HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/15/2001
SPECIAL HEARING
MARCH 15,2001
Present:
Tom Stone
Michael Gallagher
Am Menconi
Robert Loeffler
Jack Ingstad
Sara J. Fisher
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Attorney
County Administrator
Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Special Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
PDP-00020, ZC-00046, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm
Chairman Stone introduced the Board of County Commissioners. He stated this Special Hearing
is being held at the Blue Lake Facility in the Roaring Fork Valley. He apologized to the public present
about the delay in the meeting two weeks ago. He explained the circumstances ofthe liquor hearing and
the reason for the delay. He shared that the liquor license holder has since surrendered their license.
Chairman Stone explained the agenda for the evening beginning with the history of the Tree
Farm property. He introduced Jim Fritze and the fact that he is going to speak to the history. He
explained that Joe Forinash will give staff presentation and the applicant will then give a presentation.
He stated public comment will follow. He shared that the Board will not be coming to a conclusion this
evening as the official vote or conclusion of the meeting must take place at the County Seat. The
conclusion to the hearing will be happening next Tuesday in Eagle. Following public comment there
will be an opportunity to ask questions and they will be addressed by either the staff or the applicant. He
explained that George Roussos will be keeping track of the issues brought up during the public
comment.
Jim Fritze stated he is here as an old timer. He stated that most of the people who were here in
County government are no longer in those positions. He pointed out Bud Gates who was in the
audience. He explained in 1960 the Forest Service acquired the property and in 1962 built the facility.
In 1980 Pitkin County attempted to obtain the mining claims needed for a trade. In 1987 there was a
gentleman named Selby who was a developer. It came to their attention that Mr. Selby wanted to trade
the Forest Service property for a residential development. Eagle County joined force with other entities
and Northwest Council of Governments. Mr. Selby proposed to give a new Forest Service headquarters
in Steamboat Springs by trade of this facility. After that deal got scrambled by the Counties the Counties
made their own effort to obtain the Tree Farm. Pitkin had an interest into getting the mining claim in
their hands. He spoke to the problems with the Health and Human Service quarters as well as the other
offices. He recalled the early years in going through the Tree Farm buildings. Part ofthe buildings are
an air raid shelter. In March of 1988 Pitkin and Eagle Counties joined forces to obtain the Tree Farm
with both Counties agreeing to contribute the mining claims. Then it was off to Washington to try to get
things done. The closest they got was in 1992 when it got through the committees but the bill did not
reach the floor until after adjournment. The bill died. Don Welch and Dick Gustafson then left the
Board. Johnnette Phillips and Bud Gates then took up the cause with assistance from Scott McInnis.
The legislation always contemplated Eagle County offices and perhaps Pitkin County offices as well.
The plans then took into consideration joint offices with Health and Human services, the Clerks office
and then Road and Bridge. He explained further the approval of the various persons who were in office
during the discussions. He stated most of the support came from entities in the Mid-Valley. He referred
1
03-15-2001
to a note from Jerry LaStange and support in the 1990's.
Chairman Stone introduced Joe Forinash.
Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDP-00020, ZC-00046, Mt. Sopris Tree Farm
PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change. He stated there are four items to be introduced into the record.
The first is from Barbara Collins dated March 5, 2001. He stated Ms. Collins points out a facility like
the one in Summit County and she would like to see indoor facilities. The next is a letter from Laurie
Soliday in which she questions the engineering work on the site and the brochure mailed to the residents.
Next is a letter from Johnnette Phillips where she discusses the history of the Tree Farm site, the
advantages of consolidating the office and encourages approval. Last is from Darrell Rankin who spoke
to the deviation from the Master Plan of 1994. He encouraged the Board to maintain the active
recreation. He spoke to the history of the site and the conveyance in 1994. In 1996 the Master Plan was
adopted and in October of 1996 Pitkin County conveyed it's interest to Eagle County. He explained the
location of the site. The request by the applicant is a zone change from Resource to PUD. He explained
the site to and the uses that are proposed on the site.
Points of discussion by the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission included the
following:
Internal pathways:
The desirability of eliminating the roundabouts.
The inclusion of unpaved trail on the south portion of the site.
Dogs:
Should be leashed.
Desirability of small penned areas within which dogs could run loose.
Design and purpose of the proposed Interpretive Center.
Concern about safety of pedestrians, especially children, crossing East Valley Road to get
to and from the Tree Farm site.
Consistency with the Master Plan, especially with respect to location of proposed
building.
Layout of proposed recreation fields - overlap and orientation.
Site plan:
Location of concession stand.
Desirability of a playground.
Overflow parking.
Building design and layout, including one vs. two story design.
Distance of building to mass transit.
Desirability of second access to site from Valley Road west of proposed access.
Appropriate provisions in PUD Guide for minor modifications.
Need for integrated pest management plan.
Adequacy of water rights to irrigate the site with non-potable water.
Payment of one time fee to RFT A to offset impact on public transit of the development.
Lighting on building and in parking areas - eliminate unnecessary lighting through the
night.
Proposed development of a 124.31 acre site southwest of the intersection ofEl Jebel Road and
U.S. Highway 82 which would include a number of active and passive recreation areas, pedestrian paths,
a protected riparian corridor, an interpretive trail, fishing access to the Roaring Fork River, a 14,750
square foot government services facility, other public uses in existing structures, and agricultural hay
production.
The chronology of the project is as shown on staff report and as follows:
May 1994 - The U. S. Congress approved legislation authorizing an exchange of lands between
2
03-15-2001
the U. S. Government and Eagle and Pitkin Counties, resulting in the acquisition by the Counties of the
property known as the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm.
December 1994 - Subject property transferred by quit claim deed from the United States Forest
Service to Eagle County and Pitkin County.
May 1996 - Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan adopted by the Eagle County Planning
Commission and established certain objectives for the development of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm site.
October 1996 - Subject property transferred by quit claim deed from Pitkin County to Eagle
County .
June 1998 - The Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Community Park Master Plan was prepared by the Town
of Basalt providing a Community Plan representing a vision for the use of the site.
July 2000 - The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved a PUD Sketch Plan
for the proposed development.
Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows:
Eagle County Engineering Department
Response from Benchmark Engineering Services (referral agent) regarding the Preliminary Plat
include a number of technical comments. Copy attached.
Response from the County Engineering Department with the following comments:
The phasing plan should be more clearly shown on the construction plans.
The drainage report needs to reflect the phasing ofthe project.
A plan and profile needs to be provided.
The roads need to be crowned.
Certain easements and rights-of-way for Valley Road need to be shown.
Other technical comments (copy attached).
Other comments are provided which pertain to the final plat.
Additional response from the County Engineering Department with the following comments
regarding the Preliminary Plan (copy attached):
A conceptual design for the secondary access is required..
Additional response dated February 21, 2001, from the County Engineering Department with
design and technical comments (copy attached):
Eagle County Environmental Health Division
Overall the plan will accrue a marginal benefit to the environment by:
Abandoning existing septic systems and connecting to the regional wastewater treatment
infrastructure.
Allowing previously cultivated areas to return to native vegetation.
Delineation of wildlife enhancement and riparian zones.
Recommends that:
An Integrated Pest Management Plan regarding application of fertilizers and pesticides to soccer
and baseball fields be incorporated in the PUD Guide.
Irrigation of sports fields incorporate technologies such as timers and moisture sensors that
reduce water use.
Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO Trails)
The Preliminary Plan appears to reflect the majority of the Sketch Plan comments.
It is not clear whether the trail has been moved closer to Valley Road as requested. The
maximum distance to the edge of pavement should be 20'-30', with good visibility to the roadway.
The path shows a 6' width. ECO recommends an 8' width for the main trails. Trails could be
straightened, roundabouts eliminated, and paving phased to reduce costs. The southern loop trail could
be graded and compacted unpaved trail for the foreseeable future.
One of the paths is shown stubbing out at the southeast comer of the site onto a residential lot.
3
03-15-2001
Does an easement exist?
An additional response indicating that the trail along Valley Road should be closer to Valley
Road, that is, 10' to 20' feet from the edge of pavement.
Town of Basalt (Planning and Zoning Commission)
Restated position that the site should not be compromised by office complex development due to
the suburban character of the proposal and its location outside the designated urban service area and
urban growth boundary in the West Basalt portion ofthe Town's Master Plan.
Other summary areas of concern included:
Environmental issues including creation of impervious surfaces, drainage issues, water quality,
and environmentally sensitive turf management practices.
View planes into and across the site.
Traffic circulation and impacts adjacent to the site and off-site a EI Jebel Road and East Valley
Road, along with opportunities for creating a transit friendly site.
Need to maximize safe pedestrian connections, and concern regarding cost of implementing the
plan which includes expensive details such as bike path rotaries.
Use of raw water irrigation systems on the County Building site.
Size of the proposed building footprint and options for a full two story structure.
Impacts of the over-sized proposed parking lots (see attached letter for detail).
Lighting issues including conformance with low impact lighting standards in the Town Lighting
Ordinance.
Compatibility of the PUD plan's recreational component with the consensus Community Master
Plan concepts for the site.
Input from the ECO Trails Committee on revised trail and pedestrian plans.
Pedestrian safety at the East Valley Road/Underpass crossing continues to be a major concern.
Acknowledges the County's role in carrying forward recreational planning on the Sopris
Meadows (sic) Tree Farm site and assisting local residents of Eagle County and the Town of Basalt in
their initial efforts toward building and developing ball fields and other community amenities on the site.
Roaring Fork Transit Agency
It is projected that the development will generate 4,130 new annual riders, and will impact the
public transit system on an annual basis in the amount of $6,044, with an associated one-time cost of
$7,074.
The site design does not meet the needs of the public transit system, however, RFTA understands
that transit may have been compromised so that other goals could be achieved.
Transit and alternative transportation incentives that could be built into this proposal include:
Build the recreational parking spaces closer to transit for some park-and-ride use.
Purchase bus passes for County employees.
Provide shower facilities in this site plan for the county offices allowing employees to bicycle to
work.
Build bicycle lockers on site for both the offices and recreational facilities.
Try a van pool system for employees ofthe county.
Offer to contribute money toward transit to offset the impact of the development.
The bus stop closest to the development is in need of a pullout, and has been built to
accommodate one. RFTA recommends that the developer coordinate with CDOT and the Town of
Basalt and share in the cost of the proposed bus pullout.
Basalt and Rural Fire District
No comments or concerns.
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Engineering and technical comments (copy attached)
4
03-15-2001
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
The application indicates that an erosion control plan will be submitted with the final plat. Why
wasn't it submitted with the Preliminary Plan?
Disturbed areas are to be seeded, but no mention is made of what these varieties will be.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
In addition to the stormwater detention criteria in the Land Use Regulations designed to
minimize off-site changes to the hydrology, NWCCOG recommends the additional use of its criteria
designed to address water quality impacts from land development.
Recommends that the detention pond and outlet structures for the detention ponds be designed to
minimize off-site pollutant flows.
Recommends that for those drainage basins that have exposure to pollutants (roads, buildings,
parks, etc.) That best management practices be implemented to minimize water quality impacts.
Recommends reviewing the erosion and sediment control criteria listed in the 208 Plan Water
Quality Protection Standards for additional water quality protection measures.
Notes that a vegetated drainage channel conveying stormwater from the detention pond to the
Roaring Fork River, rather than the proposed culvert, might be more aesthetically pleasing and provide
additional water quality enhancement.
Recommends that, as sewer connections are made for the new facilities and buildings, the
existing buildings also be connected to the Mid Valley Metro District.
Colorado Geological Survey
CGS concurs with the assessment made by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechical, Inc., of the geological
hazards present on the site.
CGS recommends a site-specific geotechnical investigation, with subsurface explorations, at the
location of the proposed government office building, and at any other planned structures (other than
picnic shelters and restrooms).
H-P Geotech's report adequately addresses the hazard of sinkholes, and measures that may be
taken to mitigate the hazard. Careful subsurface investigations will provide useful information on
alluvium thickness and the extent of solution cavities in the area.
Colorado Division of Water Resources
The PUD does not appear to qualify as a "subdivision" as defined in applicable statutes. DWR
does not provide comments on land use actions that do not involve the subdivision on land.
Colorado Division of Wildlife
Many of the proposed mitigation measures, such as bear-proof containers, protection of herons,
and a weed management plan, will be beneficial to wildlife.
Concerns include absence in the application of enforcement provisions, such as for:
Closing riparian trails during the waterfowl nesting period.
Requirement of leashing dogs throughout the site, but especially along the riparian trail
throughout the year.
Without adequate enforcement, the value of the riparian corridor may be significantly
compromised due to disturbance.
Colorado State Forest Service
Site has a low wildfire rating.
Only concern regarding wildfire hazard is adequate emergency vehicle turn-around areas
Dead end roads should not be permitted.
Cul-de-sac roads in excess of750 feet in length should have vehicular turnaround areas every
750 feet.
Cul-de-sac turnaround pads should have a radius of 45 feet.
From a tree health point of view, evergreen trees should be planted at least 20 feet from
buildings; deciduous trees at least 10 feet.
5
03-15-2001
Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Building Division, Eagle
County Assessor, Garfield County, Pitkin County, Colorado Department of Transportation, U.S. Bureau
of Land Management, Summit Vista Homeowners Association, Sopris Village Homeowners
Association, US West, Holy Cross Energy, KN Energy.
Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the
review of a Preliminary PUD:
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 the entire site is owned in fee simple by Eagle County.
[+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)]
The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person.
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 applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations
may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F3.f, Variations Authorized.
All identified uses are uses permitted in the Resource zone district either by Right, by Limited
Review, or by Special Review. No variations, pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized,
of the Land Use Regulations, are required.
The Planning Commission has recommended adding a fenced dog park as a permitted use by
right. [Condition # 8]
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)]
The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE 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" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at
the time ofthe application for PUD.
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
applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to
Section 5-240 F3.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.
Certain dimensional limitations are proposed in the PUD Guide. These are all equal to or more
restrictive than 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. However, since the
dimensional limitations differ from those in effect for the property at the time of the application for
PUD, a variation, pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, is required. The proposed
basis for the requested variation is considerations resulting from both the Master Planning processes for
the site and the Sketch Plan approval. This appears to include obtaining desired design qualities and
avoiding environmental resources, as set forth in Section 5-240 F.3.f(3), Basis for Granting Variations,
while leaving adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensuring
proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings.
6
03-15-2001
Staff agrees that the PUD achieves these purposes and that the variations are necessary for those
purposes to be achieved, and makes a favorable finding.
(+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)]
The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT 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. However, variations MAY be permitted as necessary for the PUD
Preliminary Plan to achieve the purposes of obtaining desired design qualities and avoiding
environmental resources.
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, O(f-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 Standards. The applicant may
commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus
passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard.
A condition of approval of the PUD Sketch Plan was that the Applicant provide sufficient
information, including consideration of shared parking, to demonstrate that the proposed development
provides adequate parking for all uses, including active and passive recreation, and that sufficient
"accessible" parking is provided throughout the complex. That information has been provided. Based on
the criteria used, 363 spaces are a reasonable minimum; 412 spaces have been provided.
The Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission has raised a question about the parking
lots being "over-sized". Staff has considered the response of the project team and determined that, given
the overall intent for the site, the proposed parking is reasonable.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)]
It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with
the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for
a reduction in the standards.
STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] -Landscapingprovided 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.
A detailed landscape plan has been provided which satisfies the requirements of the Land Use
Regulations.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
(+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)]
Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2,
Landscaping and Illumination 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 Develovment (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
7
03-15-2001
necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
The sign standards applicable to the PUD will be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign
Regulations.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)]
The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign
Regulations.
STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate
that the development proposed in the 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.
[+] Potable water supplv. - Potable water will be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan
District. A 12" water main exists to the north of the site.
[+] Sewage disposal. - Sanitary sewer service will also be provided by the Mid Valley
Metropolitan District. A 15" PVC sanitary sewer main exists to the north of the site.
[+] Solid waste disvosal. - Services are available in the area.
[+] Electrical supplv. - Electric service will be provided from an adjacent overhead Holy Cross
power line.
[+] Fire vrotection. - The Colorado State Forest Service has noted the advisability of providing
that emergency vehicular turnaround areas being provided every 750 feet on cul-de-sac roads. It appears
that the presence of the parking lots along the internal road (to be designated Eagle County Drive)
provide sufficient turnaround along its entire length. Where Eagle County Drive joins the parking lots
near the existing buildings, it appears that an emergency vehicle would have to make several turning
movements, but a turnaround can be accomplished. The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District has
indicated no concern about the site or the proposed development.
[+] Roads. - The Applicant has not provided Preliminary Plan level drawings, but has indicated
that all suggested and required changes will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. It appears that the
requirements of the Land Use Regulations can be met. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval,
all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition # 9]
With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[n/a] Proximity to Schools - There will be no residents on the site.
[+] Proximity to Police and Fire Protection. and Emergencv Medical Services. - Law
enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services are available in the immediate vicinity.
With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)]
The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the 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 HAS demonstrated that the proposed PUD will
be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical
servIces.
STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements 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
8
03-15-2001
to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be
by a public right-o.fway, 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.
(c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to
aU 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 removedfrom the internal
street network and from off-street parking areas.
[+] Safe, Efficient Access - One of the conditions of approval of the Sketch Plan was that the
road to the existing buildings be constructed by Applicant as soon as feasible. The Applicant has agreed
to provide access directly to the existing buildings at the time the internal access infrastructure for the
government services building is constructed.
A second condition of approval is that the Preliminary Plan address improved pedestrian access
across Valley Road at Highway 82, including careful examination of separated pedestrian crossing, i.e.,
an overpass or underpass not at grade. The Applicant has determined that the cost associated with
constructing an overpass from the site to the north side of Highway 82 to be from $1 million to $1.5
million dollars and would create significant visual impacts that could not be mitigated. The cost of
extending the existing underpass to the site is estimated at just under $500,000. The Planning
Commission has recommended that a pedestrian underpass be constructed as part of Phase II of the
development. [Condition # 4]
A third condition of approval is that a second access for recreation users be explored. The
Planning Commission has recommended that, prior to construction of a pedestrian underpass under East
Valley Road, the pedestrian crosswalk across East Valley Road be moved further east than has been
proposed to the intersection of East Valley Road and Arapahoe (sic). [Condition # 4]
[+] Internal Pathways - Additional conditions of approval of the Sketch Plan are that the
Preliminary Plan be reviewed by the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority trails staff to
refine the internal trail alignment, and that a report on pedestrian and non-motorized movement within
the park be provided at application for Preliminary Plan. The Applicant reports that proposed
Preliminary Plan has been reviewed by the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority and
approved with minor modifications.
Some of the recommended changes have been incorporated into the Preliminary Plan. However,
the Trails Coordinator has recommended that the trail along Valley Road be moved to within 10' to 20'
feet of the Valley Road pavement. The Applicant represents that all changes suggested by the ECO
Trails staff have been incorporated into the Preliminary Plan. Staff Recommends that as a condition of
approval, plans for all internal pathways should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer.
[Condition #9]
With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
9
03-15-2001
[+] Emergency Vehicles - Although not reflected in the Preliminary Plan, emergency access to
the site is proposed to be from Valley Road by way of a 125+ foot easement. The easement will be
reflected on the final plat. The only hardened surface within the proposed easement is a 12 foot wide
path. Staff Recommends that as a condition of approval, the adequacy of the emergency access should be
subject to approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9]
With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding
[+] Principal Access Points - The Applicant has represented that all suggestions and
requirements of the County Engineer will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Staff Recommends
that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by the County
Engineer. [Condition #9]
With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] Snow Storage - Ample areas are available for snow storage.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)]
It HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the
development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access.
(b) Internal Pathways.
(c) Emergency Vehicles
(d) Principal Access Points.
(e) Snow Storage.
STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The
development proposedfor the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
The site and the proposed development have undergone a substantial amount of public review
and scrutiny prior to the preparation and submission of this Sketch Plan application. In the process of
developing the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan and the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Community Park
Master Plan, the comments and concerns of many interested individuals, including representatives of the
Summit Vista Home Owners Association, the Sopris Village Home Owners Association, the Blue Lake
Owners Association, as well as the Town of Basalt, Eagle County and Pitkin County, were factored into
the planning for the development.
In the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Community Park Master Plan, the Community Plan which came out
of that planning process is characterized as representing "the joint vision of valley residents and provides
for at least a portion of the numerous interest groups needs in a compromise plan that maintains the park
with a moderate level of active recreation while also incorporating a variety of other community spaces."
Given the nature of the proposed development, adequate separation and buffering have been provided
with respect to adjacent land uses.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)]
The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land
uses.
STANDARD: Consistency with Master 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 (FLUM).
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. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW
CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED.
10
03-15-2001
EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Eagle County Master Plan. The proposed development generally conforms to all applicable
Guiding Policies of the Eagle County Master Plan.
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
Eagle County Open Space Plan. The proposed development generally conforms to the Policies
of the Eagle County Open Space Plan.
MID V ALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN
Mid Vallev Community Plan. The proposed development generally conforms to all
applicable Policies of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan.
MT. SOPRIS TREE FARM MASTER PLAN
~ I ""_,,tal s"",,,, I """"""'>8""'" 1
11
03-15-2001
x
x
Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan.
A number of Planning Objectives were established for the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan,
including the following:
Provide area for a governmental service facility for County departmental use.
Provide space for needed Mid Valley community uses as determined by County and Town staffs
and local residents as allowed by regulations of the Act [authorizing transfer of the site from the U.S.
Forest Service to Eagle County and Pitkin County].
Provide substantial buffer areas, maximize open space and protect from future development.
Provide adequate access, circulation and parking while minimizing impact to adjacent residential
areas and Valley Road.
Provide and maintain public river access.
Maintain and protect riparian area from proposed land uses.
Develop site Master Plan for use as a guide for site planning and building reuse.
The Master Plan provided two goals, along with a number of Planning Objectives for each. The
Government Services Goal is to ''provide interior and exterior spaces for government services as
defined." Several planning objectives are set forth which include minimizing visual impacts or other
~mpacts on existing and proposed land uses and certain other planning activities.
The Community Services Goal is to ''provide area(s) for future implementation of active and
passive recreation facilities while protecting open space and agricultural uses." Planning objectives are
in the areas of active recreation; passive recreation; agriculture/open space; and open space.
The PUD Preliminary Plan is in conformance with the goals and applicable planning objectives
of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Master Plan.
MT. SOPRIS TREE FARM COMMUNITY PARK MASTER PLAN (BHA Master Plan).
A Community Plan for the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm site came out of this planning effort which
"represents the joint vision of valley residents and provides for at least a portion of the numerous interest
groups needs in a compromise plan that maintains the park with a moderate level of active recreation
while also incorporating a variety of other community spaces." The Community Plan includes a list of
key park elements and a site plan. With the exception of the community service facility being moved
from the west end of the site to a location near the east entrance of the site, the PUD Preliminary Plan
generally conforms to the Community Plan developed as part of this planning effort.
[+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]
The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM).
STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor 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.
12
03-15-2001
The PUD is to be developed in at least two phases. The first includes the Government Building,
associated parking and the internal road to the existing buildings near the northwest corner of the site.
The recreation portion of the site is proposed to be developed by a recreation authority which is yet to be
formed.
The Applicant represents that all suggestions and requirements of the County Engineer will be
incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering
plans should be subject to final approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9]
With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)
A sufficient phasing plan HAS been provided for this development.
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 of25% 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.
i 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.
ii. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat
areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use
Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when
they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be
conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD.
(b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be
shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the
development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD.
(c) 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.
(d) 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.
Over 50 percent of the site is proposed to consist of common recreation and open space. The
recreation portions of the site are to be developed by a recreation authority yet to be established.
Maintenance of the recreation areas of the site will be responsibility of that recreation authority.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]
The PUD HAS been demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to:
13
03-15-2001
(a) Minimum area;
(b) Improvements required;
(c) Continuing use and maintenance; or
(d) Organization.
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.
The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) concurs with the assessment made by Hepworth-Pawlak
Geotechical, Inc., of the geological hazards present on the site, and notes that their report adequately
addresses the hazard of sinkholes, and measures that may be taken to mitigate the hazard. Careful
subsurface investigations will provide useful information on alluvium thickness and the extent of
solution cavities in the area. The Applicant has represented that subsurface explorations at the
Government Building site have been completed and will be submitted with the building permit
application.
The Colorado Division of Wildlife has expressed concern about the enforcement of [1] limited
access to the riparian trails during the waterfowl nesting period, and [2] the leashing of dogs on the
property. The Applicant represents that Eagle County will place of necessary signs in the area and
enforce closure of the trails. Dogs within the park will be required to be leashed at all times.
[+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)]
The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis
documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of
referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been
considered.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the
review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision:
STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan.
See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)]
The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map
(PLUM).
STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The
proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of
these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone
Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards.
Article 3, Zone Districts
[+] All applicable provisions of Article will be satisfied.
Article 4, Site Development Standards
[+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
As discussed under Off Street Parking and Loading [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)], above, the
proposed development conforms with these standards.
[+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2)
As discussed under Landscaping, [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)], above, the proposed development
conforms with these standards.
[+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3)
As discussed under Signs, [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)], above, the proposed development conforms
with these standards.
14
03-15-2001
[+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4)
[+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - As noted above under Natural Resource Protection
[Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)], the Colorado Division of Wildlife has expressed concern about certain
enforcement issues. The Applicant represents that Eagle County will place of necessary signs in the area
and enforce closure of the trails. Dogs within the park will be required to be leashed at all times.
[+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - As noted above, the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS)
concurs with the assessment made by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechical, Inc., of the geological hazards
present on the site. The Applicant has represented that subsurface explorations at the Government
Building site have been completed and will be submitted with the building permit application. As a
condition of approval, a note should be required on the final plat that site-specific geotechnical
investigations, with subsurface explorations, should be provided for the location of the proposed
government office building, and at other planned structures (other than picnic shelters and restrooms)
prior to issuance of building permits. [Condition #2]
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service has raised questions
abut the turnaround for emergency vehicles. As noted above under Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-
240.F.3.e (7)], it appears that adequate turnarounds exist. The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District
has indicated no concern about the site or the proposed development.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+ ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - Although the application apparently is not specific
about the use of wood burning devices, such device apparently are neither contemplated or proposed.
All uses of wood burning devices in the PUD will be required to conform to the requirements of this
Section.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - This site is not included on lands designated on the
Ridgeline Protection Map. Given the valley floor location of the site, ridgeline impacts are not a factor.
The Applicant is not required to provide a ridgeling analysis. Consequently, this Section is not
applicable to this application.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - An Environmental Impact Report which
satisfies the requirements of this Section has been provided.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5)
There are no significant commercial or industrial operation on the proposed site which would
subject this application to the provisions of this Division.
[+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6)
[+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - The Applicant has represented that all changes
required and suggested by the County Engineer will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Staff
recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by
the County Engineer. [Condition #9]
With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Applicant represents that all changes
suggested by the ECO Trails staff have been incorporatedjnto the Preliminary Plan. Staff recommends
that as a condition of approval, all sidewalk and trails plans should be subject to final approval by the
County Engineer. [Condition #9]
[+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - It appears that this standard will be met.
[+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The Applicant has represented that all changes
required and suggested by the County Engineer will be incorporated in the Preliminary Plan. Staff
15
03-15-2001
recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final approval by
the County Engineer. [Condition #9]
With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The Applicant has represented
that all changes required and suggested by the County Engineer will be incorporated in the Preliminary
Plan. Staff recommends that as a condition of approval, all engineering plans should be subject to final
approval by the County Engineer. [Condition #9]
With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - It appears that the standards of this Section
will be satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - It appears that the standards of this Section will be
satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - It appears that the standards of this
Section will be satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding.
[n/a] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7)
No residential units are proposed on the site, Therefore, no school land dedication is required.
Other Standards in the Land Use Regulations
Other Standards - It appears that all other standards of the Land Use Regulations will be met,
except as discussed elsewhere in this Staff Report.
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)]
The Applicant HAS fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the
standards of this Section and all other provisions ofthese Land Use Regulations, including, but not
limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development
Standards.
STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in
the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or
result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
(a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's
service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed
road extensions shall be consistent with the Eaflle County Road Capital Improvements Plan.
(b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate
population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines.
(c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the
entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service
into an otherwise un-served area.
The proposed development is located near existing development and requires limited extension
and/or improvement of utility service lines and roads. Water and sewer service lines can be extended
along with other utility lines. It appears that utility lines will be sized to serve the planned ultimate
needs and avoid disruption which would result from undersized lines, and that proposed road extensions
can be shown to be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. Consequently,
the efficiency of the spatial pattern has been demonstrated.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)]
The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public
facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed
16
03-15-2001
to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources
and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and
existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
Staff review of the proposed development indicates that the property is suitable for development.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)]
The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography,
environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of
the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not
adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
The proposed subdivision is compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and
will not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area.
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)]
The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and
SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F .2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant
shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions."
Staff makes a favorable finding.
[+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)]
Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that demonstrates meets the requirements of this
Section.
Requirements for a Zone Change In Section 5-240.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the. . . Official Zone District Map or any other map
incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of
County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor. Based on the above analysis and other
available information, Staff makes the following findings as provided in this Section of the Land Use
Regulations:
(1) [+] Consistency With Master Plan. With proposed conditions of approval, the proposed PUD
IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM ofthe Master Plan;
(2) [+] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment IS compatible with
existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed conditions of approval, it IS
an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of
the proposed zone district;
(3) [+] Changed conditions. There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to
modify the present zone district and/or its density/intensity;
(4) [+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment DOES NOT result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from development
under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife
habitat, vegetation, and wetlands.
(5) [+] Community need. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a
community need.
(6) [+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment DOES result in a logical and orderly
development pattern, DOES NOT constitute spot zoning, MAY logically be provided with necessary
public facilities and services; and
17
03-15-2001
(7) [+] Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAVE changed
to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area.
Mr. Forinash stated the one outstanding condition is the recommended condition #4 regarding
construction of an underpass under East Valley Road. He showed the area of the improvements. He
stated what is proposed in the condition is that early on in the development a proposed crossing be
constructed. He showed the existing crossing and the concern that has been expressed about safety and
the cars coming around the corner. He stated what has been proposed is moving the crossing east
providing for three way stop signs and a better safety factor for access from the northeast. The other
recommendation is the underpass under Highway 82 extending across east Valley Road to the underpass
exit, surfacing north of the proposed building.
Condition 4 - Upon commencement of Phase II a pedestrian underpass be required and Eagle
County be reasonable for 35% of the cost, based on its pedestrian impacts as identified in the report.
The condition recommended by the County Engineer is that the seek approval by CDOT to move the
pedestrian access to the intersection of East Valley Road and Sopris Village Drive. He stated that is the
end of the formal staff presentation and he turned it over to the applicant.
Chairman Stone asked Mr. Roussos to hand out the sign up sheets for public comment.
Dave Michaelson, Otak Rock Creek Studio, thanked the Board for coming to Basalt and stated
they appreciate them making the drive. He spoke to the rich and colorful history in the Roaring Fork
Valley and how it makes for spirited debate. He spoke to the busload of individuals and where the
rubber meets the road is in the public process. He introduced Scott Smith of Reno Smith Architects who
is responsible for the architecture and design. He stated they have been involved from the very start
designing the plan. Also a representation from Larson Engineering who are here to answer questions.
Dave Rubel from Lee, Scott & Cleary and previously from CDOT was here to answer questions as well.
He stated he would like to take them through the process with which he has been involved with, to
review the sketch plan and review the planning and zoning hearing. He will then pass it on to Dave
Carpenter to talk about the landscape plan and the orientation of the ball fields. He spoke to his past as a
tennis professional in Fort Collins and this project taking him back to that. He stated recreational
facilities can never be everything to everybody. He stated he has found there are a lot of competing
interests on this property and they believe they have done their best to try to accommodate the majority.
He spoke to some of the issues that came out of the sketch plan. One being the shared parking issues.
He stated one alternative they have wanted to attain is getting the parking in place before the recreational
activities take place. The trail charge was also an issue and concern that they may not have coordinated
with Eco Trails as much as the Board had wanted. Eco Trails are now voicing agreement and support.
There was a point to ensure that before the facilities take place that the road be aligned. As part of this,
the County has agreed to build the road and maintain it. In addition there were significant issues with the
pedestrian access. It is not a traditional four lane intersection and their desire was to find a solution that
will work. There are complications with the CDOT right of way. There is a single point of access and
they have refined that as well. They had two meetings with Planning and Zoning and the debate was
spirited. They were concerned about the secondary access point. What they have shown on the plans is
that they have reserved the potential to come out of Valley Road across from Summit Vista. He spoke to
the analysis by Bob Lee. The P & Z recommended conservation of the easement. In addition there was
debate about pedestrian access which has been reviewed by CDOT. He stated P & Z has asked them to
calculate the uses both by the offices and recreational. 35% will likely be associated with the office
building and 65% for recreational use. He stated Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, is here to
address the issues with CDOT as well as Joe Rubel. He further explained the pedestrian rates and the
factors accepted by those in the field. For recreational uses it is difficult to have a handle on the
numbers. He suggested by leaving the room they decided the underpass was a reasonable way to handle
it. He stated Bob Schultz spearheaded some changes to the PUD guide. He stated Bob felt the PUD
18
03-15-2001
guide needed revisions for clarifying the uses and nailing those down. He stated they have included the
wildlife analysis as part of the PUD which was important to the design team and the P & Z. He
addressed phasing and the verbal agreement with the Town of Basalt to provide recreation before the
Recreation District develops. He suggested there are some drawbacks. They suggested there be some
recreational uses prior to the secondary phase as long as they could prove there are adequate parking and
sanitary facilities. There were some concerns about weed and pest control and some of those uses.
There were questions about the irrigation plan. He stated in the original BHA plan there was discussion
of retaining the lower part of the property for agricultural uses. They discussed the option of eventually
returning that area to native vegetation which would reduce the maintenance costs to the County.
Planning & Zoning had some significant concerns about limiting the expansion of recreational uses on
the site. They have not done that, however who ever comes in with recreational uses can amend the
PUD. Their charge was to stay consistent with BHA. He addressed the lighting. There are issues
associated with the parking lot and the government building. He spoke to the Basalt lighting ordinances
with which they will comply. He spoke to the standards they will be required to meet. Finally was a
recommendation from the Rural Transit Authority to arrive at a mitigation figure for transit. They feel
that they would like to set the tone for adopting some associated fee of $7,023.00. He turned it over to
Dave Rubel to talk about the landscape plan.
Mr. Rubel spoke to the orientation of the ball fields being northeast and northwest was of
primary importance. Having the uses clustered wasn't so critical. They brought the orientation back to
the BHA plan. The eastern field is to have a multi use for overflow soccer in addition to baseball. One
of the great things about this arrangement is that it is flexible so there is potential for a number of uses.
He pointed out another recommendation being the future access point in the upper left hand corner. He
stated that is the overview of the adjustments to the fields.
Scott Smith spoke to the public building which is located in the northeast corner of the site. He
stated some of the reasons for choosing the site is access to the corner and transit stop. They tried to
keep it back and far enough from the corner to maintain some quietness but not interrupt the rest of the
site. He spoke to the shared parking facility with the entry off of Valley Road about 400 feet from the
intersection to minimize traffic impact after an event. He stated the two main functions of the building
include providing a central location for the central public services. He explained most of the offices are
now spread out. He stated it also provides for a series of large public facilities. He explained the
building layout with offices being accessed through a public entry on the first floor. He showed the plan
and the public offices and spaces being organized facing the southwest with the public gathering space
doing the same. The departments there are Administration and include the Assessor, County Clerk,
Community Development, Facilities Management, and Sheriffs substation to the back ofthe building.
On the northeast corner is the Courts with access for the judge and personnel into the large multipurpose
room. On the second floor, accessed by a large open stairway and elevator, is the Health and Human
Services Offices. In previous meetings concerns with the visual impacts were discussed. He referred to
the 3-d renderings and the view seen from the intersection of Highway 82 and Valley Road. Another
view is from Sopris Village which is adjacent to the first residence. He stated the building is seen with
the backdrop of the El Jebel intersection and Missouri Heights. He showed another view ofthe building
and the location. He showed color renderings ofthe building from close up. In terms of the massing of
the building they have tried to keep the two story component to the south side. He stated they
incorporated step facades and dormers to help light the interior of the building. The materials have been
selected for cost effectiveness. He explained the exterior design, siding, stucco and color. He talked to
the timber and wood columns. The colors are darker earth tones.
Mr. Smith stated there is approximately 3000 square feet available for Pitkin County Offices.
Chairman Stone asked that people hold their questions until public comment. He introduced
George Roussos, Assistant County Administrator. He stated there are approximately 70 people who
have signed up to speak and they are going to allocate 2 minutes per person. He spoke to the Town of
19
03-15-2001
Basalt and asked if they will be speaking individually or collectively. He introduced Bud Gates, Ex
County Commissioner, and asked him to share his feelings.
Bud Gates stated he has been gone for some time and was surprised to see all the building but
nothing as of yet at the Tree Farm. He stated he is hoping that the community will come together to get
the facility done. He suggested they should make the shoe fit the horses foot instead of the other way
around. He spoke to the guidelines available for the property and if it is not used properly it will return
to the Forest Service. He asked the people get together, talk together and make the commitments to
work together.
George Roussos stated he will call each person's name, giving them two minutes each to voice
their concern. Mr. Smith will make note of the issues discussed for the Board. He called a number of
names of individuals who had left.
Darrell Rankin, area resident, spoke to the original Master Plan and that the uses have changed.
He stated it is tough to define where the open space agricultural has increased limiting the uses for
recreational. He stated the original amount was about 37% and the percentages of uses should be
maintained. He asked there be language contained in the PUD Guide concerning specific zoning uses
inside the PUD. He stated the BHA original plan was amended as a compromise from the general
interests and the interested groups. He asked if the amendment came about without public input.
John Swanson, area resident, stated the major concern that he has is the necessity of having office
space in this location. In 1994 and in the 70's when it was considered this would be a good place for
offices was before a new alternative came up and that is Willits. This is a relatively new arrival and
bears consideration. It leaves the footprint for more active recreational uses. If it is paved over it won't
be used for recreation in the future.
Barbara Forrest, resident of Sopris Village, handed out a picture of the Tree Farm from her
kitchen window. She stated she is an MT with Sopris Fire. She stated she doesn't like the idea of the
Sheriffs Department out the back side as it impacts Sopris Village as well as the parking and the
lighting. She is concerned about the irrigation of the property and the ultimate weeds. She suggested if
they need to expand 3000 feet that will also impact Sopris Village. The impact ofthe traffic will also be
an issue. She stated she saw a Bald Eagle on the site this morning. The second access in Summit Vista
has always been a concern. The transit authority may want to put their transit out there if they get a train.
Dee Strack, area resident, stated she likes this plan in that it combines a little bit of everything for
everybody. She stated the community aspect is missing. She believes they can combine everybody's
needs. She is a spots enthusiast and landscaper and sees that they can combine the uses for everybody to
use. She is all for it.
Mark Fuller, resident of Missouri Heights, stated he has been involved on this property prior to
the acquisition. He has been involved in the BHA process and the public involvement in that plan. Two
issues caused heat. One being the proximity to Sopris Village and those people not wanting the ball
fields. The other issue is the lights. Had they proposed lighting to an urban standard. He doubts that
they will be nullified by the Basalt Lighting standard. He does not think this is in the spirit of the BHA
plan and flies in the face of that plan.
Marty Schlein, resident of Garfield County, stated he has watched and seen this over the years.
He thinks a few ballfields is a great idea but may not be utilized by all. Night use in the summer does
not necessitate lights. He questions winter use and there being cross country ski trails and outdoor
skating rink. What about a commercial orchard, garden space, etc. As for the buildings, you need them,
you have to put them somewhere. Consider the neighbors. Limiting the amount of ballfields would not
hurt him at all.
Ted Guy, resident since 1988 on Willits Lane, stated he was Chairman ofthe Planning Board
previously. He thanked the Board. He stated he supports this application in this location as it is central
to the Mid-Valley community serving Blue Lake. He suggested the two acre sight in Willits could be a
soccer field. He stated that new community has few recreational facilities. He supports no lights and
20
03-15-2001
asks they work with the federal government to get rid of the lights at the post office. He stated he is
concerned with the neighbors. He stated they should thank their lucky stars that they have this much
open space. He urged them to build the recreational facilities as fast as possible. He spoke as a board
member of the Mid-Valley Sanitation District and the concerns with the water and sewage lines.
Debra Morrison a resident of Blue Lake stated she is not as familiar with this project as some.
She is a kids advocate. They need a place for kids to go. Utilize what they have, move to Willits. There
is a lot of space. Offices are already there. Build the fields, save space for a pool. They need a place for
kids to go.
Tim Hobbs, resident of unincorporated Garfield County, stated he is with Three Rivers Baseball
and is interested in more active recreation. He stated the overlay works in theory but the seasons are
simultaneous. He stated in 1999 they had 108 kids place this year 205 or more will play. The biggest
constraint is the availability of fields. The more the better.
Peter Jaycox, resident of Blue Lake, stated this is more about the building and that Eagle County
has said they will not do recreation. He spoke to the open space and the effective use of the area. He
feels this is not being responsible to the open space and what is there already. He asks they build the
office space where it belongs and be responsible to the open space.
Anne Austin-Clapper, resident of Emma in Eagle County, stated she is in favor of the recreation,
it is the building to which she is opposed. She spoke to the flyer and the conservation of "it" being
preserved. She spoke to the 1.3 million on the road and that is needed whether there is a building or not.
She stated it is an improvement. She spoke to the Planning Commission recommending approval but
that was before Willits was offered. She stated this building is totally isolated and everyone will use
their cars to go to Willits. She spoke to looking at other locations but that was three or four years ago.
She stated Willits has offered to do the infrastructure and the cots will be a lot less.
Willard Clapper, area resident, stated this building is almost as big as an Aspen house. A hockey
rink would be okay too. Save as much land as possible. He asked if the government is responsive. He
asked if they are being responsive when there is something that is better and cheaper. He spoke to a
fight his sister-in-law had with EP A. He stated they responded they can't stop it because they started it.
He asked they show flexibility and make something that is good for everyone. He is a kid advocate and
the facilities in Aspen are not available. They would like to have the first class facilities that are on the
other side. Save the space and get the recreational facilities where they should be.
David Boyle, resident of Missouri Heights, stated he'd like to see every square inch of the Tree
Farm saved for recreation and open space. Please put the building at Willits.
Andy Soliday, resident of Parks ide, stated he submitted a letter and stated this is representing all
of the subdivision.
Laurie Solidaym resident of Parkside, stated she has a letter from Sopris Village opposing the
building. She acknowledged the Eagle County staff and thanked them for their responsiveness to her
requests. She stated she has read and studied everything. She spoke to the needs and concerns of her
neighbors. She spoke to the consumption of open space and that the other options should be explored.
She spoke to the misconception and her door to door visits. There is some allusion that this has been
created as a community building. This is an administrative office with a Sheriff s office. She stated she
has heard that if there is no building there will not be recreation. She stated a community must vote to
create and maintain a recreational district. She asked why the recreation district would be responsible
for the intersection. Eagle County should bear that responsibility. She spoke to the financial money
applied to this project. She questions the fiscal responsibility and the expense to the highway. She
questions the traffic study of April 1999 during one day of the off season. She asked why does an
administrative building have to be here and what the purpose of the public process for a PUD is for. She
suggested it seems the minds have been made up. She asked Mr. Stone and Mr. Gallagher how they can
vote in good conscience on the final PUD when there have been specific actions they have voted on
saying they would go through with this. This is not a proposed land action. Somewhere someone's
21
03-15-2001
mind has been made up. She would like to challenge them to exempt themselves from the vote, because
they have already done that.
Dave Reed, Basalt Board of Trustees and an Eagle County resident, stated he is not advocating
they move this plan to Willits because that should be done at sketch plan. He stated if they are going to
put the building at the Tree Farm the pedestrian underpass must be addressed and sooner rather than
later. He is concerned it may be a long time in funding and maybe there is a way to get the up front
financing. He asked they minimize the lighting. He asked procedurally that the Board do what they are
doing by coming to the Roaring Fork Valley. He stated this decision of where to put the building should
occur at sketch plan and it is coming forward now because the ground work was not done sooner.
Bonnie Williams, area resident, thanked the Commissioners and Bud Gates for coming over.
She stated the Board came over once a month for a while and while people attended at first, that
dwindled to just a few. She thinks this site is a good site for the County building. She stated it is within
walking distance for about 50 businesses. It is within walking distance of City Market, the movie theater
and the bowling alley. She questions the County offices being built in the middle of an open field.
Recreation is needed for everyone and especially for the kids. She spoke to the skate park and the
reduction of graffiti.
Adele Hubbell, area resident, thanked everyone for coming over tonight and especially Bud
Gates. She thanked Bud and his colleges for the work they have done over the past eighteen years. This
Board is the second and third generation. She stated there is one young lady who speaks very well but
where was she for the previous meetings. She would like to know if there is access to the river because
she is concerned about the wildlife. She is in favor of the County offices going on this site as it
eliminates traffic and is withing walking distance for the surrounding areas. She spoke to the bike path
and the walkway from Willits. She understands that Willits is scheduled to be four lane.
Mark Fribbs, member of the task force who has sent notes over the last year, stated it is two
issues, the recreation and the building. He encouraged the Board to go with the plan they turned in and
the charette that took a great deal of effort. It took compromise. He asked they take care to look at that
When they met they had concerns with the building going where it is going as it came out of the active
recreational space. They actually tried to make the best of it. With the building there they will ask Eagle
County to help with the recreational aspects. There are some positives for the building to be there for the
recreation. He asked what the Board's thoughts are to help with the active recreation. He asked ifthere
is money there. He spoke to campaign comments.
Ryan Anslyn, resident of Basalt and a valley native, stated he would like to see the building in
Willits.
Jeff Britt, area resident, stated he would like to see the building where it is. He likes the plan
Tom Baker, resident of Eagle County and the Town Administrator of Basalt, spoke to the urban
settlement patterns at Willits. He would like to encourage the Board to take another look at the BHA
plan and the work and compromises that went into it. The Town realizes this is a difficult decision and
they would like to offer assistance if the Board will look at the utilization of Willits. He spoke to the
costs and the future costs of the recreational facility that will be precluded with building the office
building. The Tree Farm is the recreation resource for the next 50 years. He spoke to a skating rink and
that taken out ofthe 78,000 square feet and then a swimming pool. The square footage will be
consumed. They would like them to consider taking another look and the Town is amendable to that.
John Fox-Rubin, area resident, stated he was on the Basalt Planning Commission when they
submitted a referral. He is now on the Board of Trustees. He asked they frame their decision as a
business decision. He stated this is a long term investment in the community's future. He suggested the
investment so far is a short term investment. The short term gain of one office building limits the future
of the site. He spoke to ice skating and indoor recreational needs. He asked them to consider the
investment to date as a sub cost. He spoke to the Crawford sites and asked they make a fiscal decision.
He stated the Town of Basalt would like to work with them and they can make a community decision.
22
03-15-2001
He asked the decisions be framed in the same way.
Elizabeth Phillips, area resident, thanked the Commissioners for coming this evening. She
thanked Bud Gates and the others. She is a twenty-three year resident. She stated she would like to
request they put the community related building in Willits. She spoke to the traffic.
Curt Warnecke, 22 resident in the valley and resident in Willits subdivision, stated he was a task
force member and some of the frustrations about the building being in that site. He stated it makes clear
sense and the community would prefer this over Willits.
Chris Bank, of Garfield County was also part ofthe task force, stated they met for over a year. It
was the task force that was challenged with this plan. He stated there is now something offered at
Willits. How far do you go. He stated there are existing buildings at the Tree Farm and they don't have
access to them. It seems like this has been thrown up at the last minute and he has seen this happen
before. He spoke to making a business decision and following the plan.
Rich Leety, Garfield County resident, asked to address two things. One being the need for more
fields. He stated there are kids playing in the fields in the evenings. He spoke to utilization of the fields
and attracting kids to play during the day. He spoke to the location and looking at Willits. He stated he
has lived in nicer army barracks. He suggested this is a nice park setting and in the future there will be a
beautiful place to be.
Polly Pallard, Basalt resident, stated she appreciates the Board coming and that Eagle County has
listened. She stated the buildings have been moved. She thinks they should keep the building where it
is. She suggested Willits may be a good location for the library. She asked where these people have
been all this time.
Becky Anslyn, resident of Basalt and property owner in Summit Vista, stated she is second
generation. Her son and daughter have made this valley their home. She suggested to direct the energy
flow to Willits is what she strongly urges them to do. She spoke to the fiber optics and that she knows
that conceivably this will not be set up with the kind of infrastructure needed. She asked they not set
their mind to what they have already done.
Ashley Pappadakis, native of the valley, suggested that those who think the building should be
here live in Basalt. She stated Willits is not going to be an open field and that the building should go
there. She would like the square footage saved for indoor recreational uses.
Roman Pappadakis, area resident, stated he loves waking up and seeing the beauty of the
mountains behind them. He is in favor of Willits. He appreciates everyone who has taken the time to be
here. He has a tough time walking down to the park and there being holding cells there. He has lived in
the cities and that is one of the reasons he lives here. He has lived in Del Mar which has grown
gradually and safely. He asked the Board to take the time to evaluate their opinions.
Mark Furlong, a resident of Missouri Heights, stated he is favor of leaving the building there and
turning the ball fields around to make a natural way to approach them. He is in favor of leaving the
building there with strict limitations on the lighting.
Greg Adams, a resident of Sopris Village, thanked the Board. He spoke to the many years of this
project and the use of time and use of space. He thinks they need to make an effective decision on the
use of open space. He suggested they look at options with open space being key. He asked they look at
winter use too. He suggested Willits may be a good use or Crawford property. He spoke to the lighting
and traffic and the future of the children and their safety. He asked they take a look at the proper use of
the money. He asked they take a look at the amount of square footage and putting some restriction to
that. He suggested with this building and an expansion, does that mean a parking structure, lighting, etc.
He suggested they need to have an effective underpass. He stated it was mentioned earlier they are
welcome to take a look, hear the questions and what they have to say. It is in his interest that they hear
the Board's questions tonight as well.
Maria Blake-Meyers, representing the Basalt Public School System, stated she is well known for
looking at the bigger picture and feels compelled to represent 650 kids at the elementary school. They
23
03-15-2001
are maxed out. She doesn't know where this building should go but they need every square inch of
space for the children of this valley. They are not all kids that can go up valley. She spoke to the social
economic issues and the need for kids to come together to play ball. Please keep the kids and the future
of the valley in the front line.
Mike Dawkins, a resident on Emma Road, stated these are great pictures, but he doesn't see any
cars or the parking lot that will surround the building. He stated it was probably about a year ago and
questions why it needs to be in this location. He suggested pieces of property like this are like a nail
they keep pounding through the valley. The big thing with this is that it is a government piece of
property. He hopes that his is not an exercise in futility and that minds are not made up. He asks the
government be flexible and that they will look at some of the other things that are out there.
Jacque Whitsitt, area resident, thanked the Board for coming over. She asked that they please
hold all public hearings over here and requests they televise the meetings and send them the tapes as they
would like to know what goes on in Eagle County. She suggested this is not about Willits but about a
greater good for the people. She spoke to the building in Eagle and it being within walking distance
from the developed area. She seconded that this should be a business decision and that Basalt has
offered to pay for a comparative analysis. It is high on her list that they be fiscally and socially
responsible. She echoed what Rick Stevens has said that sometimes the best decisions are made at the
eleventh hour. She asked they undig their heals and look at what is the best deal getting away from the
pride and the stubbornness.
Ann Freedman, Eagle County resident in Basalt, stated she would like to speak as one elected
official to another and putting the health, welfare and safety before all other. She stated she knows the
Planning & Zoning recommended approval but by focusing only on the specifics of the PUD. That is a
narrow vision. They need to look more broadly and to save what open space they have. She thinks that
financially putting the building at Willits will be more fiscally responsible. She stated it is important to
keep the building separate from the open space. That will only be done with the creation of a recreation
district.
Leroy Duroux, Basalt resident and Town Trustee, thanked the Board for recognizing the need to
consolidate facilities. He spoke to the limits of recreational facilities as they are not required by Eagle
County. He spoke to BHA and the plan that was agreed on. He stated that plan was adopted at a joint
meeting of Pitkin County, Eagle County and the Town of Basalt. He does not think that the recreation
district should have to pay for off site improvements. He stated the Town of Basalt has offered to pay
for an alternative site. This came into being just a year ago. He stated they have to make the final
decision but they need to research all the options and give them all due consideration.
Rick Stevens asked about a point of order and the agenda.
Mr. Roussos stated what is in front of them is a suggested script.
Chairman Stone stated they are not holding off on the Town of Basalt comments until after the
staff.
Rick Stevens thanked the Board. He is a resident of Eagle County and Mayor of Basalt. He
spoke to the letter addressed to the Board from the Town of Basalt. He spoke to the Board being willing
to fund an economic analysis of the sites. He stated they are offering to bring the group back that has
previously done studies in the valley. He stated to clarify, the soccer field in Willits is a regulation field
so that it can take as much traffic as it gets. He stated the Basalt post office standard is a federal
standard for lighting and not the Town of Basalt's. About the recreation district, there is an issue with
the future expansion of the fields. Condition #4 in the PUD talks about the underpass and Eagle County
paying 35% the cost is a $483,000 price tag with the other 65% coming from the recreation district. He
stated Mr. Guy pointed out the water and sewage lines that will have to be moved. He spoke to the
district formation of the Roaring Fork Park District. He explained the questions and the results on the
question being interesting. He stated what those figures demonstrate is that open space is important and
people are willing to pay for it. He spoke to six acres on the river in Basalt and the site being a
24
03-15-2001
combination of buildings and open space. He stated they will have 70,000 square feet of open space
costing approximately $250 a square foot. He spoke to their offering ofthe Willits site. He stated one
of the things that has interested him is that development continues to be approved. He spoke to the lack
of locations for school sites. He suggested they do not have the ability to go out and buy school sites.
They have not seen a net gain in any of the public amenities with the development. He thanked the
Board and asked they consider Willits.
Herb Weisbard, an Eagle County resident since 1974, stated there is a lot of information that is
incorrect in the handout. He stated if you are talking about taking away open space from recreation it is
a minimal amount. He stated being retired has given him time to develop a community theme park. He
spoke to the various amenities and the facility providing the ground work. He has listened to the
presentations of those of the Town of Basalt and the recreation people. He spoke to some ofthe
planning by the Town of Basalt. He spoke to the high school being only accessible by car. He spoke to
the copy of the letter to Eagle County Commissioners from the Town of Basalt and the special interest
between the developer and the Town of Basalt. He stated they are not here for the developers and the
Town of Basalt. There can be a world class park.
Royal Layboum, resident of Missouri Heights, thanked the Board for this meeting. He suggested
the Eagle County Commissioners and staffhave listened to the people ofthe Roaring Fork Valley. He
spoke to his roles on the various committees and working with the task force. He stated the PUD
proposal under consideration is in the best interests of the residents. He stated this plan has been
developed over the years. He suggested Basalt wants to tell Eagle County how to develop. He spoke to
Willits. Basalt has had an opportunity to participate. If Basalt wants to contribute the land, let them
build a library. He spoke to the movement of the ball fields so that they work with the property and
drain appropriately.
Chairman Stone thanked everyone and suggested there will be answers from staff and the
consultants. He stated that will be the end of public comment and that it is officially closed.
Chairman Stone thanked everyone for the civil manner in which tonight's meeting has been
conducted. He suggested that staff doesn't have additional comment to make
Dave Michaels thanked everyone as well. He stated as they know they have a land use
application in front of them that is what it is and proposes what it does. He looks at Willits as a political
question. There was an in depth analysis that looked at all three sites. The complexion of the alternative
sites has changed. He stated there was a lot of talk about the BHA planning effort and with respect to
those that put work in to it. As a planner he looked at two specific portions, one bing page four and the
matching up of the percentages. In addition there is a long list of uses that are on page 12 of the BHA
plan and he believes they have included every one of those uses without exception. Have issues based
on recreational needs changed, maybe that is so, but they felt as a team that they created consensus. He
stated there was a reference to the location of the Sheriff s office and why that is there. He stated as part
of the PUD application they had to provide a cost estimate for the landscape plan and they have enforced
that according to code. He stated they have the authority to require some financial backing to make sure
that happens. He spoke to the expansion of recreational uses and that can happen. The PUD would have
to be amended. He spoke to the reference of the ultimate impact of the building on the recreational uses.
He stated with the building, including the 3000 square foot expansion, there is 12,000 square feet of
footprint and 50,000 square feet in the existing building. In terms of the second access, that is what they
do in a public hearing and decide the impacts to the intersection and the adjacent neighbors. He stated it
was part of the PUD discussion and if the Board asks the next phase to include a second access they can
do that. He spoke to reference to the rail transit site. He stated his firm has done site analysis from here
to Aspen. He believes that issue is independent from this issue. There was also reference to applying
urban lighting standards. That is not their intent. Their intent is to tie this to the Basalt lighting
standards as they are the most conservative. He spoke to shutting down security lighting when not
needed. He read from the pun guide and the reduction of lighting during evening hours. They can look
25
03-15-2001
at more restrictive lighting requirements. He stated they are not lighting the fields or the trails and are
lighting for safety. He spoke to the issues about funding the recreation district, and related that generally
Counties have found that the previous stance of not funding recreation needs addressing. They may have
heard enough tonight to consider a recreation mitigation standard. He spoke to the winter use potential
on the site. He suggested cross country skiing is possible but they have not proposed it though it may be
a use by right. He referenced the engineering issues about the underpass. They know the water and
sewer lines are there and they were considered in the cost analysis. Consistency with the BHA plan. He
suggested the PUD creates a specific zone district. He stated there is only one zoning and they have not
gotten beyond the spirit of BHA. He spoke to the reference of outside hockey which was not included
though there is inside hockey to be considered. He stated it is a use they can consider. He stated they
haven't restricted any uses inside the existing buildings. He stated what is allowed is 12,000 square feet
of building. The proportional share of the underpass was a condition the Planning & Zoning felt
comfortable with. He spoke to the rational of the cost estimate. He stated this is public record and he
can't speak to the validity. He spoke to the traffic analysis methodology. He addressed the legitimacy of
the PUD process. He stated this was originally considered under a special use permit. He stated he was
a strong advocate for the PUD because it forces them to look at the entire site. In addition, the standards
for a PUD are more strict and the public process more active. They could have consolidated the PUD
with sketch plan but they chose not to, to protect the public process. There was reference to tap fees and
construction documents being signed before approval. That is not uncommon and those were done
contingent on approval. Does that mean they have predetermined the approval. That is not for him to
say. Access to the river. They talked at length with DOW and they were very concerned with
umestricted access to the river. This piece is in about as good of shape as any place on the river. There
are two points of access and they are limited and primitive. He spoke to the difference between the BHA
and the charette. This was the best place they could get to. He stated they could go back but their
direction was to stay consistent with the BHA plan. The orientation of the fields. The BHA plan was a
conceptual site plan with no consideration to the engineering. When Dave took a look at it, they felt the
orientation of the fields made sense to put the seating and the bull pens close to the parking lot. When
they changed that they did so by looking at the PUD guide and that being a minor alteration to the PUD.
That can be approved by the Community Development Director. He stated they dealt with the
orientation of the fields which allows for movement as needed. They are showing the BHA plan and
that is not what they should be spending time on tonight. The question of limiting the total square
footage, that is the PUD Guide. The building can never get above the 15,000 square feet. The concern
was chipping away at the square footage and the answer is no. They can ask for an amendment to the
PUD. They have tried to depress the parking area so that people can enjoy the vista. He suggested they
make un-digging their heals a condition. He spoke to the term health, safety and welfare. He spoke to
the consideration of alternatives. There were a couple of references to the financial impact of the
alternatives. He stated he has never seen the numbers. Lastly Rick Stevens had comments on open
space issues. He stated they worked for countless hours on the open space that has been voted on and
passed. He stated that is one reason why Pitkin and Eagle had the foresight to look at this area for open
space. He stated the building itself occupies 2/10 of 1 % ofthe site. He suggested staking the building
footprint on the site and perhaps that would help clarify the concerns. He recognizes the overall welfare
of the valley and has been here for ten years. He turned it over to Scot Smith to talk about why the
Sheriff's office is where it is. He asked Dave Ruble to speak to the traffic.
Scott Smith mentioned the perceived commitment of Eagle County to the recreational site. He
spoke to the commitment of funds and time on developing the recreational site. The roadway and
drainage, the parking, ballfields being available this summer. The investment in terms of developing
the entire site as a PUD has been tremendous. Regarding the Sheriff's office, it is a sub station and a
small operation. It accommodates several sheriff's deputies who will be on site. He spoke to the
holding facility. That is not the intent. There is one room for temporary holding, but those types of
26
03-15-2001
people would never be there unsupervised. The reason of the location is to minimize pedestrian and
traffic conflicts. They don't anticipate it will have impact on the building and the site and they will be
providing landscaping to create a buffer. This is very similar to what was incorporated in the Town of
Carbondale. It also adds some security and emergency response to the building and the whole site.
Dave Ruble, LSC traffic Consultants, stated when they do a traffic study they avoid holidays and
weekends. They do this all this all the time and pick a normal day for the traffic studies. The second
access is off of Valley Road. The people will be encouraged to use the second site and would increase
the traffic on Valley Road for anything except local access. He stated the intersection is not the best but
they see it as working now and in the future. He spoke to the underpass and the surface crossings. He
stated underpasses are a little foreboding. He stated the shorter they are the less they are used.
Chairman Stone asked the Commissioners for comments or questions.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the second access is an emergency access? He asked if there is
a second emergency access.
Dave Michaels explained the second emergency access.
Laurie Soliday asked for clarification.
Rich Cunningham, Facilities Management, spoke to the five year Memorandum of
Understanding that provides the emergency access. He stated as part of the project requirement it is the
blanket emergency access for the entire site.
Commissioner Gallagher stated he is concerned with fire access.
Peter Sulmeisters, Engineering Department, stated the intent was on the secondary access that it
would be an emergency access but with availability for emergency access on the whole site.
Commissioner Gallagher stated the second access that may come about is independent of the
emergency access.
Mr. Sulmeisters showed there will be an emergency access constructed sooner which may
become the future access.
Chairman Stone asked about the traffic study and if that was done with build out in mind. He
asked if the expansion was figured into the traffic count.
Mr. Ruble stated they used the 15,000 square footage.
Mr. Michaels stated it was actually 20,000.
Mr. Ruble spoke to the parking spaces and that was 300 spaces on top of the building parking.
Commissioner Menconi asked if there are any dangers to people using the underpass and any
crimes that have been committed.
Ms. Hubbell stated they take care of the underpass and there have not been any crimes.
Mr. Rankin responded there have been two documented assaults.
Ms. Hubbell stated since they have had the assaults, the County has put in lights and there have
been no problems.
Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the BHA plan and the plan they are now looking to approve.
He asked if there is any significance difference.
Mr. Weisbard stated that the BHA plan didn't include the County office.
Commissioner Gallagher stated essentially there were two ball fields and two soccer fields.
Rich Cunningham spoke to the two alternative plans being plan A and plan B. The final
compromise of the BHA plan was the inclusion of two ball fields and two soccer fields which were the
representation of the participants.
Mr. Rankin stated that was a starting point, a base level. This was not the intention to be the
limitation.
Royal Laybourn stated the active recreation area has increased dramatically with use of the
existing buildings.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if anyone thinks the proposed recreation plan is a step down.
Mr. Rankin stated if they change the existing zoning they will have to amend the PUD.
27
03-15-2001
Mr. Michaels stated the reason they perused the PUD and the single zone district was for that
reason. If the BHA plan was considered consensus and defined the number of fields, that is what they
hung their hat on. If you want fields or a hockey rink you would have to amend the PUD. They felt the
BHA plan was a pretty good base line for starting. The reason you would like an amendment process is
to allow for public input. That was the philosophy of nailing the uses to some level of precision.
Mr. Forinash stated a PUD amendment would be similar to what is happening now.
Leroy Duroux stated he is curious in that all three public entities decided that this configuration
was what was agreed to, why was it changed. He suggested they side stepped the public process and
designed with no pubic input.
Mr. Michaels stated he doesn't see a radical departure outside the public process. He read from
the BHA plan and the reference to the preservation and access to the public buildings. They did an
analysis of what it would take to use the existing structures which concluded they would not be
appropriate. He stated a government building was contemplated on the site. Every use has been
contemplated. The same number of ball fields.
Richard Leety asked if there is any other reason for orienting the ball fields in that direction.
Rich Cunningham stated they did consider other alignments for the ballfields and heard from the
public to put them back.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the hockey rink will fit in the existing buildings.
The response was no.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about outside ice. He asked about the lighting standards.
Mr. Michaels stated the Basalt standards are more restrictive.
Chairman Stone spoke to weed management on this site and right now there is haying and
management. He suggested a requirement by the owner for weed management. He suggested there
needs to be some kind of requirement.
Mr. Michaels stated they have that in the PUD guide. He read from the PUD guide and the
requirement for weed management. He stated it is important.
Ms. Soliday spoke to the chemical control.
Commissioner Gallagher asked what it would take to stake out the building.
Ms. Soliday asked about the parking lots too.
Mr. Michales stated there are 50 spaces for the building and 50 spaces for each field.
Commissioner Gallagher asked without the fields will the parking still be there.
Chairman Stone asked about the requirement for parking and restrooms.
Mr. Michaels stated those fields can go in but adequate parking and restrooms must also be
provided.
Commissioner Menconi asked about the parking for the two ball fields or the six or seven.
Mr. Michaels suggested the intent was to provide for two fields.
Ms. Whitsitt asked they stake out the parking as well. She asked the parking be staked out
differently.
Chairman Stone asked if they are asking for staking out of the entire building or all of the parking
sites.
Mr. Michaels stated the parking bay next to the building is the only shared parking.
Mr. Adams asked about all the parking with field expansion.
Commissioner Gallagher suggested he is interested in the parking for the building
Mr. Fox-Rubin asked for staking of the building heights as well.
Chairman Stone stated the requests are duly noted but they will have to discuss this further.
Mr. Michaels spoke to how they do story poles.
Commissioner Menconi thanked everyone for staying so long and in the spirit of bringing
communities together suggested Herb and Rick Stevens could hug each other.
Herb stated he would like to say that Rick Stevens is doing a damn good job. They don't always
28
03-15-2001
agree but he is doing good work.
Commissioner Menconi stated he has heard and keeps perceiving a lack of care or validation of
the community. He is noting a couple of times where they have communicated and when they were
asked by Jacque Whitsitt to visit the site. He has had five to six hours of conversations with Rick
Stevens. Most of the points discussed with Jackie and Rick were brought up in public hearings and have
been discussed here tonight. He stated he is noticing maybe something new and a lot of activity in being
involved here. He is not as familiar with the past but only what has happened in the last few months.
He stated he doesn't know of recreation on the other side that has been paid for by Eagle County. He
would like to set the record straight. He would like to address to Mr. Duroux and asked what the distinct
difference is with the BHA plan.
Mr. Duroux stated the drawing on top didn't exist before tonight.
Commissioner Menconi asked if the changes are substantial enough or can they live with them.
Mr. Duroux stated he can live with them. He stated the community and all the governments
agreed on a plan but when it came to Planning & Zoning it changed. He is concerned how it may change
agam.
Mr. Michaels stated the plan that the Planning & Zoning saw is identical with what was
presented.
Rick Stevens stated it has been put closer to Valley Road and the other parts of the recreation
plan. Basalt wouldn't be here if they were not concerned. They accepted BHA as they are one of the
best. There was a demand that this be done. The Tree Pack formed when they started this process.
They had specific goals. Some of what has happened since has been planning for the buildings. They
were not given the latitude to consider the buildings. Out of this came the task force committee and then
the plan started to get redesigned. They got involved late. Eagle County had a specific job for the task
force. Since the PUD has started the groups that have promoted open space are active. The barriers to
actually forming a recreation district are being put up with the demands being made. It will be the active
recreationalists against the open space activists. The underpass, putting it closer to Summit Vista are all
constraints.
Mr. Rankin stated it seems to be a line drawn in the sand with those involved in active recreation.
He spoke to the 276 acres or 17% is defined as active recreation. The rest is already dedicated as open
space. He thinks mixed uses are what promotes a healthy community. This is probably the only feasible
area to use for active recreation. He spoke to the bonding in Aspen the work in Glenwood.
Commissioner Menconi suggested one of the things is a push for cost of a recreational district.
Royal Laybourn stated in the opinion of many members of the task force it is the contribution of
this facility which will support the park and recreation district. The infrastructure will be funded with
more use of the site. With the exception ofthe underpass, starting up the project will be the
endorsement of a park and recreation district.
Commissioner Menconi spoke to this being a business decision as well as a recreation decision.
He wonders what Mr. Cunningham thoughts are about this being a business decision. He spoke to the
expenses that have been incurred and asked if there is a trade off with having it in the County as opposed
to the Town and structure costs, type of building, etc.
Mr. Cunningham stated it seems sensible to put a county building on county land. He stated this
is a fairly economical building to build. Another site may draw those costs up. He stated they have
taken this entire site through the PUD and are dealing with the entire site. They are pledging to build a
road across the site as well as provide the water. They are building bathrooms for recreational use and
parking. They have tried to design this economically. Some of the changes have been because of the
road design and the existing grade to the site. That was at their direction to minimize the grading and
drainage. That is for minimal costs to the County and to the recreation district.
" Commissioner Menconi referred to the quest to find something that is easier, cheaper and will
benefit everyone. He stated he has been working on that since day one. He stated he is still in the
29
03-15-2001
process of making a decision. In trying to maintain an understanding, easier, cheaper and that will deal
with everything has not been something that has jumped up. He is still trying to gather more
information.
Chairman Stone asked what is the situation with fiber optics to this site.
Ms. Hubbell stated the head in for the phone service is right across the street.
Rich Cunningham stated there is dark cable right across the street.
T om stated they have been trying to get an answer from Quest.
Chairman Stone stated he had a meeting last summer with Jack Ingstad, Rick Stevens and Tom
Baker to talk about the development of the building elsewhere. He was looking to develop relations
with the Town of Basalt and Eagle County has approved and appropriated $70,000 for a ball field which
is a commitment they made as a Board of County Commissioners that they will not renege on and
something they still hope to do this summer. That is something Eagle County has not done before aside
from the fair and rodeo grandstands. He stated that is something they do plan to do. A number of the
comments such as the underpass are comments that have been made by the planning staff. The County
Commissioners have not made a decision on those items. That is one of the benefits of this evenings
discussion.
Chairman Stone invited all to come to Eagle next Tuesday at 1 :30 for the remainder of this
hearing. .
Ms. Soliday asked if on Tuesday there will be discussion or a vote.
Chairman Stone stated he does not know that for sure.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
March 20, 2001.
Attest:
Clerk to the Boa Q
~~~
Chairman
,
30
03-15-2001