Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/26/17 PUBLIC HEARING June 26, 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-Tree Farm Preliminary Plan PDP-7986 and 1041-5354 Hearing#5 BoCC Hearing Dates: March 21,April 11,April 24,June 1, and June 26,2017 Adam Palmer introduced Tory Franks from the Eagle County Housing Department. Jon Fredericks, land planner for the Tree Farm introduced the Tree Farm team. Mr. Palmer provided a review of the Tree Farm Preliminary Plan request, showing the vicinity map that identified the zoning as PUD zoning granted back in 1994 for the Kodiak Lake PUD. 128 acres to the north of the property were down zoned and allowed for the concentration of the PUD development to occur on the proposed area. The surrounding area on the Ace Lane property would then be put into a conservation subdivision development. The Tree Farm PUD was a transit-oriented,mixed-use project located on 42.9 acres of the 199-acre Lane Property in El Jebel. The housing plan had changed since sketch plan. Ms.Franks reviewed the difference between the Tree Farm Sketch Plan and the Preliminary Plan. The total dwelling units in the sketch plan went from 319 to 340 units. The housing plan that the Sketch Plan was under received a major update in 2014. Thus,the meaning of the deed restriction was going to be slightly different. The previous housing plan included 41 resident occupied(RO)units and 128 price capped for sale units,totaling 169 affordable units or 53%of the project. Today the project included 40 affordable rentals, 150 (RO)units, and 10 price capped for sale units for a total of 200 affordable units or 59%of the project.Based on the mitigation calculation,the applicant owed 85 units.They were giving additional value to the affordable rental because it served the lowered income market and would be built in the early stage of development. She explained why the housing guidelines were updated in 2014 at the request of Chairman Ryan. She stated that based on the needs assessment conducted in 2012,the financial market changed drastically and they needed their guidelines to be responsive to those changes. Mr. Palmer reviewed the staff findings for the file.The subject property was also included in the Urban Growth Boundary as part of the 2007 Town of Basalt Master Plan,which identified mixed use; light industrial and residential as appropriate for the site. Staff recommended approval with suggested conditions. He reviewed the 13 conditions as presented in the staff report. Mr. Lane spoke about his vision for the Tree Farm. His goal was to build the most sustainable and greenest project ever in the Roaring Fork Valley. He and his three sons owned the property and lived in the valley. He felt the model they were proposing needed to be demonstrated for humanity,the planet.Humanity was counting on us. He felt the need to find ways to lessen humanity's impact. He felt strongly that the Tree Farm was a preventative health care plan for the planet. This project must be profitable so that others would want to put this into place in their community. His focus was on attainable housing,and he wanted to partner with Eagle County. Trees and other organisms made the planet run, and the trees were very important but came at an enormous cost. Other projects had failed with no affordable housing, and there was a lot put on the Tree Farm that other projects were not 1 06/26/2017 held to these standards. If the environmental impacts became a secondary consideration,they were not gaining a thing. He asked the board to join him in committing to these types of projects. Mr. Frederick provided a summary of the request. Dave Marrs discussed affordable housing and sustainability. There would be 40 affordable rental units to be constructed in phase one(1)Ten affordable for sale units plus 150 resident occupied units provided proportionally with the remainder of the project. There was a prohibition of short term rentals in entire PUD. He presented the estimated unit prices based on the 2016 HUD rental pricing figures. There would be solar in the project which achieved the sustainability goals. The project would be built at no less than LEED ND Gold. The building would be efficient and it was estimated that each unit would save 42%in energy costs. In their view,the Tree Farm met the goals of the Eagle County Energy Action plan. Mike Scanlon spoke about the Tree Farm Community Vision. The applicant believed the proposal conformed to the public's vision, and it conformed to the requirements and regulations reflective of the values of the community. Commissioner Ryan opened the floor to public comment. Elliot Branson spoke. He believed that if the proposal was granted, it would create greater problems. He asked the board to stick to the code as it's written. Mr.Branson was opposed. Joe Edwards spoke on behalf of Lynn Lichtenwalter, Lesley Rameil,Karen Mocules, and Marjie Aleamoni. Mr. Edwards handed a revised letter to the board with corrected exhibits. All of these individuals were opposed to the development. He disagreed with the allowed uses of this project in relationship to the PUD. He felt that staff made a mistake because the project did not meet the standard. Michael McVoy spoke on behalf of Lawrence Aleamoni,Patrice Becker and Michel Miller. Mr.McVoy stated that he sent his review of the traffic study to the board that referenced CDOT standards. Traffic would be the most significant impact. The level of service,he felt,was not being met right now. He also stated that the applicant was changing the boundaries. He did not like what he referred to as"flex zoning,"or giving the developer the flexibility to change when the community requested certainty. Ken Ransford represented himself, Larry Remeil,Harvie Branscomb and Michele Peterson. Mr.Ransford handed copies of his presentation to the audience. He did not believe there was enough affordable housing for the project or the employees needed to build and service the businesses for this project. He did not think the project would solve the affordable housing problem. He believed it would exacerbate the problem. He agreed that more affordable housing was needed,but he did not feel this project helped solve that problem. He would like Eagle County to create a caucus system similar to Pitkin County's process,where citizens were able to talk to the development team. Tim Whitsitt spoke. He agreed with the prior speakers.He spoke on behalf of"Save the Mid-Valley" group and restated that the project added more traffic and a greater affordable housing problem. He felt that the project was not supported by the community, and he and those he represented were not in support of the Tree Farm. Bernie Grauer,Town Council Member from Basalt stated that the Town of Basalt had unanimously recommended denial of the plan. He believed the traffic would increase and the housing would not be affordable. Paul Cathers spoke. He supported the project. He was a local business owner with a staff of eight, four of whom lived in Rifle and they would love an opportunity to live in the mid valley. Greg DeRosa spoke for himself, Scott Picard and Rose Driscoll. Mr.DeRosa stated that the words"staff is recommending approval"were meaningful. The growth in Colorado would continue, and the machine that drove the traffic engine was at the other end of the valley,not in the middle. He and those he represented supported the Tree Farm Project. Jeff Gorsuch spoke. He supported the project. He believed that Ace Lane had the highest level of integrity and was mindful of the project he'd been working on for a decade. Davis Farrar,Interim Manager for the Town of Basalt, spoke. He opposed the development. Rick Stevens spoke. He suggested a review of condition#2 and condition#10. He supported the project. Renee Fleisher spoke. She supported employee housing,but she did not feel this was affordable housing nor was the housing volume enough to solve the problem. She was not in favor of the project in its current format. Greg Smith spoke. He felt the project was overbuilt for the amount of land. He felt the project was about making money and he was opposed to the development. David Moray spoke. He supported the development primarily because of the affordable housing. 2 06/26/2017 Kiko Trincado spoke. He expressed his support for the development so he and his family could call this their forever home. Yvette Trincado spoke. She stated that she supported the development as she would like to become a homeowner,not a renter. Peg Klein spoke. She opposed the development as she believed that the growth would change the beauty and complexity of the valley. Micah Evonitz spoke. She supported the project as she felt the housing was needed. Kathy Nilson spoke. She was opposed to the development. Jason Jones spoke. He expressed support for the development.He was a business owner who was unable to get employees because of the lack of affordable housing. He also supported the proposed commercial space. Mike Kusiak spoke. He supported the development, and he felt people could afford this type of housing. Joshua Goldman spoke. He supported the development and supported Ace Lane. Jeff Przonek spoke. He supported the development. Toni Kronberg spoke. She was opposed to the development. She did not like"flex zoning",the RO housing or the traffic gridlock. Stephanie Lewis spoke. She was in support of the project. She was in favor of the open space,and the fact that commute times would be reduced allowing people to spend more time with their families and children. Jim Tarr spoke. He expressed support for a private school on the same side of the development. Emily Ransford spoke. She was opposed to the development. She stated that the community was opposed to this and that the pricing of housing was not addressing the community need. Cory Ross spoke. He supported the project. David Schoenberger spoke. He believed there was a conflict of interest and that the valley would see evolution one way or another.He supported the project. Commissioner Ryan closed public comment. Commissioner Ryan asked the applicant if he wished to respond to public comment. Mr. Fredericks believed that the applicant had responded to all the public comment in prior meetings. Commissioner Ryan asked Mr. Palmer how many letters were received on the file. Mr. Palmer stated that staff received 294 comments from the public on this file since March. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked Beth Oliver to explain the underlining zone within the PUD and address annexation. Ms. Oliver stated with regards to uses in the standard for approval for Planned Unit Development, it was the uses that could be developed in the PUD. The zone district in effect at the time the application for this Preliminary Plan for PUD was PUD zoning. It was Resource zoning in 1993. At some point the Preliminary Plan that was approved in 1994 expired. When the Preliminary Plan expired,the associated PUD guide expired as well, and what was left was PUD zoning without standards. She referred to a Section 5-240.F.3.e of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations that referenced to authorized variance that allowed the board to grant variances as to uses as well as dimensional limitations. Staff's determination was based on the fact that the uses being proposed now were uses that were permitted in the PUD that was approved in 1993. Mr. Palmer stated Ms. Oliver's interpretation was correct. Ms. Oliver stated that the county,by statute, could not require or force the applicant to annex; it had to be initiated by the land owner. The board had to approve or deny a file based on the standards. The board was required to make two findings,the first was whether the Preliminary Plan conformed to the approval given at Sketch Plan and the second was whether the application complied with the 13 standards for approval. Commissioner Ryan asked the county engineer,Rickie Davies about the questions brought up around the intersections. Mr.Davies stated that eventually both of the median openings would be closed at a minimum of right in, right out eventually. Kodiak Drive would continue as a frontage road through and past both those median openings to the north. Commissioner Ryan asked about the level of service for the intersection and the status of the signal timing. Mr. Davies stated that the regulations require a level of service D for any intersection. The applicant in its traffic study had demonstrated that if they were to optimize the signals,they could reach a level of service D. However, CDOT was not allowing them to optimize the signals. CDOT would prefer the traffic on 82 to continue to move as freely as possible. The level of service at the intersection today was a C at AM peak and PM was an E. 3 06/26/2017 With the Tree Farm traffic in the year 2037,the AM peak would be a C and the PM peak would be an E.The current delay at the PM was 62 seconds and the projection in the future was 71 seconds. Commissioner Ryan asked Ms. Franks about the data and the assumptions from Mr. Ransford's memo regarding affordable housing. Ms. Franks stated that she reviewed the memo.A big piece that drove the maximum initial sales prices was that they used a 30-year average interest to set the assumption. She believed the comparison he was showing was misleading. Eagle County Housing Guidelines did not have income limits,meaning that they did not qualify renters or buyers by their income. Ms. Oliver stated that she and Mr.Palmer made some changes to condition#8 which dealt with the 1% RETA to avoid any confusion between what was being proposed in the affordable housing plan Mr. Palmer read the revised condition into the record. He stated that it was slightly different from the real estate transfer fee language. Commissioner Ryan opened deliberations. Commissioner McQueeney thanked the public for taking the time to come and the commissioners were supportive of a caucus but this type of meeting was still required. She appreciated everyone's commitment and time in this cumbersome process. The public comment made this file better. She appreciated the changes that had been incorporated and the flexibility of the applicant. She also wanted to state that she and the other commissioners had not had the opportunity to discuss the file. Commissioner Chandler-Henry thanked the applicant,Eagle County staff, and the Planning Commission. She thanked the community for their contributions and wanted everyone to know that they pondered carefully. She spoke about a book she enjoyed called"Community and the Politics of Place"by Daniel Kemmis. Another thing that guided her was Wallace Stegner's words about"creating a society to match the scenery". She believed there were really good comments from both sides. She referenced the guiding documents used to make her recommendations. In the end, they had to make their decision based on two questions, did the Preliminary Plan conform to the approval given to the Sketch Plan for PUD and did the Preliminary Plan comply with the 13 standards. She believed there had been some substantial changes from the Sketch Plan; there was a 40%increase in the maximum allowed commercial. There was 6.6%increase in the number of dwelling units, and if the dwelling units from the school parcel and dwelling units from lodging were added in,that was an increase of almost 29%. There was an increase in the overall density. The lodging square footage was introduced for the first time at the preliminary plan and wasn't something the Planning Commission saw or was it part of sketch plan. There were fewer price capped units and the focus had shifted to RO with the 1%RETA that may not discourage second homeowners.There were 148.5 price capped affordable units in sketch and 100 in the Preliminary Plan.There were variances requested to parking and street standards and a decline from the number of parking spaces that were offered to RFTA from 50 to 20. In summary,the final Preliminary Plan was to far away from what was approved at Sketch for it to be a valid continuation of the same plan. Commissioner McQueeney believed the changes that had been made had improved the file. The general conformance of the plan should be taken into consideration. This was still a mixed use project and that was always part of the proposal. Commissioner Ryan believed the Preliminary Plan for PUD conformed to the approval given for the Sketch Plan. The Sketch was merely a concept. She supported staffs finding which were laid out in the original Preliminary Plan staff report that the process has been iterative and that substantial changes had been made as a response to the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commissions review and comments made by referral agencies. In summary, she felt it was a much better plan with massing around the underpass and bus stop making it more walkable and closer to transit. Commissioner McQueeney said that they were trading open space for density. She felt this was the right location for density based on factors of geography and transportation. Commissioner Chandler-Henry felt that the commercial square footage increase has made this plan different. Commissioner McQueeney believed that the plan had gotten better,including the Public Improvement Fee. There was a reasonable amount of commercial when the lodging went in. She saw the commercial space as two types. She believed this was a contemplated PUD by the community and that was why there was an underpass. She believed,it was in conformance with some of what the community looked for. She believed the project would not solve all the affordable housing needs but would do its part to offset the need. It also provided an opportunity for the county to take some of the housing dollars and buy out additional housing units. She did not think it was the developer's job to make a totally affordable housing development. 4 06/26/2017 Commissioner Chandler-Henry argued that there was still a substantial change from Sketch Plan. She believed that the 1%fee was not enough to keep workers in and the 60 day timing to make an offer was not going to get workers in those houses. Commissioner Ryan stated that she had thought out her deliberations according to the standards. She also wanted to thank the Eagle County staff for the great amount of time spent on this file as well as the Planning Commission. She wanted to thank the community for their input. She also felt that the community was not speaking with one voice,which made this difficult.As the Board of County Commissioners it was their job to balance community input,private property rights,in the context of the governing documents. She discussed the comprehensive plan goals and that the development met these goals. She found that the Preliminary Plan met Eagle County's 2005 Comprehensive Plan goals. She found that the Preliminary Plan was in conformance with the Future Land Use Map as the parcel was designated mix-use. She believed the plan was in substantial conformance with the Mid Valley Area Community Plan as the project supported suburban/urban development along Hwy 82 with a reasonable range of housing types and price points in close proximity to urban amenities. Basalt's latest Master Plan identified the Ace Lane parcel as being zoned for mix-use, light industrial, and residential. The Eagle County Housing staff believed the applicant's proposal met the current housing guidelines. Since she had been a county commissioner, in every land use file that she'd approved in that time, only two units had been built as it was difficult to make the numbers work. She believed the affordable housing plan had improved from what was presented at Preliminary Plan to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Chandler-Henry reviewed the 13 standards for approval and came down on the opposite side. She was concerned about the 60 degree parking. The traffic and wait times were a significant change. It was not clear that the overflow area provided enough spaces. Standard#9 got to her as she was concerned about too much commercial with slower growth in this area. There was already a lot of unfilled commercial space. The main standard, conformance with comprehensive plan, she found some mixed conformance. This called into question the timing and pace of this project when there were a lot of unbuilt and approved areas in place. She had some major concerns with the commercial growth. The small-town feel was not a fit. She also had concerns about the pressure on RFTA, of adding folks in a transit oriented development. As for spacing,recreation, and natural resources, she was okay with those. Commissioner McQueeney felt the architecture and design would give it a small-town feel. She believed eight of standards were fully met and three were mixed conformance. The off-street and loading was a variance she could live with in terms of the design. She did not want to get bqggelil down with not approving something that met the standards. There was a safe guard in terms of parking. She-felt"t1Vlid Valley Plan and the comments received did not relate to the standards. Commissioner Ryan concurred with staff's positive fic'1'i j gsaof conformance with many of the standards in the original staff report. She was uncomfortable with the`gf sti';et,y ,lEing variance at first,but with the added condition, she was comfortable. Standard#8 was discussed re ` fedly and she was in agreement with the variances. She had issues with the 60 degree parking,but there was a condition where the Basalt Rural Fire Protection District would have the ability to perform a review during the building permit application process. Commissioner McQueeney asked if she felt this would be part of a parking management plan. Commissioner Ryan stated that what worried her was the parking reduction at 36%. She was not an expert, and that there was a trade-offs with these variances. Commissioner McQueeney felt that this could be a missed opportunity if not approved. It did add to attainable housing, it did add to the housing stock in the valley. She hoped that the 1%transfer tax would keep prices down. She agreed with the comment about the time that people need to spend with their families. She felt the file was worth approving because it met the standards with a couple variations. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that she was clearly in the minority,but she did not feel this the file was the same at Preliminary as it was at Sketch Plan and would not be able to vote for it. Commissioner McQueeney moved to APPROVE File No. PDP-4986, incorporating staff findings and recommended conditions 1 - 13 which meet the required findings in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan. Chairman Ryan seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Chandler-Henry voting against. Mr.Palmer stated that the companion 1041 file for the Mid Valley Metropolitan District to provide the water and wastewater services had a recommendation to approve with four(4)conditions. 5 06/26/2017 Commissioner Ryan stated that there were 32 criteria to meet for a 1041. She believed the file was straight forward. It had to do with water and wastewater and expanding infrastructure to this site. She was prepared to vote yes. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that she had concerns about the 1041. She had concerns with#3,#7 and#8 in the standards. Commissioner McQueeney appreciated the concern for commercial buildout and whether these were the right economic conditions but she believed the economic conditions were a risk and should be taken on by the developer. She had no have a concern with the 1041 application. Mr. Palmer stated that there was an additional waiver of the special use requirement. Commissioner McQueeney moved that the Eagle County Permit Authority APPROVE File No. 1041-5354, waiving the requirement for Special Use Review Permit,authorizing the Chairman to sign the Resolution, and incorporating conditions 1 -4. Commissioner Ryan seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Chandler-Henry voting against. eE c, There being no further business be ; . a he meeting was a.•: -d unf . e 27,2017. ' 0 Ai Attest: 1Lt� ®I�IU —' *cotost.9 // Cler to the B.• d - C,,./ an 6 06/26/2017