Cedaredge Planning and Zoning Special Meeting  May 7,2024  Roll Call: Chairperson- Skip Bethurum, Ardon Barnes, Marcy Peterson, and. Jason' Weed- Commissioners, Interim Town. Admin- Mark Relph and Mark Chain- Town Planner. Back 9 Equities, LLC- Bethrum- Condition 8 question, Wildfire Mitigation Concerns- They will consider the WUA recommendations and code that will be approved by the town. Title 16 Section 5( (Building/Land use code) Outlines Water Mitigation Standards. They do not believe that the PUD standards do not override the Building Use Code. Design Standards are flexible in the PUD and are not int the Building Code. Jason' Weed has concern about the project about the geotechnical. Marcy Peterson brought up concerns about the storm water drains. The Hydrology of the project is designed to receive the full amount of water and to accommodate the surrounding areas. They would like the rec center moved into their PUD. They do not know what phase that would go in but would like toi incorporate it into their existing PUD and boundary. They will like to have an onsite homeowners rec center. The city would have to change their: zoning and accommodate for the rec center. (Weed) There is concern about it not being a community use and only a use by the HOA and homeowners. There are questions on the liabilityinsurance, traffic and parking of the rec center: and the people that attend. (Weed) The PUD is an overlay zone that allows for flexibility and if they recommended against the PUD, they would still like to offer the PUD as an open space fori the rec center fort the community. They would like to move the rec center to another area of the site ifiti is not approved as is. It will be relocated as is to another area. Potentially Phase 4 of the PUD. Ardon Barnes would like to see if they have more information on section 5-1 fire access. He has concerns about the road being a one-way road and people potentially being stuck up there without being able to get out. Issues with the fire department having access into the area. They have proposed an emergency: access road. Mr. Barnes believes that the planning isi incomplete. There are two access roads, one for an emergency access. Phase 2 will have a more permanent road puti ini to meet the road requirements. They have complied with the code in terms of the roads and the secondary access road required and puti in place as a part of phase 1.Jim Atkinson wanted to know about the condition of ingress and egress to develop in the future. He is wanting to know if lots will be for sale ori ifity will be the same as the current subdivision. The intention is to sell homes and not to sell lots. (Atkinson) Question about the existing lots and the detention ponds of the subdivision and grading the street flow to accept the water. When the subdivision was created, there was ai tie to the lots. The rec center building should have been encompassed into the existing HOA. (Atkinson) They said that the previous developer did not annex the rec center into the HOA. The ownership of the building, because it was nevera annexed, it never became a part of the HOA. There were some oversights that were    done with the previous developer. Lot 2i is a vacant residential lot. There is an HOA involvement int that lot. The issue has been brought to the attention of staff and they are going tol look at1 the HOA and theiri involvement int the PUD. (Mark Relph) Phase 1 has two access points as a requirement. Mark recommends that the Board prepare an amendment to the rec center to bei incorporated into another phase of the PUD. Marcy motioned to approve the amendment, no one: seconded. Bethurum motioned to approve the PUD asi is and as presented by the applicants- No motion. Bethurum motioned to approve the PUD and the motion to move the rec centeri into another phase of the PUD with the conditions set forth by the staff- No motion. Bethurum motioned to approve the PUD as presented with the COOnditions outlined by the staff- Marcy moved, no second. Bethurum motioned to deny the PUD as presented- Weed motioned, Barnes seconded. Discussion- Bethurum's decision is based ont the proof of concept with the geotechnical, Barnes concerned about the fire, roads and access- it hasn't been satisfied and he isn'tcomfortable with these issues not being addressed- he would like to have more details presented right from the get-go. He would hope that this town can growi in a nice way ini the future. Theywould like the sections of code that they are not compliant with. Barnes- fire code concerns and the other concern is the geological concerns of the area (sliding oft the buildings). Bethurum- there has not been a proof of concept with the safety concerns of the geological. Weed- Zoning concerns with the PUD. Roll Call Vote- Jason- Deny, Marcy- Abstain- they have done their due diligence, and he has gotten nitpicky, Barnes- Deny, Bethurum- Deny. Motion to  deny the PUD as presented passed. Will O'Way Filing #2: Public Hearing  a. Open Public Hearing- Weed Motioned, Marcy seconded to reopen Hearing. Weed Motioned to open public Hearing, Marcy seconded- passed. Mark Relph asked the chair permission to speak about the zoom comments and technology issue with the meeting. Weed let the Chairperson know about the proximity of his property to the proposed subdivision, but he feels that there is no conflict ofi interest. Mark Chain would like to present to the Board the PUD- Phase 2 sketch plan of Will O'Way. Applicant is asking fori input on the planning for the preliminary plan of the Will O'Way. Phase 1 has four lots that have been approved. Phase 2i is fori five lots and possibly have al Phase 3. Page 44 oft the Agenda has the plat of Phase 21 for the b. Applicant Presentation- The property was purchased over 20 years ago and there were ambitions to do an energy conservation subdivision for smaller homes. The town of Cedaredge was going through their master plan and they did not want to expand the small town city. The master plan wanted thei town to grow at an appropriate rate. The applicant wants it to be a single entry subdivision for  Board.    convenience and to maintain the rural character of thei town. The Applicant proposed nine lots on seven acres and went before the Board- the Police Chief said that S3 3rd St. was not safe to go through. The Applicant developed nine lots on seven acres ina a cul-de-sac to connect the two subdivisions. There will be a walking path through. JA Ave. The Trustees at the time had approved that initial Phase. The Applicant has improved the infrastructure of the subdivision and he has been waiting to come back to discuss the road. There has not been much change in the Cottonwood area and people still use the walkway that was done in Phase 1. The Applicant is submitting what was approved before with the addition of a wing for the firetrucks ini the subdivision. The Applicant is proposing an emergency access into S.3rdSt. and a walkway path, a waterway drainage. The proposal is the same and he has been waiting 8 months to present to the Commission and what direction they need to go to get the road started. The Applicant would like tol have as quick a turnaround as possible from the Commission. Lots 1& 2 have sold, Lot3i is under C. Staff Presentation- (Mark Chain)- The location is alongJ Ave. and S. 3rdSt. Direction for preliminary final plat- 40' right of way and a 50' right of way. Will O'Way could be a 3F Phase project- Phase 11 four lots (recorded), Phase 2five lots have been platted and sold, the sewer main goes through the five lots in Phase 2, in Phase 1 the four lots were approved, Phase: 2 was one lot initially prior to the purchase by the Applicant. The Applicant's plat for Phase 2 was reviewed by the Board in May of 2023. There were no engineering plans presented in May. The four lots were allowed for construction prior to having a street built in the subdivision. The full amended plat was attached. 3rd street is noti ini the best shape. Mr. Chain believes that the street needs to be built and that there is a need for the: street connection for emergency access and choice for people when driving. Ity will allow fort travel distances tol be shorter and it is good to have two ways out of the subdivision. The cost of the road will be on the Town if not approved. The cost should be on the developer to develop the road. Drainage should be captured and will need to go through the public works director. The lots are! between 1300-1400 sq. feet to 3000 sq. feet. Due tot the size of the lots, it would be good to have a walking path. Will O'Way should be paid by the road impacti fee. Mr. Chain found that the proposal is acceptable for the next stage of application. Draft of a resolution with seven conditions- professional engineer design the road, rural road design standards acceptable, road connects with 3rd st, confirm with public works with walkway, applicant cost estimate for final plat and be part ofthei final planning, attorney for  construction at this time.  the covenants, examining the 3rd st. right- of-way.    d. Questions to Governing Body to Applicant- Applicant failed to bring up that they are willing to have an easement sO that S. 3rdSt. can be connected, until 3rd st. is improved, the easement will be there for the town. Chairperson Bethurum- the lots that have been sold- sewer line- can it be built on- there is a concern about proximity of the property toi the creek. Ist there an offset for1 the build near the creek? The Applicant was not sure how to answer that. Lot 3i is the only one with ai flow concern. Drainage- oni the second phase of lot 4, lot 5- there should be an engineered drainage from Cottonwood into the creek into the build. There are people that live in Cottonwood that are concerned about the road being developed through the subdivision. The Chairperson acknowledges the concern of the public. Atkinson has a question aboutt the right-of-way. The Applicant will modify itt tol have a firetruck" Tini the cul-de-sac from the right-of-way. The subdivision will be configured once the road gets approved and implemented to reflect the right-of-way. Applicant reading the Town's Master Plan. Atkinson- we need the right-of-ways tol have the ability to connect the roads and have progress. Barnes- Great proposal, he doesn't see anything wrong with the proposal, Applicant has done his due-diligence with his proposal. Marcy- shares some concerns on access issues and 3rds st. there are other streets that need maintenance and they do not need to connect, Weed- agrees with Marcy on the access issues, he thinks that it needs to connect for safety reasons. Bethurum- easement question- they could ini the future have an agreement or e. Public Comment- Former Mayor Udd- He strongly supports the development of the subdivision, and he appreciates the work that has been done by the Applicant, he lives in the subdivision. There are al lot of pedestrians that walk 3rds st. The people livingi in Cottonwood love that it is a rural road and rural environment. They do not want to: see an increase in traffic ont that street. The planning commission has the authority to recommend that the street connect ori ifit should remain blocked as itis a. Gregory McAdams- lives in Cottonwood- concerns on the roads connecting and increasing the volume of traffic on the roads. Snowplow concerns fort the rural road and property values. The road is not designed for volume and for b. Nick Strezza- Agree with Mark with the access that is needed. There should only be an access for safety and noti for traffic. 3rd st was never built for volume. He doesn't see the benefit of it being a traffic areai to ease the traffic. The interior streets of the subdivision will be negativelylmpacted byt the  condition for 3rd st1 to be connected.  today.  the safety of the citizens.  access.    . Applicant Rebuttal- Weed agrees with the public comments and the access issues with regard to safety, Atkinson- seems to him that emergency access can be done but the concern is getting the right-of-way done and set, Marcy agrees with Atkinson- they need the access in place now., Barnes- he agrees withi the design presented by the Applicant andi that it should be approved. Bethurum- 50' easement that is proposed- needs to be there in the future- road does not need to be paved, as long as right-of-way access will be done ini the future. Mark Chain- condition as to the easement- that the road be constructed with access to 3rdst. Mark Relph- went a. Condition 2- Rural road design standards must be met- Applicant did not b. Condition 3- the road be constructed and connect to 3rd. constructed for emergency access. Has to abide by the fire department and emergency Condition 4- traffic study bei implemented with the application. There has to d. Condition 5- confirm with public works that a pathway needs tol be e. Condition 6- Applicant SIA- Final Construction cost estimate f. Condition 7- Attorney involved in covenants of final plan.  over the conditions presented- Condition1- propose it but iti in agreement.  services.  be a minor traffic study to assess the roadways.  implemented.  Resolution No. 2with the Conditions as presented by staff- Motion for Approval- Weed,  Marcy seconded, all approve- Motion carries.  Respectfully; submitted, dRU  Ton Crkm bhay8  Colorado West  MacKenzie,  Law