No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/17/2022 SPECIAL MEETING August 17, 2022 Present: Jeanne McQueeney Chairman Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Matt Scherr Commissioner Matt Peterson Assistant County Attorney Regina O'Brien Clerk&Recorder 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: Site Tour - El Jebel 1. The Fields Subdivision Preliminary Sketch Plan Site Visit Vince Hooper, Community Development 554 Valley Drive,Basalt/El Jebel Area Planning File - Mt Sopris Room, El Jebel 1. The Fields Subdivision Preliminary Sketch Plan Site Visit Vince Hooper,Community Development Project Name: The Fields File No.: SSP-9165-2021,ZC-9136-2021,VIS-9169-2021 Location: 554 Valley Dr. Basalt Area Owner: Fields Development Group,LLC Applicant: Whit Whitaker, Manager Representative: John Fredericks,Landwest Colorado,LLC Staff Planner: Vince Hooper, PMP, Senior Planner Staff Engineer: Rickie Davies,P.E.,PTOE, Senior Staff Engineer County Attorney: Matt Peterson,Assistant County Attorney Recommendation: ZC -Approval with conditions, SSP-Approval with conditions,VIS -Approval with conditions I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The current Application is for a residential development with a mix of housing types providing up to 135 residential units. The Applicant requests approval of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map(the"Zone Change") for the entire property from Rural Residential(RR)to Residential Multi-family(RMF). The current zoning district of the Property and the adjacent properties are identified in Figure 1: Zoning Map. The Applicant requests approval of a combined Sketch/Preliminary Plat Application,a Zone Change Application, one Variation from Improvement Standards, and a 1041 Permit(collectively the"Application")for a 19.39 acre parcel of Rural Residential(RR) zoned land located north of and adjacent of Valley Road,west of El Jebel Road, and south of and adjacent to Highway 82. ("Property"). The Property is identified in Figure 2: Vicinity Map. 1 08/17/2022 II. BACKGROUND The Property was originally platted in 1980 as Lot 5,Arlian Ranch Subdivision. Lot 5 was platted as 19.39 acres. In 2013,the Mid Valley Area Community Plan and associated Future Land Use Map ("FLUM")were updated. With this update,the Fields property was identified by the FLUM as suitable for Urban/Suburban Residential development which allows up to seven dwelling units per acre on the FLUM. Chairman McQueeney opened the meeting stating that the applicant would be presenting their plans for the property,the board would hear from staff in terms of the standards,then an opportunity for questions and lastly, if time allowed,public comment would be taken. It may be possible that they do not get to public comment this evening,but she welcomed emails; voicemails would not be considered. She reassured those in attendance that there would be an opportunity for public comment at upcoming meetings. Jon Fredericks with Landwest Colorado,LLC,planner for the applicant, introduced Evan Schreiber the developer and applicant and Greg Schroeder with McDowell Engineering. He reviewed the zoning district allowance and stated that the Fields was an infill project with no commercial proposed for the property. He reviewed the Mid Valley Master Plan and Future Land Use Map and showed the areas where growth was appropriate. In 2019 the current owners began the process of designing what they were calling"Fields 2.0." He spoke about the current housing challenge and the shortage of affordable housing in the area. The Mid Valley Master Plan supported future development near the Highway 82 character area. This area accommodated moderate residential densities and supported the continued buildout of growth hubs. There were only three remaining moderate density residential properties within this area,two were north of Highway 82,both Crawford owned properties, and the third was the Fields property. The moderate density designation for the Fields property allowed up to seven(7) dwelling units per acre. Mr. Schreiber stated that he took over the ownership of the property in 2019 to breathe life into the original Fields proposal. He was proposing seven(7) dwellings per acre. As a result of public comment,the building mass was broken up and the density was inward. The new plan totaled 47 buildings,a 20%decrease from the previous plan. They were proposing fewer detached buildings with more open space. There would be seven(7)acres of green space, a 70%increase. There were two sets of trails, a walking path and a bike path leading to Crown Mountain Park. There would be a one acre dog park,a kids' park and a pond in the center of the development, a focal point in the development. The berm on the north side of the property would mitigate the impacts of Highway 82 noise. The landscaping would be native plants with tall grass. The housing program was critical and guided by Eagle County's guidelines and goals. They were proposing 27 single family homes, 10 duplexes, 1 triplex,4 attached townhomes, and 5 two story multi-family buildings with subgrade parking for a total of 135 dwelling units across the 19.39 acres. They had will-serve letters from all the required service utilities and clean referrals from all the other agencies. Mr. Schroeder reviewed the traffic plan focusing on the peak hour traffic and a 20 year projection. It was estimated that a typical dwelling unit developed about eight(8)trips in a 24 hour period. Thus, it was estimated that this project would generate 1,084 vehicle trips per day in a 24 hour window. The study area represented intersections, access points,JW Drive and Valley Road. The question was whether Valley Road had adequate capacity to support the development. He believed that the Fields Development would account for a 30% capacity for the projected traffic in 2045. He showed a real-time rendering of the overall traffic volume at full buildout. The traffic value was 168 vehicle trips per hour, or one vehicle every 21 seconds on average. The traffic on Valley Road heading east totaled 41 vehicle trips per hour. Mr. Schreiber believed that if the intersection did not get improved,the conditions would just continue to get worse without the Fields. The applicant was acting as a facilitator to help solve the problem. The preliminary design of the intersection would create more capacity and resolve the queuing issues. RAFTA,being a major stakeholder,would be getting 126 parking spaces from the current 86, doubling the park-n-ride. He presented a timeline, Assuming the application were to be approved,he anticipated their first certificate of occupancy(CO) would not occur until the year 2025. He reviewed the funding sources and believed it was important to note that road impact fees generated in the Roaring Fork Valley(RFV)had to stay in the RFV. This money could be allocated to sidewalks or what the county saw fit. They were trying to take a leadership role in acting as a catalyst 2 08/17/2022 to solve an existing problem. He reviewed the public benefits which offset some of the development's impacts. They offered to add speed bumps/raised crosswalks with flashing beacons to Valley Road to slow traffic. They also offered to add a sidewalk on the Forest Service parcel that would connect to their onsite trails as well as Summit Vista's onsite trails. Another option would be to utilize the existing trail within Summit Vista. Their housing plan would provide 27 priced capped AMI units,which was above and beyond the Eagle County housing requirement. The AMI units would be built for local employees. In addition,there would be fair market units for the buy down program. The rentals would be available for the local workforce. Vince Hooper, Staff Planner with Eagle County, stated that the application was received in December of 2020. The applications for consolidated sketch,preliminary subdivision, and 1041 had been available to the public since June 16,2021. There was a 21-day referral period and notice sent to 31 referral agencies. Numerous public comments were received. The property was 19.39 acres and was zoned Rural Residential. The applicant was requesting a rezoning from Rural Residential to Residential Multi-Family, one variation from improvement standards,proposed 135 residential units,27 price capped units, and six acres of private open space easements. Mr. Hooper reviewed the standards for approval of a zone change and indicated that the application conformed with the 2005 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, 2018 Mid-Valley Area Community Plan,Future Land Use Map, and Mid-Valley Trails Plan with a condition requiring the applicant to construct an off-site trail or fee-in-lieu. Mr. Hooper reviewed the variations from improvement standards and indicated that staff could support the variation to allow on-street parking on a suburban residential road. Mr. Hooper reviewed the standards for approval of a Sketch/Preliminary Plan for Subdivision. The standards included conformance with the comprehensive plan, consistent with the Land Use Regulations, spatial patterns shall be efficient,unity and road extensions, serve ultimate population, coordinate utility extensions, suitability for development, compatible with surrounding uses, and adequate facilities. Mr. Hooper reviewed the standards and indicated that the proposal met the standards with conditions. The public benefits included 27 price capped units assuming max build out (135)which exceeded minimum recommended mutation by 10 price capped deed restricted units. The project also proposed the installation of a 10-foot wide trail within the Valley Road corridor. This would connect the project and neighboring properties to the regional trail network and to Crown Mountain Park. The application was an infill development along Highway 82. The utility extensions were consistent with the Mid Valley Metro District existing service area. Internal roads would be privately owned and maintained. Condition#3 would require a plat note stating that all tracts and easements identified as open space on the Preliminary Plan shall never be developed and shall remain a private open space in order to maintain compatibility with the surrounding uses. Staff also found that the application complided with a change of circumstances based on the adoption of the updated Mid-Valley Area Community Plan and FLUM designation Rickie Davies, Eagle County Staff Engineer, reviewed the traffic study and addressed the failing level of service and explained that any changes to El Jebel Road and Highway 82 would require review by CDOT. He reviewed some traffic counts at the Catherine Store Road&Highway 82. Commissioner Scherr wondered if the board had to consider an intersection outside of unincorporated Eagle County. Matt Peterson,Assistant Eagle County Attorney, stated that the Catherine Store intersection was within Garfield County, and he did not believe the county had the legal ability to address the intersection. Mr. Davies stated that based on staff's review of the traffic study,there was room for more vehicles during the morning and afternoon peak times. He identified several roads in Eagle County with more than 3,000 vehicles/day, and some of the roads were substandard and still functioned properly. Maureen Mulcahy, Eagle County Natural Resources Policy Manager,presented the 1041 Permit Application and stated that there were 32 criterias of approval. Because flood irrigation had been practiced on the site, these types of wetlands were not regulated under the county 1041 permitting. The service capacity was questioned, and staff found that there was adequate infrastructure in the area and capacity to serve this project. A condition was added related to the land use application with regards to land use patterns and a platt note was required stating that all tracts and easements identified as open space on the Preliminary Plan shall never be developed and remain as private open space. In addition, staff supported the condition requiring the off-site trail or a fee in lieu be paid prior to recording of the final plat. Staff supported the applicant's request to waive the Special Use Permit application for water and sewer projects related to the project. A Special Use Review of the 3 08/17/2022 project would be redundant as the application has received a thorough review through its Land Use Application review and had met the 1041 Regulations approval criteria, and therefore no additional requirements are anticipated from completion of a Special Use Review Tori Franks with the Eagle County Housing Department reviewed the Housing Plan and explained how the housing was valued. Based on the scale of the project,the applicant would only need to produce 12 units but had proposed 27 priced capped units. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked if the priced capped units were income restricted. Ms. Frank stated that currently the county guidelines did not restrict based on income. Commissioner Scherr asked about the standard of adequate facilities related to roads and the definition of "adequate." Mr. Peterson explained that one method was identifying the level of service and the capacity for the road. The board was entitled to some discretion as to what adequate ment and gave it a reasonable interpretation. Mr. Davies stated that the rationale for determining if it met the standard for"adequate facilities"was that the proposed improvements were making a bad situation better. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the current level of service of the road surrounding the development and what it would be in the future. Mr. Davies stated that the current level of service was"D"with a delay of 43 seconds in the morning and in the afternoon it was an"F". Post development, it was still a"D"with a 46 delay in the morning and an"E"in the afternoon. Mr. Fredericks asked Mr. Davies to explain why the side streets would be failing. Mr. Schroeder stated that Highway 82 was identified as an expressway and Mr. Davies observed that all the traffic waiting at the signal got through the signal and there was extra green time. CDOT's priority was to keep the traffic flowing on the corridor and minimize interruptions. Commissioner Scherr asked about the trail and condition that the trail met the compliance with the Community Plan. He did not see the trail as a benefit because it was meant to mitigate the impacts of the development. Chairman McQueeney believed the application lacked public benefits. She wondered if the trail was a requirement to meet the standard or a public benefit. Commissioner Scherr asked about the variance for hardship and wondered what the hardship was. Mr. Fredericks stated that the applicant was requesting two pods of eight parking spaces each. The intent was to provide visitor parking and provide parking for disabled or seniors who live on the north side of the project and weren't able to easily walk to the park. The parking was not intended for the multi-family units. Commissioner Chandler-Henry struggled with the public benefits. She believed there were a lot of impacts to the area with this development. She asked about the storage ponds and whether they had a right to store water. She asked how the concerns by the Fire Department about safety on Valley Road were addressed. Chairman McQueeney asked about the description of the adjacent properties in terms of compatibility with regards to density and what was allowed. She also asked about the ditch on the property and if there would be an impact to the downstream users. Mr. Schreiber asked about the perceived public benefits and believed the trails and housing were considered a public benefit. Chairman McQueeney stated that the original sketch plan did not include a zone change. This application included a zone change which required public benefit. She believed the upzoning added another level. Mr. Fredericks stated that the trail was important to the project and the community. Their preference was to build a full-width trail on the Forest Service property. If it wasn't possible to build the trail on the Forest Service property,they would build a trail on the Valley Road corridor. Commissioner Chandler-Henry believed that the cash-in-lue of a trail could not be considered a public benefit. Commissioner Scherr reiterated that this was a new application and the board wasn't able to consider what was proposed in the last application. 4 08/17/2022 Mr. Peterson explained that the originally approved Sketch Plan expired and there was no vested right in that plan. The board could only approve a file based on the standards applicable to the file. The former plan did not include a public benefit standard that had to be met. Chairman McQueeney apologized to those wishing to speak during public comment and reminded folks that public comment would be accepted at the next meeting. Commissioner Scherr stated that public comment was valuable but the board had to consider the comments related to the standards. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no.s ZC 9136-2021, SSP 9165-2021,and 1041 9137-2021 until August 29, 2022 Commissioner Scherr seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ,POF mitrOG a There being no further busine 0 - : ard,the meeting was adjourned until August 23,2022. O,ORAD°/ t Attest. Clerk to the Board C irman 5 08/17/2022