No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/12/16 PUBLIC HEARING April 12, 2016 Present: Jeanne McQueeney Chairman Jillian Ryan Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Brent McFall County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Beth Ayres-Oliver Assistant County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the,following items were presented to the Board of County • Commissioners for their consideration: Commissioner Chandler Henry introduced Ms. Schaefer,Mr. Marino and welcomed the Eagle Valley Elementary School visiting Third Grade class. Commissioner Updates Commissioner Chandler-Henry spoke about the Family Leadership Training Institute. The institute provides classes for adults and youth interested in learning civic skills needed to make a difference in the community. This was the fourth year during which they have offered these classes. She thanked Commissioner Ryan and everyone who participated. Commissioner Ryan welcomed the students from Eagle Valley Elementary School. She encouraged the young people in the audience to get involved in the community and hoped that someday they would find a place in local government. She spoke about the number of calls from constituents regarding the high cost of health care premiums. There was currently a bill that would study ways to fix these rates. This bill passed the house and was in the senate. She and a number of others would be testifying on Thursday in support of the study. 1. Resolution 2016-023 Designating the Week of April 10-16, 2016 as National Crime Victims' Rights Week Deena Ezzell, Sheriff's Office Undersheriff Mike McWilliams thanked the County Commissioners for supporting the resolution. The resolution was an attempt to make the community aware of the impact of crime. He spoke about the long term consequences of sexual violence and believed the resolution would help inform the community that it was never too late to get help. Across the country teal ribbons were worn as a symbol of domestic violence and sex assault awareness month. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE,STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.2016- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE WEEK OF APRIL 10—APRIL 16,2016 AS NATIONAL CRIME VICTIMS' RIGHTS WEEK WHEREAS,Americans are victims of more than 20 million crimes each year,and each crime touches many more family members, friends,neighbors and co-workers; and 1 04/12/2016 WHEREAS,crime can touch the lives of anyone regardless of age,national origin,race, creed,religion, gender, sexual orientation, immigration or economic status; and WHEREAS,victims' rights are a critical component of the promise of"justice for all",the foundation of our system of justice in America; and WHEREAS,victims of repeat victimization who fail to receive supportive services are at greater risk for long-term consequences of crime; and WHEREAS,the victim services community has worked for decades to create an environment for victims that is safe, supportive and effective; and WHEREAS, intervening early with services that support and empower victims provides a pathway to recovery from crime and abuse; and WHEREAS,honoring the rights of victims, including their right to be heard, and working to meet their needs rebuilds their trust in the criminal justice and social service systems; and WHEREAS,National Crime Victims' Rights Week is an opportune time to recommit to ensuring that ALL victims of crime—even those who are challenging to reach or serve—are treated with fairness,respect and dignity in the aftermath of crime; and WHEREAS,the Eagle County Sheriff's Office and the Board of County Commissioners are joining forces with other concerned citizens throughout Eagle County and America to raise awareness about victim's rights and express our appreciation for those crime victims who have turned personal tragedy into a motivating force to build a more just community. NOW,THEREFORE,be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: THAT,the Board hereby proclaims the week of April 10`h-April 16`h, 2016 as Crime Victim's Rights Week and reaffirms this County's commitment to respect and enforce victims' rights and address their needs throughout the year. THAT,the Board hereby fmds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado. MOVED,READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 12th day of April, 2016. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution designating the Week of April 10-16, 2016 as National Crime Victims' Rights Week. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Resolution 2016-024 Designating the Month of April as Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month Kendra Kleinschmidt,Human Services BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO RESOLUTION NO.2016- RESOLUTION DESIGNATING THE MONTH OF APRIL AS CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION AWARENESS MONTH 2 04/12/2016 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 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, 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; and WHEREAS, Eagle County Department of Human Services(DHS)works to further collaboration • • with local law enforcement agencies to agree upon a protocol regarding person(s) who become so intoxicated they are unable to care for their child(ren). DHS wants people who live in Eagle County and people who visit Eagle County to have a good time. Ifthey have too much of a good time it is vital for everyone to know what to expect from law enforcement entities and DHS to prevent child abuse and neglect; and WHEREAS, in 2015, our child and adult protection hotline received 471 referrals about potential child abuse or neglect. Of these referrals, 160 were investigated. In addition, the child protection team provided ongoing case management to 35 families to support them to make positive changes in their lives and create safer environments for their children; and 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 471 pinwheels at our offices in Eagle and El Jebel because they received 471 referrals about potential child abuse or neglect in 2015. NOW THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners hereby recognizes and supports the efforts of Eagle County Department of Human Services and its partners and calls 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.preventchildabuslorado.org. Ms.Kleinschmidt spoke about the changes within Human Services to make their vision a reality. Throughout the year her department encouraged people and organizations to help the community be a safer place for children. In 2015 the hotline received 471 referrals about potential child abuse or neglect and of those referrals they investigated 160 allegations and provided ongoing case management services to 35 families. Every April,they planted pinwheels as part of a nationwide public awareness campaign. Pinwheels for prevention represented the efforts to insure the healthy development of children. Chairman McQueeney asked if the number was up or down from last year. Ms.Kleinschmidt stated that the number was slightly down from last year. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the resolution designating the Month of April as Child Abuse Prevention Awareness Month. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3 04/12/2016 Consent Agenda 3. Grant Agreement between Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Public Safety,Division of Criminal Justice for Victims of Crime Act Funds Deena Ezzell, Sheriff's Office 4. Resolution 2016-025 Concerning a Taxpayer Generated Petition for Abatement and Refund of Taxes before the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Kevin Cassidy, Assessor's Office 5. Resolution 2016-026 Concerning Appointments to the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Chris Lubbers,ECO Transit 6. Resolution 2016-027 Adopting the Bylaws for the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Chris Lubbers, ECO Transit 7. Estoppel Certificate from Eagle County for the Energy Smart Residential Energy Efficiency Loan Fund Program Adam Palmer, Environmental Health 8. Agreement between Eagle County and Community Health Services, Inc. for Title X Family Planning Services in the Roaring Fork Valley Jennifer Ludwig,Public and Environmental Health 9. Resolution 2016-028 in Support of Eagle River Fire Protection District's General Obligation Bonds Jeanne McQueeney, Commissioner 10. Amended Final Plat to modify the building envelope and drainage and utility easement at McCoy Springs at Arrowhead,Lot 7(Eagle County File No. AFP-5963)Edwards,Tract A,Lots 4, 8 and 10(Eagle County File No.AFP-6021) Kris Valdez,Planning Karl Bauer,Fire Chief,Eagle River Fire Protection District spoke about the ballot measure and believed it was a vital issue to have the facilities and the infrastructure to provide the network of services needed each and every day. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for April 12, 2016, as presented. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Jeanne McQueeney opened and closed citizen input, as there was none. Business Items 12. Agreement between Eagle County and Early Childhood Partners,Inc. for Early Childhood Development Initiatives Melissa Moore, Human Services 4 04/12/2016 Chairman McQueeney abstained from the vote as she had a past relationship with Early Childhood Partners. She made it clear to the public that she did not have any input into the contract or influence her fellow commissioners. Commissioner Ryan moved to approve the agreement between Eagle County and Early Childhood Partners, Inc. for Early Childhood Development Initiatives. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Work Session 13. Board of Social Services Jone Bosworth,Human Services The Fields Subdivision Site Visit 554 Valley Road El Jebel, Colorado Planning File 14. SUS-5557 The Fields Subdivision El Jebel Community Ctr. Sean Hanagan,Planning 0020 Eagle County Dr. Eva Wilson,Engineering El Jebel, Colorado The Fields Development Group, LLC,Applicant Keith Ehlers,Representative Note: Tabled from March 15, 2016 Action: Applicant requests a review of a 110-unit subdivision in the El Jebel area Location: 554 Valley Road, El Jebel Area FILE NO./PROCESS: SUS-5557/Subdivision Sketch PROJECT NAME: The Fields Subdivision LOCATION: 554 Valley Road OWNER: The Fields Development Group, LLC APPLICANT: Same REPRESENTATIVE: Keith Ehlers STAFF PLANNER: Sean Hanagan STAFF ENGINEER: Eva Wilson RECOMMENDATION: Denial I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Request and Process: The Applicant requests review of a Subdivision Sketch Plan as well as a Zone Change for the Fields Subdivision, an 97-110 unit single family/duplex home development located on 19.39 acres in the El Jebel area. This parcel was created by the Arlian Ranch Subdivision in 1981. The Sketch Subdivision and accompanying Zone Change propose a 97-110 unit subdivision with a new zoning designation of Residential Multi Family (RMF). Current 5 04/12/2016 zoning on the parcel is Rural Residential (RR). Per the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines, the applicant will be providing 25% of the approved units as Affordable Housing. These 24-27 units will be held in deed restriction per the guidelines. At the time of Planning Commission hearing for this file, an additional condition had been attached to this file that required the applicant to obtain an updated CDOT Access Permit for Highway 82 and El Jebel Road as well as spearhead the complete realignment of that intersection to mitigate traffic impacts from the proposed development. The applicant no longer agrees to this condition and has proposed an alternative mitigation strategy. This newly proposed mitigation strategy has been determined to be inadequate to mitigate the traffic impacts caused by this proposed development. These changes to the proposal have resulted in staff changing their recommendation from"approval with significant conditions"to"denial". The remainder of this Executive Summary is organized as follows: 1. Process overview 2. Conformance to Zone Change and Sketch Subdivision 3. Requested Variations to Standards 4. Overview of Findings 5. Discussion Topics and Outstanding Issues 6. Impact and Tradeoffs 7. Report Organization and Recommendation 8. Concurrent File Review Process Overview This is a review of a Zone Change, Subdivision Sketch Plan. Final Plat for Subdivision is the final step in the process.No vesting or change to the Official Zoning Map will result from an approval of this Sketch Plan and Zone Change file. Section 5-230 (p. 5-26) of the ECLURs states: Zone Change "The purpose of[a Zone Change] 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." Section 5-280(p. 5-65)of the ECLURs states: Sketch Plan "The purpose of Sketch Plan review is for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed subdivision, and to consider whether there are any alternative concepts the applicant should explore. It is the time when determinations should be made as to whether the proposed subdivision substantially complies with these Land Use Regulations and is in substantial conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans, and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection, affordable housing, or infrastructure management, and is generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially impacted land, services, or infrastructure improvements. It is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and commercial space for development; the general locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; the general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via on-site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of Sketch Plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to receive final subdivision approval from the County. (am 11/08/05) (am 05/08/12)" 6 04/12/2016 Since this is a Zone Change and a Sketch Subdivision file, the application and staff report address the standards of both types of applications. Conformance to Zone Change Standards Staff believes this parcel is inappropriate for a zone change. Any increase in development density within the Highway 82 corridor will create traffic impacts that necessitate an updated CDOT Access Permit as well as mitigation of impacts to local county roads (Valley, JW and Valley East). The applicant's proposed mitigation has been determined to be inadequate therefore, staff is recommending denial on the basis of inadequate facilities. Conformance to Sketch Subdivision Standards The application as proposed will or can meet the standards for a Subdivision Sketch Plan and, as conditioned. These conditions require the applicant to continue to work with staff to modify the site design to better represent concepts outlined in Eagle County's Sustainable Communities Index, as well as demonstrate the concept of transitioning from higher density to the east to lower density to the west portion of the parcel. While the project Sustainable Community Index review include inclusion of additional diversity of housing types, renewable energy production, and clustering of uses to preserve more open space on the property. Requested Variations to Standards No variations from Improvement Standards are requested with this file. Overview of Findings Staff believes that, overall, the Zone Change, Sketch Subdivision does not meet the purposes and intents of the Zone Change process (Section 5-230, ECLURs) as well as the Sketch Subdivision process (Section 5-280, ECLURs) and that the proposal is in partial conformance with applicable standards. The following matrix summarizes applicable standards, a recommended finding, and a brief discussion regarding staff's findings. More in-depth discussion of how or why staff believes the Zone Change, Sketch Plan meets or does not meet applicable standards is provided in Section III—Staff Findings and Recommendation starting on page 7 of the report. Zone Change Standard Conformance Discussion Conformance with the Yes The proposed location and density is in keeping with Comprehensive Plan the recommendations of the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan. The proposal meets the FLUM as well. Compatible with Surrounding Yes The parcel is currently bordered to the North, East Uses and West by residential subdivisions and could be viewed as an"infill"parcel in what is a predominantly residential area of El Jebel. Public Benefit Mixed The proposal could provide multiple public benefits to the El Jebel community that include up to 27 units of affordable housing. Additionally,the project includes approximately 2000 feet of public trail connecting to river access points. In contrast,the proposed traffic mitigation has been determined to be inadequate and the impacts to the public will be increased as LOS drops in the intersections impacted by this proposed development. 7 04/12/2016 Change of Circumstances Yes The surrounding properties have been developed residential over the years at a higher density than the original zoning and the core of El Jebel has grown outward to meet these communities. Adequate Infrastructure No The Applicant has obtained letter from public service providers stating the water,wastewater and emergency services are adequate to serve the development. As proposed the traffic mitigation has been deemed inadequate and thus this standard is determined to not be found positive. • Sketch Subdivision Standard Conformance Discussion Conformance with the The proposed location and density is in keeping Comprehensive Plan Yes with the recommendations of the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan. The proposal meets the FLUM as well. The uses proposed within the Subdivision are those Consistent with Land Use designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a Regulations Yes special use or allowed as a limited review use in the ECLURs. The proposal does not currently meet regulations regarding traffic. Spatial Pattern is Efficient Yes Access to public services and utilities is available in this location The parcel is in close proximity to known sinkholes as identified by CGS and will require site specific Suitability for Development Mixed geotechnical evaluation prior to final platting of the subdivision. The parcel is currently bordered to the North, East Compatible with Surrounding and West by residential subdivisions and could be Uses Yes viewed as an"infill"parcel in what is a _ predominantly residential area of El Jebel. The Fields proposal is within the Mid Valley Metro District and has received an"Ability to Serve" letter. The site is in an existing residential neighborhood and the El Jebel Community Center with available emergency services. Roaring Fork Adequate Facilities No School District is currently considering locating a school within a 2 mile radius of the proposed site within the next 5-10 years. As proposed the traffic mitigation has been deemed inadequate and thus this standard is determined to not be found positive. Planning Commission Recommendation At their regularly scheduled meeting on December 17th 2015, The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission voted 4:1 in favor of recommending denial of the file.They expressed concerns with regard to: 1. Traffic impacts/mitigation for the Highway 82 corridor 8 04/12/2016 2. Density and increased clustering 3. Better preservation of agricultural heritage on the subject parcel through subdivision design 4. Timing/phasing of affordable housing units. Discussion Topics and Outstanding Issues Please refer to additional analysis regarding issues, required standards and conformance within Section III — Staff Findings and Recommendations, and within attached referral agency comment letters. Planning File Milestones • March 18, 2015,pre-application meeting o Advised applicant on the East Valley Rd/SH82 and Valley Rd/East Valley Rd traffic history/concerns o Applicant's consultant, SGM, is the same consultant the County used for the Valley Rd Realignment Project • • June 3,2015, Subdivision application Submittal-Proposal#1 o Aug 14,2015,Traffic Study submittal o Aug 18—Dec 10,2015, CDOT and Engineering provided comments • Dec 8,2015,Revised Submittal-New layout • Dec 17,2015,Planning Commission Hearing o Unanticipated presentation of proposal#2 • Jan 25,2016, CDOT and County Presentation of Proposal#2 o Requested traffic analysis data supporting Proposal#2 • Feb 26, 2016, Submittal of Project Update/Traffic Study for Proposal#3 o Mar 18, 2016, CDOT provided comments for traffic study/model o Apr 1, 2016, CDOT provided additional comments for traffic study/model • Apr 1,2016, Staff Report Due • Apr 12, 2016, County Commissioner Hearing Traffic Impacts and CDOT Access Permit- For proposal#1,Nov 23 2015, CDOT Access Manager,Dan Roussin,provided the following comments: 1. Placing a signal at JW Drive appears to meet the progression analysis of the Code or it doesn't make SH82 worse. 2. An amendment to the Access Control Plan will be needed to add a signal at JW Dr/SH82. An amendment to the Access Control Plan must be requested by Eagle County and the Town of Basalt. 3. A new Access Permit will be required for Highway 82 at both El Jebel and JW Dr. 4. Support the applicant's traffic study suggestion of signal coordination on Highway 82 to help overall progression of the highway. 5. Start implementing the preferred alternative developed by the 2014 Eagle County Study. For proposal #3, Apr 1 2016, CDOT Access Manager, Dan Roussin, provided the following comments to the applicant's traffic study/model: 1. Re-run the traffic analyses using the current signal timings for the future conditions for the following scenarios 2. Use the SimTraffic results to show the delay, LOS, and queuing for each movement and the overall intersection 3. Provide a drawing that shows that the northbound and southbound left-turn paths do not overlap 4. Check the traffic volumes between the intersections of SH-82&Valley Rd and Valley Road&East Valley Road to ensure that they"balance"in all conditions. 5. Use a different, conservative traffic distribution pattern for the Valley Rd intersection RFTA Concerns- 9 04/12/2016 In their initial evaluation of the file Jason White expressed concerns relating to the proposal: 1. RFTA is not in favor of a traffic signal at JW Dr as it will alter SH82 traffic flow. 2. RFTA is not in favor of adding bus stops to JW Dr and SH82. 3. RFTA requests participation in the improvements of El Jebel/Valley Road intersection as well as the upgrade to the El Jebel underpass. Town of Basalt Concerns- In their letter dated September 9,2015,Dylan Johns expressed the following concerns: 1. Site is outside of the town's UGB. 2. The USR Flum designation was inappropriate. 3. Need for updated Access Permit and traffic mitigation. 4. Affordable housing is recommended at 35% Pitkin County Concerns- In their letter dated September 9, 2015, the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners expressed their concerns having to do with the following: 1. Subdivision is outside the Urban Growth Boundary for the town of Basalt. 2. Impact on services (school,daycare,Police,RFTA facilities and fire protection) 3. Traffic generation. 4. An increase from 25%to 35% for Affordable Housing units. Colorado Geological Survey Concerns- In their letter dated September 8, 2015, CGS identified multiple sinkhole/Evaporite locations in close proximity to the proposed subdivision. Subsequently, CGS recommends site specific geotechnical evaluation of each building site. Basalt&Rural Fire Protection District- 1st Layout: Access: The applicant will need to comply with the access provisions of the adopted fire code of both Eagle County and the Fire District. The foundational aspects of access can be found in Sections 503-Fire Apparatus Access Roads and Appendix D—Fire Apparatus Access Roads. The road standards of the Eagle County Land Use Code also apply. • Road Width: All roads in the subdivision shall have an unobstructed width of not less than 20 feet, exclusive of shoulders..., (Section 503.2.1). Parking cannot obstruct this width. The applicant stipulates parking provisions for the residents but have not indicated provisions for guest parking. • Surface: All roads shall have an all-weather paved surface that is designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (Section 503.2.3) • Turning Radius: The required minimum turning radius for unobstructed 20 foot width roads shall be 30 feet. (Section 503.2.4) • Obstruction of fire apparatus access roads: Roads shall not be obstructed in any manner, including the parking of vehicles. The minimum widths and clearances established in Section 503.2.1, (see above) shall be maintained at all times. (Section 503.4) • Secondary access for One or Two Family Developments: Developments where the number of dwelling units exceeds 30 shall be provided with secondary access that meets the remoteness requirement stipulated in Appendix D, Section D104.3. If secondary access cannot be achieved then the exceptions could apply subject to approval. (Appendix D, Section D107 and 503.1.2). Water Supply for Firefighting: The applicant will need to comply with the water supply provisions of the adopted fire code of both Eagle County and the Fire District. The foundational aspects of access can be 10 04/12/2016 found in Sections 507-Fire Protection Water Supplies, Appendix B Fire Flow Requirements for Buildings and Appendix C-Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution. • The applicant states they will have a looped water system with hydrants tied into Mid- Valley Metropolitan District, which is appropriate and consistent with MVMD's charter that stipulates all properties being developed within 300 feet of a water line shall tie into the system. • The design of the system shall be completed by a qualified engineer meeting a requisite minimum fire flow of 1500 GPM plus domestic consumption at 20 psi residual. (Appendix B105.1) • The location, distribution and number of hydrants shall be in accordance to Appendix C- Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution subject to the approval of the Fire District. Separation of Buildings: • • Due to the density of the proposal and recent history of major fires that have occurred in this state and others in the last 4 years with significant housing loss, we insist that a minimum separation of 10 feet between each building is maintained. This encompasses the typical side-yard setback requirement of 5 feet from property line that zoning codes have specified for decades. It should be noted that the fire flows and durations noted above, (Appendix B), are related to the actual fire hazard assumed to be present. In residential developments, zoning codes have specified required separations between buildings and lot lines(i.e., "setbacks") for decades. When considering emergency response, setbacks serve a number of purposes. Primarily, they were developed to reduce fire spread amongst buildings, with the requirements stemming from the"Great Fires" of the late 1800s and early 1900s. The separations are necessitated not just for direct flame spread, but for fire spread based on radiant heat from the fire, embers and flying brands lofted by the fire and spread via continuity of combustibles between structures(e.g., decks, refuse,miscellaneous items, etc.). Reduced setbacks, or situations where no setbacks are provided, compound already difficult situations. As noted, the potential for fire spread increases significantly. While proposals for rating of building components (e.g., walls, roofs, etc.) are generally offered, the long-term effectiveness in residential structures is questionable. In general, homeowners cannot be relied upon to maintain fire rated construction, as has been historically noted with the one hour fire resistance rated walls between garages and the residences. Further, the addition of exterior structures (e.g., stairs, decks, patios, etc.) and exterior finishes (e.g., wood siding, decorative displays, etc.) will circumvent the fire rating by providing combustible surfaces that can then enter the structure through the roof, windows and other items. This is most dramatically seen in wildland fires,but often occurs in typical residential fires as well. Application of In House Automatic Fire Extinguishing Systems: Provided as advisory information the installation of automatic sprinkler systems may be considered in given circumstances such as: • In lieu of achieving secondary access the installation of sprinkler systems in all of the homes is an option, (Appendix D—Section D107-Exception 1). • Any building over 5000 square feet is required to have an automatic fire sprinkler system. The proposal indicates that the larger duplexes are under this stipulated square footage, as such this provision does not apply. 2nd Layout: • Must follow the sketch comments already written by the fire district. • The entryways off of West Valley Road must have 30 foot inside radius. • Concerned with insufficient visitors' parking. Parking cannot obstruct the requisite 20 foot width of the roadway,must be signed as such. 11 04/12/2016 Road&Bridge: • Applicant will maintain all roadways and traffic control devices within their development Engineering: For proposal# 1: • No variations to improvement standards have been requested • Based on local community needs, a 10' sidewalk/trail should be constructed along Valley Road to Valley Ct to provide safe pedestrian access to local amenities • At Preliminary Plan,provide detailed stormwater/drainage analysis/plan • At Preliminary Plan,provide driveway layouts to demonstrate compliance to county standards • Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of a roadway within the development • Internal traffic circulation Layout#1 is preferred for redundancy and traffic calming. Speeding will likely be a potential problem for circulation layout#2. • Dual Access/Emergency egress through an access easement in Layout #1 is preferred. In Layout #2,the two accesses are in close proximity and are offset from opposite side access,not ideal. • Road Impact Fees cannot be waived for offsite improvements required for development access For Proposal#3: • No variations to improvement standards have been requested • Based on local community needs, a 10' sidewalk/trail should be constructed along Valley Road to Valley Ct to provide safe pedestrian access to local amenities • At Preliminary Plan,provide detailed stormwater/drainage analysis/plan • Planning estimate to complete the design and construct the improvement — $4M - $4.5M Recommend sidewalks on both sides of a roadway within the Community • Internal traffic circulation Layout#1 is preferred for redundancy and traffic calming. Speeding will likely be a potential problem for circulation layout#2 • Dual Access/Emergency egress through an access easement in Layout #1 is preferred. In Layout #2,the two accesses are in close proximity and are offset from opposite side access,not ideal • Road & Bridge recommends all roadways and traffic control devices be maintained by the developer or Homeowner Association Traffic History: Traffic at the Valley Rd/SH82 area has been a limiting factor for development for many years with the Triangle Parcel(formerly Fitzsimmons)to Roaring Fork Transit Authority(RFTA)Park and Ride and to the most recent Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District's(CMPRD)PUD amendment. CDOT Access Permit Requirements • 43-2-147(1), C.R.S., authorizes CDOT to regulate vehicular access to or from any public highway • Permit triggers o 20%increase in traffic from existing Access Permit o Change in Land Use from existing Access Permit o Identified Safety Problems • Sources, Data and Information Requirements o Traffic volume estimates shall be based upon total buildout and twenty year projection Triangle Parcel-Crown Mountain Plaza PUD: On June 2009,the BoCC denied the PUD based on several standards that included inadequate"Off-street parking/loading","Adequate Facilities"and"Improvements." RFTA Park and Ride: 12 04/12/2016 On July 2012,the Planning Commission approved RFTA's"Location and Extent"application to construct a 125 space Park&Ride. Based on traffic generation,to comply with CDOT's Access Permit requirements,RFTA reduced their parking spaces to—84. Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District(CMPRD)PUD amendment: In Jan 2011, applied for a PUD amendment to construct a Recreation Center and add other amenities. Traffic impacts were a major issue. On June 2012, County Commissioners approved the CMPRD PUD Amendment with conditions after commissioning a traffic study to demonstrate traffic mitigation is viable.The study showed the below mitigation will satisfy CDOT's access requirements. Key conditions included the approval of the CMPRD ballot initiative to fund the Recreation Center, $50K contribution towards the design effort and construction cost for leg A. • RFTA contributed$40K towards the design effort and was open to partnering with the construction effort • to gain additional parking spaces. Eagle County began the design effort in 2012 with contributions from three agencies (Eagle County-$84K, CMPRD $50K,RFTA-$40K). The design followed CDOT's Context Sensitive Solutions process where a Project Leadership Team(PLT)led the design. The PLT consisted of Eagle County,Pitkin County, Town of Basalt, CDOT, CMPRD,RFTA,BRFPD,Business Owners, local community leaders and Sopris Village HOA. The preferred alternative below was selected. In the fall of 2013,the CMPRD ballot initiative to fund the Recreation Center was not approved and the design was halted. In 2014, CMPRD requested to implement uses that were approved in the PUD amendment up to the allowable limit of the CDOT access permit. CDOT approved the additional CMPRD uses thus resulting in the requirement that any additional traffic generated along Valley Rd will require a new CDOT Access Permit and traffic mitigation. Valley Road Realignment Project: • The preferred alternative was estimated at$3.7M at 30%designed in 2013 13 04/12/2016 Traffic Studies Summary - El Jebel Area 20-year Growth Date factor Al/i Traffic Effort Spottsaw: Conslatent Compered SHB2 Generated Com1yl an Land Exchange between the Secretary of 1 Mount Sopris Tree Nursery US House BF l 1199 1993 Agriculture end Eagle and Pitkin Counties Additional park traffic did not trigger 2.Sopris Community Park Eagle County BHA 1992-1997 N/A 883 kaprovernients Proposed mitigation constructed(current 3 Eagle County Bldg/Park Eage County LSC 8/1/2000 1.6 2580 conditions) Proposed mitigation was not accepted by 4 CMPRD Full development CMPRD LSC 10/1/2011 136 3675 Pin and the County Development triggered improvements. RFTA reduced parking spaces from 125 to 84. No 5 El Jebel Park&Ride RFTA HNTB 10/1/2011 13 650 mitigatin required Eagle County Carrimissioners commissioned independent traffic study to evaluate 6 Val ley/E Valley Rd Eagle County Stdfus 2/1/2012 136 feasibility lent effort to reakgn Va ley Rd. Effort was Eagle County,RFTA, parted when CMPRD Ballot initiative failed to 7 Valley Road Realignment CMPRD 9GM 8/1/2014 136 pass CMPRD requested additional approved uses, phase 4,to be meted under existing COOT Acess Permit for E Valley Rd.CDOT approved 8 CMPRD Phase t CMPRD LSC 7/11.2014 469 as the 2O%max for the current access permit. 9 Willits Town Center IND Ventures FHU 10/1/2015 1.36 13,320 Approved by the Town of Basalt Jan 2016 Proposed t to install a signal on 5H82 at Valley 10 The Fields Subdivision 81 Three Sail Enterprise SODA 8/1312015 1381134 787 Rd/PAr Or Intersection Proposed to relocate Valley/E Valley Rd intersection away from SHS2 to increase queue storage_ Mitigation did not meet COOT 11 The Fields Subdivision i%2 Three Sail Enterprise SO M 1/25/2016 1.38/1.34 787 20 year horizon Proposed the same mitigation,to relocate Valteyy/E.Valley Rd intersection away from 51182 to increase queue storage. Mitigation 12 The Fields Subdivision 03 Three Sail Enterprise SGM , 2/25/2016 1.38/134 767 now meets COOT 20 year horizon ADT=Average Daily Traffic(ADT)Trips RFTA=Roaring Fork Transportatin Authority CMPRD=Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District Traffic Comments: Traffic is a limiting factor for all potential development along Valley Road. The applicant was advised at their March 18,2015 pre-application meeting of the traffic history and concerns in the area and that a traffic study will be needed for feasibility review. The Fields Proposals - Summary: 1. Proposal#1 Aug 2015 Study—Install signal at Valley Rd Intersection a. Proposed routing all development traffic west to Valley Rd intersection b. Impacts to East Valley Rd triggers a CDOT access permit 2. Proposal#2 Dec 17, 2015—Interim mitigation at East Valley Rd a. Unanticipated presentation at the Planning Commission Hearing b. Mitigation to last 15 years 3. Proposal#2 Jan 25,2016—Proposed interim mitigation a. Mitigation to last 15 years b. No traffic analysis data provided 4. Proposal#3 Feb 26, 2016 -Proposed same mitigation as Jan 25, 2016 a. Mitigation meets CDOT 20 Year projection standard 14 04/12/2016 Applicant's Proposed Mitigation#1: 1. Coordinate traffic signals throughout the SH82 corridor 2. Install a signal at the Valley Rd intersection Proposal#1 Comments: • At preliminary plan, applicant needs to provide an updated traffic study to accurately reflect development density and layout#2 where traffic is not restricted to a 1/4 movement Applicant's Proposed Mitigation: Applicant is proposed: o Pros: • Fiber connected coordinated signals would improve efficiency on SH82 • Signal at JW Dr/SH82 Intersection will facilitate access onto SH82 o Cons: • Proposed mitigation will not mitigate development traffic that will access El Jebel/SH82 intersection and will trigger a new CDOT Access Permit • • Signal at JW Dr/SH82 may promote pedestrian crossings at the Intersection while there is a safer underpass crossing located at the El Jebel Rd/SH82 intersection • Mitigation directs traffic onto SH82 to access local amenities • Mitigation will require an amendment to the SH82 Access Control Plan. Application for an amendment requires Eagle County and Town of Basalt's concurrence. At this point,the Town of Basalt does not support the development. • Recommended Condition of Approval: "The applicant shall obtain all necessary Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)Access Permits required for the intersection of East Valley Rd/Valley Rd/SH82 and shall be responsible for all traffic mitigation associated with such Access Permits, including,but not limited to, completion of the design and construction of the SH82 realignment project developed by the 2014 Eagle County Study, shown below at 30%design,prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits for The Fields subdivision. The applicant shall demonstrate a viable plan for financing the design and construction of the SH82 realignment project to include designation of all stakeholders prior to the submission of the Preliminary Plan for Subdivision." Applicant's Proposed Mitigation#3: For Proposal#3 Comments • Does not support applicant's request to exchange the $900K needed to construct proposal #3 for Road Impact Fees. Road Impact Fees cannot be waived for improvements required for access. No cost estimate was provided to support the$900K proposal • Proposed Phased project will not reduce $900K from the overall project. Phased projects traditionally cost more in total • Support CDOT Traffic Study/model comments o Can not sufficiently comment on traffic impacts to Valley/East Valley Intersection • Traffic Study 98 Units in traffic study analysis o Proposal: 110/112 multifamily units>14% • Unaccounted additional approved traffic o June 2014 CMPRD additional approved 467 trips o Jan 2016 Willits PUD amendment • Traffic Distribution Assumption o Not reasonable to travel-1.5 miles out of direction o Site traffic more likely to travel west to Valley Rd Intersection o Queuing at Valley Rd Intersection will likely drive traffic onto the Frontage Rd, a rural residential road,to the signalized Catherine Store intersection • Current Valley Rd Intersection o Likely LOSE 15 04/12/2016 • Increased traffic/accidents may cause CDOT to limit Valley Rd Intersection to a right-in right-out only access, driving more traffic onto the Frontage Rd. Impacts and Tradeoffs Staff believes the potential for both positive and negative impacts from the proposal(from any new development)is real and should be considered as part of the evaluation of standards, goals, policies and strategies. However, staff suggests that potential impacts should be measured in context to 1) impacts from the existing agricultural uses on the property, and 2)potential benefits that could be derived from the project at full or even partial build-out. 1. Impacts to local traffic(see previous traffic discussion). 2. Impacts to local service providers(police, fire, day care). Such impacts could be weighed against: 1. The potential benefits resulting from the construction of up to 27 deed restricted, resident occupied housing units within the development. 2. The proposal's mixed conformance with a preponderance of goals, policies and implementing strategies identified in several policy documents such as the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the Mid Valley Area Community Plan, notably those goals and policies (inclusive of Future Land Use Map designations and direction) related to location of compact, transit oriented development within existing community centers like El Jebel. Report Organization and Recommendation The following sections of this report provide a brief background and chronology of historic and current land uses on the property, an in-depth review and analysis of applicable standards inclusive of recommended findings and areas of non-conformance needing mitigation, a summary of referral agency responses, and pertinent site data. III. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Staff is recommending denial of this application, based on a finding that the proposed Zone Change, Sketch Plan application, does not meet all applicable standards for a Zone Change, Sketch Plan. Along with a description of how and why staff believes certain standards required for Zone Change, Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan approval are or are not met; the analysis provided below summarizes outstanding issues and areas of non-conformance identified by staff while reviewing the proposal in cooperation with referral partners in the region. Overall, staff finds that while some standards are met, a positive finding cannot be made based on the inadequate nature of the proposed traffic mitigation for this development. Rezoning As stated in the ECLURs, "The purpose of[a Zone Change] 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." STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Staff Response: Full Conformance 16 04/12/2016 The project was reviewed against the 2013 Mid Valley Community Plan. The project addresses a preponderance of master plan goals, policies, objectives and implementing strategies, while adhering to Future Land Use Map designations and prescribed uses. Mid Valley Area Community Plan(2013) The proposed Fields Subdivision consists of 97-110 single-family/Duplex residential units and satisfies the density policies of the Mid Valley Area Community Plan. Specifically, on a gross density basis, the 110 single- family/duplex residential units of the proposed subdivision are within the range of 3-7 units/acre identified in the FLUM designation of Urban/Suburban Residential (USR). 110 units represent a 5.6 unit per acre gross density while 97 units represents a 5.0 units per acre density. This represents a total of 27 units of affordable housing within the development helping to satisfy Community Plan goals relating to affordable housing. In addition to satisfying the FLUM and housing goals, the subdivision satisfies plan goals pertaining to providing opportunities for growth near Community Centers along Highway 82. • STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses Staff Response: Full Conformance The proposed single-family land use of the Fields is compatible with the single-family and duplex land uses of the surrounding parcels in the immediate area. A density of 5.9 units/acre for the proposed subdivision is on par with the average density of the surrounding three communities. STANDARD: Public Benefit Staff Response: Conformance as conditioned If conditions are met,the proposal will provide multiple public benefits to the El Jebel community that include up to 27 units of affordable housing as well as approximately 2000 feet of public trail connecting to river access points. STANDARD: Change of Circumstances Staff Response: Full Conformance As stated earlier, the surrounding properties have been developed over the years at a higher density than the Rural Residential Zone District allows for this parcel. RSM zoning to the east allows for minimum lot sizes of 8000 square feet while The Blue Lake PUD has lot sizes ranging from 8000-10,000 square feet. In addition, El Jebel's core has grow outward over time and is now a core area supporting commercial,mixed use and transit uses. STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure Staff Response: Non Conformance Although the Applicant has obtained letter from public service providers stating the water,wastewater and emergency services are adequate to serve the development, the proposed the traffic mitigation has been deemed inadequate and thus this standard is determined to not be found positive. Subdivision Sketch Plan Sketch Plan. The purpose of Sketch Plan review is for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed subdivision, and to consider whether there are any alternative concepts the applicant should explore. It is the time when determinations should be made as to whether the proposed subdivision substantially complies with these Land Use Regulations and is in substantial conformance 17 04/12/2016 with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans, and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection, affordable housing, or infrastructure management, and is generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land and other substantially impacted land, services, or infrastructure improvements. It is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and commercial space for development; the general locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; the general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via on-site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of Sketch Plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to receive final subdivision approval from the County. (am 11/08/05)(am 05/08/12) STANDARD: Conformance with Comprehensive Plan Staff Response: Full Conformance See prior Comprehensive plan discussion STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations: Staff Response: Mixed Conformance The uses proposed within the subdivision are those designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited review use in the ECLURs. This application proposes a 97-110 home subdivision that includes some of the uses listed within Tables 3-300, and 3-310 of the ECLURs. Accessory Dwelling Units are not an allowed use in the proposed zone district. In contrast, the proposed traffic mitigation has been determined to be inadequate and therefore this standard is determined to be mixed in its conformance. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient: Staff Response: Conformance The proposed location of the subdivision does not necessitate inefficiencies in the delivery of utilities and roads and does not result in"Leapfrog Development"patterns. STANDARD: Suitability for Development: Staff Response: Mixed Conformance Although the parcel's topography is flat to gently sloped and no man made hazards exist on the parcel, Colorado Geological Survey identified multiple sinkhole/Evaporite locations in close proximity to the proposed subdivision. Subsequently, CGS recommends site specific geotechnical evaluation of each building site. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses Staff Response: Full Conformance The parcel is currently bordered to the North, East and West by residential subdivisions and could be viewed as an "infill"parcel in what is a predominantly residential area of El Jebel. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities: Staff Response: Non Conformance The Fields proposal is within the Mid Valley Metro District and has received an"Ability to Serve"letter. The site is in an existing residential neighborhood and the El Jebel Community Center with available emergency services. Roaring Fork School District is currently considering locating a school within a 2 mile radius of the proposed site within the next 5-10 years. 18 04/12/2016 Recommendation: Denial Based upon a thorough analysis of the Rezoning and Sketch Plan by County staff and key external agencies, and taking into consideration the project's lack of overall conformance with significant applicable standards, staff is recommending Denial of the request. Specifically, staff believes that although the proposal addresses a portion of applicable master plan goals, policies and strategies, staff believes the proposal does not meet all required standards and findings necessary for the approval of the Rezoning and Sketch Plan. In the event the Board of County Commissioners chooses to approve the file, staff recommends the following conditions crafted specifically to address outstanding issues, and suggested modifications to the plans in order to achieve a higher level of conformance with regard to certain standards. • • IV. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Applicant shall meet the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines and provide those units within the development. 3. Applicant shall continue to work with staff to incorporate a diversity of housing types, clustering of uses,and a transition to lower density rural character properties to the west. 4. Site specific Geotechnical assessment must be completed for each building site. 5. All street improvements shall be constructed to County Standards and transferred to the County subject to a warranty period and acceptance. The applicant or its assignees are responsible for complete maintenance / improvements of all streets to include but not limited to signage and pavement markings. 6. Applicant shall construct a 10' sidewalk/trail along Valley Road to Valley Ct to provide safe pedestrian access to local amenities. V. SITE DATA: Future Land Use Map Designation The parcel is located in an area designated in the Future Land Use Map as Urban/Suburban Residential(USR). The USR designation suggests an overall density of 3-7 units per acre. Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning: North: Highway 82 ROW South: Open Space PUD Crown Mountain Park East: Residential RR West: Residential RSM Residential Existing Zoning Rural Residential(2 acre) Proposed Zoning., Residential Multi Family(6000 square feet) The existing improvements of the property consist of a single-family residence and other Current Development: miscellaneous agricultural improvements (e.g., Barn, shed, fence, etc.). There is a well and septic system. 19 04/12/2016 Site Conditions: The current development on the parcel consists of a single family structure with multiple accessory agricultural structures. Total Land Area: Acres: 19.39 Square feet: 844,628.00 Total Open Space Acres: 4.45 Percentage: 23% Usable Open Space: Acres: Percentage: Water: Public: Mid-Valley Metro Private: N/A District Mid-Valley Metro Sewer: Public: Private: N/A District Access: Valley Road VI. COMMISSIONER OPTIONS: 1. Approve [File No. SUS-5557] 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. SUS-5557] 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. SUS-5557] if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. Suggestion Motions: PROPOSED MOTION: TO DENY: I hereby move to deny File No. SUS-5557, because the application does not meet the standards for approval of a zone district amendment. The proposed zone change will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare; the proposed zone change is not attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; the proposed zone change does not address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred in the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community, and the proposed zone change is not in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. PROPOSED MOTION: TO APPROVE: I hereby move to approve File No. SUS-5557, incorporating staffs findings and staff's conditions,because the application, as conditioned, meets all of the standards for approval of a zone district amendment. The proposed zone change will not adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare; the proposed zone change is attuned with the immediate adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties; the proposed zone change addresses or responds to a beneficial material change that has occurred in the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community, and the proposed zone change is in compliance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. DISCUSSION: Ms. Ayres-Oliver presented an overview and stated that the board would be reviewing the standards. She summarized the standards and spoke about the zoning consideration. She asked that everyone respect the opinions of others. Chairman McQueeney stated that staff would present their presentation first then the applicant and then the public would have an opportunity to speak. 20 04/12/2016 Mr. Hanagan presented the request. The applicant was requesting a zone amendment and subdivision Sketch Plan for 97-110 single family and duplex residential units. The proposal included 24 to27 units of affordable housing per Eagle County Housing Guidelines. Keith Ehlers presented the applicants request. He spoke about the purpose of the Preliminary Plan and how their proposal fit in the El Jebel Community. They were guided by the Mid Valley Area Community Plan. They were proposing a mixed opportunity residential development and 23%open space. They wished to promote diverse housing type opportunities and attainable housing prices. He highlighted their vision and approach to the Mid Valley Area Community Plan (MVACP) and Highway 82 Corridor Character Area. The future land use map identified the site as Urban/Suburban Residential (USR). The proposed residential lots covered 11.58 Ac., open space covered 4.45 ac., and 3.36 ac. were road right of way. He provided examples of other developments in Western Colorado that provided single family and duplex neighborhood integration. He spoke about the compatibility and the diversity. He believed that they had an efficient design and appropriate allocation of space. The current zoning was rural residential (RR) that limited development to single family dwelling units and two (2) acre minimum lot size. The applicant was proposing residential multi-family (RMF) zoning allowing 6,000 sf minimum lot size, highly diverse housing types, and affordable housing. He spoke about some of the considerations for traffic mitigation. The preliminary plan stage was when the applicant would provide detailed information and mitigation proposals to be evaluated by the county. Their intent was to remove or re-route traffic away from the El Jebel intersection. Their traffic mitigation plan proposed increasing the stacking distances and they would be willing to pay $900,000.00 upfront. The proposal met the Engineering Traffic Standards accepted by the State of Colorado. The proposal did not ask for a reduction of fees or other money from the county. The proposal was fair and consistent with how community integration considerations had been made for others. The applicant's expense for this solution far exceeded its impact on the intersection as full development. If an approval was not granted the greater El Jebel Community Center could experience public detriment and community stagnation in their opinion. As the process had evolved they had a responded to comments. The applicant hoped to get some feedback from the board that would allow them to move forward. Eva Wilson spoke about the area of impact for the subdivision existing conditions and reviewed the three proposals. She explained what triggered a Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) permit. She reviewed the history of development and proposals that had affected traffic impacts over the years. The Valley Road re- alignment effort was a partnership between Eagle County, Crown Mountain and Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA). In the fall of 2013, the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District ballot initiative did not pass and design was halted. The preferred alternative was estimated at $3.7 million dollars in 2013. She reviewed the traffic efforts for the area and who conducted the studies summary as presented in the staff report. She reviewed the applicant's proposal to relocate Valley Road and East Valley Road intersection away from Highway 82 to increase queue storage. Mitigation now met the CDOT 20 year projection. At preliminary plan,the applicant needed to provide an updated traffic study to accurately reflect development density. CDOT comments to proposal #3 were to re-run the traffic analyses using the current signal timings for the future conditions. Based on local community needs,she recommended that a 10' sidewalk/trail should be constructed along Valley Road. to Valley Court. at Primary Plan. The applicant should provide detailed storm water/drainage analysis/plan. Staff did not support the applicant's request to exchange the $900,000.00 needed to construct proposal #3 for road impact fees. Staff supported the CDOT traffic study/model comments. She explained the impacts to the Valley Road. Intersection. The applicant stated that their proposed mitigation would be a public benefit to Crown Mountain and RFTA but their study addressed their traffic and did not address additional traffic. Commissioner Ryan asked about the referral letter from CDOT that concluded that the county would need to address the El Jebel intersection before allowing additional traffic use. She wondered if his statements recommended that the county not allow any more traffic on the road or approve any more files. Ms. Wilson stated that currently CDOT did not have an acceptable traffic study to comment on the current mitigation. Commissioner Ryan wondered about the comment made by staff that the traffic problem should not be put on the back of one developer. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the need for a new traffic study. Ms. Wilson stated that a new study would be required. CDOT believed that the realignment needed to be completed before additional development was added. Commissioner Ryan asked about the need for signal coordination and fiber line. She wondered why CDOT wouldn't make these improvements. Ms. Wilson stated that it had to do with funding on CDOT's part. 21 04/12/2016 Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the difference between the road impact fees and fixing the intersection. Ms. Wilson stated that the Road Impact Fees program collected funds and the money needed to stay within the collected area but were not site specific. The Road Impact Committee prioritized the projects. Mr. Hanagan summarized the staff findings and reviewed the standards. The public benefit was mixed. Traffic impacts would be significant. As proposed,the traffic mitigation had been deemed inadequate and thus this standard was determined to not be found positive. The subdivision sketch standards conformance with Master Plan was in keeping with density range and Future Land Use Map. All the proposed uses were allowed by special use or limited review. The proposal did not meet traffic level of service. The development was in close proximity to known sinkholes. Ms. Ayres-Oliver reminded the board that what was in front of them was the Sketch Plan subdivision. Chairman McQueeney opened public comment. Wayne Ewing, adjacent property owner spoke. He questioned the intent of the developer. He questioned the promises. He suggested that the board deny the application. He believed that SGM Engineering had a direct conflict and changed their traffic estimation from 15 years to 20 years. Jeff White,resident of Valley Road expressed concern for the traffic and the proposed density. He believed the proposal would greatly increase traffic. The traffic study didn't make sense. There were a lot of cyclists that used the road. He also had three young girls that rode bikes near the road. He was nervous about all the development being proposed in the area. He hoped the board would focus on the Tree Farm and Willits employee housing. He believed there should be a moratorium for this part of the valley. Flynn Stewart, Basalt resident spoke. He wondered about the future of affordable housing. He believed there were young professionals seeking affordable housing. He would like to see a focus to get developments back into the Basalt/El Jebel area. William Burrow spoke. He was a new homeowner in the area and this development directly affected his view. He understood the housing issue but as a resident of Valley Road. he was concerned about the traffic. There were pedestrians and cyclist on the road and no streamline sidewalks. He wondered who would maintain the proposed roads and trails. He was a proponent of affordable housing and supported something being developed on the property but did not want to see the property being over development. Brooks Brewer, builder from New Castle spoke. He drove a lot every day and looked for affordable housing that would allow him to spend more time with his family. He believed there was land that could be developed and hoped that the plan could be made to work. Mike Luciano spoke. He was a longtime resident and did a lot of development. He believed that people wanted to live in the area and housing was needed. He encouraged the commissioners to work with CDOT to fix the traffic issue. The burden should not land on one developer. He supported the proposal. Edward Sullivan, homeowner in the Valley View Subdivision spoke. He expressed concern for Valley Road and all the proposed development in the area around the road. He was very concerned with the lack of sidewalks, number of bikers and pedestrian traffic. Currently the road was inadequate. Traffic speeds of 40 miles per hour were not uncommon. He asked that the board not approve 100 more homes be developed on that section of Valley Road. Dana High spoke. She lived in Summit Vista Subdivision for 25 years. She spoke about the steady stream of traffic on Valley Road. She moved from Boulder to live in open space where there was wildlife and trails. She asked the board to deny the proposal and consider the residents. Tom O'keefe, long time Valley Road resident spoke. He believed that Valley Road was never intended to handle 700 car trips per day. Many residents rode bikes and walked their dogs on the road. The Planning Commission denied the project and he hoped the board would do the same. Molly Potts spoke. She lived on Valley Road. She moved to the area for the rural community lifestyle. The traffic impact to Valley Road was a concern. There were no sidewalks. Affordable housing was an issue that needed to be addressed but this was not the right development. Brett Leable spoke. He lived between Glenwood Springs and Carbondale and commuted daily to work as a builder. He believed CDOT was holding up development. He believed that the density and other issues could be addressed. He was a builder that liked to build real houses for real people.He believed the proposal was reasonable and believed the applicant should be permitted to move forward. 22 04/12/2016 Melanie Crandall spoke. She lived on the west side of the proposed property. She understood that there would be development on the site but 100 homes was too much. As an emergency room nurse she's run out to the intersection to assist accident victims. The schools and the grocery stores in the area were maxed out. She believed that this property had a lot of water rights and wondered if that had been considered. Mark Myers, adjacent property owner spoke. He had just learned that the proposal would obstruct his views. He supported Valley Road improvements. He believed there were too many units being proposed for the property. He believed CDOT had some serious work to do in the area. Pam Wood Spoke. When she bought her home 16 years ago and understood the property would be developed eventually but didn't expect this type of density. Her home was nearest to the subject property. As president of the Summit Vista Homeowner's Association, she believed the walking path mentioned by the applicant was private property. It was built on her subdivision property. She asked that the board deny the proposal. Robert Taylor, adjacent property owner and resident since 1984 spoke. He believed the intersections needed improvement and Valley Road was never intended to support this amount of traffic. He supported development but did not support this proposal. He believed that Valley Road needed to be addressed first. Jody Wilson, resident of Valley Road and Easy Street spoke. She did not support the proposed density. She didn't believe Valley Road could support any additional traffic. Vanessa Kirianoff spoke. She had lived in the valley for 10 years full time. She appreciated the open space that the valley had to offer but also understood the need. She supported the need for housing. She supported the proposal. Bruce Wood spoke. He believed the Valley Road issues needed to be addressed. The proposed density was not acceptable. He didn't realize that when the RFTA Park and Ride moved to its new location meant multiple bus trips a day on Valley Road. When he bought his home he considered the location and the neighboring properties. His home was built near the property line and to have a row of duplexes near his living room was not something he looked forward to. He did not support a zoning the property. Nathan Dotter spoke. He'd been a part of the community since 2001. He rented in Missouri Heights and hoped to own a home someday. He hoped that there would be a compromise. Chairman McQueeney closed public input. Eva Wilson relayed Fire Chief Bill Harding's comments. He supported the Valley Rd.re-alignment but did not support a band-aide for the intersection. Commissioner Ryan asked about the proposal #3. She asked Ms. Wilson if the proposal designed by the applicant's engineer matched the preferred alternative. Ms. Wilson stated that it appeared to be an overlay on top of the preferred alternative. This was the preliminary stage and it was hard to say it was a good fit. There was not engineering design at this point. There was not a traffic study accepted by CDOT. Chairman McQueeney asked the applicant if they wanted to take the time to develop another mitigation plan that would satisfy CDOT's concerns. Mr. Ehlers stated that they were not opposed to answering these questions but wanted to allow their engineer to speak to the points brought up by staff. CDOT had intended to attend the meeting but were called by county staff and encouraged not to attend. Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated the board could hear from the applicant's Engineer on the proposal and the applicant's standpoints. Chairman McQueeney believed it was important to hear from CDOT. Mr. Ehlers stated that the information had been provided. The assumptions were sent to CDOT and Eagle County. They responded to comments within 24 hours. He hoet some other feedback and direction on the planning side as they were being forced to spend more mone T,, x, Ms. Wilson reviewed the planning file milestones. 1 =' 0. traffic volumes did not balance. CDOT had concerns with their traffic distribution. This was not a sippljpy.±IC Mr. Ehlers stated that they had identified that this wasiet alAtaj, w and they had addressed these issues. Commissioner Chandler-Henry was not comfortable '. verbal presentation at this hearing. She preferred seeing documentation and having time to review it. Mr. Ehlers requested feedback from the board on the overall plan. Mr.Hanagan stated that there had been movement by the applicant in the direction that staff was seeking. 23 04/12/2016 Chairman McQueeney believed that there were questions that needed to be answered further down the line than Sketch Plan. She believed that CDOT needed to provide evidence to determine if there was or was not a fatal flaw in the traffic mitigation. Commissioner Ryan stated that she was looking for a balance. She believed the proposal seemed reasonable. She asked staff about the standard related to adequate facilities and wondered about schools, adequate law enforcement, and daycare for an added subdivision. Mr. Hanagan stated that public benefits needed to be directly proportional. The School District did not deem this as creating the need for additional school. The Sheriff's Office had not commented in terms of impacts and the Town of Basalt made comments regarding deputy time. There would be some fees in lieu. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that she wanted to see traffic impacts on Highway 82, Valley Road and wanted the applicant to explain the build out process. She wished to talk more about clustering, transit connections and affordable housing. Chairman McQueeney requested more information about the current proposal, the layout and the proposed zone change and Sketch Plan. . Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated the application before the board was for subdivision from sketch. The zone change standards were somewhat tied together but the board would not be voting on the zone change at this time. Mr. Elders stated that they could not conform to the Master Plan without a zone change. Mr. Hanagan stated that staff had agreed that that was an appropriate strategy to evaluate the zone change standards. Ms. Ayres-Oliver state that they were tied together but this was just the Sketch Plan stage. She explained that the HOA and buildout type questions were not standards of approval. The questions with regards to phasing and amenities could be discussed at the preliminary plan level. Commissioner Ryan wished to talk more about the sidewalks, trails and their locations. She also wanted to talk about the road impact fees and the proposed$900,000. Mr. Ehlers stated that they were simply asking to pay this fee up front, it was not a credit. He believed they were only adding 6%to the existing traffic. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no. SUS-555, The Fields to a date to be re- noticed. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business v !, 'fi : cue +,the meeting was adjourned until April 19, 2016. * Attest: 1104--It.- . SI 1,v•()J.—+l °Long► ° vq. h i 0( Clerk to the Board man Lt • I 24 04/12/2016