HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/17/15 PUBLIC HEARING February 17, 2015 Present: Kathy Chandler-Henry Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Jillian Ryan Commissioner Rachel Oys Interim County Manager Diane Mauriello Assistant County Attorney Christina Hooper Assistant 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 Chandler-Henry stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: 1. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of February 16, 2015 (Subject to Review by the Finance Director) John Lewis, Finance 2. Approval of Minutes of the Board of County Commissioner Meetings for January 6, January 13, and January 20, 2015 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder 3. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and the Manaus Fund for Expansion of the Valley Settlement Project into El Jebel and Basalt Rachel Oys,Administration 4. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Mountain Tots Preschool for General Operating Expenses Rachel Oys,Administration 5. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Basalt Chamber of Commerce for Economic Development Partnership Setup,Website and Communications Rachel Oys,Administration 6. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado Legal Services, Inc.,DBA Northwest Colorado Legal Services Project for Provision of Legal Services to Low-income,High-need Clients Rachel Oys,Administration 7. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle County Government as Fiscal Agent for Wayfinder Program General Operating Support Rachel Oys,Administration 8. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Samaritan Counseling for General Operating Support Rachel Oys,Administration 9. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Doctors Plus of Colorado, Inc. for School Based Health Centers Clinic Staff Salary and Wages Rachel Oys, Administration 1 02/17/2015 10. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Vail Valley Partnership for Continued Implementation of the Eagle County Economic Development Plan Rachel Oys,Administration 11. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle Air Alliance,DBA EGE Air Alliance, for Increasing Air Service to Eagle County Regional Airport Rachel Oys,Administration 12. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Avon for West Avon Preserve Trail Construction and Maintenance Rachel Oys,Administration 13. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Catholic Charities and Community Services of the Archdiocese of Denver,Inc. for Emergency Assistance and Community Integration Services Rachel Oys,Administration 14. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Alpine Legal Services, Inc. for Legal Interventions Services Rachel Oys,Administration 15. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Gypsum Fire Protection District for Coverage of 2015 911 Dispatch Fees Rachel Oys,Administration 16. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and SOS Outreach for Support of Youth Development Programs for At-risk Youth Rachel Oys,Administration 17. Restricted Use Agreement for Quarterly Census of Employment Wages Data between Eagle County,Vail Valley Partnership and Confluence Research and Training,LLC Jill Klosterman,Housing 18. Memorandum of Understanding between Eagle County and the Office of Early Childhood for the Colorado Child Care Assistance Program Cliff Effect Pilot SB 14-003 Grant Program Megan Burch, Human Services 19. Road Easement between the State of Colorado acting by and through the Department of Natural Resources, for the Use and Benefit of the Division of Parks and Wildlife and the Parks Wildlife Commission and Eagle County Greg Schroeder,Engineering 20. Temporary Construction Easement between the State of Colorado Acting by and through the Department of Natural Resources, for the Use and Benefit of the Division of Parks and Wildlife and the Parks and Wildlife Commission and Eagle County Greg Schroeder, Engineering 21. Resolution 2015-005 Authorizing Acquisition of Property from Virginia G. and Lowell Bair for Use as Additional Right-of-Way for Cedar Drive,Exempting the Subdivision of Said Property from Subdivision Regulations and Authorizing any of the Eagle County Commissioners to Execute all Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Closing of the Property Greg Schroeder,Engineering 22. Memorandum of Agreement between Eagle County and Virginia G.Bair and Lowell Bair for the Purchase of Property for Cedar Drive Road Improvements Greg Schroeder,Engineering 2 02/17/2015 23. Resolution 2015-006 Authorizing Acquisition of Hyrup Properties, LLC Property for Use as Additional Right-of-Way for Cedar Drive, Exempting the Subdivision of Said Property from Subdivision Regulations and Authorizing any of the Eagle County Commissioners to Execute all Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Closing of the Property Greg Schroeder, Engineering 24. Memorandum of Agreement between Eagle County and Hyrup Properties,LLC for the Purchase of Property for Cedar Drive Road Improvements Greg Schroeder, Engineering Commissioner Ryan asked Mr. Schroeder to highlight the improvements related to the Cedar Drive and an overview of the memorandums of agreement on the agenda. Mr. Schroeder stated that the Cedar Drive project was selected to receive federal grant funding to improve the road and bring it up to safe standards. There would be about nine(9)miles of improvements. The road would be widened,treated with asphalt and a guardrail would be installed. There were about 20-30 homes in the area. Commissioner Ryan expressed appreciation for Mr. Schroeder's work and believed the improvements were a good start and a benefit to the residents. She stated that the property owners were contributing funds and the county was providing staff time. Justin Kirkland,Fire Chief for the Gypsum Fire Protection District thanked the board for the grant that was awarded. The funds would provide some relief on dispatch fees. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the Consent Agenda for February 17,2015, as presented. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Chandler-Henry opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Planning Plats and Resolutions 25. Amended Final Plat to Remove the Pedestrian Easement on Cordillera Valley Club,Filing 1,Lot 8 (Eagle County File No. AFP-5245) Scot Hunn,Planning Mr. Hunn described the request.The amendment would remove a pedestrian easement. He believed there were other areas within the subdivision that allowed access to public lands and he supported the request. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the amended final plat to remove the pedestrian easement on Cordillera Valley Club,Filing 1, Lot 8 (Eagle County File No. AFP-5245) Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Executive Session — Performance Management Preparation County Commissioners 3 02/17/2015 Work Sessions Eagle 20/20 Update Eagle Mayor and Trustees 26. Town of Eagle Marketing and Events Presentation Amy Cassidy, Eagle Marketing and Events Coordinator Yuri Kostick, Eagle Mayor Doug Seabury, Eagle Trustee Planning File 27. ZC-5204-Spring Creek Ranch Lot 1 &2 Kris Valdez, Planning LD Development Holding,LLLP,Applicant Michael Suman,Representative Note: Withdrawn Action: The purpose of this Zone Change is to change the zoning of Lot 2 from Agricultural Residential (AR)to Resource(R) Location: 001210 Spring Creek Road, Gypsum Area The board acknowledged that the applicant had withdrawn the application. Site Visit for Hagedorn PUD Sean Hanagan,Planning Ben Gerdes, Engineering Planning File 28. File PDS-5217,PDP-5218,ZC-5219-Hagedorn PUD Sean Hanagan,Planning Ben Gerdes, Engineering Bruce Hagedorn and Brad Hagedorn, Applicant Dominic Mauriello,Representative Action: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan, Preliminary Plan and Zone Change is for a self-storage facility to be located in West Edwards. Location: 32280 Highway 6,West Edwards FILE NO./PROCESS: ZC-5219/PDS-5217/PDP-5218 Hagedorn PUD PROJECT NAME: Hagedorn Self-Storage PUD LOCATION: 32280 Highway 6 (West Edwards) 4 02/17/2015 OWNER: West Winds Inc. APPLICANT: Same REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello-MPG STAFF PLANNER: Sean Hanagan STAFF ENGINEER: Ben Gerdes STAFF RECCOMENDATION: Approval with conditions I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Applicant requests a Zone District Amendment (zone change) from Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) to Planned Unit Development (PUD) containing 475 self-storage units on 1.872 acres in the West Edwards area. The mini storage facility is to be comprised of two buildings with a gross area of approximately 65,400 square feet. Please note: the original proposal submitted to and reviewed by Eagle County included three(3) self-storage buildings on the subject property; in response to review by the Eagle County Planning Commission, the Applicant has made revisions to the application, including the removal of one of the buildings. This PUD request is unique in that it is a Consolidated Sketch and Preliminary Plan file. As such, if approved, vesting would be granted and the Applicant will be required to submit a final plat in the future. Therefore, the level of detail and review provided with this application is commensurate with that of a Preliminary Plan for PUD. Staff believes the proposal for Zone District Amendment, as well as for Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development meets necessary findings as outlined in Section VII (pages 3-6) below. However, the following substantive issues have been identified during the review of the proposal; these issues have either been resolved between the Applicant, staff and referral agencies, and/or staff has included certain conditions of approval to bring the proposal further into compliance with the County's standards. Issues Resolved: Housing — the proposal initially did not meet the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines. During the initial referral period for this application, the Eagle County Housing Director, Jill Klosterman, provided comments and direction to the Applicant to revise the housing plan for this proposal. Since that tame, the Applicant has revised their housing plan, and has agreed to purchase one (1) housing credit (from Fox Hollow) which will fully satisfy the required mitigation for this project. Wildlife Corridor—the State of Colorado Parks &Wildlife Department provided initial referral comments which highlighted an issue that Eagle County staff was not previously aware of — that CPW had identified a need for a wildlife travel corridor behind (to the south) of the subject property. After conducting a meeting between CPW representatives and staff, the parties collaboratively identified a corridor that can function as a migration route for primarily deer and elk. The Applicant has since agreed to integrate certain design- related mitigation within the PUD to ensure that the corridor is buffered; such agreement is memorialized in staff recommended condition number 4. Engineering — during the initial review of this proposal by staff, the Engineering Department identified a variation from improvement standards — a 10% driveway grade. As a result, staff requested a letter(further clarification) from a qualified, independent professional engineer demonstrating that the proposed driveway would be adequate and safe to allow access to the site. The Planning Commission also recommended revisions to the driveway grade. Since that time, the Applicant has revised the plans to reduce the maximum grade of the driveway to 9.5%. Staff believes the driveway, as currently designed, is sufficient to provide safe, adequate access within the PUD. 5 02/17/2015 Pedestrian Pathway—during the review of the proposal, staff identified the need for a pedestrian pathway along the north boundary of the subject property; this pathway has been identified as a community need by Eagle County and other recent projects that have been approved by Eagle County in this area have been required to provide path connections. The Applicant has agreed to construct the pathway, and this agreement is further memorialized via recommended staff condition number 2. Report Organization and Recommendation The following sections of this report provide a brief background regarding the request(s), referral agency responses, staff review of the requests, potential issues, as well as an outline of standards and findings for approval with brief responses from staff as to how/why the proposal meets or does not meet applicable standards. An appendix section is attached, containing an in-depth examination of all applicable review and approval standards. Staff is recommending approval, with conditions for both requests. IL BACKGROUND: Proposal Overview As noted above, the primary purpose of this application is to re-zone the subject parcel to allow for a single-use PUD. The subject parcel is vacant and un-platted, and has been zoned Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) since the time of County zoning. The parcel is located in an area of west Edwards that has seen mostly Mixed-Use development in the recent past and has developed into an area of higher densities and more diverse uses than the current zoning would indicate. For example, Fox Hollow PUD (Habitat for Humanity housing), Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD, and two large churches have been built in the area in recent years. Along with such development have come small scale commercial and light industrial uses. These land use patterns tell a different story than the 2003 Future Land Use Map contained in the Edwards Area Community Plan—which designates this area of West Edwards as being appropriate for low to medium density residential development-would indicate. The existing zoning for the subject parcel is described below: "Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL). The purpose of the Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) zone district is to provide for relatively low density residential neighborhoods within and at the periphery of the County's community centers and rural centers. This is accomplished by permitting development of single family, duplex and multi family residences on lots of fifteen thousand(15,000)square feet or larger and by setting standards that limits the maximum lot coverage and maximum floor area of structures." Staff believes the existing zoning is no longer in keeping with surrounding land uses and recent re-zonings in the area due to changing circumstances since the time of initial zoning and since the Edwards Area Community Plan was drafted in 2003. Further, staff believes the proposed mini-storage facility represents a recognized need for area residents, as this type of use is not prevalent in the Edwards area. III. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of this application, with conditions. Staff believes the proposal, as conditioned meets or exceeds all applicable standards for a Zone District Amendment, as well as for Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development. Zone District Amendment Standards The following excerpts from Section 5-230.D — Standards for Zone Change, ECLURs provide direction regarding the intent and necessary findings for the approval of any amendment to the official Zone District Map. 6 02/17/2015 Likewise, the following section provides brief responses (provided in greater detail in the"Appendix" section of this report) from staff as to how staff believes the application meets or does not meet a particular standard, as well as suggested mitigation measures(conditions): 1. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment considers the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is consistent with all relevant goals,policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designation. Staff Response: Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the majority of relevant goals,policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Edwards Area Community Plan. Specifically, with the exception of the 2003 Future Land Use Map for Edwards, staff believes the proposal meets General Development, Economic Resources, Housing, Wildlife, Infrastructure and Sensitive Lands goals and policies. 2. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposal provides compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property; dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s)surrounding the subject property. Staff Res on nse: Staff believes that the proposal is compatible with the type, intensity, character and scale of surrounding land uses. Specifically, the parcel is located in an area of West Edwards that has seen mostly Mixed-Use development in the recent past and has developed into an area of higher densities and more diverse uses than the current zoning would indicate. 3. Public Benefit. The proposal addresses a demonstrated community need or otherwise results in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation,public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements;preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. Staff Response: Staff believes that the use proposed in this application is one that is of need in the Edwards community and does not currently exist in the area. Further, the Applicant has committed to purchasing one employee housing unit credit from the Fox Hollow group. 4. Change of Circumstances. The proposal addresses or responds to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community. Staff Response: Staff believes that the proposal responds to changes in circumstances apparent since the parcel was originally zoned RSL and since the adoption of the Edwards Area Community Plan. 5. Adequate Infrastructure. The property subject to the proposal IS served by adequate roads., water, sewer and other public use facilities. Staff Response• Staff believes the subject property and the proposed PUD will be adequately served by roads, water, sewer and other public facilities. Preliminary Plan for PUD Standards The following excerpts from Section 5-240.F.3.e — Standards, ECLURs provide direction regarding the intent and necessary findings for the approval of any Preliminary Plan for PUD review. Likewise,the following section provides brief responses (provided in greater detail in the"Appendix" section of this report) from staff as to how 7 02/17/2015 staff believes the application meets or does not meet a particular standard, as well as suggested mitigation measures(conditions): 1. Unified ownership or control. The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one(1)person or entity. Staff Response: Staff believes the request meets this standard. 2. Uses. The uses that may be developed in the PUD are 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. Staff Response;, Staff believes the request meets this standard. 3. Dimensional Limitations. The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD are those specified in Table 3-340. Staff R .c off= Staff believes the request meets this standard. 4. Off-Street Parking and Loading. Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 1. Staff Response: Staff believes the request meets this standard. S. Landscaping. Landscaping provided in the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 2. Staff Response: Staff believes the request meets this standard. 6. Signs. The sign standards applicable to the PUD are as specified in Article 4, Division 3. Staff Res onse: Staff believes the request meets this standard. 7. Adequate Facilities. The applicant has demonstrated 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. Staff Response: Staff believes the request meets this standard. 8. Improvements. The improvement standards applicable to the development are as specified in Article 4, Division 6. Staff.Res onse: Staff believes the request meets this standard. 9. Common Recreation and Open Space. The PUD complies with the following common recreation and open space standards. 8 02/17/2015 Staff Response: Staff believes the request meets this standard. 10. Natural Resource Protection. The PUD considers the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4. Staff Response: Staff believes the request meets this standard. IV. 5.1.21MARY-111.1141511a The proposed PUD and accompanying Zone Change would allow for this 1.872 acre parcel to be used as a self- storage facility. This self-storage is a use that is not prevalent in this portion of the county and staff believes this use represents a recognized need for residents of the area. Although previous master plan documents (2003 Edwards area Plan) identify this parcel as being appropriate for Residential Medium Density in this area ("Site 10" identified on the Future Land Use Map below), the surrounding parcels have already been developed with higher densities and more diverse uses than the current zoning or FLUM would indicate. The 2003 Plan lists potential uses as: "Potential Uses: These sites are appropriate for medium density residential development and minimal mixed use that would address the service, retail and office needs of specifically the surrounding neighborhood." However, the following illustrative map shows the existing uses in the surrounding area: Staff believes the requested PUD and Zone Change demonstrate compatibility with the surrounding land uses. As the above map shows the uses in the area of west Edwards are similar in nature and would be supported by the proposed use. The proposed use represents a potential benefit to the citizens of Edwards and Eagle County by providing a service which is not currently available in the Edwards area. The proposed use is supported by adequate infrastructure and can be safely accessed by vehicles as well as emergency services. However, a 9.5% driveway grade is proposed and would require a variance from performance standards to be granted by the Board of County Commissioners. The applicant has provided a letter form a licensed Engineer stating that the 9.5% portion would be adequate and safe. The applicant has committed to purchasing one employee housing unit credit from the Fox Hollow group. This credit will satisfy the housing requirements for the 1.25 employees and 352 sq. ft. mitigation for this mini storage project. V. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW: At their regularly scheduled meeting on Wednesday January 21, 2014, the Eagle County Planning Commission heard the Special Use and Zone Change files and voted 5-1 to recommend denial of all applications. The Planning commission expressed concerns with the application and focused the majority of their deliberation on a few key points. First, commissioners Sage, Runyon, Warner, and Snowdon expressed concern for the size and scale of the project with respect to the lot size. 9 02/17/2015 Commissioner Snowdon commented that the Variations from zone district standards (FAR/Lot Coverage) were too extreme. Additionally, commissioners Sage, Warner, Brock, Bevan all expressed the concern that the proposal was not in substantial conformance with the Edwards Area Community Plan's Future Land Use Map (FLUM). Mat In response to the concerns of the Commission the Applicant has redesigned the project to reflect the Commission's concerns for size and scope. Three buildings have been reduced to two, with additional area of buffer at the southern portion of the lot. Please see the attached letter and updated PUD Guide for further details regarding the changes made in response to the Planning Commission's suggested revisions. VI. SUGGESTED MOTION AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, The following are suggested motions for the two requests: MOTION TO APPROVE PUD/Zone Change: I hereby move to approve File No(s). PDS-5217/ZC-5219/PDP-5218, incorporating staff's findings and staff's conditions, because the proposed uses meet all of the standards for approval of a PUD/Zone Change. The proposed uses will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; the proposed uses are attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; and the proposed uses are in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. MOTION TO DENY PUD/Zone Change: I hereby move to deny File No(s). PDS-5217/ZC-5219/PDP-5218 because the proposed uses do not meet the standards for issuance of a PUD/Zone Change. The proposed uses will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare; the proposed uses are not attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; and the proposed uses are not in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and/or the Comprehensive Plan Suggested Conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. The Applicant shall be responsible for construction and maintenance of an 8-ft wide recreation path across the frontage of their parcel. Timing for construction of this path shall be triggered by construction of a path on adjacent parcels to the east or west. The Applicant shall provide collateral in the form of a letter of credit in the amount of the estimated cost of construction to be held by Eagle County. 3. Prior to issuance of any building permit the applicant shall have a fully executed Access Permit issued by CDOT for the proposed access. 4. To help delineate and maintain the identified wildlife corridor located on the southern and western portion of the PUD the applicant will plant native landscaping to prevent the human activities from negatively impacting wildlife. 5. The Applicant shall incorporate all Best Management Practices outlined in Perry Will's CPW letter. Surrounding Land Use&Zoning: rl"F � 10 02/17/2015 ARK North: Residential RSL 7,1p111 South: Residential Resource a c,w,,hx East: Residential/Mixed Use PUD Fox Hollow West: Open Space PUD Cordillera PUD Residential Suburban Low Density(RSL) Planned Unit Development(PUD) r!+ A € . tltx!r4 t1** flo ass, e z None :* Nle Vacant sage,grass;moderately sloped 4ri A w ' y,,€€' ,'.z * ,f'a; 1.872 r t; 81,544 sq.ft. 23,000 sq.ft./28%of the site ERWSD Mva 1Y° xft a �';4qi; ' # s acv k *Srjy upa� 3i a ; ERWSD ? ,' a; o .way Highway 6 VIII. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to twenty-nine (29) agencies/entities for review on November 10, 2014. The following section references the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County prior to the date of this report, as well as a list of all agencies which did not provide any referral response: Eagle County Housing and Development(Jill Klosterman,Director): - In the attached memo dated November 25, 2014, Jill Klosterman outlines her rationale for not supporting the Applicant's calculations for affordable housing requirements. (Please see memo and applicant's response date December 4th for additional details). Please be aware that in response to this letter the applicant has agreed to meet the guidelines through the purchase of one Fox Hollow housing credit. Eagle County Engineering Department(Ben Gerdes): - In the attached memos dated December 1 and December 10, 2014, Eagle County Engineering's Ben Gerdes outlines two outstanding concerns with this proposal. The first is a driveway grade over 10% and the second is the timing of construction for a pedestrian across the subject parcel. Please see memos and applicant's response date December 4th for additional details. Eagle County Environmental Health: - In the attached memo dated December 1, 2014, Adam Palmer outline concerns dealing with predominantly signs and lighting as well as the proposed pedestrian pathway. Please see memo and applicant's response date December 4th for additional details. Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife: - In the attached letter dated December 1, 2014, Perry Will, outlined specific wildlife friendly practices to be put in place to avoid wildlife conflicts. In addition the CPW asked for the applicant to help develop a 1000 foot wide corridor in the area to facilitate the migration of Deer and Elk. Through multiple meetings staff, the applicant and DPW were able to identify this corridor and the applicant has agreed to modify their landscaping plan to aid in screening this corridor from the proposed developments impacts. (See conditions number 4 and 5). VIII. COMMISSIONER OPTIONS: 1. Approve [File No. ZC-5219/PDS-5217/PDP-5218] 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 11 02/17/2015 Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny [File No. ZC-5219/PDS-5217/PDP-5218] 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 [File No ZC-5219/PDS-5217/PDP-5218] if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. APPENDIX A A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official Zone District Map Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. Standards: Section 5-230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1] Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals,policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following: Staff believes that this proposal is consistent with the majority of relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Edwards Area Community Plan, including but not necessarily limited to the following: Section 3.2 General Development Policy ' e': "Urban and suburban type growth should be appropriately designed and should be located within or immediately contiguous to existing towns and community centers': Staff believes West Edwards has become an outlying community center and this proposal should provide services to the immediate area. Section 3.3 Fconomic Resources 12 02/17/2015 Policy ` b' : "A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's character and resources, should be fostered". Staff believes this proposal would provide a service to the community that does not currently exist in the Edwards area. Policy ` m' : "Economic infrastructure should be planned for in advance, and should be adequate to support existing and future business needs". Staff believes the subject parcel is serviced by adequate existing infrastructure. Further, staff believes the proposed self-storage uses address an unmet need and that such uses (self-storage) will support the economic infrastructure and, specifically, local businesses in the area by providing storage facilities useful for personal, or business needs. Section 3.4 Housing Policy ` a' : "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". The applicant has committed to purchasing one employee housing unit credit from the Fox Hollow group. This credit will satisfy the housing requirements for the 1.25 employees and 352 sq. ft. mitigation for this mini storage project. Policy ` n' : "Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's workforce housing needs". The applicant has committed to purchasing one employee housing unit credit from the Fox Hollow group. This credit will satisfy the housing requirements for the 1.25 employees and 352 sq. ft. mitigation for this mini storage project. Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policy ` k' : "Adequate and efficient infrastructure should exist within community centers and suburban neighborhoods for the delivery of domestic drinking water and for the treatment of domestic sewage". Staff believes the subject parcel is serviced by adequate existing infrastructure. Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policy ` a' : "The integrity, quality and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved". The State of Colorado Parks & Wildlife Department asked for the applicant to help develop a 1000 foot wide corridor in the area to facilitate the migration of Deer and Elk. Through multiple meetings staff, the applicant and DPW were able to identify this corridor and the applicant has agreed to modify their landscaping plan to aid in screening this corridor from the proposed developments impacts. Policy ` e' : "Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts': Section 3.8 $ensitiye Lands Policy ` a' : "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard". 13 02/17/2015 Staff believes that all development proposed as part of this application will avoid areas of steep slopes and other natural hazards. Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy ' a' : "Zone changes and site-specific land use proposals should reflect the written policies of this Comprehensive Plan, the land use designations of the Future Land Use Map and the goals and objectives set forth within Area Community Plans, as applicable': STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The proposal DOES provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property; dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, shall result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s)surrounding the subject property. STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3] Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. The use proposed in this application is one that is of need in the Edwards community and does not currently exist in the area. If the proposed housing condition is met the proposal would also help to provide affordable local resident housing. The applicant has committed to purchasing one employee housing unit credit from the Fox Hollow group. This credit will more than satisfy the housing requirements for the 1.25 employees and 352 sq. ft. mitigation for this mini storage project. STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4] Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Although currently zoned Residential Low Density in this area. The surrounding parcels show densities representative of area of higher densities and more diverse uses that the current zoning or FLUM's would indicate. Approvals that have taken place over time reflect a shift in predominant use from residential to mixed- use and commercial. This shift indicates a change in circumstances that has taken place over the last decade. STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5] Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? The subject parcel is serviced by existing infrastructure adequate to suit its needs. Standards for PUD: 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 property is currently owned by Barry, Sandra, and James Koch, but is under contract for purchase by Bruce and Brad Hagedorn who have authorized this application submittal. The contract is contingent on the approval of this PUD. If approved, the property will be owned and controlled by applicants in an LLC. 14 02/17/2015 STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] — The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, 'Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule"; for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3..f, Variations Authorized. Mini storage is listed in Table 3-320"Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule."However, because the property is currently zoned RSL,the applicant is requesting a Variation as Authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f. The variation would permit Mini Storage and related accessory uses. Pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized the Board can grant variations during application for Preliminary Plan for PUD. By virtue of approving a PUD Preliminary Plan, the Board will have also granted the necessary variations. 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 f, Variations Authorized,provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The applicant is only requesting three variations: use, maximum building coverage, and maximum floor area/FAR. Maximum building coverage is however, less than allowed by the Commercial General Zone District by way of comparison. Otherwise the proposed PUD meets or exceeds the development standards of the RSL zone district as shown in Table 1: Dimensional Limitations. The proposed Dimensional Limitations provide adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] — Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: Due to the nature of the use, limited parking is necessary for the business. As proposed, there are a minimum of 5 employee and guest parking spaces. There are temporary loading areas also provided. Mini Storage is not a use listed in Table 4-120 "Minimum Off-Street Parking Standards for Each Use" and is unique in comparison to other uses listed in the table. Parking is only necessary for the one employee and parking for new users when first approaching the business. The proposed 5 formal parking spaces are more adequate for this use. Temporary loading spaces are necessary for customers and these have been provided in appropriate locations. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] —Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other(both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The landscape plan has been designed in accordance with Article 4,Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. No variations from these standards are requested. Furthermore, the landscaping has been designed to provide significant buffering from adjacent properties and from Highway 6. As per the discussion with staff and DPW, landscaping will be designed in such a way as to buffer human impacts from those of deer and elk. 15 02/17/2015 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. All proposed signs will meet the requirements as provided in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. 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, Improvement 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 system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular,pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. The study indicates that a State Highway Access Permit will be required for this site. Based on the traffic volumes for the site, auxiliary lanes may not be required. It recommends that access should be located as far to the western edge as possible, and the access has been designed to reflect this recommendation. Any possibility of shared access with the recently constructed Edwards Interfaith Chapel is hampered by the existing residential use located between the two properties. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the request. The preliminary plan, sketch plan, and zone change would be reviewed concurrently. He presented a parcel map of the area. The applicant was requesting a zone change from residential low density to Planned Unit Development(PUD). The applicant was proposing a climate controlled ministorage facility. There would be 475 self-storage units and the facility would be comprised of two buildings with a gross area of 65,500 sq. foot. Both the PUD and zone change had a set of standards that needed to be met. Staff believed the proposal met the necessary findings but there were some issues that would need to be resolved. Staff believed the proposal was one that was needed in the Edwards area and the development would provide one unit of affordable housing per the housing guidelines. The proposal was supported by adequate infrastructure and the facility could be safely accessed by vehicles. In terms of uses, a storage facility would be allowed in a commercial general zone district. The applicant was proposing five parking spaces. The Colorado Department of Parks and 16 02/17/2015 Wildlife recommended native landscaping to prevent human activities from negatively impacting wildlife. The applicant met all the standards for zone change. Staff received five letters of support. The applicant had committed to purchasing one employee housing unit credit for the Fox Hollow group. The credit would satisfy the housing requirement. The Planning Commission voted 5-1 to recommend denial the applications. In response to their concerns,the applicant redesigned the project and three buildings were reduced to two and an additional buffer area was created. He reviewed the board's options and the suggested conditions. Commissioner Ryan asked if a special use permit would be needed to operate a storage facility within the PUD. Mr. Hanagan stated that the applicant would not need a special use permit because the use was allowed within the commercial zone district. Commissioner McQueeney asked how many of the projects within the current future land use map were approved. Mr. Hanagan believed a large portion of non-residential projects were approved. Commissioner McQueeney asked for a definition of one unit of housing. Mr. Hanagan stated that based on square footage and job creation,the applicant was required to supply affordable housing. This applicant was proposing to purchase a housing credit that was granted to the housing department, it was in exchange for a payment in lieu. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the driveway grade and wondered who would approve it. Eva Wilson, Eagle County Engineering Director stated that the Engineering Department reviewed infrastructure and driveway standards. In this case,they worked with Eagle River Fire Protection District and they did not oppose the driveway. Bruce Hagedorn spoke. He lived outside of Eagle and owned two other storage facilities. He believed a storage facility was needed in the Edwards area. He worked with staff and his engineer to insure that things were done properly. They took the Planning Commission's remarks seriously and accommodated the issues. Dominic Mauriello presented a PowerPoint on behalf of the applicant. The applicant was proposing two buildings with a net leasable area of approximately 50,100 sq. ft. The facility was fully enclosed and climate controlled. The applicant reduced the impervious area,paved area,building footprint, and total floor area. The facility would be clean, safe, and quiet. Brad Hagedorn spoke about the design—The project would be designed to be multiple levels and would complement the mountain motif The front façade would be glass;stone and quality siding. Mr.Mauriello stated that the new site plan was a 10°%driveway grade but the applicant had revised the plan to reduce the maximum grade of the driveway to 9:5% He provided an aerial view of the property and the two unit layout. There would be extensive landscaping and a proposed bike path connection. The storage facility would be a low traffic generator. There would be an onsite manager. Currently,there are no other storage facilities in the Edwards. Mike Phifer, Senior District Manager for Cubesmart spoke. They would manage the facility. They offered a friendly environment and would insure the property ran safe. They were locally involved and it was a win/win situation. Mr.Mauriello spoke about the other PUD uses in the area. In terms of zoning,the property was originally zoned in 1974. He believed that the development trends had changed over time. Most of the surrounding properties had different uses. He showed photos of the surrounding parcels and their uses. The land use patterns indicated that the mini storage use and PUD zoning were consistent with the development trends in the area. He believed it was a compatible use of the area. The design was sensitive and the proposal was the best possible use for the neighborhood. He reviewed the PUD guide restrictions. The other accessory uses would include restrooms, an office and a rental truck service. There would be no business operations,hazardous materials, etc. The facility would use low level lighting and there would be no pole lighting. Trash would be in bear-proof containers. There would only be one owner and operator. Building would be phased. There were no outstanding issues. There were several letters of support documenting the need. The Comprehensive Plan encouraged service type business. All the PUD review and rezoning criteria had been met. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the proposed parking. She wondered about the number of parking spaces and where the rental truck would be parked. Mr.Mauriello stated that there would be five parking spaces and the rental truck would be stored in one of the five spaces. Commissioner Ryan asked about the occupancy levels in existing facilities. Mr.Mauriello stated that they could attempt to collect that data but believed that most were full. 17 02/17/2015 Chairman Chandler-Henry asked Mr. Hanagan to provide an overview of the Edwards Area Community Planning Process and the status of the current plan at the next hearing. Commissioner McQueeney asked that all the conditions be reviewed at the next meeting. Mr.Mauriello requested that the tabling be to the nearest possible meeting date. Commissioner Ryan moved to table file ZC-5219/PDS-5217/PDP-5218, Hagedorn PUD to March 10,2015. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. tr. There being no further business before f eeting was .dj ourn until March 3, 2015., Attest: �i y - ss: * L C erk to the Board Chairman , 18 02/17/2015