No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/14/07 PUBLIC HEARING August 14, 2007 Present: Am Menconi Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Monis Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the. Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session It was moved, seconded andunanimousIy agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussing matters that may be subject to negotiations regarding a proposed justice center expansion and Denver Diligence Case 07CW126, which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.RS. 24~6-402(4Xb)and (e) Colorado!Revised Statutes. It was moved; seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Consent Agenda Chairman Menconi stated the first item before theBoard was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of August 13, 2007(subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for August 16, 2007 (subjectto review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners meeting for July 24, 2007 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. Resolution 2007-087 Authorizing the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder to Conduct the November 6, 2007 Election by Mail Ballot, in Accordance with C.RS. 1~7~S-101.et seq. the "Mail Ballot Election Act" Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder E. Resolution 2007-088 Adopting Eagle County Down Payment Assistance Program KT Gazunis, Housing . F. Resolution 2007-089 Appointing Arbitrators to Conduct Arbitration Hearings for Appeals from Decisions of the 2007 County Board of Equalization County Attorney's Office Representative G. Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and HP-Geotech, Inc. Engineering Department Representative H. Managed Pharmacy Benefit Services Agreement between Eagle County and CaremarkPCS Health,L.P. Human Resources Representative 1 08/14/07 I. Resolution 2.007-090 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R Treu, County Attorney; Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney; ChristinaL. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and AlexPotente, AssistantCoUllty Attorney to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Letter of Credit No. 1225 in the Amount of $256, 177.44 and Letter of Credit No. 1226 in the amount of $110,130.24 for the Account of EDCC, LLC Woodward Construction, for Subdivision and Improvements Agreement dated April 25, 2006 for the Benefit of Edwards Design and Craft Center, PUD County Attorney's Office Representative J. Resolution 2007-091 Concerning Appointments to the Eagle County Homebuyers Assistance Committee Housing Department Representative K. License Agreement between Eagle County and Union Pacific Railroad for antenna location Barry Smith, Emergency Management L. Agreement Regarding Provision of Professional Services for a Technical Energy Al!dit of Eagle County Facilities . Tom Johnson, Facilities Management ...../ M. Resolution 2007-092 Approval of a 1041 Permit to Allow Expansion of the Eagle P.-k Reservoir; Located in the Headwaters of the East Fork of the Eagle River (Eagle County File No. 1041-0(69) Bob Narracci, Community Development Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Comsent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no legal issues with any of the items on the consent agenda. Commissioner Runyon spoke about Item Hand stated that the agreement would benefit the uninsured citizens of Eagle County. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-M. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input There was none. Presentation of County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (audited financial statements) by. independent auditors John Lewis, Finance Department Mr. Lewis introduced Tracy Walters of McMahan and Associates. Mr . Walters stated that this was the second year his firm had conducted the audit. He: thanked the County staff for their participation during the audit process. Eagle County was awarded the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in final reporting by the government fmancial officers. He presented a PowerPoiat presentation highlighting the audit procedures. He stated that information needed for the audit was accessible. . The county's assets increased by $30 million in 2006, $28 million was from governmental activities and $1.8 million was from business - type activities such as ECA T and landfill activities. Net assets exceeded liabilities by $178 million. Governmental net assets grew by $28 million because the airport fund received $16 million m grants for the runway construction, etc. He showed a graph that illustrated Eagle County's available resources. The General Fund, Open 2 08/14/07 Space, Road and Bridge fund Other Governmental funds and the Airport fund were all major contributors; He explained the county fund balances compared to the balances of 2005. Commissioner Runyon wondered why there was such an increase in the fund balances. Mr. Walters stated that Eagle County has historically maintained a large fund balance so it's a matter of the county operating the county's governmental funds ala surplus. The county also experienced a strong growth in sales taxes collected over the last two years. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the coupty's fund balances indicate that the county is risky and fisCally r irresponsible. ..~ . I Mr. Walter stated that the county's fund balances exceed the baseline thresholds that they typically see in other . counties but they represent strong fmancial health of the county. He presented aD. analysis of the 2006 revenues. The . graph indicated that taxes coming into the county represent 43% of the total revenues which is a fairly even spIi\between property taxes and sales taxes. Of the county expenditures in f006, capital outlayat34% was the largest expenditure due to the funding of the airport runway. The budgetary performance illustrated that most funds were better than budget due to lower expenditures. The county accounting controls and systems are relatively sound. Overall, the county's financialheaIth is good. The General Fundand other major fund balances remain strong. Commissioner Runyon wondered if Mr. Walter could offer any suggestions to make Eagle County even better. Mr. Walter stated that the financial health of the county was good. To move from good ~.excellence may require a subjective measure and that the county may want to consider their accumulated fund balances. Chairman Menconi stated that Mr. Walter may be getting outside the scope of the audit. Mr. W"terreviewed a management letter provided by McMahan and Associates, LLCthatincluded their comments and ~commendations for County Cash funds, Cash Handling Procedures-ECO transit, Disbursement Controls, EagleiCOunty Fair Admissions and Grant Reporting. Chairntan Menconi thanked McMahan and Associates and stated that the . suggestions are appreciated ahd would be impl~l1lented; liio Planning Files LUR-0070 Renewable EnerevLUR Amendment Adam Palmer, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from 6/19/07; to be tabled to 9/11/07 Eagle County is proposing an amendment to the Land Use Regulations, Which, if approved, would defme and clarify solar, wind, and micro-hydroelectric energy generation; and regulate its use in certain zone districts. The amendment proposes some restrictions to such uses to minimize potential visual, safety, wildlife,.and/or other impacts for such uses, but also proposes allowances. that currently limit or encumber construction of such uses. LOCATION: N/A Commissioner Runyon moved to table to September 11,2007 file no. LUR-0070 Renewable EnergyLUR Amendment until September 11,.2007, at the applicant's request. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. G..00026 - J H Jackson Land Comoanv Easement Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department 3 08/14/07 ACTION: Request to vacate two (2) existing ROW easements near Brush Creek Road approximately 10 miles south of Eagle LOCATION: 010107 Brush Creek Road, Eagle Co FILE NO.: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: G-00026; Public Way andlorEasement Vacation Trynis Tonso / Cheryl Jackson Knight Planning Services Jim Hardcastle, Knight Planning Services 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This is a petition to vacate two Right of Way (ROW) easements located on the ill Jackson Land Co Parcel, at 010107 Brush Creek Road. Specifically, the rust ROW easement is located on the north side of the property, approximately 250' to the east of Brush Creek Road. (Book 106, Page 413). The second ROW easement is located on the north side of the property, approximately 50-100 feet west of Brush Creek Road. B. SITE DATA: legal,.non-conforming property consisting of some slope; contains existing vegetation typical of an.east facing property (aspens, older.growth trees). Brush Creek floWs through the east side of the property, and Brush Creek Road crosses the ro e b wa of a ROW easement. 3,702,600 N/A N/A N/A N/A Via Brush Creek Road (through existing ROW Easements to stay in place) C. CHRONOLOGY: 4 08/14/07 1996 - Building Permit Submitted, and withdrawn 1997 - Grading Permit Submitted, and withdrawn , D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARy & MOTION: The Eagle County Planning Commission considered this application at the August 1, 2007 hearing. One topic of discussion surfaced, regarding the potential access of the easements to any known mining clainls or mineral rights. Th~ applicant responded that they were not aware of any said clainls or rights, but would be happy to provide more information to staff for their consideration.. Based upon this consideratioll, a foUrth condition was added to the suggested motion, as follows: . 4. The applicant verify that there are no know mining claims or mineral rights that may have been accessed by the easements proposed to be vacated. Motion to approve with. conditions (Suggested Conditions #1-#3 & #4 above) was unanimous [7:0} 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT .. ECLUR Section: 5-2200 Public Way and Easement Vacations S~tion Purpose: Public way and easement vacations accomplished pursuant to this Section shall be incompliance with and subjectto C.R.S. 43-2-301, et.seq. Section 5-2200.F. The approval of a Vacation shall be dependent upon findings that the proposed vacation has been demonstrated to.be in.the general. interest of the public's health, safety, and welfare,notto be in violation oflaw,andtobe in compliance with these Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive flan. .. Standard: The vacation shall be demonstrated to be in the general interestofthe public's health, safety, and welfare, not to be. ..in violation of law, and to be in compliOllce with these Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan.antJ shall comply with the following: Standards: 1. Access to a Public Road. No roadway shall be vacated so as to leave Olly adjoining land without a means of access to another public road. 2. Easements. .In granting a vacation, the County may reserve easements for the installation or maintenance of utilities, ditches and similar improvements The following findings are made: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a vacation of the easements in conformance with the requirements of Section 5~2200; 2. Proper Public Notification for the petition has been issued in conformance with Section 5-2200 CA.a. and the petition is ready for consideration by the Eagle County Planning Commission; 3. The applicant has demonstrated the vacation request to be in the general interest of the public's health, safety and welfare. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MlNIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MlNIMUM STANDARPS 5 08/14/07 D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES' Colorado Division of Wildlife, voice mail message dated June 11,2007 . No comments C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The JH Jackson Land Co Parcel is an 85 Acre parcel located at 010 I 07 Brush Creek Road. Brush Creek Road passes through the parcel through a series of existing ROW easements, of which none are being vacated. One home is constructed on the parcel. Brush Creek flows from the south to the north through the parcel on the west. side. The fIrst ROW easement, located to the east of Brush Creek Road, is recorded at Book 106, Page 413. in the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's office, on June IS, 1927, and contains the following textexcerpts: ... Said right of way hereby granted is for use as a road by the grantee, its officers, agents and employees. and the public generally. . This grant shall be effective so long as said easement actually shall be used for the purposes above specified and all rights hereunder shall revert to the owner of the land as soon as the said use the.,.eofshall be abandoned and discontinued... By way of history, this fIrst ROW easement has never been utilized for its intended PUl'pQse. The second ROW easement, located to the west of Brush Creek Road, is recorded at Book 106, Page 589 in the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's office, on June 2, 1930, and contains the identical text excerpt as mentioned in the first ROW easement By way of history, this second ROW easement has never been utilized for its intended PUl'pQse. The applicant is requesting that both ROW easements be vacated. There are existing ROW easements in place forBrush Creek Road that will not be vacated. The physical location of the first and second ROW easements are in terrain that is not conducive to a road alignment. Furthermore, the ROW easements in place are not horizontally aligned for any future realignment of Brush Creek Road. (see attached Exhibit "A") . Regarding the condition brought forward by the Eagle County Planning Commission during their August 1, 2007 meeting (condition #4, noted above in Section I.D), the applicant has provided staff with a letter indicating the additional research to verify that there are no other minmg claims or mineral rights that were associated with these easements. D. PLANNING COMMISSION I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [VACATION] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [VACATION] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle 6 08/14/07 County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). , 3. Table the (VACATION] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the (VACATION) request with conditions . and/or performance .standanls if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County LandUse Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). ~ . DISCUSSION: Mr. Schroeder presented a PowerPoint slide show to highlight the request. He highlighted the historic easement information. He reviewed the findings. Jim Horcast, planner for the applicant stated that the applicant did not have anything to add. ChainnanMenconi opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher asked Mike Bradley, the owner, what his goal was for this vacation. Mr. Bradley stated.that he is simply trying to cleanup the plat. Chairman Menconi asked if there was. any desire to subdivide the plat. Mr. Horcast stated that this was the case. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve file no.\O-00026 - J H Jackson Land Company Easement incorporating staff's findings and including the following conditions. 1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all materi~ representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. The vacations will not be in effect until Quit Claim Deeds for the vacated easements are recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 3. The vacations will not be in effect untilthe Resolution of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approving the vacations is recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. The Resolution will be recorded upon the completion of conditions two. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-00154 B&B Monte:omerv Site - SUP Amendment Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Plannirig Department NOTE: Tabled from 6/19/07 ACTION: To modify the existing Special Use Permit in order to add a 6,000 sqft office building and a 5,000 sq ft equipment shop. All other uses shall remain the same. LOCATION: FILE NO./PROCESS: 14955 Hwy 6, Eagle; S6 TSS R84W & SI T5S R8SW ZS-00IS4/ Special Use Permit 7 08/14/07 OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Old Castle SW Group DBA B&B Excavating Owner Jason Burkey, B&B Excavating PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: B&B Excavating operations in Eagle received its.frrst Special Use Permit approval in 1986. KnoWn as the Montgomery site, the original approval permitted gravel extraction, crushing and washing; as well as asphalt and concrete. production. Tw6-thirds of the main uses remain largely unchanged and are still utilized today. The uses still. in operation include asphalt and concrete production. In 2006, gravel excavation, crushing and washing ceasedoperations; the resources had been fully utilized. The Special Use Permit for the Montgomery operations was modified only once in the last 21 years. In 1989, the permit was successfully "amended" to include a caretaker's dwelling unit; aU of the original uses were maintained in that Permit. B&B Excavating has three (3) other mining ~ in Eagle County: the Hidden Valley, Carol Ann and Eaton/Calhoun mines. The Hidden Valley mine, locate4up the Colorado River Road in Sweetwater, bas been producing gravel since 1997 when they received their fIrst Special Use Permit. Amended in 2005, gravel extraction, crushing and washing remain the primary use for this location; no asphalt or concrete is produced as part of the Hidden Valley operations. The Carol Ann pit (gravel), immediately outside the Town of Gypsum, is approximately 85% completed. The Eaton/Calhoun mine, located in the core of Edwards is currently undergoing the .process. of ''wrapping'' up operations. One of the oldest mines in Eagle County, this operation includes gravel (extraction, crushing and washing), as well as asphalt and concrete production. The Eaton/Calhoun mine is where the main offices are located for B&B Excavating (in Eagle County). Recently, 72 acres of the land on which gravel was being excavated (Owned by the Eaton family)was purchased by Eagle County to be used for open space purposes. The remaining operations, lOcated on property which was owned by ]3&B, will be removed in the near future. As such, B&B would like to consolidate operations and relocate the offices in Edwards to the Montgomery site. With the closure of the Eaton mining operatiol1s, B&B's only source of gravel extraction will beproouced in the Hidden Valley pit; asphalt and concrete processing will only be available from the Montgomery site. The establishment of the. office us and (equipment) shop in the Montgomery site is the main purpose of this Special Use Permit; the existing Special Use Permit does not include office and shop uses. Special Use Permits are valid for three (3) years before use implementation. Upon implementation of the approved use, Special Use Permits remain valid for perpetuity. thereafter; unless an expiration date or exception has been placed upon the permit by the Board of County Commissioners. B. Eagle River Resource Resource 8 08/14/07 South: Hwy61 Unplatted! Residential Unplatted 1 Residential Unplatted R1RSLIRR Town of Gypsum CommerciaV IndustriaV Church Resource ,. C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: . 1986- B&B receives Special Use Permit for the Montgomery site · 1989- Special Use Permit amended to allow a caretaker/night-watchperson dwelling unit · 2003- Mining and Geology Permit amended recognizing that asphalt and concrete will remainatthe end of gravel mining operations . · 2006- Application for new Special Use Permit is made to the County D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATIONSUMMARY & MOTION: The Eagle.County Planning Commission carefully con$ideredthis application on May. 15,.2007. Topics.of discussion during the hearing included: Appropriate location for proposed asphalt and concrete uses in Eagle County; the link between the existing uses.and the use of the newly proposed structures;-the proposed ECOtrail within the property; and the proposed designs for.new berms created within the property. . Discussions: · Appropriate location/or proposed asphalt and concrete uses in Eagle County: At least one of the Planning Commissioner felt that all uses of this nature should be located in areas like Ute Creek Industrial Park, or be located throughout the valIey- not just down valley, as is the current leaning; however, the Planning Conun'ission member also recognized that the current Special Use Permit did not have an expiration date, and in addition, also recognized that these uses have been in operation since 1986. With that in mind, the direction of this proposed Special Use Permit was positive (and noted that the applicant's have made many concessions with this application); · The link between the existing uses and the use 0/ the newly proposed structures: Given that the current zoning for this property is Resource, there was a concernthaUf the asphalt and concrete operations were terminated or relocated that the proposed office and (equipment) shop structures would remain and be used for so~ething other than what may be permitted by the Land Use Regulations. As a result, a new condition was created, linking the proposed structures directly with the asphalt and concrete operations..The new condition is as follows: 9 08/14/07 22. The office building and office use, as well as the (equipment) shop and use, shall be directly related to asphalt/concrete operations ofB&B or assigns only. If asphalt/concrete operations cease in this location, so to does the ability to. utilize the two structures, In addition, the structures must be removed from this site within six (6) months of the cessation of operations. . The proposed ECO Trai//bermwithin the property: As the application progressed through the process, the initiative to create a recreation trail. along the Eagle River was introduced into the application. The idea to permit people to walk or ride their bikes along a trail integrated with the proposed mitigation berm. The trail would.be separated from the river and operations throughout the length of the property by virtue of signed, wildlife fencing. This aspect of the application gene~tedthe most discussion by bOth the Planning Commission and neighbOring property owners. The neighboring property owners felt that the creation of the trail may lead to people accessing the river and/or trespassing on their properties; even with security fencing. The Planning Commission had a mixed response. Most Commissioners were indifferent with the notion of a trail; at least one Planning Commission felt that the trail was a great idea and that people would . understand that ~y abuse of the trail may lead to its removal. Long-term, ifB&B relocates, trail would be an asset to the people of Eagle County. Other Commissioners suggested that the berm should be designed to look very natural, and that extra precaution should be given while developing the berri1s. Ultimately, the Planning Commissiouapproved the application with one (1) additional condition. Motion to apprc>ve with conditions wasunanimc>us [5:0] 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Seetion Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatil:Hewith 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. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Seetion 5-25O.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon iIndings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as. conditioned, fully complies with all the standardS of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to imprOve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. {Section 5-250.B.l] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of we. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 10 08/14/07 Xl- The neighboring properties to the east are owned by B&B and are used for employee housing. In addition, B&B provides the following information regarding contributions for "affordablebousing" to their employees: a) B&B offers construction materials (sand, gravel, asphalt and concrete) at cost when used for the const:n.JQtion of their homes; b) payroll deductions to pay for these materials; c) rental units.. three (3). In addition, B&Bpn>vides these facts: a) over 91 % of management and administrative staff own their own homes; b ) over 70% of field superintendents own their own home. EAGLE AREA COMMUNITY PLAN x x x x x x Xl Xl- The Eagle Area Community Plan currently designates this property as "Residential- 1 Unit per 35 ac". Specifically, it does not support re-zoning or uses which. are not in accord with the existing zoning. The cUll'ent operations are permitted uses in the Resource zone district; however, the FLUM of the Town plan designation recommends more residential uses in this area and does not acknowledge uses that pre-dated the Eagle Area Community Master Plan. Staff'did not receive referral comments or a letter of opposition or concern from die Town of Eagle EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN 11 08/14/07 x XI x x x x x " Xl- This aspect of the plan discusses and provides direction for new development, in particular, new subdivisions. It does not discuss or acknowledge existing, non-residential land uses. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANI;>ARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . X MEETS THE. MAJORtfY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposedlocation and compatible with (the character of surrowuJing land uses. IndustriaV Commercial I Church No Resource No West: Resource No *- Although no letters of opposition have. been submitted to Staff, at least two (2) neighboring property owners have discussed this application with Staff and have conveyed several concerns: noise; odor; and visual impacts of the existing development. Where the existing operations allow for gravel ~xcavation, crushing, and washing, this new application does not. With paving the access and circulation roads, and with the elimination of the gravel operations (crushing), noise levels and dust production is decreased substantially. In addition, the asphalt plant is currently being upgrading to utilize significant technology and should not produce the odors and "smoke" that it has produced in the past. The applicants have been, and are willing, to install additional landscaping where necessary to appropriately screen operations from neighboring property owners. One letter of support (see attached) has been provided from the neighbor to the south of the development. In addition, the applicant has met with the majority of neighbors and has made many efforts to help mitigate any potential impacts (e.g. moving/painting the water storage structure; rTg ~iti. onalland scaping; agreeing. to. set operating hours, etc.) EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 12 08/14/07 D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: ZOne District Standards. [Section5-250.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 particuJaruse, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Al!.plicable. to Particular Residentiai. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards ADDlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. Exploration, Extraction and Processing Operations. 1. Environmental Impact Repclrt. An applicant proposing an exploration, extraction, or processing operation shall submit an Environmental Impact Report. The Report shall be prepared in m;cordance with Section 4-460, Enviromriental Impact Report. of these Regulations, by technically qualified professional experts. Included in the Report shall. be a depiction of the location, scope and design of the proposed. use, and an explanation of its operational characteristics and impacts. The requirement to submit said Report may be waived by the Planning Commission. The. applicants HAVE submitted necessary documents,; however, some of the documents need to be either updated and/or incorporate additional information. 2. Compliance. Proof shall also be submitted that the proposed use shall be designed and operated .incompliance with all applicable laws and regulations of the county, state and federal. governments and shall not adversely affect: .. a. Water. Existing lawful use of water, through depletion. or pollution of surface run~ff, stream flow or groundwater; b. Adjacent Land . Uses. . Adjacent land uses, through generation of vapor, dust, smOke, noise, glare, vibration, or other emanations; or c. Wildlife. iWildlife and domestic animals, through creation of hazardous attractions to wildlife, impacts on wildlife habitat, or patterns, or other means. The applicants HA VE submitted necessary documents. In addition, the Division of Wildlife does not have any significant concerns with operations on this property. 3. Site flan. On parcels of land greater than one (1) acre, a detailed site plan shall be submitted, including landscaping sufficient to meet the standards found in Section 4-230, Landscaping Design Standards and Materials. Security may be required to. guarantee landscaping, drainage, and erosion control, if deemed necessary by the Board of County Commissioners, and as specified in Section 4-240, Installation and Maintenance Requirements. The applicants HA VE submitted necessary documents. 4. Fabrication, Service and Repair. All fabrication, service and repair activities associated with the use shall be conducted within a building (except for incidental repair activities), unless the applicant demonstrates that it is not practical to do so and ensures that all impacts.from outside activities are mitigated. 5. Storage. All storage of materials associated with the operation shall occur within a building, or shall be obscured by an opaque. fence. See conditions 2,6,8,9,10,11,12,14,15,16,17 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINlMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 13 08/14/07 STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. [Section 5-250.B.4] The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent/ands; furthermore, the proposed Special . Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrofliUling lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. '-- X X X X XI X2 X NoD Xl- The applicants willbe upgrading the asphalt plant, one of the uses with the greatest potentialto create odors, with state of the art emissions controls. The improved facility should substantially decrease the amount of emissions previously generated. In addition, the new improvements will be run from electricity, eliminating the need for a generator, as was also used previously. X2- With the elimination of gravel extraction, crushing and washing, a major source of noise bas been eliminated. Remaining is truck and vehicle noise (bac:k~up sounds, etc), and the temporary crushing of recycled materials. The existing Special Use Permit does not provide any controls to mitigate noise; this "amended" Special Use Permit provides an opportunity to add additional controls such as hours of . operation; notification of extended crushing periods (of no more than six (6) weeks; limited operations- Monday to Friday, Saturdays for asphalt or concrete;. no crushing on Safurdaysand Sundays, etc. X3-The applicants have met recently with the neighboring property owners to discuss their concerns. B&B is very willing to work with neighbors in order to mitigate any potential impacts that may arise from this new. Special Use Permit. See conditions 3,4,6, 7,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,17,18 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MBE~TIIE MAJORTIY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts andshall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. 14 08/14/07 x x x x Xl x Xl- See previous comments. "., ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS . X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS .. ME.... ET.S nm MAJORITY. or.. MINIMUM STANDARDs DOES NOT MEET MlNlMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B} The proposed Special Use Permit shall be adequately served bypublicfacilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewaterfacilities, parks,. schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. x X2 X x X Xl-B&Bhas been diligently working with Ellie Caryl ofECO Trails in order to create a portion of trail along Hwy 6, and a loop section of trail which enters the B&B site and parallels the river. Trails are not automatically required for development proposals; however, the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to require trails as part of any development approval. . X2- Pursuant to the Environmental Health Memo dated April 11 , 2007, the question of legal water supply for domestic use has been raised; however, the applicant has submitted a document stating that water IS sufficient for their proposed needs. See conditions 3, 4, 5, 6, 8,13 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . ..... MEE~. THE. MAJORITY OF MlNlMUM STAND. ARDS DOES NOTMEETMlNlMUM STANDARDS STAN;DARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7} Theproposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. 15 08/14/07 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Off-Street Parkins and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Sign Reszulations (Division 4-3) Wildlife Protection (Section 4-41 0) Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) Wi/dfireProtection (Section 4-430) Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) Ridge/ine Protection (Section 4-450) Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) Smoke andParticulates (Section 4-530) Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) Grading and Erosion Contro/Standards (Section 4-660) Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) Water Supply Standards (Section4-680) SanitarY Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) *to be applied to new structures. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS THE. MAJORTIY OF MINIMUM. STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 5,6, 10, 16,21 2 3~ 18 10" 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 10, 14, 15, 16, 17 14, 15 6,8,17.19 14, 15 11,14,15 14 3,15 3,14, 15, 18 10 13 13 ARE APPLICABLE. STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.B.8} The proposed Special Use shaH comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. 16 08/14/07 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS · . M!lETS THE MAJOIU1Y OF MINiMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ECO Trails - Please refer to attachment dated May 17, 2007 · I have discussed the proposal with representatives of B&B Excavating~ have toured the site and also talked with CraigWescoatt of the Division of Wildlife. I re~ommend the following: · The applicant to provide a 20 foot wide public trail easement located on the entire perimeter of the site. · TheJocation will be marked in cooperation with ECO Trails (and other County representatives as determined) with center line stakes and surveyed as an easement by the applicant by June. 1, 2008 or a deadline date set by the Planning Staff or Commission; · The route would generally parallel the south, east, north and west property bou11daries to form a loop trail; · The north segment of the trail easement would parallel the Eagle River and be located outSide of the 75 foot river setback and 100 year floodplain with the recommended.exeeption that it can be located within the 75 foot setback areas (but not in floodplain) that have beenpreviously disturbed by the gravel pit operations; · This would include graded non-vegetated areas, berm areas scheduled to be modified, and areas heavily disturbed and difficult torevegetate; · The goal is to take advantage of these already disturbed gravelly areas rather than create new disturbance; · New berming would buffer the trail users from the gravel operations and viee versa; the cross sectiOn would be berm/trail/riparian & floodplain/river; · Fencing may be installed by the applicant as a substitute for berming to separate trail users from gravel pit operations in areas where safety or use conflicts would occur. FenciIlg on the site is not required; · Signing regarding private property and private property should also be at the Applicant's discretion; · The Applicant will provide a graded 8 foot wide trail platform on the easement, graded level enough to accommodate drainage, walking and mountain biking by May I, 2009; · Trail width between 6 and 8 feet wide will be allowed in constrained areas near the offiee structures and. Skillman Gulch but the easement should remain at 20 feet to accommodate future trail improvements as needed; · Grading needs to incorporate access standards for multi-use unpaved trails- i.e. slope grades; · The trail will be open to non...motorized uses only and is envisionooas a light use pedestrian/occasional biking trail; · Limiting trail use to daylight hours is acceptable; · River acCess is not required and may be signed by the applicant to that effect; · Fencing between trail arid river is at the Applicant's discretion; a wildlife friendly fencing per CDOW standards is advised; · The Applicant will work with Eagle County to formalize public access across the Union Pacific Railroad tracks for conversion of the road entry from a private access to an access. that permits public entry. · This will entail working with the Public Utilities Commissiop and.will require certain exhibits and submittals which will be cost-shared equally by the Applicant and Eagle County. The goal of this condition is to formally establish public access to the loop trail by the May 1,2009 date of construction completion. · A public parking lot on the private property is not included in this recommendation; public access will be from the non-motorized Eagle to Gypsum trail located alongside Highway 6. 17 08/14/07 . See conditions 5, 6, 18 Town. of Gypsum - Please refer to attachment dated April 18, 2007 . First, we would like to thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the application proposing modification of the existing Special Use Permit for B & B's Montgomery site; . TheTown of Gypsum would also like to outline some of our concerns regarding the proposal; some of these issues appear to be addressed by the applicant in the submittal infonnation, so these comments are mainly supporting that these actions do take place if the approval is granted; . We anticipate .that Eagle County is as concerned with air quality at this site as is Gypsum and we look forward to the installation of the newer technologies proposed by the applicant in order to improve emissions from the batching plant activities; . We also.encourage timely installation of this equipmellt and additional attention in correcting equipment inefficiencies or breakdowns once it is in place to prevent poor air quality in the future; additionally, dust issues are a huge concern for the Town not only from this project, but from all projects in the County including ones within our own jurisdiction. . Unfortunately, this area experiences very high and gusty winds during the spring and summer months and the Town is also working with developers in Gypsum to mitigate these problems as much as possible; . Discontinuance of mining operations at the Montgomery plant as well as the installation of permanent landscaping, construction ~f new buildings, paving of haul roads, etc... may help with this situation; however, the Town still stresses during these construction and operation periods that dust control be of utmost importance to the applicant and measures be taken immediately to alleviate poor conditions; . Landscaping on the southern property line along Highway 6.is highly supported by the Town and we hope that these efforts will make a substantial visual improvement along this area even though the plant operationS)are over the hill; . While the numbers of trees appear adequate, the Town was. concerned with the submittal material indicating that, "Evergreens such as pinions of at least 2 feet in height" would be used along this southern boundary; . The Town would like to suggest that because B & B is requesting approval-forpermanent shop and office facilities that Evergreen trees in this area be at least s. feet in height at installation rather than 2 feet because of the lengthy growing time of this species; . The Town feels it is important to make a pleasing improvement right from the start especially along Highway 6 which serves as a gateway to both Gypsum and Eagle; . The Town also supports the applicant's submittal to construct all four turning movement acceleration and deceleration lanes even though the traffic study only indicated that a left turn deceleration lane was required; . Gypsum reserves the right to file a statement of opposition in any water court proceedings, or other water administrative proceedings that applicant may be required to.undertake with this or any future application; . Gypsum's interest is to protect its municipal supply against any potential for enlargement of upstream water use, as it would with any other potential changes in water use that are immediately upstream from the Town; . We realize that many of these issues we have discussed above may already have been addressed by your reviewing staff members and yourselves, but again we appreciate the opportunity to review and submit comments on issues that are relative to the Town of Gypsum and our residents. . See condition 21 Eagle County Environmental Health Department - Please refer to attachment dated April.ll, 2007 . Since the entire site is intended to be used permanently for commercial and industrial uses, we question whether the "special" use permit process is appropriate; . Inasmuch as Eagle County's Comprehensive Plan may not currently contemplate many areas for industrial uses of this type, it should be recognized that asphalt and concrete production facilities 18 08/14/07 are necessary to the sustainabilityof our community and appropriate industrial zone districts should be identified accordingly to help industry develop long range business plans; · Therefore, .it is recommended that the ~~special use" be restricted to a .10 to 15 year timeframe which gives them opportunity to relocate, if or when commercial and industrial usesare no longer appropriate for this site and other industrial zones are identified or established; · It is recommended that the applicant provide an annual report to the Environmental Health Department that compares their annual operation to our current or amended Industrial and Commercial Performance Standards; · This report is due by December 31 each year; · It is recommended that crushing operations be included to promote asphalt and concrete recycling but must be conducted at the west end of the property where the topography will help mitigate noise and vibration; · Furthermore, crushing operations should be preceded by adjacent propertyrtotification at least 24 hours in advance, conducted in accordance with the dust control plan between 8:00am and 5:00pm, Monday through Friday and not on weekends or holidays; · The paving plan should be modified to indicate that paving of heavy equipment traffic areas be accomplished in phase one as soon as traffic flow patterns are established within the site while phase two is to be accomplished within six months of determining the permanent locations of the berm and path; · Any access to the river from public paths must be strictly limited to avoid destruction of riparian areas; · The applicant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Board that adequate source(s) of water are available and approved for both industrial and domestic purposes;.. . .. .. It is likely that the water system will be considered a public water supply by the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division and regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act due to the duration and number of people served by the system; · The applicant should grant permission for the two on-site groundwater wells to be accessed for periodic water testing associated with the valley-wide monitoring network used for trends assessments; · The applicant should explore feasibility of utilizing public wastewater facilities available at either Eagle or Gypsum; · If it is determined that a private wastewater system (Individual Sewage Disposal System or ISDS) is appropriate, the system must be designed by. a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer to accomplish nutrient removal; · Furthermore, the engineer must demonstrate that a drain field location and an ~ternate location have been identified; · It must be demonstrated the system is being maintained at least annually; · Maintenance information should be included in the aforementioned annual report; · Since existing site features are expected to remain within the 75' stream setback, it is recommended that the applicant have a qualified professional explore whether there is opportunity to improve riparian conditions along the Eagle River through the property; · The Dust Control Plan is currently being revised by the applicant to include minor changes identified by staff while the Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan must be submitted for review and approval before July 1,2007; · The Environmental Management Plan is to be amended to include outdoor security lighting be down- cast and motion-activated; and to add a section to memorialize weed management. · See conditions 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19 Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to attachment dated April 1 0, 2007 · The drainage plan does not account for the proposed internal roads. · In order for the site to drain properly, culverts are needed under each roadway platform. · The applicant needs to show culverts under the roads so that rainfall runoff from each area of the site will drain properly to the sumps. · According to the site plan, four sumps will be located along the northern edge of the site. · The purpose of these sumps is to retain process water and precipitation on site. 19 08/14/07 . Over time these sumps will fill up with sediment and become ineffective. . In order to keep these sumps working properly, the applicant needs to regularly clean out each sump. . The applicant will need to provide a maintenance plan to ensure the sumps remain in long term working condition. . Earth berms . located on the site need permanent top soil and revegetation with a perennial, native grass mix. . Disturbed slopes located within SO feet of the Eagle River need to be hydro mulched or covered with erosion control nets; the slope of each berm shall not exceed 2:1. . The proposed recreation trail. is shown on the north side of the site along the Eagle River; however, at this time the exact location of the trail is undetermined, and needs to be coordinated,with Ellie Caryl of Eagle County. . The recreational path needs to be labeled as a commitment to an easement with location to be determined in the future. . In addition, the applicant will need to apply for a grading permit through this department prior to construction of the recreational path. . The on site roadway widths and turn radii need to accommodate two-way truck traffic. . The applicant needs to identify the lane widths and turn radii throughout the site. . The applicant needs to obtain an approved notice to proceed.from The Colorado Department of Transportation (COOT) prior to construction of any access improvements within The COOT right-of- way. . See condition 3, 4,7, 8, 16 ECO Trails - Please refer to attachment dated April 2, 2007 . The applicant to provide a 20 foot wide public trail easement located. on the entire perimeter of the site; . . The location will be marked in cooperation with ECO Trails (and other County representatives as determined) with center line stakes and surveyed as. an easement by the applicant by August 30, 2007 or a deadline date. set by the Planning Staff or Commission; . The route would generally parallel the south, east, north and west property boundaries to form a loop trail; . The north segment of the trail. easement would parallel the Eagle River and be located outside of the 75 foot river setback and 100 year floodplain with the recommended exception that it can be located within the 75 foot setback areas (but not in floodplain) that have been previously disturbed by the gravel pit operations; . This would include graded non-vegetated areas, berm areas scheduled to be modified, and areas heavily disturbed and difficult to revegetate; . The goal is to take advantage of these already disturbed gravelly areas rather than create new disturbance; . New berming would buffer the trail users from the gravel operations and vice versa. The cross section would be bermltraillriparian & floodplain/river; . The applicant will provide a graded 8 foot wide trail platform on the easement, graded level enough to accommodate drainage, walking and mtn biking by May 1, 2009; . Grading to incorporate access standards for multi-use unpaved trails, i.e. slope grades. The trail will be open to non-motorized uses only; . Applicant will work with Eagle County to formalize public access across the Union Pacific Railroad tracks for conversion of the road entry from a private access to an access that permits public entry; . This will entail working with the Public Utilities Commission and will require certain exhibitS and submittals which will be cost-shared equally by the Applicant and Eagle County; . The goal of this condition is to formally establish public access to the loop trail by the May 1,2009 date of construction completion; . A public parking lot on the private property is not included in this recommendation; public access will be from the non-motorized Eagle to Gypsum trail located alongside Highway 6. Colorado Geological Survey - Please refer to attachment dated march 29, 2007 20 08/14/07 · In response to your request I visited this property to review the development plans; · The permit application (March 2007) was prepatedby Greg Lewicki ,and Associates; · The site has been mined for gravel in the past, but will continue as a processing facility of gravel and recycled material into.road base and asphalt; · Under the permit application, a new office building and shop would be constructed on theeastem side. of the site, and a recreational trail would be built on the lower terrace; · Floodplain. The drawings included in the ~pplication show that the office buildings would be outside of the floodplain limits and also beyond the high water mark or 7S-ft setback from the center of the river. · There would not be a problem with flooding from the river. · The orientation of the river suggests that there could be bank s~our on the. eastern and western edges of the site; · I did not walk down to the river to make. observations, but CGS has not had reports of slope failure due to bank erosion in this area; · Soillbedrock. An excavation fora water line was under way at the time of my visit; . The profile. of the .trench. showed that the subsurface materia,l was composed .ofalluvial cobbles and boulders and shallow bedrock of the Eagle Valley Evaporite. · The alluvium should provide good substrate for the foundations, butIarge cobbles should be removed from the building envelopes because of the potential for differential compaction (of the foundations or the floor slabs); , · A borehole or a trench within the footprint of the shop would determine whether dissolution of the ,bedrock is present that could present a problem for construction; · Drainage.. Skillman Gulch crosses. the western part of the site and an upgrade to the culverts is proposed based on the necessity of conveying the. I OOyr storm flow; the peak flow is noted as 234 cfs; · There is a significant debris fan that is associated with thisdrainage; . .. .. · Debris could be carried in a storm flow if the source area contains erodablesoil or bedrock. Have sediment and rock been factored into the sizing of the culverts? · The 1.8 factor of safety for the north culvert is due to the depth of cover; the cover would only transmit clear flow; , .. If the culverts do back up because of debris, the area of impact would probably be limited; (Debris blockage could also occur at Highway 6, if the culverts have not been sized with a bulking faCtor); · If flooding due to blockageisa concern at the site, Skillman Gulch should be evaluated for potential debris flows, and the culverts Should be sized accordingly; · Slope, In construction of the pedestrian trail, the stability of the slope should be considered where the trail cuts into the steep embankment. · Construction of the trail should have oversight by a geotechnical engineer, who could evaluate the stability of the cuts and determine if retainage is necessary; · In summary, there are no geological. conditions that would preclude the proposed improvetnents to the B&B site, but the comments listed above should be considered in development. · See conditions 5, 6, 18 Colorado Division of Wildlife - Please refer to attachment dated March 28,2007 · The request for the addition of an office and equipment shop to the existing Special Use Permit will have no significant impact on wildlife in the area; · The only recommendations are: that both of the buildings being proposed meet the Eagle County stream and river setbacks (minimum of7S feet from the high water mark); and that storm water discharge does not directly.flow back into the river. · See conditions 2, 5 Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment- Please refer to attachment dated March 28, 2007 · The following pertains to air quality issues only: 21 08/14/07 . Land development (earth moving) activities that are greater than 25 acres or more than 6 months in duration will most likely be required to submit a APEN to the Division and may be required to obtain an air permit; In addition, a startup notice must be submitted 30 days prior to commencement of the land development project. ( . Additional Refe"al Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response receivedas of this writing: .. Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Assessor; Housing Division; Sheriff's Office Weed and Pest . Colorado State: Depart of Transportation; Division of Minerals and Geology . Ambulance and Fire District . Towns of Eagle and Gypsum SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages There are many benefits associated with this Special Use Permit; however, there are some disadva11tages as well. Benefits: The existing Special Use Permit is very un-controlled and provides B&B the opportunity to implement their uses on their own terms as far as hours of operation; traffic; storage of materials; etc.. If this amended Special Use Permit is denied, they may continue operations under the existing permit. With this new permit, "bookends" can be applied to the operations in order to properly and/or further mitigat~ noise, dust, hours of operations, etc. This Special Use Permit will supersede the previous approval and the applicants will then be held.to a much higher standard, unlike the previous Special Use Permit. . B&B has been working with ECO Trails and has made commitments to aid in the construction of the regional trail along Hwy 6. In addition, theyarepffering an easement. . through their property, which travels parallel to the Eagle River, for recreational trail use by the public. This new permit opens up the door of communication between theB&B and the adjacent property owners. B&B is willing to work with them in order to mitigate any existing or potential impacts. They have had at least one (I) face to . face meeting during this application process. With the mitigation factors proposed for this Special Use Permit, conditions for neighboring property owners will improve. Eagle County has a greater level of control over operations with this new Special Use Permit, and conditions which provides clear parameters of operations. From an economic standpoint, having many local providers of necessary resources like asphalt and concrete keeps prices more reasonable; competition. As this is the remaining location of this type of operations in Eagle County for B&B, it may be considered a loss to local consumers if this use is eliminated; however... Disadvantages: This use, although permitted via the Resource zone district, is becoming encroached upon by residential uses (aside from the commerciaVlight industrial uses found to the South in the Town of Gypsum). Pursuant to the Eagle Area Community Plan, low density residential is anticipated for this area; the plan does not acknowledge this pre-existing use. As such, it seems reasonable to suggest an expiration date to these operations. The suggestion by the Environmental Health Department, of applying an expiration of 10 to 15 22 08/14/07 years if a more suitable location for these types of uses has. been established seems reasonable (see condition 19). Existing permit has no controls built in and no end date for concrete and asphalt plants. It is impossible to mitigate all of the potential impacts. PLANNING COMMISSION I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 5. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). . 6. Deny t"e [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the propoSed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 7. Table the [SPECIAL USEPERMlTI request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 8. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle COunty Land Use Regulations. and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). .. DISCUSSION: Ms. Skinner-Markowitz presented a PowerPoint slide show to present the file. She reviewed the history of the request. The special use permit in effect did not provide any limitations as to.allowed uses. B&B owns the land in Edwards but this land will be sold. There will be n.o new jobs, simply relocation of existing staff. Staff investigated alternatives; however, there are limited alternatives to the site. After reviewing other operations, staff applied several conditions and limitations to bring it up to current land use standards. Eagle County, received permission fora recreation trail on the property. She reviewed the conditions. She also showed some additional 'photos from various vantage points. Some of the conditions were generated from the Environmental Health department and ECO trails. One of the conditions limits access to the river. The permitted use and activities were also pared down. B&B proposed to pave with asphalt the roads used tQaccess the facility. Other conditions are listed below in the proposed motion. The applicant has agreed to all of the conditions. Jason Burkey, representing B&B spoke to the board. They have spent over $1 million improving the asphalt plant and they have made improvements to Highway 6. They are also adding 150 new trees. By moving from Edwards to Eagle, it will reduce traffic to and from Edwards as most of their staff lives down valley. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. He asked that only new information be presented that has not previously been presented. Kathleen Denson spoke to the board. She owns a ranch close to the location. She hates to see this type of use in that area. Chairman Menconi asked Ms. Denson about the existing uses. 23 08/14/07 I I I I I J Ms. Denson was under the impression that when mining ended that the operation would end. I I I Chairman Menconi closed public comment and opened board deliberation. I I !.. Commissioner Fisher asked about the existing permit. She wondered iftherc was no time limitation to the pennit. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that this was correct. The special use pennit will allow for asphalt and concrete production without limitation. Mr. Burkey stated that they would continue to operate the asphalt and concrete plant as well as opening their office building on the site. This has been part of their business plan. He has communicated with the neighbors indicating their desire to add the office building on the site. Commissioner Runyon asked if the only thing needing approval is the addition of the office building. In exchange, the operators will agree to 21 new conditions related to the.operation at the site. The owners are even agreeing to remove the building should operations cease in the future. Chairman Menconi stated that he would like to work on this on different levels. He has seen a great deal of pressure on down valley for housing. He wondered about the future of the area between the town of Eagle and the town of Gypsum. He believes the disadvantage is what is happening to the overall planning in the area. Having a relatively intense light industrial use in the area is not in harmony with wh~ has been developing in thea:rea. He drove out, looked at the site, and wondered if it has the potential for a future open space situation. Restated that B&B has been a great citizen to the community. He would like to suggest some closure to condition 19. He believes the condition istoo open ended. He thinks in 1998 a mistake was made. As more intensive overlay zoning or other types of too Is, this type of use can be created in more appropriate areassuch as the Ute Creek area. He believes this is inconsistent with the type of master planning that it going on. He'd like toJook for better .... alternatives. He was not currently comfortable approving the file. . The survey indicates that the B&B property . line extends into the river in some of the locations. He does not believe that people Should not be able to access the river. He believes the area is a beautiful area and if you look at the land holdings along the river from Wolcott on to Dotserothecommunity has an opportunity to preserve this beautiful river front. Mr. Burkey spoke about the town of Eagle. Mr. Gray, from the Town of Eagle indicated that he is not opposed to this type of use. There will only be 22 employees and there is a tradeoff to traffic to Edwards. The acceleration and deceleration lanes will cost over $500,000.00. They need a length of time at le~ 10 years long to capture a return on their investment. Chairman Menconi wondered. what was going on at the Edward's site. Mr. Burkey stated that they have to move out by April of2008. Chairman Menconi wondered what would be needed in an alternative site. They would need about 40 acres, along with access, zoning and approval from the appropriate government entity. Mr. Burkey stated that the asphalt plant could probably be moved, but the concrete.plantneeds to be close to the building needs. Chairman Menconi wondered where the concrete plantmightbe able to be relocated. Mr. Burkey stated that they would need approximately 5 acres. Chairman Menconi wondered what type of time would be needed to. find this type of land. Mr. Burkey stated that the A and D lanes are scheduled to start in a couple of weeks. Chairman Menconi stated that the 2.7 million in capital investment could be applied elsewhere. Mr. Burkey asked that the county not put B&B into a spot that would give them a competitive disadvantage. He stated that they had agreed to move if and only if all concrete plants from the valley would be located in the same place. He clarified that if their concrete plant is on the river road it would make them less competitive than an operator with a closer location. Theoretically, all of these things could be considered, however he doesn't feel they are practical. Chairman Menconi stated that the clock. could be stopped in.order to investigate another option. Mr. Burkey stated that they do not have time to consider other options due to the time constraints of them leaving the Edward's location. Their goal was alway~ to consolidate the business. Chainnan Menconi asked that the owners work with the county in consideration of open space needs and fonn base codes. He wondered if the site could become an affordable housing site. 24 08/14/07 Mr. Burkey stated that B&B is concerned about the deadlines, which are stacking up. He agreed to look at alternatives and he did this. Greg Lewicki, engineer for the project spoke. He stated that they went through the Hidden Valley hearings, which were vel)' contentious. It was agreed as part of this process that the asphalt plant would not be located at the Hidden Valley site. Chairman Menconi stated that there were not vel)' many people at the Hidden Valley pit discussions. He also wondered if sitting down with the community development department andthe attorney's office to consider alternatives would be advantageous. He has been actively looking to preserve Eagle River property tor some time. Mr. Burkey stated that this would preserve the land; it will still be there in 20 years~ Chairman Menconi asked about condition 19. The Board would have the opportunity to review the operation eveI)'. 1 0 years. Mr. Burkey stated that if the county found a site that could accommodate all asphalt and concrete plants, they would agree to move with 10 years notice. Chairman Menconistatedthatthe Lafarge operation near the rodeo would be winding down inJ-S years. Mr. Burkey stated that the ball fields could also be mined eventually. He stated that his job is to fmd a spot for his employees to have an office and shop. Mr. Lewicki agreed with Chairman Menconi about his position; however, B&B needs more time to consider something like this. Chairman Menconi stated that the county has been looking at land such as this for other uses. Mrr Burkey stated that the current contract expires in April of 2008. The counter offer came back at4":S times the original lease amount. . He has looked at other options to buy some time. Chairman Menconi wondered if time might be available at the Edward's location. Mr. Burkey stated that the building contractor needs the okay to go ahead with the plan. Chairman Menconi stated that he would either be asking for a tabling of the file, or he would vote to deny the file. Mr. Burkey stated that he believed it would take 1 0 years to fmd the alternative site. Commissioner Fisher asked about the Carol Ann pit. She wondered if the mining operations were 9()% completed. . . . Mr. Burkey indicated that this was the case. They do not own the area. The Montgomery site .is the laSt owned land. Commissioner Fisher stated that B&B could continue to use the asphalt and concrete plant on the r Montgomel)' site. She asked for clarification about the requirements for county provided property. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that the idea was that if the county identified an area for these types. of uses this would be acceptable. Commissioner Fisher wondered if B&B would have as much as 1 o years to accept a new location. Mr. Burkey. indicated that the. 1 0 years allows time to recapture some of the costs for the improvements. Mr. Lewicki stated that if the county could come up with a site in a short period of time, the change could take place closer to the 10-year period. Mr. Burkey stated that this was incorrect. They need to have time to recoup the costs of their investment. Commissioner Runyon stated that he agrees with all that. it is a spectacular piece of land. Unfortunately, this piece ofland was allowed to be used forthe B&B operations. They could not buiIdtheir batch plants and crushing operations in the light industrial area near the airport. If the county denies this use, the county will not have received anything from this negotiation. Mr. Burkey stated that it seemed like a compromise for them to have agreed with some of the more restrictive conditions. Commissioner Runyon stated that by granting the.request the county gives B&B the incentive to stay in this location. Mr. Burkey wondered if the county had an area in mind where this type of use might be allowed. .Commissioner Runyon stated that the objections are based on the asphalt and crushing operations. Mr. Burkey stated that condition 19 provides a site for all concrete and asphalt producers. Chairman Menconi stated that this doesn't even make sense. Ray Merry, Director of Environmental Health stated that this was about zoning. Chairman Menconi wondered how the county could convince other business to relocate to this spot. Mr. Burkey stated that Mr. Merry's objective was to have everyone in the same area. 25 08/14/07 Chairman Menconi stated that this is highly improbable to implement. He asked for a straw poll on the board's position, Bob Morris, County Attorney advised the board to consider condition 19 and a possible amendment to this condition. .They might consider a termination condition. Condition 19 currently onlyallows.the right to review. The right to terminate would require a change to the condition. Commissioner Fisher asked if B&B would consider moving to another site within the next 10-year period. She wondered if there would be agreement that if within 10 years a new site were found it would be possible that within the following 10 years B&B would move. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that condition 19 allows the board to delete or modify any existing conditions. Mr. Morris asked that the county eliminate any uncertainty. He suggested a condition that after 20 years the permit would terminate with or without B&B' s approval. Chairman. Menconi moved to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice from the County Attorney, which is appropriate pursuant to C.RS. 24-6-402(4)(b). Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Chairman Menconi stated that there is need for a short tabling of the file to have some discussion with staff to explore some of the options available. He suggested tabling this file for one week from this meeting. Mr. Burkey'stated that he didn't want to imply that after 20 years they would not necessarily agree to moving. They would however agree to consider moving to an industrial zone district, which would encompass all similar industrial activities. Agreement to terminate within 20 years would require that every operator move at the same time. Mr. Lewicki stated that there has to be a place for them to go before they would agree to vacate the property. Chairman Menconi asked for a tabling of the file. Mr. Burkey wondered if any work could be done related to condition 19. Chairman Menconi stated that potentially there could be no commercial use allowed on the site. and the existing operation could continue. Commissioner Fisher reiterated thatB&B is a valuable partner in the community. Without their product, development wouJd come to a stand still.. The county has a reliance on the product and it is the goal of the county for B&B to remain competitive. She assured the representatives that staffwould make themselves available to work towards a better solution. Commissioner Runyon hoped that the applicants could appreciate the conundrum in which the county fmds itself. The community assets need to be considered in terms of a long-range solution. .He hopes that a place can be found which would be more suitable and less of an eyesore. The board understands the fiscal needs of the company. He believes all options should be considered. Mr. Burkey is looking for a solution for the industry, not simply B&B. Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. ZS-001S4 B&B Montgomery Site - SUP Amendment until August 21, 2007. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. All refuse must be contained in wildlife~proof receptacles or as permitted in Section 4- 41 O.C Wildlife Proof Refuse Container/Dumpster Enclosure Standards. 26 08/14/07 3. Comments from the Engineering Department .in themerno dated Aprilll, 2007 must be adhered to and incorporated as part of the. required grading and huildingpermits. . 4. All comments fromECO Trails, as stated in the memo dated May 17, 2007 must be adhered to and incorporated as part of the required grading permit(s) and any trail agreements between the land owner and ECO Trails; 5. Access to the river is prohibited and shall not be incorporated as part of the frail plan. In addition, since existing site features are expected to remain within the 75' .stream setback, it is re<rommended that the applicant have a qualified professional explore whether there is oPPOrtunity to improve riparian conditions along the Eagle River through the proPerty; 6. Permitted uses and activities on the Montgomery site are as follows: a. Site preparation including road construction/access improvements; revegetationlIandscaping;reclamation activities such a grading, seeding, planting, mulching, fertilizing and irrigation; berms (which may exceed eight (8) feet); and trail. construction; b. Drainage improvements in~luding, but not limited to: culverts; and sumps; c. Utilities, including, but not limited to:. telephone, electricity, gas, water, generators, and fire protection equipment and supplies. Utilities may be placed above or below ground; d. Equipmentstorage is limited to equipment necessary for asphalt and/or concrete operations and maintenance; as well as equipment necessary for excavation purposes. This site may not be utilized as a general contractor's storage yard without specific amendment to this permit; e. Parking of employee or visitor vehi~les, aswell as company vehicles required for on-site operations; f. Storage of applicable and necessary supplies for the on-going operation of the asphalt or concrete operations; however adequate screening is required to shield materUils from neighboring property owners. ( 7. This Special Use Permit shall supersede the Uses by Right in the Resource Zone District except as may in the future be approved by the Board of County Commissioners through the Special Use Permit process; provided, however, that agricultural uses, utility distribution facilities and water diversionstructureslditches shall be considered to be apart of this Special Use Permit. 8. All road ~urfaces used for daily operations (portions of the property which include the asphalt and concrete plants and to the east)must be including in the proPosed paving plan as Phase 1. Phase 2 shall include all remaining portions of the property. 9. B&B Excavliting (or its successor operator of the Montgomery si~) shall update (as and when necessary) and maintain a detailed policy guide and procedure manual outlining fire, health, emergency, safety and welfare of employees and surrounding residents and visitors to the area. 10. Lighting on the Montgomery site shall be limited to flush mounted, down-cast, motion sensor lighting, or unless otherwise approved by the Community Development Director. 11. A Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan must be submitted for review and approval before July 1,2007; 12. The Environmental Management Plan is to be amended to add a section to memorialize weed management; 13. Individual Sewage Disposal System or ISDS must be designed by a Colorado Registered Professional Engineer to accomplish nutrient removal. Furthermore, the engineer design must.show 27 08/14/07 the primary and alternate drain field locations; designs must be submitted with the required ISDS permit. In addition, it must also be demonstrated the system is being maintained (at least) annually. Maintenance information should be included in the aforementioned annual report which demonstrates conformance with Special Use Permit; 14. The Montgomery site operations shall comply with the Eagle County Industrial and Commercial Performance Standards, as may be amended from time to time. Further~ the applicant is required to provide an annual report to the Environmental Health Department, comparing their operations to ~he Industrial and Connnercial Performance Standards, applicable at the time ofsubmittaI; the report is due December 31 st of each year; . 15. B&B Excavating (or the successor operator of the Montgomery site) shall submit the annual report required by the Colorado Division of Minerals and Geology to the Eagle County Department of Community Development. In addition, an Annual Compliance Report whicbdemonstrates conformance with the Dust Suppression Plan (DSP), Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP); and Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures Plan {SPCC);with Division 4-5, Commercial and . InpustrialPerformance Standards. of the Eagle. County Land Use Regulations. shall be submitted annually by the Applicantto the Environmental Health Department, due December 31 stof each year. 16. Visual impact shall be mitigated in the following marmer: a. Disturbed areas shall be reclaimed as soon a" practicable, using a combination of native vegetation species and berming which utilizes the design standards as set forth in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations; b. The buildings should utilize architectural, non~ret1ective finish materials and colors designed to "blend" iri with the surrouncljng landscape; 17. Hours of operations (excluding office use) shall be as follows: Asphalt and Concrete Operations I Site Maintenance Hours: Monday through Friday Saturday Sunday. -7:00 AM to 7:00 PM during construction season (April through November) 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM during November through March - 7:00 AM to 5:00 PM - 8:00 AM to 4:00 PM * Limited to six (6) Sundays (maximum) per calendar year; used only to replace lost paving days due to adverse weather Crushing of Recycled Materials Crushing of recycled materials may be permitted up to a maximum of six (6) weeks; however~ notice of the crushing operations must be provided to adjacent property owners two (2) weeks prior to the onset of crushing operations. Notice must include intended time frame of crushing operations. Hours: Monday through Friday - 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM Crushing is prohibited on Saturday, Sundays and holidays. 18. Recommendations from the Colorado Geological Survey (memo dated March 28, 2007) should be utilized wherever practicable; 19. This Special Use Permit shall be approved for asphalt and concrete operations beginning in 2007 and continuing until December 31, 2017, with the provision that prior to the continuation of operations for the Montgomery site, this Special Use Permit shall be subject to review by the Eagle 28 08/14/07 County Planning Commi~sion alld the Board of County Commissioners. The Applicant shall provide Staffwith specific information, reports and analyses as deemed necessary by the Director, of Community Developmen~. Further, the Board of County Commissioners may delete or modify any existing. conditions of approval or add additional conditions of approval under this Special Use Permit. If in 2017 an even more appropriate location for the uses permitted with this Special Use Permit has been identified in another areaofEagle County, the Board may include an expiration date for this Special Use Permit, with the parameter that the expiration date, of not less than 10 years, provides a reasonable time frame for the relocation of these operations. This Special Use Permit. shall expire immediately upon the relocation of the equipment and materials (closure of the Montgomery site) to the alternativeJocation; 20. The office building and office use, as well as the (equipment) shop and.use, shall be directly related to asphalt/concrete operations of B&B or assigns only. If asphalt/concrete operations cease in this location, so to does the ability to utilize the two structures. In addition,.thestructures must be removed from this site within six(6) months of the cessation. of operations. 21. All trees to be used for landscaping along the southern bOundary shall be a minimum of five (5) feet in height. PDSP 00025. ZC 00087 The WEST END Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from 7/24/07 This application proposes a mixed use development planned unit development which includes multi-family residential dwelling units; employee housing units; and commercial uses including office; restaurant and retail-oriented business units. . L 34019 and 34129 Hwy 6; Edwards (Commonly known as the HavenerlKempParcels) LOCATION: FILE NOJPROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PDSP-0002S 1 ZC-00087; SketchlPreliminary Plan & Zone Change Midtown Group, LLC Owner Brian Bair/Sid Fox, Fox & Company 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REOUEST: The applicant wishes to create a mixed use PUD that is comprised of 113 free-market residences with an additional 72, onsite local residents/employees housing units. As part of the pUD Guide, the residential dwelling units/uses may include: apartments andlorcondominiums/town homes; condominiumhoteVtime- share/fractional fee condo units;bed and breakfast; and bOutique hotel. All new residential units (as proposed per current site plan) are proposed abOve commercial space, with the majority of the proposed parking (residential and commercial) provided in underground parking structures, with limited surface parking intended to support commercial uses. In addition to the residential component of this PUD, the applicant is currently proposing an approximate, 85,000 sq ft of commercial retaiVoffice space. Some of the proposed commercial uses include: restaurants; drive-thrubusiness; common retail establishments; office and professional services; health-related services; and service oriented establishments such as a tailor, photography studio or dIy-cleaning facility (pick-up only). 29 08/14/07 The West End developmentproject is a proposed redevelopment of both the Havener and Kemp properties located off of Highway 6 in the commercial core of Edwards, CO. Currently, the properties host a variety of uses including: a small mobile home park; trucking operation; a 'defunct' refueling site; a construction materials storage.yard; and a masonry storage and delivery yard. The mobile home park is in very poor condition with many homes over 25 years old. In addition to the variety of uses on the propcl1y, there are several 'out' buildings that are old and decrepit, including buildings on the Kemp property. The West End is also directly adjacent to Eagle River Preserve Open Space parcel. As such, the applicant is willing to either design and install necessary buffering and/or improvements between the West End and the Eagle River Preserve Open Space (ERP) parcel; or provide the necessary amount of money necessary for the County and affiliates with the ERP to effectively landscape and maintain this interface. The donation will more effectively manage the current topography whichincIudes a drop in elevation from the West End property, to a significantly lower grade on the Open Space parcel (12 feetin certain portions of the property edge). B. 235,224 total; 149,846.4=Havener; 8S,377.6=Kem N/A NIA N/A NIA C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: . 1969~ Havener purchased the subject property (to the west) . 1974- RSL zoning was placed on the properties when Eagle County introduced zoning in September, 1974 . 1975~ Kemp purchases the two (2) subject parcels (to the east of Havener) . 2006- The West End PUD Sketch Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Sketch Plan approved 55-65 residential units; 12 local resident dwelling units and a potential49,OOO square feet of commercial space on the Havener property (3.44 acres). 30 08/14/07 . D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Eagle County Planning Commission carefully considered this application on July 11, and August I, 2007. At the second and final hearing, the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions for the combined Sketch and Preliminary Plan, and approval of the Zone Change. Some of the positive remarks made by the Commission included that: . The applicantS did a good job with the buildings (architecture) and use of space...with the approach heading towards new urbanism; . The density is necessary in an area of growth; . Workforce housing = density = height; . The housing approach was innovative and there is a need for this type of housing; . The core of Edwards is an urban environment, and it is not small anymore. Further, there is. a lot of energy in Edwards, and this project adds to Edwards; . The projecthas great potential; . And (at least one member) applauded theevoIution of the plan. Outside of these positive comment; however, the Planning Commission also had several concerns. The main topics of discussion during deliberation for the file are encapsulated in the following summaries: . Pedestrian Crossing on Highway 6 form the West End to Edwards Village/ECOTransit stop': Great concern was expressed regarding pedestrian safety crossing Highway 6 from the West End. Although the applicant committed (on the record), to the. investigation and installation of a pedestrian crossing across Hwy 6 pending COOT support, no designs have been offered by the developer as of yet (COOT. has indicated that an at grade crossing may work,; however, they have not confirmed what kind of crossing would ultimately be supported). The Planning Commission acknowledged the intention of the developer; however, wanted it to be very clear that a pedestrian crossing was integral to this development and added a condition to ensure a crossing was inevitable~The Planning Commission was in support of all other pedestrian improvements aspresenfed by the applicants including the proposed 1 0' trail parallel to Hwy 6; the proposed internal pedestrian circulation patterns and access to the Eagle River Preserve. In addition, the Planning Commission supported the Staff recommended round-about on Highway 6. . Infrastructure/traffic Improvements: Although the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project, they remained very apprehensive with the state.ofthe existing traffic infrastructure in the Edwards core.. This was theIDain reason that two (2) of the six (6) Planning Commissioners did not support this application. More specifically, the Commission was concerned with the existing and future level of service of the Highway 6 and the Edwards Spur Road intersection. Knowing what the anticipated growth isfor unincorporated Eagle County and of Edwards, the Commission made it clear that immediate attention by Eagle County needs to be directed towards traffic improvements (in Edwards), before additional redevelopment pressure occurs in this area. Ultimately, the Planning Commission carefully listened to the engineering experts (from the applicant and Staff) who analyzed potential traffic impacts and decided that this file could move forward with the proposed improvements. . Buildings/design/Eagle River Preserve: At the fIrst Planning Commission hearing in July, the Commission requested that the applicant provide a photo simulation and renderings demonstrating howthe property would interface with the Eagle River Preserve.. The applicant had to also demonstrate that the Eagle River Fire Protection District (ERFPD) was satisfied with ftre access along the rear property line to ensure that sufficient room was provided with use of only a 10 foot setback. Finally, the Commission directed the applicants to "beef' up" their proposed landscaping on the proposed ERP landscaping area providing larger/taller/number of landscaping materials. The applicant responded to all these requests ,including reaching an accord with the ERFPD. Although some. of the members still had a concern regarding the proposed height- at least one member felt that it would be more appropriate to step the buildings more so than add 31 08/14/07 additional landscaping, the Planning Commission did not add any conditions regarding this aspect of the development with the exception that additional landscaping (double what had been shown) was necessary to be planted on the Eagle River Preserve. One Commissioner, after seeing the photo simulation, stated that the photo was very helpful and although the proposed visual mitigation was not perfect, the applicant has done a good effort with the proposed architecture and landscaping donation, and (he) understood that the height was necessary to gain the density. . Housing: The housing plan presented at the August 1 sthearing was a modified version of the initial plan based on commentary by both the Planning Commission and Director of Housing offered during the July hearing. At the fmal hearing, the revised housing plan.as.presented by the applicants gained support from both the Commission and the Director of Housing. Aspects like expanding the range of unit pricesbeginnillg at 80% AMI through to 130% AMI pleased both. entities. In addition, the plan now mirrored the Miller Ranch deed restrictions and guidelines as requested by Staff. Only one aspect of the plan was not supported by the Commission: the idea to utilize the offered 1.5% transfer fee asa teimburselIlent to the developer in order to cover the gap (loss of dollars- approximately $2,000,000) in order to offer the expanded range of deed restrictions requested by Housing (Housing supports the fee reimbursement). The Plarining Commission felt that based on the application and in conjunction with the current Housing Guidelines, the developer would need to provide 52 restricted housing units to mitigate the amount of free market dwellings and commercial square footage. Therefore, the transferJee reimbursement should only apply to the remaining 20 units. Another concern by the Commission was regarding how the Homeowner Association dues would be constructed. In order to ensureaffofdability of the restricted, the affordable units need to be calculated differentI( then the free market units. As Declarations do not get fmalized until Final Plat, Staff agreed to asSIst the developer in creating a system that is fair and equitable, to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners during th.at process. One additional recommendation .from the Planning Commissioners was requested to be passed onto the Board of County Commissioners; but was not incorporated as part of the conditions: The Planning Commission felt that it was important to convey that as part of the structure for the non-profit that will be created to manage the proposed transferfee, a portion of collected fees should be utiIizedto aid Habitat for Humanity with their on going efforts as they are one of the only groups addressing the need for low~income families in Eagle Comity. Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved the application incorporating staff conditions and with four (4) additional conditions. Conditions: . A pedestrian crossing and/or improvements across Hwy 6 is/are required prior to thefirst Temporary Certificate of Occuparu:Y (I'CO) issued for the West End PUD. . The affordable housing prices in the proposed housing plan (discussed at the 08/01/07 ECPC hearing) shall be static (for first sales) with the existingde-veloper or assigns. . The proposed transferfee reimbursement of 1.5% to the developer (per current housingplan) may only apply to 20 affordable units. . The number of trees proposed as part of the landscaping donation on the Eagle River Preserve shall be double what is shown on proposed plan (per 08/01/07). Motion to approve with conditions [4:2] 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: 32 08/14107 PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: Section Purpose: Standards: , 5-240/5-280 Sketch & Preliminary Plan; 5-250 Zone Change For the Applicant,. the County and the public to evaluate bow the applicant responded to the issues and concerns identified during sketch plan review and to formulate detailed; properly engineered solutions.to those issues and concerns.tbat conform to the approved sketch plan; however, in the case of a combined Sketch and. Preliminary Plan for PUD,the applicant does not have the benefit of a stand alone Sketch Plan to utilize in the development of their application. As such, the predominant review focuses. on the Preliminary Plan. aspect of the application; however, the degree to which the plan conforms to the intent of applicable land use regulations and provisions of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan is determined; final agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, . access, and the proposed infrastructure for. water. supply and sewage disposal; and the compatibility of the proposal with sUrrounding land uses is carefully examined. . The Preliminary Plan . stage is when the applicant would provide detailed information and mitigation proposals to be evaluated by the County. The preliminary plan. shall include a guide to the development of the PUD (hereinafter, the "PUDGuide"), specifying the limitations that will guide the future developmentof the property. Where the PuP proposes activities that constitute a subdivision, the applications for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall also be required to meet the requirements of section S~280, Subdivision. regarding procedures.for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision, respectively. The purpose of a Zone Change is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the . Official. Zone District Map or. any other. map incorporated in these Regulations by .reference. It is not. intended to . relieve ~icular hardships, or to confer special privileges . or rights on any person, but only to make necessaty adjustments in light of changed conditions. Section 5-240.F .J.e., Standards; Section 5-280.B.3.eStandards and Section 5- 230.D Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch & Preliminary Plan for PUD (with subdivision) application. All standards that would be met at a Preliminary Pian level must addressed by the application materials. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards have been met at this stage. H the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or ifit is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be made for that Standard. STANDARD: Unified ownership OJ' controL [SectionS-240.F.3.e (1)]- The title to all land that is part of a P un shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS TIIEMAJOlUTY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 33 08/14/07 STANDARD: Uses. [Section S-240.F.3.e (2)]..;.. The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed asa limited use in Table3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for P UD. V ariations (~r these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f., Variations Authorized. Commercial uses (on property zoned RSL) X - Up to 33% X2_ The following uses are.not currently permitted in the RSL zone district: . Time share fractional fee; . . Veterinaty Hospital; . All other cOmmerclaluses as listed in the West End PUD Guide. X2 X Permit mixed uses (commercial and Residential as uses l>Y right; Limited Review or via Special Use as directed in the PUD Guide Permit mixed uses (commercial and Residential as uses by right; Limited Review or via Special Use as directed in the PUD Guide Residential dwelling units (on property zoned C/G Xl X This application proposes a mixed use development. If the Board of County Commissioners approves this application, they will also have granted a variation to the land uses. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS . . · DOES NOT MEiTMINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section S-240.F.3.e (3)]... Thedimensional/imitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effectfor the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f., Variations Authorized provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. Yes 34 08/14/07 1- This development provides significant pedestrian and public space throughout the development; however, the open space is not necessary "green" or"living,"it is hardscape suitable for gatherings, outdoor seating, etc. and is more typical of urban environments. The design of the West End lends directioninthe creation of this type of public space to unincorporated Eagle County. Currently, areas such as the Towns of V ail. and Eagle are utilizing hardscape, open space areas for their downtown centers 2- The standards as found in the underlying zone districts provide significant setbacks which disallow development to be closer to setback lines. As a design quality, this minimizes the. availability .for buildings to be set closer to roadways or to neighboring developments and increases the distance between similar activity centers. As a result of this separation, the reliance of vehicles to transport people from one. development to another is increased. Developments with smaller setbacks are. more typical of urban environments, or community centers. l..The West End has similar hei tsto Riverwalk Section 5-240.F.3 .f., Variations Authorized. provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved,.and that the Sketch Plan for PUDachieves one or more of the following purposes: Obtains desired design ualities; Avoids environmental resources and natural resources; Provides incentives for water au entation; Provides incentives for trails; Provides incentives f9r affordable housin ; Provides incentives for ublic facilities. Rear SO' 12.5' or Y2 ht of tallest building (RSL) 12.5 (C/G) 10 Side 12.5' or Y2 ht of tallest. building (RSL) 12.5 (C/G) 75' 10 Stream N/A Height 35' (RSL) 35' (C/G) 75' Floor Area Ratio. 93% 20% (RSL) 60% (C/G) 1m ervious Not 35% SL This setback will be maintained Although the PUD does achieve many of the purposes for permitting Variations, no specific justification forthe proposed setbacks has been provided in the application except that it is neces to maximize internal ublic s ace. Although the PUD does achieve many of the purposes for permitting Variations, no specific justification for the proposed setbacks has been provided in the application except that it is . necess to maximize (internal ublic sace Although the PUD does achieve many of the purposes for permitting Variations,. no specific justification for the proposed setbacks has been provided in the application except that it is necess to maximize internal ublic s ace Although the PUD does achieve many of the purposes for permitting Variations, no specific justification for the proposed setbacks has been provided in ~ application except that it is necess to maXimize internal.. ublic s ace Althou the PUD does achieve man of the 35 08/14/07 Coverage purposes for permitting Variations, no specific justification for the proposed setbacks has been provided in the application except that it is neces to maximize internal ublic s ace Although the PUD does achieve many oftbe purposes for permitting Variations, no specific justification for the proposed setbacks has been provided in the application except that it is nec:es to maximize internalublic s ace 1 The applicants provide total a square footage for aU residential, office and retail uses which may be a a .oss calculation and ma not be calculated as r the Ea Ie Coun Land Use Re . lations Not provided in Application 20% (RSL) 50% (C/G) Building Coverage These Variations appear to be justified. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations provide standards for residential or commercial development, but do not offer standards for mixed-use developments. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE. .. MAJORITY OF MINIMUM. . .STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section. S-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, and Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PljD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will.be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, and Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to' provide specialized iransportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. Bldg 1 =2 For Bldg 1=2 Residential 2.5 Bldg 2=2 every Bldg 2=2 Bldg 3=2 25=1 BIdg 3=2 Lodging 1 per room 1 per . Non- " Non~ room s ecific s ecific 1 for every 1 for On- Retail, 350 s.f ... every grade= Non- Service, office! 250 s.f of 4+1van " Commercial sales + 1 net lease- Garage= specific er 600 of able floor 4+1van 36 08/14/07 studiol area sho area Restaurant! 1 per 4 1 per 4 Non- " Non- tavern seats seats s ecific s cific Buildings with greater Non- than 10,000 " 1 s.fof specific commercial 1 for 1 for eveI)' eveI)' Auditorium! 150 s.f. of 100 s.f. public floor area of floor Non- " Non- used for area used specific specific assembly seating! for assembly seating! assembl Public apd 1 for eveI)' 1 for Health 350 s.fof eveI)' Non- " Non- facilities floor area 300 s.f of specific specific floor area The proposed parking plan provides sufficient information. Based on the shared parking plan, parking will have to be carefully monitored by onsite security and the property ownerslhomeownersassociations. for the residential and commercial users. The overall goal of the West End PUD is to provide an environment for the pedestrian and is not being designed for the vehicle. Understanding that principle, there isa definite reduction in the number of parking spaces normally required. per the. Eagle County Land Use Regulations; however, the ECLURsdo not provide distinct requirements for mixed-use developments, rather, provides an opportunity for a shared parking plan opportunity only. The PUD guide offers minimum standards to be used in conjunction with the parking plan (site plan) provided as an exhibit. In addition, the PUD Guide organizes certain uses in order.to balance daytime and nighttime parking needs. . ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X. MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS . ....DOES NOT MEW MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5,.240.FJ.e (5)]-, Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscapim! and Illumination Standards. Voriations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. 37 08/14/07 x x x x x x x x x x x Xl See also landscaping plan in application Xl- The applicant has only one (1) request fora deviation to these standards: the ECLURs require a 10' planting strip along the property line (Hwy 6); they have provided a reduced area.in order to provide sufficient room for the proposed 10' ECOTraiI. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS TIlE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section S-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall b~ as specified in Article 4, Division 3, SiWl Re~lations.zmless, as provided in Section 4~340 D" Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to. direct users to and within the PUD. II Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? WYes [JNo ~ The applicant has provided a copy of the proposed standard to the Community Development department; a copy of the actual.design guidelines has also been submitted .for enforcement purposes, as the applicant intends to not utilize the Eagle County sign Permitting process. The sign code is a flexible document allowing amendments to occur without an amendment to the PUD guide. This is an important. feature of the document, especially as design guidelines are developed. for the Edwards area. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS. MINIMUM .STANDARDS .. MEETS TIlE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section S-240.F.3.e (7)J - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequateIacilities for potable water supply, . sewage disposal,. solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to.schools, police andfireprotection, and emergency medical services. 38 08/14/07 XI In proXimity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services Xl- The two (2) requested. deviations .and/or variations have been supported by Engineering Staff. X Yes No ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS . X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS .. . . MEETI> TIlE. . MAJORITY. OF MIN.IMUM · . STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARJ): Improvements. [Section S-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvement standards applicable to the development shal/be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, dnd Improvements St{J1ldards.Provided, however, the development may deviate /rom the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development orachieves greater sensitivity to enviromnentalimpacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed.' (a) Safe, Eff~ient Access. The circulation system is designed topruvide sqfe, convenient access to. fJll areas of the prQPoseddevelopment using the minimum practical roadwaylengtk Access shall be by a public right-ol-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowedthat compromises omr(1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association.of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. . (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logidal, sqfe and convenient system for pedestrian access tudwe11ing units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off site. . (c) Emergency Vehkles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access byemergency vehicles to all lots.or units. An access easement shall be gr(l1ltedfor emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services andfor installaticm, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) PrincipalAccess Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed toprovide for smooth trqfficflow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle trqffic. Where aPUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the P UD,. unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removedfromthe interna/street network andfrom.offstreet parking areas. XI X2 X X3 X Yes 39 08/14/07 Xl- CDOT has provided a Hwy 6 Access Permit; however, they have not approved any construction drawings for this project. This usually transpires prior to Final Plat approval. X2- During the Planning Commission hearings, the overaUsite plan was. modified by the applicant (the parking garages were modified for a more efficient design. At the writing of this report, Engineering has not been provided the opportunity to examine the updated construction and drainage plans for the site. Unsupported design could affect the level of Engineering support for this rde. X3- COOT has issued a temporary Highway 6 Access Permit for this site dependent upon construction of a round-about on Hwy 6. This development will have to meet all minimum County and/or Colorado Division of Transportation standards regarding road designs (including access entrance and highway 6 improvements), unless a Variation from Eagle County standards is granted by the Board of County Commissioners during this process. A new Highway 6 access permit has been received from COOT. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS J( ~ETSTHEMAJORrfYOF~... STANDARDS DOES NOT MEETMlNIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility withS",.,.ounmng LandUses..[Section S-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposedfor the PUDshall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses" Eagle River Preserve ROW: Highway 6 Gashouse/ Edwards Commercial Center West: V ogelman Stone Yard C/G X Xl- The applicant has been corresponding with the Eagle Valley Land Trust, the Eagle River Preserve Restoration Committee and Eagle County to request the instaIlation.oflandscaping materials on the ERP in order to further mitigate the proposed development. As of 08/02/07, with the proposal from the West End reviewed, and considered by all groups, the aforementioned parties decided that the developer shall not be required to provide, install and maintain any buffering on the ERP; however, money should be provided by the developer to pay for previously requested. improvements. The idea being that the ERP entities should be responsible for this type of endeavor; the applicant is in agreement. Edwards Village CIG East: x 6 Earlier in the process (prior to the ftrst Planning Commission hearing on July 11, 2007) the Homestead OwnerS Association provided to Staffa letter of concern. Their letter raised concerns regarding the proximity of the buildings on the West End property and the Eagle River Preserve, traffic, and density. Since the letter was written to Staff, several key members of the Homestead HOA have attended both Planning Commission hearings; however, no new letters of concern (or support) have been submitted (form the Homestead HOA). Correspondence has been received from other groups, and is attached to this report. The Edwards Area Community Plan recognizes this property as suited for mixed use development. This development, if properly executed, will be compatible with the intent expressed throughout the entirety of the Edwards core; Riverwalk is another example of a residential and commercial development (mixed use) 40 08/14/07 in the Edwards community center. In addition, other residential developments neighbor commercial developmentS in the immediate vicinity. ' Over the course of this application, concerns from the public have been expressed to Staff and the Planning Comm~ssion: (a) the "compatibility", or more accurately, with the potential impacts that the West End may have 00: the Eagle River Preserve; and (b) the proposed maximum height; and traffic impacts. . To respond to these concerns, the applicant and/or Eagle County has met with the public in order to discuss potential road improvements. The applicant has also made modifications to the application according to the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and has come to a general agreement with the groups responsible for the Eagle River Preserve. There are some remaining aspects of this application that will need to be analyzed and agreed upon with the Board of County Commissioners such as the requested Variations and the concurrence with the intent of the proposed improvements on the Eagle River Preserve. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMuM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS ... · . roES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use }Jap (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketchp/an review is on a broad concePtual level, i.e., how aproposal compares to basic planningprinciples. As adeve/opment proposal moves from sketch plan. to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily r(!main stOtic. . . EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN x XI X2 X3 X4 xs X6 X7 X8 Mixed Use Be/ow are the RecommendedStrategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: Xl- Development · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". The subject property, in its current state, is not n8:tufal and the proposed development will necessitate complete modification of the site conditions. Some of that modification may include "clean-up" of the existing, non-conforming uses such as fuel storage. · IIWork to identify andpreserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreationalfacililies, open space,. clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services". Depending upon one's perspective, the proposed development mayor may not preserve quality of life characteristics. In the Edwards core, a development of this magnitude has not occurred since 41 08/14/07 Riverwalk was developed in the 1990's. If you compare the effects of the two developments, many concerns would be the same (past and present): increased traffic; taller buildings than what previously existed/exists in Edwards; higher densities than what existed/exists in Edwards; an architecturally theme residential and commercial development (in this case the West End is more qrban in.form than RiverwaIk with hard scape open space features and higher emphasis on. pedestrian movements instead of vehicles and with smaller setbacks); etc. . "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demogl'apherinto development decisions and long range planning objectives". Population andjob growth data were notaddressedin.the application materials; however, the applicants.have provided informationjustifying the immediate need for additional commercial and office square footage in Edwards (current vacancy rates are extremely low). . "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". The proposal is.intended to be a compact, mixed-use development within an existing community center. . ((Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". . The development proposes a significant mix of free-market and local resident housing units. . "Ensure that aU plans for development recognize the need to maintain a _healthy economy". Construction, on~going maintenance and the commercial element of the proposed development would help to maintain a healthy economy. To some extent, the owners of the residential units would infuse money into the local economy. . ((Intersperse parks andproperly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". The proposal does include landscaped areas, pedestrian plazas, sidewalks throughout the development, as well as a new portion of trails along HWy 6. . . ('Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development stllndtlrds". This is the purpose of the PUD evaluation. . '~na{vu development applications for conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as potentially appropriate for Mixed Use development of commercial/office andhigh-density residential. . "Continue to allow variationS from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the sUITounding community".. The proposal will require variations to setbacks, heights and uses but clustering is not anticipated in the more rural sense. Indeed development of the site is being maximized, with use of three (3) buildings and ''vertical clustering" using a higher density, multi-family setting rather than the typical "horizontal clustering" of single family dwellings in . less compact design. . "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide landfor workfor.ce housing". The development application does propose to develop affordable local resident housing. . "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts".. The design of the proposed development is located across the entire site. More information is anticipated to be obtained from the applicants in response to the concerns of both the Planning Commission. and other referral agents. X2- Economic Resources . "Ensure that commercial / retail development OCCIII'S in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". The proposed commercial I retail aspect of the development is in close proximity to existing commercial development in the community core of Edwards. . "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance". The development proposes 113, free-market residential units that may become secon~ homes to those residing outside of Eagle County. In response to this possibility, aside :from constructing 12 affordable housing units, the applicant is imposing a transfer fee on all free-market units in perpetuity. Funds generated from this fee would be returned to the community (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units so they could be restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this community. . ((Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population". The proposal does not specify services and business to support a growing senior population; however, there is an opportunity to create uses in this development do not exist in Edwards (e.g.) senior day-center . "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities". The proposed development may serve to provide retirement housing opportunities in a mixed-use setting. 42 08/14/07 . "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation". The project does not target retirement housing per se but the site is located in close proximity to local support services, emergency services and trartsportation. . "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and reqUire commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area". Eagle County is in support of the proposed housing plan. . "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to thatnecessill'J' to serve the needs of the immediate local poplilation". . The proposed commercial development will likely draw primarily from the local population. There has been. significant interest from the public to locate new and or relocate businesses into this development. Public commentary from the previous West End file (PUD Sketch Plan) voiced a need for new; larger commercial spaces which would meetallow their bUsiness to expand where c~ntIy in Edwards, spaces are limited in established commercial areas. . "Allow the development of new service, commercif1l and industrial USes in suifable locations provided such usesareproperly bufferedfrom su"ounding properties". Service commercial uses are limited, and within the proposed buildings. · "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs of nearby residents". The commercial uses proposed will likely draw primarilyfroIll the local population; however, nothing would limit smaller chain stores from situating in 'this development (e.g.).banks, restaurants and businesses like Starbucks. . "Encourage live-work ll1'1'angements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation". Theproposed development would create . new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportUllities. . The majority of people working at the nearby restaurants, retail stores, offices and other employers would able to afford to live within the proposed development. X3,:, Housing . "Afford4bk workforce housing sholildbe lQcated near job centers". 72 affordable housing units are proposed with this development. In addition, the applicant is imposing.a transfer fee on all free-market units. in perpetuity, Funds generated from this fee would be returned to thecomlllunity.( e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units so they could be restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this community. The proposed development would also create new "live where you work"opportUllities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities. The majority of people working at the nearby restaurants~ retail stores, offices and other employers would able to afford to live within the proposed development. . "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". In exchange for significant density (incentive ),the developer would be able to construct 72 affordable housing units. . "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". 72 affordable housing units are proposed with this development. In addition, the applicant is imposing a transfer fee on all free-market units in perpetuity. Funds generated from this fee would be returned to the community (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units so they could be restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this comIllunity. The proposed development would also create new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities. The majority of people working at the nearby restaurants, retail. stores, offices and other employers would able to afford to live within the proposed development. Eagle County is in support of the proposed housing plan. · "Mandate that attainable workfoice housing be consideredpart of the required infrastructul't! for all new development tlpplications".The applicant intends to negotiate the overall Public Benefit and workforce housing component of this proposal with the Board of County Commissioners. · "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". . The Eagle County Local Resident Housing Guidelines are in the process of being updated and the minimum Inclusionary Housing, Commercial Linkage and Residential Linkage mitigation rates are anticipated to increase substantively. The applicant for this development opted to not wait for the Local Resident Housing Guidelines update 43 08/14/07 process to be completed and therefore intends to negotiate the workforce housing component of this application with the Board of County Commissioners. X4- Infrastructure and Services . "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and withIn reasonable distance to a mass transit hub". The application does propose to introduce pedestrian pathways throughout the site and connections off-site. The overall pedestrian movement network between commercial and residential developments in Edwards is; however, currently lacking. A mass transit hub does,not currently exist in Edwards; however, the. internal roads have been designed to accommodate a bus in the event that ECOTransit chooses to run a bus through theW est End in the event that a secondary road connection through the property to the east is developed. In the interim, there are bus stops on both the north and south sides of Highway 6. . "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completionofnew development". Via a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateralization of required public infrastructure improvements, there will be assurance that the road, sidewalks and the proposed trail improvements will be completed concurrent to the completion of the. proposed development. . Ensure appropriate transportation comideratiom. are included in subdivision improvement agreements". This is the purpose of a Subdivision Improvements Agreement. . ... . ' . "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". A bus stop will be created fronting the West End property. Further, the internal roads have been designed to accommodate a bus in the event that ECOTransit chooses to run a bus through the West End in the event that a secondary road connection through the property to the east is developed. . Encourage tramit oriented development". The subject property is located in the core area of Edwards which is a logical place for transit oriented development; however, Edwards does not currently benefit from a transit hub. A bu,s stop will be created fronting the West End property. Further, the internal roadsha.ve 'been designed to accommodate a bus in the event that ECOTransit chooses to run a bus through the West End in the event that a secondary road connection through the property to the east is developed. . "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adeqUJIte parking on the perimeter of shopping til'eas to encourage walking". The proposed development does include pedestrian circulation throughout the subject property and connections off of the property. . . "Encourage a network of walking trails within towm and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds,etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure". The proposal does include pedestrian circulation throughout the subject property and . connections off of the property with.the intent of encouraging pedestrian movements and less need for the personal automobile. Edwards overall, lacks a comprehensive pedestriantraU system interconnecting bus stops, schools, businesses, parks and playgrounds. . "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with para/lei pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". This proposal does include an off-site pedestrian route via the creation of a new portiOI) of trail along Hwy 6 towards the Hwy 6 Edwards Spur Road intersection. . "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, storefronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffIC speed controls". The site plan for the West End has incorporated all of these design elements. . "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design". Of all possible development scenarios, the Planned Unit Development process provides the greatest flexibility in planning and design. . "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". 72 affordable housing units are proposed with this development. In addition, the applicant is imposing a transfer fee on all free-market units in perpetuity. Funds generated from this fee would be returned to the community (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free- market dwelling units so they could be restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this community; The proposed development would also create I new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities. The majority of people working at the nearby restaurants, retail stores, offices and other employers would able to afford to live within the proposed development. . "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". The proposed mixed-use development does include a variety of commercial uses 44 08/14/07 within the same buildings as the residential dwellings which presumably would reduce reliance on personal cars. · "Evaluate all development proposals using eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standa1'fls"~. Eagle County does review all development proposals using the Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards. In this instance, there are some outstanding concerns regarding ingress / egress to the subject ~ site and traffic impacts. · "Assure adequate accessfor emergency responders". The Eagle River Fire Protection DistrictresponSe provided notes that the applicants must incorporate into thedevelopment prior to approval. · "Require demonstration thataJ/ new developments will be adequately served byemUfency and cOnun"nity services". Edwards is already served by the Eagle River Fire Protection District; Eagle County . Ambulance District; the Eagle County Sheriff's Department, Road & Bridge Department and ECO Transit. · "Encollragenewcommercial development to provide childcare as an a1IIenity". Childcare facilities 8J'e notcontemplated with this propoSal given the layout and commercial atmosphere of the development; the applicant is concerned that childcare providers would not be able to afford rents and would have to be subsidized, as is common with non-governmental facilities. · "Use House BOl 1041 powers to fullyevaluateproposalsfor new water and sewer lines andproposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". A 1041 Permit for new water. and sewer lines;and efficient utilizlltion of water and sewer.infrastructure is being processed in conjunction with this application. · "Reqllire the installation of water and sewer service infrastrllCtllre conCII"ent to development". If this PUD Sketch Plan is approved thent concurrent with thePUD Preliminary Plan application, a.l 041 Permit for new water and sewer lines and efficient utilization of water and sewer infrastructure will be required. Installation of the wat~ and sewer infrastructure will be require4 concurrent to the development. · "Require detailed transport(ltion analysis at the prelimlnaryapproval". This information has been supplied to the Engineering Department. · "Provide. adiYersity of housing choices and prices throughollt the entire collnty". The proposed development represents either a free-market residential choice, or affordable housing units. X5- WaterResoUl'ces · "Reqllire developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water sllpplyex/stsfor thei, development". The application includes a 'Will Serve' letter from the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. Nevertheless, a.1041 Permit must also be obtained. The 1041 Permit process will delve into the legal and physical water supply for the proposed development. · "Use a stantlardof extended droughtconditions to det~ethe viability of the physical water supply .proposedfor a new development". With the. 1041 Permit, the viability of the physical water supply has been addressed. .. . . · "Utilize clment water quantity information in all development applications and plllnningreviews". The 'Will Serve' letter from the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District states that the owner may connect and receive service provided that all applicable documents have been submitted and fees due paid in full. Because square footage on this project may exceed originally estimated.square footage, inclusion into the District /Authority does not necessarily mean that all water rights, treated water storage, water and sewer tap fees associated with the project have been paid. This letter from the District implies that there is sufficient quantity to support the project. · "Protect source. water areas and reduce the potential for source water contaminatiOn". The subject property is not located in a source water area. · "Use pervious surfaces instead of impenneablesurfaces when possible" The development proposed will maximize use of the site but does. include a great percentage of pervious area. As such, the developer is committing to significantstarm water treatment prior to discharging the water back into the ecosystem. · "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". Grading of the site and on site stOrm water management will require the use of Best Management Practices to protect groundwater and surface water resources. · "Encollrage the use of water efficient landscape materials and lalfdscape i"igation methods". The application proposes the use of xeriscaping and low water consumptive plant materials. · "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable wate, usage fo, golf courses and other landscaped a,eas"..The subject property is an infilI parcel which does not have access to non-potable water. 45 08/14/07 . "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". This concept is notavailable; however, low flow shower heads and toilets, among other green products are incorporated with this development. . "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water consenation measures". Viathe subsequent 1041 Permit evaluation, water conservaqon measures are mandatory. . "Require the demonstration of the availability of teal (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application". In addition to the 'Will Serve' letter from the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District I Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, other information regarding the availability of 'wet' water has been provided. . "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". The Department ofEnvironmentaI Health requestS that the developer work with Environmental Health to site a ground water qualityrnonitoring well on the subject property; the developer had committed to this notion. . "Follow the reCOmmendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Govemments Regional 208 Water Quality ManagellumtPlan". As part of the subsequent 1041 Permit evaluation, adherence to the Regional 208 Plan will be mandatory. . "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River WatershedPlan". The Plan speaks to avoidance of development sprawl and proliferation.along the Eagle River Valley filling in between community centers. The subject property is located in the core of the Edwards community. . "Promote the appropriate best management pracdces for the control of storm water runoff and work tlJ idendfy and treat other non-point sources of pollution". Best Management Practices will be required with regard to storm water management and grading activities. . . "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". With the subsequent 1041 Permit, water quality management will be thoroughly evaluated. Adherence to the Regional 208 Plan will be required. The Department of Environmental Health requests that the developer work with Environmental Health to site a ground water quality monitoring well on the subject property; the developer had committed to this notion. . "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and ~lement appropriate water qlUllity best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". Best Management Practices will be required with all fmal construction documents and plans. . "Requite buffer areas of natllral vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". This has been accomplished with this development. . "Minimize the extent ofimpenious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". Much of the proposal is non-pervious surface; however, of that impervious surface, much of it remains "open space" ina more urban form. In addition, the applicant will re-introduce needed "green spaces" around the development, wherever possible. X6- Wildlife Resources . "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man-made ba"iers to wildlife migration". The West End PUD should have minimal or no impact on wildlife from the developm~nt of this parcel. . "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". The subject property is no longer high quality wildlife habitat. . "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". The use of Best Management Practices for on~site storm water management will be required. . "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". The subject property is not critical wildlife habitat. . "Implement and enforce refe"al recommendations of local wildlife offICials". Bear-proof refuse containment receptacles will be required on-site. . "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other exisdng or potential developments". The subject property is surrounded by existing commerc:ialand residential.development and is itself a designated open space tract which was intended to accommodate drainage, access, trails and recreation facilities. . "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". The proposal is for high density development in a community center. . "Minimize site disturbance during construction". No portion of the site will remain undisturbed. . "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". The landscape plant and tree palate has been submitted with application. 46 08(14/07 · llRequire wildlife-proof refuse containers for aU new and existing subdivisions". Wildlife-proof refuse containment wilI.be required on-site. X7- Sensitive Lands . "Requil'e the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land lISe". All recommendations ofthe Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated July 02, 2007 must .beadheredto. · l~inimJz.e alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". The subject property is no longer a natural landform. Development of the site will disrupt the entire site. · "Avoid the aggravation or acceJerationof e.dsting potential hazards through landform or vegetation modification". Potential hazards wilI be required to be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. · Continue to refer all development plans to the Colortu/o ~eological Survey for comment". Please refer to the attached Colorado Geological Survey response dated July 02,2007. · "Require the incorporation 0/ all recommendations 0/ CGS and other hazards experts into development. plans".. All recommendation s of the Colorado Geological Survey will be incorporated into the development plans. · "Consider the cumulative impact o/incremental development on landscapes thatincluile visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". The subject property is a previously developed parcel flanked by commercial and reclaimed gravel mining operations. · llDetermine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its inte,.deduseas open space and ensure that these features are preserved". There are concerns from the Eagle Valley and Trust regarding the neighboring Eagle River Preserve that will have to be addressed prior to approval. X8- Environmental Quality . . ....' · "AsSUl'lraccess to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners .and visitors". The proposed development will not impede diurnal (down-valley}air flows. Generated noise would not likely diminish the enjoyment of the general area, but may affect onsite residential properties without proper mitigation. The proposal encourages walking or biking .bycontributing to the construction of a sidewalk north of Hwy 6. This proposal is also located near a mass transit stop, allowing customers to utilize ECO Transit. · "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips".. 72 affordable housing units are.proposed with this development. In addition, the applicant is imposing a transfer fee on allfree-market units in perpetuity. Funds generated from this fee would be returned to the community (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units so they could be. restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the num~r oflocalresidentdweUings in this community. The proposed development would also create new "live wllere you work"opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities; however, if the majority of people working at the nearby restaurants, retail stores, offices and other employers are not able to purchase a new West End housing unit, due to poor and unsafe pedestrian opportunities in the Edwards core vicinity, it is anticipated that residents of the development may continue to rely on their personal vehicles until further pedestrian improvements have been installed. · "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need/or daily commuting". The mixed use nature of this proposal does focus development within a community; however, some of the free- market units may be purchased by second home owners. Those residents inhabiting the development full time will likely not have a need to commute. · llSet limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation ofall disturbed areas l!.ncefmal grades have been established". The proposed development is intended to occur in a single phase. Site disturbance will be all encompassing but temporary.. If for any reason there is a lull in site work or construction activity, revegetation of earthen stockpiles will ~ required. · "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". These grading mitigation efforts are mandatory. · llUtilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting'~ With application for preliminary . plan, a comprehensive lighting plan will be required inclusive of this recommendation. 47 08/14/07 . "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". As with other existing similar mixed-use developments; residents, visitors and employees willbe subjected to sometimes incompatible noises typical of commercial 1 tesidential.mi:x.ed-use development. "IncllUle an analysis of potential noise when makingthefinding ofcompadbi/ity with surrounding uses for all new development proposals".. Residents, visitors and employees will be subjected to sometimes incompatible noises typical of commercial 1 residential mixed-use development. "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans fhatminimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". Given the site location, reliance on personal motorized vehicles sho1Jld be minimized; however, transit service to all regions of Edwards does not exist. . "Design communities ina way that reduces fossi/fuel consumption for heating or cooling". It is the developer's intent to construct the proposed buildings meeting LEEDS standardS for efficiency. Implement energy effICiency guidelines. It is the developer's intent to construct the proposed buildings meeting LEEDS standards for efficiency. Implement energy saving techniques. It is the developer's. intent to construct the propOsed buildings meeting LEEDS standards for efficiency. . . . . . . Future Land llse Map Designation The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the community-specific Edwards AreaColtlII1mlity Plan Future Land Use Map. Said map identifies the subject property as appropriate for mixed-use development~ X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 Xl0 Mixed Use XI- Land Use The stated goal is, "lfhe location and type of land uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the 9urrent. and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located. in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and human made environment, ensures the timely, cost-effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety oflifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". This proposal does serve to balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the entire Edwards Community. X2- Housing 72 affordable housing units are proposed with this development. In addition, the applicant is imposing atransfer fee on all free-market units in perpetuity. Funds generated from this fee would be returned to the community (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units so they could be restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this community. The proposed development would also create new "live where you work" opportunities for locals~ In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities. The majority of people working at the nearby restaurantS, retail stores, offices and other employers would able to afford to live within the proposed development. X3- Transportation 48 08/14/07 The applicant needs to continue to work with the Eagle County Engineering Department and the Colorado Department of Transportation to secure appropriate access permits. The application does propose to introduce pedestrian pathways throughout the site and connections off-site. The overall pedestrian movement network between commercial and residential developments in Edwards is; however, currently lacking. A mass transit hub does not currently exist in Edwards; however, the internal roads have been designed to accommodate a bus in the event that ECOTransitchooses to run a bus through the West End in the eventthat a secondary road connection through the property to the east is developed. X4-Open Space "Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with land owners, developers and other agencies and ()rganizations". . This proposal does not represent a coordinated effort to preserve any of the subject site as traditional Open Space (a typical green or park-like environment) which, in turn, helps to defme abuff~r between developments; however, this has been atypical defInition ,used in the past. The ECLURs do not require all. areas of open space to l?e green. Landscaping, however, will be found throughout the gevelopment ... alongside hardscape pedestrian plazas; and as this property is contiguous with the Open Space parcel, it may be found moot to preserve additional, onsite "live" open space areas. . X5- Potable Water and Wastewater Pllblic potable water and sanitary sewer service is anticipated to be made available to serve the proposed development; however, according to the ER WSD, the applicant will have to pay cash in lieu to the District before service will be provided. An ability to serve letter has been provided to the appliCant; however, asubsequent 1041 approval will also be necessary for this application. X6- Servkes and Facilities This element of the Edwards Area Community Plan pertains to the management of solid and hazardous wastes and the support of public schools, occupational training and higher education. These partic~lar goals do.not apply to this development; however, educational space is a proposed use by right in this development. X7- Environmental QIIIllity This proposal does not necessitate the creation of any new wastewater or water supply facilities and it IlCidresses storm water runoff related issues; however, as proposed, storm water .is anticipated to be discharged onto the Open Space parcel. .It has been indicated to Staff that this will acceptable. X8- Economk Development The proposal. attempts to promote a balanced mix of land uses .in the Edwards community to encourage a . diverse economy. The applicant has stated that a "market study" has been developed. . X9- 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 openspace system". This application does not offer any community recreational amenities; however, public. open space plazas and other pedestrian-friendly provisions have been provided throughout the development. X10- Historic Preservation No historic resources were identified on the subject property. At the time of this writing, neither the Eagle County Historical Society had provided COIJlment. XU-Implementation "Agencies and interest groups such as the Bureau of Land Management; United States Forest Service, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Valley Regional Water Authority and the Eagle River Watershed Council cooperate to ensure the smooth enactment and realization ofthis plan". This goal is not applicable. Future Land Use Map (FLUM) ~ The proposed commercial site is ideqtified on the FLUM as an area appropriate for mixed use development; the plan does not offer site-specific goals or guiding statements. X This property. is not in an area identified as "unique landform." x x I X X The West,Endis currently is in the "District".for water and wastewater service. An 'Abilitr to Serve' by the District is required, and has been provided to Staff. Most likely the applicant will be able to provide cash in lieu of water rights the District and purchase water from sources in the Eagle Rivet basin and Colorado River systems.. 1041 approval must be obtained prior to Preliminary Plan approval to ensure efficient utilization of water and wastewater. It is not anticipated that the proposed development will compromise either the Eagle River watershed or the Eagle River. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS · . MEE1HHE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the. entire County. Such public improvements shall be constrUcted with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early. in the project as is reasonable. Phasin Plan Provided? EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS The pun shall comply with the following common recreation and open space ,standards. (a) MinimumArea. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total Pun area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shallprovide a minimum often (10) acres of common recreation and usable open spacelandsfor every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the pun. . In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open.Space. Parking and loading areas, street right..of-ways,and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas. that Count as Open Space. . Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitOt areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the pun. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within thePUD. (d) Improvements Required. Allcommon open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specifiedon the PreliminaryPlanfor PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall he placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. . UJ Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the P UDnot publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within. the PUD. 1.35 Acres 235,224 Square feet 152,895.6 Square feet Square feet 217,800 Square feet 82,328.4 Square feet % Undetermined Undetermined . Public plazas and pedestrian corridors throughout develo ment Flea market, etc, require Limited Review 65% < 5 Acres 1.89 Acres The applicant needs to provide the square footage for all public open space areas. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 51 08/14/07 D DOES NOT MEET MlNIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section S-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations ofrefe"al agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, and Natural Resource Protection Standards. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . .MEE~. TaB.. MAJOgrry OF MOOMUM S.TANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MlNIMUM STANDARDS OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARDlSl FOR PUD SKETCBlPRELIMINARY PLAN: The finding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuantto Section S-240.F.2.a.(1S): 15. (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned (e.g. market study); Proposed schedule of development phasing; Statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system; Statement of estimated dem~ds for County services; Statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the previous year's County tax levy and a schedule of projected receipts of that revenue; Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fife fighting purposes; Employee housing plan. 52 08/14/07 x MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Punuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section S-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with MasterPlan. [Section S-280.B.3.e (l)lB The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is ona broad conceptual level, i.e., how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its. conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the masterplans. may not. necessarily remain static. . See previous discussions on page 13 and 28. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS M1NIMUM STANDARDS . MEE~..THBMAJ. ORI1Y. O. f~.. STAND.. .ARDS DOES NOT MEET M1NIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [SectionS-280.B.3.e (2)] BTheproposed subdiv4ion shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, . including, . but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. 'andArtic/e. 4. Site Development Standards. . X X X X X X X X X X X X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Sign RegJ.llations (Division 4-3) Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) Wood BumingControls (Section 4-440) Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) Commercial and IndustrialPerformance Standards (Division 4-5) Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) 3,13 7 7 53 08/14/07 Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) ? Roadway Standards (Section 4~620) X Sidewalk and TrailStandards (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4~640) ? Drainage Standards (Section 4~6S0) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4~660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670). X Water Supply Standards (Section 4~680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication StandatJis (Division 4-7) Applicable During the Planning Commission hearings, the overall site plan was modified by the applicant (the parking garages were modified for a more emcient design. At the writing of this report, Engineering has not been provided the opportunity to examine the updated construction and drainage plans for the site. Unsupported design could affect the level of Engineering support for this f'de. 8,9 4,10 6 8 7,9 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS · X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF.MOOMUM STANDARDs DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be EffICient. [Section S,"280.B.3.e (3)] B The pr.oposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication orpremature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (l)Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan. or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eallle Countv Road CaDital lmorovementS Plan. (2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoidfuture land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall ()nly be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. This development is located next to a major roadway and has access to all available utilities. No new public roads (dedicated to Eagle County) are proposed with this development; the road will remain private with dedication made to public use. D EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS 54 08/14/07 8 MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEllTS THE MAJORITY. OF. .MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Sultability/orDevelopment. [Section S-280.B.3.e (4)] B The propertyproposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, cc:Jnsidering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made haZards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area . The subject property is 100% developable. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS. MEETS THE MAJORITY OFMINIMUM STANDARDS .. OOESNOTMEETMmWUMST~ARDS STANDARD: Compatible with SlI17'ounding Uses. [Section S-280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. See previous discussion on pages 10 and 34. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS ... POESNOTMEET~WJMST~ARDS Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land.use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations, as applicable. STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l] Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted SpeCialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, poliCies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to. the following: Section 3.2 Section 3.3 Section 3.4 Section 3.5 Section 3.6 Section 3.7 Section 3.8 Section 3.9 Section 3.10 Section 4 General DeveloDment Economic Resources Housinl! Infrastructure and Services Water Resources Wildlife Resources Sensitive Lands Environmental Oualitv Future Land Use MaD AdoDted Area Communitv Plans Policies a, C, e, f, g, h, i and k Policiesb, c, d, e, f, h, j, m and 0 Policies a, d, e,g and n Policies a, c, g, i, j, k, m and 0 Policies a, b, c, d, e, f, g, hand i Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i Policies a, C, e and g Policies a, c and d Policy a All relevant goals, policies and FLUM designations Additionally, all relevant goals & policies of the following plans or such equivalent plans and/or future plans, which may be in effect at the time of application for zone change: Eagle County Open Space Plan 55 08/14/07 Eagle River Watershed Plan Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan Eagle County Trails Plan (Roaring Fork) Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan Eagle County Airport Sub-Area Master Plan 3.2 General Development a. Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for future generations Quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services are examples of perceived "quality of life" attributes identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Although the West End should not compromise existing recreational facilities, open space, clean air and.water; and offers opportunities for cultural events and quality services, depending upon one's perspective, the proposed development mayor may not "preserve" quality of life for the residents of Eagle County. In the Edwards core, a development of this magnitude has not occurred since Riverwalk was developed in the 1990's. If you compare the effects of the two developments, many concerns would be the same <past and present): increased traffic; taller buildings than what previously existed/exists in Edwards; higher densities than what existed/exists in.Edwards; an architecturally theme residential and commercial development (in this case the West End is more urban in form than Riverwalk with hard scape open space. features and higher emphasis on pedestrian movements instead of vehicles and with . smaller external setbacks and larger internal spaces between buildings); etc. With the subjectivity surrounding what is quality of life, there is no question that an argument for, and against this proposal could be made. c. Growth should be managed toward future sustainability- a healthy balance between economic success quality of life and preservation of the environment Thisproposal maximizes the subject properties providing a significant number of employee/local resident dwelling units and commercial square footage, with little ecological impact to the surrounding environment. Water and sewer are public; all storm water, currently untreated and exiting onto the Eagle River Preserve will be properly managed; economic evidence has been provided that demonstrates that there. is a need for additional office and commercial space in Edwards; and the development is located in an appropriate area for higher density- the community center of Edwards. e. Urban and suburban type growth should be appropriately designed and should be located within or immediately contiguous to existing towns and community centers f. New communities proposed for unincorporated areas of the County should be subject to a thorough and rigorous set of development criteria g. Redevelopment and/or revitalization of currently underdeveloped, outdated, rundown, or otherwise dysfunctional areas should be encouraged The West End will redevelop an area that is currently, "...outdated, rundown, or otherwise dysfunctional..." In the Edwards core, low density and. unregulated, grandfathered commercial uses are not appropriate- especially directly adjacent to the Eagle River Preserve. These properties are suited for redevelopment. h. Open corridors between towns and community centers should be preserved 1. A cluster style of development should be encouraged, especially in areas where cultural, environmental or scenic resources are at risk 56 08/14/07 Stepping the rooflines of buildings according to grade; considerations regarding view corridors (the provision of gaps between buildings); and use of higher density are all factors implemente<i in the design of the West End; however, the question from nearby property owners is if the West End has mitigated this development to the extent necessary to truly "protect" certain qualities that currently exist in Edwards. k. Local communities should establish unique venues, attractions and design standards directed toward enhancing individual community character and developing sense of place Eagle County is developing design standards for the Edwards Community Core; however, have not been implemented per the. analysis of this application. 3.3 EconoDlic Resources b. A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's character and resources, should be fostered Economic evidence has been provided that demortstratesthat there is a need for additional office and commercial space in Edwards; and the development is located in an appropriate area for higher density- the community center of Edwards. . c. Those qualities that make Eagle County a world class tourist destination and a great place to live, work and play should be identified, promoted and protected The proposal is intended to be a compact, mixed-use development within an existing communitY center that includes pedestrian circulation throughout the subject property and connections off of the property. The development proposes a significant mix of free~market and local resident housing units, in a. m~or economic center in Eagle County. The proposed development would create new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities. The majority of people working at the nearby restaurants, retail stores, offices and othel' employers would able to afford to live withjnthe proposed development, and businesses would most likely have a inc~ ability to retain employees, year round, with the addition of72 employee housing units above or near jobs. The subject property is located in the core area of Edwards which is a logical place for transitoriented development; however, Edwards does not currently .benefit from a transit hub. A bus Stop will be created fronting the West End property. Further, the internal roads have been designed to accommodate a bus in the event that ECOTransit chooses to run a bus. through the West End in the event that a secondary road connection through the property to the east is developed. By offering places for locals to live and work, tourists benefit by enhanced shopping experiences. d. The potential impacts of second home ownership in an aging resident population in Eagle County should be identified and inCorporated into the decision making process Provisions in the housing plan for the West End could easily accommodate seniors or Eagle Cotinty retirees by allowing people who are post~mployees in Eagle County, an opportunity to purchase new restricted units in an area where services are in walking distance from housing units. e. Commercial development should occur at a pace commensurate to growth in Eagle County Economic evidence has been provided that demonstrates that there is a current need for additional office and commercial space in Edwards. f. Commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should be located within towns and community centers. 57 08/14/07 There is some question regarding the scale of the proposed development, as it most likely contains some of the tallest building elevations in Edwards. h. Commercial. development should fit a regional economic structure that promotes a coherent regional 'community' while respecting sub-area character and identity j. Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations m. Economic infrastructure should be planned for in advance, and should be adequate to support existing and future business needs o. Future economic development in Eagle County should center on the area's existing amenities' while encouraging new knowledge and technology based industries 3.4 Housing a. Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers 72 affordable housing units are proposed with this development..In addition, the applicant.is imposing a transfer fee on all free-market units in perpetuity. Funds generated from this feewould be returned to , the community (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units so they could be, restricte4 and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dweUings.inthis community. The proposed development would also create new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities. Themajorlty of people working at the ne8rby restaurants, retail stores, offices and other employers would able to afford to live within the proposed development. c. Programs to increase home ownetship by local workers in Eagle County should be supported As proposed, this project offer 64% of the housing units for employeesllocal residents. As atI'ade off for this significant number of units, this project offers a higher density than previously approved in unincorporated Eagle County. d. Efforts to increase the stock of affordable rental Units for local workers should be supported e. Adequate housing options for Senior Citizens should be available g. Well designed mobile home subdivisions, modular home subdivisions, and mobile home parks should be encouraged where appropriate. ' n. Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's workforce housing needs The actual breakdown of how many units, as calculated by the Housing Department, is 52; the developer is offering 72. 3.5 Infrastructure & Services a. Developed areas in Eagle County should be served by multiple modes of transportation The application does propose to introduce pedestrian pathways throughout the site and connections off- site. The overall pedestrian movement network between commercial and residential developments in Edwards is; however, currently lacking. Hopefully, with redevelopment opportunities like the West End, sidewalks will eventually connect and pedestrians and bicyclists will flourish in Edwards. A mass transit hub does not currently exist in Edwards; however, the internal roads have been designed to accommodate a bus in the event that ECO Transit chooses to run a bus through the West End in the event that a secondary road connection through the property to the east. is developed. 58 08/14/07 c. Residential neighborhoods should include an appropriate mix of community services and community centered retail spaces that can be accessed by alternative modes of transportation g. Bike paths should be safe, well designed, well maintained and appropriately connected within and between communities i. Exemplary emergency and community services should be available to all residents, visitors and second home owners j. The management and distribution of recreation areas and facilities in Eagle County should be implemented in an. environmentally conscientious manner k. Adequate ~defficient infrastructure should exist within community centers and suburban neighborhoods for the delivery of domestic drinking water and for the treatment of domestic. sewage m. Communication infrastructure should be sufficient to support all anticipated needs in Eagle County o. The service and infrastructure needs of all socio-economic, age and cultural groups present in Eagle County should be fully addressed 3.6 Water Resourees a. The long term viability of both ground and surface water sources should be protected The ~WillServe' letter fromtheEagIeRiverWater&Sanitation District states thatthe owner may connect and receive service provided that all applicable documents have been submitted and fees due paid in full. Because square footage on this project may exceed originally estimated square footage, inclusion into theOistrlct I Authority does not necessarily mean that all w~terrights, treated water storage, water and sewer tap fees associated with the project have been paid. This letter from the District implies that there is sufficient quantity to support the project. The development proposed will maximize use of the site but does include a great percentage of pervious area. As such, the developer is committing to significant storm water treatment prior to discharging the water back into the ecosystem. The Department of Environmental Health requests that the developer work with Environmental Health to site aground water quality monitoring weUonthe subject property; however, the developer had not committed to this notion. b. Minimum in-stream flows should be maintained and efforts to establish optimum in-stream flow standards in Eagle County should.be supported c. Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented. d. New water diversions and water storage projects should result in positive impacts to Eagle County's economy.and envi,ronmentalquality e. Collaborative effortS on regional land and water use planning efforts to address future growth, water supply and stream flow protection should be encouraged f. W~ter quality in Eagle County should meet the highest. applicable standards. g. Surface and groundwater supplies should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts h. Aquatic and riparian habitats should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts. i. Water-related recreation should be encouraged where appropriate at a levelthat will notdamage related resources, ecosystems and environments. 3.7 Wildlife Resources a. The integrity, quality and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved The West End PUD should have minimal or no impact on wildlife from the development of this parcel as the subject property is no longer high quality wildlife habitat. b. The well-being of wildlife species of economic importance should be actively monitored and protected 59 08/14/07 c. The well-being of wildlife species of less economic importance and those. on the rare and endangered species list should be actively monitored and protected d. Development in areas critical to the continued well being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed e. Where disturbances towildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts f.Broad development patterns and cumulative impacts of incremental development on wildlife habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for in the development process i. Access to public lands and opportunities for public land recreation should be balanced with the need to preserve quality wildlife habitat 3.8 Sensitive Lands a. Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard. c. Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value The subject property is a previously developed parcel flanked by commercial and reclaimed gravel mining operations. As such, no archeological evidence has been found in the development parcels. Stepping the rooflines of buildings according to grade; considerations regarding view corridors (the provision of gaps between buildings); and use..of higher density are all factors implemented in the design of the West End; however, the question from nearby property owners is if the.W est End has mitigated this development to the extent nec:essary.totruly "protect" certain qualitiesthat.currently exist in Edwards e. A variety of approaches should be utilized to preserve land as open space g. Appropriate access should be provided to public lands and rivers The West End offers a pedestrian access into the Eagle River Preserve; 3.9 Environmental Quality a. Air quality should meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations of local residents c. Noise should be minimized to meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations of local residents d. Energy efficiency and the reduction of overall energy consumption should be a primary goal for future operations and developments in Eagle County, Although Eagle County does not have a commercial or mixed-use ECOBuild energy efficiency code, the applicants have stated that their development will be built to the existing "Lead" certification used in other . jurisdictions. 3.10 Future Land Use Map a. Zone changes and site-specific land use proposals should reflect the written policies of this Comprehensive Plan, the land use designations of the Future Land Use Map and the goals and objectives set forth within Area Community Plans, as applicable. Other Plans: All of the approved and adopted Eagle County Comprehensive Plan documents. The applicatlt believes that this application is in compliance with all relevant components of these plans. 60 08/14/07 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS I .. MEE~ THE MMORlTY OF MmThWM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatible withSurrountling Uses. [Section 5.230.D.2} Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing andperrnissible land uses surrounding the subject property? DimensionaJiimitations of the proposed zone district, when applied. should result in development that will be harmonious with thephysical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. The issue of compatibility does pertain to this proposal in several forms. Residential and commercial uses are predominant in Edwards-- especially in the community center. Riverwalk, for example, is also a mixed. use PUD which contains similar elements to the West End: commercial uses including ftrst floor retailJoffice, second floor office and with residential dwelling units on the upper levels; 4 story buildings with (at present) the tallest strUctures and heights not to exceed 65'; an architectural theme throughout; and a mix of employee and free-marketdwellingunits. In themore immediate vicinity, the West End neighbors commercial developments to the south, e.ast and west of the properties. North of the propertyis the Eagle River Preserve, public open space. This development differs from other existing projects in that it will be the first residential high-density development in Edwards. The focus ofRiverwalk is opposite that of the West End. Wher;e RiverwaIk permits up to 210,702. square feet of commercial and 96,000 square feet of residential, the exact opposite is trUe with the West End. The West End is proposing a total of202,S56 square feet of residential, and approximately 85,000 square feet of commercial. Other projects in EdwardS, the Corner at Edwards, Edwards Village and the Edwards Commercial Center are all purely commercial, adjacent to residential developments. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUMSTANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ..ME. ETS THE ~OroTY OF MmThWM. STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3}Does the proposal address a demonstrated cOml1l1.l1lity need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offsetthe impactsofthe proposed uses requested. including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcarefacilities; multi- modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. The Edwards community center is a hub for people using Hwy 6; Edwards Village Blvd.; and the Edwards Spur Rd. If Edwards was to incorporate, this area would be reminiscent of a downtown area of the community. As such, the West End has proposed several elements of design for both onsite and offsite improvements that could elevate design standards for new and/ore redevelopment of adjacent properties. The West End will provide the following public benefits: . Contributions to the Eagle County trails program and other pedestrian connections to adjacent . developments; . A 10' wide trail on the north side ofHwy 6 which goes from the West End to the Edwards Spur Rd and Hwy 6 intersection; . 72 affordable housing units- in excess of the required 52, are proposed with this development and the implementation ofa transfer fee on all free-market.units in perpetuity with funds generated to be returned to the community; (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units so they could be 61 08/14/07 restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this community. The proposed development would also create new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities; · Infrastructure improvements- not only to mitigate potential impacts generated by.the proposed development, but improvements that will also enhance access to the Eagle River Preserve; · The internal road through the West End has been designed to accommodate bus movements if the property to the east is developed and ultimately connects the Edwards Spur Rd. to the West End. This road system would allow ECO Transit to run a bus through the West End to the Edwards Spur ~d., which would aid in the predicament that exists where currently the road system of EdwardS dOes not allow the express bus to leave 1-70, go into the core, and turn around to efficiently return to 1-70 in an expedient manner; . Redevelopment of a blighted area of EdwardS; . The. applicant has developed an architectural theme which is in harmony with other architectural forms in EdwardS; . A pedestrian portal into the Eagle River Preserve; · Several pedestrian/public plazas (gathering areas) internal to the development. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ....... . ME. ~1S TIlE MAJORITY OF MOOMUM STANDARlJS DOES NOT MEET MOOMUM STANDARDS ') I . . STANDARD: Change olCircumsttlnces. [Section 5-230.D.4] DOt!s the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Conditions have changed such that the proposed zone change may be justified. In the past, residential development has occurred near the Edwards community center; however, not necessarily within the Edwards core itself. With the exception of Riverwa}k. all of the other developments surroUllding the West End have been commercial in nature. Although the applicant has provided evidence that additional commercial square footage is necessary and can be supported, it is no secret that Eagle County appears to be deficient in housing units to support the projected growth rates for the County- especially employee Ilocal resident housing units. The Comprehensive PlancurrentIy recommends concentrating higher residential densities in towns and community centers like Edwards. In the past, this has not occurred. This development differs from other existing projects in that it will be the frrst residential high~ensity development in the core of Edwards. The focus ofRiverwalk is opposite that of the West End. Where Riverwalk pennits up to 210,702 square feet of commercial and 96,000 square feet of residential, the West End is proposing a total of 202,556 square feet of residential, and approximately 85,000 square feet of commercial; the other projects in Edwards- the Corner at Edwards, Edwards Village, Edwards Plaza, and the Edwards Commercial Center are all strictly commercial. By establishing employee/local resident housing units in an area served by public transportation; community services; retail and office uses; and near existing jobs, the shift for a decrease in the reliance for vehicles becomes a relevant change of circumstances. In addition, the West End may be the :flfst development to promote pedestrian connections and walkable communities, and offers a decrease in the traditional amount of surface parking typical of the existing developments. . ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X . MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM. .. STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 62 08/14/07 STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5] Is the property subjectto the proposal served by adequate roads, wat(?r, sewer and other public use facilities? This amendment will result in the need for new infrastructure. The infrastructure as proposed may exceed what would normally be constructed; the proposed infrastructure will not be built to the minimum standard necessary to mitigate the impacts of the development, the proposed road improvements will lend improved access to the Eagle River Preserve and potential redevelopment of adjacent properties as well. During the Planning Commission hearings, the overall site plan was modified by the applicant (the parking garages were modified for a more efficient design. At the writing of this report, Engineering has not been provided the opportunity to examine the updated construction and drainage plans for the site. Unsupported design could qffect the level of Engineering:support for this file. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEE.~.THUWORm'OFMOOMUM. S.TANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS E. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Eagle County Engineering Department -Please refer to attachment . dated . August 8, 2007 . Cliff Simonton, Eagle County Long Range Planning- Please refer to attachment dated August 2, 2007 . Eagle Valley Land Trust- Please refer to attachment dated August 1, 2007 . Eagle River Fire Protection Distriet" Please refer to attachment dated July 23, 2007 . Homestead Owners Assoeiation- Please refer to attachment dated July 3, 2007 . Eagle River Fire Protection District- Please refer to attachment dated July 3, 2007 . Colorado Geologic:al- Survey- Please refer to attachment dated July 2, 2007 . Eagle Valley Land Trust- Please refer to attachment dated June 27, 2007 . Eagle County Planning Commission - Please refer to email attachments dated June 27, 2007; and July 2, 2007 . Also attached.are memos from general public received during Planning Commission hearings. Additional Refe"al Agencies ~ This proposal was reft"ed to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County Attorney, Assessor, Housing, Road and Bridge, (I'ransportation), Sheriff's Office . School District . CDOT . Ambulance District . Edwards Metro District . Eagle County Historical Society, Postmaster for Edwards . Riverwalk HOA, Edwards Village Center POA, Old Edwards Estates HOA, Singletree HOA South Forty HOA, Lake Creek HOA, Heritage Park HOA C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadva1Jtages Benefits: . Contributions to the Eagle County trails program and other pedestrian connections to adjacent developments; . 72 affordable housing units are proposed with this development and the implementation of a transfer fee on all free-market units in perpetuity with funds generated to be returned to the community; (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units so they could be restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this community. The 63 08/14/07 proposed development would also create new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities; . Infrastructure improvements- not only to mitigate potential impacts generated by the proposed development, but improvements that will also enhance access to the Eagle. River Preserve and potentially could alleviate traffic congestion from Edwards Village Blvd.; . The internal road through the West End has been designed to accommodate bus movements if the property to the east is developed and ultimately connects the Edwards Spur Rd. to the West End. This road system would allow ECO Transit to run a bus through the West End to the Edwards Spur Rd., which would aid in the predicament that eXists where currently the road system of Edwards does not allow the express bus to leave 1-70, go into the core, and turn aroundto efficiently return to 1-70 in an expedient manner; . Redevelopment ofa blighted area of Edwards; . A pedestrian portal into the Eagle River Preserve; . Several pedestrian/public plazas (gathering areas) internal to the development Disadvantages: · The scale/height maximum of the project is a concern fromseveral.referral agents; there may be visual impacts associated with this project; . . The density of the project has been raised as a concern; . The applicant's have not received approval from COOT for all of the proposed offsite improvements; D. PLANNING COMMISSION /BOARD OF.COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: Two motions will be necessary One/or PDSP-00025 and one/or ZC-00087. 9. Approve the [pDSP-00025 and/or ZC-00087] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will no't adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 10. Deny the [pDSP-00025 alld/or ZC-00087] request if it is determined thatthe petition will adversely affectthe public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). . . 11. Table the [pDSP-00025 and/or ZC-00087] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 12. Approve the [PDSP-00025 and/orZC-00087] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances theattunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Ms. Skinner-Markowitz presented a PowerPoint slide show highlighting the proposal. The West End proposes the re-development the Havener parcel and the Kemp parcels. The plan now mirrors the Miller Ranch deed restrictions. The Planning Commission proposed that the transfer fee reimbursement of 1.5% to the developer (per current housing plan) should only apply to 20 affordable units. The Planning Commission feltthat it was 64 08/14/07 important for the strUcture to provide funds to Habitat for Humanity. She indicated that The Planning Commission approved the application incorporating staff conditions and with four (4) additional conditions. Brian Hair one of the owners was present along with Don Markotte. He provided a detailed PowerPoint slide show, which gave details about the plan, traffic and. access, the Eagle River Preserve, consistency with the county · and community planning and community benefits. The concept presented last December was smaller. Since that time, they have been able to purchase additional property to expand the project. 80% of the parking. is underground and 200.10 is above ground. Pedestrian flows through the property are encouraged through the design. They plan to connect a trail to the Eagle River Preserve. He showed artist's renderings of the design and landscaPe. They visited over 15 mountain towns and tried to take some. of the elements of the old "main" streets to bring back some of the historical architectural elements. He reviewed the housing plan. They plan to offer studios starting at $158,000 and one-bedroom units starting at $181,000. The county would have the option of purchasing the units in bulk. Over a 10-year period, the proposed transfer tax could generate over $10,000,000 to the county. They are seeking to recover their costs up to 125% of AMI from the transfer fee. 40% of the total units. will be work force housing units. Chairman Menconi asked how many total units there would be in the project. Mr. Bairstated that there would be a total of 180 units. Chairman Menconi. wondered how many of the 72 units would have the transfer fee. Mr. Bair indicated that all of the market rate units would have a 1.5% transfer fee every time they sell. They are requesting a recapture on all 72 units from 115% AMI which is what they'd be sold at to .125% AMI for all 72 units. The Planning Commissioner proposed the number be cut to 20 units. He stated that it was very important for the developer to get the recapture up to 125% AMI which would enable the developer to geta 5% return on costs for the units~ As soon as the developer has been reimbursed up to 125% of AMI the transfer fee would revert to the county. They intend to mirror the master deed restriction from Miller Ranch. There are a few changes needed. They are asking for their plan to not be capped af6%, but rather to flow with Eagle County wages. Alex Aranello spoke to the board. He spoke about the trips expected to be generated due tothis project. The high percentage of residential units will create a lower impact than the other corners. in the area. They have looked at the long-range traffic projections. Previously there were issues with access to the site. The main access would be limited to % access.... as there would be no left turns allowed to the east. Community benefits would include traffic calming and pedestrian access to the Eagle River Preserve. ... When the West End is built out they. determined that there would still be a level of service of B and C in certain areas. In the long range, alllevels of service would be at level C. He showed the access points. Mr. Bair stated that the fact that an ECO bus could turnaround in Edwards is a possibility that does not currently exist. Mr. Aranello Stated that the Planning Commission requested a pedestrian crossing when the West End opens. They had issues with this due to permit availability. One of the problems is that US 6hasa speed limit of 45 MPH and the type of crossing they need cannot be provided with this higher speed limit. They are hoping that CDOT will reduce the limit in this area. ' Mr. Bair continued with his presentation and spoke about the Eagle River Preserve. They have been very focused on the transition between their property and the preserve. They put together a formal application, which was submitted with the grading and landscaping plan. . They understand that in likelihood they would be asked to donate some funding to the county and allow the county to complete the transition between the two properties in tertlls of landscaping. They are working hard to make sure they are in compliance with the Edward's Community Plan and the Eagle County Housing Plan. He indicated that there are numerous community benefits which include work force housing units, efficient reuse of land which reduces sprawl, public plazas and gathering areas, mixed use which reduces traffic and promotes bike and pedestrian uses, provides improvements to Highway 6, improves pedestrian access to the Preserve, cleans up a Brownfield, blighted site next to the Preserve, and raises the bar for architecture in Edwards. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. Fritz Schmidt, adjacent property owner spoke. He stated that he liked what he saw. He believes they are doing a really nice job. He likes the open space and likes the project. 65 08/14/07 Suzi Apple spoke to the board. She has lived in Edwards since 1983. She was excited that this area, which is currently quite unsightly, will be developed in such a nice way while providing people with different economic backgroUnds to live and visit the same place. Don Cohen, Singletree resident spoke to the board as the Executive Director of the Economic Council. He is excited about the West End. They have taken a look at the last few years regarding files which have come before the county and the towns in terms of affordable housing options. The project is defmitely a step in the right direction. He. likes the economic integration of the project. This represents a large.step forward. .He also sits on the Berry Creek Metro board. He is aware that the applicants started their community work about a year and a half ago. He believes people are comfortable with the density. From the traffic standpoint, one of the concerns is the increase in traffic. The idea of matching the RiverwaIk civic assessment isintrigning. Itis well understood that Edward's traffic is a problem. The way the West End has structured the transfer fee will allow some funds to be used to help make this traffic problem better. Alaina Paranan, bank officer with . MiIlennium Bank spoke to the board. . She has attended many of the meetings and has been very satisfied with the applicant and their efforts to contaCt Homestead homeowners as well as addressing all issues. She is impressed with the handling of the affordable housing options planned. Brett Hooper resident of Eagle and banker in Edwards echoed one member of the Planning Commission who applauded the developers and the county for their hard work on this project, which maximizes the benefit to the community. Jo Brown spoke to the board as an Edwards resident and local realtor. She is concerned about the traffic. She requests that the traffic problems be solved prior to approving more development, which will bring more trips to the area. . She is also concerned about the roundabout, which would encroach on the Homestead area open space. Lorie Kleisinger, Homestead resident stated that she likes the project, likes the density, but is also concerned with the traffic from Highway 6. She believes that anything slowing traffic down is a good thing. . She also hopes that the roundabout would be placed at an appropriate spot. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Commissioner Runyon asked if there was a penalty for delay after October 1 , which would eliminate some deed restricted housing. Mr. Bair stated that he . believed that provision was no longer necessary. Commissioner Runyon is also concerned about surface parking. He is mostly concerned with the 120r so spaces that nose into the circle on the east end. He suggested keeping this area open. . Mr. Bair stated thatthey have tried to create what the county has asked for, but they need to have parking spaces in front of the retail spaces. They have tried to keep a delicate balance to provide sufficient parking and provide distance between the cars and outside diners. Commissioner Runyon asked about the density of the project. Mr. Bair stated thatthat the density is about 33 units to the acre. This is the opposite of most of the development in the Edwards commercial core. Commissioner Runyon stated that he would like a comparison of what's happening in the mountain environment. He asked about the facades of the buildings. He wondered if the building planes would be changing. Mike O'Hara spoke to the board about the articulation of the buildings. He stated that the intent was to provide classic Colorado architecture. It is intended to represent a city block build over time. There will be plane breaks, not a flat f~ade.They intend to use three different types of brick, stucco, trim and materials. Commissioner Runyon stated that it still seems very similar - with not much variety. He would like to see a wider range of styles. He would like to see more character. Mr. Bair stated that they had recently had a design session. They are agreeable to revising the fmishes when they present the final plat. Commissioner Runyon asked about fire access to the north side along the Preserve boundary. Mr. Bair stated that they have discussed this issue with the Eagle River Fire Protection district and have come up with a mutually agreeable plan.ERFP has askedifor a fence along the property line, which the owners find acceptable. Mr. O'Hara stated that all of the buildings are equipped with sprinklers and are primarily built out of concrete. 66 08/14/07 Commissioner Runyon asked about the current residents in the mobile homes. He wondered if any. accommodations would be made for these folks. Mr. Bair stated that they have put together a plan. They interviewed each resident of the trailer park to determine their needs and desires. With this information they developed a package which provided these residents with resources from the county, they alSo offered a relocation bonus of two months rent, and they are paying for these folks to move anywhere in the county: Every two weeks they are communicating with the residents to remilld them of the offers. Commissioner Runyon asked for more than two months rent accommodation. He also asked that 72 units are replacing 7 units,.which means the net affordable will be 65. Commissioner Fisher thanked the applicants for the presentation and the vision of the developer. She commends the community outreach to this point. She agrees that traffic is a major concern for the area.. . She wondered about . redesigning the roundabout to a two .lane instead of a one lane. She is concerned about the pedestrian crosswalk. She is concerned about the surface parking. She would like to see rethinking the layout of the buildings due to the traffic flow on three sides of some of the buildings. With the proposal of pedestrian orientation, she feels there should be less surface parking. She would like to see dimensions and m~urements, She is concerned about.the distances between the parking and the retail 1 restaurant locations.. She sugge,ted moving the buildings closer together and putting the parking on the perimeter. In Vail, the delivery access to the village has been a problematic situation for years~ I She wondered about the volume of trash due to residences and restaurant type waste. Mr. Bair indicated that it would be type one construction with concrete and steel on the f1I'St levels and stick construction on the top floors. Commissioner Fisher asked about the load levels for.the structures with these types of materials. She also asked about snow. removal and storage and requested more information regarding their plan. She asked about fractional uses, She wondered about the finishes for the deed-restricted units compared to the market rate units. She wondered about using the same finishes for both. She likes the fact that they are trying to incorporate some green areas. Chairman Menconi stated that this proposal represents.a massive improvement to the sketch plan. He is happy that the density appears to be transferring from the Preserve to the commercial areas such as this property. He believes the quality of the project will reignite others to follow suit. He1ikes the architecture and the wayit works into the Colorado classic style. He appreciates. the community outreach as well. He wondered. about the potential utilization of the park for the residents, and whether there would be patio features overlooking the park. Mr. .Bair stated that staff indicated that they did not prefer any direct access. from the property to the preserve. Chairman Menconi disagrees with this approach. He.feels it should be accessible. Mr. Bair showed several areas where there would be views of the Preserve. Chairman Menconi asked if this type of flexibility could be beneficial to businesses. Mr. Bair stated that they believe a better use for that side of the projectis residential. Mr. O'Hara asked if acaf6 could be placed on the backside of the development. Chairman Menconi wondered about creating a patio I porch idea so that there is some energy along the park. The goal. should be to invite people into the park, not to restrict them. Mr. O'Hara stated that one option might be to add operable walls. Chairman Menconi wondered about moving the buildings closer to the Highway. Mr. Bairstated that they have talked about creating an opening under the overhang of the building similar to La Scala in Eagle. Chairman Menconi stated that the goal is get people into affordable housing and move back and forth between this and other Edward's projects and the Preserve. Mr. Bair indicated that during final plat stage they will be laying out all of the street furniture, fountains, the art work, including building designs and fmal fmishes. Commissioner Runyon asked if it was the developer's intent to consolidate the deed-restricted units. Mr. Bair indicated that these units would be in buildings two and three on the third and fourth floors. Commissioner Runyon stated that he felt it would be better integrated if it were spread throughout the complex. He suggested that the views of the Preserve should be shared by all. Mr. Bair indicated that they are trying to keep costs in line to make the number of work force housing units possible. They need to stack the workforce units for the design to work. 67 08/14/07 Chairman Menconi wondered about ECO Build guidelines and whether the developer knew how they would be addressing this requirement. Mr..Bair stated that he is not familiar with this requirement. Ms. Skinner Markowitz stated that staff has discussed this and the developer should be in compliance'with the guidelines. Mary Hart explained that the landscaping would be trees on a drip system. Other parts of the project are using less water thirsty plants and the other pl~ces wherere-vegetation is needed they would like to use a native re- vegetation. Chairman Menconi stated that xeriscaping would be appreciated wherever possible. He feels that in order to achieve the goal of affordable housing additional density is needed. Future housing guidelines may be as high as 40%. . Alex Potellte, Assistant County Attorney stated that the new guidelines require that 30% of on-site housing be price capped at .11 0 - 115% of AMI. There are some clear and objective criteria for what constitutes development costs. Chairman Menconi stated that this is pretty incredible. He is pleased to see a file that focuses in on working in partnership with the cOunty towards affordable housing. He wants to be . sure that the housing deed restrictions match as closely as possible to Miller Ranch. Mr. Potente stated that in Miller Ranch the-deed restrictions are compounded and their percentages are tied to median wages. He stated that what is being proposed is more restrictive than Miller Ranch. This proposal uses the same data with no cap however, it's simple and not compounded interest. Chairman Menconi wondered why uniformity would not be preferable. Mr. Potente stated that there is an argument for uniformity, but stafjfeels that this formula appears to bea better and more accurate reflection keeping the units more affordable longer. Chairman Menconi wondered about a guarantee on the PUD that Midtown Developers would be the developers. Mf~ Bair indicated that this type of guarantee would be difficult to provide. Chairman Menconi asked about the time limit on a PUD. Ms. Skinner - Markowitz explained that there is 5 years on the approval, three years for vesting with an option to renew or extend for another 2 years. Mr. Bair did not want to restrict the site with unnecessary constraints. Chairman Menconi stated that there are probably people out there who believe that this cannot be done. He asked about the Planning Commission's proposal. Mr. Potente explained that the proposal is that they will build and sell the units at their own risk at an average of 115% AMI, broken up between 80 and 130% AMI with a mix of studios, one bedroom and two bedroom units, The sizes do comply with the current standards for size of units. They will then recover upon a showing, subject to specific categories of cost, any costs exceeding 115% up to 125%. This difference will . represent about $2,000,000 on the full 72 units. They propose to make this up on the market rate 113 units. The Planning Commission looked at the old guidelines and said that the developer could only recover for the additional housing, which exceeds the number of units previously required as being affordable. This position is not consistent with the current housing guidelines. The reason these guidelines are possible is that the developer can recover their costs with this transfer assessment. He was cautious about trying to impose too many restrictions that the developer cannot complete the project. The guidelines tend to walk the line between what is realistic and what is achievable. Chairman Menconi wondered about making some type of agreement to compromise between what the Planning Commission wanted and what the developer is proposing. Mr. Bair indicated that this is the best they could do with the current parameters. Chairman Menconi wondered about adding another story on the building to create more affordable housing. Mr. Bairstated that this would change the method of construction. Mr. Potente stated that the Planning Commission's request is not in line with the philosophy of the guidelines.. The developer should recover their cost plus S%~ Chairman Menconi wondered what the dollar amount would be with the 5% in question. He asked what the total cost of the project is expected to be. Mr. Markotte stated that it is approximately a 100 million dollar project. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the need for employees with a 113 market units. He wondered if all of these commercial units and dwelling units would be creating more jobs than affordable housing. 68 08/14/07 Mr. Potente indicated that this development would require up to 180 jobs. Commissioner Runyon is concerned that the developer is not mitigating thejobs they are creating. He stated that there are 28,000 dwelling units inthe county of which 14,000 are second homes. The other)4,OOO are owned by people who call Eagle County home. There are an additional 14,000 dwelling units, which have already been approved in the county. This number doesn't include any pending developments that are likely to be approved. The profile of these units include % for the second home market. This creates a dramatic shift for the workforce to second home housing. He wondered what the. developer is doing to. help with .the process. They are not drawing down the number of workforce units needed. The state demographer says that by 2030,30,000 people will have to commute in to Eagle County. Mr. Bair stated that what Commissioner Runyon is asking for is exactly what they are producing~ The assumption that all of the market rate units are going to be second homes is not accurate in his view. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the cost per square foot for the market rate units. The issue is that large, expensive units require service people. Mr. Bair stated that there are a lot of people who can afford $400 plus per square foot units. Chairman Menconi indicated that he is in favor of moving forward with the file. Commissioner Fisher stated that Mr. Bair was going to answer some questions. Mr. Bair stated that these are available in the engineering package which staffhas. He explained the location of the plaza. He stated that the plaza would be 8000 square feet. They're not tryingto create a Vail Village with one large pedeStrian development. They are trying to mix the need for circulation to connect the Spur Road to Highway 6 to take the pressure off the intersection and create discreet plazas for people to dine and shop. The plazas have been well thought out. They are trying to blend what's happening in Edwards and help with traffic off the main intersection. He indicated that they previously had double loaded parking to which staff requested a reduction. He gave examples of walking malls such as what Commissioner Fisher was suggesting that are struggling including the Boulder Mall. Eagle County~gulations indicate a 12-foot drive lane but they are proposing a 14-foot lane.. The question of delivery vehicles is a tough one - with a mixed-use development, deliveries would be needed, but be restricted to certaintimes of the day to be respectful oflunch andlate night hours. All of the buildings. have trash chutes along with compactors. The trash will. go into the basements of each building. There will be a truck that transports the trash to .the surface on trash pickup days. There will aIsobe chutes for recycIables. . The buildings will be built in accordance with the International Building codes. This type of construction is very popular. ~now storage areas are planned and a removal program is planned should the storageai'eas be unable to handle the . load. They are not contemplating fractional ownership options. If this is not desirable, they can eliminate it from the proposal. They are interested in having units occupied to support the retail and restaurants, With relation to the finish levels, the general construction will be the same, but there will be varying fmish levels in the different types of housing. The work force~its will have nicer finishes inside, but ",ill have the same windows. For instance, the market rate units may have granite counter tops and the Workforce may have laminate counter tops. They are not in favor of redesigning the site.at this point because they feel they have worked hard already to satisfy county requirements and suggestions. Th~ will be a fence along the property line andthere will be signage-alerting people thatthey are entering the preserve and they assume the county will have signage indicating possible rules associated with this area. They do not want to set up big barriers to the Preserve but do want people to know that they are entering public property. Commissioner Fisher wondered about the homeowner's association and the associated fees with potential increases. She wondered how to control the association fees. Mr. Bair stated that this has also been discussed but no decisions or suggestions have yet to be made. They intend to work with the staff to work out the details on this issue. Mr. Potente stated that iffees are tied to the assessed value of the unitsit would take care of the problem. Commissioner Fisher asked what the starting point might be for these fees. Mr. Bair stated that he believes that this concern is shared. If deed restricted housing-is tied to the assessed value it should be affordable. Chairman Menconi stated that care should be exercised when putting too many restrictions in place. He would liketo keep it flexible. Commissioner Fisher asked about the number of car trips in and out of the proposed development. Mr. Aranella responded that the total number of vehicle trips is expected to be around 3100 trips per day and of those approximately 500 would be pass by trips - meaning trips to the commercial units. . the housing units would generate about 850. 69 08/14/07 Commissioner Fisher asked about commitments for ownership of the development through its construction. She is interested in. better definition of time in which this project would be constructed. She also wondered about the expected time to complete the construction. Mr. Bair stated that assuming there is approval during the meeting they would move to the Final Plat stage; they anticipate a fIrst quarter 2008 start and a 20-month construction period. Ms. Skinner Markowitz asked to talk about parking. . She stated that the developer might be able to reduce the surface parking. Commissioner Runyon wondered if Mr. Bair would be willing to deed restrict the 113 market units, only limiting the restriction to being Eagle County residents. Mr. aair was not amenable to this request. Ms. Skinner Markowitz stated that this would allow retirees to take homes from potential new residents. Commissioner Fisher wondered if the commercial property would ever be for sale. Mr.Bair indicated that this is not their current intent. Commissioner Fisher asked about the single lane roundabout. Mr. Bair stated that this needs to be looked at in a global sense. . They are addressing their needS. There may be some short-term pain by doing the fix piece by piece. The one lane is the only thing needed to turn traffic from their project around to go back. Commissioner Fisher stated that the one lane roundabout in Eagle is a mess. Mr. Potente stated that the developer is willing to impose a sales transfer fee. This could potentially be used for funding improvements to the infrastructure in Edwards. 8iri Nelson, from the Engineering department spoke to the board. She felt that the access in and out of the proposed roundabout is all one lane. They like to keep a level of service "d". She has been.in discussion the affected property owners, illl of vvhomare open to this improvement although nothing bas been confirmed. Bob Morris stated that one of the Homestead homeowners letter indicated that there would be a waiver of the road impact fees in exchange for the construction of the roundabout, he wondered if that was . accurate. Mr. Bair stated that that was not accurate and that was a letter from Homestead to the County. Siri Nelson added that road impact fees could be waived at the board's discretion for affordable housing units. Mr. Hair asked about condition number 4. He asked that this be based on approval of fmal plat. Mr. Morris stated that approval of the preliminary plan vests the property rights in the development, not approval of the fmal plat. If there isnot reasonable assurance that they will be able to obtain the right of way needed, especially for a two hme roundabout, it leaves open the possibility of having an approved plan out there but not an agreement on the th4tgs necessary for the final plat. He does not wantthe county to be backed into a position of having an approved preliminary plan that is being held up from development by failure to agree on all of the items needed before going to fmal plat. Mr. Bair stated that the reason they are asking for this is that there is no right of way that is required. Ms. Nelson stated that she would argue that th.e one lane doesn't work because it fails in 2021 and generally capital.. improvements on a road network should work. fora 20 year period. Mr. Bait stated that if they are going to move forward to final plat there will be substantial fmancial commitment and they have no control of the right of way, which process could take months. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the roundabout could be built in phases. Mr. Aranello stated that this is the way it is being designed. Chairman Menconi asked about an escrow to cover the costs. Mr. Morris stated that this would be difficult. Mr. Bair stated that condition number 10 is a problem. The condition could impact their financing. He proposed the pedestrian crossing would either be built by TCO or they would escrow the funds to build it later. Chairman Menconi asked the applicants their position on conditions 11 and 13. Mr. Bair indicated that they took 11 to mean that the first sales would be at the AMllevels that they've stated in the housing plan. Condition 13 is not really applicable to them until the county tells them what the donation needs to be for the landscaping on the Preserve. Commissioner Runyon asked for a final effort to tip the scales for him. He asked if half of the 113 units could be restricted to Eagle county residents. He argues that the whole project would be better and more vital during the off seasons. Mr. Bait stated that they could not do this. 70 08/14/07 Commissioner Fisher stated that she is feeling favorable about the project. She requested a tabling for one week. Chairman Menconi indicated that he would not be available next week. He asked which issues the developer needed to specify in order to get her vote. . Commissioner Fisher stated that the surface parking is a concern, the traffic issues and longer-term solutions. Mr. Bair stated that he believes they have passed a critical point with Homestead. He believes there is support. He does not want to wait an entire month for a formal approval. He wondered if these issues could be addressed in a condition. He wondered if 5% of the spaces could be removed Commissioner Fisher responded that she appreciates the offer. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn into executive session for the purpose of receiving legal advice from the County Attorney raised by the topic presently. before them, which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.RS. 24-6-402(4)(b) which was seconded by Commissioner Runyon and unanimously approved. Commissioner Fisher stated that she was impressed with the development overall and feels it offers a great deal of what the county is looking for. She understands the appealfor parking for the coIlU1lercial component. She requested that building three and the retail be moved into the center of the. development. She is especially concerned with the possibility of future development surroun4ingthe property. She wants it to be a flagship, which produces a sense of pride for the homeowners. The idea of having a main street going through . this development is not preferable. Mr. Bair stated that wheripeople move to a place like the West End it is what they expect and want. He felt that Commissioner Fisher was.asking for things counter to what they have heard tbroughoutthe process from studies and staff direction. He believes the balance has already been achieved. They were required to make the connection to the Spur f()ad. Mike O'Hara stated that Commissioner Fisher's comments are understandable but the difference is that in the scenario, she relates it's about a project that tends to look inward upon itself and what they are trying to create is a gathering place for the entire community which means buildings have to have a. connection to the street, not the parking lot. Because of the activity and ease of getting in and out, it creates more vitality for the project. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz added that if Edwards had a parking structure next to it this proposal would not be a problem. One solution is having parking incorporated in the project the other is to put it on the outside of the project. Given that the elevation drops parking lower, it provides a view of the fIrst building versus the parking area. Ms. Hart stated that she has been involved with the project from the start and part of the appeal is to create. old Colorado towns - and these historic towns have a main street running through them. This is part of the original concept. Chairman Menconi asked what would happen if the Fritz project was redeveloped. Ms. Nelson stated that the big thing that came out of the Shapins study was additional bypass routes. They suggested that the county start looking at bypass routes. Mr. Bair stated that restaurants and real estate sales offices and banks are restricted on the fIrst floor. There can be one bank per building.for instance. Square footage on the first floor is also restricted, They have restricted restaurants to no more than 9000 square feet per building, two banks total with a limit of 8000 square feet per user on the fIrst floor. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the developer would manage all 85,000 square feet of commercial space. He wondered if there would be a differential in rents charged for different types of operations. Mr. Bair stated that they do not intend to handle the leasing in this manner. Chairman Menconi stated that Capital Street in Eagle allows for additional professional.space. He believes that the things that have been achieved with this project that have not been created previously. Commissioner Fisher agreed that great steps have been made. She has been wrong before. In this case, she feels she will regret saying I told you solO years from now. Hearing the input from staff, she will wait until it's built. She wants the parking quantity to be revisited and does not believe that delivery trucks in a pedestrian area are appropriate. 71 08/14/07 Chairman Menconi stated that condition 4 would include approval with requested conditions. All other conditions were acceptable. Condition 10 would allow escrow funds in lieu of approval for the pedestrian access by TCO time, Ms. Skinner Markowitz stated that this condition could be included in the offsite improvement agreement. Mr. Morris stated that he does not have a concern abo.ut this change. There is a possibility that CDOT will not agree to the right of way. Mr. Potente stated that in the event that occurs then he believes staff's recommendation is that the money be. used for other purposes. Chairman Menconi stated that he did not want to approve the file without getting a roundabout. Mr. Morris suggested that the final wording of the conditions subject to review by staff including the Attorney's Office to iron our the exact wording. Mr. Bair stated that the developer does not have control over any of this. He prefers moving forward with a single lane roundabOut, but will work with staff to make it a double lane. Mr. Morris stated that the engineeI's feel that the single land is not adequate. Mr, Bair stated that he doesn't think the right of way will be approved in two months. He requested an interim solution to move forward with the project and work with staff to get the double lane. Mr. Morris stated that technically, itcould be done that way but the board has to recognize that all they have with respect to whether or not there is a two lane is an. agreement to try to agree and that's not good business for either the board or the applicant. . Mr. Bair wondered if it could be solved with an escrow of the additional amounts. Mr. Morris did not know whatthe right of way would cost. Mr. Bair stated that they had nf't agreed to pay for the right of way only to payfor the cost of the roundabout, the county would be required to pay for the right of way. He requests that this be resolved by an escrow amount. Mr. Morris stated that the county is being forced into the prospect of having to condemn property owned by three different neighbors to solve the problem. Mr. Bair stated that a single lane roundabout works until 2022. Chairman Menconi stated that this type of issue needed to be addressed prior to this meeting. He is not in favorof approving a file based on a what ifscenario related to the roundabout. Commissioner Fisher was not aware of the fact that the county took responsibility for paying for the right of way. Ms. Nelson stated that she would never have made that negotiation and that is a bOard decision. Chairman Menconi stated that the board would not take this risk. Mr. Bair stated.that after reviewing with staff they had potential solution. Mr. POtente presented the recommendation. He suggested that theW est End development be conditioned upon access required by COOT in the form of a roundabout that is approved by COOT including any right of way needed for that roundabout and that right of way must exist at the time of fmal plat. The reason for this is that the enginoorsbelieve you can slide the right of way of up an4 down in order to obtain the necessary right of way from the Preserve exclusively. The condition being that the roundabout must meet with CDOTstandards in right .of way that is available at the time offmal plat that is obtained by the developer. The impact fees shall not be credited towards the roundabout to, the extent that the roundabout is required for the access permit. The difference may be credited from the road impact fees.. Mr. Morris stated that he is concerned that you can't simply agree that what's necessary for the roundabout can be credited against the impact fees and you've got to distinguish between what is serving the traffic off site with what is serving the traffic onsite. Mr. Potente stated that COOT has required the conditions for the roundabout. The land use regulations do not allow the crediting of road impact fees to access related issues. In the extent, that it is access related, they cannot receive a credit. If the county electS to do it voluntarily from the county's perspective then they will be entitled to a credit. Mr, Morris asked the Engineering Department about their recommendation for a two-lane roundabout. He wondered if CDOT would issue their approval for a lesser period. Ms. Nelson stated that Eagle . County would go with CDOT's recommendation. Kevin Nichol spoke. He indicated that COOT gave a verbal approval for the one lane roundabout but would like to discuss the fmal design issues. 72 08/14/07 Mr. Morris stated that if Engineering is satisfied he is comfortable with the condition. Mr. Potente stated that the issue of the assessment on sales being used for transportation issues in Edwards. There are several corridor improvements slated for implementation. The developer has offered to impose a voluntary' sales tax towards a general fund. He recommended it be codified in the PUD. Chairman Menconi wondered why the sales tax would have to be restricted.. He wondered if the sales tax. could be simply added to the county funds to be used at the county's discretion. Mr. Bair stated that they were asked to participate in the special tax in greater Edwards. Commissioner Fisher wondered if staff is in agreement with all conditions proposed and whether all issues been addressed. Ms. Skinner Markowitz added the she is confident that the surface parking could be reduced as mentioned - earlier and the board may want to add a condition for that as well and considered at final plat. The developer is beyond the minimum standards for parking but it's something they can continue to work on. Chairman Menconi stated that the parking could be adjusted. Commissioner Fisher stated that although she is in favor of the project she is feeling rushed to make a decision tonight. She understands that this might present a hardship to the developer.. For Eagle County this is a lifetime decision. She suggests tabling the file to have time to consider all aspects prior to making a final decision. Chairman Menconi asked the applicant if any options could be added at this point. Mr. Bairwondered ifthere is anything more that can be given at this meeting to get the decision. Chairman Menconi wondered about hearing the file on a Thursday. Mr. Morris stated that the meeting has to be noticed and it is too late to publish the meeting. Mr. Bair stated that they are in a pickle based on timing, yet they understand that Commissioner Fisher needs more time. They are asking Commissioner Runyon if there is some way he would change his mind. If they targeted marketing for 30 days to encourage local sales rather than restricting the units. . Commissioner Runyon stated that in the long term this is needed, not the short term. He appreciates the concept of marketing but he doesn't feel it is sufficient. Mr. Bair wondered what the earliest date would be. Chairman Menconi suggested reconvening in the morning, not knowing the posting requirements. Commissioner Fisher felt this would be too soon. Chairman Menconi. stated that the motion would fail for not having a.8eCond at this ~int. Ms. Skinner Markowitz wondered about a special meeting the week of september 4 . Chairman Menconi asked if additional affordable housing units could be considered. Mr. Barr stated that he did not think this was feasible. Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. PDSP 00025, ZC 00087, The West End, Sketch/Preliminary Plan & Zone Change until September 11,2007. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. 1 041-0070, waiving the requirement for Special Use Review Permit to September 11, 2007. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval; 2. The buildings should utilize non-reflective fmish materials (other than windows) and colors designed to "blend" in with the surrounding landscape, prohibiting bright fmish colors; 73 08/14/07 3. All necessary offsite easements on the Eagle River Preserve must be obtained prior to Final Plat approval; 4. All ROW necessary to construct the proposed round-about and the required access permit (for the roundabout) must be obtained prior to the submittal for Final Plat; 5. The property line between the Kemp parcel and Eagle River Preserve must be corrected prior to the submittal for Final Plat; 6. Trail construction plans (for trail alongHWY 6 from West End to corner ofHwy 6 and Edwards Spur Rd.) shall be included with the construction drawings required for Final Plat. The plans shall include specific information regarding the type of materials to be used for the path, as approved by EeO Trails. 7. A Dust Suppression Plan must be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department prior to obtaining a grading permit. The plan shall be kept onsite and implemented at all times during construction. The plan must identify who can be contacted immediately to abate dust issues; . 8. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) must be preparedby the applicant and approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department prior to obtaining a grading permit; 9. The applicant shall be responsible for a bus pull off and a shelter on the north side of Highway 6 to support the pedestrian-friendly and transit-friendly environment created by this development. The puII-off shall be constructed according to AASHTO. standards and the shelter to specifications provided by ECO Transit. In addition, the applicant is shall make improvements to the existing transit stop on the south side of Hwy 6, including but not limited to, shelter expansion and an improved bus pull off. Conditions added by ECPC: 10. A pedestrian crossing and/or improvements across Hwy 6 is/are required prior to the first Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TeO) issuedfor the West End PUD. 11. The affordable homing prices in the proposed homing plan (discussed at the 08/01/07 ECPC hearing) shall be static (for first sales) with the existing developer or assigns. 12. The proposed transfer fee reimbursement of 1.5% to the developer (per current homing plan) may only apply to 20 affordable units. 13. The .number of trees proposed as part of the landscaping donation on the Eagle River Preserve shall be double what is shown on proposed plan (per 08/01/07). 1041-0070 The WEST END Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 7/24/07 ACTION: This application proposes a mixed use development planned unit development which includes multi-family residential dwelling units; employee housing units; and commercial uses including office; restaurant and retail-oriented business units. LOCATION: 34019 and 34129 Hwy 6; Edwards (Commonly known as the HavenerlKemp Parcels) 74 08/14/07 FILE NOJPROCESS: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: REOUEST: PDSP-0002S 1 ZC-00087; Sketch/PreliminaryPlan & Zon~ Change Urban Legends, LLC Midtown Group, LLC Brian Bair/Sid Fox, Fox & Company A 1041 Pennit to allow for the installation of public water and wastewater treatment facilities and construction of a water storage tank for the benefit of the Wolcott area north of the Eagle River up to 100 SFE. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions 1. SUMMARY The purpose of this 1041 Pennit application is to allow the extension of public water and sewer to serve the proposed West End Planned Unit Development, in the central community core of Edwards. The West Endproposes to re..<fevelopment the Havener parcel the Kemp parcels. The proj ect is comprised of a mixed use development with both commercial and residential aspects throughout. Development neighboring the West EndPUD includes properties containing non-conforming commerciaVindustrialuses on both the immediate east and west; the Eagle River Preserve (Open Space) to the north; and Highway 6to the south with Edwards Village Center (commercial) directly acrOss this right-of-way (ROW). Riverwalk (mixed-use), the Comer at Edwards (commercial), Edwards Commercial center (commercial), and Homestead (residential) are also in the immediate vicinity. The West End PUD is comprised of three (3) properties (Havener; two Kemp parcels) currently within the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority, Edwards Metropolitan District and Eagle River Waterand Sanitation District (wastewater). All service providers have committed to serve the proposed West End development with cash-in-lieu of water rights will be paid based upon projected water demand. In addition, a treated water storage\plant investment fee will be paid to the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. Please note that the existing mobile homes found on the former Havener property are currently served by public wastewater. The existing water supply line lies within public road right-of-way; the existing wastewater collection line lies to the rear of the West End development'in an existing easement within the Eagle River Preserve. 2. BACKGROUND & CHRONOLOGY The West End PUD proposes redevelopment of both the Havener and Kemp properties located off of Highway 6 in the commercial core of Edwards, CO. Currently, the properties host a variety of uses including: a small mobile home park; trucking operation; a 'defunct' refueling site; a construction materials storage yard; and a masonry storage and delivery yard. The.mobile home park is in very poor condition with many homes over 25 years old. In addition to the variety of uses on the property, there are several 'out' buildings that are old and decrepit, including the buildings on the Kemp property. CHRONOLOGY: . 1969- Havener purchased the subject (west) property; . 1974- RSL zoning was placed on the properties when Eagle County introduced zoning in September, 1974; . 1975- Kemp purchased the subject (east) properties; . 2006- The West End PUD Sketch Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Sketch Plan approved 55-65 residential units; 12 local resident dwelling units and a potential 49,000 square feet of commercial space on the Havener property (3.44 acres). 3. REFERRALS 75 08/14/07 This 1041 Permit Application was referred to the following departments and agencies with a request for comment: · Eagle County Assessor's Office · Eagle County Attorney's Office · Eagle County Engineering Department · Eagle County Department of Environmental Health · Colorado Department of Transportation · Colorado S~te Health Department - Water Quality Division · Colorado State Health Department - Air Quality Division · Colorado Division of Wildlife · Colorado Division' of Water Resources · Ambulance District · Edwards Metro District · Eagle River Water and Sanitation District · Greater Eagle Fire Protection District · Eagle Valley Land Trust · Northwest Colorado Council of Governments · Homestead HOA · Riverwalk HOA · Edwards Village Center POA · Old Edwards Estates HOA · Singletree HOA · South Forty HOA · Lake Creek HOA · Heritage Park HOA · Eagle County Planning Commission As of this writing, the following agencies have responded to this 1041. application with comments: Eagle County Planning Commission: The Planning Commissioners provided the following comments: . Monitoring wells: existing and/or new well(s)shaIlbe established and/or registered with the State; wells should be used for irrigation; . . A maintenance agreement needs to be established for the proposed storm system; . Leeds certification needs to be incorporated as part of the West End with considerations to use of low flow water devices; etc. 4. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS A. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 6.04.01, Permit Application AJ!Proval Criteria for Matters of State Interest. and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following analysis is provided. The Approval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold. A summary response is provided with the recommendation indicated in the fmdings box. (1) D~umentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project, the applicant will have obtained aU necessary property rights, permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion, defer making a final decision on the application until outstanding property rights, permits and approvals are obtained. The applicant for this project, Urban Legends, LLC represented by Midtown Group, LLC is the owner of the West End properties. The West End is located on approximately 5.4 acres accessed from via Highway 6 and is loc~ted in the heart of Edwards. The West End project consists of a single phase development with three (3) buildings and public spaces; the 1041 encapsulates the entirety of the 5.4 acres. The primary 76 08/14/07 objective of this application is to allow for the extension of public water and sewer to service the proposed improvements: up to 185 residential units; 85,000 square feet of commercial space. Midtown Group, LLC is actively working and communicating with the Eagle River Fire Protection District and will adhere to the district's regulations and requirements prior to construction. The project will have hydrants served by the potable water system. Additionally, the buildings will be sprinkled and alarmed. At this time, the applicant proposes at least two points of access to the development; the main access.is located from Hwy 6, with a proposed future road connection to the east. An emergency access exists atthe west property boundary. A new Highway.Access Permit has been obtained for the proposed development. Proposed landscaping efforts on the Eagle River Preserve have been discussed and an agreement for this donation will have to be established before implementation.. Priorto site disturbance, Midtown Group, LLC will need to obtain the following outstanding permits and approvals: . Eagle County Special Use Permit review waiver; . This 1041 Permit application by the Board of County Commissioners; . Approvals for Eagle County files PDSP-002S and ZC-00087; . Pending aforementioned Eagle County files, the subsequent Final Plat; . A Grading Permit issued by Eagle County Engineering Department or building permit, whichever comes first; . COOT ROW permit for placement of utility lines; . COOT Notice to Proceed for access improvements; . All drainage and sewer easements on the Eagle River Preserve; . Landscaping donation.agreelllent. [+/-] FINDING: (I)Ri~hts. Permits and ADDI'ovals. . The applicantHAS NOT obtained all necessary permits; however, they applicant WILL HAVE obtained all necessary property rights, permits and " ." . (2) The Project will not impair.property.rights held by others. The project will not impair property rights held by others; neighboring private properties will not be negatively affected by this 1041. ... .. .. ... [+1 FINDING: (2) ProDertv I'i1lhts of others. The project WILL NOT impair property rights held by others. (3) The Project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. The applicants have worked to ensure that the project site is in conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and sub-area plans. The application is also scrnsitive to the goals of the Eagle River Watershed Plan proposes integration of Best Management Practices to minimize water quality impacts associated with their development. The NWCCOG was sent a copy of this report for review. The 208 Regional Water Quality Management Plan as maintained by the NWCCOG contains six separate policies recommending that developers mitigate impacts caused by water projects and that land uses and disturbances shall not result in significant degradation of water quality. The review did not identify any conflicts between this project and the 208 plan. To date, NWCCOG has not offered comments for this application. 77 08/14/07 [+] FINDING: (3) Consistencv with Dlans. The Project IS consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all the requirements and conditions. Midtown Group, LLC has retained a team of experts to ensure the proposed extension will be designed llccordingto local standards. The applicant will pay impact fees, tap fees and monthly user fees associated with the water supply and wastewater treatment and have budgeted accordingly. [+] FINDING: (4) Exoertise andflnancial cllDabilitv. The applicant DOES HAVE the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirementS and conditions. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. Th~ site is currently accessible to construction equipment. In addition there are no known historical, cultural orenvironmentaI factors which would impede installation of the extensions. Once.instaIled, the District will assume responsibility for the extended lines. From documents received from the Districts, it appears that the capacity to extend water and sewer to the West End IS feasible. No insurmountable technical challenges have been identified which would hinder development of the proposed project. [+] FINDING: (5) Feasibilitv. The Project IS technically and flI1ancially feasible. (6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. ,~ The development site is not subject to significant risk from any natural hazards which could cause an impact to service. No severe geologic conditions, which would make development infeasible, were identified on the site. [+] FINDING: (6) Risk (rom hazards. The project IS NOT subject to significant risk from natural hazards. .. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. In the Edwards core, a development of this magnitude has not occurred since Riverwalk was developed in the 1990's. If you compare the effects of the two developments, many concerns would be the same (past and present): increased traffic; taller buildings than what previously existed/exists in Edwards; higher densities than what existed/exists in Edwards; an architecturally themed residential and commercial development; however, the West End is more urban in form than Riverwalk with hard scape open space features;. higher emphasis on pedestrian movements instead of vehicles and with. reduced setbacks around the.perimeter and larger open areas internally between buildings); etc. This is a.logical evolution given that Riverwalk is near 15 years old; Eagle County has changed in many ways since the 1990s. In addition, this ptoposal maximizes the subject properties providing a: significant number of employee/local resident dwelling unitS and commercial square footage, with little ecological impact to the surrounding environment. Water and sewer are public and currently available for this development; all storm water, currently untreated and exiting onto the Eagle River Preserve will now be properly . managed; economic evidence has been provided that demonstrates that there is a need for additional office and commercial space in Edwards; and the development is located in an appropriate area for higher density- the community center of Edwards. 78 08/14/07 As part of this proposal, 72 affordable housing units are proposed with this development. In addition, the applicant is imposing a 1.5% transfer fee on all free-market units in perpetuity. Funds generated from this fee would beretumed to the community (e.g.) monies could "buy" other fi'ee-marketdweIling units so they could be restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this community. The proposed development would also create new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities. The majority of people working at the nearby restaurants, retail stores, offices and other employers would able to afford to live within the proposed development. The application also proposes to introduce pedestrian pathways throughout the site and connections off- site. This is an important aspect with "downtown" developments; especially when the overall existing pedestrian movement network between commercial an.d residential developments in-Edwards is currently lacking. A mass transit hub does not currently exist in Edwards; however, the internal roads have.been designed to accommodate a bus in the event that ECOTransitchooses to run a bus thtough the West End in the event that a secondary road connection through.the property to the east is developed. The West End has been designed. with considerations to surrounding land uses, and will not affect current . and existing land use patterns for the cOmmunity core of Edwards. (+] FINDING:. (7) Land use Dat/ems. Land. use patterns in the Edwards core WILL NOT be. . compromised as a result of this 1041 Permit application. The land use patterns have been anticipated an in this instance, this 1041. Permit application will have no bea1:ing on the ultimate land use pattern or participation from the.Eagle River Water and Sanitation District as these properties are already within. (8) The Project wiUnothavea significant adverse effect on the capability oflocalgovernlDentsaffeeted by the Project to provide services, or exceed the eapacity of serviee delivery systems. The project will not involve additional services by local governments and no new special districts will be created. The proposed water and sewer extensions will be funded by Midtown Group, LLC. In Addition, by working with the governing fire district, fire hydrants will be introduced into these properties. The developer of the West End have also beCn in discussions with ECO Trails for additional trail development along Hwy 6 traveling from theW est End through to the intersection of Hwy 6 and the Edwards Spur Rd. In addition, the applicants are providing adequate, onsite housing opportunities for local residents. It has been determined that cash in lieu ofland will be offered as School Dedication Fees. (+)FINDING: (8) Service CaDacitv. The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services, or exceed the capacity of service delive s stems it exceed the ca aci of service delive s stems. (9) The Projecfwill not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents ofthe County. The proposed water and.sewer extensions will be funded.by the Midtown Group, LLC and will not create an undue financial burden on the existing or future residents of Eagle County; no new niill levies or 'Special Assessments' are proposed/required as part of, or will result from this Project. . (+]FINDING: (9) Financial Burden. the Project WILL NOT create an undue fmancial burden on existing or future residents of the County. (10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future seetor of the local economy. 79 08/14/07 The project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. Conversely, the proposed development will help provide much needed affordable housing in a key economic area of Eagle County. The project will also participate in the overall revenue generated from many sectors of the local economy, including construction, small.business.development and tourism. Finally, approval of this 1041 will not result in the loss of any agriculturally productive lands. (+] FINDING: (10) Protection of local economv. The project WILL NOT significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. There are no existing recreational uses on the site and the site has not been identified for potential recreation uses; however, the West End is located adjacent to over 70 acres of public open space (Eagle River Preserve) that will pffer a wide range of passive outdoor recreational opportunities once the reclamation of the previous gravel mining operations is complete. It is anticipated, therefore, that this 1041 permit will not have an adverse effecton the quality or quantity of any future outdoor recreation facilities, with the exception that new buildings will be constructed on the West End properties. These new buildings will be more visible then what currently exists on the subject properties- three to five stories versus the one story mobile homes on Havener, and older. two story buildings on Kemp. Understanding that the Eagle River Preserve (ERP) is next door to this developmen~ the applicants.are proposing a pedestrian access into the ERP, ~d have committed to donating money and/or landscaping materials for off-site mitigation of this development in addition to onsite mitigation; thus, preserving the enjoyment of this valuable open space. In addition to the proposed gateway into the ERP,the West End pUD will provide pedestrian walkways throughout the development, have StrategicaIly placed and consolidated the proposed structures in order to provide important view corridors from neighbOring developments and a new portion of trail along Hwy6 which travels beyond the subject property to the main intersection ofHwy6 and the Edwards Spur Rd., encouraging non.vebicular movements in this area of Edwards. (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energyefticiency and recycling or reuse. The project will create an overall improvement in resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling and/or reuse by incorporating LEED Green Building and other energy efficient building techniques and will incorporate sustainable development strategies into the overall design, construction and operation of the.project. In order to emphasize the most efficient use of water, to conserve energy and resources, it has been suggested that the Project should develop a separate raw water iirigation system for the proposed. development to eliminate the use of treated water for irrigation purposes. In addition, Midtown Group, LLC has worked diligently to ensure that the proposed development appropriately and sufficiently mitigates environmental and ecological impacts and sets an example to this area of Edwards by setting an ecological and environmental design philosophy maximizing sun exposure within the development, as well as use of xeriscaping. [+] FINDING: (12) Resource Conservation. The planning, design and operation of the Project nOES reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. 80 08/14107 Eagle County is currently in attainment of all National Ambient Air Quality standards and no significant sources of air pollutiop are being proposed. The quality of air.inthe Project area is relativelytypical.of the Eagle River Valley. During the winter months, the local air shed is prone to inversions resulting in temporary air quality degradation. Best Management Practices, such as dust control during construction will ,be implemented to minimize short term air quality. impacts. Overall, installation of the proposed water and sewer lines may cause some temporary adverse air quality impacts as well as other nuisance factors typical with major construction activities; however, these impacts will be negligible, and controllable. There will be no long term adverse air quality impacts due to the proposed water system. During construction, water trucks will most likely be utilized to prevent air-borne dust;from dispersing into the atmosphere. After cdnstruction, the roads within the project will be paved and vehicle trafticdust will not exist. The homeowners along Hwy 6 may be affected by increased construction-related traffic during construction. Asuch, it is a requirement that an "Hours of Operation Plan" will be established to .contrOl the amount of construction vehicle traffic before and after business hours and to reduce amount of vehicle (diesel and gasoline) fumes. Once build out occurs additional traffic along a limited portion ofHwy 6 will most likely be from the residents and vi~itors of the West End PUD. [+) FINDING: (13) Ai, Qua/itv.The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The Project is located within the Edwards Community Center and not within a designated scenic vista, unique landscape or land formation. The PUDhas been designed to include landscape buffers; pedestrian plaza's and view corridors. In addition, the West End has prepared to install landscaping along Hwy 6 anti throughout the development, and are committed to donating money and/or landscaping materials for additional off-site mitigation (on the ERP) of this development; thus, preserving the enjoyment of this valuable open space. The buildings of the West End. are being designed with articulated walls and rooflines to break up the building mass and non-reflective building materials will be used to minimize glare. Further, the colors. will be muted.earth tones with accent colors and the building materials will primarily consist of stone, brick and stucco with wood accents. Multiple hard surface materials, textures and colors will be used to avoid large expanses of pavement. Pedestrian plazas and raised pedestrian crosswalks have been incorporated into the design to encourage pedestrian movement throughout the project and to provide acceSs to the Eagle River Preserve. Open courtyards, pedestrian plazas and breezeways have also been located to provide visual cOJl!lection into and through the Project During installation of the proposed water. system, construction activities may cause temporary adverse scenic impacts as well.as other nuisance factors typical with major construction activities. An erosion control plan will be implemented prior to construction. The waterlwastewater lines will be bUrled and no permanent vegetation impacts will occur along the Hwy 6 roadway; quite the opposite. [+) FINDING: (14) VISual quality. As mitigated, the Project WILL NOT significantly degrade visual uali . (15) The Project will not significantly degrade .surface water quality. The project will not significantly degrade surface water quality; conversely, this development will enhance surface water quality by collecting surface water and treating prior to its release onto the ERP; however, as a precautionary measure it is been proposed to implement proper design and the utilization of Best Management Practices during construction. 81 08/14/07 The Project is located approximately 600+ feet from the Eagle River which is the nearest perennial hydrologic feature. Project development will not be affected by the EagleCounty~s stream setbacks; and will abide by the erosion control; drainage; and stonn water control standards as set: forth in the Regulations. Increased surface water runoff during stonn events will be mitigated through astonn water mitigation plan and stonn water detention and treatment. There are no outside impacts to adjacent owners. [+] FINDING: (15) Surface water Qualitv. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade surface walE quality. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. The project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. The Project will utilize domestic water obtained from the Edwards Drinking Water Facility. The primary source of water for the Edwards Drinking Water Facility is the Eagle River. Ground water will not be the primary source of water for the Project. Seven on-site. exploratory borings were drilled to a depth of 41 feet; however, no naturally occurring free ground water was encountered in the borings at the time of drilling. The existing ground water wells that serve the existing development are not viable; however, inorder to participate in the monitoring efforts by tIle Environmental Health and affiliates, the applicant has agreed to obtain a new well and permit in order to access groundwater in this area of Eagle County. There should be a slight increase in local ground Water due to the existing wells being abandoned and replaced with the public water supply [+] FINDING: (16) Ground water qualitv.The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade surface wat quali .. . (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. \ The project will not significantly degrade wetlands, and riparian areas. The proposedloc:ation of the Project located approximately 600+ feet from the southern bank of the river near Hwy 6. This area does not contain wetlands and/or riparian areas~ and with the utilization of the proposed storm water treatment, should effectively protect and/or enhance water traveling to the river. . [+] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and riDarian areas, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal liCe or its habitats. The project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life habitat. As a previously disturbed and developed site, no evidence of terrestrial or aquatic animal.life habitat was evidenced on the subject properties; however, as this property is uphill of the river and riparian area, it will be necessary to utilize stonn water treatment which should effectively protect and/or enhance water traveling to the river; the Division of Wildlife had no comnients or concerns for this proposal. [+] FINDING: (18) Te"estrial or aQuatic animal life. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. (19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. 82 08/14/07 The project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. This project. is located adjacentto the EagleRiver preserve. As the ERP is a reclaimed gravel mining operation, most of the vegetation Was previously removed. This is similar the subject properties. The Havener and Kemp parcels have been developed with a multiplicity of uses reaching back before 1969. Asa result, no significant vegetation rema.ins. Following construction, re-vegetation and reclamation of disturbed areas shall occur and landscaping will be installed. [+]FlNDING: (19) Te"estrlalDlant life. The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate terrestrial lant life or lant habitat. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. \ The project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. In addition, no severe geological conditions which would make the development infeasible were identified at the project site. [+] FINDING: (20) Soils and Ileolollicconditions. The Project WII..L NOT significantly deteriorate. soils and geologic conditions. . (21) The Project will not cause a nuisance. Construction activities could cause some temporary adve~e impacts as well as · other temporary nuisance factors typical with major construction activities. These impacts; although minor, include noise, diesel fumes, and traffic associated with the movement of equipment. Temporary controls will be incorporated to reduce impacts due to.construction. These controls consist of water control such as grading and providing water barriers to protect the si~ from soil erosion. Water trucks will be utilized to preventair- borne dust from dispersing into the atmosphere. Traffic controls such as on-site flagperson$ and on- site/otf-site temporary signage notifying mptorists of construction activity. An "Hours of Operation Plan" is required to stop construction noiseduringotfbusiness hours and to reduce amount of vehicle (diesel and gasoline ) fumes thereby minimizing undue auditory, ocular and olfactory impacts upon existing residents of Edwards. (21) Nuisance. The project will not cause 3 nuisance outside what is typicaIof general (22) . The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance. There are no significant historic properties affected in the project area nor are there concerns regarding the protection of cultural resources. Further, this project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. [+] FINDING: (22) Paleontolo"ical. historic or archaeological areas. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. (23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. During water and sewer line and general construction, the construction equipment fuel and lubricants could constitute a possible release of hazardous materials. To ensure the reasonableness of the risk, the contractor will be r~quired to submit and adhere to a fuel mitigation plan prior to commencement of work. 83 08/14/07 [+] FINDING: (23) Hazardous materials. The Project WILL NOT result in unreasonable risk of the release of hazardous materials~ . (24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses .of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. The existing properties do not contain natural, agricultural, recreational grazing, or industrial resources. In the community core.of Edwards, natural, agricultural, recreationaIgrazing, or industrial resources are. . inappropriate for this site~ Commercial uses did exist on the Kemp parcel; however, the business. has been sold aqd will be relocated. The West End development proposes approximate 85,000 sq ftof new commercial space, more akin to other development. in the Edwards area. As such, the benefits of the West End outweigh the loss of the existing, non-confonning commercial, 10w4:lensity residential and.older industrial uses. The benefits of the West Development include: . Contributions to the Eagle County trails program and other pedestrian connections to adjacent developments; . 72 affordable housing units are proposed with this development and the implementation ofa transfer fee on all.free-market units in perpetuity with funds generated to be returned to the. community; (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units-so they could be restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this community. The proposed development would also create new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities; . Infrastructure improvements- not only to mitigate.potential impacts generated by.the proposed development, but improvements that will also enhance ac.cess to the Eagle River Preserve; . The internal road through the West End has been designed to accommodate bus movements if the property to the east is developed and ultimately connects the . Edwards Spur Rd. to theW est End. This road system. would allow ECO Transit to run a bus thrOugh the . West End to the Edwards Spur Rd., which would aid in the predicament that exists where currently the road system of Edwards does not allow the express bus to leave 1-70, go into the core, and turn around to efficiently return to 1';70 in an expedient manner; . Redevelopment of a blighted area of Edwards; . A pedestrian portal into the Eagle River Preserve; . Several pedestrian/public plazas (gathering areas) internal to the development; . Additional commercial retail and office space in a highly desirable economic area which contains very little vacancy at present. [+] FINDING: (24) Benerlts outweillh losses. The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens WILL outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. B. Pursuant to Eagle CQunty Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02, Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Proiects.and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following additional analysis is provided. (1) The Project shaD emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. The landscape design for the project will use efficient drip and spray irrigation systems, minimize the use of turf grasses and will utilize mulches and some xeriscape techniques; however, for efficiency purposes, it has been suggested that the Project include a separate raw water irrigation system to eliminate the use of treated water for irrigation purposes. At this time, a viable well has not been established for the site; 84 08/14/07 the existing wells appe~ to be obsolete. The applicant has relayed to Staff that they have applied for a new permit from the State; however, it would be for monitoring purposes only. The. surface drainage from the site will be controlled, treated and directed off-site. for. potential reuse at the Eagle River Preserve and/or returned into the watershed. The West End PUDis located within the ERW&SD and will be subject to the applicable District plans and policies. According to the applicant, it is a policy of the District. to manage its water supply. and distribution system so. as to minimize waste and encourage efficient. utilization of water resource. As such, careful consideration and thought regarding construction and building design was incorporated into the West End. For example, the bui~dings will be designed and constructed in .accordattce .with the applicable Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards which utilizes energy and water conservation. devices and techniques such as low flow toilets. In addition, the following methods and policies. will be implemented to ensure the most efficient use of water: . . a) The adoption of ilieDistrict Water Conservation MasterPlan which is designed to encourage increased efficiency in the residential, commerCial and public sectOrs, and includes a metering program of all water.users. b) The use of efficient drip and spray irrigation systems. c) A leak detection program, which includes auditing of monthly metered water uses, scheduled sounding of mainlines and leak repair. d) The use oflow-flow showerheads and lowflow or dual flush toilets. (2) The ProjeetwiD not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewatertreatnlent services or create duplicate services. This 1041 Permit Area has been included into the applicable Districts providing water and wastewater services; According to the District's calculations, this Project will not result in excess capacity of existing water or wastewatet treatment services in the area. [+] FINDING: (2) ExcesscflDacitv / dUD/icate services. The Project SHALL NOT result in exceSIl ca aci in existin water or wastewater treatment services or create du licate services. (3) The Project shaD be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas tobesen"ed by the Project. The proposed water and wastewater systems are necessary to meet the anticipated growth projections within the service area; there are no other water or wastewater providers in the area that could serve the proposed West End PUD for either the proposed residential or commercial uses. [+] FINDING: (3) Necessity. The Project SHALL BE necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the project. . (4) Urban development, population densities and site layout and design of storm water,and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that wiD prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. The Project in conjunction with the development of the West End PUD will allow for compact, mixed use development within the service area boundary in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer 85 08/14/07 recharge areas. The ground water is of poor quality and will not be used as a domestic water source. This 1041 proposes to extend an existing sewer system collection line that will treat the wastewater from the Project in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. The onsitestorm water treatment facility. will discharge to surface water and will not affect or impact the groundwater aquifer systems. A drainage report has been prepared and a storm water management plan is being prepared to effectively mitigate storm water runoff from the proposed West End PUD. [+)FlNDING: (4) Protection of Aouifer Recharee Areas. Urban development, population densities and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems SHALL BE accomplished in a manne that will revent the llution of uifer rechar e areas. . C. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.03, Additional Criteria Applicable to Mqior New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems and Maior Extensions of Existinv Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems. and as more specifically described in the application.materiaIs,the following additional analysis is provided; (1) The Project shall be reasonably n~essary to meet proj~ted community development and population.demands in the areas to be served by the Project, or to comply with regulatory or t~hnologieal requirements. The Project is necessary to meet anticipated community development approvals (West End PUD) and projected population demands in this 1041 service area. The existing systems were designed to provide service consistent with reasonable growth projections and local land use plans. Currently, there are no. other water or sewage treatment service providers in the area that could serve the. land included. within the 1041 service area outside of the Upper Eagle Water Authority, Edwards Metro District and the Eagle River water and Sanitation District. The utility extensions will serve this infill development within Edwards, the largest population center in unincorporated Eagle County. The County Comprehensive Plan and the. Edwards Community Pl~ recognize that the population of Eagle County will continue to grow. The Project is necessary to meet the community development trends and reasonable population demands in the service area; especially concerning affordable housing. The domestic. water and sewer extension will provide updated, modern utility services that comply with current regulatory and public health standards. Housing costs and median rents have also been rising resulting in a great need for higher density housing that is affordable. The West End housing proposal responds to the need for affordablehqusing as demonstrated by the increase in the mean single family home cost of over $800,000. In addition, the median rent has risen from $1,012 in 2001 to $2,328 in 2004. As part of this proposal; 72 affordable housing units are proposed with this development. In addition, the applicant is imposing a 1.5% transfer fee on all free-market units in perpetuity. Funds generated from this fee would be returned to the community (e.g.) monies could "buy" other free-market dwelling units so they could be restricted and resold to persons around Edwards in order to increase the number of local resident dwellings in this community. The proposed development would also create new "live where you work" opportunities for locals. In addition, the West End is well situated near existing employment opportunities. The majority of people working at the nearby restaurants, retail stores, offices and other employers would able to afford to live within the proposed development. [+) FINDING: (1) Necessitv or regulaton / technological c01llDliance. The ProjectSHALL be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. 86 08/14/07 ~-~ ~--:'C~ ".7T/;-1 (2) To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. The Project is located within the aforementioned Districts and an Agreement is in place that anticipates cash in lieu will be acceptable for service. No new facilities are proposed with this development. [+] FINDING: (2) Consolidation of facilities. To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities SHALL be consolidated with. existing facilities within the area. (3) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper uti1iZation of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. It has been determined by the Districts that new domestic water and sewage treatment systems will be NOT be necessary to serve the 1041 area8sthere are existing systems/service providers that can serve Edwards. [+] FINDING: (3) ProDer utilization orexistin/! treatment Dlants.New domestic water and sewage treatment systems SHALL be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and. the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment I' . . . (4) The Project shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may~cur as a result of such extension. can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. The proposed water and wastewater treatment extensions will serve only the proposed West End PUD. Environmental factors will be mitigated by utilizing Best Management Practices as monitored by the County, and use of carefully designed storm water treatment improvements. The anticipated growth and development that may occur as a resultofthe.proPQsedwater and sewer, extension, primarily to serve The West EndPUD, can be accommodated within the fmancial and environmental capacity of the Edwards area to sustiin such growth and development. Three will be no public debt or new mill levy associated with the project and no significant environmental issues have been identified. [+] FINDING: (4) Financial and environmental CfllJQCUv. The Project SHALL be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the fmancial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth an a . . D. Special Use Permit Waiver: In accordance with Chapter n, Article 3, Section 3.310.1.2, Waiver Provision. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Special Review Use Permit application for water and sewer projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the. applicant Showing that: 3.310.I.2.a. A permit application pursuant to Chapter 6, Sections one through five of the Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle County Permit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use permit application. 87 08/14/07 3.310.I.2.b. Compliance with the Special Use Review Permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver of the Special Use Review Permit requirements.as such application would serve no further legitimate plmming, zoning or other land use objective. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. That except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all materia! representations of the Applicant in this permit applicatio~ correspondence, and public meetings shan be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2. Any grading plans must include detailed site plans identifying erOsion control Best Management Practices (BMPs); construction staging areas for equipment stage and a Spill.Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan (SPCC). 3. Prior to the issuance of the grading permit an "Hours of Operation Plan" will be established by the applicant to stop construction noise during offbusiness hours and to reduce amount of vehicle (diesel and gasoline) fumes. Copies of this plan shall be provided to the County. 4. A Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) must be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department prior to obtaining a grading permit. S. A Dust Suppression Plan must be prepared by the applicant and approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department prior to obtaining a grading permit. The plan shall be keptonsite and implemented at all times during construction. The plan must identify who can be contacted immediately to abate dust issues. 6. Failure to adhere to these conditions will result in the cessation of work until appropriate measures have been taken to restore compliance; 7. The applicant shall utilize either the existing wells or provide a new well for ground watering monitoring; 8. Well water, if available, should be used for raw water irrigation purposes; 9. A maintenance agreement needs to be established for the proposed storm water treatment system; 10. The West End PUD shall meet LEEDS certification for new construction demonstrating compliance with the provisions regarding water conservation; wastewater; and storm water treatment. Attest: ~oumed until August 21, 2007. v 88 08/14/07