No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/04/20 PUBLIC HEARING August 4, 2020 Present: Kathy Chandler-Henry Chairman Matt Scherr Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Jeff Shroll County Manager Holly Strablizky 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 Updates Commissioner Scherr spoke about the 2020 Census. The Census was very important to the community and encouraged every household to respond. Commissioner McQueeney stated that she continued to attend the Colorado Children's Campaign meetings every other week. They recently started a pre-school policy advisory group. Childcare as an industry was a pressing issue. There was a state grant available to licensed child care programs. She believed that early childhood should be included in the CARES Act funding. The county was doing what they could do and the State of Colorado had some groups working on it as well. Chairman Chandler-Henry reported on the COVID public hearing process. Beginning the 19 of August, folks would be able to weigh in through a Google based program.People could call in or video in. It expanded the opportunity for people to be able to interact with the public process. County Manager Updates Jeff Shroll spoke about the challenges that the county was facing due to COVID. He thanked all the regional partners that were working with the county. Eagle County was not alone. COVID-19 Update Birch Barron,Emergency Manager provided a weekly update. The COVID-19 risk level was still "Concerning." The disease spread remained high. There were 170 cases in the recent two-week period. He encouraged people to wear masks,keep their distance,wash hands,and stay home when sick. Minimizing the number of contacts outside of your household was important. The newly reported cases still remained high statewide. Hospital admissions and medical visits remained low. In order to move the indicator down to yellow would mean reducing cases to 96 or lower over the two-week period. He believed there was a high level of community spread due to people having more complicated social circles and/or people refusing to follow quarantine orders. Constituent Input Chairman Chandler-Henry opened and closed constituent input,as there was none. 1 08/04/2020 Business Item 1. The Board of County Commissioners will meet as necessary to review and take action on any issues related to the COVID-19 Local Disaster Emergency. Chairman Chandler-Henry stated that there was nothing to review or take action on. Work Session - Eagle County Room 1. Economic Recovery Plan Event - Basalt 1. Blue Star Recyclers Tour Site Tour—Basalt 1. 10 Acre PUD-PDSP-9012 and ZC-90.17- Site Visit Planning File - El Jebel Building 1. 10 Acre PUD-PDSP-9012 and ZC-9017-Sketch/Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development and Zone Change Morgan Landers,Eagle County Planning Manager DESCRIPTION: Eagle County has received an application for the 10 Acre PUD project in the Basalt Area.The applicant is proposing five single family lots with accessory dwelling units permitted on four of the lots.The application is for both a Sketch/Preliminary Plan for Planned Unit Development(PUD)and an application for a Zone Change from Resource to PUD.This hearing is one of two hearings on this file; the second hearing is scheduled for August 11, 2020. Morgan Landers introduced the applicant and the applicant's representative. Owner,Brian Rose Representative, Doug Pratte with the Land Studio Inc. Staff Engineer,Julie Pranger Staff Attorney,Holly Strablizky Ms.Landers stated that the property was zoned resource.The property was a total of 10.2 acres and located approximately one quarter mile south of the Willits Town Center on Willits Lane in Basalt.Access was off a private driveway from Willits Lane,a public right-of-way. The property had access to public water and public sewer. Ditch water rights were also in use. The application was received on February 6,2019 and had been reviewed under the applicable sections of the Land Use Regulations. There had been three referral periods,two were prior to Planning Commission hearings. The last was on the revised application. There were four Planning Commission hearings,two in November and January. The final hearing was in June. Public comment had been open since February of last year. The proposed uses were residential and agricultural as described in the staff report. The property was zoned and created in 2015 through a divorce decree. At this time staff recommended 2 08/04/2020 approval with conditions of the PUD Sketch Preliminary Plan and approval for the proposed Zone Change. The initial development plan proposed in November of 2019 had evolved over time. She showed the initial site plan compared to the redesign plan with the access drive on the southern portion of the property across from Meadow Drive. There were a lot of revisions as a result of public comment and feedback from the Planning Commission. The Roaring Fork Valley Public hearing comments closed on June 12,2020. Over 40 letters with comments were received which included both letters of opposition and letters of support. The areas of concern included:density too high for this location,concern for the alignment of the access drive,blocking of views, traffic,loss of agricultural land and historical assets,and too many large scaled buildings. The letters of support included support for the density,a fit to the character of the surrounding area,and that the plan was well thought out. Public comment would close on August 6th so folks could provide written or video comments through the link on the screen. Also,a recording of this hearing would be available on ECG TV. She reviewed the standards of approval and indicated that the application was in conformance with the standards.The PUD Guide had been drafted in a lean fashion with much reliance on the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Julie Pranger, Staff Engineer reviewed Standard#7 and#8 related to adequate facilities,draining grading, access,easement,and snow storage and indicated that the application conformed with the standards. The standards covered adequate facilities. The intersection alignment would create a four way stop and pedestrian improvements. The trip generation had been a concern expressed by the public. It was estimated that there would be 104 vehicle trips per day,a 77%increase at Willits and Hwy 82 intersection. She reviewed Standard#8,drainage,grading, access easement,and snow storage. The standard included dual access not being required,internal rural residential road required,emergency vehicle access,and a condition related to road surface would be suggested. Ms.Landers reviewed Standard#9,Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. The question was whether the project was compatible with the surrounding area,and staff found that the application conformed to the surrounding uses. According to the Mid Valley Plan,the property sat within the Highway 82 Character Area. The intended density identified the property as a large lot residential designation. Staff proposed cash in lieu to the Housing - Authority,a Partnership with Habitat for Humanity,and three price capped units at 80%AMI. The timeline for implementation was being considered.The applicant was proposing a phasing plane. The applicant was proposing .83 acer open space and under ownership of the HOA.The final standard covered the natural resource protection, and staff found the proposal met the standard. Staff believed the public benefit was significant and included a voluntary easement,bike lane on Willits Lane,and would create workforce housing. Brian Rose,property owner and applicant presented some photos of the property.He moved to Basalt about six years ago and purchased the lot. He provided an overview of the project and indicated that he agreed with all the proposed conditions. The proposal included five lots,allowing five single family dwellings. He and his wife plan to build on Lot 1. The PUD guide would allow for hobby farming. He spoke about the history of the project beginning in 2018. Early in the process he met with many of the neighbors. He discussed maintaining the view corridor and proposed landscaping. He reviewed the setback changes and showed the distance from building to building in the surrounding area. He believed the proposed setback provided a generous buffer. Each building envelope would be about a half-acre. ADUs would be allowed on all but Lot 3. They trimmed down the building height from 35 to 30 to protect the view corridor. They put a cap on square footage that allowed for single family units at 5,000 sq. ft.and accessory dwelling units to 1,200 sq. ft. Detached garages would be limited to 1,200 sq. ft. He emphasized the number of changes he made to address the Planning Commission and neighbors' concerns and believed they made the changes necessary to gain support. Commissioner McQueeney asked how the plan fulfilled the affordable housing guidelines. Ms.Landers stated that the applicant was proposing a bled orcUltn lieu and offsite development. 10 Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about whether the housing plan' uld be finalized. Ms.Landers stated that the housing plan would be memorializtiOttthe PUD guide if the proposal moved forward. Commissioner Scherr asked about the zoning. Ms.Landers stated that the areas where future changes in the Land Use Regulations(LUR)may impact the PUD would be areas where the PUD guide was silent. The LUR was written in a way that if there were ever a gap where a PUD did not address a certain item,then the LUR would step in. Chairman Chandler-Henry asked wondered why the property was a nonconforming lot. Ms.Landers stated that it was the minimum lot area size. When the divorce decree was filed in 2015,it created a 10-acre parcel. Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about the lighting standards. 3 08/04/2020 Ms.Landers stated illumination was not specifically addressed in the PUD guide,but the proposed lighting was in line with the current Land Use Regulations. Commissioner McQueeney asked about surrounding properties and whether they had ADUs. Ms.Landers stated that it was the staffs understanding that the River Ranch Subdivision did not allow ADUs however;the Sopris Meadows did allow ADUs. Commissioner Schen-asked if there was a way to measure public benefit to the impact. Ms.Landers stated that there was nothing in the LURs at this time. The standard was written in a way that was a bit of an analysis of the potential impacts. It was a challenging exercise for staff. Chairman Chandler-Henry asked about raw water and if it would be used for irrigation. Mr.Rose stated that raw water would be used.The property came with water rights in the north side Pioneer ditch. Chairman Chandler-Henry opened public comment. Linda Gustafson spoke. She resided at 80 Lewis Lane in River Ranch with her husband. She believed the application had greatly improved since it was first presented. She expressed concern for the increase in density that the development would create. She believed the buildable lot coverage for lots 2— 5 was too large. Allowing three buildings on each lot was excessive. She questioned the need for 12,000 sq. ft.barns. She asked that the landscaping provide screening between the River Ranch lots and the PUD. If the intent of the ADUs is to provide workforce housing,she suggested a 6 month lease should be required as opposed to 60 days. She believed an approval of the PUD would set a precedent for the future development of the adjacent properties. Jim Light spoke. He stated that he was not directly affected by the development but had a couple questions related to public policy. He was a firm believer that density should be near transit. He questioned the number of ADUs and if there was a policy for rentals. He believed it was in the best interest of the county to have a landscaping policy. He applauded the efforts being made to work with the neighbors. Susann Siebert spoke. She owned the adjacent parcel to the south. She asked that the board add a condition of approval in order to insure that access points on Willits Lane were consolidated and safe in the event her property were ever developed. She also requested an easement and sharing of maintenance cost. Tom Moore believed there was a difference between River Ranch and the proposed application. He believed the proposal was not constant with the neighborhood. He also opposed the zone change. Ms.Landers stated that public comment would remain open until August 6,2020 at 5 p.m. At the next hearing staff would review all the public comments. The hearing would be continued until next Tuesday. SoAN.of(ji There b-• _ o fudcO4 thbi -- Gard,the meeting was adjourned until August 11,2020. DoAttest• � _ lerk to the Board 4 08/04/2020