No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/01/16 PUBLIC HEARING December 1, 2016 Present: Jeanne McQueeney Chairman Jillian Ryan Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Brent McFall County Manager Beth Ayres-Oliver Deputy County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: 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; Adam Palmer STAFF ENGINEER: Eva Wilson RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Request and Process: The Applicant requests review of a Subdivision Sketch Plan for the Fields Subdivision, a 97-110 unit single family/duplex home development located on 19.39 acres in the El Jebel area. In light of the fact that this Subdivision Sketch Plan is predicated on a change in zoning, the standards for Zone Change are being discussed and evaluated as part of this Staff Report. If approved at sketch a Zone Change would be required at Preliminary Plan. 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 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 has subsequently obtained approval from CDOT for an Access Permit and has proposed an alternative mitigation strategy. This newly proposed mitigation strategy has been determined to be inadequate to fully mitigate the traffic impacts caused by this proposed development but has been determined by staff to be an improvement to the current conditions existing at the intersection. These changes to the proposal have resulted in staff changing their recommendation from denial to approval with conditions" The remainder of this Executive Summary is organized as follows: 1 12/01/2016 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)" 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 proposal demonstrates mixed conformance 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 to fully mitigate but is considered by staff to constitute an improvement. Conformance to Sketch Subdivision Standards 2 12/01/2016 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 conceptually 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-No change in zoning will be granted at Sketch level however,these standards must be discussed in conjunction with Sketch Subdivision Standard Conformance Discussion Conformance with Yes The proposed location and density is in keeping with the the Comprehensive recommendations of the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan.The Plan proposal meets the FLUM as well. Compatible with Mixed The parcel is currently bordered to the North,East and West by Surrounding Uses residential subdivisions and could be viewed as an"infill"parcel in what is a predominantly residential area of El Jebel. Lowering density, clustering,buffering, or utilization of other design and/or layout techniques is recommended to improve compatibility to larger lot, rural residential properties to the west of the subject property. 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. Change of Yes The surrounding properties have been developed residential over the Circumstances years at a higher density than the original zoning and the core of El Jebel has grown outward to meet these communities. Adequate No The Applicant has obtained letter from public service providers stating Infrastructure 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 3 12/01/2016 Standard Conformance Discussion Conformance with The proposed location and density is in keeping with the recommendations the Comprehensive Yes of the Mid-Valley Area Plan Community Plan. The proposal meets the FLUM as well. Consistent with The uses proposed within the Subdivision are those designated as uses Land Use Mixed that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited review Regulations use in the ECLURs. The proposal does not currently meet regulations regarding traffic. Spatial Pattern is Yes Access to public services and utilities is available in this location Efficient Suitability for The parcel is in close proximity to known sinkholes as identified by CGS Development Mixed and will require site specific geotechnical evaluation prior to final platting of the subdivision. The parcel is currently bordered to the North, East and West by residential subdivisions and could be viewed as an "infill" parcel in what Compatible with is a predominantly residential area of El Jebel. Lowering density, Surrounding Uses Mixed clustering, buffering, or utilization of other design and/or layout techniques is recommended to improve compatibility to larger lot, rural residential properties to the west of the subject property. 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 Adequate Facilities Mixed 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. 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 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 4 12/01/2016 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- 1st Hearing • Jun 15, 2016 -CDOT accepts applicant's traffic Study • July 26. 2016 -Applicant provides development update-Proposal#4 • Sep 27, 2016 -County Commissioner-2nd Hearing Traffic Impacts and CDOT State Highway 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#2/3,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 For proposal#2/3/4,Jun 15 2016, CDOT Access Manager,Dan Roussin, accepts the applicant's updated traffic study/model. 1. The applicant shows the proposed mitigations with the development will improve the East Valley Rd/SH 82 Intersection from the baseline of no improvements with background growth in 2035. CDOT will likely grant a State Highway Access Permit for the additional traffic with the proposed mitigation. 2. At the Valley Rd/SH82 intersection,the applicant shows a traffic increase of 19.6%,below the 20%CDOT threshold,thus a State Highway Access Permit is not required. RFTA Concerns- 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% 5 12/01/2016 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 has 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 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. 6 12/01/2016 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. Road&Bridge- • Applicant will maintain all roadways and traffic control devices within their development • Applicant will maintain all sidewalks and trails created by the development Engineering- 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 7 12/01/2016 Development History in the Area: 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: 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 • Planning estimate to complete the design and construct the improvement—$4M - $4.5M Summary of Traffic Studies in the El Jebel Area: Staff 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 a feasibility review. The Fields Subdivision 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 c. Proposal#2 Dec 17, 2015—Interim mitigation at East Valley Rd.Unanticipated presentation at the Planning Commission Hearing d. Mitigation to last 15 years 8 12/01/2016 e. Proposal#2 Jan 25,2016—Interim mitigation at East Valley Rd. Mitigation to last 15 years f. No traffic analysis data provided 2. Proposal#3 Feb 26,2016 -Proposed same mitigation as Jan 25, 2016 a. Mitigation meets CDOT 20 Year projection standard 3. Proposal#4 July 26, 2016 a. Proposed interim mitigation of relocating East Valley Rd/Valley Rd intersection further away from SH82 to increase queuing storage for SH82 b. Widening Valley Rd at the Intersection of SH82 to add a right turn lane c. Constructing a 5' wide trail along the north side of Valley Rd from the Fields eastern property line and the intersection of Valley Court to provide pedestrian access Review Comments: Proposal#1 -Install signal at Valley Rd Intersection.Route all development traffic west to Valley Rd intersection. Coordinate traffic signals throughout the SH82 corridor. Proposal# 1 staff comments: • 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 • Proposed Traffic Mitigation: 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 o 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." Proposal#2 and#3 - Interim mitigation at East Valley Rd. Relocate East Valley Rd/Valley Rd Intersection further away SH82 to increase queuing storage. 9 12/01/2016 Proposal#2 and#3 comments: • 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 • 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 Proposal#2 and#3 staff 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 LOS E 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. Proposal#4 • Proposed interim mitigation of relocating East Valley Rd/Valley Rd intersection further away from SH82 to increase queuing storage for SH82 • Widening Valley Rd at the Intersection of SH82 to add a right turn lane • Constructing a 5' wide trail along the north side of Valley Rd from the Fields eastern property line and the intersection of Valley Court to provide pedestrian access Proposal#4 staff comments: • Applicant agreed to preserve access to their access easement on the west side of their parcel • Sidewalks should be constructed in front of residential units • Sidewalks/trails should be constructed along the development's Valley Rd Frontage to Valley Ct • The two development accesses are in close proximity and are offset from opposite side access,not ideal • Valley Rd/SH82 intersection is not at an acceptable LOS (Level of Service) • E. Valley Rd/SH82 and Valley Rd/E.Valley Rd intersections are not at an acceptable LOS • Interim mitigation improvements do not meet turning paths of a WB50; Turning paths are required for all movements for review. Footprint of proposed mitigation will likely change • Proposed Traffic Mitigation: 10 12/01/2016 o Pros: • Interim mitigation will improve E Valley Rd/SH82 intersection by increasing queuing storage capacity. The applicant has demonstrated the improved intersection with the development traffic will operate better than the unimproved intersection without the development traffic • A right-turn lane at Valley Rd/SH82 Intersection will facilitate access onto SH82 and may take some traffic pressures off of E Valley Rd/SH82 • Sidewalks/trails along Valley Rd will improve the pedestrian safety • Valley Rd widths vary from 22' -24' with 2' -3' gravel shoulders • Development traffic volumes acceptable for Valley Rd Road Segment o Edge line striping may help with traffic calming o Cons: • Interim mitigation will not improve E Valley Rd/SH82 and Valley Rd/E Valley Rd intersections to an acceptable(Level of Service)LOS • The addition of a right-turn lane at Valley Rd/SH82 intersection will not bring the intersection to an acceptable LOS 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 approval of this application, based on a finding that the proposed Zone Change, Sketch Plan application, generally meets 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 being 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 not met, a positive finding can be made based on all applicable standards. Rezoning 11 12/01/2016 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 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 represents 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: Mixed 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 adjacent Summit Vista subdivision. However, the Arlian Ranch subdivision to the west of the property has a density of one dwelling unit per 2 acres or more. Lowering density, clustering, buffering, or utilization of other design and/or layout techniques is recommended to improve compatibility to larger lot, rural residential properties to the west of the subject property. STANDARD: Public Benefit Staff Response: Mixed 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 as well as pedestrian connectivity to Crown Mountain Park. Additionally,the proposed improvements to the El Jebel/Highway 82 intersection as well as the Valley Road/Highway 82 intersection will improve conditions at this intersection. 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 grown outward over time and is now a core area supporting commercial,mixed use and transit uses. 12 12/01/2016 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 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 13 12/01/2016 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/evaporate 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: Mixed 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. 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 adjacent Summit Vista subdivision. However, the Arlian Ranch subdivision to the west of the property has a density of one dwelling unit per 2 acres or more. Lowering density,clustering,buffering, or utilization of other design and/or layout techniques is recommended to improve compatibility to larger lot,rural residential properties to the west of the subject property. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities: Staff Response: Mixed 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. Recommendation: Approval 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 overall conformance with the majority of applicable standards, staff is recommending Approval of the request. 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. Site specific Geotechnical assessment must be completed for each building site. 4. All street, sidewalks and trails 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, sidewalks and trails to include but not limited to signage and pavement markings. 5. Applicant shall construct a 10' sidewalk/trail along Valley Road to Valley Ct to provide safe pedestrian access to local amenities. 14 12/01/2016 ###REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK### 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) Current The existing improvements of the property consist of a single-family residence and other miscellaneous agricultural Development: improvements(e.g.,Barn,shed,fence,etc.).There is a well and septic system. 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 Acres: Percentage: Space: Water: Public: Mid-Valley Metro District Private: N/A Sewer: Public: Mid-Valley Metro District Private: N/A 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. 15 12/01/2016 Suggestion Motions: PROPOSED MOTION: TO APPROVE: I move to approve File SUS-5557 incorporating staffs findings and staffs conditions, because the application, as conditioned, conceptually is consistent with the standards in Section 5-280 B.3.e of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. PROPOSED MOTION: TO DENY: I move to deny File SUS-5557 because the application conceptually is not consistent with the standards in Section 5-280 B.3.e of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. DISCUSSION: Sean Hanagan spoke about the previous hearings and reviewed the request.The applicant was requesting a zone district change from rural residential to residential multi-family. There had been some changes to the original proposal. The CDOT access permit at Hwy 82 would be approved, and the applicant had proposed some additional mitigation on Valley Road and Highway 82. Additionally a paved walking path was proposed on Valley Road. The applicant had an access easement on the western portion of the property. Staff asked that the applicant keep and maintain the access easement in case the current access points at some point do not function. Mr. Hannagan reviewed the standards. Keith Ehlers explained how the project had evolved and responded to the comments. The application proposed attainably priced units. The infrastructure in the Roaring Fork Valley supported the neighborhood. The proposal would provide 97-110 units. The Fields Subdivision included 27 single family lots of 2100 sf. ft.homes, 26 duplex`B"lots(about 1800 sq. ft.per unit), 32 duplex"A"units(1100 sf. ft.) The 12—25 units in the mixed density pod would be determined at a later date. Mr.Ehlers provided examples of other successful developments in Eagle County and provided examples of housing diversification. The Fields development features an open space buffer,community gardens,detached sidewalks,trees,off-street parking, 10' wide public trail,and a public trail connection. The proposed sidewalk on Valley Road would be maintained as a public trail. The applicant would adhere to the Eagle County Affordable Housing guidelines. The community had a shortage of duplex units,and the remaining property available to build any density in the Hwy 82 corridor was limited. There would be buffering and spacing between the adjacent homeowners and the development. Mr. Ehlers reviewed the public benefits. Traffic mitigation was one of the top public benefits and provided immediate traffic relief. The traffic mitigation would improve the Hwy 82 intersection. The Fields development would increase traffic by only 6%,but the developer was willing to pay for 24%of the road improvements and satisfied 100%of the 20-year traffic growth projection. If an approval was not granted,the greater El Jebel Community Center may experience public detriment and community stagnation. The proposal had been approved by CDOT and was fair and consistent with how the community integration had been made for others. Eva Wilson spoke about the existing traffic issues and provided an overview of the traffic studies and the preferred alternative. The existing layout was not ideal. Per CDOT the intersection was acceptable for the next 10 years. The road was designed to accommodate 1300 daily trips and development traffic of 787 daily trips. CDOT accepted the applicant's proposal and proposed mitigation,but the level of service would still remain an"F". She reviewed the applicant's proposal#4d that would provide a five foot wide sidewalk preserve access. Staff wanted to preserve access to their access easement on the west side of the parcel. She reviewed the pros and cons. Overall,the interim mitigation would improve E Valley Rd/State Highway 82,however; the interim mitigation would not improve the intersections to an acceptable level of service. Commissioner Ryan wondered if there was a price tag in terms of how much the developer would be paying for road improvements and road impact fees. Ms. Wilson stated that the road impact fee estimate was about$500,000 and would be used for road improvements in the community. Mr. Elders stated that the Field's traffic mitigation total would be about$1.75 million. Chairman McQueeney asked if the mitigation plan was development in order to get the CDOT approval. Mr. Elders stated that an approval from CDOT was required before they could move forward.It was his opinion that the level of improvements was a public benefit because their impact was only 6%. 16 12/01/2016 Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered how the two intersections worked together and how the traffic would be directed out of the subdivision. She also wondered about the adequacy of the West Valley Road intersection Ms. Wilson stated that it was determined that there would be a 50/50 traffic distribution on Hwy 82. Dan Cokley,Traffic Engineer with SGM, stated that people were going to choose which way they wanted to go. It was assumed that 20%were going down valley and 80%were going up valley. Ms. Wilson stated that the county considered all the development coming in with a 20-year horizon and whether infrastructure could support it. At the same time, if the development triggered a CDOT access permit,then they must comply. Commissioner Ryan asked about the timeline in terms of the mitigation strategy. Ms. Wilson stated that per the CDOT standards,the improvements needed to be finished before construction began. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if the new trail on Valley Road would connect to another walkway. Mr. Elders stated that it connected to another walkway. Commissioner Ryan asked how the developer would be addressing the sink holes. Mr. Elders stated that engineered foundations would be required. Commissioner Ryan asked about the parking. Ms. Wilson stated that the applicant stated they would provide adequate parking. Mr. Elders stated that there were several overflow parking lots. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the storm water plan,outdoor irrigation and water conservation. Mr. Elders stated that those details would be worked out during the design phase. Commissioner Ryan asked about snow storage. Mr. Elders stated that there were snow storage areas identified on the site plan. Commissioner Ryan asked about the build-out time frame. Mr. Elders stated that they would like to provide some housing as quickly as possible. Their goal was to provide a very sustainable and long-term plan that could be constructed all at once or in phases as needed, depending on the market. Commissioner Ryan asked about the term"attainable housing"and what that meant in terms of pricing. Mr. Elders stated that the range would be$400,000—$600,000 but would depend upon the final costs. Chairman McQueeney opened public comment. Jay Coarsey supported development but expressed concern for the existing traffic on Valley Road and the safety of the children living and playing in the area. Edward Sullivan spoke. He had a long list of objections. He did not believe that Valley Road was adequate to serve the existing community. The road had ditches on either side, and there were no sidewalks.Valley Road was currently a disaster. He believed the data provided by SGM consulting was inaccurate. Robert Taylor spoke. He expressed concern with the proposed walking path that would be in his front yard. Richard Winn spoke about the current low water presser he experienced at his home and wondered where the developer would be getting their water. Mike Luciano spoke. He wondered if there was any assurance that the proposed amenities would be completed. Adrian Vantmoff spoke. He believed the Fields development was much too large for the space. Barb Forrest spoke. She expressed concerns for the current roads conditions. It was already difficult to make a left hand turn on E Valley Road. If the development were approved, fatalities would increase. Melanie Crandall spoke. She owned the eight acres next to the property. She was concerned with the storm water retention by the developer as she also had a retention pond on her property. She believed that adding 800 more cars would be a disaster. She believed the prices proposed by the developer were not affordable. Vanessa Kirianoff spoke about the need for more affordable housing and supported the development. John Filippone spoke.He expressed concern for the current volume of traffic and believed it should be considered. Kyle Kieck spoke. He commuted every day. He believed that development in the area was inevitable and supported the plan. 17 12/01/2016 Kathy Nelson spoke. She wondered what deed restriction meant,what affordable housing meant and whether the proposal would be affordable. She was concerned about density. James Lindt with the Town of Basalt spoke. He stated that the Town of Basalt did not support the proposal and recommended denial of the application. Bruce Wood spoke. He hoped the board would consider the opposition and deny the request. Jerome Meister spoke. He thought the project was good but in the wrong location. He supported affordable housing but did not support the Fields proposal. Pam Wood spoke about the issues with the walking path being on private property.The developers had made changes to the proposal but never reduced the number of units. Flynn Stewart spoke. He supported the development. He owned a firm in Aspen and had employees ready to purchase homes in the area. Chairman McQueeney closed public comment. Commissioner Ryan asked Ms.Wilson to address the concerns about Valley Road and asked if there would be a way to do any traffic calming mitigation with or without the development. She also wondered if there were any safety issues. Commissioner Ryan asked about the current issues with Valley Road and if the mitigation efforts would improve the conditions. Ms. Wilson stated that there was a speeding issue on Valley Road and the road width was below the standard. The ditches were standard on rural roadways. Speed bumps were not an option as it was a collector road. The level of service was about 13,000 trips per day and the development would be adding about 800 so it was within the limits of what the roadway was designed for. She did not see an issue with the roadway segment. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the possibility of access from Hwy 82 to the subdivision and the potential for a roundabout. Ms. Wilson stated that this was not an option. The entire corridor was being evaluated for roundabouts but it was a matter of money. A roundabout at El Jebel and the Valley Road intersection was not a viable solution for CDOT. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked Mr. Hanagan to address the Mid Valley Area Masterplan and the Future Land Use Map(FLUM)designation of Urban Suburban Residential(USR)and how it applied to future development. Mr.Hanagan stated that during the process of the future land use map creation,the USR designation was placed on the parcel. The Town of Basalt disagreed with the designation,but eventually the Planning Commission voted it in. Commissioner Ryan asked Daniel Murray, Eagle County Housing,to define affordable housing and how the county assures accountability to affordable housing. Daniel Murray stated that the units that were deemed affordable would be set at a price cap to start. The price appreciation could be capped as well. Eagle County would assist with the sales. Mr. Elders stated that there were different types of affordable housing and their idea was to meet the market appropriately. Commissioner Ryan asked Mr. Elders to address the concerns of water rights and water pressure. Mr. Elders stated that a letter from the Metro District was required for service. The water rights on the property were senior and the ditches would be mitigated with the proposed development. The sidewalk area was sufficient and would not require taking anyone's land nor would it impact their uses. Chairman McQueeney stated that the board would only be considering the subdivision standards at this time. A lot of the questions that the community had would need to be clarified moving forward. Ms.Ayres-Oliver stated that all that was before the board today was Sketch Plan approval. The standards presented were the ones being considered. The zone change standards were discussed as part of the overall analysis. There were three steps: 1. Sketch Plan approval,2. Preliminary Plan stage, and 3.Zone Change application. The county could also consider the urban growth boundary at a Preliminary Plan level. Commissioner Ryan appreciated everyone's input. The board wanted to be thoughtful,do a good job representing the community, and have a fair process. The Area Master Plan was adopted in 2013,and the Mid Valley Community Plan and the FLUM designated this property as Urban Suburban with a density range of 3 -7 units per acre. The proposed density met the Land Use Map. The Master Plan indicated that there was room for 18 12/01/2016 residential and commercial growth. If the community felt the Master Plan was no longer appropriate,the community could change it moving forward. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed there seemed to be a disconnect between the FLUM and the Mid Valley Area Community Plan. She believed it was appropriate to direct growth into the town boundaries. This parcel was identified for exactly this type of density. The concern she had was with the community being against the comprehensive plan and adequate facilities with regards to traffic. She did not see a lot of public benefit and believed there was a big risk to the developer with a sketch plan approval. Chairman McQueeney stated that the proposal complied with the comprehensive plan. At a sketch plan level the proposal met the standards. She did not see tremendous public benefit. Commissioner Ryan believed it was difficult for developers to make the numbers work and extremely difficult with 25%affordable housing. She spoke about the IGA between the Town of Basalt and Eagle County and believed it was somewhat problematic. She respected that the Town of Basalt did not want the density on this lot and appreciated that they were so involved. The Planning Commission recommended denial,but since that time a lot had changed and staff was now recommending approval. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that the Planning Commission's recommendation for denial was based on the traffic concerns that had been met by the applicant to the best of their ability. Commissioner Ryan stated that overall the proposal met the purposes and intents of the sketch plan subdivision process and enough of the conformance standards that she was prepared to vote yes. Commissioner Chandler-Henry thanked everyone for their letters and comments and asked everyone to keep them coming. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve File SUS-5557 incorporating staffs findings and staffs conditions because the application, as conditioned, conceptually is consistent with the standards in Section 5- 280 B.3.e of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. far a c°c There ing no further busini, - - *•.rd,the meeting was adjourned until December 6,2016. * Attest: / �. ler o the Board C irman 1� 19 12/01/2016