Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/14/04 PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 Present: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Jack Ingstad Diane Mauriello Teak Simonton Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Clerk to the Board Chairman Stone was absent for the morning session, but was present for the planning files. This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Pro-Tem Gallagher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of September 13, 2004 (Subject to Review by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval of Payroll for September 16, 2004 (Subject to Review by the County Administrator) Mike Roeper, Finance Department C. Approval ofthe Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meetings for June 15, July 13 an.d August 2, 2004 Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder D. Agreement between Eagle County and The Eagle County School District Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services E. Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle River Youth Coalition Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services F. Agreement between Eagle County and Valley Partnership for Drug Prevention Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services G. Memorandum of Understanding between Eagle County and the Family Learning Center Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services H. Carpet Tile Purchase and Installation for Eagle County Building with Spectra Contract Flooring Rich Cunnin.gham, Facilities Management 1. Resolution 2004-100 Amending Rules and Procedures for Arbitration and Reappointing Arbitrators for Appeals from Decisions of the 2004 Board of Equalization Debbie Faber, Attorney's Office J. Final Settlement - V ogelman West Associates, Inc. And Eagle County, State of Colorado for the Entranc e Sign Berm at Miller Ranch Road and Highway 6, Edwards, Colorado County Attorney's Office Representative. K. Stipulation Agreement between Eagle County and the Gabriel Foundation Regarding Compliance with Eagle County Zoning Regulations and Building Code Regulations County Attorney's Office Representative 9/14/2004 1 Chairman Pro-Tern Gallagher asked that item C be removed along with item D. Chairman Pro-Tem Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney stated that item J should be removed and considered as a separate agenda item. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda items A-K omitting item C and omitting items D and J for separate consideration. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. D. Agreement between Eagle County and The Eagle County School District Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services Ms. Forinash explained the uses for the grant. The school district will implement school-based, evidence- based programs associated with the early onset of alcohol and drug abuse during the 2004-05 school year. They will also expand the Reconnecting Youth Program. The district will donate significant in-kind with the donation of their space and staff towards the implementation of these programs. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher suggested that the utilization of the victim's impact panel be used. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve this agreement between Eagle County and The Eagle County School District. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. J. Firtal Settlement - Vogelman West Associates, me. And Eagle County, State of Colorado for the Entrance Sign Berm at Miller Ranch Road and Highway 6, Edwards, Colorado County Attorney's Office Representative Diane Mauriello, County Attorney stated that she had not received any public comment and recommended approval. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Final Settlement - V ogelman West Associates, Inc. And Eagle County, State of Colorado. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat and Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Community Development presented the file. 5MB-00343, Horizon Pass Residences, Bachelor Gulch Village Filing No.3, A Re-subdivision of Tract Y -1. A Final Plat and Condominium Map, the purpose of which is to create 30 residential units, I commercial unit, and associated general and limited common elements and easements within the Horizon Pass Lodge located in Bachelor Gulch Village, Arrowhead at Vail Planned Unit Development. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve 5MB-00343, Horizon Pass Residences, Bachelor Gulch Village Filing No.3, ARe-subdivision of Tract Y-l. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Don DuBois, Eagle County Liquor License Coordinator presented the application. 9/14/2004 2 Other Liquor Edwards Business Association (Special Events Permit) Edwards Village Center APPLICANT: DBA: REPRESENTATIVE: Edwards Business Association N/A Colleen McCarthy, President Laurie Asmussen, Eagle Valley Events, Inc. 105 Edwards Village Blvd. Edwards, CO N/A None LOCATION: YEAR LICENSE ISSUED: CONCERNS / ISSUES: DESCRIPTION: This is a special events permit application for the Edwards Harvest Fest on October 2,2004 from 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. This is a re..occurring event and we have had no problems in the past. The servers will be the distributors participating in the event, and they have thc;lir own set ofmles and regulations they must follow. STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on September 3, 2004. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked about the distributors being the servers. He wondered if any of them had been tips trained. Ms. Asrnussen stated that to her knowledge, most of these distributors had indeed been tips trained. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve the special events permit application for Edwards Business Association for October 2, 2004 frorn 8:00 arn to 6:00 pm. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting cornmissioners the vote was declared unanimous. The Ritz-Carlton, Bachelor Gulch 130 Daybreak Ridge Avon, CO APPLICANT: Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC and Bachelor Gulch Operating Company, LLC Ritz-Carlton, Bachelor Gulch Tom Donovan, Manager 130 Daybreak Ridge Avon, CO October 22, 2002 DBA: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: YEAR LICENSE ISSUED: DESCRIPTION: This is a Manager's Registration for Tom Donovan. This is also a request for a modification of premises that does NOT affect the licensed premises' boundaries. STAFF FINDINGS (Manager's Registration): > This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, and all fees have been paid. 9/14/2004 3 ? The applicant is reported to be of good moral character, based upon Sheriffs reports. ? Mr. Donovan has been server trained. CONCERNS / ISSUES: RECOMMENDATION: None Approval Mr. Donovan was present for the hearing. He told the board that he had been in Colorado since April and had read the liquor code and was familiar with it. He had been the general manager of the Ritz Carlton in Phoenix for two years prior to this. He also had experience in Jamaica and Hawaii in liquor service. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher stressed the importance of adherence to the liquor code. Commissioner Menconi moved the Local Licensing Authority approve a manager's registration for Tom Donovan, The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC and Bachelor Gulch Operating Company, LLC dba The Ritz- Carlton, Bachelor Gulch. Chairman pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. STAFF FINDINGS (Modification of Premises): o The application is in order, all requirements have been met, and all fees are paid. o A map of the premises is attached, showing the modification of the existing, licensed premises. o As no boundary changes to the licensed premises are being made, no posting or publication is required. CONCERNS / ISSUES: RECOMMENDATION: None Approval Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked for a sketch with the complete boundaries shown. Don DuBois stated that the boundary extends to the edge of the building and had been cutoff. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher asked for a more correct copy. Bryan Treu stated that the record could reflect no change to the previously existing boundaries, but simply a modification to the internal. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Local Licensing Authority approve the modification of premises for The Ritz-Carlton Hotel Company, LLC and Bachelor Gulch Operating Company, LLC dba The Ritz-Carlton, Bachelor Gulch. Chairman Pro-tem Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files ZS-00120 - Eaele-Vail Warehouse Adam Palmer, Planner, Community Development NOTE: ACTION: LOCATION: This file tabled to 9/28/04 To construct a warehouse distribution facility to serve Vail and Beaver Creek 40843 Hwy. 6, Eagle-Vail Commissioner Menconi moved to table Pile ZS-00120, at the applicant's request, until September 28, 2004. 9/14/2004 4 Chairman Pro-Tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. G...00021 Public Service Easement Vacation Justin Hildreth, Engineer, Engineering Department NOTE: ACTION: This file tabled from 8/31/04 To vacate drainage and utility easements between Lots 6, 7 and 8 ofthe Eagle Vail Commercial Center, in order to reconfigure these three lots into two lots 40843 Hwy.6, Eagle-Vail LOCATION: TITLE: Vacation of the Public Service Property Line Easement FILENO.: G-0002l LOCATION: 40843 Hwy 6, Eagle-Vail, Colorado O~Fl: Vail Ftesorts APPLICANT: Vail Resorts REPRESENTATIVE: Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group, LLC. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. PFlOJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: This is a petition for the vacation of property line easements located between Lots 6, 7 and 8, of the Eagle-Vail Commercial Center. A map of the area is included as Figure 1. The easements Were dedicated as utility and drainage easements to the public on the Eagle-Vail Commercial Center Final Plat and therefore are subject to the requirements of Section 5-2200 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Public Way and Easement Vacations. The Vail Corporation, also known as Vail Resorts, is seeking to va.cate the 7.5 foot wide property line easements that run along the two lot lines that they intend to abandon, as shown on the attached property description (Figure 2). These property line easements are not be currently used by any utility companies. The vacation of the drainage easements will not have an impact on the adjacent properties. This application was originally made by the previous owner of the lot, Public Service Company, on behalf of Vail Resorts which had a contract to purchase these lots. Since the application was made, Vail Resorts has completed the purchase of the property. Vail Resorts wishes to vacate the easements in order to consolidate the three lots into two. Vail Ftesorts is proposing to reconfigure the site so that it can serve as the warehousing and distribution facility for its local operations at Vail and Beaver Creek. There are two companion files, an Amended Final Plat which will consolidate the lots and a Special Use Permit 'for the construction of the maintenance facility. CHRONOLOGY: 1974 - Eagle-Vail Commercial Service Center is platted 1974 - Public Service Company purchased the lots 2004 - Vail Ftesorts purchased the lots SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Commercial General Zoning Lot 9 of the Eagle-Vail Commercial Service Center West: Commercial General Zoning Lots 5A and 5B of the Eagle-Vail Commercial Service Center North: Resource Zoning, Eagle Ftiver 9/1412004 5 South: Traer Creek LLC Commercial General Zoning Hwy. 6 and Lot 6 Commercial General Hwy.6 Existing Zoning: Access: STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES Eaele County COIDmunitv Development Department Please be advised that the Community Development Department has reviewed the above referenced utility easement vacation and has no comment to offer with regard to the proposed vacation. The applicant must, however, be made aware that the intended use ofthe subject property for a warehousing and distribution facility, will ftrst necessitate successful completion of a Special Use Permit process. In the Commercial-General Zone District, 'Distribution Centers' require Special Use Review. Also, pursuant to Table 3-320 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, any use of 22,000 square feet or larger requires a Special Use Review. A Special Use Permit and Amended Final Plat Application may be required for the ultimate intended use. Other Referral Responses A referral response was received from the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District. The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District and the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority have reviewed these easements and find there are currently no known utilities in them and know of no potentialfor construction of infrastructure within these easements in the future. No other referral respdrtses were received. DISCUSSION: Vail Resorts, wishes to reconfigure Lots 6, 7 and 8 of the Eagle-Vail Commercial Center into two lots. In order to do this, the 7.5 foot wide utility and drainage easements that run along the pfdperty lines need to be vacated. Once these easements are vacated, then the applicant can obtain an Amended Final Plat that will reconfigure the three lots. Currently, there are no known utilities located in these easements. As a result, it does not appear that this vacation will have an impact on the ability of the utilities to serve this area. All of the utilities serving the area have submitted letters supporting the vacation of the utility easements. The drainage easement was created so that the runoff from these lots would be directed to the Eagle River without impact to the adjacent properties. When these lots are reconfigured on the Amended Final Plat, new 7.5 foot wide property line easements will be created that will accommodate the runoff. This application will not have an impact on the drainage in the area as long as new drainage easements are created on the Amended Final Plat proposal. STAFF FINDINGS: Staff findings are positive. The vacation of these easements will not have an impact on the ability of utilities to serve the area nor impact the drainage between the lots as long as new easements are dedicated on the Amended Final Plat. The ECLUR standards require that a vacation be demonstrated to be in the general interest of the public's health, safety and welfare, not to be in violation of law, to be in compliance with the ECLUR and the MasterPlan, and not leave any adjoining land without a means of access to another public road. 9/14/2004 6 The following findings are made: 1. The applicant has filed a petition for a vacation of the easements in conformance with the requirements of Section 5-2200. 2. Proper Public Notification for the petition has been issued in conformance with Section 5-2200 CA.a. and the petition is ready for consideration by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. 3. The applicant has demonstrated the vacation request to be in the general interest of the public's health, safety and welfare. Justin Hildreth of Engineering presented this file and stated the abandonment is for the purpose of consolidating three lots into two lots. This property is located on the North side ofHwy. 6 in the Eagle-Vail Commercial District. This is the same property as the previously tabled file. There are no utilities located within these easements and the new easements that will be platted will be able to contain the drainage. Dominic Mauriello representing the applicant had nothing to add. There was no public comment. COml11issioner Menconi moved that the Board approve File No.G-00021 with the following conditions. 1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and in all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approva1. 2. The vacation will not be in effect until Quit Claim Deeds for the vacated easements are recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 3. The vacation will not be in effect until the Resolution of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approving the vacation is recorded with the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. 4. New property line, utility, and drainage easements are dedicated to the public on the accompanying Amended Final Plat file. Chaimlan Pro-Tem Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting comrtlissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00039 Willits Bend Joe Forinash, Planner, Planning Development NOTE: ACTION: This file tabled from June 1, July 13, and August 3. PUD Sketch Plan for a flexible space, mixed use development consisting of 38,000 s.f. of fabrication & trades, 16,500 s.f. of office, 7,500 s.f. of retail/restaurant and 30,543 s.f. of residential 1712 Willits Lane (east of Park Avenue and the Oak Grove Townhouses) LOCATION: TITLE: FILE NO.JPROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Willits Bend PUD PDS-00039 I PUD Sketch Plan 1712 Willits Lane (east of Park Avenue and the Oak Grove Townhouses) Blue 'Crow, LLC Blue Crow, LLC Glenn Rappaport (Studiograppa Architectura LLC) Denial The proposed development represents a very intense mix of uses which push the limits of the site in many respects, including: 9/14/2004 7 · Potentially incompatible uses within the development [e.g., residential and restaurants in the near vicinity of manufacturing, craftsmen shops (e.g., blacksmith and machining)], although certain performance standards have been proposed to potentially mitigate conflicting uses; · Incompatibility with other uses in the vicinity, especially as noted by the Town of Basalt; · Inadequate parking and loading areas, including [a] number of parking spaces, [b] size of parking spaces, and [c] substantial reliance on on-street parking. · Inadequate landscaping, especially perimeter landscaping to buffer parking areas from Willits Lane and the site as a whole from adjacent residential uses; and · Inadequate common recreation and open space necessary for the mix of uses, especially residential. The proposed development is sufficiently intense that modifications intended to provide additional parking and loading, landscaping and buffering, and useable common recreation and open space would result in a Preliminary Plan that would be significantly different than this Sketch Plan. Consequently, a new sketch plan review would be necessary to provide an adequate opportunity for the County and the various referral agencies to provide a meaningful review prior to consideration of preliminary plan level of detail. It should also be noted that the site is adjacent to the Town of Basalt, and that the Town's Planning and Zoning Commission has provided extensive comments regarding the proposed development. Particularly significant are the following: · "The Commission appreciates the approach to solving an unmet need for affordable incubator spaces for artisans and craftsmen. The proposal also includes many funky concepts which support the Town's 1999 Master Plan diversity and community character goals. It is important that the plan continue to maintain these characteristics so as to not duplicate and compete with more traditional commercial retail main streets in downtown Basalt and the Willits Town Center. The Town Master Plan's typology recommendations for industrial live work areas should be consulted to help create a quality design for the overall project that includes variety in building elevations, materials, and building heights." · "On street parking and associated traffic calming, trading blanket concepts, and art garden enhancements to the streetscape are all concepts consistent with design typology ideals included in the Basalt 1998 Master Plan." · "The Town has not been formally approached regarding whether this property should be annexed. The question of annexation should be addressed to the Town Council. This parcel is located within the Town's Urban Growth Boundaries and should someday be included within the Town Limits. Whenever possible the development should meet the Town's standards for infrastructure and mitigation requirements. Opportunities for dialogue and potential partnerships with the Town exist and should be explored." [Emphasis added.] · "The inclusion, particularly along Willits Lane, of a broad range of commercial uses in the development is a concern. A more restricted mix of light industrial, limited accessory retail, office and affordable housing would be more appropriate. The 1999 Basalt Master Plan included this site on the Future Land Use Map. Its designation was light Industrial consistent with the existing land uses." · "Compliance with the Town Lighting Code should be required. . . ." The Town of Basalt foresees this site being annexed into the Town at some point, and the Town has obviously considered in some detail the manner in which it would like to see this site be developed. Further the Commission seems to be more receptive to a development of the sort being proposed and has the guidelines and standards in place to effectively shape the proposed development such that it corresponds with the Town's vision for itself. Given the nature, design and location of the proposed development, it may be more appropriate for the Applicant to submit this proposal to the Town of Basalt and request annexation at a time when the Town is receptive to the proposed development. I This Staff Report reflects the additional information in the "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments" and the revised PUD Guide, both prepared by the Applicant in response to an earlier draft of the Staff Report. The additional information notwithstanding, Staff is not able to support this Sketch Plan. The basis for Staffs recommendation for denial are the deficiencies discussed above and elsewhere in this Staff Report and, as noted I 9/14/2004 8 above, the expectation that in order to resolve the deficiencies, a substantially different Sketch Plan would result, requiring additional Sketch Plan level review. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions and with areas of special focus and concern, including: · Open space and landscaping issues · Stormwater runoff issues · Future traffic impacts and roadway design PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS: · Location of project with respect to Town of Basalt town limits. · Proposed flexibility of building footprints and whether the footprints are "tied down". · Whether the existing buildings nearest Willits Lane would meet current building and fire codes. · Need for so many phases rather than simply constructing all of the infrastructure up front. · Whether there would be a master condominium association and one or more secondary condominium associations. · How much of the site outside of building footprints, include parking areas, would be common areas subject to management by an association. · Importance of complying with the Highway 82 Access Control Plan. · Whether the access road would be dedicated as a public right-of-way. · Parking spaces - why not 20 feet by 10 feet? · Why project seems so dense? · Site is in realm of influence of Town of Basalt; nature of discussions with the Town. · Town of Basalt allows on-street parking; it has a traffic calming effect. · Some concerns regarding the design of main road, including adequacy of the road in light of future traffic and the nature of the proposed parking spaces. · Nature of "trading blankets" where artisan's goods may be set out for display. · Proposed means to control impacts of intensive uses, such as noise. · Enforcement of proposed performance standards. · Nature of commercial and residential mix, and whether residential uses would be in buildings separate from commercial buildings. · Adequacy of snow storage areas. · Stormwater management: the site has a lot of impervious areas and dry wells may not be most appropriate. · Covered parking spaces around perimeter of the site: whether neighbors know that this is a pfu.-t of the proposed design. · Plan is like certain other similar developments that have resulted in cohesive communities. · Existence of Highway 82 Access Control Plan is like being held hostage, but there is also the sewer easement on the site. · Children living on-site will want to have a place to throw basketballs, etc. · A pocket park in a comer of the development would be appropriate to provide meaningful recreation; in a live-work development, it is also necessary to provide for the "live" part. · Speed limit will be necessary on the main road. · Site is currently zoned for every proposed use, but it is significant that some uses are uses-by-right and others require a special use permit. · Whether Applicant will continue to own some of the lots. · Architectural controls would be an asset. · Stormwater runoff could be a problem; a retention basin might be appropriate. · Project is too dense for the area given the setbacks and traffic; setback of residential units on second floor could reduce the adverse impact. · Proposed open space is not very useable. · Adequacy of landscaping and facilities. 9/14/2004 9 . It would be useful to work with adjacent property owners to develop a master plat for this site and the property to the north and east (including the RV park and mobile home park) and present it to the Town of Basalt. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: The proposed development consists of92,555 square feet of floor area for mixed uses, including fabrication and trades, office, retail/restaurant and residential, on a 4.5 acre site. Access is from Willits Lane. Water and wastewater treatment services would be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Parking would be located both off-street and on-street along either side of a 26 foot wide private road intended to slow traffic and contribute to the aesthetics of the development. The development would not fully accommodate an access proposed in the Highway 82 Access Control Plan, other than to provide an easement for public and emergency access through the property. CHRONOLOGY: 1976 - Zone change approved from Resource to Commercial General. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning: East: Aspen Basalt Campground and Mobile Home Park / RSL West: Residential (Oak Grove Townhouses) / (Town of Basalt) North: Commercial / PUD and Resource South: Residential (River Oaks Subdivision) / (Town of Basalt) Existing Zoning: Commercial General Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: Total Area: Minimum Lot Area: Up to 24 units 4.524 acres Not specified - parcel may be subdivided into smaller lots generally conforming to the building footprints Not specified Maximum Lot Area: Percent Usable Open Space: Water: Sewer: Access: 29.3 percent Mid Valley Metropolitan District Mid Valley Metropolitan District Willits Lane STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department . Site design standards require that the applicant provide two points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system. Only one access is shown. Either an additional access must be provided or a variation must be requested with the Preliminary Plan application. . The south entrance to the site does not provide adequate on-site automobile stacking distance. This creates safety concerns for traffic entering an exiting Willits Lane. . This project is impacted by the Highway 82 Access Control Plan, which stipulates that Original Road needs to be extended from Highway 82 to Willits Lane to improve traffic circulation in the area. [A copy of a portion of the Access Control Plan is attached.] This proposal would have only an emergency access connection to the north property boundary. The connection would be through the site parking lot and does not meet any of the Eagle County road standards. · This proposal has parking aisles that dead end, hindering site circulation. Parking aisles that are 150 feet or longer must have an appropriate turn around area that meets applicable AASHTO standards or the site layout needs to be modified to eliminate the dead ends. 9/14/2004 10 . The parking stalls are smaller than the required 20' X 10' size as shown in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. . Parking spaces designated for the multi-family dwelling units are less than the requirements in the Land Use Regulations. The proposal assumes that these units will be live-work units but the proposal also states that these units will likely be condominiums. There does not appear to be a mechanism to ensure that the units will be permanently live-work units that will justify the lower parking standard. . The stormwater plan proposes that the detention and water quality requirements be met using dry- wells. Dry wells eventually fill with silt, becoming ineffective over time. Please provide a maintenance plan or a different water detention solution. · The proposed phasing during construction is a concern since it implies that phases will not be contiguous and that there could be gaps in the infrastructure as the project is built out. Prior to completion 0 each phase of construction appropriate infrastructure improvements must be completed that support that phase. . Willits Lane is a Town of Basalt road. Prior to construction, a permit must be secured from the Town of Basalt to work within the Willits Lane right-of-way. · The Applicant must follow the Road Impact Fee schedule according to the Willits Lane annexation agreement. The Road Impact Fees generated by this project will go to the Town of Basalt as previously agreed by Eagle County and the Town of Basalt. [A copy of the Agreement is attached.] Eagle County Road & Bridge Department · Proposed development will have no impact on Road & Bridge. Willits Lane is all in the Town of Basalt. Eagle County Housing Department · The application does not sufficiently guarantee fair market rents an dlor "affordable" price points for the for-sale units. There needs to be an appropriate mechanism, such as a deed restriction, to assure future affordability of the units. · There are various kinds of deed restrictions currently being utilized in Eagle County. The ToWn of Basalt may have other examples of deed restrictions which the developer may feel are more appropriate to his project; however, the Housing Department would be willing to consider any other viable mechanism. · Given the vague description of the proposed units, the Housing Department cannot state whether this proposed development meets.the cornmerciallinkage, inclusienary zening, or employee linkage housing guidelines. The project may be categorically exempt from these guidelines, but exact numbers of units and their square footage is required to make that determination. A maximum sales price by unit type would be useful, too. Eagle County Sheriff . Advantages · Quick access to Highway 82. · Close to shopping center and do\vntovvn Basalt · More housing for the public. . Disadvantages · Too tall of trees around buildings will make easy hiding places for burglars. . Recommendations · Plenty of lighting in the parking lots. · Camera video system in parking lots and around buildings. · Good natural surveillance around and into parking lots. · Ten foot fence around complex. · Small shrubbery around buildings. · Make one way in and one way out for security reasons. · Put main office in a place where you can see people coming in and out of complex. · Suggested parking area lighting location shown on referral response. Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist . The property is in a low hazard rating. · Mitigation efforts in the vegetation management plan should give tenants and owners additional protection from wildfire, if properly maintained. 9/14/2004 11 · Wildfire Mitigation Specialist questions whether the north end of Building 9 has additional protection via utilization of defensible space. If the Applicant adds that many conifers that close to the building, protection for that building will actually be reduced. Due to low probability of a wildfire in this area, however, the need for protection is limited. Town of Basalt (planning and Zoning Commission) · The Commission appreciates the approach to solving an unmet need for affordable incubator spaces for artisans and craftsmen. The proposal also includes many funky concepts which support the Town's 1999 Master Plan diversity and community character goals. It is important that the plan continue to maintain these characteristics so as to not duplicate and compete with more traditional commercial retail main streets in downtown Basalt and the Willits Town Center. The Town Master Plan's typology recommendations for industrial live work areas should be consulted to help create a quality design for the overall project that includes variety in building elevations, materials, and building heights. Stepping back third stories from building facades is one recommended design strategy which would prevent creation ofa wall of buildings. · On street parking and associated traffic calming, trading blanket concepts, and art garden enhancements to the streetscape are all concepts consistent with design typology ideals included in the Basalt 1998 Master Plan. · While this development offers opportunities for affordable industrial business and live-work development, systems should be put in place to ensure the long term affordability of such spaces. · The Town has not been formally approached regarding whether this property should be annexed. The question of annexation should be addressed to the Town Council. This parcel is located within the Town's Urban Growth Boundaries and should someday be included within the Town Limits. Whenever possible the development should meet the Town's standards for infrastructure and mitigation requirements. Opportunities for dialogue and potential partnerships with the Town exist and should be explored. · In 2002, the TownjointIy adopted with Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CD aT) an Access Control Plan for this section of Highway 82. The Plan recommended creation of an extension between the East Valley Road intersection at Highway 82 and Willits Lane. This PUD should incorporate the recommendations of the Access Control Plan or make provisions for the implementation of the recommendations in the future. Long term commitments by this Applicant toward shared funding of the signalization of the East Valley Road and Willits Lane intersections with Highway 82 are requested. · The Town's Master Plan and design typologies encourage grid street systems and interconnected roadways. This would support the Access control Plan recommendations and a rethinking of the single point of access proposed by the PUD sketch plan. Emergency vehicle access needs and traffic impact mitigation would also support the addition of a secondary access point. · The inclusion, particularly along Willits Lane, of a broad range of commercial uses in the development is a concern. A more restricted mix of light industrial, limited accessory retail, office and affordable housing would be more appropriate. The 1999 Basalt Master Plan included this site on the Future Land Use Map. Its designation was Light Industrial consistent with the existing land uses. · The density of development proposed on the site is inconsistent with the patterns of density occurring on neighboring properties. The proposed floor area of more than 90,000 sq. ft. (net increase of approximately 60,000 sq. ft.) is felt to exceed the appropriate capacities ofthe site and will generate unmitigated impacts on adjoining properties, community infrastructure and roadways. Floor area ratio calculations by the Applicant include private streets and alleys in the developable area of the site which is inconsistent with the Town's definitions and results in a lower floor area ratio. A reflection ofthe density is the excessive amount of impervious surface coverage (i.e., parking, streets, building footprints, etc.) · Additional comprehensive traffic impact analysis is needed including evaluation of all types of impacts including safety, sight triangles, volume, noise, and recommendations for system improvements. The current estimate appears to undercount traffic generation from the commercial and retail uses possible on the site. Access is directly onto a Town road (Willits Lane) and appropriate access permits/approvals from the Town will be required. The Town has not been formally contacted to request such access modifications or review potential intersection and off-site system I I !~ j;; 9/14/2004 12 improvements that may be required. Traffic impact fees required by Eagle County should be provided to the Town in accordance with the current intergovernmental agreements. . Parkland dedication and improvement fees should be provided for by the application. Children should be excluded from the residential units due to life safety concerns associated with the mix of industrial type uses. If families are allowed, payment of school land dedication fees at the then current rate should be paid. . On-site and off-site pedestrian improvements should be further reviewed in order to best connect the site to existing trails and transit. Construction of a sidewalk along Willits Lane, crosswalk connections to the Willits Trail, and contributions toward hard surfacing of the Willits Trail adjacent to the site should be included. . The Applicant's allowance for open burning within the PUD is inconsistent with the stated mixed use intent of the PUD. Careful re-evaluation of the PUD guidelines should occur in order to eliminate inconsistencies such as noted above and assure that the guidelines reflect the dense and more urban character reflected in the current proposal. . Given the scale of the proposed development and the unique affordable live work concepts, additional tools to evaluate the scale, visual impact, and character of the development should be provided. Computer simulation and physical models should be considered. . Storm water drainage plans and the proposed use of dry wells should be carefully evaluated. Proximity of dry wells to any Mid Valley Metro District well sites should be noted and addressed to the satisfaction of the District. . Additional lighting standards including requirements for down directed, fully shielded light fixtures and maximum light intensities are needed. Compliance with the Town Lighting Code should be required including limits on street lights, parking lot and yard light heights, and totally shielding lights on the residential sides of the site to help avoid light trespass onto adjoining residential properties. One suggestion was to locate landscaping on the south side of Willits Lane to reduce the affect of glare from headlights coming out of the development on adjacent homes. . Additional mitigation and evaluation of impacts including traffic, noise and headlights on neighboring properties such as the River Oaks Subdivision, Oak Grove Townhomes, and the Aspen Basalt Campground are needed. Additional landscaping improvements, berms and other buffers are appropriate upgrades for the development including the option for placing landscaping along the Town right-of-way for Willits Lane. Limits on hours of operation should be considered to help alleviate noise concerns including conflicts with housing internal to the project. The P&Z also requested that building designs not include outward facing shop/garage doors oriented toward the Oak Grove Townhomes. . Locating large amounts of parking at the edges of the sites externalizes the impacts of the project. Revisions to the parking to avoid outward facing parking at the perimeter of the site, especially along the western property line facing the Oak Grove Townhomes, needs to be strongly considered. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District . Overall the concept and general layout of this project can be compliant with the Building and Fire Codes established by Eagle County. The District does have concerns with access and an adequate fire protecti()n plan in order to provide the appropriate level of service to this type of development. . The Eagle County Highway 82 Access Control Plan impacts this project. The applicant has made efforts to comply by having a central roadway, which can be linked by adjacent properties to provide eventual access from Willits Lane to Highway 82. . Enclosed with the response is a chart showing the structural and distance capabilities ofthe Basalt Fire Aerial (Ladder) apparatus. This chart indicates actual physical limitations as well as an indication of amount of roadway width needed for proper setup of the vehicle. . The concept of this project is to provide commercial/industrial condominium spaces (including uses such as woodworking shops; blacksmith operations; dry cleaning laundries; warehouse storage; vehicle, aircraft and boat service and repair) and residential uses on the upper floors of the three story buildings. The nature of the potential hazards with this mixed occupancy and how it may impact the occupants is considered a high-risk scenario within the mc (International Building Code) and IFC (International Fire Code) and dealt with accordingly through the evaluation of separation, compartmentalization and the use of fire suppression systems such as sprinklers. 9/14/2004 13 · The general layout of the site plan with a dual access component to the east and hammerheads having radii allowing for emergency turnaround and egress appears compliant. However, the northernmost hammerhead works if it is for fire department use only. The drawing appears to have this be a potential loading dock for the adjacent building. This would need to be clarified. · The distance from buildings to the road curb as depicted in the site plan provides the slope needed for effective aerial/ladder operations with the exception of the building at the extreme west. · The road surface must be designed with an all weather surface and handle the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds. · The District requests as a condition of approval that the central corridor be a minimum unobstructed width of26 feet, due to the complex nature of the project with its variety of hazards, condensed development and density of traffic. · The civil engineer who works with the water system for Mid Valley Metro District estimates 2,900 GPM of available water for this area. The applicant will need to verify the actual fire flow at 20 psi residual for this area to assist in the design of the buildings. . The number of hydrants, their location and distance criteria depicted on the site plan appears compliant to Appendix C of the IFC. · Sprinklers have application throughout the International Code (IDC and IFC), including, as it relates to this project, commercial buildings with a residential area, woodworking areas in excess of 2,500 square feet, high piled storage situations (warehouses), certain dry cleaning facilities, and certain repair garages and facilities. · The Town of Basalt and the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District have amended the code through ordinance and adoption to require that all buildings over 5,000 square feet of area are required to be sprinklered. Based upon the congestion, access and occupancy mix, the District requests that this be a condition of approval of for this project. The Basalt Fire Department has certain other requirements for buildings with a sprinkler (specified in the response letter). · The phasing plan is acceptable with the following comments: · The provisions ofIFC Chapter 14, Fire Safety During Construction, to maintain safety during the construction period shall be followed. · The hydrants shall be installed prior to the arrival of combustible material for construction. · The temporary access provisions for the turning around of apparatus shall be designed to handle the imposed loads of the apparatus and must meet District approval prior to commencing construction. Mid Valley Metropolitan District Letter from Leavenworth & Karp, pc., Attorneys at Law (representing the District) · The District has the capacity in its water and sewer treatment plant, and can and will serve the new facilities under the proposed PUD with water and sewer services, subject to a number of conditions. CD These comments are intended to supplement the District's letter dated September 15, 2003, regarding the provision of District services to the property, which is included in the application. Additional comments and/or requirements may be submitted under separate cover by the District's engineer. Letter from Schmueser Gordon Meyer, Engineers/Surveyors (representing the District) · The District has the capacity in its water and sewer treatment facilities, and can and will serve the new facilities under the proposed PUD with water and sewer services. · The following condition is applicable: A wastewater pump station services the area identified in the PUD. The District may assess a surcharge to the sewer tap fee to provide the District the necessary capital for the upgrading of this facility. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments · Detailed NWCCOG review may be more pertinent at the preliminary plan level when drainage, erosion and stormwater control plans are available. · Conceptual drainage plan contemplates the use of drywells to maintain historic peak flows. Drywells for stormwater treatment have become an issue in the watershed as they fill in with muck from both onsite and offsite and do not perform as designed. Some form of realistic maintenance system needs to be put in place or another method of treatment utilized in order to resolve this issue for the proposed PUD. 9/14/2004 14 Colorado Department of Transportation . This section of Highway 82 falls under an Access Control Plan (ACP) which was finalized in 2002. An ACP is a plan showing exactly where all the intersections and driveways will be on the state system. This was a large undertaking which included public involvement. . The ACP includes a public street through this property which would provide a connection from Willits Lane on the south to Highway 82 and Original Road to the north. CDOT expects that the intersection of Highway 82, Original Road and the street through this property would be signalized in the future. . The project proposes to provide public and emergency access through the property along a 24-foot wide private drive/road. This would not accommodate the need for the traveling public. . Due to safety and the welfare of the public, CDOT recommends that the connection through this property from Highway 82/Original Road to Willits Lane be designed to County right-of-way standards for an arterial. Colorado State Forest Service . The Colorado State Forest Service has given Willits Bend development a wildfire hazard rating of low, which means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. . Vegetation on this property mainly consists of a few trees, and a few scattered shrubs. These light fuels along with the absence of any slope both contribute to the low rating. However, even with this low rating we suggest noncombustible roofing materials be used. Colorado Division of Water Resources . Pursuant to Colorado Statutes, a municipality or quasi-municipality is required to file a report with Eagle County and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included in the submitted materials. . Since insufficient information was provided, we cannot comment on the potential for injury to existing water rights. Colorado Division of Wildlife (voice message only) . CDOW will not be responding in writing. Site is less than 5 acres, is developed, and there is no wildlife. Colorado Geological Survey . The site exhibits some poor internal drainage that was evident on the rainy day that the site was visited by the CGS geologist. The north and east boundaries of the site are built up toward the adjacent properties and water tends to pond near the metal buildings on the north side. Future grading on the site should provide positive slope around structures to prevent ponding near the backfill and foundation elements (which could cause settling). In addition, good drainage should be provided for the parking areas, particularly since the snow storage will be included in these areas. In winter, areas that drain poorly could develop into ice sheets, . The site did not contain any obvious detention areas. Sopris Engineering states that the storm water facilities for the new development could be designed to retain flows from different size storm events. It should be confirmed that retaining flows is permitted under state and county regulations. At preliminary plat stage, Sopris Engineering should provide detailed information on how surface floWs would be managed, including how runoff would be directed to the historic path along Willits Lane. Calculations should be provided for flows of the different storm events and for sizing of the detention basins or drywells, if they are used. . It would be prudent to inspect the irrigation ditch on the west side of the property for leaks to determine whether seepage might be affecting areas on the western property line. . The site is situated on a terrace of the Roaring Fork River. The alluvial soil was disturbed when the existing development was built, but the subsurface probable contains much of the original material. The soil column should be inspected at each building envelope. Sand and gravel generally provide good substrate for building. If a significant amount of fine material is present in the near surface, this should be evaluated and samples for geotechnical testing should be collected, as necessary. The subgrade for foundations should not include large cobbles or boulders, as this material does not impact evenly. . Areas of former septic systems should be mitigated as part of the development process. 9/14/2004 15 . In summary, there are no geologic conditions that would preclude development, but drainage improvements should be thoughtfully implemented to prevent future problems. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Roaring Fork School District, Mid-Valley Trails Committee, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), Qwest, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy. DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch PUD: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The titleto 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 property is owned by Blue Crow, LLC. [+] 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 II, or Table 3- 320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. The site is presently in the Commercial General zone district. Proposed uses include fabrication and trades, office, retail/restaurant and residential uses. For the most part, the specific uses are allowed in the Commercial General zone district as a use by right, as a special use, or as a limited use. One of the proposed uses is described in the draft PUD Guide as "the temporary relocation of any existing metal building on the property for continued use by existing tenants to accommodate the PUD phasing plan". However, while the intent may be to allow the continuation of certain current uses, this item does not describe nor limit the uses that may be allowed in these existing buildings, nor does it indicate whether all of the current uses are conforming and/or legal in the Commercial General zone district. Altematively, if the intent of this item to merely permit structures which do not conform to the proposed site plan to be moved on the site and continue to be used, that has not been made clear. If the latter is the case, it is more appropriately included under "development standards". If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the continuing use of existing structures and the uses allowed within them should be clarified in the proposed PUD Guide submitted with the PUD Preliminary Plan application. The list of permitted uses in the draft PUD Guide includes a number of uses that are allowed in accordance with Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" of the Land Use Regulations. However, certain of these uses require special use permits in the Commercial General zone district. As set forth in the preamble to Section 5-250, Special Uses, in the Land Use Regulations, "Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone district based upon individual review of their location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate 9/14/2004 16 conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses." The uses (based on the revised POO Guide ) proposed in this POO which require special use permits in the Commercial General zone district include the following: . Repair garage; . Vehicle, aircraft and pleasure boat service or repair; . Distribution center; manufacture, assembly or preparation of articles or merchandise from previously prepared materials; . Shop for blacksmith, cabinet maker, woodworking, machining, or sheet metal; . Wholesale establishments, including sale of appliances, automotive and vehicular equipment, beverages, building materials, clothing, dry goods, feed, food, fuel, furniture, garden supply and plant materials, and hardware; and . Second story multiple family dwelling units (individually owned or rental). There were no clear provisions in the initial draft PUD Guide which necessarily separated potentially incompatible uses or provide for review of uses which are potentially incompatible with one another and with other uses proposed as a use by right (e.g., art gallery; bakery; business or professional office; restaurant), and to thereby ensure that mitigation is provided to adequately foster compatibility. However, the revised draft POO Guide received by Staff on 17 June 2004 includes more specific performance standards which are consistent with the provisions of Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. Significantly, the performance standards nOw provided apply not only at the perimeter of the Willits Bend parcel but also, when more than one use is located on a lot, the standards generally apply at the walls of other buildings on the lot. Given the proposed ownership and management of the development, the proposed perfortnance standards may be sufficient to make unnecessary any additional review to determine compatibility of proposed uses and to mitigate potentially adverse impacts. [+/-] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the POO 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 of the application for PUD. HOWEVER, potentially adverse impacts among uses within the PUD MAYbe avoided or mitigated by the proposed performance standards. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access andfire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. At least some variations of dimensional limitations appear to be required for this Sketch Plan application, including maximum floor area ratio (0.469: 1 proposed vs. 0.60: 1 per Table 3-340, Schedule of Dimensional Limitations), and maximum lot coverage (100 % proposed vs. 80 % per Table 3-340, Schedule of Dimensional Limitations). In addition, iUs proposed that the site be subdivided in a manner that individual lots are slightly larger than the building envelopes shown on the site plan, resulting in setbacks less than those applicable in the Commercial General zone district. Variations from certain dimensional limitations may be approved as part of the Preliminary Plan, pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provided that it is demonstrated and the 9/14/2004 17 Board of County Commissioners finds that the Preliminary Plan "achieves one (1) or more [specified] purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved". The purposes outlined in this Section are as follows: (a) obtain desired design qualities, (b) avoid environmental resources and natural hazards, (c) water augmentation, (d) trails, (e) affordable housing, and (f) public facilities. The initial application materials did not clearly identify all of the variations that are necessary for the development as proposed, nor demonstrate which of the specified purpose(s) were to be achieved or that the proposed variation(s) were necessary to achieve the specified purpose(s). However, in the revised draft PUD Guide, the Applicant has identified the proposed variations from dimensional standards and provided a discussion of the purposes to be achieved. It may be determined that the proposed variations from dimensional limitations achieve one or more purposes which are determined to be desirable. It should be noted that the revised draft PUD Guide imposes a maximum on the amount of "landscaped open space". It would be more appropriate to provide a minimum amount of landscaped open space. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the PUD Preliminary Plan should specify an appropriate minimum amount of landscaped open space areas consistent with the approved Pun Sketch Plan. [+/-] 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 of these dimensional limitations MAY be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parkingfor 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 projects residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkinz 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. Number of Parking Spaces The proposed uses include a mix of commercial, some of which (e.g., fabrication and trades) the application indicates one parking space per 1,000 square feet of floor area, and others (e.g., office and retail) which require one parking space per 250 square feet of net leasable floor area. The proposal also includes restaurant, the parking requirement for which is based on number of seats, and residential, the parking requirement for which is based on numbers of bedrooms. The proposal anticipates a mix of uses based on the following floor areas: Fabrication and Trades Office Retail/Restaurant Residential 38,012 square feet 16,500 square feet 7,500 square feet 30,543 square feet Parking standards are presented in the text of the application and in the draft PUD Guide which correspond with the provisions of Table 4-120, Minimum Off-Street Parking Standards for Each 9/14/2004 18 Use, of the Land Use Regulations, with the exception of certain "shared" parking associated With the proposed residential component of this development. However, the "parking plan" by which the adequacy of the proposed parking is determined uses yet another set of parking standards. A significant difference is that all or a portion of the uses listed as "fabrication & trades" may fall in the category of "service commercial", requiring one parking space per 250 square feet as opposed to the one space per 1,000 square feet shown on the Parking Plan. A near worst case is that (assuming that [a] all "fabrication and trades" consists of "service commercial", [bJ there are no restaurant uses, and [c] the residential parking requirement is 2.5 spaces per unit) as many as 308 parking spaces would be required, based on a standard of one parking space per 250 square feet of floor area [((38,012 + 16,500 + 7500) sq. ft. / 250 spaces per sq. ft.) + (24 units x 2.5 spaces per unit)]. A total of 197 parking spaces is now being proposed, including six "accessible" spaces. Portions of the application are intentionally vague due to the Applicant's desire to maintain flexibility as the development builds out in response to "specific market needs". While the nature of the uses pennitted in the development, and the resulting required parking, might be controlled so as to not exceed the parking available, the only mechanism proposed to control the parking required vs. parking available is that a summary of available parking would be provided with successive building pennits. The Applicant has attempted to address this difficulty by more specifically defining "light industrial manufacturing" and "service commercial" uses. However, problems regarding the adequacy of parking may potentially occur as commercial space undergoes changes in use over time, and a more effective control of parking required vs. parking available may be appropriate. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan include provisions to clearly demonstrate and effectively ensure that adequate parking will be available as each phase is developed, such as through limits (e.g., maximum floor area) to types of uses, subsequent County review on a phase by phase basis, or other appropriate means. The Eagle County Engineering Department has also raised concerns about the adequacy of the layout of the parking areas, citing parking aisles that dead end, hindering site circulation, and noting the requirement that parking aisles that are 150 feet or more long must have an appropriate turn around area that meets applicable standards. The Applicant has responded to the initial comments of the Engineering Department by providing a revised site plan received by Staff on 24 June 2004. While the Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed changes, it has not revised its comments or indicated that the revisions have satisfied concerns. The revised site plan shows the elimination of Building #6 near the western perimeter of the site and some "hardscape" and "grasscrete" to facilitate vehicular movement. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates that all issues raised by the Eagle County Engineering Department in its memorandum of April 20, 2004, have been adequately addressed. Size of Parking Spaces The size of the proposed parking spaces is 9' by 18'. Section 4-l40.B., Minimum Dimensions of Parking Areas, and the accompanying illustrations, specifies that the minimum size of outdoor parking spaces is to be 10' by 20'. Some justification has been provided in the "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments" prepared by the Applicant and received by Staff on 17 June 2004. However, given the highly commercial nature of this development, there is likely to be a high frequency of larger vehicles, including trucks and vans, requiring full size parking spaces. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the size of parking spaces proposed in the Preliminary Plan application should conform to the standards set forth in Section 4-140, Design Standards for Parking and Loading Areas, of the Land Use Regulations. Shared Parking 9/14/2004 19 "Shared parking" is permitted under Section 4-120.A.2., Shared Parking or Loading Areas, of the Land Use Regulations where "it can be shown that the peak use periods of required parking . . . for two (2) or more uses located on the same or adjoining sites will not overlap with one another". Initially, the application proposed to reduce the number of parking spaces required for each residential unit by 0.75 spaces. As initially proposed, 1.25 spaces would be required for a studio or I-bedroom unit (compared to 2.0 spaces required by Table 4-120, "Minimum Off-Street Parking Standards for Each Use"), and 1.75 spaces would be required for a 2-bedroom or 3- bedroom unit (compared to 2.5 spaces required by Table 4-120). The rationale was is that some of the residents ofthe development will work on-site, thereby taking advantage of "shared" parking and reducing the number of spaces required. However, the basis for the degree of sharing had not been provided. Eagle County Engineering noted that the reduced parking standard had not been adequately justified. The Applicant has revised the proposed parking to be available for the residential on-site residential units by limiting by deed restriction the number of vehicles which residents may park on-site, those limits being one vehicle for one bedroom or studio dwelling units and two vehIcles for all other dwelling units. On-Street vs. Off-Street Parking Section 4-120.A., Off-Street Parking Required, of the Land Use Regulations requires that all uses shall be required to provide off-street parking. A significant number of spaces are proposed to be along either side of the central roadway. The rationale presented in the application is that a "combination of on-street parking, a narrow but adequate drive aisle and the relationship of buildings to the private road will serve to slow traffic and enhance the safety and aesthetics of Willits Bend". In addition, even if on-street parking were permitted along the central drive aisle, diagonal or parallel parking would be significantly more appropriate than the perpendicular parking proposed. Nonetheless, if this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that all parking should be located other than on the main roadway through the development. Other means of traffic calming are available and should be explored. In addition, and as discussed elsewhere, the Highway 82 Access Control Plan contemplates access through this site which connects Original Road at its intersection with Highway 82 through to Willits Lane. When this connection through this site is completed as contemplated, the extent of the proposed narrow drive aisle, on-street parking and the resulting traffic slowing would not be appropriate. Off-Street Loading The uses proposed to be allowed are of the sort that may require significant loading and unloading of materials. Section 4-l20.B., Off-Street Loading Required, provides that "buildings or structures that are designed to receive and distribute materials and merchandise by truck, or that are substantially altered so as to receive and distribute materials and merchandise by truck, shall provide and maintain off-street loading berths or loading spaces in sufficient number to meet their own needs." This Section goes on to specify, when a property or use is "served or designed to be served by tractor-trailer delivery vehicles, the minimum number of off-street loading berths per building, that being one loading berth or space for buildings up to 10,000 square feet of gross floor area, and two loading berths or spaces for buildings of greater than 10,000 square feet of gross floor area. Section 4-130.D., Loading and Unloading, also requires that "loading and unloading of vehicles serving commercial and industrial uses shall be conducted on private property and not on any street or alley." While all of the internal roads are proposed to be private, they are all essential for vehicle circulation. Some potential loading areas are apparent on the site plan. However, the Basalt and Rural Fire District notes that there appears to be a conflict between emergency vehicle turn- 9/1412004 20 around and certain loading docks. Further, it has not been clearly demonstrated that the number and size of the loading areas or berths will meet the standards of the Land Use Regulations, or. that they will be located in areas that do not significantly conflict with vehicle circulation patterns. The Applicant maintains in the "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments" that all of the concerns ofthe Basalt and Rural Fire District have, in fact, been satisfied. However, this has not been confirmed by the Fire District. Nonetheless, ifthis PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan should clearly demonstrate that all the issues raised by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District in its letter dated April 16, 2004, have been adequately addressed. Parking Area Landscaping Section 4-l40.J., Parking Area Landscaping, requires that "parking and loading areas for non- residential uses located adjacent to residential uses or residential zone districts shall be designed to minimize disturbances to residents, including, but not limited to, installation of perimeter landscaping, control of illumination and proper screening of loading areas with opaque materials" and that "landscaping, screening and illumination of all parking areas shall com.ply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and TIlumination Standards. Areas immediately adjacent to the site are residential, including Oak Grove Town Hom.es to the west, and Aspen Basalt Campground and Mobile Home Park to the east. No significant perimeter landscaping is proposed. Further, the Town of Basalt notes that location of "large amounts of parking at the edges of the site externalizes the impacts of the project" and suggests strong consideration of avoiding "outward facing parking at the perimeter of the site, especially along the western property line facing the Oak Grove Townhomes". There is significant vegetation off-site along the western property line between this site and the town homes, and the town homes sit considerably lower than this site. However, there appears to be only a fence along the eastern property line separating the site from the campground and mobile home park. Nonetheless, the burden for providing buffering rests with the developer of a commercial use. More landscape buffering along the perimeter ofthe site is appropriate. In the Applicant's "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments", an argument has been made for non- vegetative buffering along the east and west perimeters of the site. Vegetation along these perimeters may also be appropriate to enhance on-site landscaping. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates that it complies with all landscaping, screening and illumination standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and TIlumination Standards, of the Land Use Regulations, and clearly demonstrates how it reflects consideration of comments of the Town of Basalt in its letter dated May 3, 2004. - All Factors Considered It has not been demonstrated that the development concept, including the proposed parking and loading provisions, has sufficient merit to warrant the substantial deviations from the standards of Division 4-1, Parking and Loading Standards, that are proposed in this Sketch Plan. Further, it may be possible to resolve the discrepancies noted above by responding to the recommended conditions of approval and by considering other revisions to the site design. However, with no change in the basic concept of the proposed development, responding to all of the parking and loading related issues (e.g., eliminating on-street parking, increasing the size of parking spaces, and adding perimeter landscaping) would most likely have the effect of reducing available parking to the point that it is less than sufficient to accommodate the type and amount of development proposed for the site. If the development concept were to be revised to the degree necessary to accommodate both less intense uses and adequate and appropriate parking and loading, it would most likely constitute a different sketch plan, and would therefore warrant a new sketch plan application. The result is a 9/14/2004 21 significant negative finding which contributes to a recommendation for denial of this proposed development. On the other hand, it may be noted that the response from the Town of Basalt indicates that "on street parking and associated traffic calming, trading blanket concepts, and art garden enhancements to the streetscape are all concepts consistent with design typology ideals included in the Basalt 1998 Master Plan". The response goes on to state that "the proposal also includes many funky concepts which support the Town's 1999 Master Plan diversity and community character goals [and that] it is important that the plan continue to maintain these characteristics so as to not duplicate and compete with more traditional commercial retail main streets in downtown Basalt and the Willits Town Center". Given the nature, design and location of the proposed development, it may be more appropriate for the Applicant to submit this proposal to the Town of Basalt and request annexation at a time when the Town is receptive to the proposed development. [-] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS NOT been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with, nor that it can be made to comply with, the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUDshall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving 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 Conceptual Landscape Plan has been provided which satisfies the requirem.ents of Section 4- 220.B., Conceptual Landscape Plan. Landscaping in planned unit developments may differ from what is required in Section 4-230, Landscaping Design Standards and Materials, for traditional zone districts. However, the proposed landscaping differs in several significant ways from that required in traditional zone district that may not be fully justified. Areas immediately adjacent to the site are residential, including Oak Grove Town Homes to the west, and the Aspen Basalt Campground and Mobile Home Park to the east. As discussed immediately above, Section 4-140.J., Parking Area Landscaping, requires that "parking and loading areas for non-residential uses located adjacent to residential uses or residential ZOne districts shall be designed to minimize disturbances to residents, including, but not limited to, installation of perimeter landscaping, control of illumination and proper screening of loading areas with opaque materials" and that "landscaping, screening and illumination of all parking areas shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and illumination Standards. The proposed landscaping plan shows minimal landscaping along the east and west perimeters (adjacent to residential uses), or along Willits Lane. Indeed, parking areas extend right up to or near the property line. As noted above, parking areas in the Commercial General zone district are required to have perimeter landscaping to buffer commercial and multi-family uses from adjacent residential uses, and to buffer parking areas from collector and arterial streets. Buffering along a perimeter adjacent to residential uses is not clearly defined. If there is any proposed deviation from the standards of Division 4-2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards, it should be clearly demonstrated that sufficient buffering of uses will be achieved. One may note that there is currently a line of trees off-site along the west perimeter of the site. While these may provide some buffering effect, the Land Use Regulations require that buffering be located on the site which has the commercial and/or multi-family uses, and the burden for buffering falls on 9/14/2004 22 each developer of multi-family residential and/or commercial uses. In the Applicant's "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments", an argument has been made for non-vegetative buffering along the east and west perimeters of the site. Vegetation along these perimeters may also be appropriate to enhance on-site landscaping. As a part of the PUD Preliminary Plan, a Detailed Landscape Plan will be required pursuant to Section 4-220., Landscape Plan. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Detailed Landscape Plan submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan should conform to the requirements of Division 4-2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards, and/or clearly demonstrate that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient intemallandscaping and 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, create attractive streetscapes and parking areas and to be consistent with the character of the area. [+/-] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] It HAS NOT been demonstrated that the landscaping proposed for the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. However, it MAY be possible to demonstrate the required compliance in the Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined tobe suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The application indicates that all signs within the project will comply with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. . [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The Applicant HAS demonstrated that signs within the PUD will be 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 ser'~ices. [ +] Potable water sUlJvlv. - Water service will be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. A letter is provided which states that the District has to capacity to provide potable water to the site. [+] Sewa~e disposal. - Sewage disposal service will be provided the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. A letter is provided which states that the District has to capacity to provide sanitary sewer service to the site. [+] Solid waste disvosal. - It appears that adequate solid waste disposal services are available in the area. It will be necessary to demonstrate in the Preliminary Plan that solid waste disposal services will be provided to the site. [+] Electrical supplv. - Holy Cross Energy will provide electric service to the site. A letter is provided which states that Holy Cross Energy has to capacity to provide electric power to the development. 9/14/2004 23 [+] Fire protection. - The site will be served by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, which has indicated that access to the site and watersupply appear to be adequate. However, the District does present several concerns, and requests that [a] the central corridor be a minimum unobstructed width of26 feet due to the complex nature of the project with its variety of hazards, condensed development and density of traffic, and that [b] all buildings over 5,000 square feet of area be required to be sprinklered. In the Applicant's "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments", the Applicant's intent has been clarified regarding the width ofthe central driving aisle and the sprinklering of buildings over 5,000 square feet. [+/-] Roads. - The Eagle County Engineering Department has noted certain deficiencies is the roadway design, including the inadequate on-site automobile stacking distance at the south entrance to the site, which creates safety concerns for traffic entering and exiting from Willits Lane. The revised site plan includes relocation of a number of parking spaces along Willits Lane which had prompted the concern regarding inadequate stacking distance. However, the Engineering Department has not indicated that its concerns in this regard have been fully addressed. Ifthis PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan should clearly demonstrate that all issues raised by the Eagle County Engineering Department in its memorandum of April 20, 2004, have been adequately addressed. It should be noted that the site does not accommodate the access through this site contemplated in the Highway 82 Access Control Plan which was prepared jointly by Eagle County, the Town of Basalt, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) in response to the doubling of traffic volumes on Highway 82 between 1988 and 1998, and the forecasted increase of 50 percent over the next 20 years. While the State Highway Access Code provides specific gUidelines for where access is permitted on an expressway such as Highway 82, it also provides for the development of an Access Control Plan to provide CDOT and local jurisdictions with a comprehensive roadway access design plan, balancing the transportation planning objectives of the local jurisdictions and CDOT. To this end, the Highway 82 Access Control Plan was completed in 2002 and adopted by Eagle County, the Town of Basalt, and CDOT. The Highway 82 Access Control Plan provides that "a connection should be provided from Original Road to Willits Lane", that connection being shown through the site of this proposed development and the property to the north. The right-of-way width for the access contemplated in the Access Control Plan could be as much as 70 feet. The Eagle County Engineering Department notes that "Original Road needs to be extended from Highway 82 to Willits Lane to improve traffic circulation in the area", pursuant to the Highway 82 Access Control Plan. The Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission states that "this PUD should incorporate the . recommendations of the Access Control Plan or make provisions for the implementation of the recommendations in the future". The proposed design of this development would not accommodate an access right-of-way of this nature. [+] Proximity to Schools - There are public elementary, middle school and high schools in Basalt, although they are nearing capacity. According to the application, the District is completing a Facility Master Plan for school expansions and improvements, and a bond election is expected in November 2004. [+] Proximitv to Police and Fire Protection, and Emergency Medical Services. - Law enforcement will be provided by the Eagle County Sheriff's Office. Fire protection and emergency medical services will be provided by Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. Bases for all emergency services appear to be within a reasonable proximity to the site. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS NOT been clearly demonstrated that the develo ment ro osed in the Prelimina Plan for 9/1412004 24 PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, roads and fire protection. HOWEVER, adequate facilities MAY be demonstrated in the Preliminary Plan. 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 to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (l) 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 toform 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 eTnergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from offstreet parking areas. [+/-] Safe, Efficient Access - The Eagle County Engineering Department has noted deficiencies with respect to access within the site, including parking aisles that dead end and are without appropriate turn around areas that meet AASHTO standards. The Applicant has responded to the initial comments of the Engineering Department by providing a revised site plan received by Staff on 24 June 2004. While the Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed changes, it has not revised its comments or indicated that the revisions have satisfied its concerns. The revised site plan shows the elimination of Building #6 near the western perimeter of the site and some "hardscape" and "grasscrete" to facilitate vehicular movement. In addition, the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District has identified issues related to [a] adequacy of the access and the fire protection plan, [b] adequate width of the central corridor to accommodate its fire equipment, especially in light of the potential hazards associated with the mixed uses, [c] sufficient provision on-site for maneuvering fire equipment, and [d] an adequate road surface during early phases of the development. The Applicant maintains in the "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments" that all of the concerns of the Basalt and Rural Fire District have, in fact, been satisfied. However, this has not been confirmed by the Fire District. Nonetheless, if this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates that all concerns raised by the Eagle County Engineering Department, in its memorandum of April 20, 2004, and by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, in its letter dated April 16, 2004, have been adequately addressed. [+/-] Internal Pathways - The Town of Basalt has noted that on-site and off-site pedestrian movements should be further reviewed in order to best connect the site to existing trails and 9/14/2004 25 transit. Construction of a sidewalk along Willits Land, crosswalk connections to the Willits Trail, and contributions toward hard surfacing of the Willits Trail to the site should be included. These comments are worthy of further consideration. If this POO Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates how it reflects consideration of comments of the Town of Basalt in its letter dated May 3,2004. [+/-] Emergency Vehicles - The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District has identified issues related to [a] adequacy of the access and the fire protection plan, [b] adequate width of the central corridor to accommodate its fire equipment, especially in light of the potential hazards associated with the mixed uses, [c] sufficient provision on-site for maneuvering fire equipment, and [d] an adequate road surface during early phases of the development. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates that all concerns raised by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, in its letter dated April 16, 2004, have been adequately addressed. [+/-] Principal Access Points - The Eagle County Engineering Department has noted that two points of access are required to the public roadway system. The Engineering Department has also noted certain deficiencies is the roadway design, including the inadequate on-site automobile stacking distance at the south entrance to the site which creates safety concerns for traffic entering and exiting from Willits Lane. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the proposed road system should be modified to conform to applicable requirements of Article 4, Site Development Standards, of the Land Use Regulations, or an application for appropriate Variances from Improvement Standards, pursuant to Section 5-260.G., Variance From Improvement Standards, ofthe Land Use Regulations, shall be submitted prior to or as part of the Preliminary Plan application. [+/-] Snow Storage - Section 4-140.K., Snow Storage, requires that adequate space be provided for storage of snow removed form pedestrian and vehicular ways, and parking and loading spaces on any property that contains commercial or industrial uses, multi-family units, or a common outdoor parking area. As a general guideline, and considering the varying elevations and snowfall amounts, it is anticipated that a minimum area equivalent to 2.5 percent of the total area of required off-street parking and loading area, inclusive of access drives, are to be designated to serve as a snow storage area. Some snow storage areas are designated on the Development Plan, but their adequacy has not been demonstrated. The revised draft PUD Guide now includes a provision (page 20) which states that "an area totaling at least 2.5 percent of the total surface parking and driveway coverage is allotted and will be maintained for snow storage". However, use of parking areas and drive ways for snow storage may reduce available parking and/or create circulation problems. The location(s) of appropriate snow storage should be clearly demonstrated as part of the Preliminary Plan~ If this POO Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates that adequate and appropriate snow storage areas have been provided. [+/-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT 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 Vehic1es, (d) Principal Access Points, and (e) Snow Storage. However, it MAYbe demonstrated in the Preliminary Plan that improvement standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. 9/14/2004 26 The area to the west of this site is presently multi-family residential. To the east are an RV park and a mobile home park. To the north is commercial, and to the south (across Willits Lane) is single family residential. The Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission notes that the "inclusion, particularly along Willits Lane, of a broad range of commercial uses in the developmentis a concern [and that] a more restricted mix of light industrial, limited accessory retail, office and affordable housing would be more appropriate". In addition, the Town notes that the "1999 Basalt Master Plan included this site on the Future Land Use Map" with a designation of Light Industrial consistent with the existing land uses. The Town goes on to state that: The density of development proposed on the site is inconsistent with the pattern of density occurring on neighboring properties. The proposed floor area of more than 90,000 sq. ft. (net increase ofapproximate1y 60,000 sq. ft.) is felt to exceed the appropriate capacities of the site and will generate unmitigated impacts on adjoining properties, community infrastructure and roadways. The proposed, very high density commercial and residential use is not appropriate. Any recommended condition of approval intended to adequately address this consideration would require a substantial re-design of the proposed development. Consequently, no recommended condition of approval is provided. The result is a significant negative finding which contributes to a recommendation for denial of this proposed development. [-] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS NOT 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 o'r lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. x1 _ Environmental Quality. The proposed development does not adversely affect critical wildlife habitat, surface and ground quality, or air quality. Development is not proposed in the floodplain. x2 _ Open Space / Recreation. The proposed development would not result in preserving land for open space nor for developing land for active use for parks and outdoor recreation facilities. 9/14/2004 27 x3 - Development. The proposed development would support and encourage the diversity of the County'S economic base. However, due to the proposed density of commercial and residential uses adjacent to higher density residential uses and a campground, it does not properly balance enhancement of the quality of life for residents and visitors with economic development. x4 - Affordable Housing. The proposal includes housing intended primarily for local residents, but there are no provisions to ensure either initial or continuing affordability. x5 - Transportation. The proposed development would locate new development near, and thereby promoting public transportation. X6 - Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed development is in an area designated as Community Center, and is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN x5 x1 ; x3 X 1 - Housing. The proposed development would be adjacent to an existing population center and includes free market affordable housing, but does not provide open space amenities that connect to other open space in the Valley. x2 - Transportation. The proposed development would tend to support mass transportation, but would not contribute to improvement of existing roadways. x3 - Community Facilities. The proposed development would result in development in or adjacent to existing cOlnmunity centers, provide mixed use development, and provide compensation for impacts on schools, but may not result in "community scale commercial development in traditional small town patterns" nor locate light industrial uses in or adjacent to existing predominantly industrial zones. x4 - Environment. The proposed development would limit wood burning in the Mid Valley area. x5 - El Jebel / Basalt. The proposed development does not conflict with the policies established for the EI JebellBasalt area. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: . Housing is a community-wide issue · Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan . . . · Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes · Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government~ there will be only limited success · It is important to preserve existing local residents housing · Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county 9/14/2004 28 . Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . x 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County x 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job Xl 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . . X 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x2 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . x2 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements x 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue X1 - Up to 24 residential units are proposed on the site. However, there is no provision to ensure that some of the units would necessarily be made available for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job. X2 - The residential units in the proposed development would tend be more appropriate for local residents, although no guarantees are proposed. X 3 - The proposed development would provide on-site local resident housing. [+/-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] With the recommended conditions of approval, the POO 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. 9/14/2004 29 The proposed phasing approach provides that construction would generally occur from south to north, but may occur in any order depending on market demands for specific buildings. The application proposes to provide infrastructure and amenities to support each phase, respectively. "Temporary solutions" are proposed for driveways and parking installation for the first four phases. Only then would a paved driveway and parking surface be required. The Basalt & Rural Fife Protection District notes that the road surface must be designed with an all weather surface and be able to handle the imposed load of fIre apparatus weighing "at least 75,000 pounds". If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the PUD Preliminary Plan should demonstrate clearly the manner in which the . recommendations of the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, in its letter dated April 16, 2004, have been considered in the design of the development. The Eagle County Engineering Department notes that the proposed phasing during construction is a concern since it implies that phases will not be contiguous and that there could be gaps in the infrastructure as the project is built out. The Department says that "prior to completion of each phase of construction appropriate infrastructure improvements must be completed that support that phase. The phasing provided in the Preliminary Plan should provide sufficient information to establish collateral requirements. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the PUD Preliminary Plan should demonstrate clearly the manner in which the issues and recommendations of the Eagle County Engineering Department, in its memorandum dated April 20, 2004, have been considered in the design of the development. [+/-] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS been provided for this development. However, a more detailed phasing plan WILL BE requi~ed as part of the Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (J 0) acres of common recreation and usable open space landsfor 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 lvith slopes greater than thirty' (30) percent shall not count !ov,Jard usable open space. 11 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 P UD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fUlly improved according to the development schedule 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 9/14/2004 30 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. The site consists of 4.524 acres. In addition, for this purpose, it can be expected that there will be as many as 63.12 residents living on-site (24 dwelling units x 2.63 residents per dwelling unit). Based on the above standard, the useable open space recommended for this PUD is 1.762 acres [(4.524 acres x 0.25) + (63.12 residents x (10 acres /1,000 residents))], a total of38.9 percent. The application states that the project will provide 1.327 acres of open space, or 29.3 percent, a difference of 0.435 acres and 9.6 percentage points. The proposed common recreation and open space includes "areas which are lawn, pervious ground covers and vegetation, and sidewalks". The open space is integrated throughout the site, including the areas between buildings, rather than having a separate park area. Consequently, there is very little open space for resident families to have picnics, play catch or throw a Frisbee. Inaddition, no play grounds for children residing dn-site are shown. It appears that the proposed open space is inadequate. In the "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments", the Applicant asserts that less common recreation and open space should be required on the basis that household sizes residing in on-site residential units would be smaller than the 2.63 persons prescribed in this Section of the Land Use Regulations. The Applicant further proposes to rely in recreation and open space facilities to the north of this site. Nonetheless, it is appropriate to provide adequate common recreation and open space on-site. If the development concept were to be revised to the degree necessary to appropriate and adequate open areas, it would constitute a different sketch plan, and would therefore warrant a new sketch plan application. The result is a significant negative finding which contributes to a recommendation for denial of this proposed development. However, if this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan should clearly demonstrate that commdn recreation and open space appropriate and adequate to meet the needs of the owners and residents of the development has been provided, and that all of the requirements of Section 5-240.F.3.e (12), Common Recreation and Open Space, have been satisfied. [-] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The applicant HAS NOT demonstrated that the PUD will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to (a) minimum area, (b) improvements required, (c) continuing use and maintenance; and (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 proposed Sketch Plan appears to consider the recommendations applicable analysis documents with respect to natural resource protection. [+] 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 9/14/2004 31 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 Sketch 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)] With the recommended conditions of approval, the PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)J - 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 Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts Except as modified under the provisions of a PUD and with the recommended conditions [see discussions above], the proposed development generally complies with all ofthe standards and provisions of the Land Use Regulations, including Article 3, Zone Districts. However, the draft PUD Guide would allow "outside storage of products produced by local businesses, artists, and craftsmen and minor, temporary work spaces will be permitted". This would constitute a "contractor storage yard" as that term is defined in Chapter 2, Article II, Definitions, of the Land Use Regulations. In the Commercial General zone district, a contractor storage yard us allowed only with a special use permit. In this situation, with residential as part of the proposed mix of uses, contractor storage is not appropriate. This is especially so due to the very limited open space available to families and children who might reside on-site. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that all work activity associated with commercial enterprises should be conducted inside a permanent building, and all materials and equipment used in the commercial enterprises, with the exception of operable vehicles, should be stored inside a permanent building. Article 4, Site Development Standards [ -] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) In the discussion above under Off-Street Parking and Loading [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)], a number of conditions of approval have been recommended relating to [a] number of parking spaces, [b] size of parking spaces, [cJ shared parking, Cd] off-street vs. on-street parking, [el off- street loading, and [f] parking area landscaping. It may be possible to resolve the discrepancies noted above by responding to the recommended conditions of approval and by considering other revisions to the site design. However, with no change in the basic concept of the proposed development, responding to all of the parking and loading related issues (e.g., eliminating on- street parking, increasing the size of parking spaces, and adding perimeter landscaping) would most likely have the effect of reducing available parking to the point of being less than sufficient to accommodate the type and amount of the proposed uses. Nonetheless, if this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan include provisions to clearly demonstrate and effectively ensure that adequate parking will be available as 9/14/2004 32 each phase is developed, such as through limits (e.g., maximum floor area) to types of uses, subsequent County review on a phase by phase basis, or other appropriate means. However, if the development concept were to be revised to the degree necessary to accommodate both less intense uses and adequate and appropriate parking and loading, it would most likely constitute a different sketch plan, and would therefore warrant a new sketch plan application. The result is a significant negative finding which contributes to a recommendation for denial of this proposed development. Incidentally, it was noted that the response from the Town of Basalt indicates that"on street parking and associated traffic calming, trading blanket concepts, and are garden enhancements to the streetscape are all concepts consistent with design typology ideals included in the Basalt 1998 Master Plan". The response goes on to state that "the proposal also includes many funky concepts which support the Town's 1999 Master Plan diversity and community character goals [and that] it isimpottant that the plan continue to maintain these characteristics so as to not duplicate and compete with more traditional commercial retail main streets in downtown Basalt and the Willits Town Center". Given the nature, design and location ofthe proposed development, it may be more appropriate for the Applicant to submit this proposal to the Town of Basalt and request annexation at a time when the Town is receptive to the proposed development. [+/-] Landscaping and TIlumination Standards (Division 4..2) Section 4-230.A.1., Location of Required Landscaping, ofthe Land Use Regulations specifies that "all lots in residential zones containing multifamily dwellings and all portions of lots in the Commercial Limited (CL), Commercial General (CG) and Industrial (1) zone districts not covered by impervious materials shall be landscaped [and that] landscaping shall also be installed to effectively buffer proposed commercial or industrial uses from surrounding residential uses and to provide a landscaped buffer along collector and arterial streets". While the proposed zoning is PUD, in the absence of justification to the contrary, these requirements are applicable in any development that has both multi-family residential and commercial components. Intemallandscaping appears to satisfy the requirements of Section 4-230.B.2., Interior Planting Areas, although no specific calculations have been provided. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrate that all interior landscaping satisfies the requirements of Section 4-230.B.2., Interior Planting Areas, of the Land Use Regulations. Section 4-230.B.l., Planting Strips, requires a "planting strip. . . along all property lines where a street right-of-way is located adjacent to the parking area", The planting strip is required to have a minimum width often (10) feet, and meet other standards related to the nature of the screening. The south property line of this site is adjacent to the Willits Lane right-of-way. The two buildings closest to Willits Lane are existing buildings. The initial intent was to provide 23 parking spaces between these buildings and the right-of-way. A planting strip would have been required along this property line to adequately buffer the parking area from the right-of-way. The result would have been to effectively eliminate the parking proposed in this area, and at the same time help to resolve the deficiency in the roadway design noted by the Eagle County Engineering Department with respect to the inadequate on-site automobile stacking distance at the south entrance to the site. The revised site plan shows the parking proposed along Willits Lane moved to a location north of the building closest to Willits Lane. As noted above, Section 4-230.A.l., Location of Required Landscaping, provides that "landscaping shall also be installed to effectively buffer proposed commercial or industrial uses from surrounding residential uses". The only effective landscaping which would serve this purpose is along the north property line where Building #9 is very close to the existing, adjacent 9/14/2004 33 commercial uses. Other proposed buffering. along the west property line, near Building #10, appears to conflict with the building, which itself is located very close to the property line. It is necessary to buffer this site on all sides where there are adjacent residential uses. Oak Grove Town Homes are adjacent and located to the west of this site, and the Aspen Basalt Campground is adjacent and located to the east. Beyond the Aspen Basalt Campground is the Aspen Basalt Mobile Home Park. The intent is to utilize the existing vegetation located off-site along the west property line to provide buffering. However, even with the existing off-site vegetation and difference in grade to the west, the requirement is that the required buffering is on-site, that is, the burden of buffering is on the developer of the commercial development. If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Detailed Landscape Plan submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan should either conform to the requirements of Division 4-2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards, and/or clearly demonstrate that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient internal landscaping and buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The proposed exterior lighting appears to conform to the provisions of Section 4-250, Illumination Standards. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) The application states that all signs within the project will comply With the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+/-] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The site presently has minimal vegetation and little wildlife habitat value. TheColorado Division of Wildlife has declined to provide formal comments, noting that the site is developed and there is no wildlife. [+/-] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has noted that the site has poor internal drainage. CGS concludes its response by stating that "there are no geologic conditions that would preclude development, but drainage improvements should be thoughtfully implemented to prevent future problems". If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the PUD Preliminary Plan should demonstrate clearly the manner in which the recommendations ofthe Colorado Geological Survey, in its letter dated April 16, 2004, have been considered in the design of the development. [+/-] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist gives the site a wildfire hazard rating of low, but questions whether adequate defensible space is provided around Building 9 at the north end of the proposed development. The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) also gives the site a wildfire hazard rating oflow, but encourages the use of noncombustible roofing materials. An adequate Vegetation Management Plan has been provided. The development is proposed to be served by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Therefore, an adequate water supply for fire fighting would be available. The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District has identified several issues that would have to be addressed in the Preliminary Plan, but also notes that the northernmost hammerhead may be designed to also serve a potential loading dock, and would only work for fire equipment turn-around if it is for fire department use only. The Applicant's "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments" has provided some explanation of the Applicant's intent 9/14/2004 34 in this regard, but the Fire District has not confirmed that this matter is resolved. Nonetheless, if this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the PUD Preliminary Plan should demonstrate clearly the manner in which the recommendations of the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, in its letter dated April 16, 2004, and the Colorado State Forest Service, in its letter dated April 28, 2004, have been considered in the design of the development. This Section also requires that "separate routes of entrance and exit into the development shall be provided". This development has only the one entrance/exit. Both the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District and Town of Basalt suggest a grid road system and inter- connecting roadways connecting the site to adjacent properties to the east. This would also serve to facilitate fire fighting activities and increase the safety of persons working and living on the site. Nonetheless, if this POO Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that a variance from improvement standards to allow the development to be served by fewer than two routes of entrance and exit should be required prior to or as a part of the Preliminary Plan application, pursuant to Section 5- 260.G., Variance From Improvement Standards, of the Land Use Regulations. [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The draft POO Guide states that "solid fuel burning fireplaces will not be permitted within the development [but that] gas burning devices may be allowed in any tenant space, building or residential unit subject to compliance with all County requirements. en/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - This site is not located on land designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - An adequate Environmental Impact Report has been provided. ' [+/-] Commercial and Industrial Performa.nce Standards (Division 4-5) The application indicates that compliance to the provisions of this Division would apply primarily to new uses within the proposed development. Existing uses which continue presumably would be exempt. Initially, the standards of this Division were in most cases applicable only at the perimeter of the site. With the mix of proposed uses (including residential, retail, restaurants, vehicle service and repair, trade and craft shops, and manufacturing), internal standards to mitigate the adverse impacts are necessary. The potentially adverse impacts (such as noise and vibration; smoke and particulates; heat, glare radiation and electrical interference; and storage of hazardous and non-hazardous materials) should be-adequately mitigated. Further, given the proposed mix of uses and the potentially close proximity of incompatible uses, explicit standards, which are a part of the POO Preliminary Plan and which adequately address potentially adverse impacts, are appropriate. ~ The revised draft POO Guide received by Staff on 17 June 2004 includes more specific performance standards which are at least as thorough and stringent as the provisions of Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. The performance standards provided apply not only at the perimeter of the Willits Bend parcel but also, when more than one use is located on a lot, the standards generally apply at the walls of other buildings on the lot. Given the proposed ownership and management of the development, the proposed performance standards may be sufficient to make unnecessary any additional review to determine compatibility of proposed uses and to mitigate potentially adverse impacts. [+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) 9/14/2004 35 [+/-] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - The Eagle County Engineering Department has noted certain deficiencies is the roadway design, including the inadequate on-site automobile stacking distance at the south entrance to the site which creates safety concerns for traffic entering and exiting from Willits Lane. The revised site plan includes relocation of a number ofthe parking spaces along Willits Lane which had prompted the concern regarding inadequate stacking distance. However, the Engineering Department has not indicated that all of its concerns in this regard have been addressed. Consequently, if this POO Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan should'c1early demonstrate that all issues raised by the Eagle County Engineering Department in its memorandum of April 20, 2004, have been adequately addressed. It should be noted that the site does not accommodate the access through this site contemplated in the Highway 82 Access Control Plan which was prepared jointly and adopted by Eagle County, the Town of Basalt, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The Highway 82 Access Control Plan provides that "a connection should be provided from Original Road to Willits Lane". That connection is shown to pass through the site of this proposed development and the property to the north. The right-of-way width for the access contempiated in the Access Control Plan could be as much as 70 feet. The Eagle County Engineering Department notes that "Original Road needs to be extended from Highway 82 to Willits Lane to improve traffic circulation in the area", pursuant to the Highway 82 Access Control Plan. The Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission states that "this PUD should incorporate the recommendations of the Access Control Plan or make provisions for the implementation of the recommendations in the future". [+/-] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - No external pedestrian improvements are proposed. The Town of Basalt notes that "on-site and off-site . pedestrian improvements should be further reviewed in order to best connect the site to existing trails and transit [and that] construction of a sidewalk along Willits Lane, crosswalk connections to the Willits Trail, and contributions toward hard surfacing of the Willits Trail adjacent to the site should be included". If this PUD Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan should include consideration of appropriate off-site pedestrian sidewalk and trail improvements. [n/a] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - There are apparently no surface water rights appurtenant to this site. [+/-] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - A series of on-site storm water retention/detention areas are proposed. Both the Eagle County Engineering Department and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) note the potential problems associated with the use of dry wells, which tend to fill with silt and eventually become ineffective and do not perform as designed. Proper maintenance of dry wells is essential. If this POO Sketch Plan were to be approved, a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates that all issues raised by the Eagle County Engineering Department, in its memorandum of April 20, 2004, and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, in its memorandum dated April 12,2004, have been adequately addressed. [+] Excavation and Grading Standards (Section 4-660) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [+] Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-665) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. 9/14/2004 36 [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. No street lighting is proposed. [+] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [+] Sanitarv Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) [+] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. [+] Road Impact Fees (Section 4-710) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards of this Section. As noted by the Eagle County Engineering Department, pursuant to the provisions of a certain inter-agency agreement between Eagle County and the Town of Basalt, road impact fees will directed to the Town. [-] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all. of the standards ofthis 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 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 Eagle County Road Ca'rJitallmprovements 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 entz're range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise 1m-served area. No inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or duplication or premature extension of public facilities, will result from the proposed development, nor will the proposed development result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] 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 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. 9/14/2004 37 The property is suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards. However, the proposed development does not accommodate the access through this site contemplated in the Highway 82 Access Control Plan which was prepared jointly and adopted by Eagle County, the Town of Basalt, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). See the discussion above under Roadwav Standards (Section 4-620). [+/-] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided MAY HE 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 area to the west of this site is presently multi-family residential. To the east are an RV park and a mobile home park. To the north is commercial, and to the south (across Willits Lane) is single family residential. The Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission notes that the "inclusion, particularly along Willits Lane, of a broad range of commercial uses in the development is a concern [and that] a more restricted mix of light industrial, limited accessory retail, office and affordable housing would be more appropriate". In addition, the Town notes that the "1999 Basalt Master Plan included this site on the Future Land Use Map" with a designation of Light Industrial consistent wit the existing land uses. The Town goes on to state that: The density of development proposed on the site is inconsistent with the pattern of density occurring on neighboring properties. The proposed floor area of more than 90,000 sq. ft. (net increase of approximately 60,000 sq. ft.) is felt to exceed the appropriate capacities of the site and will generate unmitigated impacts on adjoining properties, community infrastructure and roadways. The proposed, very high density commercial and residential use is not appropriate. Any recommended condition of approval intended to adequately address this consideration would require a substantial re-design of the proposed development. Consequently, no recommended condition of approval is provided. The result is a significant negative finding which contributes to a recommendation for denial of this proposed development. [-] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision IS NOT compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and WOULD adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Requirements for a Zone Chane:e It has been recommended by the Eagle County Attorney that these considerations be reviewed at PUD Sketch Plan, even though zone changes are neither granted for a PUD at Sketch Plan nor are they "formal" findings. It is almosUmpossible to avoid confronting these requirements at this stage since they are fundamental to the locational appropriateness of the proposed land use in the first place, and must be found at Preliminary Plan. Staff, therefore offers the following preliminary analysis, without discussion, pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5- 230.D., Standards, for amendment to the Official Zone District Map: The following preliminary findings are based on the proposed development if it were to be revised to conform to the recommended conditions of approval. 9/14/2004 38 (1) [+] Consistency With Master Plan. The proposed PUD MAY be consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan; (2) H Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment MAY NOT be compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed conditions of approval, it MAY NOT be an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; (3) H Changed conditions. There MAY NOT be 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 MAY 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, storm water management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. (5) [-] Community need. It MAY NOT be demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a community need. (6) [+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment MAY result in a logical and orderly development pattern, MAY NOT constitute spot zoning, and MAY logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; and ( (7) H Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply MAY NOT have changed or MAY NOT be changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Housin2 Guidelines. ~ On April]3, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 adopting Housing Guidelines to establish aframeworkfor discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. The proposed development would include as many as 24 dwelling units located on the second or third floors of the buildings in the project. These units might consist of one- and two-bedroom units from 600 sq. ft. to 1,100 sq. ft., and may include some three-bedroom units of approximately 1,400 sq. ft. They would be either rented or owned, depending on the needs of business owners, and would be available to persons employed within the development. The application maintains that this would provide a supply of affordable and employee housing. The Eagle County Housing Department notes that the proposed housing does not sufficiently guarantee fair market rents and/or "affordable" price points for the for-sale units. The Housing Department goes on to say that whether the units are for rent or for sale, there needs to be an appropriate mechanism, such as deed restriction, to assure future affordabilit'j of the units. Flli-ther, given the vague description of the proposed units, it is not clear whether the proposed development meets the commercial linkage, inclusionary zoning, or employee linkage housing guidelines. In the "Response to Eagle County Staff Concerns", the Applicant has agreed to deed restrict with an "occupancy restriction" up to 20 percent of the residential units constructed to make the units available on a priority basis to employees of businesses located between Glenwood Springs and Aspen. Commissioner... moved the Board deny File No. PDS-00039, incorporating the staff findings. Or However. if the Board is inclined to approve this PUD Sketch Plan, Staff recommends consideration of the followin2 conditions of approval recommended by Staff and the Roarin2 Fork Valley Re2ional Plannin2 Commission: 9/14/2004 39 Joe Forinash of Planning presented this file, showing several slides and photographs indicating where the proposed development is to occur. He stated that the applicant is requesting PUD sketch plan approval for mixed use development of 4.5 acres. There would be as many as 9 buildings with both on- and off-street parking. The west perimeter of the site has an irrigation ditch and much deciduous vegetation that will probably cause discussion. There are several easements on the site: sewer, water, Holy Cross, and telephone. He then spoke of access to the proposed site. Eagle County Engineering has concluded that a 70 foot right-of-way may be required. He went on to say that some of the proposed issues would normally require a special use permit; however, the applicant has agreed to some conditions that address these issues satisfactorily. The Planning Commission recommended parking spaces that would be 9 by 9 feet at a minimum. There was concern about the proximity of the parking to Willits Lane. He informed the commissioners thatthey had a revised site plan in their packets. He highlighted the open space for the project, which would be between the buildings. The Planning Commission recommended a pocket park for the site, however this is not shown on the current site plan. Land Use Regulations recommend that open space be equal to 25% of the site plus 10 acres per every 10,000 persons. Based on this calculation the recommended open space should be 1.762 acres, but the applicant is proposing 1.327 acres of open space. He addressed all of the associated issues and concerns. He highlighted water deteI)tion locations. Dry wells are proposed but not recommended by the Colorado Geological Survey. Development would occur based on market desires. The Fire District has concerns about having an adequate all- weather surface to be able to access all the buildings on the site. Staff findings are mixed and Planning commission findings are positive. Staff recommends denial, and the Planning commission recommends approval. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the parking and the formulas used to determine the requirements. Mr. Forinash stated that the kinds of uses that are being proposed could be reviewed as part of the building permit process. He felt the issue of parking needed to be addressed so that it is properly dealt with at the time development happens. Commissioner Gallagher asked Justin Hildreth to speak about the perpendicular parking. He wondered if the proposed road would be a through street. Mr. Hildreth indicated that it would eventually be a through street and that the speeds and the road capacity would be significantly lower in this area. Commissioner Menconi asked about the response from the Town of Basalt and their desire to see this development annexed. He wondered if additional conversations betweeh the applicant and the Town had transpired. Mr. Forinash answered that there had been additional discussion with the Town. He was not aware of the outcome of these discussions and the Planning Commission had not pursued this question. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Forinash to explain the through street. Mr. Forinash reviewed the surrounding properties on the power point map. He clarified that in the future it would be necessary for access to be achieved through private property adjacent to the proposed development. Chairman Stone stated that the map that showed "proposed access" without any easemeht across that property didn't seem proper. He wondered if the board should consider this a single entry road off of Willits Lane with no second access. Mr. Forinash stated that was correct and the situation might be that way forever. A second access point might not ever be available. The applicant was present for the hearing. Glen Rappaport an architect from Basalt, Doug Dodson the planner and landscape architect, Steve Crowley the owner, and Dave Mylar the attorney, were present. Mr. Rappaport stated that discussions began 14 months ago. They were trying to create a mixed use / live / work development. He had received a lot of calls from people interested in the concept and in support. He stated that he was surprised that they received the recommendation for denial. Since the memo from the Town of Basalt, the applicant's development team has met with them four times to discuss and address issues and concerns. "There are two parcels to the north of the property under different ownership and they are quite small. In the access control plan the additional access was intended for 5-10 years down the road," said Mr. Rappaport. He stated that during the meeting two weeks prior with the Planning and Zoning Committee, he felt that the development was seen in a positive light. They are in agreement with the conditions set forth by the committee. He believed that the characterization of the road issue had not been addressed prior to the recommendation of denial from staff. Mr. Crowley, owner of the proposed project spoke to the board. He has been involved in architecture and building in the Roaring Fork Valley for the past 40 years. He moved to Willits Lane in 1981 and purchased the land in 1987. He has been planning this "well-executed neighborhood" for artists and craftsmen and small 9/14/2004 40 business owners. His shop has never received a negative comment from his neighbors. There had been a study done in the community in 2003, and the reaction was overwhelmingly positive. Mr. Dodson, planner for the applicant showed the commissioners some additional maps. He also referred to the survey to determine business needs in the Roaring Fork Valley. He stated that businesses are being priced out ofthe Valley. They were trying to find a way to allow these types of uses to remain in the Valley. They also wanted to have the opportunity to live where they worked. He informed the commissioners that in Carbondale and Basalt there are similar types of developments. He showed several examples. Their focus is to give folks the opportunity for people to live where they work. The applicant felt that there was no better location for this type of development. He spoke about some of the elements of the plan. He spoke about the surrounding land uses. The applicant feels that if the traffic is taken through the development they would be fed into a residential neighborhood. The Town of Basalt and staff had asked that they reserve the option of putting in another access. They also looked at the possibility of stubbing to the property line. They wanted to slow traffic through the development and this was the reason that parking on the street was proposed. The neighbors were in favor of slowing the traffic down as well. This would also allow the developer to install and maintain the road through the development. They had attempted to comply with the open space requirements, but felt that the project being light industrial and commercial in nature that it would be reasonable to reduce slightly the open space provided. He stated that a little park could be provided. There are 192 parking spaces in the project. They talked to people who owned the RV park next door to the project. These people preferred an 8 foot high fence to a berm. The issue of headlights through the vegetation was considered. They propose screening using a four foot high fence to address the headlights issue. The proposed units would be on the smaller end of what is currently available in the valley. It is their belief that the parking is sufficient to accommodate the mixed use. Commissioner Gallagher asked to be directed to the use mix. During the break, staff located the requested information. Mr. Rappaport stated that they felt the amount of parking would actually be excessive and he provided examples for comparison. They do not desire to have uses that would compete with the Willits Shopping Center. Mr. Dodson referred the commissioners to page 111 of the PUD Guide related to the proposed uses. They went through the commercial general zone district. They took this use list and removed inappropriate uses due to impacts or special parking needs, etc. The retail proposed is intended to be more like showrooms than retail spaces. The type of restaurants that are being proposed would be small local spots for employees and residents with very few seats and more of a "to go" concept. He also pointed out that the number of parking spaces would control the types of uses that could occur on the site. They had attempted to define the range of impacts. He stated that the project would include a management association to control the uses. Commissioner Stone opened public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi stated that he thought it was an interesting file and that he was supportive of mixed uses of this type. He wondered if Mr. Mylar had had the opportunity to review the conditions for approval. The applicants stated that they had. Commissioner Menconi wondered if any of the conditions were not acceptable. Mr. Dodson stated that the Planning and Zoning commission made conditions that they supported. He hoped that the direction they had gone in terms of buffering had addressed these conditions. They stated they were comfortable with the conditions. The exception would be the on-street parking, or condition #21. Mr. Walter Matthews asked which Planning and Zoning commission. Mr. Dodson replied the Eagle County Planning and Zoning commission. Commissioner Menconi asked if the conditions satisfied the staff's concerns. Mr. Forinash stated that for the most part this would be true. He felt that the LUR and Master Plan regulations had been addressed in the best way possible. The parking issue was still in question. Commissioner Gallagher stated that there appears to be around 40 spaces perpendicular to what some day might be the main drive. He asked the Engineering department what the requirements are. Justin Hildreth stated that he anticipated that the speed limit would be 25 or 30 mph. Commissioner Gallagher asked to see the aerial photograph showing the largest piece of ground. He was trying to understand the importance of the road. Mr. Hildreth stated that eventually there would be a stoplight on this intersection. Commissioner Gallagher asked for further clarification using the power point maps. He wondered if it would be possible for the applicants to gain an easement for emergency vehicle access. He was attempting to come up with a secondary access for emergency vehicles. Mr. Dodson stated that there was a significant grade difference between the two parcels. 9/1412004 41 Commissioner Gallagher stated that he was adamant about secondary access. He wondered where the housing would be on the proposed site. Mr. Rappaport stated that at this point they weren't sure ifthe units would need to be contained in a single building. They are trying to allow living and working in anyone of the units. They anticipate a reality that live I work units would occur on the second floor. They are proposing 20-24 residential units and most likely smaller in SIze. Commissioner Gallagher asked if these units would be condominium-ized. Mr. Rappaport stated that units would be for sale as much as possible. He stated that if the project becomes too expensive internally the feasibility would be impacted. He did not want the project to focus solely on the affordable housing and not affordable workspace. Commissioner Gallagher asked how this would be accomplished. Mr. Rappaport stated that they had discussed different possibilities to accomplish this goal. He asked to have these layers develop during the preliminary plan if possible. He wondered about the importance of the connection through to Willits Lane. Commissioner Gallagher asked when the access to Highway 82 might be developed. Mr. Hildreth stated that he could not answer this question. Ifhe had to guess it would be 5-10 years. The road impact fees for Willits Lane go to the Town of Basalt. He felt that perhaps the Town of Basalt would provide this access. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the parking spaces. He wondered if the applicant was maximizing the footprint and wondered if the removal of one building would allow for more parking. Mr. Rappaport stated that they felt they had sufficient parking, and that the minimizing ofretai} and commercial use would eliminate the need to add more parking. Mr. Dodson stated that based on the fabrication and trade requirement of one space per 1000 square feet and based on 38,000 square feet, this would be 38 parking spaces. . Office spaces require 66 parking spaces based on 16000 square feet being used for this type of use. Residential units would be 24 units maximum, and this would require 48 parking spaces. It they considered showroom-type of retail uses there might be 7500 square feet of this type of use and this would require another 30 parking spaces. Based on the total for all of these uses it would require 182 parking spaces, and they have already planned more parking. Commissioner Gallagher asked what would happen if perpendicular parking was eliminated. He wondered if there would be methods for compensating. Mr. Dodson stated that they would lose 5 parking spaces. "; Commissioner Gallagher asked if a condition of approval might be requiring the use of the percentages of use provided. Mr. Dodson asked if ranges might be mo~e~te.asonable. Commissioner Gallagher stated that 5-10' years from now the uses might not work with the parking provided. Mr. Dodson asked if the condition could be more flexible as they continue to mold the plan. He suggested that perhaps some future level of additional detail that gives more comfort related to the range of uses and numbers of uses. Commissioner Gallagher asked staff to compose that condition. Mr. Crowley stated that he did not have a problem with committing to not exceed the proportions of uses suggested. Commissioner Gallagher asked which way the wind blows. He wondered about visual impacts and noises produced. Chairman Stone stated that his difficulty is that he doesn't know what the applicant wants to do in their project. He felt that they had maximized their flexibility to the point that it is difficult to make specific comments because he believes they are requesting too large a flexibility as to what would be built and when it would be built. He felt this caused problems with the parking and emergency access. He asked to go through the findings with particular attention to the negative findings. On page 15, he mentioned the standard of off-street parking and loading. On page 20 there is a negative finding related to this issue. Mr. Forinash stated that on-street parking was not appropriate and so staff included a recommendation in the negative related to this. There was also a question of perimeter landscaping. The negative finding was related to the on-street parking. Mr. Crowley stated that the on-street parking should be positive because of the nature of the street and the fact that it would lend vitality to the center of the neighborhood. 9/14/2004 42 Chairman Stone stated that on 4.5 acres it shouldn't be called a street - but rather a heavy commercial area surrounded by parking. Mr. Crowley stated that all of the buildings would front on that street. Chairman Stone stated that it still looks more like parking. He stated that he is having difficulty in making specific comments because the applicant doesn't know where the residential units would be located. Mr. Rappaport stated that he feels they have a very clear idea of what they want to do. They want a place where people can live, work and sell in the same or different spaces. They want to propose a realistic parking plan. Chairman Stone stated that the applicant's effort to maintain the flexibility related to parking would not be acceptable at this stage. Mr. Rappaport stated that they did not intend for the commissioners and staff to pick up the pieces of where they had left off. Their intention would be to pay attention to the PUD guidelines. Chairman Stone stated that the Commissioners had a meeting scheduled with the Colorado Department of Transportation scheduled to begin at 3:30. He suggested that this file be continued at the applicant's request to a future date so that additional questions could be asked. Mr. Forinash stated that the first available date would be October 12. Chairman Stone asked the applicant to be prepared to comment on the negative findings and to flush out more direction and how they proposed to phase in the project. He suggested that staff review the Riverwalk procedures. He told the applicant that his main concern is the maximization of the parcel and that it might not be appropriate for the area. He asked the applicant to address these issues. He also thought the dry wells Were problematic as well. Mr. Matthews wondered if the staff report would change. Mr. Forinash stated that it would not, with the exception that supplemental information might be added. Commissioner Menconi moved to continue file No. PDS-00039 Willits Bend at the applicant's request to October 12, 2004. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 9/14/2004 43