Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 06/28/11 PUBLIC HEARING June 28, 2011 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Stavney stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Weeks of June 20 and June 27, 2011 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of Payroll for June 30, 2011 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Approval of the Minutes for the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meetings for January 11, 2011 and May 3, 2011 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. State of Colorado Land Use Agreement for Eagle County School District for Driver Skill Testing Jeff Wetzel, ECO Transit E. State of Colorado Land Use Agreement for ECO Transit for Driver Skill Testing Jeff Wetzel, ECO Transit F. Revision to Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Drug and Alcohol Policy Jeff Wetzel, ECO Transit G. Approval of Limited English Proficiency Plan and Policy Jeff Wetzel, ECO Transit H. Public Surplus Seller Terms and Conditions Agreement between Eagle County and Public Group, LLC for Online Auction Harry Taylor, Fleet Services I. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District for Vehicle Repair and Maintenance Services Harry Taylor, Fleet Services J. Resolution 2011 -063 Authorizing Harry Taylor to Sign Documents Associated with the Transfer of Title for Motor Vehicles and Equipment on Behalf of Eagle County Harry Taylor, Fleet Services K. Resolution 2011 -064 Prohibiting the Use of Excessive Force Against Individuals Engaged in Non - violent Civil Rights Demonstrations 1 06/28/2011 • County Attorney's Office Representative L. Resolution 2011 -065 Concerning the Abatement Settlement Recommendations of the Eagle County Assessor's Office County Attorney's Office Representative M. Western Eagle County Ambulance District Ambulance Service License and Ambulance Vehicle Permit Jennie Wahrer, Health & Human Services N. Eagle County Ambulance District Ambulance Service License and Ambulance Vehicle Permit Jennie Wahrer, Health & Human Services O. Agreement between Eagle County and Mountain Family Health Centers for the Provision of Family Planning Care Services Jennie Wahrer, Health & Human Services P. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Immunization Program Amendment 35 Immunization Funds for Local Public Health Agency Statement of Work Rebecca Larson, Health & Human Services Q. Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment, Emergency Preparedness and Response Division Task Order Contract Waiver #154 Rebecca Larson, Health & Human Services R. Amendment to the 2011 Early Head Start Continuation Grant Rosie Moreno, Health & Human Services S. First Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Meadow Mountain Plumbing and Heating Service, Inc. Ron Siebert, Facilities Management T. First Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Vail Alarm, Inc. DBA Vail Electronics, Inc. for Low Voltage On -call Services Ron Siebert, Facilities Management U. First Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Skyline Mechanical, Inc. for HVAC On -call Services Ron Siebert, Facilities Management V. First Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Timberline Restoration Services, DBA Service Master 24/7, for Property Cleanup On -call Services Ron Siebert, Facilities Management W. First Amendment to Agreement between Eagle County and Encore Electric, Inc. for Electrical On -call Services Ron Siebert, Facilities Management X. Resolution Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney, and Diane H. Mauriello, Assistant County Attorney to Act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with Respect to Colorado Capital Bank Letter of Credit No. 96006630 in the Amount of $25, 415.30 for the Account of Arrowhead Valley Developers County Attorney's Office & Engineering Representatives 2 06/28/2011 • Y. Resolution 2011 -066 Appointing Referees for the 2011 County Board of Equalization Attorney's Office Representative Z. U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration Airport Improvement Program Sponsor Certification Residential Through- The -Fence Access Chris Anderson, Airport AA. Resolution 2011 -067 Approving an Amendment to Edwards Medical Center Planned Unit Development (Eagle County File No. PDA -3056) Sean Hanagan, Planning Chairman Stavney asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -AA, excluding item X. Commissioner Runyon secondeded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened Mike Beltracchi, of Edwards requested that the board consider putting a question on the November 2011 ballot to repeal the open space tax. He suggested that the question be written in plain simple English. He believed that Eagle County should concentrate on providing essential services such as roads and bridges, public safety, social services, and ECO transit to as many residents as possible. Any funds remaining in the open space account should be used to purchase lands within Eagle County that had 100% public access. Commissioner Runyon noted that 70% of the revenue came from second homeowners who did not live here. If the tax were repealed, he estimated that only 1.5 million would go back to the residents. Peter Buckley spoke. He presented some suggested ballot language. Chairman Fisher stated that the vote passed by the vote of the people. She understood now the exceptional value of open space and the way it was managed. The goal was to buy property that would be open to the public. Indeed the board received a number of emails but she did not believe that Mr. Buckley had a large following. She appreciated Mr. Buckley coming forward and making the request but did not believe the board had any responsibility to respond to his line of questioning. She believed his attitude was more about government bashing than looking at the sole purpose. Mr. Buckley stated that his central message was one of democracy. He believed that there was an overwhelming number of people in this ECOnomy that would vote themselves a tax reduction. Commissioner Runyon believed that the local media had not presented all the sides. Commissioner Stavney stated that he supported the current direction of the open space objectives. Mr. Buckley stated that he was disappointed in the board objecting to democracy. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon secondeded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office APPLICANT: Larkburger of Colorado, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Adam Baker, Owner LOCATION: 105 Edwards Village Blvd., Unit B -103 - Edwards 3 06/28/2011 REQUEST: Transfer of Ownership STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested the transfer of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License. Larkburger, LLC d!b /a Larkburger, currently holds this license. The applicant is currently operating under a temporary permit issued by the local licensing authority, April 5, 2011. As stated by Mr. Baker at the prior hearing, the business is growing and they expect to go outside the state with their operation. The change in ownership is merely a change in company structure. LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the fees have been paid. 2. Whether the applicants are of good moral character 3. If applicant plans to make any physical change, alteration or modification of the licensed premises, whether the premises, and if changed, altered or modified, will meet all of the pertinent requirements of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Codes, including, but not limited to the following factors: a. the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants; b. the possession, by the licensee, of the changed premises by ownership, lease, rental or other arrangement; c. compliance with the applicable zoning laws of the county; and d. compliance with the distance prohibition in regard to any public or parochial school. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees have been paid. 2. The state and local licensing authorities have previously licensed the premises where such alcohol beverages will be sold and such licenses were valid at the time the application for transfer of ownership was filed with the local licensing authority. 3. Based on the evidence provided in the CBI report the applicant is reported to be of good moral character. 4. The Affidavit of Transfer and Statement of Compliance has been received. 5. The applicant is over 21 and fingerprints are on file. 6. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, June 17, 2011, 10 days prior to the hearing. 7. Publication is not required for a transfer of ownership. 4 06/28/2011 8. The applicant does not wish to make any physical changes, alterations, or modifications to the licensed premises, which would alter the licensed premises, or the usage of the licensed premises. STAFF CONCLUSION: The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for a transfer of ownership and all findings are positive. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Staff had no concerns with the request, as there would be no change to the current operations. Mr. Baker stated that they would be opening a restaurant in Arvada soon and six others were lined up in the state next year. They hope to open out of state in 2013. Commissioner Fisher stated that she was proud of the group and the product that they produce. She appreciated the professionalism and the service they provide. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the request by Larkburger of Colorado, LLC d/b /a Larkburger to transfer of the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License held by Larkburger, LLC. Commissioner Fisher secondeded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Vail Performing Arts Academy, Inc. REQUEST: Special Event Permit EVENT: The Riverwalk Arts and Music Festival DATE: Saturday, July 9, 2011 REPRESENTATIVE: Gabrielle Higbie, Event Manager LOCATION: Riverwalk at Edwards, Edwards STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERN: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant, a non - profit organization has requested a permit for a beer garden at the Riverwalk Arts and Music Festival being held in the Riverwalk at Edwards. The beer garden will be located on 2 Street in Riverwalk. The street will be fenced at both ends and ID's will be checked as people enter the area. Wristbands will be placed on those 21 years of age and older. This is a community event and will be open to all ages. Local restaurants will be providing food. Citadel Security will provide security on July 9 and Riverwalk Masters Association will assist with parking and directing traffic if needed. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on June 17, 2011, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests were filed in the Clerk and Recorder's Office. 5 06/28/2011 4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan and will provide proof of server training for anyone serving, selling, or dispensing alcohol before issuance of the permit. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. The requests were presented jointly as they involved the same event. Gabrie Higbie and Erica Mosness were present. Ms. Higbie spoke about KZYR's experience putting on events similar to this. This is the first time they have applied for a permit in unincorporated Eagle County however, not their first event. E -town would be providing the staff for the beer garden and all their staff was TIPS trained. The event would be held in conjunction with the Thunderbird Arts Festival. Commissioner Fisher asked about arm banding. Ms. Higbie stated that there would be two entrances and exits, staff would be checking IDs and banding everyone of drinking age. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for the Vail Performing Arts Academy's beer garden located at the Riverwalk in Edwards on July 9, 2011, from 11:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Fisher secondeded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: The Public Education Foundation of Eagle County REQUEST: Special Event Permit EVENT: The Riverwalk Arts and Music Festival DATE: Saturday, July 9, 2011 REPRESENTATIVE: Erica Mosness and Gabrielle Higbie, Event Manager(s) LOCATION: Riverwalk at Edwards, Edwards STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERN: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant, a non - profit organization has requested a permit for a wine tasting garden at the Riverwalk Arts and Music Festival being held at the Riverwalk at Edwards. This is a community event open to all ages. Local restaurants will be providing food. Citadel Security will be providing security on July 9 and Riverwalk Masters Association will assist with parking and directing traffic. The wine tasting garden will be located behind the Emerald and Opal Buildings. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on June 17, 2011, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests were filed in the Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan and will provide proof of server training for anyone serving, selling, or dispensing alcohol before issuance of the permit. DISCUSSION: 6 06/28/2011 Ms. Mosness stated that all the proceeds would go to Wild West Days for the elementary schools of Eagle County. Commissioner Runyon and Commissioner Fisher encouraged responsible recycle procedures. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for the Public Education Foundation's wine tasting garden located in the designated area within the Riverwalk at Edwards on July 9, 2011, from 11:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Runyon secondeded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Vail Valley Charitable Fund, Inc. REQUEST: Special Event Permit EVENT: Livin' it up for Lucas DATE: Sunday, July 24, 2011 REPRESENTATIVE: Karen Simon, Event Manager LOCATION: Eagle -Vail Pavilion, 538 Eagle Rd. — Eagle Vail STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERN: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant, a non - profit organization has requested a permit for a fundraising event being held at the Eagle -Vail Pavilion on Sunday July 24, 2011 from 4 p.m. to 9 p.m. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on June 17, 2011, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests were filed in the Clerk and Recorder's Office. 4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan and will provide proof of server training for anyone serving, selling, or dispensing alcohol before issuance of the permit. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented this request. She introduced Karen Simon and stated that staff had no concerns with the request. Ms. Simon spoke about the fundraiser and the family that would benefit from the event. The event would include a BBQ, silent auction, and live music. The cover charge would include a couple drink tickets for either beer or wine. Commissioner Fisher asked if there would be a cash bar. Ms. Simon stated that one could make a donation and receive an additional drink if supplies lasted. She didn't expect there to be an overabundance of alcohol. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit for the Vail Valley Charitable Fund event being held at the Eagle -Vail Pavilion on July 24, 2011, from 4:00 to 8:00 p.m. Commissioner Runyon secondeded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 7 06/28/2011 Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re- convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Fisher secondeded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2011 -068 in the Matter of Revising Commissioner Districts Diane Mauriello, Attorney's Office and Amy Keeley, GIS Commissioner Runyon believed it was important to note that the puzzle pieces were created by the US census bureau block boundaries. This revision would only affect the commissioner districts. Ms. Mauriello stated that the board would be adopting the resolution that would establish the commissioner district boundaries for the coming years and future elections. The boundaries were based on population. There were only minor modifications being made. The hearing required by stated statutes was held on May 17, 2011. Commissioner Runyon noted that there were no requirements that the district shapes needed to be the same. There would always need to be a third commissioner that lived a distance from the other two. He believed that this was a much better division. Commissioner Stavney stated that neither the board nor staff had received comments regarding the revision. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the resolution in the Matter of Revising Commissioner Districts. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files Resolution 2011 -073 LUR -3171 Medical Marijuana Industry Regulations Bob Narracci, Planning NOTE: Tabled from 05/31/11 ACTION: To amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to establish new and amended regulations to govern all land use aspects of the Medical Marijuana Industry. LOCATION: The proposed land use regulation amendments, if approved, will be applicable to all unincorporated lands within Eagle County, which are zoned `Commercial - General' or 'Commercial-Limited'. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: • In 2000, Colorado Voters approved a constitutional amendment to allow the use of medical marijuana as an alternative to treat debilitating illness. 8 06/28/2011 • In 2009, Eagle County began to experience acute interest by the medical marijuana industry to establish operations locally. At that time Eagle County's Land Use Regulations did not address the medical marijuana industry. • On September 8, 2009, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Temporary Regulations to control the locations of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in Eagle County. In November 2009, the Board adopted Temporary Regulations to control Cultivation of Medical Marijuana. • New permanent Medical Marijuana Dispensary Regulations were adopted and implemented on February 23, 2010. • In June 2010, the Colorado State Legislature passed HB10 -1284 known as the Colorado Medical Marijuana Code. • In June 2010, the Board of County Commissioners adopted more restrictive Temporary Regulations to control Cultivation and Production of Medical Marijuana which were in effect until December 8, 2010. • On November 2, 2010 a majority of the voters in Eagle County confirmed that a properly regulated medical marijuana industry should be allowed to operate in unincorporated Eagle County. • On December 14, 2010 the Board of County Commissioners conducted a public work session to be briefed on where Eagle County currently stands regarding regulatory controls for the medical marijuana industry. The Board determined, based upon local voter approval that the medical marijuana industry should be allowed to continue operating within specified areas of unincorporated Eagle County. • During the December 14, 2010 work session, the Board established policy direction for staff moving forward with the intent of making appropriate commercially zoned areas in unincorporated Eagle County accessible to accommodate the medical marijuana industry. This is to be accomplished by: 1) Reducing the minimum separation distance between medical marijuana facilities and sensitive dissimilar uses; 2) Eliminating several of the previously specified dissimilar uses, and; 3) Eliminating the Rural Center and Industrial zone districts focusing all medical marijuana industry activities within the Commercial General and Commercial Limited zone districts. • Statewide, all preexisting medical marijuana dispensaries, cultivation operations and production of medical marijuana infused food products must become properly licensed through the State of Colorado by July 1, 2012. In order to become properly licensed at the state level, these types of businesses must first become properly permitted and licensed at the local level. Four such establishments are already legally in operation; two in Edwards and two in Eagle -Vail. All are legal non - conforming in terms of zoning which means that they cannot expand or introduce new aspects of the medical marijuana industry. None of the four existing dispensaries are located in areas consistent with the county's current regulations; which in the future will conflict with the ability of the Medical Marijuana Licensing Board to grant approval in their current locations. • On April 26, 2011 the Attorney General of Colorado issued a letter indicating that while the Department of Justice will not focus its limited resources on seriously ill individuals who use marijuana as part of a medically recommended treatment regimen in compliance with state law, it does maintain its full authority to vigorously enforce federal law against individuals and organizations that participate in unlawful manufacturing and distribution activity involving marijuana, even if such activities are permitted under state law. Of great concern is the fact that the US Attorneys do not consider state employees who conduct activities under state medical marijuana laws to be immune from liability under federal law. • In light of this April 26, 2011 correspondence, and in consultation with the County Attorney's Office, it has been determined that the initially proposed Limited Review process does not accomplish anything for Eagle County other than tracking the number and locations of medical marijuana related businesses. This same information will be achieved via the state mandated licensing process which Eagle County must create and implement. It is being recommended that the county zoning review be limited and these uses be a use -by -right in the Commercial General and Commercial Limited zone districts incorporating appropriate buffer and zoning protections. • Due to the fact that the Board of County Commissioners has opted to not ban the medical marijuana industry; this land use regulation amendment, as required by state statute, is intended to provide a zoning framework for where medical marijuana businesses may locate subject to operational criteria. This proposal is now being amended to allow medical marijuana businesses as uses -by -right in the Commercial General and Commercial Limited zone districts only. 9 06/28/2011 • Also proposed at this time is an additional regulatory standard that no commercial medical marijuana facility shall exceed 2,000 square feet in area for retail operations or 4,500 square feet to accommodate cultivation and processing operations for a combined maximum total of 6,500 square feet. PROPOSED DRAFT REGULATIONS: SECTION 2 -110. DEFINITIONS The following words shall have the following meanings when used in these Regulations. MEDICAL MARIJUANA means marijuana that is grown and sold pursuant to all applicable provisions of the State of Colorado and for a purpose authorized by Section 14 of Article XVIII of the State Constitution. (orig. XX/XX/XXXX) MEDICAL MARIJUANA CENTER means a person licensed pursuant to all applicable provisions of these land use regulations and the State of Colorado to operate a business that sells medical marijuana to registered patients or primary caregivers as defined in Section 14 of Article XVIII of the State Constitution, but is not a primary caregiver. (orig. XX/XX/XXXX) MEDICAL MARIJUANA INFUSED PRODUCT means a product infused with medical marijuana that is intended for use or consumption other than by smoking including but not limited to edible products, ointments and tinctures. These products, when manufactured or sold by a properly permitted, licensed medical marijuana center or a medical marijuana- infused product manufacturer, shall not be considered a food or drug for the purposes of the Colorado Food and Drug Act, Part 4 of Article 5 of Title 25, C.RS. (orig. XX/XX/XXXX) MEDICAL MARIJUANA INFUSED PRODUCTS MANUFACTURER means a person who is properly permitted by Eagle County and the State of Colorado to operate medical marijuana related manufacturing business. (orig. XX/XX/XXXX) MEDICAL MARIJUANA BUSINESSES means any business relating to medical marijuana cultivation, manufacturing of medical marijuana- infused products and medical marijuana centers. (orig. XX/XX/XXXk9 MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENT means a person who has a debilitating medical condition that was previously diagnosed by a physician and has properly obtained a registry card from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment prior to engaging in the medical use of marijuana, or as this term may be defined by the State of Colorado. (orig. XX/XX/XXX)Q MEDICAL MARIJUANA PRIMARY CARE - GIVER means a person, other than the patient and the patient's physician, who is eighteen years of age or older and has significant responsibility for managing the well -being of a patient who has a debilitating medical condition and who has obtained a registry card from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment prior to engaging in the distribution of medical marijuana, or as this term may be defined by the State of Colorado. (orig. XX/XX/XXXX) PERSON means a natural person, partnership, association, company, corporation, limited liability company, or organization, or a manager, agent, owner, director, servant, officer, or employee thereof (orig. XX/XX/X PREMISES means a distinct and definite location, which may include a building a part of a building, a room, or any other definite contiguous area. (orig. XX/XX/XXXX) SCHOOL means a public or private preschool or a public or private elementary, middle, junior high, or high school. (orig. XX/XX/XXXJ9 SECTION 3 - 320. COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS USE SCHEDULE 10 06/28/2011 Table 3 -320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule ", categorizes the uses that are applicable to the County's commercial and industrial zone districts. A. Symbols. Table 3 -320 utilizes the same symbols as are described in Section 3 -300, Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule. B. Uses Not Listed. Uses that are not listed in Table 3 -320 shall be considered to be uses that are not allowed, unless one of the following occurs: 1. Regulations Amended. An amendment to these Land Use Regulations is adopted, pursuant to Section 5 -230, Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or the Official Zone District Map, that lists the use in the table and indicates in which zone districts the use is a use by right, allowed by limited review, or allowed by special review and in which zone districts it is not allowed. 2. Determination of Similar Use. The Community Development Director determines, pursuant to Section 5 -220, Interpretations, that the proposed use is sufficiently similar to a use listed in Table 3 -320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule ". A use that is determined to be similar to a listed use shall be subject to the same standards as the use to which it was determined to be similar. TABLE 3.320 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS USE SCHEDULE Uses: R= Use By Right; L= Allowed by Limited Review; C /L' ° C /G' = h ItC Standards S = Allowed by ySpecial Review; N =Not Allowed Medical or Dental Clinic, including acupuncture R R N R Medical Marijuana Businesses Dispensary &L R S-L R S N S N Sec. 3 -330.I Mortuary R R N R Nightclub, Bar or Tavern L L R L Office, Business or Professional R R N R Personal Adornment /Tattoo Parlor R R N R Pharmacy R R N R Photography Studio R R N R Print Shop or Publishing R R NR Private Club R R N R Reading Room R R N R Resort Recreational Facility N N N S Restaurant R R N R Shoe Repair R R N R Studio for Conduct of Arts and Crafts R R S R Sec. 3 -330 C Tailor Shop R R N R Vehicle, Aircraft and Pleasure Boat Rental S S R S Sec. 3 -330 D Vehicle, Aircraft and Pleasure Boat Sales, Storage, Service or Repair N S R N 11 06/28/2011 TABLE 3-320 =,x COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICTS USE SCHEDULE Uses: R= Use By Right; L= Allowed by Limited Review; C/L C /G I RC Standards S = Allowed by Special Review; N = Not Allowed Veterinary Hospital S S S S Industrial, Service - Commercial and Wholesale Uses Assembly, which does not include any fabrication of parts R R R R Auto Wrecking N N S N Commercial Laundry or Dry Cleaning Plant S R R N Compost Facility N N S N Construction and Demolition Debris Facility N S S S Contractor Storage Yard N S R S Distribution Center S S R S Extraction and Processing of gravel, minerals, rocks, sand or other earth products N N S N (am 12/17/02) (am 09/11/07) (am 02/23/2010) (am XX/XXIXXXX) SECTION 3 -330. REVIEW STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PARTICULAR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES Certain uses are important to the County's character and functions, but may not be appropriate in all circumstances within a particular zone district. Such uses cannot be judged solely by standards common to all uses in the zone district or by the standards applicable to all uses that are allowed by review. They also require individualized standards to review their location, site plan, operating characteristics, intensity and similar factors. Those uses in the County's commercial or industrial zone districts that require such additional standards are identified in the "Standards" column of Table 3 -320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule ". The standards for each of these uses are established herein. The definitions of these uses are found in Section 2- 110, Definitions. The following uses are addressed in this section: A. Drive -in Facility B. Garden and Plant Materials Store C. Studio for Arts and Crafts D. Vehicle, Aircraft and Pleasure Boat Rental E. Manufacture, Assembly or Preparation of Articles or Merchandise from Previously Prepared Materials F. Manufacture, Compounding, Processing, Packaging or Treatment of Products G. Dwelling Units H. Adult Entertainment Use I. Medical Marijuana Businesses Dispenses A. through H — No Change. Medical Marijuana Businesses Dispensaries: (orig. 2/23/2010) (am XX/XX/XXXX) I. 1. Location. Medical Marijuana Businesses Dispensaries shall meet the following location requirements at time of their establishment: a. Medical Marijuana Businesses Dispensafies-are prohibited from locating within 308 200 feet of: 12 06/28/2011 (1) Any residence; excluding residential units that are located within mixed -use commercial /residential developments, (2) Any church or religious institution; (3) Any drug or alcohol rehabilitation facility; (4) Any public community center or publicly owned or maintained building open for use to the general public; (5) Any public school or private school; (6) Any public park or playground; or (7) Any licensed child care facility. (9) Any Retirement Home (10) Any Elderly Care Facility i. The 300 200 foot separation is measured in a direct line between the closest point of the building or unit, in the case of multi- tenant commercial or industrial buildings, within which the Medical Marijuana Business Dispensar is located, and the closest point on the lot or parcel of land upon which any of the above itemized uses are located. ii. Exception €rem the 500 foot separation - delineated in the previous paragraph may bc considered if the Medical Marijuana Dispensary is located within a Medical Center or Medical Clinic. For the - - • - . - --- - -- physicians. For purposes of these regulations, physician shall bc defined as it is may in the future be adopted or amended. Thcrc arc no limitations-en-the-number . le .. :. . (1) Any rcsidcncc; (2) Any church or religious institution; (3) Any drug or alcohol rehabilitation facility; general public; (5-)--Any-public school or private school; (6)---Any-public park or playground; or (8) Any Hotel, Motel or Lodge (9) Any Rctircmcnt Homo (10) Any Elderly Care Facility 13 06/28/2011 f . •.: .:, e' . -• - -.. • •. . _: -, :: • temporary structure. g. Medical Marijuana Businesses Dispenses shall not be allowed as a home occupation or home business as defined within Chapter 2, Article 2, Definitions of these Land Use Regulations. .. ! . -. ... -.. -. - _ • -•" - . "•• -. .. .. . ... •1 .: - - . . . _ - - .. . . . .. .., Colorado. 2. Requirements. All Medical Marijuana Businesses dispensary-faeilities dispensary-facilities shall meet the following requirements at all times: a) Have an active, up to date State of Colorado sales tax number which shall be provided to the County. b) All products and accessories shall be stored within a completely enclosed, alarmed, and secure building at all times. Products, accessories, and associated paraphernalia shall not be visible from a public sidewalk or right -of -way c) The consumption or inhalation of marijuana on or within the premises of a Medical Marijuana Business dam` is prohibited. d) The sale or consumption of alcohol on the Medical Marijuana Business dispensary - premises is prohibited. e) The premises satisfy all applicable Building Codes and Fire Codes and are equipped with a proper ventilation system so that odors are filtered and do not materially interfere with adjoining businesses. f) All transactions, including the growing, processing and/or manufacture of Medical Marijuana products, shall occur indoors and out of view from the outside of the building. g) Exterior signage on a Medical Marijuana Business dispenses may indicate that marijuana may be in the store; however, all exterior signage shall : _ ::: _ :.: - = _ ::• : _ - -- D _._.._.. P _.,. --e-- an - ~--9` comply with Chapter 2, Article 4, Division 4 -3., Sign Regulations of these land use regulations. h) A Medical Marijuana Business dispensary lawfully operating is not rendered in violation of these 14 06/28/2011 Land Use Regulations by the subsequent location of any sensitive use as delineated in Section 3- 330.I.. La a t 3 330.T. 1 . above. i) Each Medical Marijuana Business dipensaFy shall be operated from a fixed location. No Medical Marijuana Business dispenses shall be permitted to operate from a moveable, mobile or transitory location. Deliveries of medical marijuana products may be delivered only by properly re: 'istered Primary Care - givers to homebound patients as that term is defined by the State of Colon 4o and subject to all local and State licensing requirements for such home deliveries. j) A Medical Marijuana Business dispensary shall not open earlier than 9:00 a.m. and shall close no later than 7:00 p.m. the same day. A Medical Marijuana Business dispensary may be open seven days a week. k) There shall be posted in a conspicuous location in each Medical Marijuana Business dispensary a legible sign containing the following warnings: (1) A warning that the diversion of marijuana for non - medical purposes is a violation of state law; (2) A warning that the use of medical marijuana may impair a person's ability to drive a motor vehicle or operate machinery, and that it is illegal under state law to drive a motor vehicle or to operate machinery when under the influence or impaired by marijuana; (3) A warning that loitering in or around the Medical Marijuana Business dispel is prohibited by state law; and (4) A warning that possession and distribution of marijuana is a violation of federal law. 1) Prior to operating, each Medical Marijuana Business shall obtain and comply with terms ()fall applicable local and State licensing. m) Commercial cultivation and production of medical marijuana is expressly prohibited as a ,taome occupation or home business as defined within Chapter 2, Article 2, Definitions of these Land Use Regulations. n) For the purposes of these land use regulations, the maximum amount of medical marijuana that may be cultivated and produced in any residence, at any point in time, is two ounces of a usable form of marijuana, and no more than six marijuana plants, with three or fewer being mature, flowering plants that are producing a usable form of marijuana, regardless of the number of registered Medical Marijuana Patients inhabiting the residence. All other residential growing is prohibited. o) For the purposes of this section of the land use regulations, residence shall be defined as the entire parcel of land or lot inclusive of any accessory dwelling units, accessory buildings, agricultural buildings, and garages as defined within Chapter 2, Article 2, Definitions of these Land (1 Regulations, which are held in single ownership with the primary residence. p) No commercial medical marijuana facility shall exceed 2,000 square feet in area for retail' operations or 4,500 square feet to accommodate cultivation and processing operations for a combined maximum total of 6,500 square feet. q) Medical Marijuana Businesses are prohibited from locating inside any Planned Unit Development unless expressly allowed within the Planned Unit Development. 3. Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of this regulation or the application thereof to any person or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of these regulations which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this regulation are declared to be severable. B. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: 15 06/28/2011 Eagle County Planning Commission: At the public hearing conducted on May 18, 2011, the Eagle County Planning Commission asked many questions about how the proposed separation of 200 feet was derived and why churches and religious institutions, hotels, motels and lodges are proposed for elimination from the separation criteria. Also questioned is the reasoning for removing the Industrial and Rural Center zone districts from the list of possible zone districts. Consideration was also given to whether or not theft is a problem with dispensaries. During deliberations, the ECPC considered recommending a minimum distance between dispensaries and opted against it. Concern for making medical marijuana businesses uses -by -right was expressed and eliminating Limited Review or Special Use Review was questioned by some. It was also expressed that the proposed number and amount of marijuana plants and marijuana product that may be grown in a residence proposed by staff is appropriate; although an increase up to 20 plants per residence may be acceptable. Ultimately the ECPC voted 6:1 recommending approval of the medical marijuana business regulations as presented by staff. The one dissenting Planning Commissioner stated that 56% of the voters in Eagle County does not constitute a mandate and believes that the people who voted do not realize that medical marijuana businesses could wind up next to their churches or closer to their homes. They recommend that the Special Use Permit process remain in place and that the 500 foot separation criterion be maintained. Further, 750 feet between medical marijuana businesses should be maintained and 6 to 20 plants per residence. Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission: At the public hearing conducted on May 19, 2011, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously approved the proposed regulations with the following conditions: 1) Continue to require Special Use Permit Review. 2) Maintain a 500 foot separation from schools only in El Jebel 3) Limit the size of medical marijuana businesses to 1000 square feet for the retail component and 4,500 square feet for the growing and production functions. 4) Maintain the amount of marijuana that may be grown in a residence to that proposed by staff. It must be noted that the conditions of approval recommended by the RFVRPC would necessitate to separate sets of regulations; one for the Eagle Valley and another for the Roaring Fork Valley El Jebel vicinity. It is also possible that the Board of County Commissioners can specify that no medical marijuana businesses are allowed in the El Jebel vicinity of Eagle County. Lastly, the Board could specify a county- wide requirement that a 500 foot separation be maintained from schools; excluding situations where Interstate -70 will provide a physical buffer and barrier between medical marijuana businesses and schools. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5 -230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official Zone District Map Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section 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, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not 16 06/28/2011 intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. Standards: Section 5 - 230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. There are no specific standards directly applicable for changing the text of the Land Use Regulations. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals, the proposed amendments have been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all municipalities within Eagle County; Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Public notice has been given; Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5 230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of Chapter 2, Article 2 and. Chapter 2, Article 5 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes has been provided (please see attached) 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.1] 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 General Development Policies a, c, e, f, g, h, i and k Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies b, c, d, e, 1, h, j, m and o Section 3.4 Housing Policies a, d, e, g and n Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a, c, g, i j, k, m and o Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, t g, h and i Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a, c, e and g Section 3.9 Environmental Quality Policies a, c and d Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy a Section 4 Adopted Area Community Plans 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 Eagle River Watershed Plan Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan Eagle County Trails Plan (Roaring Fork) 17 06/28/2011 Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan Eagle County Airport Sub -Area Master Plan Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is not applicable. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5- 230.D.2] Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. The issue of compatibility does not directly pertain to this regulatory amendment proposal. The resulting regulation; however will ensure compatibility between dissimilar land uses. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Public Benefit: [Section 5- 230.D.3] Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi - modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture /sensitive lands. The proposed amendments will provide a public benefit by protecting both urban and non -urban development; conserving the value of property and encouraging the most appropriate use of land. The Regulations are further intended to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by regulating the location of activities and use of land on the basis of the impact thereof on the community or surrounding areas; and otherwise planning for and regulating the use of land so as to provide planned and orderly use of land and protection of the environment in a manner consistent with constitutional rights. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5- 230.D.4] Does 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, necessitating the proposed regulatory amendment due to a sudden peaked interest in commercial cultivation and production of Medical Marijuana in the unincorporated lands of Eagle County. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS 18 06/28/2011 X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5- 230.D.5] Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? This amendment will not result in the need for new infrastructure. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE C. REFERRAL RESPONSES: • Eagle County Attorney's Office — The language set forth in the draft proposed regulatory language has been thoroughly vetted, reviewed and edited by the County's Attorney's Office. • Town of Basalt In the attached letter dated April 19, 2011, the Town offers the following comments: 1) The Town supported Eagle County's effort to regulate medical marijuana growing and dispensing in unincorporated Eagle County in 2010 to ensure that medical marijuana is manufactured, sold, and used in a manner that is safe, consistent with the intent of the regulations adopted by the State of Colorado, and that has minimal impacts. 2) The Town is concerned that the proposed amendments will significantly lessen the restrictions on medical marijuana cultivating and dispensing and encourage the development of more medical marijuana dispensing facilities in unincorporated areas around West Basalt and El Jebel. Specifically, the Town does not support reducing the distance from a public facility, public park, residential unit, licensed childcare facility, or school in which a medical marijuana business is prohibited. The Town would also recommend that Eagle County add municipal boundaries to the list of locations from which a medical marijuana business has to keep a certain distance. 3) The Town also supports maintaining Eagle County's regulations related to encouraging the dispensing of medical marijuana to occur in a medical center since medical marijuana was allowed at the state level on the basis that it was going to be used for legitimate medical purposes. The Town sees no better way for medical marijuana to be dispensed only for its intended purpose than to require the dispensing to occur in a medical center. As you are aware, the Town adopted regulations (attached) requiring that medical marijuana dispensaries only be located within a medical center that provides multiple professional health and medical services. In evaluating the effectiveness and appropriateness of the Town's regulations and Eagle County's initial regulations, the Town Planning and Zoning Commissioner indicated to Town Staff that they were happy with the approach that was taken. The Town is concerned that Eagle County' proposed loosening of the regulations might undermine the effectiveness of the regulations in terms of relegating medical marijuana use to the medical purpose for which it is intended under the state regulations. 4) The Town recommends that Eagle County consider amending the proposed language in Section 3- 330(2)(p) to require that medical marijuana businesses only be permitted in developments requiring approval through the Special Use process (such as mixed use developments) if they are expressly allowed through the special review approval similar to the proposed language related to medical marijuana businesses in PUD's. 5) The Town recommends that Eagle County not change the approval process for a Medical Marijuana Business from a Special Review to a Limited Review in the C/L and C/G Zone Districts. Even though the Town Planning Staff finds the Eagle County Planning Manager to be very thorough and competent, the Town feels that the Special Use Review process with a full public 19 06/28/2011 notice provides for a more effective review process by which to address issues related to proposed Medical Marijuana Businesses. 6) The Town supports the proposed amendment that would limit the number of medical marijuana plants and product that could be produced in any one residence. Additionally, the Town supports the proposed amendment that would require all medical marijuana businesses to meet all applicable building and fire codes. • Town of Vail — The Town has no significant input with regard to the specific proposal but questions the impact of reducing the distance requirement from 500 feet to 200 feet. Does this significantly increase the number of locations where these businesses can locate? Why the significant reduction? Currently, Vail leadership is ardent in prohibiting marijuana sales in Vail. We have come across some grow operations which have included several building code violations and in some cases significant hazards have been created through some creative electrical work. • RE - School District — Shannon Pelland, Assistant Superintendent for RE -1 School District has expressed concern for the reduction in separation from public schools and suggests that the county adhere to the 1000 foot separation from schools specified by the State of Colorado. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies: • Eagle County: Airport, Animal Services, Assessors, ECO Trails, ECO Transit, Engineering, Environmental Health, Housing, Road and Bridge, RE -50J School District, Sheriff's Office, Surveyor, Weed and Pest, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Historical Society • Town of Avon, Town of Eagle, Town of Minturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail • Braun Associates, Inc., Design Workshop, Isom and Associates, Knight Planning Services, Land Studio, Otak, Sid Fox and Co., • Alpine Engineering Arroyo Engineering, Benchmark Engineering, CTL Thompson, Gamba & Associates, High Country Engineering HP Geotech, Intermountain Engineering, Peak Land Consultants, Resource Engineering, Inc., Schmeuser Gordon Meyer, Sopris Engineering, Archibeque Land Consulting, Backlund Land Surveys, Bookcliff Surveying, Eagle Valley Surveying, Eldridge Land Surveying, Gore Range Surveying, John Curran, J&K, Leland Lechner, Lines in Space, Marcin Engineering, River City Surveys, Starbuck Surveying. • State of Colorado: CDOT, Department of Local Affairs, Division of Minerals and Geology, Division of Water Resources, Forest Service, Geological Survey, Water Conservation Board, Historical Society, . • Federal: Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation Service • U.S. Army Corp of Engineers • U.S. Forest Service • Fire Protection Districts: WECAD, Eagle County Health Service District, Basalt & Rural FPD, Gypsum FPD, Greater Eagle FPD, Eagle River FPD, • Special Districts: All • Mid Valley Trails Committee • Home Builder's Association • American Institute of Architects • Cattleman's Association • All Registered Home Owner's Associations and Design Review Boards Letter from Concerned Citizen: Please refer to the attached email of opposition from Buddy and Bonnie Simms dated December 15, 2010. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve this ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT 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 20 06/28/2011 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 this ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT 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). 3. Table this ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve this ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT 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: Mr. Narracci stated that the board provided some direction at the last hearing. He provided an overview of the prior meeting on May 31. Amendments had been made to the regulations per the board's direction and were being presented as an addendum to a resolution. If the board approved the resolution the changes would become effective as of July 1, 2011. Commissioner Stavney believed the county was now meeting the voters' direction. Mr. Narracci stated that he had received a handful of letters of opposition and some in support. Mr. Treu stated that it was the most regulated regulation in the state. The county was in the lead and other counties had followed suit. This was a zoning amendment. The cleanup items from the last discussion addressed sensitive uses, caregiver language, home grow operations, and boundaries. Commissioner Runyon believed that the voters had the opportunity to vote on the question. He apologized to those who did not support the use. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none. John Gursco asked about the 200 ft. separation and how this would be measured. Commissioner Stavney stated that the state allowed 0 -1000 ft. of separation. Mr. Treu stated that the measurement would be taken from the building to the property line. Commissioner Fisher believed that times were changing. She believed the voters made the decision and the board was trying to respond appropriately and conservatively. She encouraged those in opposition to understand that for some people this was a valuable service. Commissioner Stavney was comfortable the changes and with the new boundaries. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the file number LUR -3171 Medical Marijuana Industry Regulations/Resolution 2011 -073. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. G - 8313 Colorado River Road / 3 Island Bridle Greg Schroeder, Engineering ACTION: The purpose of this Vacation of public Right -of -Way is for a realignment of Colorado River Road. LOCATION: Approximately 9 miles north of Dotsero on Colorado River Road, directly west of the first Colorado River bridge (the "3 island" bridge) 21 06/28/2011 TITLE: 8313 Colorado River Road / 3 Island Bridge Road Vacation FILE NO.: G -3167; Public Way Vacation LOCATION: Approximately 9 miles north of Dotsero on Colorado River Road, directly west of the first Colorado River Bridge (the "3 island" bridge) OWNERS: Eagle County APPLICANT: Eagle County REPRESENTATIVE: Rick Ullom, Eagle County Facilities Management STAFF CONTACT: Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 5 -2200 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation and in accordance with the Colorado Revised Statutes 43 -2 -301, Eagle County is seeking to vacate a portion of Colorado River Road right of way. Eagle County constructed a new bridge immediately south the existing bridge located 9 miles north of I -70 on County Road 301, Colorado River Road. To accommodate the new approach to the west side of the bridge Eagle County acquired right -of -way from property owner Mike Luark by an agreement to grant road right -of way easement and vacate unnecessary road right -of way. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: ti; North• Private / Platted & Resource / - - ' Unplatted PUD South: BLM & Private / Platted Resource - - East: Private / Platted & Resource - - Unplatted West: BLM / Unplatted Resource - - Existing Zoning: Resource Zone District Proposed Zoning: N/A Current Development: N/A Site Conditions: ` Road Right -of -Way per Easement Agreement and ROW Exhibits Total Land Area Acres: N/A Square feet: N/A Total Open Space Acres: N/A Percentage: N/A Usable . Open Space: Acres: N/A Percentage: N/A Water: Public: N/A Private: N/A Sewer: Public: N/A Private: N/A Access: North from Dotsero I -70 Interchange approximately 9 miles C. CHRONOLOGY: 2009 — Agreement entered into between County and Mike Luark to grant Road Right -of -Way Easement and vacate unnecessary Road Right of Way. 22 06/28/2011 2009 -2010 — 3 Island Bridge Constructed 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5 -2200 Public Way and Easement Vacations Section Purpose: Public way and easement vacations accomplished pursuant to this Section shall be in compliance with and subject to C.R.S. 43 -2 -301, et. seq. Standards: 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, not to be in violation of law, and to be in compliance with these Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan. Standard: The vacation shall be demonstrated to be in the general interest of the public's health, safety, and welfare, not to be in violation of law, and to be in compliance with these Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and shall comply with the following: 1. Access to a Public Road No roadway shall be vacated so as to leave any 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 C.4.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 if easements satisfactory to the County Engineer and the County Attorney that assure utility access and maintenance and vehicular access to all utilities and properties whose access is affected by the vacation is agreed by the affected property owners and duly recorded in conjunction with County approval of the vacation. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Holy Cross Energy, e-mail message dated March 30, 2011 • Holy Cross (Keith Hernandez) was inquiring to see if one of their existing power poles was retained within the ROW. • Rick Ullom from Eagle County Facilities Management talked to Keith Hernandez and explained that the power pole area was preserved in the "Exception" area, with dimensions of approximately 22.17' x 23 06/28/2011 51.37' as shown on Exhibit Map of "Parcel D to Luark, Rec. No. 20092251, dated 12/03/10. Keith was fine with this explanation. (See attachment) C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Eagle County constructed a new bridge immediately south the existing bridge located 9 miles north of I -70 on County Road 301, Colorado River Road. To accommodate the new approach to the west side of the bridge Eagle County acquired right -of -way from property owner Mike Luark by an agreement (see attachment) to grant road right -of way easement and vacate unnecessary road right -of way. Per the agreement Eagle County agreed to vacate unnecessary road right -of -way upon completion of the improvements. The old right -of -way is generally depicted on the documents as parcels C and D. Eagle County proposes to retain only some rights at those areas identified on the Exhibit Maps issued 12 -3 -10 for a Maintenance Easement in Parcel C for rip rap bank maintenance on the upstream west side of the bridge abutment and an Exemption in Parcel D where an existing Holy Cross Power Pole is located. All other areas in Parcels C and D are determined by the County to be unnecessary for the operation and maintenance. If easements for access and utilities are recorded in conjunction with County approval of the vacation all findings relevant to this file can be made. D. PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING The Eagle County Planning Commission heard this file on June 15, 2011. The Commission unanimously approved the file (4 -0) with the suggested conditions. No public comments were received. E. 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, welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby safety, and we p p 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). 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 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: Mr. Higgins spoke about the project. He believed they saved $200,000 overall by doing the road alignment in house. Federal funding had been received for the bridge replacement at Burns. He hoped to begin construction on that bridge later this fall when the water level was down. 24 06/28/2011 Mr. Schroeder spoke about the file. This was a petition to vacate two portions of the Colorado River Road right of way and acquire two new portions. This was memorialized with an agreement with the landowner. The bridge was approximately 9 miles north of Dotsero on Colorado River Road. He provided a site photo. He read the staff finding as presented in the staff report. Commissioner Stavney complimented staff for accomplishing a prudent deal. Chairman Stavney opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Chairman Fisher thanked staff and the Luark and Scofield family for their partnership and being community partners. Chairman Fisher moved to approve the file G -3167; Public Way Vacation, 8313 Colorado River Road / 3 Island Bridge Road Vacation with the suggested conditions. 1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. The vacations will not be in effect until Quit Claim Deeds for the vacated right -of -way are recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 3. The vacations will not be in effect until the 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. AFP - 3260 Arrowhead at Vail Filing No. 20, Lot 34 Scot Hunn, Planning ACTION: The purpose of this amended final plat is to create a restrictive building envelope for future improvements on Lot 34, and specifically to adjust setbacks to allow for the construction of LOCATION: 181 Windermere Circle, Edwards Area TITLE: Amended Final Plat — Arrowhead at Vail Filing No. 20, Lot 34 FILE NO. /PROCESS: AFP- 3260 / Amended Final Plat OWNERS: Arrowhead Escape, LLC. APPLICANT: Same REPRESENTATIVE: Christopher Burner, Architect 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The intent of this application is to create a restrictive building envelope for Lot 34 to allow for the addition of a subterranean parking garage, wood shop and storage area, to be located underneath the driveway of this existing residence. Building envelopes were never platted in Filing No. 20, nor were setbacks established on the final plat. This situation is typical for the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. However, the PUD Guide for Arrowhead at Vail provides the following direction for lots within Filing No. 20: 25 06/28/2011 "For Eagle County review, 20 feet from edge of Arrowhead Drive road right of way, and as sufficient to accommodate utilities, existing easements, drainage, access, fire code regulations, and flood plain of live streams." Additionally, documents related to design guidelines (established via protective covenants and administered by the Arrowhead at Vail Home Owners Association) do provide illustrative "Site Analyses" for each filing, as well as "Lot Diagrams" for most lots in Arrowhead; the diagrams show approximate (not surveyed) locations of setbacks, or building envelope lines (please see attached Arrowhead at Vail Design Review Board documents, for reference). Staff is of the understanding there are no issues with utilities, access, building or fire codes along the front and side yards for the property. As well, all easements of record are located on the north (golf course) side of the subject property. However, given the nature of the proposed subterranean improvements, the proposed amendment to create a building envelope, with limits on the top elevation of any underground improvements, has been requested (and therefore conceptually endorsed) by the Arrowhead at Vail Design Review Board. Staff has received one letter from the adjacent property owner to the east (attached) stating objection to the proposal. Staff is of the understanding that the Applicant has addressed or intends to address construction and drainage related concerns, working with the adjacent property owner. While such issues should be addressed during the hearing, attached is a written response from the Applicant's representative addressing each of the neighboring property owner's stated concerns. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Residential / Arrowhead at Vail (PUD) West: Residential / Arrowhead at Vail (PUD) North: Golf Course / Arrowhead at Vail (PUD) South: Residential / Arrowhead at Vail (PUD) Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Total Area: .504 Acres / 21,954 sq. ft. Water: Public Sewer: Public Access: Windermere Circle C. STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5 -290. G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. 26 06/28/2011 D. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Proposed Amended Final Plat 3. Arrowhead DRB "Site Analysis" document 4. Arrowhead DRB "Lot Diagram" document 5. Lot 34 Topographic Map /Site Plan 6. Lot 34 Lower Level Floor Plan 7. Lot 34 Roof Deck (main level) Floor Plan 8. Lot 34 South Elevation Drawing 9. Adjacent Property Owner Letter 10. Site Photos DISCUSSION: Mr. Hunn presented the request. He stated that building envelopes were never platted in Filing No. 20, nor were setbacks established on the final plat. This situation was typical for the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. He spoke with the Design Review Board and confirmed that they asked the applicant to create a building envelope to allow for subgrade improvements. Commissioner Runyon wondered why a building envelope needed to be created when none was previously required. Mr. Hunn stated that it was direction from the Arrowhead Design Review Board. Because the proposed improvement represented something other than a minor encroachment, they wanted to restrict any future improvements, specifically vertical improvements. He presented the site plan and existing envelope. All the improvements would be underneath the existing driveway. Chris Burner, spoke about the complexities of the project. They would take great care during the construction process. Commissioner Runyon spoke about the concerns received by staff. He asked about the damage liability. He encouraged that a letter of intent be created to cover any unintended damage. Ann Hutchenson was present on behalf of the Browns, the adjacent property owner. She stated that their main concern was that the work would be extremely close to their lot. She asked that if there was an approval today that the Brown's would have the ability to review the engineering report prior to recording. Mr. Treu stated that if the board approved the file today, it would be approved. The board did not have the authority to require the applicant to do an indemnification letter. The board could table the file. He was not comfortable making a condition of approve that allowed an adjacent landowner the ability to review engineering drawings. Mr. Burner stated that the applicant had been diligent in keeping the Browns informed. Commissioner Fisher believed it would be worthwhile to table the file for a couple weeks to allow the applicant and the Brown's to work out the issues. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the precedent this would set. He believed the file could move forward in good faith. Commissioner Runyon concurred with Commissioner Fisher's request to table the file. Commissioner Stavney did not agree with requiring that there be an agreement with all neighboring landowners and the precedent this would set with future land use applications. Chairman Fisher moved to table the file AFP -3260 Arrowhead at Vail Filing No. 20, Lot 34, until July 12, 2011. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Stavney voting against. 27 06/28/2011 Work Session with Congressman Jared Polis (recorded) Nissa Erickson, West Slope Representative Work Sessions (recorded) Open Space Funding Request Presentation: Star Route Toby Sprunk, Open Space Director Open Space Funding Request: East Lake Creek Toby Sprunk, Open Space Director Site Visit: Mount Sopris Tree Farm for Crown Mountain Park Planning Files - (Mr. Narracci presented the following files together) PDA - 3103 Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD Amendment (Crown Mountain) Bob Narracci, Planning ACTION: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Amendment is to modify the existing PUD to allow for the construction of a recreation center, associated parking additional trails, and ice rink, covered tennis courts and other improvements described in the PUD document. There is also a request to increase the size of the leased area. LOCATION: 20 Eagle County Drive, El Jebel TITLE: Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD Amendment FILE NO./PROCESS: PDA -3103 / PUD Amendment OWNER: Eagle County APPLICANT: Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Farrar, Western Slope Consulting, LLC. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This Planned Unit Development Amendment application proposes to amend the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Planned Unit Development Guide to allow construction of a regional recreation center facility, associated parking, additional pedestrian trails, an ice skating rink, covered tennis courts, and revised dimensional limitations to accommodate construction of these facilities. This PUD Amendment also includes an increase in the amount of Mount Sopris Tree Farm property leased to the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District by Eagle County (Please note that a separate lease agreement between the Crown 28 06/28/2011 Mountain Park and Recreation District Board and the Board of County Commissioners must be executed to achieve this goal). If approved, this PUD Amendment will specifically allow the following improvements upon the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property: 1) A 61,000 square foot core recreation facility building ; 2) A 14,000 square foot gymnastics /fitness recreation center addition; 3) A 10,400 square foot 6 -lane lap pool. At complete build out, the recreation center facility will total 85,400 square feet. Additionally: 4) A 40,000 square foot indoor ice rink; 5) A 36,000 square foot indoor tennis facility. The Grand Total of Proposed Square Footage in this PUD Amendment is 161,400 square feet. It must be noted that this grand total number is 10,400 square feet greater than was considered by the USFS in its attached letter dated August 17, 2010. In this letter, the USFS states that, "The future Crown Mountain Recreation Center Facility will encompass an additional 151,000+ square feet. The remaining 41,473 square feet that Eagle County intends to utilize in the future will not be affected by the future Crown Mountain Recreation Center Facility ". The 10,400 square foot difference may be attributed to the ` +' in the USFS letter. The application describes four phases. Phase I includes the core recreation center, associated utility /infrastructure, associated parking, landscaping, lighting and other improvements. Phase II includes the gymnastics /fitness recreation center addition and the lap pool addition. Phases III and IV include the indoor tennis facility and ice rink. Timing of the phased construction will be based upon project handing and customer demand. The District anticipates envisions Phase I construction to begin in the latter half of 2012 and be completed by the end of 2014. Construction in Phases II, III, and IV of the other facilities is unknown at this time and will be dependent on future funding by the voters within the District. In the event that project phasing extends into 2017, Crown Mountain will meet with the Board of County Commissioners at a noticed public hearing to receive approval for a revised phasing schedule. Development of the proposed new facilities will necessitate modification/relocation of the existing access road, parking areas, the existing dog park, the BMX track and two of the soccer fields. Also proposed is the addition of a second dog park and a community garden to the west of the proposed recreation center site. Parking for the recreation center facility at full build out will include 254 asphalt paved spaces. Parking for the indoor tennis and indoor ice rink facility will include 164 gravel surface parking spaces. B. CHRONOLOGY: 1960: The United States Forest Service acquired the 217 acre Mount Sopris Tree Nursery site. The property was privately owned and was historically flood irrigated for production of hay and pasture land. 1962: The USFS converted the hay and pasture land into production beds for various seedlings. The seedlings were shipped to forests across the nation as part of the government's reforestation plan. Also, in 1962, the USFS constructed offices, warehouses, storage buildings and a new irrigation system. 29 06/28/2011 1994: The Mount Sopris Tree Farm was jointly acquired from the United States Forest Service via U.S. House Bill 1199. 1996: Pitkin County relinquished its ownership interest to Eagle County on July 24, 1996. Pitkin County does retain approximately 6,000 square feet of potential building space to locate satellite government office facilities. 1998: The Mount Sopris Tree Farm Community Park Master Plan was prepared by the Town of Basalt providing a vision for the use of the site. 2001: The Eagle County Board of Commissioners approved the original Mount Sopris Tree Farm Planned Unit Development. This action rezoned the property from `Resource' to `PUD'. 2002: The Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District was formed and approved by the voters within the District's boundaries. 2003: Eagle County and the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District executed a memorandum of agreement that defined the authority of the parties that was not addressed in the original PUD Amendment. The agreement grants the District the authority to manage the property within a defined lease area from Eagle County and to plan for long -term development of the property. 2002- 2004 Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District took action to execute a series of tasks identified in the District's service plan and move forward with initial steps directed at establishing the park facility including a public bond issue of $5.1 million to improve the park. A need identified during an extensive public scoping process was identified to develop more detailed uses and plans for the proposed park facilities that were not included in the original 2001 PUD approval. 2004: The Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District initiated an amendment to the PUD along with a request to expand the lease area. The amendment modified the uses and the site plan based upon input from a series of public meetings with property owners within the District. 2005: The Board of County Commissioners approved the amendment to the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD. 2010: This application was received by Eagle County from the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District to amend the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD for the second time to accommodate the proposed recreation center facility and ancillary uses. C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: North: Vacant Commercial General (CG) Fitsimmons Parcel Sopris View Residential Multi- Family, Apartments North: Duplex and Single Family Residential Suburban Medium Density (RSM) Summit Vista Subdivision South: Roaring Fork River and Resource Preservation (RP) USFS associated wetlands South: Single Family Residential Rural Residential (RR) River Ranch Subdivision South: Unimproved Agricultural Resource (R) Owned by Sopris Village HOA Future ROARING FORK East: TRANSPORTATION Town of Basalt AUTHORITY BRT Site East: Single Family Residential Residential Suburban Medium Density (RSM) Sopris Village Subdivision West: Residential / USFS Resource Preservation (RP) USFS Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development Current Development: Regional Park and Eagle County Offices 30 06/28/2011 Site Co Regional Park :Total Land Area: Acres: 124.31- acres Water Public: Mid Valley Metro Private: Sewer: Public: Mid Valley Metro Private: Access Via Valley Road D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission conducted two public hearings on June 2, 2011 and June 16, 2011. During their discussions and deliberations, it was clear that a majority of the Planning Commissioners believe that recreation center facilities are consistent with the intent of a regional park. Some are concerned about the scale of the proposed facilities. Others are concerned about the siting of the facilities, the architecture and finish materials. Following is a list of stated observations, comments and concerns: • The Hwy 82 / Valley Road / El Jebel Road intersections require improvement regardless of the proposed recreation center facilities. The roundabout intersection design proposed by the applicant, or similar, is one appropriate method of correcting this problem. Correcting this problem is not solely Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District's responsibility. • The long term fix for these intersections will involve the cooperation and funding partnership of Eagle County, Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District, ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, CDOT, Town of Basalt and Pitkin County. • What is the projected cost for annual and day passes to use the recreation center facilities'? Needs to be in line with other similar facilities. • Retain the potential for a Farmers Market in the PUD. • Based upon information provided with the application, it is not possible to develop a sense of bulk and scale in close proximity to Valley Road and the pedestrian trail along Valley Road. • Will the building cast shadows across the trail and road creating ice buildup problems? • No construction of the recreation center facilities should progress absent voter funding approval. • No earth movement until voter funding approval. • Architectural renderings will help both the BoCC and the public to fully understand what they are being asked to approve. • Original intent of the park master plan still remains; although uncertainty about the appropriate scale. The original Mount Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan focuses on outdoor recreational amenities. • The RFVRPC and BoCC require future review of architecture and siting. • Conversely, Crown Mountain has earned the right to bring the proposal to a vote of its constituents and the information provided with the PUD Amendment is sufficient and does not require additional future review by the RFVRPC or BoCC. • Out of the 24 people who testified, eighteen were in favor and six opposed. • The primary recreation center facility building is appropriately sited with extensive input from the public and adequately addresses traffic, views, pedestrian and vehicular circulation. • Address night sky lighting; is it possible? • Trade parking on the east side of the of the proposed recreation facility to the west side and move the building closer to the BRT. • The original Mount Sopris Tree Farm Plan preserved large buffers between the property lines and development activities on the park property. The proposed recreation center facilities should be located interior to the park and not on the periphery. • Has future development of the Crawford property on the other side of Highway 82 been accounted for in the Traffic Analysis? 31 06/28/2011 • The intersection of JW Drive and Highway 82 is also less than optimal and this proposal will place additional traffic demand. Improvements to this intersection may be necessary as well. • Views into and across the park are probably more important from Valley Road than from Highway 82. • How many employees are anticipated? • The proposed recreation center facility site is a bit far away from the ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT. • Explore the possibility of a bike lending program at the ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Park and Ride. • Improve pedestrian cross walks in some manner; perhaps raised, striped walking platforms. • Can the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District go to a vote of its constituents without county approval of the PUD Amendment? • Some type of traffic rotary solution is necessary. • The traffic study addressed Phase I impacts adequately. • Not as concerned about the JW Drive / Highway 82 intersection because most traffic will be coming from the east. • Necessary improvements to the El Jebel Road / Highway 82 / Valley Road intersections must be accounted for with this application. • The resultant facility size is due to the fact that the facility was designed from the inside out. i.e.: gymnasiums have to be a certain size. • The design scale is acceptable. • Requested size comparison information relative to other existing recreation centers in the vicinity. (Aspen, Snowmass, Glenwood, Gypsum, etc.) • The recreation center should be scaled down and oriented internal to the park. • Canine management approach proposed by Crown Mountain is preferable to the approach proposed by the Eagle County Animal Services. • View corridor across the park from Hwy 82 will be diminished by proposed facility siting but is acceptable due to the public benefit that will arise. It is a community amenity. • Indoor winter time activities are important to many families in the area. • Facilities will provide affordable amenities for middle class community members. • The proposed facilities will create an identity for El Jebel and will provide a gathering place for seniors, teenagers and small children. • Crown Mountain has committed to paying its pro rata share of intersection design and improvements. The RFVRPC struggled with passing a motion to recommend approval of the PUD Amendment. Three motions to approve failed. In all instances, the RFVRPC could not come to agreement amongst themselves regarding staff's proposed Condition No. 9. Some of the members believe that all necessary site planning and conceptual architecture is adequate as provided with the PUD Amendment. Some believe that the RFVRPC and the BoCC should have future opportunity to review and approve a site specific development plan; and others believed that the proposed siting is appropriate but still wanted a future opportunity to review the architecture of the proposed facilities. Following the three failed motions to approve; a somewhat frustrated motion to deny was made and passed by a vote of 3:2. The two dissenting commissioners believe that the proposed facility siting is acceptable; one of the two also believes that the conceptual architectural renderings submitted with the PUD Amendment application are also acceptable and that no future review should be required and the other commissioner desired to have future review of the architectural plans. The three commissioners that voted affirmatively believe that future review of both the recreation center facility siting and the architecture are necessary. 2. STAFF REPORT B. NECESSARY FINDINGS: 32 06/28/2011 PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5 -240 Sketch Plan for PUD Section Purpose: For the Applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether the development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. 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, as is the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land uses. General agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, access, and the means of water supply and sewage disposal. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the Applicant must address if the project is to receive approval of a Preliminary Plan. Standards: Section 5- 240.F.3.e., Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch Plan application. Given its conceptual nature, standards that must be met at Preliminary Plan will likely hot be fully addressed by sketch plan material. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards will be able to be met at Preliminary Plan. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it 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 or control. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (1)] — The title to all land that is part of a PUD 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. The Applicant has demonstrated that Eagle County is the sole owner of the site of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD. A letter authorizing the Crown Mountain Park & Recreation District to submit this PUD Amendment application is on file. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5- 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 as a limited use in Table 3 -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 PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5 -240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. It was previously demonstrated when the PUD was originally approved, that all uses proposed were uses allowed in the Resource zone district via special use review. The additional proposed recreation facility uses are likewise allowed in the Resource zone district via special use permit. Resource zoning was the zone district in effect for the property at the time the PUD Plan was initially approved. This particular finding is an evaluation of land uses proposed via PUD versus land uses allowed within the underlying zone district prior to PUD approval; as such, no variances are necessary. 33 06/28/2011 The presently proposed uses of a recreation facility, indoor tennis courts and an indoor ice rink are not itemized allowable uses in the current Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (3)] — The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3 -340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for 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.3.f, 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. Prior to the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD approval the subject property was zoned `Resource'. In the Resource zone district, the minimum front yard setback is 50 feet from a collector road and 12.5 feet or one -half the height of the tallest building on the property for the side and rear yard setbacks. There are no limitations on floor area ratio or maximum lot coverage in the Resource zone district. The maximum height in the Resource zone is 35 feet. Under the existing approved Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD, the BoCC has already granted variations to allow a maximum height of 40 feet where 35 was allowed under Resource zoning. The setbacks approved in the existing PUD are greater than the minimums required by Resource zoning and, due to the maximum developable square footage cap on the subject property, a maximum lot coverage of 76,059 square feet was applied, as was a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15:1 (15 square feet of building square footage for each one square foot of land area). Proposed with this PUD Amendment are an increase in the maximum lot coverage from 76,059 square feet to 161,400 square feet and an increase in the maximum allowable building height from 40 feet to 50 feet. The revised PUD further specifies that `setbacks shall not apply to buildings located within defined building envelopes depicted on the PUD Plan. All buildings shall be located within the designated building envelopes depicted on the PUD Plan included with this submittal'. Additionally proposed are exceptions to height regulations, `Chimneys, spires, turrets, HVAC equipment and similar projections may extend above the building height a maximum of 6 feet provided, however, such features collectively do not represent more than twenty (20) percent of the total horizontal roof line'. As such, the BoCC will need to grant additional variances to account for the proposed dimensional limitation changes. By virtue of approving this PUD Amendment request, the Board will have granted the variances. It is important to note that the USFS has approved, in writing, the additional square footage necessary to accommodate the proposed recreation center facilities. The original square footage allotted to Eagle and Pitkin Counties is not affected by this recreation center facility proposal. Please refer to the attached letter from the USFS dated August 17, 2010. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: 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 PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: 34 06/28/2011 This PUD Amendment does not necessitate any Variations beyond those described above pertaining to revised dimensional limitations. 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 5- 240.F.3.e (4)] — Off - street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, 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 PUD 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, Off-Street Parking and Loading The Crown Mountain Park PUD Addendum — Response to Staff Sufficiency Review dated 3 -17 -11 (included in the overall proposal referral package) provides a detailed parking analysis which employs comparisons to several existing similar public recreation facilities located throughout Colorado. When gross facility square footages and parking ratios for these various facilities were averaged, it was determined that for the proposed phase I 61,000 square foot building a parking ratio of one space per 305 square feet is necessary and for phase II, one space for every 357 square feet is needed. Parking for the recreation center facility at full build out will include 254 asphalt paved spaces. Parking for the indoor tennis and indoor ice rink facility will include 164 gravel surface parking spaces. Per the application, "The overall parking plan for the site disperses parking across the site and attempts to not overbuild parking, while allowing adequate space for a regular high level of use. Experience shows that during high use times, people are willing to walk a reasonable distance to reach their desired destination. Parking is impacted by seasonality in that the indoor facilities experience higher use during colder and inclement weather, while outdoor facilities are the opposite. That allows a parking need tradeoff. The plan allows for phasing of the identified parking, and also allows places on site to develop additional surface level parking in the future if there proves to be a deficiency. Crown Mountain is also willing to pursue a joint use agreement for overflow parking needs for each entity ". The proposed amount of parking necessary to serve the recreation center facilities is consistent with other existing recreation center facilities throughout the state and has been adequately justified. For comparison, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations require one parking space per 300 square feet of floor area for `Public Facilities and Health Facilities'; based upon the regulatory minimum requirement of 1 parking space /300 square feet, the proposed parking ratio of 1 space per 305 square feet for phase I and one space per 357 square feet for phase II exceeds the county's minimum requirements. It must be noted that the Board of County Commissioners, as landlords of the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property, have expressed great concern regarding the substantial increase of surface parking both on the subject property and in the immediate vicinity with reference to the pending ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT Park and Ride Facility. The Board has expressed on a number of occasions their desire for the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District, ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and the County to study all possibilities for shared parking opportunities in an effort to substantively reduce the cumulative total amount of surface parking spaces necessary. The Board feels that the proposed recreation center facilities are sited too far away from the existing county building and parking lot to facilitate convenient shared parking arrangements and are likewise too far away from the future ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITYBRT Park and 35 06/28/2011 Ride to encourage synergy between the facilities, shared parking opportunities, and safe pedestrian movements. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (5)] — Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations 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. The landscape plan received with the application is consistent with the landscaping materials specifications included as part of the original Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD approval and does specify xeric grasses, plant and tree species to minimize water demands. All irrigation will come from non - potable surface irrigation and well water. All disturbed areas will be re- vegetated within 60 -days. In an effort to provide shade and mitigate the extensive paved parking lots, the landscape plan includes rows of trees between parking isles which are intended to mimic the Mount Sopris Tree Farm heritage as a USFS tree farm. The District has determined that synthetic turf ball field surfaces are inconsistent with the tree farm property, are too expensive, and all irrigation infrastructures is already in place for natural turf A majority of the overall park land area is left in natural condition eliminating irrigation demands, use of fertilizers, chemicals and regular maintenance. In the spirit of creating opportunity for and encouraging local food production, the proposal includes a community garden. The community garden is a fenced area in proximity to the proposed recreation center facility which would be leased to a local non - profit group of citizens for the purpose of growing vegetables. The specific details for how the leasing arrangements would occur have not been provided. The proposal includes two dog parks; one is an existing dog park to be relocated in the same vicinity as the existing dog park. The second is being added in response to community input and based on community use. The dog parks are actively used and their proximity to parking and other uses has proven to be a positive association. The second dog park is proposed to allow separation of large and small dogs. The dog park has become the most popular feature of the existing park and is in almost constant use. This usage is anticipated to grow over time. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5 - 240.F.3.e (6)] — The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, 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. 36 06/28/2011 Signage will be required to meet the minimum standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Each of the proposed facilities: recreation center, indoor tennis, indoor ice rink and other facilities may be signed as identified on the amended PUD Plan. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (7)] — The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities 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 and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 15 0 e A W V1 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X X X X Not Applicable /14o ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR - — Requirements ,. X Deviation/1AS Requested In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services X Yes No The Mid Valley Metropolitan District provides potable water and sewage disposal service for the subject property. Solid waste management, electric and fire protection services are likewise provided. The existing road access, Valley Road, and specifically the intersection of Valley Road, El Jebel Road and Highway 82 is already an awkward intersection alignment with less than ideal functionality. Related, and in addition to the Board of County Commissioner's concern over the substantial increase of surface parking the Board is also quite concerned that the existing intersections of East Valley Road /Valley Road, and, El Jebel Road /Highway 82 will not be able to safely and adequately handle existing vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic movement demands in addition to the demand generated by the proposed recreation center facilities and the future ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT Park and Ride. This intersection will eventually fail and once all proposed new development is constructed and operational it will become exponentially more complicated and expensive to realign and improve the intersection to safely serve long term demand. Now is the time to correct this intersection before any new substantive development and associated pedestrian and vehicular traf is impacts are introduced. To this end; staff, Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District, ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, the Town of Basalt, Pitkin County, and CDOT representatives have initiated discussions regarding El Jebel Road / Valley Road /Hwy 82 intersection realignment possibilities, including preliminary design, final design, timeline and funding opportunities for ultimate construction and installation. Details regarding, `who is responsible for the cost of engineering design' have not been determined. 37 06/28/2011 The applicant proposes that preliminary design and cost estimates be prepared for the intersection redesign and that the estimated costs be equitably shared by all entities generating traffic impacts upon the intersection (Eagle County, Town of Basalt, CDOT, Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District and CDOT) and that this determination will constitute sufficient progress toward future intersection improvement to allow the Board of Commissioners to approve this PUD Amendment application. The Engineering Department response dated April 14, 2011 brings to question many of the assumptions asserted in the applicant's traffic impact analysis. The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District in its response dated April 19, 2011 indicates that the existing access point from, via the El Jebel Road/Valley Road Intersection, the east is acceptable as one of the primary means of access. The District is requiring that an unobstructed secondary access off of Valley Road as well; the District will not accept gated or bollard emergency fire access. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (8)] — The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right -of -way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (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 logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD 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 PUD, 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 removed from the internal street network and from off - street parking areas. Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal Snow Storage Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X 38 06/28/2011 Does Not Satisfy ECLUR X X X Requirement Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirement Deviation/VIS Requested Please reference the above discussion under `Adequate Facilities' regarding access to the subject property and impacts upon the El Jebel Road / Valley Road/ Hwy 82 intersection. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (9)] — The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. When the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD was originally approved, recreational and community uses of the subject property were found to be appropriately compatible with surrounding existing and allowed land uses. Indoor recreation center facilities, ice rinks and tennis court land uses are consistent with the original intent of the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD. The proposed site location and scale of the recreation center facility, adjacent to Valley Road may create compatibility concerns with residential land uses located on the north side of Valley Road. The proposed site will also serve to obstruct views into and across the subject property from Hwy 82. It is suggested that compatibility would be improved if the recreation center facility is sited in closer proximity to the existing county office building where greater synergy between the buildings and shared parking would be realized. The area between the buildings and the future ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT could be improved as an inviting outdoor plaza to serve a variety of recreational and community events. The Board of County Commissioners has indicated that rECOECOnfiguration of the primary roundabout access point into the park and/or the existing parking lot to achieve this goal is a viable possibility. The applicant believes that the proposed building location creates the least amount of visual impact on the subject property by maintaining a larger uninterrupted area of open park than would result if the recreation center facility were to be sited closer to the existing county building, extending into what is presently improved soccer fields. Ideally, before the precise recreation center facility site could be determined, it must first be clear how the El Jebel Road/Valley Road/Hwy 82 intersection will ultimately be reconfigured. All site design, parking lot configuration, vehicular and pedestrian interconnections between on -site and off -site development could then be designed accordingly. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES 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 Map (FL UM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a 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 master plans may not necessarily remain static. 39 06/28/2011 EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN y •� FLUM E c § Designation c u�x x 3a a Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X1 X2 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 Recommendations Does not Satisfy Majority of X3 Recommendations Not Applicable X X Below are the RECOECOmmended Strategies intended to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: X1: Development • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". As discussed under `Compatibility', above, care must be taken with siting of the recreation center facility on the subject property. Siting of the indoor ice rink and tennis courts may be appropriate at the western end of the park because more of the park would remain open and uninterrupted by large structures. Grouping the indoor ice rink and tennis courts with the recreation facility also has merit resulting from shared parking and accessibility but would create an intensive node of development in the viewshed across the park from Hwy 82. Siting of the ancillary indoor facilities requires consideration. The Facilities Management Department has requested that the skate park likewise be relocated toward the west end of the park. The applicant believes that the proposed building location creates the least amount of visual impact on the subject property by maintaining a larger uninterrupted area of open park land than would result if the recreation center facility were to be sited closer to the existing county building, extending into what is presently improved soccer fields. With the recreation center facility in this area, views across the park would be compromised. Some of the correspondence received suggests that the scale of indoor recreational center facilities may be excessive. • "Work to identify and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services': This proposal endeavors to provide quality recreational facilities while preserving open space, opportunity for unique cultural events and quality service. • "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives': Staff was unable to locate demographic data in the application materials; rather, the applicant utilized a survey of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District's constituency to determine need for the proposed recreation center facility and ancillary uses. • "Promote compact, mixed - use development within or adjacent to existing community centers': This objective is not applicable; however, the proposed development is in proximity is within the El Jebel community center but is not compact. • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity': Not applicable. • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy': A healthy economy is necessary to maintain the proposed recreation center facilities. • "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher - density development': Locating appropriate scaled public facilities within a public park is question at hand. 40 06/28/2011 • "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". The Eagle County Land Use Regulation Standards are being applied to this proposal. • "Analyze development applications for conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". This proposal is consistent with the future land use map. • "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 surrounding community" As previously discussed, siting and scale of the proposed facilities within the PUD must be maximized to the benefit of the surrounding community, as well as users of the park. • "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing': Not applicable. • "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts': Siting and scale of the proposed facilities on the subject property must be appropriate to minimize /mitigate visual impacts and vehicular /pedestrian circulation impacts. X2: Housing • "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". Not applicable. • "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing': Not applicable. • "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines': Not applicable. • "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications': Not applicable. • "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". Not applicable. X3: Infrastructure and Services • "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub". As iterated above, the subject property is presently served by adequate roads and paths; however, pending development of the El Jebel ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT Park &Ride, coupled with development of the proposed recreation center facility will necessitate realignment and improved functionality of the El Jebel Road/Valley Road/Hwy 82 intersection. Road and pedestrian interconnection of the park to the ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT and other offsite are a secondary consideration. • "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development': This is the intent of the Board of County Commissioners regarding further development of the Mount Sopris Tree Farm property. • Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". At the time when the subject property requires an Amended Final Plat, a subdivision improvement agreement will be required. • "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". The Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District and ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY have been involved in recent discussions regarding transit service that would serve the park and recreation center facilities. These two entities did not collaborate while planning their respective facilities. • Encourage transit oriented development': The subject property will be in proximity to transit services; however, as presently proposed, opportunities for shared parking facilities and close, convenient pedestrian movements have not been maximized. • "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking': Not applicable. • "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure': This is a stated goal of the Board of County Commissioners regarding further development of the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property. • "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings': This will be necessary as part of the intersection redesign. • "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". Not applicable. 41 06/28/2011 • "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design" • "Promote live -work arrangements where appropriate': This is the intent of the PUD Amendment. • "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". Not applicable. • "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards': The Eagle County Land Use Regulations have been applied to the development proposal. • "Assure adequate access for emergency responders': The Basalt & Rural FPD has indicated that it requires two points of uninterrupted access. • "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". The subject property and proposed development will be served by the Basalt & Rural FPD. • "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity" Not applicable. • "Use House Bill 1041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants" A companion 1041 Permit application accompanies this PUD Amendment application. (Eagle County File No. 1041 - 3140) • "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development': This is a requirement of all new development. • "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval': Detailed analysis has occurred and the Engineering Department has questioned many of the assumptions made in the applicant's transportation analysis provided with the application. • "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". Not applicable. X4: Water Resources • "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development': The companion 1041 Permit application provides this analysis. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District is able to provide legal and physical water supply to the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property. • "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development': The companion 1041 Permit application provides this analysis. • "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". The companion 1041 Permit application provides this analysis. • "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination ". The companion 1041 Permit application provides this analysis. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District has substantial protections in place to prevent both surface and groundwater contamination. • "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible" The application does include gravel parking lots for the indoor ice rink and tennis courts and substantial landscape improvements and will introduce substantial impermeable surfaces in the form of new building structures, surface parking and associated flatwork. • "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources': The companion 1041 Permit application provides this analysis. The proposed development proposes to add up to 161,400 square feet of building coverage and a 254 space paved parking lot, plus associated flatwork for pedestrian access. All told, the amount of structural impervious area on the overall 124 -acre subject property is minimal. • "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods'. The proposal does include the use of xeric plant and tree species irrigated by non - potable water and drip systems where appropriate. • "Evaluate efficiencies of non potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas': Landscaping will be water with non - potable water. • "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". The application does not include water reuse or recycling. • "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures': The companion 1041 Permit application provides this analysis. • "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application': The companion 1041 Permit application provides this analysis. • "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts': The companion 1041 Permit application provides this analysis. 42 06/28/2011 • "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan" This is required. • "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan': Not applicable. • "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of stormwater runoff and work to identify and treat other non point sources of pollution" This is required. • "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development': A drainage report has been provided. • "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals': The companion 1041 Permit application provides this analysis. • "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". Further development of the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property will respect previously defined buffer areas of natural vegetation and the wetland/riparian area of the Roaring Fork River. • "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". Shared parking opportunities and building siting is integral to minimizing impervious surfaces. The application does not address pervious paving. X5: Wildlife Resources • "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man -made barriers to wildlife migration" All development on the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD is separated from aquatic and riparian habitats by a substantial distance. This buffering and recreational use of the site offer substantial protection to these habitats. A Wildlife Analysis Report prepared for the PUD in 2000 by West Elks Consulting identifies important plant and animal species and includes a wildlife management and enhancement program. The objectives and recommendations contained in the report are part of the existing PUD and will continue to be enforced through this PUD Amendment. The Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District are required to comply with the approved plan. • Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat': See above comment. • "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers': See above comment. • "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat': See above comment. • "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials" The CDOW did not respond to the public referral for this application. Nevertheless, CDOW's input was considered at the time of original approval of the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD. • "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments': Proposed development in proximity to existing development will continue to preserve the Roaring Fork River corridor, wetlands and riparian areas. • "Encourage high - density development within existing community centers': The park is within the El Jebel community center. • "Minimize site disturbance during construction" Site disturbance will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. • "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife': Ornamental and fruit- bearing trees are not included in the previously approved landscaping materials list. • "Require wildlife proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions': Crown Mountain has already implemented the use of wildlife -proof refuse containers and is required to provide with all subsequent development. X6: Sensitive Lands • "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". The Colorado Geological Survey response dated April 7, 2011 notes the geologic composition of the subject property and cautions that building site specific evaluation of geologic stability be performed due to the potential for sinkholes. Infiltration of water into the soils adjacent to the escarpment could cause slope instability. Soil tests have identified soil high in clay and silt; which are fine particles. Once suspended in storm water runoff, they cannot effectively be removed using standard sediment control measures like silt fence. Runoff from such soil often creates offsite water quality issues. As such, it is important that any bare soil be protected against erosion throughout the site development and construction process. 43 06/28/2011 • "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". The subject property is relatively level. • "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification': The areas proposed for development have been previously altered from natural condition. • Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment'. Please note above CGS response summary. • "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". All recommendations of the CGS have been incorporated as conditions of approval. • "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process ". Neither the Basalt Regional Historical Society nor the Colorado Historical Society identified any historic or archeological occurrences on the subject property. The cumulative visual impact of park facility development is being considered through this review process. • "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved': This determination was made when Eagle and Pitkin County's procured the subject property. X7: EnvironmentalOuality • "Assure access to multi -modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors': Multi -modal transportation options do exist and will need to be refined to accommodate safe pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular connections to the park property and interconnected with the ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT. • "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". Not applicable. • "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting ". The subject property is within the El Jebel community center. • "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established ". All site disturbance is required to be revegetated in a timely manner. • "Require periodic watering and track -out control devices at all construction site access points" This is a requirement of Grading Permit. • "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting': Motion detectors are not specified in the application; however, all necessary lighting will be energy- efficient and dark sky compliant. • "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees ". Other than sounds associated with outdoor recreation, no other undue auditory impacts are anticipated. • "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals': Other than sounds associated with outdoor recreation, no other undue auditory impacts are anticipated. • "Promote transit - oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles': The subject property is served by ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY. Siting of the recreation center facilities will need to be in convenient proximity to transit stops. • "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling ". Buildings will be designed to be energy - efficient and are required to satisfy the county's ECO Build standards. • Implement energy efficiency guidelines. Crown Mountain intends to minimize adverse environmental impacts through energy - efficient construction. • Implement energy saving techniques. The plan does not directly address this finding. X8: Future Land Use Map Desimnation The future land use map defers to the recommendations of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. . MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN Transportatio Communit Open Space El Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing n y / JebeU Frying Reservoir Heights Facilities Environment Basalt Pan 44 06/28/2011 Conformance X X Non X Conformance Mixed X Conformance Not X X X X Applicable • X1 — The Plan lists seven policies relative to the Housing Goal: 1. "Reduce residential densities or avoid development in areas that have negative environmental impacts." The proposed development avoids areas of negative environmental impacts. 2. "Facilitate the development of free market affordable housing by encouraging cluster developments (reduced land and utility costs)." Not applicable. 3. "Encourage developers to provide open space amenities that connect to a valley wide open space plan." Not applicable. 4. "Encourage agricultural land developers to cluster development on small portions of their land, leaving the majority in agricultural open space." Not applicable. 5. "Encourage future development adjacent to existing population centers and avoid leapfrog growth." This proposal satisfies this policy. 6. "Development must provide highway setbacks to preserve valley wide views (200 feet to parking and buildings)." This recommendation is satisfied. 7. "Encourage a diversity of housing and lot types and sizes " Not applicable. X2 — The Plan lists seven policies relative to the Transportation / Circulation Goal: 1. "Development should accommodate mass transportation based on a valley wide plan." The type of development proposed and its location will facilitate mass transportation ridership based on ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY's valley wide planning; however, siting of the recreation center facilities must account for convenient and safe pedestrian interconnection. 2. Developments shall incorporate bike and pedestrian systems that connect to a valley wide network, community centers and to Frying Pan recreation resources': The proposed development provides internal pedestrian walkways. 3. "Future developments must accommodate the four laning of Highway 82, establish greenbelts along the highway corridor, have limited access and be of parkway character." This policy was partially satisfied when U.S. Highway 82 was realigned and widened in the 1990's. Presently, the intersection of Hwy 82/E1 Jebel Road and Valley Road requires improvement. 4. "Use of existing collector road systems should be encouraged. Access to future development should be from existing Highway 82 intersections through the development of collector road" This development is reliant upon Valley Road, a collector road, and the existing intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and El Jebel Road. 5. "New development must accommodate improvements for existing roadway&" On -site, off -site and adjacent road improvements will be necessitated by the proposed development. 6. "Additional, secure, Park and Ride areas, which are not visible from Highway 82 should be provided as new development occurs." A ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT facility is proposed in proximity to the subject property and will be visible from Hwy 82. 7. "Development should be clustered for transit efficiency in existing transportation corridors': In 1991 when the Mid Valley Community Master Plan was first adopted, a large scale regional recreation center facility was not likely contemplated. Nevertheless, this policy can be satisfied through the development proposal. X3 — The Plan lists eight policies relative to the Community Facilities and Services Goal: 1. "Encourage community scale commercial development in traditional small town patterns and limited to community needs. Based upon the statistically valid survey conducted by Crown Mountain Park and 45 06/28/2011 Recreation District, a need for the proposed facilities was identified. Several letters of opposition and concern from governmental entities in the vicinity bring the need and/or scale of the proposal into question. 2. "Encourage the development of commercial space, office space, schools, parks and other community services in or adjacent to existing community centers". This is the intent of this application to provide development of a park and community services within an existing community center. 3. "Avoid commercial strip development along highways ". Not applicable. 4. "Encourage mixed use developments including commercial, residential and office of similar scale". Not applicable. 5. "Facilitate clean, light industrial uses in or adjacent to existing industrial zones" Not applicable. 6. "Assess development impacts on the school system and have developers provide school sites and/or compensation" Not applicable. 7. "Encourage schools and recreationalists to cooperate in the use and development of recreation facilities ". Not applicable. 8. "Encourage development to provide neighborhood recreation centers, as well as community parks and playfields ". Not applicable. X4 — The Plan lists 12 policies relative to the Open Space/Natural Environment Goal: 1. "Retain a significant portion of agricultural land to preserve valley wide views, contiguity with adjacent agriculture and flood irrigation" Not applicable. 2. "Limit development on agricultural lands and encourage development on non - irrigated lands': Not applicable. 3. "Establish a process to purchase and preserve important open space". The subject property was acquired for active and passive open space. 4. "Development should maintain existing irrigation ditches and adequate water rights for open space irrigation'. The subject property does utilize non - potable irrigation water rights. 5. "New development must maintain existing water quality ". As noted by the Colorado Geological Survey, new development on the subject property must take extra care to avoid compromising water quality during construction. 6. "Limit wood burning in the Mid Valley area': Not applicable. 7. "Development impacts on wildlife areas must be mitigated". The development will adhere to all previously identified wildlife protections and mitigation. 8. "Riparian areas, wetlands and floodplains must be preserved and enhanced". The Roaring Fork River and associated riparian and wetland areas are preserved and will not be altered by this proposal. 9. "Preserve existing right -of -ways through new developments for access to public lands". Not applicable. 10. "Platted open space must be accompanied by a maintenance plan". The subject property is maintained in accordance with previously agreed - to plans. 11. "The Roaring Fork River Council in cooperation with Eagle County, Pitkin County and the Town of Basalt must be consulted concerning all modifications to the Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork River Stabilization Plan should be used as a guide for individual land owners proposing work within the floodplain for the Roaring Fork River." Not applicable. 12. "Locate development at toe of slopes against existing vegetation" Not applicable. X5 — The Plan lists 10 policies specific to the El Jebel/Basalt Area: 1. "Expansion of community services and facilities shall be concentrated in and around El Jebel and Basalt within 500 feet of existing facilities': This proposal is to expand community facilities within the El Jebel community center but not entirely within 500 feet of existing facilities. 2. Density Pattern — lengthy narrative not quoted — High Density is defined as "4 -8 units per acre concentrated around the El Jebel and Basalt community centers within a 1/2 mile radius (ten minute walking distance) minimizing the use of automobiles and providing an efficient relationship between the highest numbers of people and the required services ". Not applicable. 3. Preservation of agricultural land and rural character. Not applicable. 4. Maintain 200 foot building and parking setback adjacent to Highway 82 This recommendation is • satisfied. 5. Visual setbacks along Emma Road and Hookspur Road. Not applicable. 6. Setbacks from Roaring Fork and Frying Pan Rivers. Not applicable. 46 06/28/2011 7. Rio Grande Trail open space and trails system. Not applicable. 8. The primary road system would be upgraded in its current basic configuration. The proposed development will necessitate improvement of the existing El Jebel Road /Valley Road/U.S. Highway 82 intersection. 9. "Highway 82 shall remain a limited access arterial of parkway configuration. Intersection spacing shall be a minimum of one mile. Bus stops would be located only at these intersections. No direct connections shall be allowed to Highway 82 except at intersections. Frontage roads adjacent to Highway 82 are discouraged': Ingress / egress to the subject property is off of Valley Road, an existing collector road. Realignment of the intersection with El Jebel Road and Hwy 82 is necessary. 10. "Transit park and ride lots are located adjacent to community service centers, should be screened from the highway and serve both community services and transit needs". Not applicable. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE 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. The application describes four phases. Phase I includes the core recreation center, associated utility /infrastructure, associated parking, landscaping, lighting and other improvements. Phase II includes the gymnastics /fitness recreation center addition and the lap pool addition. Phases III and IV include the indoor tennis facility and ice rink. Timing of the phased construction will be based upon project funding and customer demand. The District anticipates envisions Phase I construction to begin in the latter half of 2012 and be completed by the end of 2014. Construction in Phases II, III, and IV of the other facilities is unknown at this time and will be dependent on future funding by the voters within the District. In the event that project phasing extends into 2017, Crown Mountain will meet with the Board of County Commissioners at a noticed public hearing to receive approval for a revised phasing schedule. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (12)] — The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. 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 Master 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 habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year foodplains, 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 PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. 47 06/28/2011 (d) Improvements Required All common 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 established for 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 specified on the Preliminary Plan for 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 be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (fl 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 PUD not 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. At the time the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate common recreation and open space were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of the open space. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (13)] — The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Q y E _ i i d S � o 0 o • a Q 3 3 v a w Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirement Natural Resource Protections will not be altered as a result of this proposed PUD Amendment as long as all recommendations of the Geological Survey are adhered to, as well as, all applicable provisions of the 208 Plan regarding the use of Best Management Practices, storm water management and erosion controls. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 48 06/28/2011 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5- 240.F.3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5- 240.F.3.m.] — No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provision of Section 24-67 - 104(1)(e) Colorado Revised Statutes that: (1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not effect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or public interest; (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. In addition to the above requirements a Preliminary Plan for PUD may be amended, extended, varied or altered only pursuant to the standards and procedures established for its original approval. (1) Modification of the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD to allow public recreation facilities preserves the original intent of the PUD. How and precisely where on the subject property development of the recreation should occur is integral to efficient development. (2) If properly sited on the subject property with all necessary access infrastructure improvements in place, the entire PUD and lands abutting or across the street from the PUD and public interest will not be substantially effected in an adverse manner. (3) The PUD Amendment will if granted, will confer a special benefit for the El Jebel vicinity and constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Animal Services: In the attached email response dated March 29, 2011, it is noted that the dogs outside of the designated dog park are often observed off - leash. Eagle County's requirement is that a dog can be off leash if the owner or responsible person can demonstrate `Immediate Control' defined as: "Control of a Pet Animal by the physical presence of the Owner or Responsible Person so that it is at heel beside or otherwise controlled and obedient to a person competent to restrain the animal by command ". Animal Control suggests that in lieu of constructing dog parks, undesirable incidents between animals or between animals and park patrons could be minimized if the playground and recreation center facility area be fenced and posted with "No dogs allowed" signs. Dogs would then be able to enjoy the remainder of the park while under their owner's control while kids and parents can enjoy safe, feces -free use of the playground and recreation areas. The applicant must change signs around the walking paths to reflect the county's animal resolution. Engineering Department: In the attached response dated April 14, 2011, several assumptions of the applicant's traffic impact analysis are questioned. Engineering also commented on the Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report and portions of the Drawing Sheet Set submitted with the application. As of this writing, the Engineering Department has not received any responses to their comments; therefore all issues are outstanding. 49 06/28/2011 Town of Basalt: In the attached response dated April 26, 2011, the Town offered the following nine comments: 1) The Town cannot support the proposed plan due to the belief that the facilities will not be financially sustainable and that the scale of the proposed facilities is too large for the Basalt /El Jebel Community. The Town is concerned about the effect of the mill levy increase on the residences and businesses in the Crown Mountain District, many of which are also in Basalt. The Town is also concerned about the inability of the proposed plan to be served effectively by mass transit and the potential impacts that would likely result from such facilities as are outlined herein. Objective 4.7.8 of the Town's Master Plan identifies that one of the Town's objectives is "to implement plans for the Crown Mountain Park property as was previously submitted by the Town to Eagle County and that if approvals for the Park are modified, the Town should participate in the process to ensure that the needs of Basalt and other mid - valley residents are reflected in the revised plans ". The Town recognizes that Basalt and mid - valley residents have participated in the formulation of the plan for the proposed facilities but that adjustments to the proposed plans are needed to ensure consistency with the goals of the Town's Master Plan related to ensuring safe pedestrian connections, availability of mass transit, safe and efficient traffic circulation, and efficient site design among other goals identified in the Town's Master Plan. 2) Regarding the traffic impacts, the traffic analysis shows that many of the intersections in the area will be operating at service levels of D and E. The transportation analysis identifies that LOS D and E are acceptable, but he Town has always tried to achieve a much higher performance level where possible. The Town believes that more significant transportation improvements may be necessary to accommodate such significant facilities beyond the applicant's proposal to add a stop sign to make the intersection of East Valley Road and West Valley Road operate at a LOS C in 2030. The Town believes that a study of potential improvements for the intersection of East Valley Road and West Valley Road and the intersection of Highway 82 and El Jebel Road needs to be completed to ensure that efficient access is maintained. Additional study on these intersections is supported by the Future Roadway and Transportation Improvements Section of the Town's Master Plan. The Town also agrees with the comments provided by CDOT that additional traffic study needs to be completed to ensure that proper transportation improvements are made in the vicinity of Crown Mountain Park. The Town strongly recommends that the County take the lead in developing a study to determine the most appropriate intersection improvements around Crown Mountain Park with participation by Crown Mountain, CDOT, ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and the Town of Basalt. Alternatively, the County could require the applicant to study more significant intersection improvements in the immediate area if funding for the facility is granted by the citizens. 3) The Town feels that it is crucial that the proposed facilities be conveniently served by mass transit. In order for the proposed facilities to be conveniently served by mass transit, the Town believes that the location of the proposed facilities within Crown Mountain Park needs to be revised so that the proposed facilities could be located in closer proximity to ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY's planned park- and -ride in Old Orchard Plaza. If the proposed facilities were to be consolidated in an area closer to the proposed park- and -ride and the current Eagle County Annex Building, there might be potential to reduce the overall amount of parking needed for the facilities. Related to this topic, the Town recognizes the concerns that have been voiced over the amount of parking that has been programmed into the proposed application and potential duplication of necessary parking with the planned ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY park- and -ride facility. The Town believes that a reduction in parking is necessary to preserve the natural characteristics of the park. Additionally, proposed recreation facilities at Crown Mountain Park that would be better served by mass transit would also likely help in reducing the potential traffic impacts of the facilities as outlined above. 50 06/28/2011 For the proposed facilities to be adequately served by mass transit, the Town also believes that the pedestrian connections from the park- and -ride to the proposed recreation facilities need to be examined and a better pedestrian connection plan formulated that creates a pleasant and safe experience for pedestrians walking to the facilities from the adjacent areas. Additionally, the Town would ask that improvements be incorporated into the plan to accommodate a potential feeder bus stop in the event that the Town initiates a feeder bus system in the future as has been included for study in the Town's Master Plan. 4) As far as visual impacts are concerned, the Town believes that the proposed core recreation facilities are too large and recommends that the applicant reduce the scale. The Town recommends that the applicant focus on reducing the facilities to those uses and activities that are the most desired by the citizens. Once the scale of the facilities are reduced and the site plan issues are addressed, the Town would recommend that the visual materials be upgraded at this initial phase of review so that a true representation of the proposed facilities can be evaluated by the voters, the county and the Town. The visual representations in the application do not show the facility in the context of the surroundings as it would be seen from the immediate neighborhood and from Highway 82. Given the significance of the proposed facilities, the Town feels that upgraded visual materials will not only help the County and Town in reviewing the application, but also help the Crown Mountain District in trying to sell the concept to the voters. The Town also feels that the ability to view the open space in Crown Mountain Park from the highway has always been an important planning component of Crown Mountain Park, and the Town would encourage maintaining the open vistas from the highway if at all possible. 5) In planning our own recreational facilities within the Town, we have concluded that facilities like the skate park should be located in closer proximity to other public facilities and kept in clear site for safety purposes. Therefore, the Town would encourage the county to require the applicants to rework the site plan to consolidate skate park use in closer proximity with the other proposed facilities. 6) The Town appreciates the proposal to make all outdoor lighting compliant with the Town of Basalt lighting code, but we have concerns about the potential for all of the ball fields to potentially have lights in the future. The Town understands the desire to install the necessary infrastructure for lighting all of the ball fields while the other infrastructure for the recreation facilities are being installed but would feel more comfortable if the PUD indicated that there will be no lights for night play on the fields. 7) The Town feels that the proposed use of a farmer's market within the PUD as a limited review by the Planning Director is in direct competition with the Willits Farmer's Market that is in the same general area within the Town limits. The Town requests that the county not approve amendment to the uses to allow for Farmer's Markets in the PUD. 8) The Town encourages the county to require any recreation facility to be built within the PUD to meet a significant level of energy efficiency and green building such as obtaining LEEDs Certification. 9) The Town notes that Crown Mountain Park is located outside the Town's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), but the Town chose not to include the park within the UGB with the understanding that there would likely be additional park and government facilities developed in Crown Mountain Park. The Town recognizes that the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Eagle County allows the county to approve development outside the Town's UGB when it is demonstrated that a public good would be better served by locating such development outside the Town's UGB. Pitkin County: In the attached response dated April 13, 2011, Pitkin County offered the following comments: General 51 06/28/2011 The BoCC believes the proposed facility has value not only for recreation purposes, but as a means of fostering a sense of place and creating a community center for the El Jebel area. At the same time, the Board has concerns about the size and scale of the facility, and related impacts, particularly as they relate to the bigger, cumulative picture of proposed and entitled development in the immediate area. These concerns are consistent with those we've expressed regarding other development proposals in the immediate vicinity. Finally, the Board believes that it is critical to assess development of the proposed facility (use, program and size) as it relates to the original intent of the 1994 Forest Service land conveyance to Eagle and Pitkin County and to the original Service Plan for the Crown Mountain Park District. Traffic According to the traffic analysis submitted with the application, at build out, the Crown Mountain. Recreation facility is expected to generate approximately 3,630 vehicle -trips during an average weekday over a 24 -hour period and approximately 2,580 vehicle -trips during an average Saturday — with substantial peak -hour impacts. This is a significant amount of traffic. We are concerned that the addition of traffic and air quality impacts associated with traffic, will cumulatively degrade quality of life for those living in and traveling along the Highway 82 corridor. To fully understand the implications of traffic that could be generated by the recreation facility, we recommend that Eagle County consider the cumulative impacts of all proposed and entitled development on levels of service on Highway 82 at the El Jebel intersections. Impacts to levels of service on secondary roads and intersections accessing commercial, public and residential use in close proximity to the proposed Recreation Center should also be considered. At a minimum, traffic models for the proposed facility should incorporate impacts from the proposed Ace Lane Tree Farm PUD (anticipated to generate +- 3,729 additional vehicle trips per day,) the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority's proposed Park "N" Ride, located 1/3 mile east of Crown Mountain Park, Shadowrock Townhomes, and the Willits Commercial Center at build -out. Should the Colorado Department of Transportation determine that development of the proposed Park Facility triggers the need for improvements to the El Jebel/Valley Road/ Highway 82 intersections, and/or other secondary intersection improvements are necessary, we ecommend that the District be required to pay their pro -rata share for such improvements, and include this additional expense in their calculations for bond issuance and mill levy rates. We also recommend that the Park District integrate the use of transit into the recreation facility's programmatic design, taking advantage of the close proximity of the (proposed) Bus Rapid Transit station and Park "N "Ride. To address pedestrian/bike access, project design should consider trail linkages that may be identified on the Mid Valley Trails Plan. Finally, the site plan should facilitate access to safe and convenient pedestrian crossing of Highway 82 and secondary streets in the immediate vicinity leading to transit, residential and commercial areas. Parking Parking for the recreation center at full build -out will include 254 spaces. Parking for the indoor tennis facilities and indoor ice rink will include 164 ,total spaces. Pitkin County concurs with Eagle County's recommendation that parking needs for the ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY Park "N" Ride, the Eagle County Community Center and the proposed Crown Mountain Park & Recreation Center be coordinated and consolidated to avoid a "sea of parking" in the El Jebel area. Facilitating and encouraging use of nearby transit should be a part of the parking solution. Transit 52 06/28/2011 We recommend that the Park District be required to mitigate transit impacts (including the need for possible trail and sidewalk linkages,) as they may be identified by the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.) Visual The District proposes to minimize visual impacts of the new Recreation Center, and to design buildings using materials that will be compatible with surrounding structures and land uses. At anywhere from 61,000 to 85,000 square feet, this will be a significant structure that will be highly visible from Highway 82. The applicant has requested that the original PUD approval for building height be modified from 40 to 50 feet. We recommend that visual modeling be used to determine ultimate design, including parameters for height and materials, and that the proposed increase in height only be approved if the visual impact of the resulting building(s) is found to be compatible with buildings and land use (including views of open space) along the Highway 82 corridor. We also recommend that a lighting plan be submitted and approved as part of the PUD agreement. Proposed lighting of ball fields should only be considered if there is any way of achieving such lighting while maintaining dark sky compliance. As a general rule, field lighting can be very invasive, particularly in close proximity to residences and as seen from the Highway, and is not recommended. Housing The District anticipates generating 12 -16 full time employees in the first phase of development, and assumes that housing vacancy rates are such that housing will be readily available within close proximity to the Recreation Center. The application does not account for seasonal or contract labor. To the extent that a need for housing is generated by employees of the Recreation Center, we recommend that the District be held to the same standard for provision of affordable housing as is required of the private sector. However, short of providing housing for employees, it is recommended that the District pay a living wage to allow employees to live in close proximity to their place of employment. Furthermore, it may be prudent to require the District to submit an annual report regarding their employee generation, so that in the event that the number of employees increases to a point that local housing stock cannot accommodate need, the District may be required to address employee housing in an alternative manner. Water We recommend that the PUD agreement be modified as necessary to require the use of non - polluting treatments to playing field surfaces in order to maintain surface and ground water quality. In addition, we encourage use of water conservation measures to lessen the need for potable and non - potable water associated with the Park District facilities - notwithstanding the availability of water service from the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Riparian Habitat As more people will be using the Park District facilities upon completion of improvements, we recommend that access to the riparian habitat below the Park District site on Forest Service land, be managed and controlled to ensure protection of the habitat. Energy Conservation Given the size of the proposed Recreation Center and ancillary buildings, it is important to require that buildings be energy - efficient though siting and design, and incorporate the use of renewable energy sources to the greatest extent possible. This will undoubtedly increase the initial cost of construction and the short-term cost to taxpayers in the District. Subsidies 53 06/28/2011 The District indicates that public surveys and previous ballot measures suggest public support for a Recreation Center in the Mid Valley. Nonetheless, given the cost to District taxpayers, it is important to acknowledge that the Aspen Recreation Center and the Snowmass Recreation Center have had to rely on additional public subsidies (beyond those originally envisioned) to manage and operate similar facilities. Aspen and Snowmass rely on sales tax revenues generated in part by tourist and guest services to help fund their facilities. There is some concern about the ultimate tax burden on property owners within the Crown Mountain Park & Recreation District to pay for this facility, on top of other existing tax assessments, particularly in a light of the current economy (though we recognize that voters must approve bond issuance and a mill levy increase in order for facility plans to proceed.) It's imperative that the operating budget for the facility be realistic in terms of expectations for costs. Finally, we recommend that there be a contingency plan for use of the facility in the event that maintenance and operating costs can no longer be sustained. Memorandum of Understanding Pitkin and Eagle Counties are currently drafting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to formalize previous agreements made as part of the 1996 conveyance of Pitkin County's interest in the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm property to Eagle County. Specifically, the MOU will acknowledge the agreement to allow Pitkin County to construct a + -5,000 square foot administrative facility as an addition to the Existing Eagle County Community building, or as a detached structure on the same site. In review of the Crown Mountain Park Recreation Center, it is imperative to ensure that location and design of proposed facilities and infrastructure do not preclude development of a Pitkin County facility on site in the future. Garfield County: In the attached email dated March 28, 2011, Garfield County offered no comment at this time. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District: In the attached letter dated April 19, 2011, the District indicates that two points of unobstructed access is required to adequately serve the proposed recreation center facility. There is adequate water flow for firefighting provided that the buildings are sprinkled throughout with an NFPA 13 designed automatic suppression system and construction is of Type II -B or greater construction as defined in the International Building Code. Hydrant placement will need to be accessible near the points of access. A fire alarm system must be installed in compliance with International Building Code and NFPA 72. The District agrees with the hazardous materials management plan proposed in the application. Basalt Regional Historical Society: In the attached email dated March 19, 2011, no areas of concern from a Historical point of view were identified that would prohibit development of the proposed facilities. Colorado Department of Transportation: In the attached letter dated April 7, 2011, CDOT requires that a new access permit be obtained by the applicant. As with the Eagle County Engineering Department response, CDOT questions many of the assumptions made in the applicant's traffic analysis. Colorado Historical Society: In the attached letter dated March 25, 2011, no historical facilities were identified which would preclude development of the proposed facilities. Colorado Geological Survey: The attached Colorado Geological Survey response dated April 7, 2011 notes the geologic composition of the subject property and cautions that building site specific evaluation of geologic stability be performed due to the potential for sinkholes. Infiltration of water into the soils adjacent to the escarpment could cause slope instability. Soil tests have identified soil high in clay and silt; which are fine particles. Once suspended in storm water runoff, they cannot effectively be removed using standard sediment control measures like silt fence. Runoff from such soil often creates offsite water quality issues. As such, it is important that any bare soil be protected against erosion throughout the site development and construction process. United States Forest Service: In the attached letter dated August 17, 2011, the USFS indicates that it is acceptable for the future Crown Mountain Recreation Center Facility to encompass an additional 151,000+ 54 06/28/2011 square feet and that the remaining 41,473 square feet that Eagle County intends to utilize in the future will not be affected by the future Crown Mountain Recreation Center Facility ". The total square footage of proposed facilities is 161,400 square feet; The 10,400 square foot difference may be attributed to the +' in the USFS letter. One email of opposition, dated May 17, 2011 from Karen Haywood, Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District constituent, was submitted and is attached. • C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: As consistently stated by the county, the Town of Basalt and Pitkin County, the traffic impacts of the proposed development and future proposed ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY development on an adjacent property will compromise the goal of safe vehicular and pedestrian circulation in and around the intersection of Valley Road/E1 Jebel Road and Hwy 82. Study of the intersection performance; identification of necessary improvements; engineering design; funding and construction costs and timing of installation relative to new facilities coming on line must be defined prior to construction of any future recreation center facilities. Realignment of the Valley Road/E1 Jebel Road and Hwy 82 intersection and reorientation of the recreation center facility site plan will facilitate safer vehicular and pedestrian circulation while fostering synergy between existing and proposed recreation center and ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT facilities. The scale of the proposed recreation center facilities requires consideration. The PUD Amendment could be approved to include `recreation center facilities' and associated amendments, as uses subject to future site specific development plan and architectural review and approval during public hearings by the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. D. PLANNING COMMISSION AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 5. Approve the PUD Amendment 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 the PUD Amendment 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 PUD Amendment if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 8. Approve the PUD Amendment 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 Country Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 55 • 06/28/2011 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 issues identified in the Engineering Department Memorandum dated April 14, 2011 must be adequately addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of a site specific development plan for the proposed recreation center facilities and associated infrastructure by the Board of County Commissioners, with recommendation of the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission. 3) The appropriate manner of canine management on the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property must be resolved between the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District and Eagle County Animal Services to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. 4) All comments and recommendations of the Town of Basalt set forth in its letter of April 26, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. 5) All comments and recommendation of the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners in the letter dated April 13, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners. 6) All recommendations and requirements of the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District in its letter dated April 19, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. 7) All issues identified by the Colorado Department of Transportation set forth in the letter dated April 7, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of CDOT and the County Engineer. 8) All recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey set forth in the letter dated April 7, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 9) The Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD Guide is amended to insert the use of recreation center facilities and ancillary infrastructure as uses subject to future site specific development plan review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation from the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission. 1041 -3140 Crown Mountain Parks Bob Narracci, Planning ACTION: The purpose for this 1041 Permit is to modify the existing PUD to allow for the construction of a recreation center, associated parking additional trails, and ice rink, covered tennis courts and other improvements described in the PUD document. There is also a request to increase the size of the leased area LOCATION: 20 Eagle County Drive, El Jebel FILE NO.: 1041 -3140 TITLE: Mid - Valley Metropolitan District and Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District 1041 Permit 56 06/28/2011 APPLICANT: Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District in conjunction with Mid - Valley Metropolitan District REPRESENTATIVE: Davis Farrar, Western Slope Consulting, LLC. REQUEST: 1041 Permit 1. SUMMARY This 1041 permit application is to allow the major extension of Mid - Valley Metropolitan District's domestic water and wastewater treatment systems and an evaluation of the efficient utilization of a municipal water project to serve the proposed recreation center facilities on the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property. PUD Amendment application/Eagle County File Number PDA -3103 is companion to this 1041 Permit application. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District has provided a Will Serve' letter indicating that Mid Valley has capacity to serve the recreation center's projected need for 18,550 gallons of water per day which is equivalent to 53 Equivalent Residential Units (EQR) of water and to that Mid Valley has the capacity to treat the wastewater Average Daily Flow of 18,550 gallons per day. The subject property presently has a water allocation of 20 EQR's (7000 gallons per day). If this application is approved, then the total number of EQR's allotted to the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property will be 73 and the total gallons of water per day and wastewater generated will be 25,550 gpd average daily flow. No potable water will be used for irrigation purposes. Irrigation water is from the existing on -site wells and the recreation center landscaping will likewise be connected to the existing irrigation system. The project as delineated in the companion Planned Unit Development Amendment application proposes to amend the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Planned Unit Development Guide to allow construction of a regional recreation center facility, associated parking, additional pedestrian trails, an ice skating rink, covered tennis courts, and revised dimensional limitations to accommodate construction of these facilities. This PUD Amendment also includes an increase in the amount of Mount Sopris Tree Farm property leased to the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District by Eagle County (Please note that a separate lease agreement between the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District Board and the Board of County Commissioners must be executed to achieve this goal). If approved, this PUD Amendment will specifically allow the following improvements upon the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property: 6) A 61,000 square foot core recreation facility building ; 7) A 14,000 square foot gymnastics /fitness recreation center addition; 8) A 10,400 square foot 6 -lane lap pool. At complete build out, the recreation center facility will total 85,400 square feet. Additionally: 9) A 40,000 square foot indoor ice rink; 10) A 36,000 square foot indoor tennis facility. The Grand Total of Proposed Square Footage in this PUD Amendment is 161,400 square feet. The application describes four phases. Phase I includes the core recreation center, associated utility /infrastructure, associated parking, landscaping, lighting and other improvements. Phase II includes the gymnastics /fitness recreation center addition and the lap pool addition. Phases III and IV include the indoor tennis facility and ice rink. Timing of the phased construction will be based upon project funding and customer demand. The District anticipates envisions Phase I construction to begin in the latter half of 2012 and be completed by the end of 2014. Construction in Phases II, III, and IV of the other facilities is unknown at this time and will be dependent on future funding by the voters within the District. In the event that project phasing extends into 2017, Crown Mountain will 57 06/28/2011 meet with the Board of County Commissioners at a noticed public hearing to receive approval for a revised phasing schedule. Development of the proposed new facilities will necessitate modification/relocation of the existing access road, parking areas, the existing dog park, the BMX track and two of the soccer fields. Also proposed is the addition of a second dog park and a community garden to the west of the proposed recreation center site. Parking for the recreation center facility at full build out will include 254 asphalt -paved spaces. Parking for the indoor tennis and indoor ice rink facility will include 164 gravel surface parking spaces. 2. BACKGROUND & CHRONOLOGY 3. REFERRALS As of this writing, the following responses have been received: Animal Services: In the attached email response dated March 29, 2011, it is noted that the dogs outside of the designated dog park are often observed off - leash. Eagle County's requirement is that a dog can be off leash if the owner or responsible person can demonstrate `Immediate Control' defined as: "Control of a Pet Animal by the physical presence of the Owner or Responsible Person so that it is at heel beside or otherwise controlled and obedient to a person competent to restrain the animal by command ". Animal Control suggests that in lieu of constructing dog parks, undesirable incidents between animals or between animals and park patrons could be minimized if the playground and recreation.center facility area be fenced and posted with "No dogs allowed" signs. Dogs would then be able to enjoy the remainder of the park while under their owner's control while kids and parents can enjoy safe, feces -free use of the playground and recreation areas. The applicant must change signs around the walking paths to reflect the county's animal resolution. Engineering Department: In the attached response dated April 14, 2011, several assumptions of the applicant's traffic impact analysis are questioned. Engineering also commented on the Drainage Report, Geotechnical Report and portions of the Drawing Sheet Set submitted with the application. As of this writing, the Engineering Department has not received any responses to their comments; therefore all issues are outstanding. RFVRPC: The Planning Commissioners did not offer any specific comments regarding the 1041 Permit application beyond their comments generated relative to the companion PUD Amendment application. Town of Basalt: In the attached response dated April 26, 2011, the Town offered the following nine comments: 10) The Town cannot support the proposed plan due to the belief that the facilities will not be financially sustainable and that the scale of the proposed facilities is too large for the Basalt /El Jebel Community. The Town is concerned about the effect of the mill levy increase on the residences and businesses in the Crown Mountain District, many of which are also in Basalt. The Town is also concerned about the inability of the proposed plan to be served effectively by mass transit and the potential impacts that would likely result from such facilities as are outlined herein. Objective 4.7.8 of the Town's Master Plan identifies that one of the Town's objectives is "to implement plans for the Crown Mountain Park property as was previously submitted by the Town to Eagle County and that if approvals for the Park are modified, the Town should participate in the process to ensure 58 06/28/2011 that the needs of Basalt and other mid - valley residents are reflected in the revised plans ". The Town recognizes that Basalt and mid - valley residents have participated in the formulation of the plan for the proposed facilities but that adjustments to the proposed plans are needed to ensure consistency with the goals of the Town's Master Plan related to ensuring safe pedestrian connections, availability of mass transit, safe and efficient traffic circulation, and efficient site design among other goals identified in the Town's Master Plan. 11) Regarding the traffic impacts, the traffic analysis shows that many of the intersections in the area will be operating at service levels of D and E. The transportation analysis identifies that LOS D and E are acceptable, but he Town has always tried to achieve a much higher performance level where possible. The Town believes that more significant transportation improvements may be necessary to accommodate such significant facilities beyond the applicant's proposal to add a stop sign to make the intersection of East Valley Road and West Valley Road operate at a LOS C in 2030. The Town believes that a study of potential improvements for the intersection of East Valley Road and West Valley Road and the intersection of Highway 82 and El Jebel Road needs to be completed to ensure that efficient access is maintained. Additional study on these intersections is supported by the Future Roadway and Transportation Improvements Section of the Town's Master Plan. The Town also agrees with the comments provided by CDOT that additional traffic study needs to be completed to ensure that proper transportation improvements are made in the vicinity of Crown Mountain Park. The Town strongly recommends that the County take the lead in developing a study to determine the most appropriate intersection improvements around Crown Mountain Park with participation by Crown Mountain, CDOT, ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY and the Town of Basalt. Alternatively, the County could require the applicant to study more significant intersection improvements in the immediate area if funding for the facility is granted by the citizens. 12) The Town feels that it is crucial that the proposed facilities be conveniently served by mass transit. In order for the proposed facilities to be conveniently served by mass transit, the Town believes that the location of the proposed facilities within Crown Mountain Park needs to be revised so that the proposed facilities could be located in closer proximity to ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY's planned park- and -ride in Old Orchard Plaza. If the proposed facilities were to be consolidated in an area closer to the proposed park- and -ride and the current Eagle County Annex Building, there might be potential to reduce the overall amount of parking needed for the facilities. Related to this topic, the Town recognizes the concerns that have been voiced over the amount of parking that has been programmed into the proposed application and potential duplication of necessary parking with the planned ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY park- and -ride facility. The Town believes that a reduction in parking is necessary to preserve the natural characteristics of the park. Additionally, proposed recreation facilities at Crown Mountain Park that would be better served by mass transit would also likely help in reducing the potential traffic impacts of the facilities as outlined above. For the proposed facilities to be adequately served by mass transit, the Town also believes that the pedestrian connections from the park- and -ride to the proposed recreation facilities need to be examined and a better pedestrian connection plan formulated that creates a pleasant and safe experience for pedestrians walking to the facilities from the adjacent areas. Additionally, the Town would ask that improvements be incorporated into the plan to accommodate a potential feeder bus stop in the event that the Town initiates a feeder bus system in the future as has been included for study in the Town's Master Plan. 13) As far as visual impacts are concerned, the Town believes that the proposed core recreation facilities are too large and recommends that the applicant reduce the scale. The Town recommends that the applicant focus on reducing the facilities to those uses and activities that are the most desired by the citizens. Once the scale of the facilities are reduced and the site plan issues are addressed, the Town would recommend that the visual materials be upgraded at this initial phase of review so that a true 59 06/28/2011 representation of the proposed facilities can be evaluated by the voters, the county and the Town. The visual representations in the application do not show the facility in the context of the surroundings as it would be seen from the immediate neighborhood and from Highway 82. Given the significance of the proposed facilities, the Town feels that upgraded visual materials will not only help the County and. Town in reviewing the application, but also help the Crown Mountain District in trying to sell the concept to the voters. The Town also feels that the ability to view the open space in Crown Mountain Park from the highway has always been an important planning component of Crown Mountain Park, and the Town would encourage maintaining the open vistas from the highway if at all possible. 14) In planning our own recreational facilities within the Town, we have concluded that facilities like the skate park should be located in closer proximity to other public facilities and kept in clear site for safety purposes. Therefore, the Town would encourage the county to require the applicants to rework the site plan to consolidate skate park use in closer proximity with the other proposed facilities. 15) The Town appreciates the proposal to make all outdoor lighting compliant with the Town of Basalt lighting code, but we have concerns about the potential for all of the ball fields to potentially have lights in the future. The Town understands the desire to install the necessary infrastructure for lighting all of the ball fields while the other infrastructure for the recreation facilities are being installed but would feel more comfortable if the PUD indicated that there will be no lights for night play on the fields. 16) The Town feels that the proposed use of a farmer's market within the PUD as a limited review by the Planning Director is in direct competition with the Willits Farmer's Market that is in the same general area within the Town limits. The Town requests that the county not approve amendment to the uses to allow for Farmer's Markets in the PUD. 17) The Town encourages the county to require any recreation facility to be built within the PUD to meet a significant level of energy efficiency and green building such as obtaining LEEDs Certification. 18) The Town notes that Crown Mountain Park is located outside the Town's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), but the Town chose not to include the park within the UGB with the understanding that there would likely be additional park and government facilities developed in Crown Mountain Park. The Town recognizes that the Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Eagle County allows the county to approve development outside the Town's UGB when it is demonstrated that a public good would be better served by locating such development outside the Town's UGB. Pitkin County: In the attached response dated April 13, 2011, Pitkin County offered the following comments: General The BoCC believes the proposed facility has value not only for recreation purposes, but as a means of fostering a sense of place and creating a community center for the El Jebel area. At the same time, the Board has concerns about the size and scale of the facility, and related impacts, particularly as they relate to the bigger, cumulative picture of proposed and entitled development in the immediate area. These concerns are consistent with those we've expressed regarding other development proposals in the immediate vicinity. Finally, the Board believes that it is critical to assess development of the proposed facility (use, program and size) as it relates to the original intent of the 1994 Forest Service land conveyance to Eagle and Pitkin County and to the original Service Plan for the Crown Mountain Park District. Traffic 60 06/28/2011 According to the traffic analysis submitted with the application, at build out, the Crown Mountain Recreation facility is expected to generate approximately 3,630 vehicle -trips during an average weekday over a 24 -hour period and approximately 2,580 vehicle -trips during an average Saturday — with substantial peak -hour impacts. This is a significant amount of traffic. We are concerned that the addition of traffic and air quality impacts associated with traffic will cumulatively degrade quality of life for those living in and traveling along the Highway 82 corridor. To fully understand the implications of traffic that could be generated by the recreation facility, we recommend that Eagle County consider the cumulative impacts of all proposed and entitled development on levels of service on Highway 82 at the El Jebel intersections. Impacts to levels of service on secondary roads and intersections accessing commercial, public and residential use in close proximity to the proposed Recreation Center should also be considered. At a minimum, traffic models for the proposed facility should incorporate impacts from the proposed Ace Lane Tree Farm PUD (anticipated to generate +- 3,729 additional vehicle trips per day,) the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority's proposed Park "N" Ride, located 1/3 mile east of Crown Mountain Park, Shadow rock Townhomes, and the Willits Commercial Center at build -out. Should the Colorado Department of Transportation determine that development of the proposed Park Facility triggers the need for improvements to the El Jebel/Valley Road/ Highway 82 intersections, and/or other secondary intersection improvements are necessary, we recommend that the District be required to pay their pro -rata share for such improvements, and include this additional expense in their calculations for bond issuance and mill levy rates. We also recommend that the Park District integrate the use of transit into the recreation facility's programmatic design, taking advantage of the close proximity of the (proposed) Bus Rapid Transit station and Park and Ride. To address pedestrian/bike access, project design should consider trail linkages that may be identified on the Mid Valley Trails Plan. Finally, the site plan should facilitate access to safe and convenient pedestrian crossing of Highway 82 and secondary streets in the immediate vicinity leading to transit, residential and commercial areas. Parking Parking for the recreation center at full build -out will include 254 spaces. Parking for the indoor tennis facilities and indoor ice rink will include 164 total spaces. Pitkin County concurs with Eagle County's recommendation that parking needs for the ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORTTY Park "N" Ride, the Eagle County Community Center and the proposed Crown Mountain Park & Recreation Center be coordinated and consolidated to avoid a "sea of parking" in the El Jebel area. Facilitating and encouraging use of nearby transit should be a part of the parking solution. Transit We recommend that the Park District be required to mitigate transit impacts (including the need for possible trail and sidewalk linkages,) as they may be identified by the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY.) Visual The District proposes to minimize visual impacts of the new Recreation Center, and to design buildings using materials that will be compatible with surrounding structures and land uses. At anywhere from 61,000 to 85,000 square feet, this will be a significant structure that will be highly visible from Highway 82. The applicant has requested that the original PUD approval for building height be modified from 40 to 50 feet. We recommend that visual modeling be used to determine ultimate design, including parameters for height and materials, and that the proposed increase in height only be approved if the visual impact of the resulting building(s) is found to be compatible with buildings and land use (including views of open space) along the Highway 82 corridor. 61 06/28/2011 We also recommend that a lighting plan be submitted and approved as part of the PUD agreement. Proposed lighting of ball fields should only be considered if there is any way of achieving such lighting while maintaining dark sky compliance. As a general rule, field lighting can be very invasive, particularly in close proximity to residences and as seen from the Highway, and is not recommended. Housing The District anticipates generating 12 -16 full time employees in the first phase of development, and assumes that housing vacancy rates are such that housing will be readily available within close proximity to the Recreation Center. The application does not account for seasonal or contract labor. To the extent that a need for housing is generated by employees of the Recreation Center, we recommend that the District be held to the same standard for provision of affordable housing as is required of the private sector. However, short of providing housing for employees, it is recommended that the District pay a living wage to allow employees to live in close proximity to their place of employment. Furthermore, it may be prudent to require the District to submit an annual report regarding their employee generation, so that in the event that the number of employees increases to a point that local housing stock cannot accommodate need, the District may be required to address employee housing in an alternative manner. Water We recommend that the PUD agreement be modified as necessary to require the use of non - polluting treatments to playing field surfaces in order to maintain surface and ground water quality. In addition, we encourage use of water conservation measures to lessen the need for potable and non - potable water associated with the Park District facilities - notwithstanding the availability of water service from the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Riparian Habitat As more people will be using the Park District facilities upon completion of improvements, we recommend that access to the riparian habitat below the Park District site on Forest Service land, be managed and controlled to ensure protection of the habitat. Energy Conservation Given the size of the proposed Recreation Center and ancillary buildings, it is important to require that buildings be energy- efficient though siting and design, and incorporate the use of renewable energy sources to the greatest extent possible. This will undoubtedly increase the initial cost of construction and the short-term cost to taxpayers in the District. Subsidies The District indicates that public surveys and previous ballot measures suggest public support for a Recreation Center in the Mid Valley. Nonetheless, given the cost to District taxpayers, it is important to acknowledge that the Aspen Recreation Center and the Snowmass Recreation Center have had to rely on additional public subsidies (beyond those originally envisioned) to manage and operate similar facilities. Aspen and Snowmass rely on sales tax revenues generated in part by tourist and guest services to help fund their facilities. There is some concern about the ultimate tax burden on property owners within the Crown Mountain Park & Recreation District to pay for this facility, on top of other existing tax assessments, particularly in a light of the current economy (though we recognize that voters must approve bond issuance and a mill levy increase in order for facility plans to proceed.) It's imperative that the operating budget for the facility be realistic in terms of expectations for costs. Finally, we recommend that there be a contingency plan for use of the facility in the event that maintenance and operating costs can no longer be sustained. Memorandum of Understanding 62 06/28/2011 Pitkin and Eagle Counties are currently drafting a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to formalize previous agreements made as part of the 1996 . conveyance of Pitkin County's interest in the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm property to Eagle County. Specifically, the MOU will acknowledge the agreement to allow Pitkin County to construct a + -5,000 square foot administrative facility as an addition to the Existing Eagle County Community building, or as a detached structure on the same site. In review of the Crown Mountain Park Recreation Center, it is imperative to ensure that location and design of proposed facilities and infrastructure do not preclude development of a Pitkin County facility on site in the future. Garfield County: In the attached email dated March 28, 2011, Garfield County offered no comment at this time. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District: In the attached letter dated April 19, 2011, the District indicates that two points of unobstructed access is required to adequately serve the proposed recreation center facility. There is adequate water flow for firefighting provided that the buildings are sprinkled throughout with an NFPA 13 designed automatic suppression system and construction is of Type II -B or greater construction as defined in the International Building Code. Hydrant placement will need to be accessible near the points of access. A fire alarm system must be installed in compliance with International Building Code and NFPA 72. The District agrees with the hazardous materials management plan proposed in the application. Basalt Regional Historical Society: In the attached email dated March 19, 2011, no areas of concern from a Historical point of view were identified that would prohibit development of the proposed facilities. Colorado Department of Transportation: In the attached letter dated April 7, 2011, CDOT requires that a new access permit be obtained by the applicant. As with the Eagle County Engineering Department response, CDOT questions many of the assumptions made in the applicant's traffic analysis. Colorado Historical Society: In the attached letter dated March 25, 2011, no historical facilities were identified which would preclude development of the proposed facilities. Colorado Geological Survey: The attached Colorado Geological Survey response dated April 7, 2011 notes the geologic composition of the subject property and cautions that building site specific evaluation of geologic stability be performed due to the potential for sinkholes. Infiltration of water into the soils adjacent to the escarpment could cause slope instability. Soil tests have identified soil high in clay and silt; which are fine particles. Once suspended in storm water runoff, they cannot effectively be removed using standard sediment control measures like silt fence. Runoff from such soil often creates offsite water quality issues. As such, it is important that any bare soil be protected against erosion throughout the site development and construction process. United States Forest Service: In the attached letter dated August 17, 2011, the USFS indicates that it is acceptable for the future Crown Mountain Recreation Center Facility to encompass an additional 151,000+ square feet and that the remaining 41,473 square feet that Eagle County intends to utilize in the future will not be affected by the future Crown Mountain Recreation Center Facility ". The total square footage of proposed facilities is 161,400 square feet; The 10,400 square foot difference may be attributed to the ` +' in the USFS letter. One email of opposition, dated May 17, 2011 from Karen Haywood, Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District constituent, was submitted and is attached. 4. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS 63 06/28/2011 A. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 6.04.01, Permit Application Approval 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 findings box. A Permit to conduct a designated activity of state interest or to engage in development in a designated area of state interest shall be approved if the Project complies with the following general criteria and any additional applicable criteria in Sections 6.04.02 or 6.04.03. If the Project does not comply with any one or more of these criteria, the Permit shall be denied or approved with conditions. In determining whether the Project complies with these criteria, or if conditions should be imposed, the Permit Authority may utilize the considerations in Appendix "A ". (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project, the applicant will have obtained all 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. Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District has applied to Eagle County for a PUD Amendment in addition to this 1041 Permit application. Approval of both of these applications with any conditions is required prior to any site disturbance. Construction permits required by Eagle County will be obtained prior to site disturbance. The permits include but are not limited to excavation/grading permits, building permits, and road access permits. Crown Mountain will comply with all necessary approvals, property rights, permits, leases or any other requirements that Eagle County, the Colorado Department of Transportation or other affected agencies with authority over the project. The following list of permits and approvals are required prior to any site disturbance: a) Eagle County 1041 Permit Amendment — Pending per this application. b) Eagle County PUD Amendment Approval c) Eagle County Amended Final Plat Approval d) An Amended Lease agreement between Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District and the Board of County Commissioners e) CDOT and/or Eagle County Access Permit(s) f) Stormwater Permit from the Colorado Public Health and Environment. g) Eagle County Engineering Department Grading Permit h) Approval by the voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District for funding to construct the project and on -going operation of the project facilities. [ +1 FINDING: (1) Rights, Permits and Approvals. As conditioned, the applicant WILL HAVE obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals prior to site disturbance. (2) The Project will not impair property rights held by others. The Project will not impair property rights held by others. Water rights are decreed and owned by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District operates under a lease and memorandum of understanding with Eagle County who is the owner of the property. Eagle County, as land owner, is (technically) the applicant with approval provided to the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District to submit this 1041 Permit application. The Eagle County Permit Authority has control over 1041 Permit approvals. Crown Mountain is required to comply with all approval requirements and conditions of approval. In addition, Crown Mountain has conducted a series of public meetings to which area property owners and residents participated in the planning process. The approval processes for this 1041 Permit and companion PUD Amendment applications will offer additional opportunity for public input through the public hearing processes. If approved, Crown Mountain 64 06/28/2011 Park and Recreation District will be bound to compliance with all approval requirements and conditions. Compliance with these approval requirements and conditions will ensure that the project will not impair property rights held by others. [ +1 FINDING: (2) Property rights 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 pertinent land use and water quality plans include the original Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD, as amended, the Regional 208 Water Quality Plan, the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, and the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. The applicant is connecting to a regional water and sewer provider and is incorporating the water quality stewardship principles and policies of the Regional 208 Water Quality Plan. The proposed Project satisfies many of the stated land use plan requirements; however, has not yet been found compliant with recommendations regarding roadway infrastructure, transportation and pedestrian/vehicular circulation. [ + / - FINDING: (3) Consistency with plans. 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. The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and conditions. The Crown Mountain Board and staff have successfully operated the park for ten years and have demonstrated their financial expertise by so doing. The District's 2003 bond issue has level annual payments of $461,000. The levy for this issue is currently .925 mills which is less than half of what it was in 2005. The District's bond issues would total, if approved by voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District, $29 million which is less than 6% of assessed valuation. This is well within the range of investment quality. The proposed bond issue of $25 million will need a levy of 3.892 mills in 2012 based on the current assessed valuation of $501,245,610.00. The new bond issue would be wrapped around the current bond issue so that the overall bond levy is consistent starting in 2013. The levy for operations of the recreation center is estimated to be $500,000 annually which will require one mill which would take effect in 2013. Based on the proposed levy for bonds and operations, the mill levy of 3.892 mills would increase the property tax for a $500,000 home by $191.58 annually starting in 2012 and $231.74 in 2013 when the operating levy would take effect. This compares to a current tax for the District of $136.70 in 2011 for a similar home. Funding is contingent upon the voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District approving the tax increase. Revenue from specific ownership tax has not been considered in the projections. Based on historical financials the County Treasurers fee for tax collections will offset that source of revenue. [ +/ -] FINDING: (4) Expertise and financial capability, The applicant DOES HAVE the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements and 65 06/28/2011 conditions if the voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District ultimately approve the bond issue. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. Pending resolution of future off -site road infrastructure improvements, the project will be technically feasible. As indicated in finding number 4 Expertise and financial capability, the project will be financially feasible if the voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District ultimately approve the bond issue for construction and on -going maintenance of the recreation center facilities. [ +/ - FINDING: (5) Feasibility, The Project IS technically and financially feasible. (6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. The Colorado Geological Survey response dated April 7, 2011 notes the geologic composition of the subject property and cautions that building site specific evaluation of geologic stability be performed due to the potential for sinkholes. Infiltration of water into the soils adjacent to the escarpment could cause slope instability. Soil tests have identified soil high in clay and silt; which are fine particles. Once suspended in storm water runoff, they cannot effectively be removed using standard sediment control measures like silt fence. Runoff from such soil often creates offsite water quality issues. The applicant has asserted that they will protect any bare soil against erosion throughout the site development and construction process. [ +] FINDING: (6) Risk from hazards, The project IS NOT subject to significant risk from natural hazard. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. The proposed recreation center facilities are consistent with the concept of a regional public park and community facilities as approved by the Board of County Commissioners in 2001 with the original Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD. As such, well - studied, proper implementation of appropriate type, scale and siting of the project facilities should not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. The resultant land use pattern will not contribute to sprawl but will alter traffic patterns and road capacity resulting in congestion; absent proper mitigation. [ +/ - FINDING: (7) Land use patterns, If approved, the resultant land use pattern WILL affect traffic patterns, road capacity and congestion resulting from the Development. Road capacity and congestion can and will require proper mitigation. (8) 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 delivery systems. The project may generate adverse effects on the capability of Eagle County, CDOT and the Town of Basalt to provide acceptable levels of service at the El Jebel Road/Valley Road/Hwy 82 intersection if not properly mitigated. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District has demonstrated the capacity to serve the subject property and proposed project efficiently with public water and sanitation facilities. [ +/ - FINDING: (8) Service capacity, The Project WILL have a significant adverse effect on the capability of the County to provide services exceeding the capacity of service delivery systems unless properly mitigated. (9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. 66 06/28/2011 As indicated in finding number 4 Expertise and financial capability, the project will be financially feasible if the voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District ultimately approve the bond issue for construction and on -going maintenance of the recreation center facilities. The Crown Mountain Park Recreation District indicates that it will have a positive impact on the local economy by bringing new construction to this region that is suffering the negative impacts of a major national recession. The project will bring a substantial number of construction employees, purchase of construction materials and similar economic benefits. Construction employees will utilize area restaurants, retail outlets and other facilities thereby infusing new dollars into the local economy. Longer term permanent employees will provide similar benefits to local businesses. The project provides substantial economic diversification to the immediate area and the region by offering indoor recreation facilities as well as expanded park facilities. Crown Mountain Park will serve as an important draw to local and regional area residents for recreation purposes. It is likely that visitors to the project will frequent area businesses and offer a positive stimulus to economic conditions. [ + / -] FINDING: (9) Financial Burden, the voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District must determine whether or not the Project will create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents of the County. (10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. The project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy and has the potential to create substantial positive benefit on the local economy. [ +] FINDING: (10) Protection of local economy, 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. The project proposes expanded recreation center facilities and enhanced park facilities for the community and should not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. [ +1 FINDING: (11) Protection of recreational opportunities, The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on the quality of recreational opportunities and experience. (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. The application includes a "Description of All Conservation Techniques to Be Used in the Construction and Operation of the Project ". This includes efficient utilization of water resources and utilization of xeric landscape materials. The Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District has utilized local consultant service to the extent practicable; thereby allowing shorter trips to meetings, site surveying and construction management. Crown Mountain is open to innovative designs and systems that promote energy efficiency and renewable power and reduced environmental impacts, but availability of funding for these details will not be known until after a 2011 election requesting voter funding approval for construction of additional recreation center facilities. Local construction contractors will be utilized. 67 06/28/2011 [ +1 - FINDING: (12) Resource Conservation, The planning, design and operation of the Project DOES reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. Other than temporary air quality impacts during construction, the project is not anticipated to significantly degrade air quality. As part of the Grading Permit, the applicant will be required to provide a dust suppression and management plan. [ +] FINDING: (13) Air quality, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The proposed site location and scale of the recreation center facility, adjacent to Valley Road may create compatibility concerns with residential land uses located on the north side of Valley Road. The proposed site will also serve to obstruct views into and across the subject property from Hwy 82. It is suggested that visual quality would be improved if the recreation center facility is sited in closer proximity to the existing county office building where greater synergy between the buildings and shared parking would be realized. The area between the buildings and the future ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY BRT could be improved as a visually inviting outdoor plaza to serve a variety of recreational and community events. The Board of County Commissioners has indicated that reconfiguration of the primary roundabout access point into the park and/or the existing parking lot to achieve these goals is a viable possibility. The applicant believes that the proposed building location creates the least amount of visual impact on the subject property by maintaining a larger uninterrupted area of open park than would result if the recreation center facility were to be sited closer to the existing county building, extending into what is presently improved soccer fields. The applicant proposes energy efficient downcast lighting on the recreation center facilities to protect the nighttime sky. Also proposed, via special use review, is the potential for illuminating the recreation ball fields. Ideally, before the precise recreation center facility site could be determined, it must first be clear how the El Jebel Road/Valley Road/Hwy 82 intersection will ultimately be reconfigured. All site design, parking lot configuration, vehicular and pedestrian interconnections between on -site and off -site development could then be designed accordingly. Crown Mountain commits to providing area appropriate quality architectural design and use of finishing materials and colors which should aid in offsetting visual quality impacts. [ +1 -1 FINDING: (14) Visual quality, The Project has the potential to significantly degrade visual quality. A yet to be agreed upon site specific development plan and architectural details must be established. (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. The Colorado Geological Survey response dated April 7, 2011 notes that soil tests have identified soil high in clay and silt; which are fine particles. Once suspended in storm water runoff, they cannot effectively be removed using standard sediment control measures like silt fence. Runoff from such soil often creates offsite water quality issues. The applicant has committed to protecting any bare soil against erosion throughout the site development and construction process. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment stormwater permit Best Management Practices required will further protect against water quality degradation. 68 06/28/2011 Best Management Practices are incorporated into the post - construction plan to improve water quality runoff from the parking areas; therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will significantly degrade surface water quality. [ +] FINDING: (15) Surface water quality, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade surface water quality as conditioned. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. Best Management Practices are incorporated into the post - construction plan to improve water quality runoff from the parking areas; therefore, it is not anticipated that the proposed project will significantly degrade surface water quality. [ +] FINDING: (16) Ground water quality, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade ground water quality as conditioned. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. The recreation center facilities are currently proposed in a location far from wetland and riparian areas. All development on the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD is separated from aquatic and riparian habitats by a substantial distance. This buffering and recreational use of the site offer substantial protection to these habitats. A Wildlife Analysis Report prepared for the PUD in 2000 by West Elks Consulting identifies important plant and animal species and includes a wildlife management and enhancement program. The objectives and recommendations contained in the report are part of the existing PUD and will continue to be enforced through the PUD Amendment. The Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District are required to comply with the approved plan. [ +] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and riparian areas, The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. The recreation center facilities are currently proposed in a location far from wetland and riparian areas in an area that has previously been disturbed. All development on the Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD is separated from aquatic and riparian habitats by a substantial distance. This buffering and recreational use of the site offer substantial protection to these habitats. A Wildlife Analysis Report prepared for the PUD in 2000 by West Elks Consulting identifies important plant and animal species and includes a wildlife management and enhancement program. The objectives and recommendations contained in the report are part of the existing PUD and will continue to be enforced through this PUD Amendment. The Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District are required to comply with the approved plan. [ +] FINDING: (18) Terrestrial 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. The recreation center facilities are currently proposed in a location far from wetland and riparian areas in an area that has previously been disturbed. The subject property has historically served as irrigated ranch land, a federal government tree farm and now as an improved regional park consisting of both natural vegetation and introduced landscape materials. All future landscaping will comply with the previously approved landscape material specifications and treatments. [ +] FINDING: (19) Terrestrial plant life, The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. 69 06/28/2011 (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. The Colorado Geological Survey response dated April 7, 2011 notes the geologic composition of the subject property and cautions that building site specific evaluation of geologic stability be performed due to the potential for sinkholes. Infiltration of water into the soils adjacent to the escarpment could cause slope instability. Soil tests have identified soil high in clay and silt; which are fine particles. Once suspended in storm water runoff, they cannot effectively be removed using standard sediment control measures like silt fence. Runoff from such soil often creates offsite water quality issues. The applicant has committed to protecting any bare soil against erosion throughout the site development and construction process. [ +J FINDING: (20) Soils and reoloMic conditions, The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. (21) The Project will not cause a nuisance. The Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District presently provides recreation services to the community on the subject property. The park is a desired public amenity supported by large numbers of residents both within and outside the District. The park provides numerous public benefits for the community and the proposed project improvements will further enhance those public benefits. It is anticipated that Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District will be able to mitigate adverse impacts to the neighborhood in a reasonable and responsible fashion and will not cause a nuisance. [Al FINDING: (21) Nuisance, The Project WILL NOT cause a nuisance. (22) The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance. The recreation center facilities are currently proposed in a location that has previously been disturbed. No paleontological, historic or archaeological sites were identified by the Colorado Historical Society or the Basalt Regional Historical Society on the subject property. [ +J FINDING: (22) Paleontological, 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. The project will have limited storage of chemicals to support swimming pool water sanitation. Project operations will follow all local, state and federal regulations for their safe storage and use. The project will incorporate best management practices for facility operators thereby minimizing the potential for any release of hazardous materials. The project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. [ +J FINDING: (23) Hazardous materials, The Project WILL NOT result in unreasonable risk of releases 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 project does not adversely impact natural, agricultural, grazing, commercial or industrial resources in the county. Nor will the project result in the losses of opportunities to develop those resources. 70 06/28/2011 Benefits to the county and its citizens from the proposed recreational enhancement project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the county or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. 1 +1 FINDING: (24) Benefits outweigh 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 County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02, Additional Criteria Applicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Projects, and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following additional analysis is provided. (1) The Project shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. Use of non - treated water for irrigation will minimize the impacts on domestic water supplies. The project will incorporate water conserving fixtures in the new buildings that will result in water conservation. Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District supports water conservation measures in its management of operational practices. [Al FINDING: (1) Efficient use, The Project SHALL emphasize the most efficient use of water, including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water. (2) The Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District is the regional provider of public water and wastewater treatment in the vicinity of the subject property. [ +1 FINDING: (2) Excess capacity / duplicate services, The Project SHALL NOT result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. (3) The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. If approved by the voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District, the project will be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the project. [ + / -] 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 will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. Development of the project will be sited in an area of the subject property with proper storm water and sanitation systems which will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. [ +1 FINDING: (4) Protection of Aquifer Recharge Areas, Urban development, population densities and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems SHALL BE accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. C. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.03, Additional Criteria Applicable to Major New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems and Major Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and 71 06/28/2011 Wastewater Treatment Systems, and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following additional analysis is provided. (1) The Project shall 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. The Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District's statistically valid survey of its constituents suggests that the project is reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the project. An affirmative vote of the District's constituents is necessary to approve funding for construction and on- going operation of the project facilities. [ + / - ] FINDING: (1) Necessity or regulatory / technolo2ical compliance, The Project IS 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. (2) To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. The project will be served by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District's water and wastewater systems. [ +] 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 utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. The project will be served by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District's water and wastewater systems. [ +] FINDING: (3) Proper utilization of existing treatment plants, 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 systems of adjacent communities. (4) 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 financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. As previously indicated, the financial capacity of the proposed project is reliant upon the voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District; without their support and affirmative vote, the project will not be feasible. Assuming that funding is granted for construction and on -going operation of the facility, the environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development must be ascertained as a function of project scope, scale, and site planning. [ +/ - ] FINDING: (4) Financial and environmental capacity, 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 financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. 72 06/28/2011 D. Special Use Permit Waiver: In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.I.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. 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 planning, zoning or other land use objective. 1. That except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this permit application, correspondence, and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2. All permits and approvals necessitated by this 1041 Permit as previously identified must be successfully obtained prior to site disturbance for the Project. 3. The voting constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District approve funding for construction and on -going operation of the project facilities. 4. Development of the project is contingent upon site specific development plan approval by the Board of County Commissioners / Permit Authority either through the companion PUD Amendment application (Eagle County File No. PDA -3103) or via a separate future site specific development plan public process. All issues identified in the Engineering Department Memorandum dated April 14, 2011 must be adequately addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of a site specific development plan for the proposed recreation center facilities and associated infrastructure by the Board of County Commissioners, with recommendation of the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission. 5. The appropriate manner of canine management on the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property must be resolved between the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District and Eagle County Animal Services to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. 6. All comments and recommendations of the Town of Basalt set forth in its letter of April 26, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. 7. All comments and recommendation of the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners in the letter dated April 13, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners. 8. All recommendations and requirements of the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District in its letter dated April 19, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. 9. All recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey set forth in the letter dated April 7, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 73 06/28/2011 10. All recommendations and requirements of the Colorado Department of Transportation set forth in the letter dated April 7, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of CDOT and the County Engineer. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the request. He explained the surrounding land uses and zoning. The proposal consisted of two companion applications; an amendment to the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD amendment to allow construction of a regional recreation facility, associated parking, additional pedestrian trails, an indoor ice rink and tennis courts. The 1041 permit would allow the extension of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District's domestic water and wastewater treatment systems. Subsequent phases would include a 14,000 square foot a gymnastic fitness center, and a 10,400 square foot lap pool. In the future, there would also be a 40,000 sq. ft. ice rink, and 36,000 square foot tennis facilities. The facility would involve modification and relocation of the existing access road, parking areas, the existing dog park, a BMX track and two soccer fields. The 1041 permit proposal would allow the recreation center facilities to be served with pubic water and sewer by the Mid Valley Metro District. The District had indicated that it had the capacity to serve the center's projected need for 18,550 gallons of water per day. He presented a site plan showing the applicant's preferred siting for the facility. He presented the chronology. Chairman Stavney believed that chronology did not allow these uses to be planned in a sensible fashion. He wondered if the board should work around existing uses or look at it as a whole again. Mr. Narracci stated that staff suggested a condition that would accomplish that goal. Commissioner Runyon wondered if there was a maximum square footage. Mr. Narracci stated it was 760,500 sq. ft. The Forest Service deemed recreation facilities to be consistent with the intent of the land trade, and would allow the additional 161,000 + sq. ft. He stated that there were a total of 15 standards, 4 of them were not fully satisfied. The first was adequate facilities, the second addressed principal access points, the third was compatibility with surrounding land uses, and the forth was consistency with the comprehensive plan. Full compliance was prevented due to the substandard functionality of East Valley Road/Valley Road, and El Jebel Road/Hwy 82 intersections. In order for the 4 standards to gain full compliance, Crown Mountain must participate with Eagle County, the Town of Basalt, RAFTA, CDOT, and Pitkin County to align the intersections. Regarding the 1041 permit, there were 32 findings and out of those, 11 had not been fully satisfied. He presented those findings. He presented the referral responses. EC Animal Control and the Engineering Department questioned several assumptions of the applicant's traffic impact analysis. The Town of Basalt did not support the proposal due to the belief that the facility would not be financially sustainable and that the scale of the proposal facilities was too large for the Basalt/ El Jebel area. Commissioner Fisher asked about the park and ride. Mr. Farrar stated that there were 128 spaces available. Mr. Narracci stated that the town of Basalt felt that upgraded visual materials would help the county and town in reviewing the application. Pitkin County believed that the proposed facility had value but they had concerns for traffic and the impact to secondary roads. The District proposed minimal visual impacts and the facility would be compatible with surrounding structures and land uses. Garfield County offered no comment. CDOT required a new access permit. He presented the Planning Commission's comments and reviewed each of the 9 conditions. Mr. Schroeder summarized the meeting with CDOT regarding the main Hwy 82/E1 Jebel intersection as well as the intersection to the south. There was discussion about a roundabout. Regarding the traffic information submitted by the applicant, CDOT was still in the process of reviewing the proposal. The roundabout proposed by the applicant was a single lane roundabout and would require a slight reconfiguration of the ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY parcel. Commissioner Fisher asked if there was a letter of support from the Forest Service approving the size of the facility. Mr. Narracci stated that there was a letter of support in the file. Davis Farrar of Western Slope Consulting presented a slide show. He introduced the members of the consulting team and the members of the Crown Mountain Board. He asked that the board consider a continuation of the hearing for 60 days to address some of the issues. 74 06/28/2011 Mark Fuller read a prepared statement from the Crown Mountain board that indicated that the board of directors had decided not to seek a vote on bond and mill levy questions this coming November 2011. They were willing and able to work with Eagle County Commissioners and staff to address any concerns about these proposed facilities and equally committed to the voters. Mr. Farrar presented the site plan for phase 1. Phase 1 was 16% of the intersection impact and at build out the impact was 28 %. The intersection problem had been developing for over the last 25 years. Crown Mountain would continue to work with Eagle County, CDOT, Town of Basalt, ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, Pitkin County, and others on this issue. Alex Ariniello presented traffic impact study. Trip generation from phase 1 was estimated to generate approx. 1,440 vehicles per day, contributing 91 pm -peak hour trips. Phase 1 & 2 totals combined would generate 3,675 vehicles per day or 314 pm -peak hour trips. He illustrated the directional distribution of site - generated traffic. He explained the roundabout proposal. They would also provide safe pedestrian crossing. He provided assurance that the roundabout would accommodate transit buses. Commissioner Fisher stated that ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY's plan was to stay on 82 and she wondered about the future of the park and ride. Commissioner Runyon asked if this type of model had been tested. Mr. Ariniello stated that CDOT wanted to check the accuracy of the model moving forward. Mr. Farrar spoke about the pedestrian access. He stated that RFTA's letter to the county indicated that there would be a probability of shared parking between the county and the facility. They contacted other facilitates in order to guage their parking strategy. Crown Mountain would work with ECO and ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY on transit access to reduce parking needs. He presented the site plan configuration and view impacts. They received a lot of input from the public and spent considerable time addressing any concerns. The site plan minimized site disruption of existing public investments. Laura Kirk, planner and landscape architect spoke about the master planning process. They looked at a number of sites outside Crown Mountain. They chose to split up the facility so as not to have one large building. She spoke about the difficulty of achieving a second emergency access. Mr. Farrar stated that design of the facility responded to substantial public input and they believed it addressed the needs of the community. Their initial survey had a 25% response rate. Development would be phased and would depend on what the votes decided was appropriate to finance. The final size would be based on voter approved funding. Craig Bouch of BRS Architects spoke about the massing and the goal to minimize the impact to the visual corridor. He presented a visual presentation that illustrated the scale and size of the facility. This facility would be similar to the rec center in Gypsum. Mr. Farrar spoke about the financing. They believed the voters needed a plan to move forward on. They would like the board to approve the request allowing the voters to have specifics and know what they would be voting on. Commissioner Fisher asked about the cost of phase 1. Mark Fuller stated that the phase 1 construction bond as currently proposed would be approximately 25 million dollars. The tax impact on a $300,000 valued home would be around $48 annually or $16.33 per S100,000. They would do their best to follow the Gypsum model. Commissioner Runyon asked about the current mill levy and what it amounted to in dollars. Mr. Farrar stated that those numbers would be provided in the future. Chairman Stavney stated that Gypsum was a great model. However, the Town of Gypsum and WECMRD subsidized the user fees. Commissioner Fisher suggested looking at the cost of a parking structure. Mr. Farrar stated that structure arkin was very expensive but they g ery p ut t ey were willing to explore the options. Commissioner Fisher believed that everyone needed to be mindful of the space. Chairman Stavney requested more information about the parking options and the cost. Commissioner Runyon asked about the other rec centers in the area and wondered about their response. Mr. Farrar hoped that this facility would be used by the local population and would reduce vehicle and pollution on the highway. He believed that everyone in the area was aware of the proposal and no one had expressed any concerns. He explained the site design and spoke about the number of proposed parking spaces. Chairman Stavney believed it should be assumed that people would use the parking. It was better 1 overestimate the number of shared parking. 75 06/28/2011 Mr. Farrar explained that they were being frugal with taxpayer dollars. They would look at creative ways to deal with the parking. He stated that there would be trails. There were several access points financed by Crown Mountain. They would minimize lighting as much as possible and were sensitive to this issue. Dark sky lighting would be used. They hoped to hire local people. Crown Mountain Park had not had an adverse impact on riparian area. They tried their best to address the Planning Commission concerns. Crown Mountain was trying to be accountable to the voters. The project design was based on broad public input including a statistical valid community surveys. Chairman Stavney opened public comment. Maurine Fitzpatrick expressed support for the facility and believed the facility was needed. She believed that the facility would need a number of bike racks, as that was how she saw the children getting to the facility. This was an opportunity for kids to get off the couch. The facility would be great for all ages and provide safe activities. Toni Kroneberg, an Aspen resident, spoke. She thanked the Crown Mountain Board for their work on the project. She believed that roads, mass transit and parking were key elements. She believed that Eagle County needed to take the lead on the road improvements and funding options. She believed the facility would a jewel on the crown. She had devoted her life to training and teaching swimming. She thanked the board for their time and believed that before anything was approved the traffic issue needed to be addressed. Willard Clapper spoke about the Mid Valley area. He believed the area was unique and needed a recreational area. Traffic was bad and this was an opportunity to correct it. Funding was also a question. This was a valid group of people and encouraged the board to let the voters decide. Cathy Corbett spoke in favor of the project. She taught gymnastics and currently rented a space to do so. She encouraged the board to approve the project and allow the public a chance to vote. George Newman spoke. He believed that open space was an endangered species in the mid valley. He would like to preserve the open space. He was opposed to another large structure and more development. There was currently no money or additional funds for new projects. He believed the project would just increase traffic and safety concerns. Carol King spoke. She supported the project and was an advocate for fitness. She thanked the Crown Mountain board for working hard on the project. She believed the site plan was sensitive to the open space. Shawn Hunsberger spoke about the current Economy. He used the Basalt public pool on a regular basis and rarely saw it being fully utilized. He believed that a new facility would be a burden. He owned and operated a local fitness club and was only at 60% capacity. He would like to see this parcel left as open space and concurred with George Newman's comments. He believed this facility could put him out of business. Commissioner Fisher asked about the membership fees. Mr. Fuller stated that the membership fee would be 600 -700 dollars a year for a family membership. Annie Thompson, a Missouri Height's residents, spoke. She believed there were many young children in the area and the facility would be a great community benefit. She wanted the facility now rather than later. Doug Pratte expressed his support for the project. He hoped the board would recognize the commitment of the Crown Mountain board to address the traffic issues. Terry Maner, a Blue Lake resident, spoke. He was involved in adult sports and would love a place to play basketball. He recognized the challenges the board had but encouraged the board to consider the larger community when making their decision. He believed there was a cooperative effort to correct the traffic issues. He expressed support for the project. He believed that having a place for all ages to gather and recreate safely was important. Chairman Stavney closed public comment. He reiterated that the applicant had requested 60 days to work through the issues. Mr. Fuller explained that the traffic issue was one they could only address to a limited degree. However, they want their contribution to the solution recognized. If they got to the 60 -day mark and were not able to make the progress, they wished too, they would like to extend the time. Chairman Stavney asked the Eagle County Engineering Department if 60 days was realistic. Mr. Schroeder stated that they had not gone through the process to figure out the cost. He believed that 60 days might not be enough time to get through the engineering process. He believed the design cost could be in the range of $50,000- $100,000. Chairman Stavney believed that the county needed to take the lead and match the good faith efforts of Crown Mountain. 76 06/28/2011- Mr. Fuller requested some direction from the board with regards to site location and building envelope. Chairman Stavney wanted to talk about the 60 day extension. Eva Wilson, County Engineer spoke about the engineering process. The process would involve Hwy 82. If the board was looking for a comprehensive review for the intersection to include the Valley Road intersection, this would take additional time. The Hwy 82 intersection had been identified as a problem intersection by CDOT and was currently being evaluated. The Engineering Department could only provide a progress report in 60 days. Chairman Stavney stated that more time could be granted after the 60 day mark if needed. Chairman Stavney made it clear that the he did not intend to delay this decision on the project until CDOT came up with a solution for the intersection of Hwy 82. Commissioner Runyon requested an investigation of the implications of moving the traffic circle and a cost benefit analysis. He had a slight concern about the impact on the Sopris Village site. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the county facility and the fact that it was also a community center. She wondered if the facilities could somehow be linked. She supported the efforts of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District. However, she was very concerned about the financial impact. She would like to have an understanding about the subsidy. One of her biggest concerns was that the property owners would be responsible for paying for the facility long term. Commissioner Runyon agreed with Commissioner Fisher's comments. He believed the question should go the voters. Chairman Stavney agreed with the other commissioners. He believed the use belonged here and he understood the community's desire but he wanted to make sure it made sense for everyone. He agreed with the proposed conditions. He was reluctant to approve any site - specific development plan. He was concerned with the combining of the 1041 and the PUD amendment discussion. He spoke about the need for pedestrian lighting. He would like to review Phase 1 again and the location of the other uses and whether it made sense to keep everything together. He believed it might be worthwhile talking to the owners of the Fitzsimmons property. Commissioner Fisher believed it would be worthwhile to talk to the Crawford family as well. Mr. Narracci stated that as the regulations were currently written, the file could not be tabled for more than a total of 6 months. Commissioner Runyon moved that the board table file number, PDA -3103 Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD Amendment (Crown Mountain) until Sept. 13, 2011. Chairman Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before the Board, the meet' • t was adjourned Itil July 5, 2011. 1 Al Attest: 411111" i / ��:� f: Clerk to the Boar' Or" * Cha., 77 06/28/2011