Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/01/17 PUBLIC HEARING June 1, 2017 Present: Jillian Ryan Chairman Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Beth Oliver Interim County Attorney Regina O'Brien Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Planning File El Jebel Community Center—Sopris Room Adam Palmer,Planner and Director, Sustainable Communities 1. PDP-4986 Tree Farm PUD Preliminary Plan Public Hearing#4 BoCC Hearing Dates: March 21, April 11,April 24, and June 1, 2017 Commissioner Ryan provided a disclosure concerning a conversation she had with Joy Harrison, Chair of the Eagle County Democratic Party,regarding a phone call Ms. Harrison received from Ken Ransford, a Roaring Fork Planning Commission member. Mr. Ransford had recused himself from the Planning Commission's review of the Tree Farm file due to his personal opposition to the file. Mr.Ransford had informed Ms. Harrison that he was concerned about the board's review of the Tree Farm Preliminary Plan and that he would campaign against any board member running for office at next year's election should the file be approved. Commissioner Ryan also disclosed that she received a letter from Mr. Ransford which outlined the reasons for his opposition to the file.Mr. Ransford indicated in the letter that the letter contained his personal opinions,made as a private citizen,and confirmed that he had properly recused himself from the Planning Commission's review of the Tree Farm Preliminary Plan.As with other public comment, she stated that the board would give the letter the weight it felt it deserves. She also stated that she was disclosing these contacts with Mr. Harrison and Mr.Ransford to avoid the possibility of any claim of bias or impropriety. The fact that she had the contact with Ms.Harrison and received the letter from Mr.Ransford would not prevent her from making an impartial decision Commissioner Chandler-Henry and Commissioner McQueeney also disclosed similar conversations with Ms.Harrison and reception of the same private citizen letter from Mr.Ransford. Both commissioners stated that this contact would not prevent them from being fair and objective and from making impartial decisions. Adam Palmer discussed the request and process for the Tree Farm Development on the Lane Property. Mr. Palmer outlined the steps necessary for PUD zoning changes. He also reviewed the timeline-prior hearings which took place on March 21st,April 11th, and April 24th, 2017. He displayed the vicinity map and Future Land Use Map. He summarized the changes to the application after the March 215t meeting. These changes had since been reviewed by staff. Jon Fredricks, land planner introduced the Tree Farm Project Team,which included: Ace Lane,Land Owner Bill Fox,Traffic Engineer Rick Scanlon, Community Planning Dave Marrs, Chief Financial Officer Mr. Lane provided his general thoughts and comments on the project. He thanked the board for coming to El Jebel to continue the discussion. He stated that he felt the commentary put forth in social media and comments made were not true. He stated that he was not a developer;his background was in sustainable energy. He stated that this was a community project, and a project of this nature is very rare. He asked that people close their eyes and visualize the trees; he believed this was a place people would want to be. He wanted the Ttree Farm to be 100%powered by solar in the near future. He stated that the trees would constantly give back by absorbing toxins 1 06/01/2017 and providing beauty. The highway noise would be greatly reduced by the design. The Tree Farm was part of his family ranch. He understood that people were afraid of growth,but he felt growth could be done in ways that enhanced peoples' lives. He had already planted over 1217 trees on part of the highway and the lake, at a value of close to$2 million.Finally,Mr.Lane stated that he did not have to do this development,but that he wanted to do it. Mr. Fredricks spoke about the affordable housing plan. Since the last meeting in April,the number of price capped affordable housing units increased from 43 to 50 total units. Within the 50,there would be 40 affordable rental units constructed in phase one of the development. In addition,there would be 10 price capped for sale units. All of the other for sale units would be deed restricted and resident occupied. The estimate would be 150 resident occupied(RO)units. Each RO Unit would be offered for sale only to eligible house holds for the first 60 days. If there were no eligible household buyers after 60 days,these RO units could be sold to non-eligible households. Those non-eligible households would be required to pay a 1%transfer fee to the county's affordable housing program. In total there would be 200 deed restricted housing units within the development(40 affordable rental housing units,plus 10 price-capped for sale housing units,plus 150 resident-occupied for sale housing units). The balance of the housing units was made up of 140 market-rate rental apartments. Thus,the total maximum residential units would total 340. He stated that the price capped affordable units housing were anticipated for 5 studios units, 15 one-bedroom units,25 two-bedroom units, 5-three bedroom units. There would be a first right of offer to Eagle County, and every unit would have restrictions on short-term and vacation rentals. This was in an effort to strengthen local housing opportunities for local residents. He outlined the development schedule for the affordable housing. Mr. Fox outlined the five major components of the traffic study, including studying existing conditions, background traffic without the development,trip generation with the development,trip distribution with the development, and impact analysis to determine mitigation measures needed.Traffic counts as well as Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT)information was included in the study. Commissioner Ryan asked Mr. Fox to define"roadway capacity". Mr. Fox stated that capacity was how many cars could fit in a corridor. He explained that the capacity in the study area would be 35,000 cars. At this level, most people in the area would describe the capacity as kind of full. In 20 years,the traffic study estimates between 29,000 to 30,000 vehicles in this area which was still under the 35,000 vehicle capacity number. Commissioner Ryan asked if the projected numbers included existing developments such as Willits and Shadowrock. Mr. Fox stated that the other developments were included in the calculations. The numbers also included a CDOT growth rate.He stated that an important part of this projection was the multi-modal component. Eagle County and CDOT wanted the study to assume a 15%reduction for multi-modal trips. He stated that this was conservatively low. The traffic study was high with trip expectations and low with multi-modal trip making. The Tree Farm was located by a Roaring Fork Transportation Authority stop(RFTA)and was designed for multi-modal transportation. Parking was also tough at either end of the valley. He spoke about the Tree Farm benefits to the valley. If residents could live close to where they work and recreate, a better quality of life was created. Throughout the study, all key assumptions were reviewed by CDOT and Eagle County. He believed the access permit for the Tree Farm would be granted by CDOT as CDOT stated that the Tree Farm access was consistent with the State Highway 82 Access Control Plan. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked how capacity related to level of service. Mr. Fox stated that as capacity was used up,the level of service became worse. Level of service was a measure of vehicular delay as drivers went through an intersection. Mr. Fredrickson discussed the lodging/commercial space. There were changes in these areas since the sketch plan in 2009. The total project square footage had increased by 5%, and the general commercial square footage decreased by 23%. At the April 24th meeting,there was concern that 60,000 square feet of lodging/commercial space would become different a use. The plan now proposed that the 60,000 square foot space became a"flex-allocation"which could not be converted to any other commercial use but could be converted to additional housing up to a maximum of 50 units. With that conversion,there would be a requirement for additional affordable housing units. Commissioner Ryan asked Mr. Palmer if conversion from lodging/commercial to housing would require a PUD amendment. She asked if changes would be an administrative review or if the review would go back to the Planning Commission. Mr.Palmer stated that it might be an administrative review pointing to the housing and development authority,but this process for review would need to be finalized and clarified in the PUD guide. 2 06/01/2017 Mr.Mans spoke about the school district. He discussed the student generation which would be approximately 46 students living at the Tree Farm at full buildout. There was a land dedication requirement or a fee in lieu at final plat. The land dedication requirement would be .85 acres. The school district's preference was land dedication. The developer and the school district had come to an agreement on where the land would be located. On May 19t, a site visit was done, and the school district would like to begin a planning exercise to define how many teachers' units they could build on the land. This would all be determined at final plat. Mr. Fox discussed the traffic analysis of adding 20 units for teachers at that site. He stated that the teacher housing would result in a 2-3%traffic increase, depending on the time of day. At the Highway 82 and Willitis traffic intersection,there would be no change in morning or afternoon level of service volume in the buildout year of 2037. The 20 units could be accommodated without violating any traffic study findings published so far. Mr.Mans discussed the RETA assessment revenue estimates. The total estimate of RETA revenues for 30 years is approximately$2.7 million. Bart Johnson spoke about Mr.Ransford's letter which questioned if the RETA revenues violated the Tax Payers Bill of Rights. He believed that would not be the case. The RETA would be a tax by the private land owner,not as a tax by Eagle County. The Village at Avon project and Eagle Ranch had RETAs that had been in place for years without incident. Also,the Colorado Common Interested Ownership Act authorized RETAs of up to 3%. Commissioner Ryan asked Beth Oliver to weigh in on the RETA topic. Ms. Oliver stated that she agreed with the assessment. This was a voluntary covenant authorized by the developer, so Eagle County did not have any concerns with enforceability. Mike Scanlan spoke on behalf of the applicant to summarize what has been hearing to date. They felt that the project was smart growth with healthy community attributes. It was environmentally responsible with good design and preserved open space. The Tree Farm built or unbuilt would not materially impact traffic on State Highway 82. The Aspen engine needed to be turned off to get rid of traffic. The applicant believed the time was right,the place was right. The project as presented could be built. Mr.Palmer stated that staff's role was to represent the public interest and the public sector as it pertained to land use applications proposed in unincorporated Eagle County. In addition to providing legal analysis,the county also facilitated Master Plans. As part of the preliminary plan review,he thought it would be helpful to review the 24 -2009 Tree Farm PUD Sketch Plan conditions. Commissioner Ryan wondered if all the conditions were being met in the current proposal. Mr.Palmer stated that the ones that were still applicable had been adequately addressed. There were 22 conditions that were issues identified by the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission as part of the file. They voted 6-0 recommending denial of the Tree Farm Preliminary Plan in November of 2015. Those comments were listed in the staff report. Chairman Ryan stated that it seemed that all the conditions recommended by the Planning Commission, if still legal and applicable, had been met or agreed upon. Mr.Palmer stated that the applicant had worked closely with staff and the Basalt Rural Fire District to address condition six(6). At the time engineering was not on board with a lot of the proposal from the applicant, and now they had reached a level of support for the variances.The requirement for 50 parking spaces to RFTA was difficult because staff did not have a nexus for that. Condition nine(9)regarding a childcare facility was also difficult because there was not a clear nexus for that either. It was an allowed use and could be supported through RETA funds. As for condition ten(10)requiring the applicant to provide pedestrian access through the PUD to Basalt Mountain, since the footprint had changed since that application, any access to Basalt Mountain would now have to go through private property. Chairman Ryan asked Mr.Palmer to define"nexus". Mr. Palmer stated that nexus was a common term used in a lot of land use case law. Nexus meant that any land use proposal or condition placed upon it must have a direct relation to the impacts that that land use proposal would have. The impacts could be reduced with set conditions that required an applicant to provide mitigations to those impacts. Commissioner Ryan stated in current land use regulations there was not a good way to measure child care impacts so there wasn't a way to extract that from the developer. Commissioner McQueeney disagreed and believed it was possible to establish nexus for school districts when you figure in the impact of 46 kids. She was somewhat disappointed that the senior care and the child care issue had not been addressed. In the plan now there was a phased parking plan. She wondered if it was possible to condition that RFTA established a nexus. 3 06/01/2017 Ms. Oliver stated that she felt the parking study focused primarily on parking required for a PUD. She was not sure how to determine a formula as to what RFTA's needs were. She was not comfortable projecting that out or the lack of standards for that. Mr.Palmer stated that it was difficult to know whether there was going to be a demand for parking at a transit center. The applicant anticipated needing additional parking,but it was too early to define that exactly. He struggled with how to create a direct nexus for park-and-ride. Ms. Oliver believed it was difficult to determine that people in that parking lot were using it for transportation or using it for other purposes. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked someone to explain why there were conditions from the Planning Commission with a 6-0 Planning Commission vote for denial. Ms. Oliver stated that when the Planning Commission issued a recommendation,the idea was to provide the board with as much as information as possible that would be helpful for the board in making its decision. So, although it was a 6-0 vote for denial, staff still felt that providing comments or recommendations would be helpful. Tory Franks from Eagle County Housing discussed the updated housing plan. The unit count had been increased from 43 to 50.The 60 day minimum offer was eligible to local buyers. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the 60 day minimum. There were 59 deed restricted units. A big function of the deed restriction was how those units would be marketed. Ms. Franks stated that Eagle County Housing Department would review eligibility.An additional piece was the addition of 2 to 3 bedroom units to the mix versus the previous focus on one bedroom units. Of the affordable units, 25 would have rents caped at 80%Area Median Income(AMI). The remaining would have rents caped at 100%.The sale price capped three bedroom units would be around$400,000. In the first phase,40 rental units would be delivered, and. 10 for sale units would be delivered proportionally with the rest of the development. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about commercial mitigating Ms.Franks stated that the calculations for residential was higher, so that's the number they went with. The average was 2.8 jobs per commercial. The commercial mitigation rate was 45%which resulted in a unit count of 78.5. The residential portion was higher, so that's why the 85 number was higher. Rickie Davies, Engineering explained the applicants request for variances from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Engineering had reviewed them and was in support of these requests: o Geometric Roadway Dimensional Reductions o Parking Reductions o Intersection Level of Service Mr. Davies was in agreement with CDOT and its requirements for issuance of the access permit. The applicant agreed with the three(3)proposed conditions. Commissioner Ryan stated that the Planning Commission had concerns with the variances. She asked Mr. Davies how safety was evaluated. Mr. Davies stated that there were a lot of discussions with the applicant. Engineering was comfortable with safety after working with the Fire District. Mr. Palmer reviewed the standards. All were under conformance except,parking,adequate facilities, and improvements which were all were in"mixed conformance". Mr. Palmer discussed the 2013 Mid Valley Plan objectives. He showed the Future Land Use map (FLUM). He discussed the mixed use designation intent.He referenced the 2007 Town of Basalt Master Plan which was used to review the plan. Staff found conformance. Commissioner Ryan asked Mr. Palmer to wrap it up so that there was time for public comment. Mr. Palmer reviewed the updated referral responses Commissioner Ryan opened this to public comment. Elliott Branson expressed opposition to the project.Traffic was of particular concern. Bernie Grauer spoke. He spoke as a council member but not for the council. He believed that this level of growth was inappropriate as well as the density, size and mass. Joe Edwards spoke. He was opposed to the project. He lived in valley for over 50 years. He believed this was a changing document. He objected to the procedure and constant rolling amendments. There were too many changes. 4 06/01/2017 Patrice Becker spoke. She was opposed to the project. She opposed this project because it was massive, dense and was housing for second homeowners. She believed that 50 units of affordable housing were not enough. She was not afraid of growth,just didn't like it. George Newman,Pitkin County Commissioner spoke. He opposed to the project due to traffic and parking concerns. The capacity was at failure right now,and RAFTA was at full capacity right now. He asked that the board deny this application and work with the Town of Basalt to revisit the Master Plan and Pitkin County would be happy to participate. Kiko Trincato spoke. He was in favor of the project. He wants to work and live in the same area,but it would only be possible with a project like the Tree Farm. Yvette Trincato spoke. She was in favor of the project. The voice of the"mom"was not heard at these meetings. She wanted a house in a beautiful area that was accessible, and responsibly priced,the Tree Farm was that kind of place for her family. Michael McVoy spoke. He opposed to the project. The public needed to look at the big picture, and the big picture did not conform to the Eagle County plan. He believed there should be no further amendments. Jill Soffer spoke. She was opposed to the project. The proposal for affordable housing was not affordable and/or enough. Stewardship was important for longevity. Kathy Nilson spoke. She opposed to the project. The affordable housing did not seem affordable. The RO housing having a 60 day limit was not enough time, allowing more second homeowners to buy.The traffic was also a concern. John McBride spoke. He opposed to the project. He developed the Aspen Business Center. Mike Kusiak spoke.He was in favor of the project. He believed that the project gave back to the community and the environment at the same time. Dr. Dave Jensen spoke. He was in favor of the project. Mike Thuillier spoke. He was in favor of the project. He,his employees and his family wanted to remain in the area. Jeremi Kentz spoke. He was in favor of the project. H operated a Basalt coffee shop. He believed that growth was coming. He believed there was an obligation to promote sustainable growth. He believed it was important to keep locals in the area,not second homeowners. Justin Addison spoke. He was in favor of the project. He believed it allowed people to live in a place without a car. Smart development was very possible,and this development provided growth without cars. Ken Ransford spoke. He was opposed to the project. He believed the project did not provide affordable housing for the workforce. He felt the project was merely creating more need for housing and decreasing the level of service. Tony Kronberg spoke. She opposed the project. She was concerned about traffic and density and thought RAFTA couldn't handle more busses. Karen Weiss spoke. She opposed the project. She felt it would be the equivalent of squeezing a fourth town. Lynn Nichols spoke. She opposed the project. The project did not answer the needs of the community. Davis Farrar spoke. He provided a copy of a letter from the Town of Basalt to the commissioners. A project like this should be annexed to the Town of Basalt. Any new commercial development was not needed. Traffic was an issue. Greg DeRosa spoke. He was in favor of the project. He felt the proposal was a solution,not a problem. He wished to see the thoughtfully planned project move forward. Lesley Rameil spoke. She opposed the project. She felt there needed to be a cap on growth. Rick Stevens spoke. He was in favor of the project. Jeff Przonek spoke. He was in favor of the project. He believed that local people should be able to live in the area. This project was not going to solve every problem,but it was an example of a green build project that should be an example of what should be done in the future. Greg Smith spoke. He opposed the project. Traffic was already an issue and Willits and Shadowrock were not built out. The size of development was not responsible. David Schoenberger spoke. He supported the project. He felt the development was evolution,not growth. There has been a lack of facts. Chairman Ryan asked the applicant if they wished to respond to any of the comments. 5 06/01/2017 Mr.Fredrickson stated that the application was a not a rezoning application. The cost of the units was discussed on April 24, 2017 meeting. There was a slide in the presentation that detailed the pricing. The price capped units were set by HUD based on a percent of what was affordable for certain levels of area median income. He addressed the RO units and stated that there was no waiting period per Eagle County administrative procedures. Most homes in these price ranges went under contract within days. Beth Oliver stated that the board made their decision based on the standards of approval. It was common for a file of this size to go through amendments and was not a violation of the Land Use Regulations. She stated that the county could not require the land owner to annex into a town. The current zoning was PUD,not Resource. The sketch plan was a review of the basic development. Often times the conditions of approval would cause the sketch plan to change and there was no requirement that the sketch plan match the preliminary plan. Commissioner Ryan asked staff if they had any clarifications. Mr. Palmer stated that the uses proposed do not change the current PUD. Ms. Franks stated that the deed restriction would remain in place for perpetuity. Commissioner Ryan closed public comment. Commissioner Chandler Henry asked Mr.Palmer if he was expecting any major changes to the application prior to final hearing. Mr.Palmer stated that he did not believe there would not be any changes. Commissioner Chandler Henry thanked everyone for coming out and for sharing. The board took the comments from the public very seriously. Commissioner McQueeney believed a lot of progress had been made since sketch plan and she appreciated the comments. She wanted there to be more discussion on senior care and child care. She thanked everyone for their efforts. Commissioner Ryan echoed her fellow commissioners' comments, and welcomed people to submit their comments in writing. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no.PDP-4986 Tree Farm PUD Preliminary Plan until June 26,2017. Commissioner McQueeney seconded. The vote was declared unanimous. There bein no further business before - ti; . ,he meeting was adjourned until June 13 ! . 0 ) i2 coG Attest. ( ` * . er/o the Board o�p * Ch • an ��- 6 06/01/2017