No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/14/15 PUBLIC HEARING April 14, 2015 Present: Kathy Chandler-Henry Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Jillian Ryan Commissioner Brent McFall County Manager Bryan Treu 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: Commissioner Updates Commissioner McQueeney thanked Kelley Collier for taking the time to bring her up to speed on ECO board updates. Commissioner Ryan stated that Eagle County and the town of Vail had been working closely with the state representative on HB 1173,the Tire Tread Bill. The Bill would hold people accountable for having reasonable tread on their tires during the winter season. It would affect the mountain corridor of 1-70 from Jefferson County to Dotsero. There was some opposition but she was hopeful. Chairman Chandler-Henry stated that comments regarding the Water Plan were due by May 1. The Mountain Communities had been working with the Metro Area Communities to submit a statement that they believed that land planning should be tied to water planning and water availability. There were six statements about conservation of water and a general statement about tying land use planning to water planning. 1. Resolution 2015-023 Designating the Third Week of April as Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Week Kendra Schleff,HHS Ms. Schleff thanked all the community partners and the board for helping to recognize the third week of April as National Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Week. She thanked the team members including the School District, Sherriff's Office and other law enforcement personnel,Fifth Judicial District Probation Officers, MindSpring Health,Early Childhood Services,Public Health Services and more. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.2015- Resolution Designating the Third Week of April as Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Week WHEREAS, children are key to the State's future success,prosperity, and quality of life; and WHEREAS,while children are our most valuable resource,they are also our most vulnerable; and WHEREAS, children have a right to thrive, learn, and grow to their full potential; and WHEREAS,the prevention of child abuse and neglect strengthens Colorado's families and communities and ensures the opportunity for children to develop in healthy,trusting families, schools,and neighborhoods and 1 04/14/2015 WHEREAS,the State is currently implementing initiatives for improving the safety and well-being of children and families across Colorado; and WHEREAS, as a community we must come together to create a more efficient and effective way for services to be delivered in Colorado; and WHEREAS, we must come together as partners to keep children safe, ensure that the voices of our children are heard by all,and extend a helping hand to children and families in need; and WHEREAS, by providing a safe environment for our children, free of violence, abuse, and neglect, we can ensure that Colorado's children have a safe, nurturing, and permanent family in which to grow as the next generation of leaders,helping to secure the future of this state and nation; WHEREAS, we call upon those who live in Eagle County to observe this month with programs and activities that help prevent child abuse and provide for children's physical, emotional, and developmental needs. WHEREAS, in 2014, our child and adult protection hotline received 521 referrals about potential child abuse or neglect. Of these referrals, 166 were investigated. In addition,the child protection team provided ongoing case management to 41 families to support them to make positive changes in their lives and create safer environments for their children; WHEREAS, every April, the child protection team plants Pinwheels as part of a nationwide public awareness campaign. Pinwheels for Prevention represents our efforts to ensure the healthy development of children. This year,the team will plant 521 pinwheels at our offices in Eagle and El Jebel because they received 521 referrals about potential child abuse or neglect in 2014. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners hereby recognizes and supports the efforts of Eagle County Child Protection and its partners and call upon those who live in Eagle County to observe this month with programs and activities that help prevent child abuse and provide for children's physical, emotional,and developmental needs. THAT, community members who would like to learn more about how to get involved can visit the following website for additional information: www.preventchildabusecolorado.org. MOVED,READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 14th day of April, 2015. Commissioner McQueeney read the resolution into the record. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the resolution designating the third week of April as Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Week. Chairman Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Special Recognition - Eagle County Achieves Healthy Business Certified Leader Status Jacci McKenna,Human Resources Jennifer Ludwig,Public Health Chairman Chandler-Henry stated that Eagle County Government had met the requirements to obtain the certification as being a healthy business certified leader. It recognized the County's commitment to worksite wellness and safety. The program was initiated in the county by the Healthy Community Coalition. 2 04/14/2015 Jennifer Ludwig stated that Public Health was dedicated to the improving the health of employees. The investment was small compared to the payback. Jacki McKenna was pleased to hear that the Wellness program was so well received by county employees. The Culture Survey indicated that employees were encouraged to participate in the Wellness program. She looked forward to continued success. Consent Agenda Chairman Chandler-Henry stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: 2. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of April 13, 2015 (Subject to Review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance 3. Approval of the Minutes of the Board of County Commissioner Meetings for March 10 and March 17, 2015 Teak Simonton,Clerk and Recorder 4. Resolution 2015-024 Concerning an Appointment to the Eagle Valley Library District Board of Trustees Kathy Chandler-Henry, Commissioners 5. Construction Agreement for Gypsum to Dotsero Trail Construction between Eagle County and Frontier Paving, Inc. Ellie Caryl,ECO Trails 6. Land Use Authorization between Eagle County and ECO Transit for the Purpose of Driver Skill Testing on Eagle County Property Jeff Wetzel, ECO Transit 7. Land Use Authorization between Eagle County and Eagle County School District for the Purpose of Driver Skill Testing on Eagle County Property Jeff Wetzel, ECO Transit 8. Intergovernmental Agreement between Edwards Community Authority and Eagle County Regarding Cost Sharing for Professional Planning Services Associated with the 2013 Update to the Edwards Area Community Plan Cliff Simonton,Planning 9. Public Use Easement and Maintenance Agreement between Eagle County and Crawford Properties Concerning the El Jebel Road Sidewalk Eva Wilson, Engineering 10. Resolution 2015-025 Approving the Release of the Letter of Credit(No. 4450498033) for Sonnenalp Properties,Inc. for Construction in the Public Way Permit No. 8617 Mike Horvath, Engineering 11. Agreement for Equipment and/or Materials between Eagle County and Wylaco Construction Supply Company for the Purchase of Stock Panels Jan Miller,Facilities 12. Agreement between Eagle County and Kroger Prescription Plans, Inc. for the Purpose of Pharmacy Benefit Management Services Jacci McKenna,Human Resources 3 04/14/2015 13. Colorado Child Care Assistance Program, Cliff Effect Pilot SB 14-003 Grant Program,Memorandum of Understanding between Eagle County and State Department of Human Services (DHS)Division of Early Care and Learning(DECL) Megan Burch,Human Services 14. Third Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Campbell-Hill Aviation Group, LLC for Air Service Consulting Services Greg Phillips, Airport Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda for April 14, 2015, as presented. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Chandler-Henry opened citizen input. Alexis Perez spoke. He lived in Avon and attended Berry Creek Middle School. He began participating in the Snowboard Outreach Society(SOS) program at the age of seven. He thanked the Eagle County Commissioners for supporting the SOS program. The County's support had made it possible for kids like him to attend year after year and become a junior mentor to younger participants. In the years of being a part of SOS he'd learned to become responsible as well as a good leader in the community. Josh Kurtz,Junior Mentor- SOS Outreach, spoke. He believed that SOS had been a wonderful learning experience for him because he made a lot of friends and he learned about helping his community. In Eagle County alone SOS was able to get over 550 kids on the mountain this winter. None of this would be possible without the kind funding provided by Eagle County. He thanked the commissioners for attending the leadership panel. Chairman Chandler-Henry closed citizen input. Commissioner Ryan moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office 15. Special Event Permit-Vail Valley Partnership APPLICANT: Vail Valley Partnership REQUEST: Special Event Permit EVENT: Annual Success Awards DATE: Friday,May 15,2015 REPRESENTATIVES: Chris Romer,President/CEO Maren Cerimele,Membership Manager LOCATION: Eagle Vail Pavilion—538 Eagle Road, Avon STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit for their 12th Annual Success Awards luncheon being held at the Eagle Vail Pavilion on May 15, 2015 from 11:00 am to 3:00 pm. The applicant anticipates 200 attendees. The event will be catered by Gourmet Cowboy. Beer and wine will be offered. This is a ticketed event. 4 04/14/2015 STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order,.all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises April 3, 2015, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. There have been no protests filed with the Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan,proof of server training,and has notified the Eagle County Sheriff's Office. DISCUSSION: Maren Cerimele stated that the actual event times would be noon to 2:00 pm. The celebration recognized businesses in the valley in 10 different categories. Gourmet Cowboy would be serving the alcohol and were TIPS certified. Ms. Scriver stated that she had no concerns with the request. Commissioner Ryan moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for the Vail Valley Partnership event being held at the Eagle Vail Pavilion,May 15, 2015, 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. *The hours approved in the motion are the hours requested on the application and are not necessarily the hours of the event. 16. Special Event Permit-Roaring Fork Rotary Club Foundation,Inc. APPLICANT: Roaring Fork Rotary Club Foundation,Inc. REQUEST: Special Event Permit EVENT: Festival de Ninos"Kids Festival" DATE: Sunday—April 26,2015 REPRESENTATIVES: Milton Mendez,President Roberto Hermosillo,Event Organizer LOCATION: Eagle River Center-0794 Fairgrounds Road,Eagle STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit for an event being held at the Eagle River Center on April 26, 2015 from 12:00 pm to 8:00 pm. Beer will be available for purchase. There will be 3—4 food vendors. Ace Security will be providing security for the event. The applicant expects 300 attendees. This is a ticketed event. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises April 3, 2015, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. There have been no protests filed with the Clerk and Recorder's Office. 5 04/14/2015 4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan,proof of server training, and has notified the Eagle County Sheriff's Office. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hermosillo stated that the event was a family event for the Latino community. Tickets could be purchased at the door for$5. Commissioner Ryan asked who attended the event. Mr. Hermosillo stated that he expected people from Lake County, Garfield County, Summit, and Eagle County. He expected between 300 and 500 people. Mr. Pooley spoke about the Roaring Fork Rotary Club, also known as Club Rotario. The organization was geared towards the Latino community. Their main function was fundraising and giving out scholarships. They did most of their fundraising through beer sales. Commissioner McQueeney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for the Roaring Fork Rotary Club Foundation event being held at the Eagle River Center,April 26, 2015, 12:00 p.m.to 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. *The hours approved in the motion are the hours requested on the application and are not necessarily the hours of the event. 17. New Private Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License-BCP Liquor,LLC. DBA Adam's Mountain Country Club APPLICANT: BCP -Liquor, LLC DBA: Adam's Mountain Country Club REPRESENTATIVE: Joe Cranston, General Manager LOCATION: 1094 Frost Creek Drive,Unincorporated Eagle REQUEST: PRIVATE Hotel and Restaurant License w/5 Optional Premises STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant, BCP - Liquor, LLC submitted an application for a PRIVATE Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License with 5 Opt. Premises on March 13, 2015. The five (5) optional premises encompass the golf course and pool area and will be opened and closed seasonally. The property was previously license in 2007 as a Stand Alone Optional Premises before the clubhouse and other amenities had been fully constructed. The new owner was required to apply for a new license to reflect the current service area. The applicant has applied for a private license as the clubhouse restaurant and facilities will be open to the public on a limited basis. ESTABLISH NEIGHBORHOOD: The first order of business is to establish the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the following neighborhood: The neighborhood shall consist of a two (2) mile radius surrounding the proposed location for the licensed premises. The neighborhood shall also include one mile on each side of Brush Creek Road, beginning at the proposed location and continuing for ten miles towards the Town of Eagle. 1st MOTION establishing the neighborhood: Commissioner Ryan moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority establish the neighborhood to include the area within a two (2) mile radius surrounding the proposed location for the licensed premises. The 6 04/14/2015 neighborhood shall also include one mile on each side of Brush Creek Road,beginning at the proposed location and continuing for ten miles towards the Town of Eagle. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. The Board will consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood, the desires of the adult inhabitants of the neighborhood and whether the existing licenses are adequate to meet these needs and desires,per the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12-47-301 (2)(a). 2. The petition was circulated by Oedipus, Inc. The results of the summary were as follows: • 176 Signatures Favoring Issuance Businesses: 26; Residences: 150 • 0 Signatures Opposing Issuance OTHER LOCAL LICENSING AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the licensee shall possess and maintain possession of the premises for which the license is issued by ownership, lease,rental, or other arrangement for possession of such premises. 2. Whether the premises are within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 3. Whether the fees have been paid. 4. Whether the applicants are of good moral character. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has filed an application on forms provided by the state licensing authority and provided information as required by the state licensing authority. All applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees paid. 2. The applicant is 21 years of age and reported to be of good moral character. 3. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises Apri l 3, 2015 and publication in the Eagle Valley Enterprise on April 2 and April 9,2015. 4. The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. 5. The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 6. The applicant has submitted proof of possession of premises. 7. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority and proof of server training will be provided upon license approval. STAFF CONCLUSION: 7 04/14/2015 The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for the Private Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License with 5/Optional Premises. DISCUSSION: Present: Max Scott with Oedipus Inc. Nicole Ament with the law firm of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck Joe Cranston, General Manager BCP-Liquor, LLC Chad Brue,Managing Member BCP-Liquor, LLC Ms. Scriver presented the request. Staff had no concerns with the request and believed the applicant had met all the requirements. Mr. Brue stated that they were excited to begin a new plan and a new path forward. They were in the process of rebranding and renaming the property. The new name would tie to local history and historical nature of the property. They were super excited to offer the services to their members and member's guests. 2°d MOTION approving the issuance of the license Commissioner McQueeney moved that the Board find that there is a reasonable requirement and desire for the issuance of this license, therefore approve a Private Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License with 5/Opt. Premises for BCP- Liquor, LLC d/b/a Adam's Mountain Country Club based on the testimony, petitions, and evidence submitted today and incorporating the staff findings. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner McQueeney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re- convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Site Visit VIA 32532 PUD(File Nos. 1041-5267,PDSP-5266,ZC-5270) 32530 Hwy 6, Edwards, Colorado Planning File 18. VIA 32532 PUD (Eagle County File No. 1041-5267) Sean Hanagan,Planning Ben Gerdes, Engineering Trinity Development Group,Applicant Dominic Mauriello,MPG,Representative Action: The purpose of this 1041 permit is to allow for the extension of an existing water and wastewater system to serve the VIA PUD. Location: 32530 HWY 6,Edwards Area FILE NO./PROCESS: 1041-5267/1041 Permit(Matters of State Interest) PROJECT NAME: VIA PUD LOCATION: 32532 Highway 6 (West Edwards) OWNER: Trinity Development Group APPLICANT: Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello-MPG. 8 04/14/2015 STAFF CONTACT: Sean Hanagan REQUEST: 1041 permit to allow the for the extension of an existing water and wastewater system to serve the VIA PUD STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This 1041 permit application by the Trinity Development (the `applicant') proposes a rental housing community comprised of multiple buildings containing 70 residential units with a gross area of approximately 63,000 square feet of residential floor area and up to 3,500 square feet of support commercial uses. This commercial space may take the form of a small grocery, coffee shop or restaurant. Allowed uses are outlined in the proposed PUD guide. The subject parcel has been zoned Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) since the time Eagle County implemented zoning (1974). 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 RSL zoning would indicate. The proposed water and wastewater"Project" is connecting this PUD to water and wastewater mains that already exist within easements on the subject property. There may be the need for a short sewer main extension into the property where connections to individual buildings will occur. A 1041 Permit is required due to the fact that the project exceeds the threshold of 10 EQR; which is the amount of water need and wastewater generated by the equivalent of 10 residential units. For all intents and purposes, the property within this PUD is served with water and wastewater facilities, as if it had been previously subdivided. More typically, projects requiring a 1041 Permit involve extensive extensions of water and wastewater mains or the development of onsite water and wastewater treatment facilities. Based on the scope of the project, no alternatives to a connection to the existing mains were considered. This 1041 request is accompanying a PUD request that 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. II. BACKGROUND The Eagle River Water& Sanitation District(ERWSD)operates three wastewater treatment plants located in Vail, Avon, and Edwards.The wastewater treatment plant in Avon was built in 1966,with the most recent expansion of the plant completed in 1997,bringing the capacity of the treatment plant to 4.3 MGD. The Vail wastewater treatment plant was originally constructed in 1969, and was expanded in 1982 and again in 2000; the capacity of the Vail plant in 2.7 MGD. The wastewater treatment plant in Edwards was constructed in 1981,with expansions in 1986 and 2001,providing a capacity of 2.95 MGD. The average daily flow through the entire ERWSD wastewater system is 5.5 MGD,with a range of 3.7-7.7 MGD. ERWSD currently operates and services 46 water tanks ranging in capacity from 3,000 to 2 million gallons. III. REFERRALS This 1041 Permit Application was referred to the following departments and agencies with a request for comment: • Eagle County Engineering Department • Eagle County Attorney's Office • Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist 9 04/14/2015 • Eagle County Planning Commission • • Eagle County Environmental Health • ECO Trails • Eagle River Watershed Council • Colorado Division of Wildlife • Colorado Water Conservation Board • Colorado Geological Survey • Natural Resource Conservation Service • Edwards Metro District • US Forest Service • Fire District: ERFPD As of this writing, the following agencies have responded to this 1041 application with comments: Colorado Division of Wildlife(Perry Will): -Please refer to the attached response dated December 31, 2014 in which Best Management Practices pertaining to human wildlife interactions were outlined. The applicant has incorporated these requests into the latest PUD guide. Eagle County Environmental Health(Adam Palmer): -Outdoor landscape water uses have a 70-80%depletion rate, compared to 5-8%depletion rate of indoor water uses. To support standard 6.04.02(1), we recommend inclusion of`smart' irrigation controls certified by EPA's WaterSense program, an irrigation audit completed by an EPA WaterSense—certified professional, and include soil amendments which include a minimum 10%organic soil content for the top 4"of soil to reduce irrigation needs for the VIA 32532 project. Eagle River Fire Protection District(Gayle McFarland): -ERFPD does not oppose the grade of the project which runs from 4-10% -ERFPD requires that adequate turn arounds be provided for the ladder truck. Colorado Geological Survey(Jill Carlson): -Please refer to the attached response dated March 23, 2015 in which the methodologies used as part of the original submission were questioned. CGS believed that and the potential for debris flow and the proposed level of mitigation of this flow were insufficient. The applicant feels they have addressed these issues through a response from their project engineers but we have yet to hear back from the CGS confirming all concerns have been addressed. Eagle County Planning Commission: -At a work session held by the Eagle County Planning Commission on March 4, 2105 the Planning Commission, acting as a referral agency only, discussed the application with Staff and made positive comment declaring the site appropriate for infill development. The Planning Commission emphasized in the discussion that efficient water use from both the ERWSD as well as VIA was extremely important. Otherwise,the Planning Commission expressed no substantive concerns regarding this 1041 application. 1. FINDINGS &RECOMMENDATIONS A. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 6.04.01, Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest, and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following analysis is provided. The Approval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold. A summary response is provided with the recommendation indicated in the findings box. (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project, the applicant will have obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion, defer making a 10 04/14/2015 final decision on the application until outstanding property rights, permits and approvals are obtained. The following permits and approvals must be obtained prior to site disturbance: • Eagle County Building Permit • Eagle County Grading Permit • Eagle County Preliminary Plan approval • Eagle county Zone Change • UERWA Inclusion for Water • UERWA and ERWSD permit an approval for connections, water right dedication and construction plans • CDOT Access Permit • Colorado Stormwater Discharge Permit/Air Pollution Permit [+] FINDING: (1)Rights,Permits and Approvals. The applicant WILL HAVE Obtained all necessary property rights,permits and approvals prior to site disturbance. (2) The Project will not impair property rights held by others. The project will not impair property rights held by others. All necessary easements have been procured, and neighboring property owners have been notified of the proposed improvements. Staff believes neighboring private properties will not be negatively affected by this 1041. [+] FINDING: (2) Property rights of others. The project WILL NOT impair property rights held by others. (3) The Project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. Eagle County Comprehensive Plan speaks to development within the proposed area: 3.7.3 Development Impacts Policies: a. Development in areas critical to the continued well being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed. b. Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts. The Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife has submitted comments as a referral agency specific to the DPW's comments is concern regarding Human-Bear interactions as well as big game winter range habitat towards the Southern edge of the parcel. To properly mitigate the interactions the DPW recommends: -Use of Bear-proof refuse containers and facilities -Prohibit nut,berry or fruit producing trees and shrubs -Make residents"bear aware" [+] FINDING: (3) Consistency with plans. The Project IS consistent with relevant provisions applicable land use and water quality plans. (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all the requirements and conditions. 11 04/14/2015 The infrastructure does not require a significant investment; however, the connection fees and impact fees are estimated at over $850,000 or over $11,000 per rental unit. The 18 water and sewer system does not require special debt to construct and does not generate revenue. The water and sewer improvements, once installed, do not require ongoing operating expenses. The project will be paid for by the developer. Trinity Development Group has extensive development background in and outside of Colorado. [+] FINDING: (4) Expertise and financial capability. The applicant DOES HAVE the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. The technical feasibility of the project is the installation of water and wastewater lines to connect to the existing mains located on the property. The project is technically and financially feasible. [+] FINDING: (5)Feasibility,The Project IS technically and financially feasible. (6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. In her referral letter dated March 23, 2015 Jill Carlson indicated that methodologies used as part of the original submission were in question. CGS believed that the estimated potential for debris flow and the proposed level of mitigation of this flow were insufficient. The applicant feels they have addressed these issues through a response from their project engineers but staff has yet to hear back from the CGS confirming all concerns have been addressed. 1-1 FINDING: (6)Risk from hazards,The Project IS subject to significant risk from natural hazards. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. The proposed water and wastewater line extension is intended to serve only the proposed VIA project. This expansion will not have negative impacts on the surrounding lands nor will it adversely affect land use patterns in the area of West Edwards. [+] FINDING: (7)Land use patterns, the project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns as a result of this 1041 Permit application. (8) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services,or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. The project will not place any demands on local government services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. [+] FINDING: (8) Service Capacity. The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services, or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems it exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. (9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. The proposed project will not create any undue financial burden on existing or future residents of Eagle County if the developer pays for all improvements and extensions associated with the project. 12 04/14/2015 [+] FINDING: (9) Financial Burden, the Project WILL NOT create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. (10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. The project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. The expansion will support the proposed local service commercial being proposed as part of the VIA PUD.Approval of this 1041 will not result in the loss of any productive agricultural or recreational lands. [+] FINDING: (10) Protection of local economy. The project WILL NOT significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. No land development activity is proposed that will adversely affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experiences within the subject parcel. The project includes active open space area, amenities, and recreation areas available to the future residents. [+] FINDING: (11) Protection of recreational opportunities, The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational opportunities and experience. _ (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. The project is a redevelopment of an existing developed site and is therefore considered as an infill project, reducing the consumption of underdeveloped agricultural lands. It is in close proximately to transit service and is located on the Eco Trails community trail, allowing for alternative modes of transportation. The project is proposing reduced parking requirements to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation, and as part of the project, a sidewalk will be constructed to connect this project to the adjacent bus stop. The project will be designed to the most current building and ECO Build code requirements for energy efficiency and will have a recycling area for the use by residents. Finally, the project exceeds the minimum requirements established by the Sustainable Community Index. [ + ] FINDING! (12) Rpcnuren Cons rvationt The planning, design and operation of the Project DOF et principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. As the Environmental Report received with the application summarizes, no significant sources of air pollution are proposed by the development.The project will have temporary impacts on air quality during construction. Impacts will be minimized to the greatest extent practical by implementing Best Management Practices for dust suppression techniques during construction. [+] FINDING: (13)Air quality, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The project is not located on a ridge line or within a scenic vista, unique landscape or land formation. The project will not degrade existing visual quality [+] FINDING: (14) Visual quality. As mitigated,the Project WILL NOT significantly degrade visual quality. 13 04/14/2015 (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. As the Environmental Report summarizes,the site plan does not proposed any alteration to the Brett Ditch or other hydrologic features and therefore no impacts to surface water quality are anticipated from the project. Water demands placed on the UERWA are well within the permit capacity of the water treatment facilities and therefore the project is not anticipated to degrade the Eagle River with the majority of water returning to the river as return flows. As documented within the report, the project will be developed with best management practices and the project has a compliant storm water management system to ensure appropriate filtration of storm water. [+] FINDING: (15)Surface water quality, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade surface water quality. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. The Project will have little or no effect on the quality of groundwater in the area or on groundwater recharge.There are no anticipated"discharges"from the system into ground water. [+] FINDING: (16) Ground water quality, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade ground water quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. There are no jurisdictional wetlands or riparian areas identified within the Project area. [+] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and riparian areas, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. The project will adhere to all recommendations of both the Environmental Report and the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife. As a result, the project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. + ] FINDING: (18) Terrestrial or aquatic animal life, The Project Will Not degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. (19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. The site is currently disturbed with little vegetative cover. The site is generally categorized as "disturbed uplands vegetative habitat."This includes areas of bare soil and an abundance of weeds. There will be no deterioration of terrestrial plant life or habitat as a result of the project. [+] FINDING: (19) Terrestrial plant life, The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. The site is significantly disturbed currently. The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. [+] FINDING: (20) Soils and ReoloZic conditions, The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. 14 04/14/2015 (21) The Project will not cause a nuisance. The project will generate typical ocular, olfactory and auditory impacts associated with residential. The Environmental report documents that Best Management Practices will be employed throughout site development to reduce impacts such as; fugitive dust and Stormwater runoff typical during construction. All roof materials will be non-reflective as to reduce glare. [+] FINDING: (21) Nuisance, The project WILL NOT cause a nuisance outside what is typical of general construction. (22) The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance. No known areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance associated with the Project site have been identified. [+] FINDING: (22) Paleontological, historic or archaeological areas, The Project WILL NO significantly degrade areas of paleontological,historic or archaeological importance. (23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. No hazardous materials are proposed to be stored or maintained onsite. As a result, there is no unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. [+] FINDING: (23) Hazardous materials, The Project WILL NOT result in unreasonable risk of the release of hazardous materials. (24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. There are no significant losses of any agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources with the County, nor is there a loss of opportunity to develop such resources. The benefits of the Project outweigh any real or perceived losses accruing to the County and its citizens. [+] FINDING: (24) Benefits outweigh losses, The benefits accruing to the County and its citize s WILL outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industri 1 resources within the County or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. B. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02,Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Projects, and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following additional analysis is provided. Outdoor landscape water uses have a 70-80%depletion rate, compared to 5-8%depletion rate of indoor water uses.To support standard 6.04.02(1),we recommend inclusion of`smart' irrigation controls certified by EPA's WaterSense program, an irrigation audit completed by an EPA WaterSense—certified professional, and include soil amendments which include a minimum 10%organic soil content for the top 4"of soil to reduce irrigation needs for the VIA 32532 project. [+] FINDING: (1) Efficient use, The Project SHALL emphasize the most efficient use of wate:, including the recycling,reuse and conservation of water, where viable. 15 04/14/2015 (1) The Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The project has been designed to accommodate the needs of future residents while utilizing the existing water and wastewater systems capacity. This project will not create excess capacity or duplicate services. [+] FINDING: (2) Excess capacity /duplicate services, The Project SHALL NOT result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. (2) The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. The Project(system)has been designed specifically to add capacity to serve based on the needs of future residents of this existing regional development. [+] FINDING: (3)Necessity. The Project SHALL BE necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the project. (3) Urban development, population densities and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. All Stormwater systems proposed as part of the project have been deemed sufficient. The site design sufficiently detains all Stormwater on site and meets all land use standards contained in Article 4 of the ECLUR. [+] FINDING: (4)Protection of Aquifer Recharge Areas.N/A C. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.03,Additional Criteria Applicable to Major New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems and Major Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems, and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following additional analysis is provided. (1) The Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project, or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. The Project is necessary to meet community development and population demands. Specifically, the proposed Project (system) has been designed to allow the UERWA system to provide adequate water and wastewater to the future residents of the proposed development. [+] FINDING: (1) Necessity or regulatory/ technological compliance, The Project SHALL be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. (2) To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. 16 04/14/2015 No new wastewater or water treatment facilities are proposed in conjunction with this application. [+] FINDING: (2) Consolidation of facilities. To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities SHALL be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. (3) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. No new water or sewage treatment facilities are proposed with this application. [+] FINDING: (3)Proper utilization of existing treatment plants,New domestic water and sewage treatment systems SHALL be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. (4) The Project shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. • The anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of the proposed water and sewer extension to serve the VIA PUD can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the Edwards area to sustain such growth and development • [+] FINDING: (4)Financial and environmental capacity, The Project SHALL be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. D. Special Use Permit Waiver: In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1.2, Waiver Provision, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Special Review Use Permit application for water and sewer projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant showing that: 3.310.I.2.a. A permit application pursuant to Chapter 6, Sections one through five of the Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle County Permit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use permit application. 3.310.I.2.b. Compliance with the Special Use Review Permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver of the Special Use Review Permit requirements as such application would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. E. Recommended Motion: Approval with conditions MOTION TO APPROVE PUD/Zone Change: I hereby move to approve File No(s). 1041-5267/VIA PUD/VIA PUD, incorporating staff's findings and staff's recommended conditions,because the proposed uses meet all of the standards for approval of a 1041. 17 04/14/2015 MOTION TO DENY PUD/Zone Change: I hereby move to deny File No 1041-5267/VIA PUD because the proposed use does not meet the standards for issuance of a 1041. 1. Applicant shall provide documentation that the project has been completed as proposed 2. Applicant shall include `smart' irrigation controls certified by EPA's WaterSense program, an irrigation audit completed by an EPA WaterSense—certified professional,and include soil amendments which include a minimum 10%organic soil content for the top 4"of soil to reduce irrigation needs for the project. 3. Except otherwise modified by this permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval 19. VIA 32532(Eagle County File No.PDSP-5266) Sean Hanagan,Planning Ben Gerdes, Engineering Trinity Development Group,Applicant Dominic Mauriello,MPG,Representative Action: The Purpose of this Planned Unit Development Sketch Preliminary Plan is to allow for a residential community containing 70 units on 4.06 acres in the West Edwards Area. Location: 32530 HWY 6, Edwards Area 20. VIA 32532 (Eagle County File No. ZC-5270) Sean Hanagan, Planning Ben Gerdes,Engineering Trinity Development Group,Applicant Dominic Mauriello,MPG,Representative Action: The purpose of this Zone Change is to change the zoning from Residential Suburban Low Density(RLS)to Planned Unit Development(PUD) in conjunction with review of a Preliminary Plan for PUD to allow for a residential community containing 70 units on 4.06 acres in the West Edwards Area. Location: 32530 HWY 6,Edwards Area FILE NO./PROCESS: ZC-5270/PDSP-5266/VIA PUD PROJECT NAME: VIA PUD LOCATION: 32532 Highway 6 (West Edwards) OWNER: Trinity Development Group. 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) in conjunction with review of a Preliminary Plan for PUD to allow for a residential community containing 70 units on 4.06 acres in the West Edwards area. The community is to be 18 04/14/2015 comprised of multiple buildings with a gross area of approximately 63,000 square feet of residential floor area and up to 3,500 square feet of support commercial uses. This commercial space may take the form of a small grocery, coffee shop or restaurant. Allowed uses are outlined in the proposed PUD guide. 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. ;� rP 4 �� ° g jj "'+t ( +. �>U 3 11,•'} f 1 ,... ,_4,-.4. , , -ik nr t at x ws r" !hfd ::::., ^kh "`m . -Z'fI4 4 "9k ` 1 ds , ":e 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 2-4) 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 are addressed through conditions of approval to bring the proposal further into compliance with the County's standards or those issues remain outstanding and require addressing by the Planning Commission. Issues Resolved: Housing(Jill Klosterman)—The proposal does exceed the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines. A rental unit is considered affordable if it is rented at a rate that is affordable to a family earning no more than 80%AMI. Because of the current shortage of rental housing in Eagle County, the Guidelines allow for awarding a bonus credit for rental units. This proposal provides for affordable rental housing that warrants this rental housing bonus credit at 2x the standard amount. Therefore the project is only required to provide 15,750 square feet (12.5%) of the units for affordable housing. As the project is actually providing 31,500 sf(25%) of affordable housing units,the applicant will receive 15,750 square feet of affordable housing credits that can be sold to a future developer who would not otherwise meet the minimum requirements of the Guidelines. Sustainable Community Index (Adam Palmer) - As proposed the project currently achieves an SCI score of 84 which meets minimum SCI standards. Recommended applicable design elements to the project include: • Dedicating additional 10% of rental units to house tenants earning less than 80% AMI (1 point/unit): 7 points • Dedicating 10%rental units to tenants earning less than 50%AMI(2 points/unit): 14 points • Edible landscaping and/or or community gardens are recommended for inclusion into the project for on-site local food production: points. • Use of a turf species which ich on average uses 25%less water than Kentucky Blue Grass: 1 point 19 04/14/2015 • Innovation: Consider an on-site carshare program to occupants/residents, further reducing parking needs and tenant transportation costs: 5 points. Engineering(Ben Gerdes)— Access—during the initial review of this proposal by staff, the Engineering Department identified a variation from improvement standards — a 10% grade for a 120-ft portion of the access. This access falls between the ECLUR ADT requirements of an urban collector (<3,000vpd) and an urban residential collector (<750vpd). Based on the functional classification in the ECLUR (Section 4-620.D.6) this road functions more like a residential road than a collector even though the estimated traffic exceeds 750vpd. The ECLUR table 4-620.J requires a grade of 6%-8% for this type of road. We have consulted with ERFPD and they do not object to the proposed grades. Staff believes the driveway, as currently designed, is sufficient to provide safe, adequate access within the PUD. Further, the applicant will be required to obtain an access permit from CDOT as memorialized via recommended staff condition number 1. Pedestrian Pathway— during the review of the proposal, staff identified the need for a pedestrian pathway connecting the subject parcel to the bus stop located 450-feet to the east. The applicant is proposing trip generation (5% multimodal reduction) and parking reductions based on the proximity to transit. The applicant has agreed to construct and maintain a five foot wide path from the property line to connecting to the bus stop. Across the frontage of the property the application proposes a five foot wide path. To be consistent with other portions of path in this area the Engineering Department recommends that the path across the frontage of the subject parcel should be eight feet wide. The Applicant has agreed to construct the pathway, this agreement is further memorialized via recommended staff condition number 3 and this pathway is shown on the most current site plan Outstanding Issues: Traffic— The proposed project will contribute an estimated 1,184 trips to the roadway system. US 6 will drop to a LOS D in approximately 5 years due to background traffic. The ECLUR requires highway segments to maintain a LOS C. The 2004 US 6 Feasibility Study contemplated the need to widen US 6 from the intersection to Lake Creek Rd to 4- lanes. The analysis completed for this proposal indicate that 4-lanes will be needed up to the project access. There are no plans or funding options for widening US 6 at this time. The US 6/Spur Rd intersection currently operates at a LOS C but will is anticipated to fail within 10 years if capacity improvements are not made. Eagle County, CDOT, and ECA will begin design of a $10-12 million improvement project this summer. This project is currently unfunded. Eagle County and CDOT have received citizen complaints and an accident report on US 6 at the Eagle River Village entrance. CDOT will conduct a signal warrant analysis this summer. If needed, mitigation is unfunded. The applicant will be responsible for paying an estimated$270,000 in Road Impact Fees for this project. Parking— The applicant is requesting variations to parking requirements for the number of spaces, dimensions of spaces, and the number of compact spaces as follows: The ECLUR standard for number of spaces would require 179 spaces. The applicant is proposing 142 representing a 37 space or 21%reduction in parking. The ECLUR standard for dimensions is 10-ft by 20-ft. The applicant is proposing: 9-ft by 19-ft standard spaces: • 8-ft by 16-ft compact spaces (short- 10%of total) • 8-ft by 19-ft compact spaces (long- 10%of total) 20 04/14/2015 • 9-ft by 20-ft truck/SUV spaces (20%of total) • 11-ft by 19-ft single car garage spaces • 11-ft by 37-ft tandem car garage spaces • The ECLUR allows for 20%of the spaces exceeding the first 10 to be compact spaces. A minor reduction in parking may be appropriate but based on experience at Lake Creek Village and Miller Ranch the Engineering Department does not support the reduction proposed. Given the valley's tendency toward larger vehicles (SUVs and Pick-ups) and the likelihood that the parking lot will be often snow covered compounds the issue of adequate parking. These factors may further reduce the number of available parking spaces, especially during winter months. If there is not adequate parking provided, unauthorized parking could block access for emergency vehicles. The applicant has developed a parking management plan as part of the PUD guide in order to regulate parking. Variations- The Applicant is requesting the following variations to Improvement Standards through this PUD: • Increased road grade from the 8%standard to 10%for a 120-ft section of the road. • Parking reduction from ECLUR required 186 spaces to 137 spaces. This represents a 49 space or 26% reduction. • Decrease in parking space dimension from ECLUR required 10-ft by 20-ft to proposed 9-ft by 18-ft. • Increase in allowed number of compact car spaces from 20%over the first 10 spaces to 25%of all spaces. ERFPD- ERFPD does not oppose the grade of the project which runs from 4-10%.ERFPD approves of,but has not reviewed the proposed life safety systems for the buildings. These will be reviewed as submitted during the construction phase of the project. ERFPD requests the addition of one hydrant, the exact location of which is to be determined. ERFPD requires that adequate turn arounds be provided for the ladder truck. Colorado Geological Survey- Please refer to the attached response from Jill Carlson dated March 23, 2015 in which the methodologies used as part of the original project submission were questioned. CGS believed that and the potential for debris flow and the proposed level of mitigation of this flow were insufficient. The applicant feels they have addressed these issues through a response from their project engineers but we have yet to hear back from the CGS confirming all concerns have been addressed. 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. II. BACKGROUND: Proposal Overview 21 04/14/2015 As noted above, the primary purpose of this application is to re-zone the subject parcel to allow for a high density residential PUD. The subject parcel 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 RSL 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 limit 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 high density residential development addresses a recognized need for area residents. III. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending approval of this application,with conditions. Staff believes the proposal, as conditioned meets 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. 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. 22 04/14/2015 Staff Response: 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 Residential and 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. Rental housing is a priority for the Eagle County Housing and Development department and will address a quantified and demonstrated community need. 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: Despite global concerns for the LOS on Highway 6, staff believes the project can be served by adequate infrastructure.For a discussion on roadways please referrer to the LOS discussion on page 9. 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 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 Response: Staff believes the request meets this standard. 23 04/14/2015 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: does not support the reduction in parking proposed. Given the valley's tendency toward larger vehicles (SUVs and Pick-ups) and the likelihood that the parking lot will be often snow covered compounds the issue of adequate parking these factors may further reduce the number of available parking spaces, especially during winter months. If there is not adequate parking provided, unauthorized parking could block access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons, staff does not support a reduction of parking in this instance. 5. 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 Response: Staff believes the request meets this standard. Any signage within the project will be regulated by a Master Sign Plan as well as through the PUD guide. 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 Response: 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. 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. All recommendations contained in the Referral letter from Perry Will have been incorporated into the PUD guide. IV. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The proposed PUD and accompanying Zone Change would allow for this 4.06 acre parcel to be used as a Multi- family rental community. This is a use that is not prevalent in this portion of the county and staff believes this use addresses a recognized need for residents of both the Edwards area as well as the entire county. Furthermore staff believes this proposal addresses Master Plan goals related to the general development, economic infrastructure and transit. 24 04/14/2015 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." 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 affordable rental housing which is not currently readily 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. The applicant has committed to capping 25% of the project (15,750 square feet) at 80%AMI. For this commitment the applicant will be granted 2X Affordable Housing Credits. The proposal does exceed the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines.A rental unit is considered affordable if it is rented at a rate that is affordable to a family earning no more than 80% AMI.Because of the current shortage of rental housing in Eagle County, the Guidelines allow for awarding a bonus credit for rental units. This proposal provides for affordable rental housing that warrants this rental housing bonus credit at 2x the standard amount. The proposed project will contribute an estimated 1,184 trips to the roadway system. Without this project US 6 will drop to a LOS D in approximately 5 years due to existing (background traffic). The ECLUR requires highway segments to maintain a LOS C. The applicant will be responsible for paying an estimated$270,000 in Road Impact Fees for this project which is intended to mitigate the development's impact. Staff believes any additional medium or high density residential development in this area of Edwards may present similar issues. While this project does present a public benefit, addresses a demonstrated community need and is supported by multiple master plan goals. Specifically, locating (infill) development in existing community centers that are served by existing infrastructure; supporting the economic infrastructure of Eagle County, and locating development to support existing transit services, could be viewed in juxtaposition to the proposal's potential impacts on Highway 6's current and future LOS. As conditioned, and based on the applicant's ability to provide adequate parking staff believes positive findings can be made for each applicable standard. V. 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). ZC-5270/PDSP-5266/VIA PUD, 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). ZC-5270/PDSP-5266/VIA PUD 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; 25 04/14/2015 and the proposed uses are not in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and/or the Comprehensive Plan Suggested Conditions: 1. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits for the subject parcels the applicant shall provide the Engineering Department a copy of the executed Access Permit and all improvements required by the Access Permit shall be completed and accepted by CDOT. 2. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant shall complete the required pedestrian accommodations including an 8-ft wide path across the frontage of their property and a 5-ft wide connection from their property line to connect to the existing path that serves the bus stop. 3. Other than variations approved,the Applicant shall comply with all site development standards. 4. All improvements shall be maintained by the Applicant. 5. The Applicant shall incorporate all Best Management Practices outlined in Perry Will's CPW letter dated December 31, 2015 6. 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. VI. SITE DATA: RsrnrFp^pex+r p W 7r, -k }'" § ir-e-a � . 1-' i.-- °t t .' ki l r ELDERBERRY ^:' R CI- #_ "F°4)44 h DtlGWG� I . ' A .Pic,-4,1 -3 - Q[ a x off` S „ ; d ,f � .y _� ~ l' s A 5,=13. :7 Iv_LL, Surrounding Land Use&Zoning: Land Use Zoning North: Residential RSL South: Residential Resource East: Residential/Mixed Use RSL with SUP Edwards Trailer Park West: Utility RSL Century Tel Existing Zoning: Residential Suburban Low Density(RSL) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development(PUD) 26 04/14/2015 ��{ Multiple dwelling units and storage yard — � tt , '����y�'` sage grass;moderately sloped _ Igal an M 4.06 Sqc et; 1 176,853 sq.ft. — q 25% ERwsp 7 dal gyp ,a �{x rt�jds l { kr ERWSD ri_ 7,7 Highway 6 VII. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to twenty-nine(29)agencies/entities for review on December 17,20141. 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): Jill Klosterman outlines her rationale for supporting the Applicant's calculations for affordable housing requirements. The proposal does exceed the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines. A rental unit is considered affordable if it is rented at a rate that is affordable to a family earning no more than 80% AMI. Because of the current shortage of rental housing in Eagle County, the Guidelines allow for awarding a bonus credit for rental units. This proposal provides for affordable rental housing that warrants this rental housing bonus credit at 2x the standard amount. Therefore the project is only required to provide 17,750 sf feet (12.5%) of the units for affordable housing. As the project is actually providing 33,300 sf(25%) of affordable housing units, the applicant will receive 17,750 sf of affordable housing ereds that can be sold to a future developer who would not otherwise meet the minimum requirements of the Guidelines. Eagle County Engineering Department(Ben Gerdes): Ben Gerdes outlines five outstanding concerns with this proposal. Access, Driveway grade, pedestrian pathways, parking reductions and traffic impacts. For a detailed discussion of these items please refer to the Engineering section of the Executive Summary on page 2 of this report. Sustainable Community Index(Adam Palmer): In the memo dated January 15, 2015 Adam Palmer had the following comments. As proposed the project currently achieves an SCI score of 84 which meets minimum SCI standards. Recommended applicable design elements to the project include: • Dedicating additional 10% of rental units to house tenants earning less than 80% AMI (1 point/unit): 7 points • Dedicating 10%rental units to tenants earning less than 50%AMI(2 points/unit): 14 points • Edible landscaping and/or or community gardens are recommended for inclusion into the project for on-site local food production: 2-5 points. • Use of a turf species which on average uses 25%less water than Kentucky Blue Grass: 1 point • Innovation: Consider an on-site car share program to occupants/residents, further reducing parking needs and tenant transportation costs: 5 points. ERFPD: ERFPD does not oppose the grade of the project which runs from 4-10%.ERFPD approves of, but has not reviewed the proposed life safety systems for the buildings. These will be reviewed as submitted during the construction phase of the project. ERFPD requests the addition of one hydrant, the exact location of which is to be determined. ERFPD requires that adequate turn-arounds be provided for the ladder truck. VIII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS: At their regularly scheduled meeting on March 4, 2015 the Eagle County Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of all files by a vote of 5-1. Comments made in support of the file focused on the appropriateness of infill development, the projects reflection of a demonstrated need as well as an appropriate level 27 04/14/2015 of density. During their deliberations some commissioners expressed concerns related to lack of conformance to the Comprehensive Plan, density, parking distribution and accessibility to the mass transit stop located to the east. In response to these issues,the Applicant committed to a reduction in the maximum of units and capped the number of units at 70 total units. In addition, the Applicant modified the PUD guide to include the Parking Management Plan as well the recommendations of the commission regarding parking distributions. In response to the concerns of accessibility to the transit stop to the east, the Applicant included a pedestrian pathway on the eastern portion of the parcel to aid in pedestrian movement. During this process only one modification was made to the list of allowed uses to include Day Care Center. The updated PUD guide is included in the back up materials included with this staff report. IX. COMMISSIONER OPTIONS: 1. Approve [File No. ZC-5270/PDSP-5266] 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). 2. Deny [File No. ZC-5270/PDSP-5266] 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-5270/PDSP-5266] 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 ECL UR 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: 28 04/14/2015 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 housing to the immediate area. Section 3.3 Economic Resources 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 is in current high demand 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 rental housing use addresses an underserved need. Section 3.4 Housing Policy`a': "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". The applicant has committed to capping 25% of the project (19 units) at 80% AMI. For this commitment the applicant will be granted 2X Affordable Housing Credits for providing affordable rental housing. This credit will be in the amount of 16,550 square feet. Policy `n': "Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's workforce housing needs" The applicant has committed to capping 25% of the project (17 units) at 80% AMI. For this commitment the applicant will be granted 2X Affordable Housing Credits for providing affordable rental housing. This credit will be in the amount of 16,550 square feet. 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 incorporate Best Management Practices into their design to limit the human disturbance to the wildlife in the area. The design of the project places 29 04/14/2015 green space at the southern portion of the property. This green space should act as a buffer for human wildlife interactions. In addition the PUD includes provisions for Bear proof trash containers. Policy `e': "Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts': See previous comment(s). Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policy `a': "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard". Staff believes that all development proposed as part of this application will avoid and or mitigate impacts from areas of steep slopes and other natural hazards. Please see attached letter from High Country Engineering dated February 18tH 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': See area discussion on page 9 of this report STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.21 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. See compatibility discussion on page 9 of this report. 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 is in short supply in the area. 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? Despite global concerns for the LOS on Highway 6, staff believes the project can be served by adequate infrastructure. For a discussion on roadways please referrer to the LOS discussion on page 9. 30 04/14/2015 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 under contract for purchase by Trinity Development Group. 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. Multi-Family Residential is listed in Table 3-310"Residential 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 following variations form dimensional Limitations are being requested by the Applicant as part of the PUD design: Max tort coverage Buildings:20% Buildings: 30% All impervious Materials:35% All Impervious Materials:709'0 Malt Floor Area Ratio 0.20:1 or 35,370 sq.ft. 63,000-750,000 sq.ft.of residential 1,700-3,500 sq.ft.of commercial(infudes leasing office) 1,500-2,800 sq.ft.of amenity Mid front Yard Setback' 50 ft. 25 ft. 'min Rent Yard setback Greater of 12.5 ft.or half the height of 30 ft. the tallest building r n!side Yard etc Greater of 12.5 ft.or half the height of 12.5 ft. (east and west sides) the tallest building Max Height 35 ft. Residential Parking 1 bedroom/studio: 2 spaces=24 spaces 1 bedroom/studio:1 space=11 spaces 2 to 3 bedrooms:2.5 spaces= 155 spaces 2 bedrooms:1.5 spaces=69 spaces Total Requirement: 179 spaces 3 bedrooms:2 spaces=26 spaces Total:106 spaces Total Residential Provided: 132 For comparison, the Residential Multi Family (RMF) zone district allows for 40% building coverage, 50% Floor area ratio, and a max height of 35'. 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: Use or Unit Type Number of Units or Parking Ratio from Table 4-120 of Number of Spaces Sq.Ft. Land Use Regs. Required 1 bedroom/1 bath 11 2 space per unit 22 2 bedroom/2 bath 46 2.5 spaces per unit 115 3 bedroom/2 bath 13 3 spaces per unit 39 Commercial Use 3000 1 space for 250 sq.ft. 12 Leasing Office 500 1 space for 250 sq.ft, 2 TOTAL REQUIRED BY CODE 190 TOTAL PARKING SPACES PROVIDED 142 REQUESTED VARIATION FROM STANDARDS The applicant is requesting variations to parking requirements for the number of spaces, dimensions of spaces, and the number of compact spaces as follows: The ECLUR standard for number of spaces would require 179 spaces. The applicant is proposing 142 representing a 37 space or 21% reduction in parking. The ECLUR standard for dimensions is 10-ft by 20-ft. The applicant is proposing: 9-ft by 19-ft standard spaces: 8-ft by 16-ft compact spaces (short- 10%of total) 8-ft by 19-ft compact spaces(long- 10%of total) 9-ft by 20-ft truck/SUV spaces(20%of total) 11-ft by 19-ft single car garage spaces 11-ft by 37-ft tandem car garage spaces The ECLUR allows for 20%of the spaces exceeding the first 10 to be compact spaces. Although, a minor reduction in parking may be appropriate, based on experience at Lake Creek Village and Miller Ranch the Engineering Department does not support the reduction proposed. Given the valley's tendency toward larger vehicles (SUVs and Pick-ups) and the likelihood that the parking lot will be often snow covered compounds the issue of adequate parking. These factors may further reduce the number of available parking spaces, especially during winter months. If there is not adequate parking provided, unauthorized parking could block access for emergency vehicles. For these reasons, staff is not in support of a reduction in parking in this instance. The applicant has developed a parking management plan as part of the PUD guide in an attempt to regulate parking. 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 32 04/14/2015 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. 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 junctional 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. Staff has consulted with ERFPD and they do not object to the proposed grades. Staff believes the driveway, as currently designed, is sufficient to provide safe, adequate access within the PUD. Further, the applicant will be required to obtain an access permit from CDOT as memorialized via recommended staff condition number 1. DISCUSSION: Dominic Mauriello presented the request. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. The project was a rental piece with 70 units, 25% were restricted in accordance with the housing guidelines. There was a clubhouse facility intended to be a multi-use center. There was some commercial space between 1700 and 3500 square feet. The property was just over four (4) acres in size. He believed the parking could be controlled more easily as it was a rental property. The goal was to create a warm courtyard experience around the residential units. The property was zoned Residential Suburban Low Density(RSL) in 1974 and had not 33 04/14/2015 changed over the years. It was his opinion that the zoning had not kept up with current zoning changes. The development would include a green space,plaza, and play area for kids. The commercial space would provide local merchant services. There would be 11 one bedroom units; 46 two bedroom units; and 13 three bedroom units. Parking was the largest issue discussed by the Planning Commission. The garage spaces were spread throughout the complex and would require an additional fee for use. There would be 142 total parking spaces, 100 surface spaces and 42 enclosed spaces. There would be 11 commercial spaces, 25 guest spaces, 106 tenant spaces for an average of 1.9 spaces per unit. Parking onsite would require a permit. Commissioner Ryan asked if snow storage would take away any of the parking spaces. Mr. Mauriello stated that snow would be stored in green areas. Every unit would be designated a space. The site was located on the ECO transit route and active bus stop. The county was very conservative in terms of the amount of parking required. He provided some examples of parking for similar existing and approved projects. Carrie Schroeder spoke about the process of measuring traffic and levels of service (LOS). She showed a graph that illustrated historic US 6 volumes during the day. The evening peak hours generated the most traffic. She explained the intersection level of service. The Edward Spur Road was graded a "C" in the morning and evening hours. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR) required a level of service of"C" or better. A (LOS) A costs much more for infrastructure. She presented a graph that demonstrated background traffic and a graph demonstrating the current US Highway 6 traffic which was a rated a "C" and expected to decline to an"E" by 2035. The traffic study had been reviewed by CDOT and was approved. The development would not require any road widening. The county collected impact fees from every project for transportation impacts and improvements. Mr. Mauriello stated that the applicant would be required to pay in the range of $250,000 for road improvements. He highlighted the hazard mitigation. There were no rock fall hazards on the property. There was a possibility for debris flow. They modified the plan to direct the flow by grade into a channel. The grading plan was revised to address recommendations of the hydrologist. They believed the mitigation could occur on the property and they had the flexibility to make any necessary changes. High Country Engineering approved the plan. The Eagle River Water District provided a letter demonstrating an ability to provide water. The Fire Department had no objections to the project. Colorado Parks and Wildlife recommended certain landscaping practices. The Eagle River Watershed Council believed that the project was satisfactory. They had letters of support from the adjacent property owners. The applicant believed they adhered to the principals of the comprehensive plan in terms of encouraging residential in the West Edwards area. The project encouraged employee housing and the proposal was compatible with the area. Commissioner Ryan asked about the applicant's request for a variance on the size of the parking spaces and wondered about the types of vehicles that would fit in the spaces. Ms. Mauriello stated that that the standard parking space in the resort communities were roughly 9' x 19'. The standard parking spaces in this development was 9' x 18'. No more than 10% of their surface parking spaces would be 8' x 16'. They would also have some 8' x 19'. Truck and SUV parking would also be provided. Mr. Hanagan stated that there were many reasons for requests for variations. He spoke about the Eagle County Land Use Regulations parking requirements and indicated that applicant was requesting many variations. Some of the advantages of parking reductions encouraged alternate transit and reduced environment impacts. Although, reductions may risk emergency services and did not support commercial spaces. He focused on the standards for zone change, compatibility,public benefit, adequate infrastructure and PUD standards. The uses were allowed in Residential Zone Districts. Staff believed that the requested PUD and Zone Change demonstrated compatibility with the surrounding land uses. The proposed use was supported by adequate infrastructure. Ben Gerdes spoke about the access. Staff believed the driveway as currently designed was sufficient to provide safe and adequate access within the PUD. The proposal would contribute an estimated 1,184 trips to the roadway. The analysis indicated that four (4) lanes would be needed in the future but there were no plans or funding options for widening US Highway 6 at this time. Commissioner Ryan asked Mr. Gerdes if he was comfortable with the size of the parking spaces. Mr. Gerdes stated that he was comfortable with the proposed number of parking space sizes but they would have to work hard to control the parking. Commissioner McQueeney wondered about the property ownership restrictions. Mr. Treu stated that the property could not change ownership without going through a planning process review. Mr. Hanagan stated that the planning process would require the board's approval. He reviewed the standards for PUD. The applicant met the landscape standards. He spoke about the letter received from the 34 04/14/2015 Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife with regards to inhibiting wildlife migration but nothing had been formalized. The Colorado Geologic survey was still pending. The applicant had responded to two letters and answered all their concerns but had not received a final response. He reviewed the standards for Zone Change. There were a lot of overlapping standards with the PUD and Zone Change. He reviewed the board's options and conditions. Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the Watershed Council's recommendations. Mr. Hanagan stated that the Council recommended a system that would maintain storm water help with sedimentation.The applicant believed that they were meeting the standards for storm water management. Mr. Gerdes stated that he evaluated the proposal based on the land use regulations and did not look at the additional sedimentation. Mr. Mauriello stated that they had provided a detention sediment basin and met the county standards for this project. Mr. Hanagan reviewed the 1041 criteria. Commissioner Ryan asked about any onsite recycling or reductions of energy usage. Mr. Mauriello stated in terms of water and sewer impacts; they planned on meeting the recommendations made by the Water and Sanitation District. The recycling would be done similar to other programs throughout the county. The building materials would be efficient and environmentally friendly. Commissioner Ryan asked about the concerns expressed by the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS). She wondered if staff was satisfied with their response. Mr.Hanagan stated that staff relied on the experts and their response was important. Mr. Mauriello did not see any issues and believed their engineers were comfortable with addressing any issues. Tom Scott with High Country Engineering stated that his firm had been looking at the debris flow possibilities. The difficulty was providing the specifics of the final design. The field data was not available to provide all the information that the state had requested. The warmer weather would help them to complete the field investigation. They would be comfortable with a condition of approval. Mr. Hanagan stated that a condition was possible. The concern was if there were any changes to the design. Mr. Treu believed it was also a risk to the applicant. Mr. Mauriello stated that they were confident that this was a minor issue and would not affect the site planning. Mr. Scott believed that any minor adjustments could be made if portions of the systems needed to be changed. The site plan had enough flexibility. Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the ditch on site. Mr.Mauriello stated that the ditch was part of the system that would take on some of the water. Mr. Scott stated that the ditch was a seasonal irrigation ditch and there were some users.. In the event of a debris flow event it would reach capacity quickly. They've designed a larger channel for larger events. Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the water rights. Linn Brooks, Eagle River Water and Sanitation stated that the property had a well and it was not water right they were interested in obtaining. The applicant was requesting to pay cash in lieu of water rights. Mr.Mauriello stated that the well on site would be capped appropriately. Commissioner McQueeney stated that she was concerned with the concerns by the Eagle River Watershed Council. Jen Babcock stated that on a site of this size an extended detention basin was difficult. They had a large basin that would provide a good flow. Commissioner McQueeney wondered who would be renting the units. Ms. Mauriello believed that they could be people seeking affordable housing and seasonal employees. Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the management of the deed restricted properties. Jill Klosterman stated that Eagle County would hold the other side of the deed restriction. They tried not to put too much of a burden on the property owner. The county had the right to audit the books and review the information collected for qualifying people. She was more concerned with the rent levels. The rent would be set at 80% Area Median Income (AMI) which is about $1,400 for a two-bedroom. This project would target young professionals and couples working in the valley. Commissioner Ryan stated that there were many things she liked about the proposal but was concerned with the parking. She was comfortable with the dimensions but not comfortable with the number of spaces. 35 04/14/2015 Ms. Mauriello stated that the project was 12% over other complexes in the valley but might not be appropriate for families with kids. Chairman Chandler-Henry wondered about overflow parking. Ms. Mauriello believed the parking would need to be strictly regulated. Commissioner Ryan wondered if it would be possible to add additional parking. Ms. Mauriello believed they may be able to add six spaces but it would degrade the landscaping. He believed parking would require strong management it was a constant give and take. Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the other affordable housing projects parking situations. Ms.Klosterman stated that parking was a challenge. This complex might not appeal to everyone. Chairman Chandler-Henry opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Eva Wilson, Eagle County Engineering spoke about the current improvements to the Edwards area interchange. There were currently no plans to widen west US Highway 6. Ms. Mauriello believed the project would create a minimal amount of traffic and the impact fee equated nicely with their impact. Commissioner Ryan preferred adding six(6)additional parking spaces. Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the commercial parking. Mr.Mauriello stated that there were 10 spaces allocated. Commissioner McQueeney stated the she would like to close the loop with Colorado Geographical Survey (CGS)before making a final decision. Chairman Chandler-Henry agreed with closing the loop before making an approval. Mr.Treu stated suggested that applicant address any outstanding issues. Mr. Mauriello stated that they would work on fine tuning the issues but requested the earliest possible hearing date. Chairman Chandler-Henry moved to table file nos. 1041-5267, PDSP-5266, and ZC-5270 until April 28, 2015 Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned until April 21, 015. • f (KOS- Attest: i _ —.ratr44 Clerk to the Board * Chairman , at:o�Aa 36 04/14/2015