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. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Environmental Health Department dated August 12, 2009, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 3. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum(s) dated August 12, 2009, and March 31, 2010, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 4. Recommendations set forth in the ECO Trails correspondence dated August 13, 2009, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan. 5. Comments set forth by the ECO Transit in correspondence dated August 11, 2009 and in correspondence received October 19, 2009, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. 6. The Applicant shall work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department Director as well as other County Staff towards finalization of the housing plan and the applicant's housing mitigation obligations under the Eagle County Local Resident Housing Guidelines. In addition, the applicant will be required to work with Eagle County Staff to further explore opportunities and options to integrate deed restricted and resident occupied housing of varying types, sizes and price points throughout the development, to dedicate lands to the county for mitigation purposes, to provide affordable - commercial space aimed at local businesses and entrepreneurs, to provide live -work units and to examine other funding mechanisms, such as transfer and sales assessments, to mitigate fully the development's impacts. 7. All comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey response dated August 14, 2009, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 8. Comments and recommendations set forth in a letter from the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife dated August 10, 2009, shall be incorporated into any future design development of the PUD and shall be otherwise be adequately be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 9. Comments and conditions set forth in a letter from the State of Colorado, Solid Waste and Materials Management Unit, dated August 11, 2009, regarding approval of a Corrective Action Plan Modification dated August 10, 2009, shall be addressed prior to any Preliminary Plan application. Pursuant to the letter from the State, the Eagle County Environmental Health Department shall be provided a copy of all reports describing the "results of remediation at the site." 15 10/19/2010 10. Comments and recommendations set forth in a letter from the NWCCOG dated August 12, 2009, shall be incorporated into any future design development, specifically drainage, and construction storm water discharge planning, and shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 11. Comments and recommendations set forth in letters from the Eagle River Watershed Council dated August 17, 2009 and October 21, 2009 shall be incorporated into any future design development of the PUD and shall otherwise be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 12. Comments and conditions set forth in the "Conditional Service Capacity Commitment" letter from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, dated November 25, 2009, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 13. The Applicant shall coordinate any and all future design development for the PUD with the Eagle River Fire Protection District and other applicable emergency service districts for the purpose of ensuring any and all variations to dimensional limitations and/or Eagle County road and improvement standards are in conformance with applicable codes prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 14. The PUD Guide shall be revised to include, but not be limited to: a) more specific provisions, language and limits pertaining to all proposed uses, inclusive of the further definition and provision of "flexible" zoning and density within certain planning parcels; b) detailed dimensional limitations and development standards such as maximum building height, bulk and mass controls, and setbacks for each planning parcel; c) additional controls such as lighting standards; d) a master (comprehensive) sign program for the development; e) a definitions section; f) amendments provisions; g) landscape standards; h) renderings and illustrations necessary to adequately communicate absolute and "recommended" development standards, and; i) provisions and details addressing the administration, development and ongoing maintenance of all internal trails, "dog parks" and amenities such as community gardens. 15. The Applicant shall revise the land plan as necessary to provide or specifically define additional locations or areas within the PUD to provide active recreational uses, where appropriate, and to include provisions for community gardens and additional "dog parks ". In addition, the Applicant shall work with County Staff, as well as representatives from the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Eagle River Watershed Council towards the mitigation of any potential negative impacts from increased access to the river corridor and riparian areas by future residents and the public. Pathways, "dog park" areas, and drainage plans within the site are to be designed specifically to ensure that wetlands, riparian areas and the Eagle River resources within the PUD are not permanently damaged by any and all construction and to ensure that the potential for increased damage occurring from future use of such amenities by area residents and the general public is minimized and mitigated to the highest extent. 16. The Applicant shall incorporate certain design and construction techniques into any future design development of the project, specifically incorporating site design, building, and landscape standards within any Preliminary Plan application and within the PUD Guide, to ensure that sound - abating construction materials and techniques are used where necessary to mitigate potential noise impacts from Interstate 70 and/or Hwy. 6 on any units proposed in close proximity to such transportation corridors. 17. The Applicant shall work with Eagle County Staff and the Eagle River Watershed Council to identify and incorporate, where applicable and practical, certain revisions to the overall design of the project for the express purpose of improving the project's conformance with master plan goals and objectives to improve ground water recharge and to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces, and specifically to incorporate techniques and technologies such as those listed in the applicant's official response to the Edwards Area Community Plan — Objectives — including but not limited to pervious paving materials, bio- swales, green roof construction, rain gardens, "Distributed Stormwater Management Strategies" and rainwater harvesting. 18. The Applicant shall work with Eagle County Staff to identify and incorporate, where applicable and practical, certain revisions to the overall design of the project for the express purpose of increasing the project's 16 10/19/2010 Sustainable Communities Index score. Specifically, areas to focus on will include: site design, solar orientation of buildings, on -site energy and agricultural (neighborhood gardens) production, energy efficient building design and construction techniques, xeriscaping, reduced parking lot footprints, increased diversity of convenience and neighborhood services uses, greater diversity in the types of housing, and additional affordable housing (over that required as a minimum). 19. The Applicant is required to perform a detailed needs and market analysis demonstrating the financial viability and compatibility of the project within the local conditions prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. Such analysis will be undertaken to aid the Applicant, other local jurisdictions, and Eagle County accurately assess market viability and phasing plans necessary to ensure the continued enhancement of the local economy. 20. Revise the plans to include provisions for an on -site recycling program for the PUD. 21. Revise the plans to include opportunities for senior services and children's day care as Eagle County Staff requests and in response to market demand prior to any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal. In so doing, the Applicant shall work with child and senior care service providers, the Eagle County Housing and Development Department, Health and Human Services Department and the Economic Council of Eagle County to identify housing, business, service and amenity demand and use. Such uses, if any, are to be incorporated into any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 22. The Applicant shall submit a Wetlands Delineation Plan and Mitigation Plan concurrent with any Preliminary Plan for PUD application. Such plan shall indicate the extent of mapped jurisdictional wetlands (pursuant to any Jurisdictional Delineation performed in accordance with Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC.'s, Draft Eagle River Meadows Wetlands Action Plan, dated October 14, 2009), and shall include specific recommendations for wetlands avoidance and mitigation measures. Such measures and the findings or recommendations of the Plan (as approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) shall be integrated into the design of any Preliminary Plan and may require the applicant to revise the land plan to relocate and/or eliminate certain amounts of proposed residential density. 23. The Applicant shall prepare a detailed phasing plan prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal. Such plan shall specifically address and identify the phased build -out of all proposed uses, by planning area, within the PUD and shall be drafted to specifically correspond with anticipated traffic impact thresholds associated with the PUD and related transportation and other off -site public improvements required to mitigate identified impacts generated from the proposed PUD. The phasing plan will address future Levels of Service (LOS) for any and all road segments and intersections that will be directly impacted by the proposed PUD and will tie future impacts from the PUD to those on and off -site infrastructure improvements directly linked to such impacts. Accordingly, the phasing plan shall address in a fair, proportional and equitable manner the future responsibilities of the applicant /developer towards making certain improvements for the express purpose of mitigating the PUD's direct impacts and ensuring that Edwards Area intersection and roadway segment LOS thresholds established by the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLURs), as may be amended from time to time, are maintained in the future. 24. Prior to any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal, the Applicant shall work with the Eagle County Engineering Department to quantify the scope, estimated costs and the level and extent of the Applicant's participation (financial and otherwise) in a local Transportation Improvements Plan project — to provide a supplement to the 2004 Edwards Area Transportation/Hwy. 6 Corridor Feasibility Study -to the extent such participation is directly related to the Applicant's obligations pursuant to the ECLUR's to provide detailed traffic studies and analysis quantifying the impacts from the proposed PUD, and proposing certain solutions, concurrent with Preliminary Plan application. 25. The Applicant shall work with Staff, prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal, to establish a schedule (subject to approval by Staff) and service plans regarding the Applicant's initiative, as reported by the Applicant during the Planning Commission hearings on the matter of PDS -2313, to create a 17 10/19/2010 special district(s) or similar legal bodies to levy a property assessment millage, subject to Colorado law, that may be needed to mitigate impacts from the proposed PUD on transit, transportation, and affordable housing, prior to any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal. The creation of any special districts or mill levies for the project will be the sole responsibility of the applicant. 26. Applicant shall reimburse Eagle County for any and all reasonable expenses incurred by the Eagle County Engineering Department for the purpose of contracting with a third party consultant to provide, after a competitive bid process, at the County's sole discretion, expert review of the applicant's Preliminary Plan for PUD traffic study. The selection of any such expert consultant hired by Eagle County for this purpose will be at the sole discretion of Eagle County and paid for by the applicant. 27. The Applicant shall develop site specific architectural and landscape design guidelines (separate from the PUD guide). Such standards, in accordance with the applicant's representations made during Sketch Plan for PUD hearings held before the Eagle County Planning Commission, shall compliment and/or reflect the intent — goals, policies and objectives of the Urban Design Elements for the Edwards Core Area to the highest extent practical, where appropriate, in context to the PUD and its natural and man -made surroundings. 28. The Applicant shall submit an "Operational Plan" for the proposed PUD, concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. The Operational Plan will disclose and describe all major tenants and/or end users of the PUD, specifically major medical and/or commercial tenants, and shall outline and describe each major tenant's proposed operations in relation to the overall PUD. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hunn presented a vicinity map of the area showing the project boundaries. The site plan showed the proposed development next to the Eagle River Preserve. He explained the zoning and property history. The parcel was 105 acres and zoned resource. He provided a project overview. This was a mixed -use proposal with 380 residential dwelling units and approximately 260,000 square feet of medical wellness, commercial, and office space. 68 acres or65% of the site were proposed as open space. Review and approval criteria concerns were under master plan conformance. Comprehensive Plan considerations included future land use, transit oriented development, clustering, less density, and open space preservation as a public benefit. The Planning Commission held 8 hearings and their vote for recommendation for approval was unanimous. He chose to hold off on presenting the 28 conditions until the next hearing. Mr. Badger stated that he tried to create an integration of healthcare and residential. The applicant believed that medical tourism was a growing field and a different economic driver. They wanted to create something that worked with the current medical facilities in the community. The end users would be identified between sketch and preliminary plan. He believed they were focusing in the right direction and they would not invest in something that that would not work. Chairman Fisher wondered how much outreach the applicant had done for people already providing some of these services in the community. Mr. Badger stated he had not gone door to door but had been approached by individuals who expressed support for a campus environment. He believed that the model would enhance what was already available. He believed it was important to note that the Planning Commission supported the original proposal — option A. He presented photos of the entrance, the flood plain, meadow, and other areas of the property. The health wellness area would be the hub of the project. There would be various trails and public amenities. There would also be various types of housing. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the critical need for senior assisted living and requested that the applicant keep this in mind. He hoped the project would provide something that would not compete with the assisted living skilled nursing campus intended for Eagle. Mr. Badger spoke about the proposed architecture and provided architectural renderings. He presented a rendering of the proposed bridge crossing. It would be designed to be low profile with minimum visual impact. He believed it was a better plan to have connectivity to the north by way of the bridge. Commissioner Runyon asked about the north side of the bridge being affected by the flood plain and wetlands. Mr. Badger stated that it would be similar to how Eagle County built the bridge in Miller Ranch. 18 10/19/2010 Commissioner Stavney challenged Mr. Badger to consider a pier or second span. There were ways to keep the bridge out of the wetlands if it was deemed important in the overall picture. He saw this as an opportunity to create something nicer that what was currently there. Mr. Badger stated that was there intent. The wetlands change over time for a variety of reasons. He spoke about their desire to reestablish the channels and create more of a park setting. Commissioner Stavney stated that he understood the applicant's intent but encouraged them to create more habitat. Mr. Badger believed the existing habitat was good but they would be willing to explore the subject further. He continued his presentation and presented the public benefits. These benefits included, creating a viable economic model for the community, reclamation of an industrial site, integrated hierarchical trail network, creation of open space, county access easement, public fishing program, bus stop locations, visual continuity of the river corridor, looped access to adjacent subdivisions, primary road dedicated to the county as a public road, and dedication of affordable county open space. He didn't view this project as a second home community. He spoke about the desired density of the project and the impact to the schools. He estimated that the total land dedication requirement equaled 1.153 acres or payment in lieu. Chairman Fisher asked about the density equation. Mr. Hunn stated that the on the north side it was roughly 24 0 units on 17 acres, and on the south] 40 units on 21 acres. Brett Ranch was 7.8 units per acre. Chairman Fisher asked about the increased density on the south side if the north parcel went undeveloped. Mr. Badger stated that he'd explain that later in the presentation. He explained the transportation system recommendations and the cost associated with the improvements. Chairman Fisher asked about the parking component. Mr. Badger stated that there would be on street parking, service parking and underground parking. Mr. Hunn stated that the proposed parking did not meet the standards and the applicant would have to request a slight variance. Commissioner Runyon asked about the type of proposed housing. Mr. Badger stated that in plan A there were 100 units on the south. In plan B, 40% would be resident occupied units. On the south there were 140 units originally. If they got rid of the north he would bump the density on the south to 160 market rate units. Any additional units beyond that would have to build on a 2 to 1 ratio in terms of square footage, market versus affordable. In phase 2 they could build an additional 80 units on the south, of those units, 1/3 would need to be affordable units. Commissioner Runyon believed the economic center for middle class jobs was the most important factor. He believed that medical tourism was appropriate. The added benefit of a job center was important. He believed that a major player was important. He didn't want to see this project becoming a lot of commercial office space. He was not comfortable with the 240 residential units. Chairman Fisher believed the density on the south parcel was too much. She was not comfortable with another community being developed separated from the core of Edwards. She was not comfortable building out the valley floor. She was challenged by the density and size of the units. The density for the commercial seemed incredibly massive for unincorporated Eagle County. She believed the project was too much and too far from the community core. She spoke about the person that suggested an option "C" which included trails, open space, and a road that would connect the current subdivisions. She encouraged the applicant go back to the drawing board and try again to tone it down and not create another town center. Mr. Badger spoke about the various sizes of each of the units. He understood that the commercial square footage was large but it was designed to create a sense of place. The project would not be a big box. He believed that now was the time to move forward with the development. He stated that the project would be phased over time. Overall, he'd had good support in the community for the project. Commissioner Runyon believed Chairman Fisher brought a reasonable point. He believed that understanding the square footage and some additional rendering would be helpful. Mr. Hunn stated that 3D photo simulations would be required in preliminary plan. Chairman Fisher was hesitant to make any type of commitment. Mr. Badger hoped that he could get some direction and understanding so he could respond to the board's concerns. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. 19 10/19/2010 Eileen Bradley, Singletree resident spoke. She commented on the impact to traffic and expressed concern for the flooding. She'd worked in wellness and the altitude was a tremendous disadvantage. She believed that the development would never be able to compete with the Mayo Clinic. Oxygen consumption was the basis for determining fitness and evaluation results, etc. and test results would be skewed. Currently there were recreation facilities available and none were being fully utilized as they could be. David Nelson encouraged the board not to approve any exceptions required for option `A'. He believed the open space was very important. He believed the public benefit today was that there was open space. Any development on the north would not be appropriate. As for option `B', he believed it was slightly more palatable. Wendy Stanley, Edwards resident asked about the property being up- zoned. Commissioner Stavney stated that the property was currently zoned resource and no up- zoning had occurred at this time. Mr. Hunn stated that the zoning would be changed at the preliminary plan with a zone change application. Commissioner Stavney stated if this development did not pass sketch plan, the land would stay as it was currently zoned. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Commissioner Stavney understood Mr. Badger's position given the mixed messages. He believed it was worth taking more time to respond to the board's concerns. Mr. Badger believed the important issues were housing, density, and commercial square footage. He understood that the board was open to different solutions regarding affordable housing. Chairman Fisher believed it would benefit everyone if there were an emergency access point on the north side of the property and possibly a bike path as well. She believed there needed to be communication with the surrounding neighborhoods. Mr. Badger asked what the board's thinking was as far as affordable housing. Chairman Fisher stated that the applicant was free to explore. She envisioned something similar to the South Forty development density. Mr. Badger found it hard to believe that Chairman Fisher's thinking was in line with the Edwards Area Plan. Chairman Fisher stated that at this point in time, she was not comfortable with the current growth pattern. She wanted to know if people were really interested in this type of development. Mr. Badger requested that the board allow them to move forward. He believed that it was a stepping process. He'd talked to a lot of different groups but he could only talk to a point before taking it to the next level. When they move from sketch plan to preliminary plan, they would provide more information about the participants that would be vital to the mix. He believed there would be some components that utilized the existing medical professionals in the valley. Commissioner Runyon believed there needed to be a real medical business plan and explanation of how this type of development might work. Commissioner Stavney requested more information about the housing. He spoke about plan `A' meeting the guidelines but he was concerned with the county taking on land and building affordable housing. He was slightly more comfortable with the density than the other commissioners were but the question with plan `B' was trying to meet some of the affordable housing on the south parcel. Mr. Potente stated that there was some risk to acquiring the north parcel. Another option would be to sell the property to the community in some fashion. The housing situation had changed dramatically and currently there was not an immediate need for affordable housing. He believed the county was in it for the long haul and encouraged the board to take a long -term view. He felt that residential occupied was reasonably appropriate m this situation. Commissioner Runyon expressed concerned about the applicant's business plan. He felt that part of the reason the applicant was driving the density was to get the number of units build to justify the cost of the land. Mr. Badger reiterated that they had good partners and more detail could be provided in preliminary plan. Chairman Fisher asked if it was a reasonable request to table the file. She wished to provide the applicant with more detail about her concerns. Commissioner Runyon suggested that the applicant go back to a blank slate and come back with plan `C' that incorporated many on the concerns that the board expressed. 20 10/19/2010 Mr. Badger did not believe that preparing an option `C' or starting with a blank slate would move the application forward. He believed he could address the boards concerns and hoped the board would allow him another opportunity to work with staff. Commissioner Runyon sympathized with Mr. Badger. He wished only to find a common element that everyone could live with. Commissioner Stavney move to table the file to December 7, 2010 at 2 p.m. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before the Board, the mee ing wa . djourned until i tol er 26, 2010. di r Attest: .� �t1/ .�►��:a(Sa,• ,� � � Clerk to the Board * i Cha. R� 21 10/19/2010