No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/07/2021 SPECIAL MEETING October 7, 2021 Present: Matt Scherr Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Beth Oliver Deputy County Attorney 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: Planning File - Eagle County Room 1. Edwards River Park Planned Unit Development-PDSP-9050/ZC-9029 and 1041-9030-Combined PUD Sketch/Preliminary Plan,Zone Change, and 1041 Permit Kris Valdez, Community Development Executive Summary: The applicant requests approval of a combined Planned Unit Development Sketch/Preliminary Plan application for land on the northern side of US Highway 6 between the Eagle River Preserve and South Fork Meadows("Property"). Also included is a Zone Change application to rezone the existing parcel from Resource and Rural Residential to PUD and a 1041 permit application for the extension of water and sewer services. The Property was formerly part of a B&B Excavating gravel mining operation. The proposal is a mixed-use development to include approximately 440 residential units and 11,500 square feet of commercial uses. Kris Valdez, Eagle County Staff Planner, stated that she didn't have a presentation; the meeting was simply scheduled for board deliberations. Chairman Scherr stated that at the last meeting public comment was closed on the file. He asked the other board members if they had any questions for staff or for the applicant. Commissioner McQueeney asked Jason Cowels to review the"letter to serve." Jason Cowles,Director of Engineering and Water Resources with Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, stated that he sent a letter to the board that clarified that at this time there was about 319 acre feet of augmentation water. As a policy they did not commit to new uses of out-of-basin water because there were certain times of year the water was not available. They also had 256 acre feet in Homestake Reservoir that they had access to. They provided an"ability to serve"letter to commit to this development. It was their position that if this was a land use that the commissioners wanted to approve,they had the water to serve it and would continue to work towards developing the strategic reserves to meet their reliability goals in the long term. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked Mr. Cowles to address how the District and the Authority were trying to work together with land planning policy groups. Mr. Cowles stated that they try to create water budgets in new developments to address the overuse that was happening with some of the earlier approved developments in the county. With this development there was not a lot that could be done because of the amount of augmentation water and the location. They were looking at other aggressive conservation programs to address unsustainable use seen in certain areas. The excessive use puts the system at risk. 1 10/07/2021 Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked the applicant about the long range parking plan and valet parking. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group and representative for the applicant, stated that they had a parking schedule that identified the number of parking spaces. They were really comfortable that they had adequate parking. They over allocated parking by 35%. They had valet parking in the plan originally when there was much more commercial. They left it in the plan just in case it made sense to have it in some locations. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the affordable housing and rental rates. Tori Frank,Eagle County Housing, explained the details of the proposed housing plan. The majority of the price capped rental units would have a rent rate cap at 100%Area Median Income(AMI)and a small portion at 80%AMI. AMI was the standard measure of income that came down from Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The rental rates were calculated based on the HUD industry standard used in all of their formulas; 30%of one income should be spent on housing. For 100%AMI today,the two bedroom rental rate unit was$2,250. In Eagle County there were a huge number of rentals that were deed-restricted or restricted through a finance mechanism. There was also a shadow inventory that existed in the county where units were being rented privately and were 30 to 40%higher. The deed restricted units could not be used for short term rentals. She explained that the AMI rates fluctuated between 1%and 3%per year. These rental rates would not swing with the market and would be locked. Chairman Scherr asked about the childcare center and if it would address the existing demand or satisfy an induced demand. Mr. Mauriello stated that they would offer a space at an affordable rate should there be a demand. Commissioner McQueeney asked Nicole Mosby,Eagle County Staff Engineer, about the public benefit of the proposed roundabout versus a light signal. She wondered if a roundabout was safer than a signal. Ms. Mosby explained that the additional efficiencies,pedestrian safety, and other things were a public benefit in addition to the roundabout. The delays were shorter in a roundabout. Commissioner McQueeney stated that as the board moved into deliberation she looked forward to hearing from her fellow commissioners. She believed it was helpful to have the public input but a lot of the sentiment had been just"no " and wasn't tied to the standards. For her, the plan had gotten significantly better and it was important to consider it in its current state. She believed it was an impactful proposal where density belonged. The Comprehensive Plan identified the property for mixed-use development and this was a mixed-use development. She did not have a problem with the 85' tall building because that's how you got density. She was not concerned with the visual from Highway 6. She struggled with the traffic impacts but did believe the roundabout improved a section of the road. In terms of public benefit,the development offered housing and affordable housing. She'd love it if they offered twice as much affordable housing but didn't feel there was a standard that required it. Commissioner Chandler-Henry appreciated staff and applicant's efforts for making the file better. She struggled with compatibility with surrounding areas. As for conformance with the Edwards Area Community Plan, the PUD was required to be in substantial conformance but there were a lot of competing issues. The development was not in the commercial core, and she had difficulties with the height of the buildings,the scale, and the mass which lacked a small town feel. As for adequate public facilities, it was important to consider the limited supply of water and how to best use the water that was available. Although there was water to support the development,the traffic was a major concern. The roundabout was positive but the east area on Highway 6 got to a level F and would become a burden to the community. She believed the affordable housing was a good solid plan but the rents seemed high. However,based on AMI, the rents met the affordable housing requirements. She wondered if the affordable housing was enough to overcome the traffic issues,mass, and scale. Chairman Scherr stated that as he read through the Edwards Community Plan; the mass, scale, and traffic impacts were contrary to the proposal. He struggled with the density versus the public benefits. The roundabout seemed to contribute to the flow of traffic and the housing plan was significant but the mass and scale may not match. Commissioner McQueeney stated that she considered the workforce housing a public benefit and the roundabout would be an improvement to a section of Highway 6. All the accommodations being made for wildlife, the view corridor being maintained and the connection to the Eagle River Preserve were also public benefits. She pictured what it would be like to live there and it felt as if the development created a community that faced the river and open space, and she believed it would create a nice place to live. 2 10/07/2021 Chairman Scherr stated that he looked at it in a similar way. However,the proposal did not offer a small town feel and he had more of a sense of Solaras rather than Riverwalk. Commissioner Chander-Henry wondered how it was possible to create affordable housing with the high price of land, construction material, and infrastructure. As a community it was important to consider the cost. Chairman Scherr stated that the housing guidelines did not identify geography or where affordable housing should be located. Commissioner McQueeney stated that the board had received letters from other municipal partners supportive of the housing plan because the proposal incorporated 40 additional deed restricted units. The scale of the commercial proposed would make it attractive to live there. The public benefit for affordable housing was the piece that made the biggest impact for her. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that the board received a lot of comments regarding whether the plan protected the ecosystems and wildlife. She agreed with staffs recommendations and the experts that the proposed development did protect them, so she was comfortable with that. She stated that she was satisfied with the answers she received regarding the parking plan. It came down to traffic and urban feel for her. If she were to design property she would put in fewer units,more duplex type,more Miller Ranch style. Chairman Scherr stated that if he were designing it would have a greater diversity of housing, something more community oriented. Commissioner McQueeney did not believe it was about the view,wildlife protection,or the fact that it was next to the Preserve. It was about the traffic which was generated by the density. Mr. Mauriello mentioned that there were at least 45 additional units that could be buy-down units and reminded the board that they were also creating a revenue source with the 1%transfer fee. All the buildings in the base of the project were 55 ft. in height. The roundabout intersection was critical to the project so-there was a balancing act between the cost of the improvements and building something of lower density. Chairman Scherr believed that there were tradeoffs for any development. He struggled with density and the building heights,however the benefits of childcare,housing, and roundabout were a good tradeoff. Commissioner Chandler-Henry reminded the board that the property was currently zoned Resource and Rural Residential. The first thing to consider was a zone change to allow this density. She did believe it was a property that should be developed according to the Edwards Area Community Plan,but it was not a given that this was the right amount of density at this location. The zone change was a big request and generated some substantial negatives in her mind. Chairman Scherr stated that after reviewing the Edwards Community Plan he concluded that the plan mentioned that a higher density may be appropriate for the site. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed you could argue pretty well on either side of the compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods and the conformance with comprehensive plans but for her she was coming down on the side that the proposal was not compatible and did not conform. Chairman Scherr believed housing was important and the proposal had a good housing plan but it ran contrary to what the community was trying to be regardless of the public benefits. Commissioner McQueeney believed the proposal conformed and was compatible with the Comprehensive Plan. The public benefit had been met and the adequate infrastructure came down to the road. When density is added,you do add to traffic. She felt as if she could approve the zone change. Mr. Mauriello interjected and proposed a change in the housing plan to allow 50%of the for sale units to be deed restricted, guaranteeing that they would be occupied by locals. He hoped that this was something the board would consider. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that the change could be a tipping point for her if she knew the people in the cars were people living and working in the county. Commissioner McQueeney moved that the board go into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice pertaining to the standards of approval of the combined sketch/preliminary plan which was an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3 10/07/2021 At the close of the discussion, it was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from executive session and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Scherr stated that after receiving legal counsel, it was not appropriate to negotiate changes to the application at this time. He asked the applicant if they wished to table the file and offer a response. Mr. Mauriello stated that the applicant would like to table the file. Beth Oliver,Deputy Eagle County Attorney, stated that it was not appropriate to make changes to the application during deliberation. If the applicant made changes to the application,public comment would be re-opened to allow the public to weigh in on the changes. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table the files PDSP-9050/ZC-9029 to October 26, 2021 at 3:30 pm to obtain additional information necessary for a complete review of the criteria of approval. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the Eagle County Permit Authority table file 1041-9030 to October 26,2021 at 3:30 pm to obtain additional information necessary for complete review of the criteria of approval. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. O�OGLE CO% Q There being no further busines b o rd, the meeting was adjourned until October 12,2021. 0 cotoaa� 1 Attest: 4,`r rig r( lerk to the Board. Chairman 4 10/07/2021