The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 04/18/05 PUBLIC HEARING April 18, 2005 resent: Atr1 Menconi Peter Runyon Tom Stone Jack Ihgstad Diane Mauriello Don DuBois Chainnan Commissioner Commissioner County Administratbr County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a schedllledPublic Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board ofCoul1ty Commissioners for their consideration: ExeclltiveSessiofi Commissioner Stone moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on potential surcharge increases for 911, for discussing matters that may be subject tbnegotiations regarding a proposed pre-'construction services agreement for the Fairgrounds Pavilion, fot the purpose ofreceiving legal advice and discussing negotiations With the ToWIl of Gypsum concerning the Eagle County Regional Airport, and for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning the Vail Christian High School pUb, all of which are appropriate tbpics for discussion pursuant to CRS 24-6-402( 4)(b) and (e). Co111111issioner Runyon seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion, Cofn111issioner Stone movedto adjourn from Executive Session, and Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion, which passed unaniihously. Consent Agenda Chairman Menconi stated the first item before the Board wasthe Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of April 18, 2005 (Subject to review by the County Adrninistrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department :B. Approval ofthe Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meetings for April 4 and April. 5,2005 Teak Simonton, CourityClerk and Recorder C. Memorandum of Understanding between Eagle County and the Mountain Valley Lutheran Preschool for the Early Childhood Partners Program Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services b. Memorandum oftJnderstanding between Eagle COullty and Red Hill Play School for the Early Childhood Partners Program Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services E. Agreement between Eagle County and Association for the Education of the Young Child (AEYC) for Early Childhood Appreciation Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Agreement between Eagle County and Western Kentucky University Training and Technical Assistance Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services 1 4/18/05 Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney stated that there were none. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-F. Commissioner Rullyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda lena Skil1t1er-Matkowitz, Cornrntit1ity Development Resoltitio1l2005-045 to ApProve the Special Use Pennit for the Peace Ranch P6nd(Eagle COl.lntyFile Number ZS~OOI22). C0111tnissioIler Rl.lnyon moved to approve the Planning and Land Use ResolUtion Consent Agenda. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Minot" SubdiVision Plat Signing retia Skinfier~MarkoWitz, C0111in.unity DevelopmeIlt 5MB,,00361., HomesteadFiJlIlst 2. Blocks 13 thtuJ6: .a Re-subdivisio.lloc..Lof8.Block 16 A Minor TypeB subdivision, the putposeofwhiGh isto both subdivideLot8, Filing 2, of the Homestead PUD, creating two (2}Yz duplex IOtS,k110WIl as Lot 8E and Lot 8W; as well as to create an access easement for the benefit of Lot 8E. Commissioner Stone moved to approve 5MB-00361, Homestead Filing 2, Blocks 13 thtu 16; a Re~ subdiVision of Lot8, Block 16 A Minor Type B subdivision, the purpose of which is to bOth subdivide Lot 8, Filirig 2, ofthe Homestead POD, creating two (2) ~ duplex lots, known as Lot 8E and Lot 8W; as well as to create an a'G'cess easement for the benefit of Lot 8E and authorized the Chairman to sign the plat. C01i1111issioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous; Amendment to the EagleCoufity WORKS Program Policies Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Kathy LYOIiS of Health and Human Services explained that the revisions are state regulation language that has been proposed for transitioning families from WORKS to Low-Ihcome childcare. She pointed out the cha:rtges and highlighted them for the Board. Col11it1issionet Rl.lnyoIl moved to approve the Amendment to the Eagle County WORKS Program Policies. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared uIlanimous. First Quarter Interest Report for 2005 Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer JaGk Ihgstad, County Administrator, explained that the County is on target for its first quarter interest projections. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle . County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Don DuBois, Clerk and Recorder's Office 2 4/18/05 Consent Agenda Renewals A. The Chaparral Edwards, CO This is aTenewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License, with Optional Premises, in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessaty fees have been paid. D. Cordillera Golf Club . Edwards, CO This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License, With Optional Premises, in Edwards. There have been no complaints or distl.ltbances in the past year. An the necessaty fees have been paid. c. JUlliper Restaurant Edwards, CO This is a renewal of a Hotelllnd Restal.ltant Liquor License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessaty fees have been paid. D, The Boater's Bar Boud, CO This is a refieWalofan Optional Premises LiquorLicense in Bond. There have been no complaints or distUrbances in the past year. An the necessaty fees have been paid. E. Mirabelle at Beaver Creek Beaver Creek, CO This is a tenewalof a Botel and Restaurant Liquor License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. F. ParkIlyatt Beaver Creek BeaVet.Creek, CO This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restal.ltant Liquor License, With Optional Premises, in BeaVer Creek Village. All the necessary fees have been paid. The establishment did recently fail a compliance check conducted by the State, and Will be subject to a suspension of their license or payment of a [m:e in lieu. The State Liquor Authority is handling the matter exclusively, and the details have not yet been finalized. This is the first violation for this establishment. Other Consent G. Ray's Edwards, CO This is a Corporate Report of Change. Rays has added John Alfond as one of the Managers of its LLC. Mr. Alfond is reported to be of good moral character, based on Sheriffs reports. The application is complete and the required fees have been paid. Don DuBois, Liquor License Coordinator, explained that a compliance check was performed by the State Liquor Enforcement Division in March, targeting bars and restaurants in Eagle County. The Park Hyatt failed this 3 4/18/05 check, having served alcohol to an underage patron without checking for proper identification. He explained that the State would be handling the penalty and hearing phase, and the County would not have to be involved. He aSked for ditectidn from the Board as to how they Wished to proceed. Bryan Treu, Assistant COl.lIlty Attorney, explained how the process worked. He stated that they could brir. in the Park Hyatt fora Show-Cause hearing, but since it is their first violation, the penalty would be similar to what the state is currently doing. He stated that this violation would not result in a revocation of the license. Cotfi111issioner Stone believed that there would be no beneficial option to bringing in the applicant, since state was handling the penalty phase. Cotfi111issioner Runyon moved to approve the Liquor Consent Agenda, Items A -G. CommisSioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Co111tnissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-conveneas the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Rtit1yoh seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Air Terll1inalCotpotation Meeting COUhty Attorney's Otfice Representative L Apprdvalofthe lllinutes ofthe :February 1,2005 meeting Mr. Runyon moved to approve the minutes of the February 1,2005 meeting. Secretary Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Agreement between the Eagle County Air Tet111inal Corporation and Vail Resorts for Display of V olvo SUV Automobile Ovid Siefers, Airport Director, stated thatthere are no outstanding issues with this agreement. this is Similar to the BMW contract that had been in place at the airport for several years. Vice President Ingstad moved to approve the Agreement between the Eagle County Air Terminal Cm-pofation and Vail Resorts for Display of Volvo SUV Automobile. Secretary Stone seconded the motion. The vote waS declared unanimous. 3. New Business Mr. Yngstad explained to President Menconi that it is almost time to retain the consultant used for negotiating the airline agreements. He recommended that the Corporation retain the same consultant used in the past. President Menconi agreed with Mr. Ihgstad's statements. 4. Adjourn Secretary StOne moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re-convene as the Board of COuhty Commissioners. Mr. Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2005 Annual Earth Day Poster Contest Awards Presentation Cetemony and Resolution 200S..46 Designating April 18-22, 2005 Earth Awareness Week Ray Merry, Environmental Health Ray Merry, Director of Environmental Health, gave a presentation to the audience, explaining the history of Earth Day and thanking the students in the audience for their participation in the program. Mr. Merry showed some of the posters that were created throughout the years. 4 4/18/05 The commissioners then presented the awards to the wit1Iling students for their posters. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2005-46 Designating April 18-22, 2005 Earth \:wareness Week. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PlanIling Files Oleso:ti8ubdiVisiolrLot2.RoadJmpactFee Appeal Adam Palmer, Commtit1ity Development SUMMARY OFltEOUEST: On May 15, 2001, the Eagle Col.lnty Board of County Commissioners adopted Road Impact Fees as Article 4-710 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR). The purpose of this regulation is to assure that new development contributes its proportionate share of the cost of providirig, and benefits from the provision of Road Capital Improvements identified as needed to be built in the Road CIP (Capital Improvements Plan), The administration ofthis regulation is carried out by the Road Impact Fee Committee, under the direction ofthe Road ImpactFee Administrator. Ally appeals of the decision of the Administrator a.remade to the Road Impact Fee Board, which atthis time, consists of the Eagle COl.lnty Board of County Co111111issioners. Mr. Gordon 13laikie has requested that a $1,600 road impact fee assessed to building permit BP-I64l4 be waived and reimbursed to him for the reason that such road impact fees were not collected for building permit BP-15833 issued for the adjaC'entLot 3 of the Oleson Subdivision in the Eagle-Vail PUD. BACKGROUND AND CHRONOLOGY: 968: 6,500 fe single~family home was constructed on what is noW Lot I of Oleson Subdivision. May, 2()OO: :P])S]>~()()011: Sketchl.Preliminary Plan to include Oleson.lot intoEagle-'1ailPUD.Tbe Olesonl()t was zoned Resource and not included in the Eagle~Vail PUD, creatirig a "donut hole" in the middle of the PUD. Octobet2, 2000: zC-000j6: This zoning change as approved changed the zoning of existing property from ResollI'ce to J>UD as an inclusion to the Eagle-Vail PUD. June 24, 2003: PDF-00075: Oleson Subdivision subdivided the single lot property into 3 lots. Approval was granted with the follOWing conditions: 1. Prior to recording the final Plat, fees-in-lieu of School Land Dedication pursuant to Section 4~ 700 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations must be submitted. 2. Pursuant to Section 4~ 710 of the Eagle COl.lnty Land Use Regulations, at the time of building permit issuance on both of the two newly created lots, Road Impact Fees will be collected for each new residence. February 24, 2004: AFP-00188: Amended final plat to reshape building envelope on lot 3 of Oleson Subdivision. August 19,2004: BP-15833: Building permit issued for 11,195 fe house. Road Impact Fees were calculated for permit in file, but were not properly flagged for collection. Applicable Road Impact Fees have not been collected. 'ebruary 7,2005: BP-16414: Buildirig permit issued for construction of single family home on Lot 2 of Oleson Subdivision. Road Impact Fee of$I,600 paid. 5 4/18/05 February 9, 2005: BP-16420: Building Permit issued for Lot 1 of Oleson Subdivision: Pope residential addition/alteration: adding 4 car garage, and bath to unfinished basement. February 10, 2005: Gordon Blaikie of Saltire Development issued a letter to Keith Montag appealing the decision ofthe $1,600 assessed Road Impact Fee. DISCUSSION: . Since the Oleson subdivision was approved as file PDF-00075 on June 24, 2003 and :bID create a gain in allowable residential units, road impact fees ARE applicable, as stated on the record at the subject public hearing and resolution. .. Building Pennit.l3P-15833 was issued to Mr. Blaikie on August 19,2004 for a singe family residence. Road Impact Fees were calculated and assessed for the pennit, but were not properly flagged for collection. The building petrnit was errantly issued without collection of the road impact fees. .. Pl.ltsuantto Mr. Blaikie's request for reimbursement of road impact feeS collected prior to issuance of building perihit BP~164l4 for Lot 2 of the Oleson Subdivision, the Land Use Regulations state the folloWing appeal process pursuant to Section 4-'710: Appeal of Administrative Calculation. a. A fee payer affected by the administrative calculation of a road impact fee may appeal such decision to the Road Impact Pee Board, by filing With the Impact Fee Adrninistrator within ten (10) days of the date of the written. decision, a written notice stating and specifYing briefly the grounds of the appeal. The Impact Fee Administrator shall place the appeal on the Road Impact Fee Board's agenda for the next regularly scheduled meeting. b. The Road Impact Fee Board, after a hearing,. shall have the power to affirih or reverse. the decisiOn of the Impact :Fee Adtiiinistrator. III making its decision, the Road Impact Fee Board shall make written findings of fact and conclusions oflaw,and apply the standards in this Section 4-710.F, Administrative Calculation of Fee. lEthe Road Impact Fee Board reverSes the decision of the Impact Fee Administrator, it shall direct the Admirtistrator to recalculate the fee in accordance with its findings. Jnno case shall the Road Impact Fee Board have the authority to negotiate the amount of the fee or waive the fee. The decision of the Road Impact Fee Board shall be final. ACcOrding to the language set forth aboVe, it is Staffs interpretation that the Road Impact Fees assessed for the subject building permits cannot be waived. In addition, since road impact fees assessed for building permit BP- 15833 have not yet been collected, it is Staffs determination that subject fees are still due by the applicallt pursuant tothe Land Use Regulations and conditions of approval on record for the Oleson SubdiVision. For this reason, Staff is recommending DENIAL of the reimbursement request for road impact fees paid for building permit BP. 16414. In addition, Staff is requiring payment of$1600 prior to issuance ofTCO or CO for building pennit BI'- 15833, Lot 3, Oleson Subdivision. Roa.d Impact Fee Credits Road Impact Fees can be credited when an applicant includes a Road Capital Improvement as defined in Section 4- 710.D.15 ofthe ECLUR as part of their development. Mr. Blaikie notes on his appeal letter that $130,000 was spent improving the access to the subdivision. Section 4-710 D .15 defines all improvements which are considered as Road Capital Improvements. Direct access improvements are specifically excluded from this definition. Since this improvement is not a listed Road Capital Improvement as listed in Section 4-710 Exhibit B, nor does it meet the definition of a Road Capital Improvement, the applicant's request for a credit against such access improvements is disallowed by the language of this section. To this end, no road impact fee credits have been assessed. 6 4/18/05 POSSI:aLEROADIMPACTFEE ]lOAlID ACTION: The Road Impact Fee Board has the power to affirm or reverse the decision of the Impact Fee Administrator. Ifthe R.oad Impact Fee Board reverSes the decision ofthe Impact Fee Administrator, it shall direct the Adrninistratorto recalculate the fee in accordance with the findings. Ih no case shall the Road Impact Pee Board have the authority to negotiate the amount of the fee or to waive the fee. This decision shall be considered final. The RO'ad Impact Fee Board should make the folloWing findings: 1. Building Permit BP-16414 IS/IS NOT exempt from the terms of the Road Impact Fee regulation. 2. Building Pennit BP-15833 IS/IS NOT exempt from the terms ofthe Road Impact Fee regulation. 3. Ally improvements made by the appellant ARE/ARE NOT credited against subject road impact fees. 4; The decision of the Impact Pee Administrator is AFFIRMEDIREVERSED. A revetsaldecision requite'S a recalculation ofthe fee in accordance with the Standards in Section 4-710.F, Administrative Calculation of Fee. Adam Palmer of Corriml.lnity Development presented this file to the Board. He stated that theapplicanfis requesting a $1,600 reimbursement of fees because the Road Impact Fees were not collected for a building permit issued on the adjacent lot. He gave a PowerPoint presentation to the Board giving a backgrOl.lnd and chronology of the file to the Board. He explained that the reason the Road Impact Fees were not collected on the adjacent lot was due tb anertor he made. IIe Went over the staff findings for the Board, stating that the lot in question is not exempt from the collection of ROad Impact Fees and then gave the possible actions available to the Board, stating they could affirm or reverse the decision of the Irripact Fee Administrator. StaffrecoIn111ends that the Impact Fee Administrator's decisiOn be affirmed and deny the applicant's request for reimbursement. GotdonBlaikie, the applicant and OWIler of Lots 2 and 3, spoke to the Board and gave his reasonS for asking for the reimbursement. Chairman Menconi opened public corriment. There was none. Chainnari Menconi closed public C0111tnent. Commissioner Stone asked the County Attorney's Office asked if the COUilty could collect the fee that Mr. Palmer forgot to collect. Walter Mathews, DeputyCol.l1lty Attorney, stated that the County could still collect the fees. Mr. Pa.lmer stated that the file had been flagged for collection prior to any other work that could be done; Co111111issioner Runyon asked if the fees the applicant previously paid were part of the Land Use Regulations requirements. Mr. Palmer went over the fees and costs that were highlighted by the applicant. IIestated that these costs can notbe determined as Road Impact Fees, according to the Land Use Regulations. Co111111issioner Runyon asked ifthe fees paid were in line with what was required based on the County Standards. Mr. Palrnerconcurred and stated that they were based on the applicant being required to provide access to his property that was to the County's standards. Chait111an Menconi asked if there would have been acknowledgement of a Road Impact Fee at PUD and the Subsequent plat. Bob Narracci of CommunitY Development concurred with that assessment. Chainnan Menconi asked Mr. Narracci to explain how the applicant is notified of Road Impact Fees. Mr. Narracci stated that all applicants are notified of the applicable fees through notices posted in their lobby and through personal notification. Chairman Menconi stated he understood the request, but doesn't agree with the applicant's reasoning, as the fee is associated with the approval and not the size of the project. Mr. Blaikie stated he was not notified of these fees until after the fact, thus the reason for the appeal. Mr. Narracci stated that the original applicant was aware of the fees, but did not convey that to Mr. Blaikie vhen he purchased the property from the Eagle-Vail Metro District. Chairman Menconi stated the Road Impact Fee is a regulation placed on all up-zoning. Mr. Blaikie stated that he was not informed of this fee. 7 4/18/05 Commissioner Runyon stated that if Mr. Blaikie was not informed by Eagle-Vail Metro, he should take action against them, and it is not the County's duty to do that. He asked if there were packets given to applicants that go into detail what is expected of them, in the terms of fees. Mr. Palmer concurred and stated that the applicant did sign the packet stating that he understood these fee' Chairman Menconi asked the applicant what would have happ~ned had the original fees not been missed. Mr. Blaikie stated that he would have made an adjustment with the bank. He reiterated his stance that this Was the first that he had heard of these fees. Chainnan Menconi asked what lot the applicant was charged on. Mr. Palmer stated it was Lot 2. Chairman Menconi asked if the appeal was based on Lot 3. Mr. Blaikie stated that no additional vehicle trips would be added and didn't understand the fees. Helen Migchelbririk of Engineering explained how Road Impact Fees were calculated. She stated that there is no variation for 1 car garages, 2 car garages, etc. It is based on the dwelling itself. Commissioner Runyon asked if there are complaints made by people based on the different sizes of houses. Ms. Migchelbrink stated that she had not received any complaints like this before. > Commissioner Stone sympathized With the applicant and apologized that the fees were not given to him irt advance. He stated that there. is no other recourse for the County to take, though. If they did change the ruling, it would be based on faulty thinking, and, Within the law, they don't have the ability to make that change. Mr. Blaikie stated that he would now have to pay the other $1,600 fee and would not get a reimbursement of this appeal. C0111111issioner Stone concurred. He stated that the fees can only be waived in very limited tenns; For the Boatd to make a decision other than denial of the appeal would involve the Board breaking the law. Mr. Blaikie reiterated that, now, he has to pay an additional $1,600. Mr. Palmer stated that, had the appeal not been made, the omission would not have been caught and the applicant would not have been forced to pay the other $1,600 fee. But, now he will have to pay that. Co:m:trtissioner Stone moved thanheRoad Impact Fee Board make the folloWing findings: L :BUilding PennitBP~16414 is not exempt from the terms of the Road Jmpact Fee regulation. 2. Building Petinit BP..15833 is not exempt from the terms of the Road Impact Fee regulation. 3. Ally ltnptovements made by the appellant are not credited against subject road impact fees. 4. The decision of the Impact Fee Administrator is afftrmed. A reversal decision requires a recalculation of the fee in accordance with the Standards in Section 4-710.F, Administrative Calculation of Fee. Commissioner Rtit1yon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS,:,00128. -Loftworks Bob Narracci, Community Development ACTION: Twenty residential units on a 7.578 acre parcel of land. The residential tit1its are designed asthree "town home" buildings located arotit1d a central common open space parcel. Each unit will contain a "flex space" area designed as a home business work space and which is separate from the living areas. Outwardly, the project will appear strictly residential. LOCATION: Center of the Edwards Community Center, immediately north of the Homestead Subdivision and east of the South Forty Subdivision. The subject site abuts U.S. Hwy. 6 on the north. TITLE: FILE NO. / PROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: Loftworks, a Live/W ork Residential Proj eCt ZS-00128/Special Use Permit Edwards Development Association Loftworks, LLC/Robert Kuller, John Dem and John Lovett 8 4/18/05 REPRESENTATIVE: Braun Associates/Tom Braun STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff cannot support this request in its current form due to the outstanding ~onCefl1 of traffic generation associated with the currently proposed Home Businesses and the potential for excessive negative off-site impacts that would be realized because of the current substandard condition Bull Run and Lariat Loop. These roads were not constructed to meet current County standards and Cal1t1ot adequately handle the increase in traffic generated by 20 Home Businesses above and beyond the traffic that will be generated by the residential element of the LOftworks Development. EA.GLE COUNtY.PLANNING.COMMISSION: All of the Plal1t1ing Corinnissioners noted the uniqueness of the proposed development type and the need for such a development somewhere within Eagle County. Through their discussions and deliberation, the Plat1hing Commissioners expressed the folloWing C0111l11ents and concerns prior to recommending denial of the Loftworks Special Use Permit in a vote offive to one: V Has the possibility for access to the property directly off of U.S. Highway 6 been thoroughly explored? v Warehousing, fu:r11iture assembly, wood working, home catering and audio studios stand out as proposed Home Businesses that would not be compatible; v lt1appropriate to place , commercial uses' in an area completely surrounded by residential uses, in particular the South Forty and its residents who have been in the valley fOr a considerable length Of time and who have grown accustomed to a certain standard ofliving. Existing commercial uses in Edwards not adjacerit to subj ect property'; v Enforcement of the Home Businesses will be difficult. Other Special Uses' have requITed enforcement I:ll1d it has not happened. The County does not have the resources to enforce. Not clear who would be responsible for the ongoing monitoring and enforcement. How will the HOA deal with the project; v Great project. Not'the proper location; v The proposed list of Home Businesses is 'ripe' for abuse. It is l.lnlikely that you are goingto have dhlyohe employee showing up at these work places and you are going to have people conducting only thetype"s of businesses on the list; v Twenty home businesses in one l(Jcation will create negative impacts on existing sl.llTotit1ding property owners; V The proposed change is not in order with the surrounding community and not consistent with the Special Use Permit; v Site development standards, road impacts and lack of pedestrian paths all concerning; v 'Commercial' access through residential is concerning; v No CCR's provided to review; ./ Lack Of secondary access; v Some of the uses proposed create potential for incompatibility with existing residential. Medical offices could create more traffic and demand for parking than what the plan can allow; v PerSonal Services also of concern; ./ U.S. Highway 6 and Bull Run intersection needs to be improved even if project is only residential; v Use by right for home businesses in a 20 unit project vs. individual reviews as we haVe in place under the Land Use Regulations; v To believe that the County would revoke the Special Use Permit is not reasonable because one individual' is breaking the rules a1120 homeowner's would be penalized; v Density should be reduced to offset home business traffic; The one Planning Commissioner that favored the project indicated that based upon personal experiences, the chafacter would be very residential. Traffic would be minimized because the business owners / occupants would not have to commute elsewhere. PROJECT DESCRIPTION UMMARY: This proposal for Special Use Permit is to evaluate the 'work' aspect of a contemplated live / work esidential townhome development. More specifically, the Special Use Permit request, if approved, will allow a variety of Home Businesses to operate from each of twenty proposed townhome units. It is anticipated that each townhome unit will be held in separate ownership. 9 4/18/05 the subject property is presently zoned Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) which allows residential development, including; single-family, duplex and multi-family structures at a density of one dwelling unit per 15,000 square feet ofland area. The subject property is 7.578 acres in area and thus has the maximum potential fo 22 residences. (7.578 acres x 43,560 sq. ft. per acre = 330,097.68 sq. ft. of I and area +15,000 sq. ft. per residence == 22.0065 maximum potential residential units) The Eagle County Land Use Regulations include the Special Use Permit provision which is designed to evaluate, "those uses that are not necessarily compatible With the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses". One such type of Special Use Permit is that for 'Home Businesses. typically, Special Use Permits for Home Businesses are requested for a specific use and location, and the County's approval will tl.lh With the land or property unless otherwise limited by the Board of County Commissioners. Eagle County's La:nd Use Regulations do not preclude the issuance of a Special Use Permit for multiple possible uses at multiple hdmes all located Within the same development. Alternatively, the townhome l.lnits could be constructed and sold requiring each unit OWIler to process a separate Special Use Pet111it specific to their individual Home Business needs. Withthis application, potential Home Businesses proposed for each toWllhome unit within the Loftworks development are included in the folloWing list of uses. A maximum of one (1) employee residing off-premises shall be permitted for each unit: · Professional offices, including but not limited to accountants, architects and other designers, attorneys, financial advisors and other similar uses; · Home catering, subject to approval of all applicable building and health codes (staff believes that this usei; impractical due to the structural modifications that would be necessitated. i.e.: grease traps, venting, etc.); · Offices and warehousing for business representatives and catalogue sales; · Offices for writers, publicists, etc.; · Furniture assembly and Woodworking, subject to approval of all applicable building codes and conformance With noise standards (staff questions the appropriateness of this type of use due to the potentialfor excessive noise and fumes from glues, stains, varnishes, etc.); · Studios for photographers, jewelry design, video production, artisans, craftsman, etc.; · Technical repair, support and service of computers, computer systems, electronic, audio / visual and similar equipment (staff is concerned about the potential 'nuisance' impacts that may result from an audio studio). Additionally, no more than eight(8) of the following types of HOIl1e Business shall be pennitted to operate at any one time within the Loftwdrksdevelopment. Each of the uses in this category may have one (1) employee residing off-premises, provided that such employee shall be limited to administrative, clerical or other support function to the resident employee: .. Limited medical offices, irtcluding but not limited to chiropractic, optometry, dental, medical, couns.elors, physical therapy and other similar uses; · Personal services, including but not limited to hair and beauty, massage, training and other similar uses; · Seamstress, upholstery, rug repair Service. The applicant proposes that the appropriate mix of Home Businesses occurring in the Loftworks Development at any given time will be monitored and enforced by the County (Please reference the attached letter dated March 25, 2005 addressed to Bob Narracci prepared by Robert Kul/er and John Lovett). This enforcement mechanism is similar to procedures used by the County to review and verify individual proposed uses and issue Tenant Finish building permits within multi-tenant commercial buildings. One important distinction; however, is that the Community Development Department and/or Department of Environmental Health (code enforcement) will not be aware when individual townhome units are sold and/or rented to a new occupant with a potentially new Home 10 4/18/05 Business. If this Special Use Pet111it is approved, a reliable method of tracking must be developed so that each townhome unit's ownership can be reconciled with the actual Home Business occurring within said townhome unit I - at any point in time. . Prior to building permit issuance for the townhome units, additional development applications and related infonnation will be submitted to the County including a Final Subdivision Plat (Type' A' Subdivision) and detailed cOhstruction draWings of infrastructure and related site improvements. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement will also be required at that time. A companion application requesting a Variance from Improvement Standards is being processed.concutrently with this application (File No. VIS-0027). The variance request is with regard to the requirement for curb, gutter, sidewalk and two points of ingress I egress. CIlRONOLOGY.AND BACKGROuND: July 6,1976: The subject property received zone change approval from 'Resource' to'RSL'; 1976: The SouthFdrty Subdivision received Sketch Plan approval, inclusive of the subject 7.578 acre parcel. July 21, 1976: the South Forty Subdivision received Preliminary Subdivision Plan approval; however, the subject property was not included in the Preli111inary Plan. County records included the folloWing infot111ation and describe a chain of events that transpired: 1. the COunty technical ReviewComl11ittee (fRC) I10ted with respect to the sketch plan that "the area east of the maih gulch is a slope failure c9mplex with gypsum soils. AIl engineer - geologist should investigate the site anddeter111:ine ifthe area is suitable for permanent struc~es." CGS noted that "the entire area east of the drainage between Lot-30 and Lot R-31 is composed of debris slides and slope failure complexes made up of unsorted thick colluvial material on moderate to steep unstable or metastable slopes. Most of the area within this classification may not be suitable for pet111anent structures." 3. Bill Williams responded the TRC comment by saying that he would have a soils study completed prior to application for preliminary plan approval. 4. CGS also commented on the Preliminary Plan, including: a. Waste disposal: Either a c0111tnunity sewage system should be installed or only evapotranspiration systems used on individual lots. Steep lots are not suitable for evapotranspiration systerns, which would eliminate a nllmber of lots from development. CGS recommends that a community system be required in light of soil conditiol1s, slope, and possible future development in the area. b. Although hot part of this submitted plan based Oh geologic conditions. CGS recommend no development take place east of the drainage that runs through Tract A. This area was originally part of the sketch plan. This would eliminate the need to extend Lariat Loop over a steep soil zone between Lots 24 and 30. 5. The geo-technical report provided with the Preliminary Plan indicates that all of the site could be developed, but that portions of the site are "difficult" and development would be more expensive than a nonnal situation. Debbie wlEdwards Development Association indicated that the subject property was not included in the Preli111inary Plan and Final Plat due to an unfavorable economy at the time. S~pteIll.ber 28, 1976: The Final Plat for the South Forty was recorded. The subject property Was not included in the Final Plat. rebruary 17, 2005: Application received by Eagle County for this Special Use Permit request. SITE DATA: 11 4/18/05 Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: West: North: Residential & Open Space / Arrowhead PUD Single-family Residential/Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) U.S. Highway 6 right-of-way Reserve on the Eagle River / Residential Suburban Medium Density Residential/River Pines PUD Residential/Homestead Filing 2 PUD South: EXistillg Zoning: Total Land Area: Access: Water: SeWer: Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) 7.578 acres Via Bull Run and Lariat Loop Edwards Metropolitan District Eagle River Water & Sanitation District STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eat!:H~CountvEIlt!:ineeriIl2: Please refer to the attached memorandum dated March 29,2005. The memorandum sets forth 19 comments delineating the requirements of the County's Land Use Regulations and pertinent recoh1l1ienda:tions: Ihcluding on site and off site vehicle circulation, pedestrian circulation, curb, gutter and sidewalk, stOtmwater drainage detention and associated appUrtel1ances and the need to pave :Bull Run Road and Lariat Loop to fuitigate impacts of the additional traffic. Several of the comments Will affect site design and layout a.nd will need to be thoroughly addressed with the subsequent Final Plat (Type' A' Subdivision) process. Condition No.3. ECO 'frallsit: Please refer to the attached e-mail response dated March 15,2005. It is not anticipated that the proposeddevel()pinent Will have a significant impact on transit. ECO busses already run through Edwardson U.s. Highway 6 about 20 hours per day. WiJdfrre.Miti2ation$pecialist: Please refer to the attached e-mail response dated March 10,2005. Portions of the site have a high wildflfe hazard rating and Will need to be mitigated. A vegetation management plan must be provided. The applicant has been working with a wildfire consultant and the County's WildfireMitigation Specialist to develop a comprehensive Vegetation Managem<:nt Plan. This Plan will be required with the subsequent Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision) process. Condition No.6. Eat!:leCount" Road & Brid2e: Please Tefer to the attached e-mail response from Brad Higgins dated March 23, 2005. R&B recommends that Bull Run and Lariat Loop be paved. Adding traffic to it (the substandard road) will only make it worse. It is preferable that the two 'roads' internal to the development terminate in a cul-de-'sac bulb for maintenance and emergency equipment turnaround. Also questioned is whether or not the road serving the project is to be considered for County maintenance. The applicant has indicated that this road and the internal 'roads' are to be privately owned and maintained. Eat!:le Courtt" Housin2 Department: Please refer to the attached memorandum dated March 29, 2005. The response acknowledges that this proposal is a new and innovative concept to address affordable housing by incorpora.ting work space into the housing. The Housing Department finds that the calculation for Unit Type 'B' is well within the definition of 'affordable housing' on a per square foot basis. Additionally, the need for affordable housing that would be generated by this project as both a residential project and as a mixed-use project have been calculated; the calculations show that a purely residential project of this size generates the need for 2.18, rounded up to '3', affordable housing units. A mixed use project includes a commercial linkage component generating the need for 3.05, rounded up to '4' affordable housing units. The proposal already includes five affordable units and therefore exceeds the requirements of the Housing Guidelines. ECO Trails: Please refer to the attached e-mail response from Ellie Caryl dated March 30, 2005. The ECO Eagle Valley Trails Plan does not specifically reference this parcel along the core trail route but the plan does encourage the provision of pedestrian facilities to link population centers and activity centers throughout the valley. Itappears 12 4/18/05 the accesS road has the potential to transport a mix of vehicles driven by residents, employees, deliveries and customers which will have impacts on its use as a pedestrian and bike route for residents, visitors, employees and customers to get to and from the property. ECO Trails advocates the provision of some sort of path and if the 'lPplicant believes that the existing standard is excessive, they should propose an alternative design concept for a pedestrian connection to the existing neighborhood roads that lead to the co111tnunity core or a pathway to the core area frdm the project through the adjacent open space tract. The applicant has not had the opportunity to specifically address this response, but has indicated that a pedestrian path has been considered. Condition No.4. Eaele,..Cou.ntyDepartmentofEn'Virollmelltal Health: Please refer to the attached response dated March 29, 2005. The Eagle COuIlty Department of Environmental Health set forth several recommendations with regard to minimizing and preventing undue environmental impacts and the development of a sufficient code enforcement mechanism. All recommendations of the Department of Environmental Health must be adhered to. Condition No. 8. Ea.sdeCoulltvSchool DisttictRE~50JAdministration: Please refer to the attached response dated March 15, 2005. Based upon 20 tOWIlhome units, a land dedication requirement of 0.1 08 acres will be generated. The District is requesting fees in-lieu of land dedication in this instance. At the time of Final Plat (Type' A' Subdivision), the applicant will need to submit a current Sl.ltn111ary Appraisal Report for the property from which the value per acre can be ascertained. Nol'ihWesfColoradoCotmcil6f Goverllments: Please refer to the attached response dated March 25,2005. The NWCCOG response offers nine suggestions and comments; all of which focus on Water quality protection through proper stormwatermanagementand erosion control. Condition No.2. ColOtado.Histofical Society: Please refer to the attached response dated March 10,2005. The response indicates that nO sites have been identified in the project area. Upon discussion with Jim Green of the Colorado Historical Society via telephone, a survey is not required unless the development is a federal or state project. ColotadoDepartIDellt6fTrallspottationGralldJunctioll: Please refer to the attached undated, handwritten response from Devin Drayton, CDOT Access Technician. If this development wilt cause an increase in traffic of 20% or greater at the Bull Run Road / u.s. Highway 6 intersection, then a State Highway AcceSs Petrnit Will be required. This same comment Was noted in the Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum. Colorado Geoloi!iCal Survey: Please refer to the attached response dated March 17, 2005. The CGS response set forth three recommendations: I)Steep Slopes. There are numerous slopes greaterthan 30% that encompass areas where the tOWIlhome units are plal1t1ed. Specifically, Lots 1-9 are on the upper part of a steep slope to the west with drainage at the base ()fthe slope. This slope should have a slope stability analysis report to determine the suitability of locating such a large number of structures at the top of this slope. The emergency overflow pond, located in the central portion of the property is at the top ofthe 'The Bluffs', a steep slope adjacent to U.S. Highway 6. A slope stability analysis should also be conducted here to detern:rine the effect a full pond would have on the stability of the slope to the north; 2) Subsidence / Soils. The property is underlain by Eagle ValleyEvaporite, which is susceptible to subsidence due to solution. Eagle Valley Evaporite is prone to sirikhole formation and piping. Soils in the area are known to have hydro-compactive properties. The Geologic HaZard Review by BruCe A. Collins recommends site~speCific soil investigations. Direct observation of the foundation excavation should also be considered in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site. Evaporite soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete. Any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive should utilize Type II cement; 3) Rockfall. The steep area to the north of the project has numerous boulders and rock outcrops with the potential for rockfall onto U.S. Highway 6. Special care must be taken during construction to minimize the potential for rockfall to reach U.S. Highway 6. Special mitigation during construction discussed on Page 6 of the Geologic Hazard Review. The County may consider rockfall mitigation during construction as a precondition to final approval of the project. CGS concludes with a recommendation that a site-specific geotechnical report hould be conducted at the site due to the potential hazards from the soils and bedrock associated with the Eagle Talley Evaporite. A slope stability analysis should also be conducted for the project. Condition No. 7 13 4/18/05 Colorado..Division of Water Resources: Please refer to the attached response dated March 17, 2005. The State does not comment on any land use application that does not entail subdivision. The State did recol11111end, however, that the District( s) commit to providing water and sewer taps for the development prior to approval of the application. Eaf!leR1ver Fire Protection District: Please refer to the attached response dated March 24,2005. The ERFPD set forth seven C0111111et1tS: 1) Water supply for fire fighting demands is identified as provided through Edwards Metropolitan District. This Will need to be confirmed; 2) Approval for the water system will need acceptartce from the water district and hydrant locations Will require approval from the fire district; 3) Based on the square feet of space identified as 'flex space' in each unit configuration, for the purpose of fire protection, the project is classified as cointn:ercial and will need to provide fire sprinkler and fire alarm protection as such. It appears 'flex space' makes up anywhere from 26% to 75% or each space; 4) the enforcement ofthe proposed usages allowed for the 'flex space' is a concetn. All annual fire inspection by the Fire District may be a requirement as part of the Specia.l Use Pertllit in order to ensUre confonnance; 5) Access, grade and turn-around within the site appear to adequate based on the Fire Districts' criteria; 6) Access to the site from U.S. Highway 6 is a concern. The road into the South Fort)' Subdivision is dirt and gravel and does not appear to meet Eagle COl.lnty standards for width, grade and drainage. Clittently it serves approx.imately 20 homes. With the additional 20 residential units proposed and the introduction of C0111111ercial traffic, the concetn is this road would deteriorate faster due to greater traffic impact;. 7) the requirement for two ways into and out of a subdivision fotit1d in the County's Land Use Regulations is for the purpose of providing egress for homeOWIlers and access for emergency equipment. The proposed project does not provide this and seems to rely on the main road from U.S. Highway 6. Ih addition to the above concert1, this road does not appear adequate to hartdle both types of traffic and would not be acceptable~ CtJndition No.5. South~FortY, U:ortIeowner's Association: Please refer to the attached response dated March 7, 2005. Access to the site relies upon public roads through the South Forty Subdivision. These roads are cutTently gravel/dirt roads and adequately serve the current level of traffic. South Forty has always been a quiet, safe, low-density residential development consisting of one plus acre sized single family lots, no c0111111ercial businesses and very little traffic. One. of the reasons. the property OWIlerS bought in South Forty and built their homes was that the land to the east, the subjectpropert)', which would be accessed through the South Forty, is zoned the same density as South Forty. We relied on County zoning in choosing South Forty for our homes. the proposed Loftworks is being planned and advertised as a Work / Live project. The Developer shared their intentions with the neighborhood via a verbal presentation as well as a brochure. While the County defines a home occupation or business as 'incidental' to the residential use, the proposed project brochure emphasizes the work / commercial aspect over the residential. Uses such as Catering, Attorney, Gift Baskets, Massage, Optometrist, Therapist, Window Blind, etc., are subject to many customer / supplier visits per day and certainly pushes the envelope of incidental use. The impact of this additional traffic Will alter the residential character of the South Forty neighborhood not to mention the Loftworks project itself. Loftworks has presented a TtafficReport showing a comparison between trips generated by Loftworks versus trips generated by the presently zoned alternative use of 22 strictly residential units. Loftworks claims there will be 184 daily trips from the project versus 154 from strictly residential use. We chaI1enge the assumptions upon which this Traffic Report is based: 1) whenever you see a phrase like 'development assumptions' or 'likely employee density', this data should be ignored. This is just the developer telling us what he thinks we want to hear. We believe a more appropriate measure would be the maximum or worst-case scenario. Therefore, in the attached summary, the developer's assumptions are debatable; 2) we fmd no projections of traffic generated by customers / clients. What about the traffic generated by a business With an outside sales force? We have studied the list of potential businesses that Loftworks might be included in their project and these businesses would create a huge traffic increase from customers / clients and potential sales forces; 3) We also find no mention of traffic generated by suppliers, maintenance men, business associates, professional consultants, architects, attorneys, etc., etc. A project with 20 commercial outlets Will have very significant traffic generated by these kinds of activities. Following is a list of what we think more realistic assumption for traffic generated by Loftworks: 14 4/18/05 Loftworksw/ one employee - 184 trips Customers / Clients average 10 customers / day x 2 trips each :x 20 businesses ~ 400 trips Suppliers, etc. total of 10 for the 20 units x 2 trips each - 40 trips TOTAL = 624 trips Obviously, if our assumptions are closer to reality, this would be a disaster for our community. We strongly urge the county experts to question and examine the validity 'of the Loftworks Traffic Report. We arc hereby asking Bob Narracci to inform us of all meetings regarding this project. We intend to attend every meeting to protest the Special Use Pennit. As voting citizens of Eagle County, we are hereby asking our tmee elected representatives to deny approval ofthis project. Additiollal Referr'al Agencies Not Responding: Eagle COl.lIlty Attorney' s Office Eagle County Animal Control Eagle County Sheriff s Office Eagle COtlt1ty Weed & Pest Eagle CountySthool District Transporta:tion Division Colorado Department of Transportation Local Office Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Water ConServation Bdard Natural Resource Conservation Service Qwest / PTI/ Century Tel KN Energy Edwards Metropolitan District EagleRiver Water & Sanitation District ~agle County Ambulance District Eagle COUt1ty Historical Society Edwards Postmaster Arrowhead HOA RiverWalkPOA Riverbend HOA The Reserve HOA Old Edwards Estates IIOA Singletree HOA Citizen Responses: Thirteen letters and e-mails of support have been received and are attached to this staff report. · Sue Rythel · Dr. Gary A. Daniel, Edwards Resident · Rober Vettatti, Eagle County Resident · Rick Beveridge, Eagle County Resident · Lee Harding · Ric Burgund, Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate · Morgan & Katen Turner, Potential Plirchaser · Patrick Chirichillo, Eagle County Resident · Rick Cook, Slifer Smith & Frampton Real Estate · Randy Garman, Bank West · Michelle Endres Hayes, Hayes Mortgage Group, Edwards · J. Wesley Mesko, MD, Potential Purchaser 'hirty-nine letters and e-mails of opposition to this Special Use Permit request have been received; all are attached to this staff report. 15 4/18/05 · Dave Garton - South Forty Property Owner · (2 Letters) Ceil Folz - 0500 Lariat Loop, South Forty · (2 Letters) Steve Folz ~ 0500 Lariat Loop, South Forty · Pam Brandmeyer - 0633 Lariat Loop, South Forty · Kirk and Lori Aker - South Forty Property Owners · Bart Garton ~ South Forty Ptoperty Owner · Name UnknoWIl, e-mail addressisRagrenterdude(@.aol.com · (2 Letters) Bill and Sharon Stenson ~ 0300 Lariat Loop, South Forty · Paul and Kerrie Chadwick.~ 0432 Lariat Loop, South Forty · catol Levine and Dee Byrne - 0143 Lariat Loop, South Forty · Ranuy Simmonds - 51A Hummingbird Trail, Homestead · Kurt a:nd Teresa Keltner - 0423 Lariat Loop · Debbie and Dick Fish- 0165 Lariat Loop · Alex K. Minding, Eagle County Resident · Lorelei Donaldson, UnknoWIl · Kurt and Martha Krieg, Eagle County Resident · Bonnie Pottorff, 0026 Lariat Court · Terry Brady, 0231 Gold Dust Dr. · John Boles, EagleCounty Resident · Thomas Painter, 548 Gold Dust Dr. · Gussie Ross, Eagle County Resident · Jan Wezwick,South Forty Resident · (2 Letters) Bill Wezwick, South Forty Resident · Mike and Lori Valiant, 0525 Lariat Loop · Jim Sanders, South Forty Resident · Alan Bosworth, Eagle County Resident · Homestead HOA · Terry Benedickt, 0211 Lariat Loop · Tim Benedickt, 0211 Lariat Loop · Rivet Pines Condominium Association · Paul Kline, South Forty Resident · Darlene Daugherty, Unknown · Jim Foos, 662 Saddle Ridge Road · Tim Lahey, Eagle County Resident · Hans Oberlohr, Edwards Business Center OWIler Also, a Petition of Opposition was circulated throughout the South Forty Subdivision and was signed by 36 residents; it too is attached. DISCUSSION: Pursfiallt to Eagle COUlIty Lalld Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: stANDARD: COllsistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] B The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the PLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN 16 4/18/05 Conformance x x x x x x x EnvitonihentalQtiality: The NWCCOG response delineates nine recommendations with regard to Best Management Practices fot storrnwater management and erosion control. The applicant must adequately address each point With the Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision) application. Condition No.2. OpenSpaceIRecreatioil: The Plan identifies visual quality, buffers, recreation, wildlife and natural water features as priorities for preservation. This proposal would preserve much of the 7.578 acre site in its current condition. Due to topographical constraints, it is not practicable to develop anywhere on the site other than the locatiohs proposed. Other than the area to be preserved as commonly owned passive open space, no recreational amenities are proposed for the development. The site is prominently situated on a bluff above the south side of U.S. Highway 6 and is highly visible when viewed from the north. Development on the site will be visible from IIlterstate-70 and other vahtage points throughout Edwards and on the north side of the Eagle Valley; however, much of the existing develOpment adjacent to and above the subject property to the south is also quite visible. Landscaping Will be introduced on the site but it will not be possible to completely buffer the development from off-site views. No nafl.lr;:tl water features ate present on the site. The Colorado Division of Wildlife had not provided comment as of this Writing. Based upon the wildlife maps generated in 1996, the subject property is ovetlaid by Elk Winter Range, ElkSevere Winter Range and Elk Winter Concentration Areas; however, the majority of existing development located in this vicinity is also located Within these areas. The mapped desigriations may have changed as Edwards las developed. Development: The Plan recoihniends that cluster style development should be encoUraged to promote creative and efficient site design, to enable development to avoid locations, which adversely impact environmental resourCes, and to create desigriated open space for public and private use. The proposed development does cluster the residential units on the site and ma.ximizes the most viable building locationsavailabk At Final Plat (Type' A' Subdivision); the appiicant will be required to demonstrate that the developmeilt can be achieved in a mal1t1er that will not tit1duly compromise the envitort111ent. Affordable Housing: The Housing Department finds that the calculation for Unit type 'B' is well within the definition of 'affordable housing' on a per square foot basis. Additionally, the need for affordable housing that would be generated by this project as both a residential project and as a mixed-use project have been calculated; the calculations show that a purely residential project of this size.generates the need for 2.18, rounded up to '3', affordable housing units. A mixed use project includes a commercial linkage component generating the need for 3.05, rounded up to '4' affordable housing units. The proposal already includes five affordable units and therefore exceeds the requirements of the Housing Guidelines. Transportation: The Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum sets forth 19 comments delineating the requirements of the County's Land Use Regulations and pertinent recommendations: Ihcluding on.site and off site vehicle circulation, pedestrian circulation, curb, gutter and sidewalk, stormwater drainage detention and associated appurtenances and the need to pave Bull Run Road and Lariat Loop to mitigate impacts of the additional traffic. Several of the comments will affect site design and layout and will need to be thoroughly addressed Withthe subsequent Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision) process. The Eagle County Road and Bridge Department and Colorado Department of Transportation comments are consistent With the Engineering Department Comments. :onditioll No.3 It is not anticipated that the proposed development will have a significant impact on transit. ECO busses already run through Edwards on U.S. Highway 6 about 20 hours per day. The ECO Eagle Valley Trails Plan does not 17 4/18/05 specifically reference this parcel along the core trail route but the plan does encourage the provision of pedestrian facilities to link population centers and activity centers throughout the valley. It appears the access road has the potential to transport a mix of vehicles driven by residents, employees, deliveries and customers which will have impacts on its use as a pedestrian and bike route for residents, visitors, employees and customers to get to and fron the property. ECO Trails advocates the provision of some sort of path and if the applicant believes that the existing standard is excessive, they should propose an alternative design concept for a pedestrian connection to the existing neighborhOod roads that lead to the community core or a pathway to the core area from the project through the adjacent open space tract. Condition No.4 The Eagle River Fire Protection District commented that; access, grade and turn-around within the site appear adequate based on the Fire Districts' criteria. Access to the site from U.S. Highway 6 is a concern. The road into the South Forty Subdivision is dirt and gravel and does not appear to meet Eagle County standards for width, grade and drainage. Currently it serves approximately 20 homes. With the additional 20 residential units proposed and the introduction of commercial traffic, the concern is this road would deteriorate faster due to greater traffic impact. The requirement for two ways into and out of a subdivision found in the County's Land Use RegulatiOIls is for the purpose of providing egress for homeowners and access for emergency equipment. The proposed project does not provide this and Seems to rely on the main road from U.S. IIighway 6. In addition to the above concern, this road does not appear adequate to handle both types of traffic and would not be acceptable. At Final Plat (Type' A' Subdivision), the applicant will be required to adequately address all of the concerns delineated in the ERFPD response. Condition No. 5 Coirtrrttit1itv Services: The Plan identifies additional school improvements and services as a goal. If approved, the. development will be subject to the payment of fees in-lieu of school land dedication based upon a cUrrent SUn1l11ary Appraisal Report at the time of Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision). FLUM: The subject property is located Within an area on the Future Land Use Map identified as 'CoIn1i1unity Certter'. The CoIn1i1unity Center designation includes lands which are established as residential and commercial activity centers and lands which are appropriate to become residential and cOl11111ercial activity centers because: a) of their location at or near major transportation interchanges or along major transportation routes; b) public water supply a:ndsewage treatment facilities can logically be provided to support that development, and; c) the have not been designated as having potentially sensitive lands. The subject property is located near a major transportation interchange and it will be served by public water and sewer. Other than the Elk habitat discussed above, no other sensitivities have been identified. E])WARJ)S AREA COMMUNiTY PLAN Conformance I Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable . Land USe X HOUSing X Transportation X Open Space X Potable Water and Wastewater X SerVices and Facilities X Environmental Quality X Economic Development X 18 4/18/05 Recreation and Tourism x Histbric Preservation x Imp] emen tatibn x FUture Land Use Map x Land Use: The stated goal is, "The location and type ofland uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident (& toUrist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and man made envirot1l11ent, ensures the timely, cost~effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". Theproposed Special Use Permit offers a unique approach to help diversify Eagle County's economy and would surely assist in providing for the needs of current and future residents and possibly tourists. If this proposal is approved, the applicant will need to commit to on-site and off-site public improvements or participation in off-site public imprOVements that will serve to improve the quality of the natural and man made environment. Housing: The Housing Department finds that the calculation for Unit Type 'B' is well within the definition of 'affordable housing' · on a. pet square foot basis. Additionally, the need for affordable. housing that would be genetated by this project as both a residential project and as a mixed-use project have been calculated; the calculatiOns show that a purely residential project of this size generates the need for 2.18, rounded up to '3', affordable housing units. A mixed use project includes a commercial linkage component generating the need for 3.05, rounded up to '4' affordable housing units. The proposal already includes five affordable units and therefote exceeds the requirements. ofthe Housing Guidelines. Ttansportatidn: The.Eagle Col.lrlty Engineering Department memorandUm sets fotth .19coIIltt1ents delineating the equirementsofthe COtit1ty's Land Use Regula.tions and pertinent recommendations: Ihcluding on site and offsite vehicle citcldation, pedestrian circulation, ,curb, gutter and sidewalk, stormwater dtainage detention and aSsociated appurtenances and the need to pave Bull Run Road and Lariat Loop to mitigate impacts of the additional traffic. Several of the comments will affect site design and layout and will need to be thoroughly addressed with the subsequent Final Plat (Type' A' Subdivision) process. The Eagle County Road and Bridge Department and Colorado Departtnentof Transportation co111tnents are consistent with the Engineering Department Comments. Condition No. J It is not anticipated that the proposed development will have a significant impact on transit. ECO busses already tun thrOUgh Edwards on U.S. Highway 6 about 20 hours per day. The ECO Eagle Valley Trails Plan does not specifically reference this parcel along the core trail route but the plan does encourage the provision of pedestrian facilities to link population centers and activity centers throughout the valley. It appears the access road has the potential to transport a mix of vehicles driven by residents, employees, deliveries and customers which will have impacts on its use as a pedestrian and bike route for residents, visitors, employees and customers to get to and frorn the property. ECO Trails advocates the provision of some sort of path and if the applicant believes that the existing standard is ex.cessive, they should propose an alternative design concept for a pedestrian connection to the existing neighborhood roads that lead to the community core or a pathway to the core area from the project through the adjacent open space tract. Condition No.4 The Eagle River Fire Protection District commented that; access, grade and turn-around within the site appear adequate based on the Fire Districts' criteria. Access to the site from U.S. Highway 6 is a concern. The road into the South Forty Subdivision is dirt and gravel and does not appear to meet Eagle County standards for width, grade and drainage. Currently it serves approximately 20 homes. With the additional 20 residential units proposed and the introduction of commercial traffic, the concern is this road would deteriorate faster due to greater traffic impact. 'he requirement for two ways into and out ofa subdivision found in the County's Land Use Regulations is for the lurpose of providing egress for homeowners and access for emergency equipment. The proposed project does not provide this and seems to rely on the main road from U.S. Highway 6. Ih addition to the above concern, this road does not appear adequate to handle both types of traffic and would not be acceptable. At Final Plat (Type' A' 19 4/18/05 SubdivIsion); the applicant will be required to adequately address all of the concerns delineated in the ERFPD response. Condition No.5 Open Space: "Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with landoWriers, developers and other agencies and organizations". This proposal does represent an effort to preserve a majority portion ofthe subject site as no-build open space although it does not entail coordination With outside parties. Potable Water and Wastewater: It is anticipated that the proposed development will be served by public water and sanitation facilities. Services and Facilities: This goal pertains to recycling of solid wastes and provision of public schools, occupational training and higher education and, as such, is not applicable. Environmental Oualitv:The Plan sets forth six goals p~rtaining to Environmental Quality all of which pertain to the greater Edwards area and are not necessarily intended to be site specific. The NWCCOG response delineates nine recoIl1h1endations With regard to Best Management Practices for stormwater management and erosion c()ntro1. The applicant mUst adeqUately address each point with the Final Plat (Type' A' Subdivision) application. Condition No.2. The Eagle Cdunty Depart111ent of Environmental Health set forth several recommendations With regard to minimizing and preventing tit1due environmental impacts. All recommendations of the Department of Environmental Health must be adhered to. Condition No.8 At Final Plat (Type' A' Subdivision), the applicant will be required to demonstrate that the development canbe achieved in a manner that Will not l.lnduly compromise the environment. Economic Development: Of the four objectives delineated in the Plan, only one is applicable: "Economic Balance. .Promote a balanced mix of commercial, industrial and residential land uses to encourage a diverse economy. Consider the effect of any new jobs created by development on the overall growth philosophy of the cormrtunity". This Special Use Permit would help to diversify the economy without compounding the need for employee housing. Recreation and Tourism: The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such away as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system" . This development will provide passive open space but it will be privately owned and inaccessible by the public. HIstoric. .Preservation: The response indicates that no sites have been identified in the project area. Upon discussion With Jim Green of the Colorado Historical Society via telephone, a survey is not required unless the development is a federal or state project. Implementation: If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure. FLtJM: The FutUre Land Use Map ofthe Edwards Area Community Plan identifies the subject property as appropriate for Residential Medium Density with a net density of up to 6 units per acre. The site is already zoned Residential Suburban Low Density with a maximum potential density of one dwelling unit per 0.34 acres. With regard to Home Businesses; the Eagle County Land Use Regulations include the Special Use Permit provision which is designed to evaluate, "those 'Uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses ". Further, Home Businesses are intended to be subordinate to the primary residential use. Outwardly, the Loftworks townhome development should maintain a residential character. 20 4/18/05 EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance X Non Coilfonrtance Mixed Confothlance Not X . Applicable Land Use Cooperation ~ Not Applicable. Open Space .Provision - The Plan states that, "Eagle County should recognize that planned unit developments and cluster housing assist in open space maintenance". The proposed Loftworks townhome development will be clustered thereby assisting in open space maintenance. Unique Character Preservation ~ there are no unique landforms identified on the subject property. VisuaL Quality - Based upon the Visual Quality map, the subject property is located in an area designated as 'Moderately Constra:ined' to 'Prohibited'. The developable portion of the site is located within the 'ModerCltely Constrained 'area. Development Patterns ~ The Plan states that, "It is the policy of Eagle County to encourage development to occur in and around existing communities in order to enhance open space values in the outlying areas". The proposal does not represent leap-frog development. The site is located within an existing community. Hazards ~ Portions. of the site have a high wildfire hazard rating and will need to be mitigated. A vegetation management planIDust be provided. the applicant has been working with a wildfire consultant and the County's Yildfire Mitigation Specialist to develop a comprehensive Vegetation Management Plan. This Plan will be required with the subsequent Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision) process. Condition No.6 TheCGS responSe Set forth three recommendations: 1) Steep Slopes. There are numerous slopes greater than 30% that encompass areas where the tOWIlhome units are plal1t1ed. Specifically, Lots 1-9 are on the upper part of a steep slope to the west with drainage at the base of the slope. This slope should have a slope stability analysis report to determine the suitability of locating such a large number of structures at the top of this slope. The emergency overflow pond, located in the central portion of the property is at the top of the 'The Bluffs', a steep slope adjacent to u.s. Highway 6. A slope stability analysis should also be conducted here to determine the effect a full pond would have on the stability of the slope to the north; 2) Subsidence / Soils. The property is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite, which is susceptible to subsidence due to solution. Eagle Valley Evaporite is prone to sinkhole formation and piping. Soils in the area are known to have hydro-compactive properties. The Geologic Hazard Review by Broce A. Collins recommends site-specific soil investigations. Direct observation of the foundation - excavation should also be considered in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site. Evaporite soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete. Any structures in contact with soils that.are found to be corrosive should utilize Type II cement; 3) Rockfall. The steep area to the north of the project has numerous boulders and rock outcrops with the potential for rockfall onto U.S. Highway 6. Special care must be taken during construction to minimize the potential for rockfall to reach U.S. Highway 6. Special mitigation during construction discussed on Page 6 of the Geologic Hazard Review. The County may consider rockfall mitigation during construction as a precondition to final approval of the project. CGS concludes with a reco111Inendation that a site- specific geotechnical report should be conducted at the site due to the potential hazards from the soils and bedrock associated with the Eagle Valley Evaporite. A slope stability analysis should also be conducted for the project. Condition No. 7 Vildlife - The Colorado Division of Wildlife had not provided comment as of this writing, however, based upon he wildlife maps generated in 1996, the subject property is overlaid by Elk Winter Range, Elk Severe Winter Range and Elk Winter Concentration Areas; however, the majority of the existing development located in this vicinity is also located within these areas. These designations may have changed as Edwards has developed. 21 4/18/05 EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a community-wide issue . Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes . Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success . It is important to preserve existing local residents housing . Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities Within the county . Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastrUcture needs POLICIES: ITEM I. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for lOCal residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needS to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . x 3. Steps shOUld be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and Workers in Eagle County x 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job x 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisiOns will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- site where feasible, or ifnot feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . x 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed uSe developments in appropriate loclitionsare encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock x II. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as wen liS residency requirements x 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] The proposed Special Use IS NOT consistent with all aspects of the Master Plan and ancillary documents. 22 4/18/05 I Sl'ANfi~RD: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed ldcation and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The subject property has been zoned Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL) for nearly 29 years. The proposed development of 20 toWnhome units is allowed under the RSL zoning. The adjacent and most impacted existing development is the South Forty Subdivision which is also zoned RSL. At the time when zoning was originally enacted in Eagle County (September 16, 1974) it was determined that a variety of housing types, including multi- family, is acceptable and compatible in the RSL zone district. From a residential standpoint, the proposed tOWIlhome development would be compatible with existing and allowed uses in all directions from the subject property. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations contemplate that Home Businesses may also be acceptable in the RSL zone district subject to evaluation against the criterion identified in this report. The basic premise is that the use of a dwelling for a home business shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes and shall not change its basic residential character. All activities associated with a HOme BusinesS are to be conducted indoors. No more than two off-site employees are permitted (further restricted by this proposal to one off-site employee). Outwardly, the Loftworks deyelopment should appear in every way to be atypical residential development and, as such, should be compatible with surrounding land uses. Even though the subject property fronts on U.S. lIighway 6, due to the topographical challenges present oil the site, it isrtot feasible to gain access directly off of U.S. Highway 6. As such, the sole point of access to the subject property is a circuitous route through the South Forty Subdivision via Bull Run and Lariat Loop; both of which are substandard, gravel and/or dirt, public roads. This fact coupled with the increase of vehicle trips generated by 20 Home Businesses over and above a purely residential development, will create a proportionally greater amount of wear on the roads and, in tutIl, an increased burden upon the County to maintain said roads in a passable condition. The amoulltof dust potentially generated by vehicles using the dirt / gravel roads will also be proportionally increased, Both the increase in traffic gel1erated by 20 Home Businesses and the increase in dust particulates from the unpaved roads would increase negative impacts upon 'the South Forty Subdivision. IfBullRtit1 and Lariat Loop were to be paved, as recommended by Eagle COtit1ty Engineering and Road & Bridge Departments, then the impacts associated With dust and increased maintenance would be minimized. With regard to traffic levels, if some of the higher traffic generating uses (Medical offices and Personal Services) were to be deleted, then worst case traffic impacts may be reduced to a more acceptable level and compatibility would be increased. The applicant has endeavored to meet the South Forty neighborhood concerns by paring-back the proposed list of allowed Home Businesses from what was originally proposed and has further proposed a cap on several of the higher traffic generating types of uses and limited the number of off-premise employees to one. . these co111tnitmertts are positive steps toward ensuring compatibility. Unless a commitment or plan has been developed for the improvement ofBullRtit1 and Lariat LoOp to help offset the increased traffic impacts and a sound mechanism for the on-going monitoring and enforcement of the Home Businesses is developed, staff s opinion is that the Home Businesses would create undue negative impacts upon the South Forty Subdivision and therefore would not be compatible. [-] FINDING: Compatibility [Section 5~250.B.2] 111 its current form, the proposed Special Use IS NOT appropriate for its proposed location or compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. This is not necessarily attributable to the proposed development, but rather due to the substandard access conditions. STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified On Section 3-310, Review Standards Armlicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and 'ection 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. 23 4/18/05 The proposed development shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particuhrr use. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] - The proposed development shall comply With the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4] - The design of the proposed Special Use shalt triinfmize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. The proposed Special Use would minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands. If all recommendations ofthe Department of Environmental Health are adhered to, the proposed Special Use Would also avoid impacts on surrounding lands with regard to trash, parking, odors, noise, glare and vibration. Traffic and service delivery vehicles associated with the Home Businesses could create a nuisance for the adj acent South F otty Subdivision given the current condition of the public access roads. , [+/-] 1flNbING: Design Minimizes Advet'se Impact [Section 5-250.13.4] '"- Traffic and service delivery vehicles associated that would result from the Special Use WOULD create a nuisance due to the condition of the public acceSs roads. All other impacts can and will be minimized. STANDARD: Design Minimites Envit'onmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] - The proposed Special UseshalZ minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources,. wildlife habitat, scenic resourceS, and other natural resources. The proposed Home Businesses shall minimize environmental impacts and not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources. The recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey, NWCCOG and Department of EnvitoIimehtal Health have been included as conditions of approval to meet this end. As stated previously, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has not responded to this request although the impacts upon wildlife from the proposed Home Busin.esses are not anticipated to be any greater than existing developments in this vicinity of Edwards. [+/-] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5~250.B.5] - As conditioned, this proposal WOULD minimize environmental impacts. STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.13.6] - The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks; schools, police andfire protection, and emergency medical services. The proposed Special Use is adequately served by public facilities and services including potable water and wastewater, parks, schools, police and fire protection and emergency medical services. The proposed Special Use is not adequately served by roads or pedestrian paths. [+/-] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.13.6] - The proposed Special Use is adequately served by public facilities and services including potable water and wastewater, parks, schools, police and fire protection and emergency medical services. The proposed Special Use IS NOT adequately served by roads or pedestrian paths. STANDARD: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. 24 4/18/05 Article 4: Site Development Standards. Pluses and minuses in the margin indicate where staff has found that the proposed development meets the Article 4 standard ([+]) or does not meet the standard ([-]), or the standard does not apply ([wa]). A plus/minus ([+/-]) indicates that the finding is mixed and warrants particular attention by the Planning Commission and the Board. [+] Division 4-1 , Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards - All development on the subject property shall adhere to the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+] Division 4~2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards - All development on the subject property shall adhere to the requirements of the Eagle County LandUse Regulations. [+] Division 4-3, Sigh Regulations Standards - All development on the subject property shall adhere to the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Division 44, Natural Resource Protection Standards [+} Section 4~41 O. Wildlife Protection - The Colorado Division of Wildlife has not respdnded. to this request although the impacts upon wildlife from the proposed Home Businesses are not a:nticipated to be any greater than existing developments in this vicinity of Edwards. [+/~] Section 4-420. . Development in Areas Subiect to Geologic Hazards ~ The applicant will need to satisfy all recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey at the time of Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision), as conditioned.. Condition No. 7 [+/-] Section 4-430. Development in Areas Subiect to Wildfire Hazards - Portions ofthe site have a high wildfire hazardra.ting and Will need to be mitigated. A vegetation management plan must be provided. The applicant hasbeen working with a wildfire consultant and the County's Wildfire Mitigation Specialist to develop a comprehensive Vegetation Management Plan. This Plan will be required with the subsequent Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision) ptocess.ConditionNo.6 [+] Section 4-440. . WO<5d Burning Controls - All development onthe subjectproperty shall adhere to the reql.lire:ments of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. ["ma] Section 4-450.. RidgelineProtection - The proposed development is not situated on a ridgeline. [+/~] Section 4-460. Environmental Impact Report - A satisfactory Environmental Impact Report has been provided, however, as conditioned, the proposed Home Businesses shall minimize environmental impacts and not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources. The recornrnendations of the Colorado Geological Survey, NWCCOG and Depart111ent of Environmental Health have been included as conditions of approval to meet this end. As stated previously, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has not responded to this request although the impacts upon wildlife from the proposed Home Businesses are not anticipated to be any greater than existing developments in this vicinity of Edwards. [+] Division 4~5, Commercial and Ihdustrial Performance Standards. ~ All development on the subject property shall adhere to the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [-] Division 4-6, Improvements Standards ~ The Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum sets forth 19 comments delineating the requirements of the County's Land Use Regulations and pertinent recommendations: Ihcluding on site and off site vehicle circulation, pedestrial1 circulation, curb, gutter and sidewalk, stormwater drainage detention and associated appurtenances and the need to pave Bull Run Road and Lariat Loop to mitigate impacts of the additional traffic. Several of the comments will affect site design and layout and will need to be thoroughly addressed with the subsequent Final Plat (Type' A' Subdivision) process. 25 4/18/05 As stated previously, this application is accompanied by a Variance from Improvement Standards request regarding the provision of curb, gutter, sidewalk and two points of access. The applicanthas committed improving, to the County's standard, a section of public right-ofway and emergency access that extends from Cassidy Place through Lots 29 and 30, Block 11 of Homestead Filing No. 1 Subdivision and connects to Lariat Loop within the South Forty Subdivision. This connection will be of regional benefit by providing secondary emergency acCeSs to the entire Homestead Development, the South Forty Subdivision and potentially the Loftwotks development as well. The need for a Variance from Improvement Standards is not negated and is still necessary; however, it is anticipated that improvement of the aforementioned public right-ofway will greatly enhance the emergency responders' ability to serve not only the subject property but the South Forty and Homestead Subdivisions as well. DiVision 4~ 7, Imbact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. [+] Sectioti.4-700: School Land Dedication Standards ThisSectiol1providesthat "the subdivider ofland in each residential subdivision or portion of a subdivision intended for residential use shall allocate and convey sites and land areas for schools". At the time of Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision); a current SU111l11ary Appraisal Report will be required to ascertain the amOunt of fees in- lieu ofla:nd dedication requirement as per the Eagle County School District's response. [+] Sectiof14-710: Road Impact Fees Road Impact Fees will be assessed at the time of building permit issuance. [+/0-] FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] - Ih its current form, the proposed Special Use DOES NOT comply With all ofthe applicable standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STA:NJ)AJ{[): Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposf},d on it by all other applicable ptovisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The proposed Special Use complies with this standard. [+] FINI)ING: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] - The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations for use, layout and general development characteristics. Pursuant to Eagle CouhiJ'Land Use Regulatiohs Section 3-310 Review Standards Avvlicable to Partie-ular ResideIltial.Aericultural and Resource Uses~ Emphasis on, Section 3-310.F.l Home Business: STANDARD: Use Subordinate [Section 3-31O.F.l.a] - The use of a dwellingfor a home business shall be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes and shall not change its basic residential character. The proposed Home Businesses will be incidental and subordinate to its use for residential purposes and shan not change its basic residential character. As proposed, the 'Flex Space' Within the proposed unit types ranges from 21 % to 37% of the total square footage, depending on unit type. Outwardly, the Loftworks development should appear as a typical residential townhome development. [+] FINDING: Use Subordinate [Section 3-31 O.F.l.a] - The home businesses SHALL be clearly incidental and subordinate to its use for residential oses and shall not change its basic 26 4/18/05 I residential character. sf ANDARD: Activity Conducted Indoors [Section 3-31 O.F .l.b] - All activities associated with a home business shelllbe conducted indoors. Materials and equipment used in the home business shall be stored in a building. All activities associated with the Home Businesses shall be conducted indoors. [+] FINDING: Activity Conducted Indoors [Section 3-31 O.F .1.b] - All activities associated With the Home Businesses SHALL be conducted indoors. Materials and equipment used in the Home Businesses SHALL be stored in a building. STANDARD: .Employment [Section 3-310.F.1.c] -A home business shall be conducted by persons residing on the premises and by no more than two (2) employees residing offpremises. The applicant has committed to limiting the number of off premise employees to one (l). [+] FINDING: Employment [Section 3~31O.F.1.c] - The Home Businesses SHALL be conducted by persons residin.g on the premises and by no more than two (2) employees residing off-premises. STANnARD: Patrons [Section 3-31 O.F.l.d] - A home business may serve patrons on the premises, provided all other standards of this Section are met. If approved, all other standards Will be met. [+] FINDING:.. Patrons [Section 3-31O.F.1.d] - All other provisions of this Section SHALL be met; therefore the Home Businesses may serve patrons on the premises. STANDARD: Parking [Section 3~310.F.1.e] -A home business shalt provide one (1) off-street parking space for each employee working on-site and residing off-premises and one (1) space for patrons of the business. These spaces shall be provided in addition to the parking required for the principal residential use of the property. the requited amount of parking is between 2 to 3 parking spaces for each residence depending on the number of b'edtOoms in ea.ch plus one parking space to accol11111odate the potential for an off-premises employee and one space for patrons. A total offotir spaces are being provided for each unit regardless of the number ofbedroorrtS. As such, this sta.ndard can be satisfied. [+] FINDING: Parking [Section 3-31 O.F.l.e] - Adequate parking to serve the needs of the Special Use SHALL be provided. sf ANDARD: Sales [Section 3-31 O.F .l.t] - Incidental sale of supplies or products associated with the home business shall be permitted on the premises. A home business whose primary activity is retails sales shall be prohibited, except if the home business is for catalogile sales. Amongst the list of proposed Home Businesses, is 'Offices and warehousing for business representatives and catalogue sales'. The applicant is aware that on-site retail sales to patrons are restricted to incidental sale of supplies or products associated with a given Home Business. [+lFINDING: Sales [Section 3-310.F.1.t] - The Special Use SHALL comply with this standard. 27 4/18/05 STANDARD: Nuisance [Section 3-310.F.l.g] - A home business shall not produce noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibrations, heat, glare, odors, fumes, smoke, or dust and shall not operate at such hours or in such a manner as to create a public nuisance, disturb neighbors or alter the residential character of the premises. If all recOIn111endations of the Department of Environmental Health are adhered to, the proposed Special Use would not generate noise, electrical or magnetic interference, vibrations, heat, odors, glare, fumes, smoke or dust and shall not operate at hours or in such a rnanner as to create a public nuisance, disturb neighbors or alter the residential character of the pre111ises. Condition No.8 Traffic and service delivery vehicles associated with the Home :Businesses could create a nuisance for the adjacent South Forty Subdivision given the cUttent condition of the public access roads. [+/-] FINDING: Nuisance [Section 3-310.F.1.g] - As conditioned, the proposed Special Use SHALL NOT cause a nuisance. Traffic and service delivery vehicles associated with the Home Businesses COULD create a nuisance for the adjacent South Forty Subdivision given the current condition of the public access roads. STANDARD: Codes [Section 3-31O.F.l.h] - The building housing the home business shall comply with all County or State building, fite and safety codes applicable to the particular business. [+] FINDING: Codes [Section 3-31O.F.1.h] - All applicable codes SHALL be adhered to. STANI>ARD: Signs and Illumination [Section 3-31 O.F.l.i] - Signs and other outdoor structures advertising the home business shall not be permitted. Illumination of the structure housing the home business shall be limited that which is customary for the primary residential use of the property. [+] FINDING: Signs and Illumination [Section 3-31O.F,1.i] ~ An applicable Land Use Regulations SHALL be adhered to. SUGGESTED MOTION: Staff cannot support this request in its current form due to the outstanding concern of traffic generation associated with the currently proposed Home Businesses and the potential for excessive negative o.fJ-site impacts that would be realized because of the current substandard condition Bull Run and Lariat Loop. These roads Were not constructed to meet current County standards and cannot adequately handle the increase in traffic generated by 20 Home Businesses above and beyond the traffic that will be generated by the residential element of the Loftworks Development. I move that the Board of County Commissioners deny File No. ZS-OO 128, incorporating staff findings. Inhe :Board of COl.lnty Co111111issioners is inclined to approve this application, then staff suggests the folloWing conditions: 1) Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval; 2) At the time of Final plat (Type 'A' Subdivision), all comments of the NWCCOG set forth in its letter dated March 25,2005 must be adequately addressed. 3) At the time of Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision), all comments of the Eagle County Engineering Department set forth in its letter of March 29,2005 must be adequately addressed. 4) At the time of Final Plat (Type' A' Subdivision), all comments ofECO Trails set forth in its e-mail response dated March 30, 3005 must be adequately addressed. 28 4/18/05 5) At the time of Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision), all comments of the Eagle River Fire Protection District set forth in its response dated March 24, 2005 must be adequately addressed. 6) At the time of Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision), all comments of the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist set forth in an e-mail response dated March 10, 2005 must be adequately addressed. 7) At the time of Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision), all comments of the Colorado Geological Survey set forth in its letter dated March 17, 2005 must be adequately addressed. 8) At the time of Final Plat (Type 'A' Subdivision), all C0111Inents of the Eagle COl.lnty Department of Environmental Health set forth in its memorandum dated March 29,2005 mustbe adequately addressed. 9) In the event that the applicant is unable to satisfy the Special Use Permit conditions numbered one (1) through eight (8), approval of the Special Use Permit should be revoked. VIS",_(J():27.-LoftWorks Justin Hildreth, Engineering ActION: This is a petition for a Variance from Improvement Standards in accordance with Section5~260G of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Specifically, the applicant, Edwards Development would like a variance from the tWo points of access to the development, constructing curb and gutter along the access road and constructing pedestrian facilities along the access road. LOCATION: Center of the Edwards Community Center, immediately north of the Homestead Subdivision and east of the South Forty Subdivision. The subject site abuts u.s. Hwy. 6 on the north. CITLE: ImLAl'EDFILlt.NOS.: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Vatiallce from Improvement Standards fot LoftWorks ZS-00128 Edwards Development Edwards. Development Tom Bral.ln, Braun Associates STAFFREGOMMENDATION: Approval PROJECT DESCRIPTION SIJMMAItY: This is a petition for a Variance from Improvement Standards in accordance with Section 5-260 G of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR). Specifically, the applicant, Edwards Development, is requesting three variances from the requirements of 1) providing two points of access to the development; 2) constructing curb arid gutter along the access road; arid 3) constructing pedestrian facilities along the acceSS road. Loftworks is a 20 unit live-work proposal oh an unplatted lot immediately east ofthe South Forty subdivision. The proposal has legal access from US 6 through Bull Run and Lariat Loop in the South Forty subdivision (Figure 1). BullRun and Lariat Loop are approximately 20 to 24 foot wide gravel roads owned and maintained by Eagle CoUiity. These two roads do not meet the current Eagle County standards, which include two ten foot paved lanes, curb and gutter, and pedestrian facilities. Ih addition, Bull Run is in poor condition and requires more maintenance than other gravel roads. Washboarding is an on-going problem because of the steep grade and large amount of existing traffic. As a result, Eagle County has to grade it out more frequently than any other road. The presence of a series of small springs and the steep grade along Bull Run creates drain~ge issues on the south side of the road and also increases the maintenance requirements. _'his application contains three requests. The first request is from the two points of access to a development requirement. The applicant is requesting a variance from this requirement because of topographic constraints to the 29 4/18/05 property. The second request is from the standard that requires curb and gutter for the access road. The applicant is requesting a variance because he believes that curb and gutter will be inconsistent with the character of roads in the surrounding neighborhood. The third request is for the sidewalk or.extensive paths requirement. The applicant is requesting the variance because the "limited scale of the project and the limited traffic on the project entry road, ill sidewalks are proposed." Per Section 5-260 G, Variance from Improvement Standards, the Board of County Commissioners is the authority that decides Variance from Improvement Standards. Prior review by the Planning Commission is not stipulated in the ECLtJR. CII:RONOLOGY: 1977 ~ South Forty Subdivision is platted 1990 ~ Right~of-way dedicated to Eagle County between Cassidy Place and Lariat Loop 1990 - Homestead Filing 2 is platted SIl'EDAl'A: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: West: North: South: US 6 and The Reserve CondominiU111s South Forty Subdivision US 6 and The Reserve Condominiums Homestead Filing 2 EXisting Zoning: Total Area: Water: . Sewer: Access: ReSidential Suburban Low Density 7.5 acres Public Public Lariat Loop_ STAFF REPORT REFERRAL. RESPONSES EaeleCountv. Plannib.e Department The Plal1t1ingDeparttnent has no comments regarding the request. Homestead Homeowners Association Homestead Homeowners Association (Homestead HOA) feels that the requirement for curb, gutter, and sidewalk is important because of the nature of the neighborhood and the high volume of foot traffic that will occur throughout the area. Homestead HOA's experience is that they have to construct sidewalks in areas that were not originally Consttl.lcted. . Homestead HOA feels that the request for a direct second access through tract G ofHOInestead Filing 2 is not feasible because of topography constraints. Tract G is located immediately south of Loftworks, and extends from Loftworks to Hummingbird Trail. It is identified for access on the Homestead Filing 2 plat. Homestead HOA reco111111ends that the applicant research alternative options to a direct second access. If any alternative options include the use of Homestead HOA property, they would like to be informed. Eaele .River Fire Protection District Two referral responses have been received from the Eagle River Fire Protection District (ERFPD). The first dated March 24, 2005, listed the following seven comments: 30 4/18/05 1. Water supply for fire fighting is proposed to be provided by the Edwards Metropolitan District. Confirmation must be supplied by the applicant. 2. The water system will need to be approved by the Edwards Metropolitan District and the hydrant locations must be approved by ERFPD. 3. The application may be classified as a commercial building for fire protection because ofthe mixed uses. 4. The enforcement of the uses proposed for the flex space is a concern. An annual inspection by the ERFPD maybe a requirement as part of the Special Use Pennit to enforce compliance. 5. Access, grade, and the tl.lmarounds within the site appear to be adequate based on the ERFPD's criteria. 6. Access from US 6 to the site is a concern. The road into South Forty Subdivision is dirt and gravel and does not appear to meet Eagle County standards for width, grade and drainage. Currently it serves approximately 20 homes. With the additional 20 residential units proposed and the introduction of commercial traffic, the concern is that Bull Run would deteriorate faster due to the greater traffic impact. 7. The requirement for 2 ways into and out of a subdivision found in the Wildftre Regulations of the ECLUR is for the purpose of providing egress for homeowners and access for emergency equipment. The proposed project does not provide this and seems to rely on the main road from US 6.Ih addition to the above concern, this road does not appear adequate to handle both types of traffic and would not be acceptable. Asecond memo was written on AprilS, 2005, after several discussions the applicant had With the ERFPD. The ERFPD reCo111f1iended that improving the access road mto South Forty and Loftworks and the construction of a viahle.emergency access from Cassidy Circle in Homestead Subdivision (Homestead) on to Lariat Loopin South Porty is a reasonable approach to addressing the issue of access and egress for the Loftworks project and Homestead. Acopy of the referral responses are attached in Exhibit A at the end of the staff report. No otherrefertal responses have been received. DISCUSSION: This unplatted parcel is located irtthe Edwards Community Center. Its primary access.from US 6 is via Bull Rl.lh Road and Lariat Loop in the South Forty subdivision. These are gravel roads that are oWIled and maintained by Eagle County. South Forty subdivision wa.s approved in 1977. VariaJice Request #1- TWo Poillts of Access The development requires a variance from the two points of access requirement in the ECLUR. The applicant seeks the variance because the site is constrained by a cliff to the north, a steep hillside and Homestead to the south and a gulch to the West. Eagle County requires two points of access for enhanced fire protection and emergency services access along With better traffic management and alternative routes in case of accidents and toa.d closures. The development's proposed access is on Bull Run and Lariat Loop in the South Forty Subdivision. These are gravel Toads with ditches and no pedestrian facilities. Bull Run is a sub-standard road because it is gravel, has a steep grade, and has a large amotit1t of traffic. Ih a memo dated March 24,2005, the ERFPD identified several concerns With the smgle point of access because of the poor condition of the proposed access. The Eagle County Engineering Department shares the concerns ofthe ERFPD. The applicant can mitigate the impact of the single point of access by constructing two fundamental improvements. Olle ofthe improvements would include paving an existing emergency vehicle access so that it is passable between Cassidy Place in Homestead and Lariat Loop in South Forty. Ih 1993, Eagle County was granted this emergency aCcess easement and it is situated along the property line between Lots 29 and 30 of Homestead Filing 1 (Exhibit B). This will provide another means for emergency vehicles to get up the hill to the upper portion of South Forty and the Loftworks development in the event that Bull Run becomes impassible. he other improvement that could mitigate the need for a secondary access to Loftworks is the improving of Bull un Road to current Eagle County standards for suburban residential roads. This would include the necessary grading, subbase, drainage, asphalt paving, and curb and gutter. Bull Run Road, because of its steep grade and drainage problems, would need to be constructed to county standards in order to withstand the traffic impacts 31 4/18/05 imposed by the proposed development. The full depth paving of Bull. Run Road and that portion of Lariat Loop that connects to the Loftworks access point, in tandem with the paving of the acceSs easement through Cassidy Place, would provide mitigation for the second point of accesS requirement. Ih a memo dated April 5, 2005, the ERFPD stated that these two improvements will mitigate the impact of the single point of access and provide for a acceptable level of safety. Variance Request #2 - Curb and Gutter Curb and gutter serves many purposes in roadway construction including accommodating drainage, roadway edge delineation; right-of-way reduction, aesthetics, delineation of pedestrian walkways, reduction of maintenance operations and assistance in orderly roadside development (access control/delineation). The ECLUR standards require curb and gutter for the suburban and urban road standards because they serve the above purposes in the denser developments. The applicant states that curb and gutter is not appropriate because it does not fit in With the character of the neighborhood. This contradicts the fact that it is used throughout the adjacent part of Homestead that was constructed less than ten years ago. Vatiance Request #3 .. Pedestrian Facilities it is important that pedestrian facilities be separated from motor vehicles, eSpecially in areasthat are likely to have a significant amount of children and a high likelihood of pedestrian generated development. The ECLtJR: requires pede-strian facilities along suburban and urban roads because of the large amount of pedestrians and the likelihood of children residing in those neighborhoods. The nature of the live-work concept would appear to have a large number of families because the parent could work at home and care for their children. The proximity of the development to the commercial center at Riverwalk and the Core Trail along the Eagle River infers that the development will generate a large amount of pedestrians that will require those facilities. STAFF FINDINGS: Criteria fot.Evaluatioll bvthe COUlltV' Eneineer The County Engineer's reSponsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-610 A.2. of the ECLtJR:. It states, in part, "The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative Will provide for an equivalent level.ofpublic safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that the normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an alternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide perfonnance and/or environmental sensitivity that reflect community values equal or better than that established by these standards..." For this evaluation, Staff interpreted the standards in the ECLUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "corn111tit1ity values," since the ECLUR were adopted after extensive work and comments by the community. Criteria for Evalllatioll bv the Board of County Commissioners The Board of COl.lhty Co111tniSsioner's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260 G.2. of the ECLUR. It states in part: "The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the petitioner of not granting the variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare ofthe persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected." The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the petitioner Will be deprived of some or all of his right to use the land if the ECLUR is strictly followed. Staff Findiues 32 4/18/05 the applicant must demonstrate that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. Variance Request#l - Two Points of Access the applicant can construct several improvements that will mitigate the impact of having one point of access and provide an acceptable level of safety throughout the neighborhood. These measures include improvements to Bull Run, Lariat Loop and the existing emergency vehicle access between Homestead and South Forty. A formal proposal for the improvements to Bull Roo, Lariat Loop and the emergency vehicle access has not been submitted by the applicant to the Eagle County Engineering Department for review. These improvements must be designed by a Professional Engineer licensed in the State of Colorado. The scope ofthe improvements must alleviate the issues on these roads, particularly Bull Run. The steep slopes, drainage issues and traffic on Bull Run warrant fully meeting the Suburban Residential Road standard outlined in the ECLUR, including two ten foot lanes and cl.ltb and gutter. This standard can be met on the existing road cross section. Since Lariat Loop is flat and is not constrained by topography, drainage issues are less of a concern. Curb and gutter may not be necessary and a paved toad With gravel shoulders may be adequate. Staff finds that the inclusion of the two mitigation measUres discussed above Will provide for an acceptable level of safety throughout the neighborhood. Staff finds that granting the Variance from Illlptovemel1t Standards for the two points of access Will provide for a design that will perfonn well and reflect the community values established by these standards. Variance Request #2 - Curb alld Gutter The applicant is requesting a variance from the requirement for a curb and gutter because the developer feels that urband gutter does not fit in with the character of the neighborhood. A roadway Without curb and gutter is not equally as durable as one constructed With curb and gutter. Ih addition, the applicant has not submitted a hardship that justifies the variance request. It appears his only hardship is one of a financial burden. VatianceR.equest #3.. P~destria:n Facilities The applicant is requesting a variance from improvement standards for the requirement of pedestrian facilities. The applicant is requesting the variance because "of the limited scale of the project and the limited traffic on the project entry road, no sidewalks are proposed." This does not accommodate the pedestrian traffic that it Will generate by the compact and dense proposal. The applicant has not submitted a hardship that justifies the variance request. It appears his only hardship is one of a financial burden. Boatdof County COlllllllssioners Findin2s the Board of County COl11111issioners must make the following findings in order to approve this file: Filldings for Variance Request #1- Two Points of Access 1. The property is encumbered by a topographical or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from satisfying these requirements. 2. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship if there is strict adherence to these requirements. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. in dings for Variance Request #2 - Curb and Gutter 33 4/18/05 1. The prdperty is not encumbered by a topographical or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from satisfying these requirements. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship if there is strict adherence to these requirements. 3. The applicant has not demonstrated that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare ofthe persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. Findings for V arianceRequest #3 - Pedestrian Facilities 1. The property is Ilot encilinbered by a topographical or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from satisfying these requirements. 2. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship if there is strict adherence to these requirements. 3. The applicant has not demonstrated that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these sta:rtdards is granted. Discussioll.ofZS-000128-Loftworks and VIS-00027-Loftworks Chairman Menconi asked that people try to consolidate Public Comments so-that they are not here all night. He then gave his suggestion as to how he wanted to handle it. He stated that Co111tnissioner Stone would not be present this evening due to a confliCt in scheduling. :Bob Nattacci ofCortununity Development presel1ted File ZS-128 to the Board. Using aPowerPoint presentation, he showed various slides and photographs to the Board highlighting the proposal. He stated that he had received 14 letters in favor of this proposal and 7 letters in opposition, in addition to those given in the Staff Report, and would be submitting them to the Board. He gave a backgrol.lhd of the property, detailing its history. This property was originally part of the South Forty subdivision, but was then left off at Preliminary Plan and Final Plat. He summarized the proposal,. stating it is to allow home businesses to operate out of the twenty proposed tOWIlhotrie units. The applicant has proposed two sets of various home business uses for these homes, including catering, professional offices, and w()()dworking and furniture assembly. The maximum number of off-site employees allowed in these businesses is one. The other allowed Uses include: medical offices, personal services, al1d seamstress, upholstery and rug care-type occupations, limited to no mor~ than 8 of the 20 l.lhits With a maximum of 1 employee allowed. He then showed many photographs of the proposed site. No matter what is built on this property, it will be visible from surrounding areas. He went over the discussion points which include: secdndary emergency access, improvement of existing public right-of-way connecting Cassidy Place to Lariat Loop andithprovement of Bull Run; developing a mechanism for on-going monitoring and enforcement ofthe Home Businesses; environmental impacts; pedestrian facilities to and through the property; compatibility issues with Edwards, compatibility South Forty and Homestead neighborhoods; and the appropriateness of the mix of proposed home businesses. The Planning Commission's recommendation was for denial, based on a 5-1 vote, and he listed the concerns of the Planning Commission, which were several and similar to the previously mentioned concerns. He stated that staff cal1t1ot support this request at this time due to outstanding conceril with traffic generation. Staff does have a list of conditions for approval, should the Board be inclined to approve this proposal. He then went over the conditions set forth by Staff. Tom Braun, representing the applicant, spoke to the Board. He explained whafa "LivelW ork" unit is and what the Loftworks proposal entailed. He stated that the project would have twenty units in three tOWIlhome buildings, each with 400-1,500 s.f. of "flex space". He explained how this proposal is permitted under Eagle County Land Use Regulations. He explained what the criteria were for Home Occupation and Home Businesses. They want a blanket Special Use Permit, covering all twenty units, to define what will go in the Home Occupation Or Home Business. They chose this in order to keep the individual owners from having to appear before the Board. He went over the zoning of the property, what is allowed for in its zoning, and stated that this is not are-zoning request, but is an in-fill request. He stated that the tough part of in-fill development is the change to the current conditions. He feels the zoning is appropriate and is consistent with the Edwards Master Plan. He pointed out the property on a map for the Board. He explained that one can no longer consider Edwards a rural area. He pointed out that compatibility does not mean identical but that it co-exists in the area. He stated that a strong endorsement came from KT Gazunis, the Eagle County Housing Director. 34 4/18/05 He went over the four major concerns and addressed them. The applicant is committed to paving the roads to bring them up to Coooty standards. He addressed the lack of second access to the property, saying it was due to topographical conditions, but stated they have agreed to implement emergency access and improve that access to bring it up to the proper standards. This will address needs that South Forty and Homestead currently have, also. They have reduced the amount and range of uses that will be permitted with this proposal, and they have deleted a lot of the uses that were concerns of various people and agencies. Home businesses will only be allowed in ten of the twenty units, reduced from the previous proposal made to the Planning Commission. They will allow only five ofthe ten home businesses to be customer-oriented, down from eight. He then addressed the enforcement concems and gave his proposal as to how this will be policed. They feel that the County's power of revocation will allow the self-policing to be effective. The County will have final say as to what businesses would be allowed, along With hours of operation, and other items. He then addressed the density issues, and believes the reduction in businesses should alleviate those concerns. Change is inevitable and has been promised for this property since the 1970's, artd what is not changing is the zoning. They have tried to address and respond to the issues so that it can exist in hat1110ny with the surrounding area. He asked the Board to approve this project because it makes sense from an economic and sensibility standpoint. He submitted, for the record, a copy of the modifications to the proposalto the Board. Chait111an Menconi asked the applicant to clarify the square footage. Mr. Braun stated that the flex space varied in size. He stated that there were three different unit types, each withnex space in diffetent locations of the home and a two car garage. ' Chairtn.an Menconi asked what total finished space would be, not including garages. Mr.13ral.lhstated it would be from 1,600 to 3,800 square feet. Chait111an Menconi asked the applicant to define "affordable". Mr. Braun stated that the baseline price would be $500,000, which includes office space, a:nd that makes it affordableacc()rding to KT GaZl.lriis. CorIl:tt1ission:er Runyon asked how this property will get taxed, property or commercial. Mr. :Braun didn't have an answer for the Board. Justin Hildreth of Engineering asked that his file, VIS-27, be presented in order to limit the amOl.lht of l.lblic Cotnrnent and to keep things flowing. He then explained to the public the reason for the Variance Request waS because of requirements that ate given in the Land Use Regulations. He presented this file to the Board, using a PowerPoint presentation. He showed various slides and photos highlighting the proposed variances applied [or by the applicant and went over the existing conditions. H:e went over the criteria of approval for granting a variance from standards. He stated what the hardships were that were being felt by the applicant and whether or not Staff agreed with those hardships. Findings can be positive to the two points of access variance request, if Bull Run is improved, Lariat Loop is paved, and the emergency easement is improved. The findings for Variance #2 and Varia:1lce #3 are not positive. He listed the findings that must be made by the Board for the various requests for variance. He then listed the proposed motions. Mr. Braun then responded to Mr. Hildreth's presentation. The proposed emergency access has been addressed and accepted by the various agencies. Ih addressing the other ,two concerns he stated that this is a driveway and not a road, and should not be subject to the road standards. They are still trying to address these issues and will be requesting a tabling of those two variance requests. Commissioner Runyon stated for the record that he lives seven housesdoWIl from the proposed second access point, but feels that he can be impartial. He asked about the grasscrete surfaces. Mr. Braun stated that grasscrete surfaces can be plowed and emphasized that this is a secondary emergency access point only. Chait111an Menconi opened public comment. Wendell Porterfield, on behalf of the South Forty Subdivision, was present, along with Pam Brandmeyer, property owner on Lariat Loop. She gave a PowerPoint presentation, stating that the subdivision is in opposition of this proposal. They would like to see the dirt road stay, the RSL zoning kept, and see the Board follow its staff's recommendations. She stated there was no element of commercial ever allowed in the RSL current zoning. They oppose the density and design and Will give their thoughts as to what should go on the parcel later. Traffic is a major issue for this proposal and there are outstanding issues and conditions. Kirk Aker, president of South Forty Subdivision, spoke to the Board. He spoke about Tom Dolan, onsultant to the applicant, and gave Mr. Dolan's explanation, found on his website, as to what live/work developments were, as opposed to work/live developments, and what makes them successful. He then spoke about the Special Use Permit and its tenets and addressed the lack of compatibility and how Special Use Permits should 35 4/18/05 he looked at on an individual basis. The blanket Special Use Permit request is truly a re-zoning request and must he treated as such. The Land Use Regulations should be amended to reflect this in the future. He showed a sales brochure from the applicant and pointed out the fallacies listed within it. He then.went over the enforcement of the Special Use Pennit and who Will do the policing. CC & R's don't exist, and he asked how enforcement could be accomplished. The Planning Commission acknowledged the rural character of the neighborhood and the impact on the neighborhood would be negative. He addressed the density and design and stated that the buildable area is very small. The proposed buildings are three stories tall. The traffic study is about Highway 6, but should be about Bull Run and Lariat Loop. There are many red flags that should be raised with this request. He then gave his traffic stUdy and the "true" figures. Commercial traffic would be 72% of the traffic, not incidental traffic as the applicant proposed. Everyone has reco111ihended denial of this application and there have been no compelling reasons given to approve this file. ' Ms. I3tandmeyer stated what South Forty Subdivision wants. They support appropriate development with density and design consistent with the rural character of South Forty. They want consistent character~ 1 residential unit per acre. Walter Mathews; Deputy County Attorney, asked that they give copies oftheir presentation to Staff, as it differed from what was presented to the Planning Commission. Chainnan Menconi gave ground rules for Public Comment. He then asked for a show of hands as to who was opposed and supportive ofthe application. Rick Cook, developer representative, spoke to the Board. He addressed the positive aspects of this development. He explained why the proposal is for live/work, rather than strictly residential. There is high interest in this project from local residents, and he had received over 60 reservations in three days before, they were cut off. The developer has offered to pave a substandard road for the County, also. Dave Garton, South Forty property owner, spoke and stated that the real estate broker doesn;t have a vested interest in this property like South Forty residents do. He wants the Board to adhere to the rules set forth. Paul Chadwick, South Forty resident, spoke to the Board in opposition to the project, fearing that it would change his quality of life. Al Bosworth, South Forty resident, spoke in opposition to the project. He asked the Board to folloW the reCbtrllnendcitions of its staff. He listed who was in favor of the project, realtors, and who spoke out against the project, residents; He feels Eagle Cotillty needs this project, just not at this location. He stated that the access for this project is all wrong. He believes that the secondary access easement has been abandoned, as itis not listed on neW maps. Steve Hill, realtor. and South Forty resident, likes the dirt road, questioned the affordability,ahd questioned the secondary access, also. He was worried about the park where the children play and the increase in. traffic that willbe generated. . 'terry Benedickt, South Forty resident, spoke against the project. She was concerned about enforcement and spoke of the enforcement problems that are being encol.lhtered at Riverwalk. She doubts that the employee limitation will be enforced, and worries about 24 hour commercial deliveries and traffic. She asked that cdmmercial activity be kept in c0111ihercial zones. Alex Mintling, general contractOr and Eagle resident, opposes the project based on its merits aI}.d has no vested interest in the South Forty Subdivision. Penny Lofaro spoke against the project and expressed concerns about students' safety when catching a bus to schooL She feels the grade is too high and there is significant washboarding. She feels that this a zone change, as well. Kurt Keltller, South Forty resident, expressed concerns as to the safety of the road. He explained that he constantly pulls vehicles from the ditch on the road. He likes the idea, not the location. He and his wife oppose thisproj ect. Doug Schwartz, South Forty resident, spoke against the proposal. He asked that the commissioners look at the proposed emergency access improvement, as he was directly impacted. Jan Wezwick, South Forty resident, spoke against the proposal. She feels the applicant has made a change in plan in mid-stream and also expressed concern about enforcement. She doesn't feel the County will enforce the Special Use Permit. Jeannie Sargurton, South Forty resident, spoke against the proposal. She likes the rural characteristic of th neighborhood. 36 4/18/05 , Bill WeZWick, South Forty resident, spoke about the Highway 6 intersection and the safety issues that are involved with the amount of traffic that is being generated. He feels this is a roadway and not the driveway the applicants proposed. He wants the project denied. Debbie Fish, South Forty resident, opposes this project, and gave no new information. Lori Aker, South Forty resident, opposes the project as it Will degrade her property. Jim McVey, a broker, spoke about the project. He feels that this proposal is not about the money. If this project is denied, there can still be tOWIlhomes built, just not with flex space. The lower density that South Forty wants may not be received, as it is already zoned for twenty-two units. He likes the concept, overall. Eric Pottorff, South Forty resident, spoke against the proj ect. He questioned which people get td use the tenl1nits for their business and which do not. Shiloy Sanders, South Forty resident, spoke against the project. She was concerned about safety issues and density issues, as her children play in the street. NewNew Wallace, representing the Homestead Board of Directors, spoke against the project. She feels that these are ugly buildings and their homes will look right down upon them. Carol Levine, South Forty resident, spoke againstthe project and talked about the words inscribed on the County Building that state, "To the beauty of Eagle CoUrtty". Morgan Turner stated that he has a second home in Boulder County next to a similar project and finds it to be positive. There is not the traffic .gel1erated that people are. concerned about, and there will not be the retail that is feared. The people that live in the LoftWorks have a vested interest in the community, just like the residents do. He is in favor of the project. Kimberly Spongar spoke opposed to the project. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. He asked the applicant torespond to Public Comment. . Mr. Braull spoke to theco111Inents attributed to Tom Dolan, the architect, and stated that there were other criteria for live/work listed on his website, and this application meets those criteria. They are aware of the CDOT process and areprepa:ted to go through with it. There have been variances granted though, due to topographical issues. He disputed Mr. Aker's traffic study. The conditions that are listed are quite innocuous and sta:n.dard With any development project. He believes that these conditions can be addressed adequately. Full drawings will be Irovided when they are required. He is confused as to the question of enforcement. He Will provide CC &. R's when it is appropriate to do so. He addressed the question of the emergency easement and stated that it is in place today. The changes that were made to the plan do not change the essence of the project, but were made to help mitigate s()meof theconcems listed, and this is not unc0111Inon. Architecture is a matter of esthetics and not parlof the approval process. He addressed the density and zoning, stating their proposal is irl compliance withthe existing zoning, while South Forty's requests were not. Chainnan Menconi asked Ray Merry of Environmental Health about potential impacts. Mr. Merry stated that his memo was in the packets and it addressed enforcement issue. He stated that the changes made Were a step in the proper direction. He stated that there are still some incompatible uses that need to be addressed. C0111l11issioner Runyon asked if fhis property was cut out of the original ptJD because of the gypsum rock being too unstable to build on. Mr. Narracci stated that this was never a PUD, it was :ZOned as RSL. lIe stated that he tried to get information abOut the reasoning that this property was omitted and concluded that it was because of the soil. The o\Vlletdfthe property then called and stated that was not the reason, but it was because of the poor .economy. He stated that it is up to the applicant to come up with the justification that they -are able to overcome the soil issue. He feels that they can be overcome. Commissioner Runyon stated that Tom Dolan is a fraternity brother of his from University of pel1t1sylvania. His main concern with this file is compatibility With the neighborhood, similar to the Lake Creek file of a couple of weeks ago. He likes the concept as it solves many problems, but doesn't like the location. He agrees with the rural feel of the neighborhoog. Chairman Menconi asked Staff about any exception to parking requirements. Mr. Narracci stated that the applicant does meet the standards for parking. He stated that parking is based upon the number of bedrooms, the number of off-site employees, and space provided for customers. Chairman Menconi then clarified Mr. Narracci's statements, using examples. Mr. Narracci stated that there will be different size townhomes and will include studiQs, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom townhomes. Chairman Menconi asked if there was 7.5 acres of land zoned for twenty-two units. 37 4/18/05 Mr. Narracci stated that was true. Chairman Menconi asked if testimony stating that the zoning was inappropriate was true. Mr. Narracci believes the zoning is appropriate and what would need to be demonstrated is how those units would work on the p:roperty with regards to access, drainage, and the other issues brought forth. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Narracci what would be allowed for this site, based on the zoning. Mr. Nartacci stated that Eagle County Land Use Regulations would allow a variety of single family homes, multi-family homes, and duplexes at a density of one unit per 15,000 square feet. Chairman Menconi asked if the applicant could find a way to do this, and whether it would fit within their criteria for approval. Mr. Narracci stated that it could be approved based on the zoning, assuming the details could be adequately addressed to the various agencies' satisfaction. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Braun to explain the changes made since the Planning Comrnission hearing. Mr. Braun stated that only 10 of the 20 units could have a home business, instead of all 20. They limited the amount of uses that would be allowed, eliminating the ones that generated concern. Chairman Menconi asked why the change was made to reduce, and not eliminate, the commercial. Mr. Bral.lh stated they are committed to the concept oflive/work. They will come back with a Minor Type A application if this application is rejected. They were addressing the intensity of the project in reducing the number of commercial units. He then asked Commissioner Runyon to explain his compatibility concerns. CommissibIler Runyon stated he was concerned about not hearing the Plal1t1ing Commission's reactions to the reduced number of cotn111ercial ooits. He asked Mr. Narracci if they need to re-visit this based on that reduction, or are they still comfortable with the denial. Mr. Natracci stated that he would like to lrnow about the traffic impacts and the types of road improvements that still may be neceSSary. Mr. Braun stated that he asked the Planning Commission what he'could do to alleviate their concerns and two members said nothing could be done and a third member asked the applicant to address enforcement and usage issues and cut doWll the density. Commissioner Runyon stated he is concerned With density, as well. He stated that the topography of the land also constrains the applicant. Chainnan Menconi pointed out the key variables to this project. He doesn't think that an approval will be: granted this evening. He addressed the compatibility issues and gave two options to the applicant. fIe is opposed to this application as it stands and doesn't want the County to have to enforce Special Use Permits. His main problern with this application is that it goes through a residential neighborhood for access. He does recom111end that a site visit be conducted if this file were to come before the Board or Planning Commission again. He also recommends that the applicant meet with the Homeowners' Associations. Co111tnissioner Runyon moved to deny File No. ZS-00128-Loftworks. Chairman Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board of County Commissioners table the variance requests, VIS- 0027, at the applicant's request, indefinitely. Chairman Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanImoUS. Attest: There being no further business to be ~t:2~2~ before the Bo ll" "i~G}_ ,. '",. ,;it .~ ~ '., (' '~. J' () /--'yq \ ,1' XI t~ r \:-s.\l ~;~\\~ r--<, C': '. ",0 ~J , '.Ii..oR~'// .1"'~ /' , e meeting was adjourned until April 26, 2005. 38 4/18/05