HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/16/04
PUBLIC HEARING
November 16, 2004
Present:
Tom Stone
Michael Gallagher
Jack Ingstad
Diane Mauriello
Teak Simonton
Chairman
Commissioner
County Administrator
County Attorney
Clerk to the Board
Absent:
Am Menconi
Commissioner
Executive Session
COm1llissioner Gallagher moved that the Board of County Commissioners go into executive session for the
purpose ofreceiving legal advice concerning accessibility requirements under the International Building Code and
for the purpose of discussing negotiations with Comcast of Colorado regarding cable franchise agreements which
are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to c.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b)and(e). Commissioner Stone seconded the
motion and it passed unanimously. It should be noted that Commissioner Menconi was absent due to the birth of his
daughter. At the close of the discussion Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from executive session and
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.
This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration:
Public Hearing - 2005 Budget
Mike Roeper, Finance
Mr. Ingstad stated that two public hearings are required by law, and today's meeting and the scheduled
meeting on December 7th would satisfy this need.
Chairman Stone opened and closed public comment, as there was none.
Chairman Stone suggested that this issue be discussed during the next board meeting.
Resolution 2004-114 Adopting a Third Supplementary Budget arid Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues
for Fiscal Year 2004 and authorizing the transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Moneys between Various Spending
Agencies
Mike Roeper, Finance
Ms. Forinash stated that Mr. Roeper indicated that there would be sufficient monies available to cover
additional staff in this year's budget.
Mr. Ingstad stated that this is out of cycle because this process had already taken place for the 2005 budget.
The reason these requests came forward was based on immediate needs from the Clerk and Recorder and Health
and Human Services departments.
Ms. Budd stated that the position requested by the Clerk and Recorder was a .5 FTE, half-time position.
The request was re-visited based on current and future extreme needs by the department. The critical staffing
committee now recotnmends approval for this position.
Chairman Stone wondered ifthe discussion of additional positions was more appropriate for the 2005
budget.
Mr. Ingstad stated that decisions made for the supplemental budget would impact the 2005 budget as welL
He stated that he'would review the supplemental budget line by line. The capital and general fund balances would
be reduced to $3.3 million and no additional funds would be available.
Chairman Stone asked which positions were included in both the supplementary and the 2005 budget.
~ _ Mr. Ingst. ad stated that he had not recommended the addition of any additional staff members other than the
~inturn Senior Coordinator.
Chairman Stone requested discussion ofthe Minturn Senior Services Coordinator.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the cost of the different positions proposed.
11/16/2004
1
Ms. Budd stated that the cost of the .5 FTE position for the Clerk and Recorder would be approximately
$35,000, and would have no benefits. The Clerk has indicated that the overtime budget would be reduced based on
better utilization of the labor in the office.
Chairman Stone asked whether this position had not been included in the 2005 budget.
Mr. Ingstad stated that this was true.
Chairman Stone asked what action was needed at this meeting. He wondered ifthere were current staffing
requests for the supplemental budget.
Mr. Ingstad stated that the only positions requested as part of the supplementary budget are the Health and
Human Services positions.
Ms. Budd stated that Health and Human Services requested two positions. One was an Income
Maintenance Tech III to take care ofthe TANF, Medicare, Food Stamp, and Adult programs at a cost of
approximately $61,000 with benefits and was a full-time position. The other position was a half-time
Administrative Tech m position to help with data input for the new state system and conversion of the state
records. It would be a temporary position.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about a time line for the temporary position.
Ms. Budd stated that it was requested through March, 2005.
Chairman Stone wondered about the logic of using a temp service rather than a year-round, part-time
position. He wondered about the cost.
Ms. Budd stated that the total cost would be $35,699.00 and it usually is more beneficial to make the
person a COUl1ty employee when it is for a long-term assignment, such as this one.
COn1Inissioner Gallagher asked how much labor would be needed to complete the work.
Ms. Forinash stated that this person would handle commodities, low income energy assistance program and
other routine interviews so that trained public assistance technicians could do the actual input into the computer
system, as it is very technical work.
Ms. Budd stated that these costs would be recovered under TANF funds. The committee did recommend
approval for this position, but not for the full-time position. They felt this was a premature request because the
system is not yet up and running.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if statistics had been reviewed from Health and Human Services regarding
increased work load.
Ms. Budd stated that the workload had increased by 133% and the staffload had increased by 33%.
Ms. Forinash stated that Eagle County is spending less in Social Service staffing in relation to the number
of poor folks that live in other counties.
Mr. Ingstad stated that he agreed with the critical staffmg committee's findings.
Chainnan Stone wondered why the full-time position would affect the supplementary budget.
Ms. Forinash stated that there are currently sufficient funds to bring these positions on board in the next six
weeks.
Mr. Ingstad stated that the position and funding source would have to be shown. He wondered how one
could appropriate money without approval.
Mr. Roeper stated that there had already been savings in salaries and benefits.
Commissioner Gallagher asked to put the decision off until further review could be done. He was in
support of the part-time position, though.
Chairman Stone stated that the position for the Clerk and Recorder did not have to be decided today, and he
felt that the full time Health Ruman Services position could also be reviewed at another time prior to approval of
the 2005 budget.
Mr. Roeper reviewed the details of the proposed supplemental budget. He informed the board that within
the Airport fund, the major projects are the FAA radar deposit, runway expansion project, ILS operating and
fencing, and wetlands mitigation.
Chairman Stone asked what the County's share of the improvements at the airport would be.
Mr. .Roeper responded that it would be $993,549. He then went on to explain the loans that would be
received from the various county funds to help support the projects. He stated that these projects would take the
airport fund below the 25% desired balance.
Mr. Ingstad stated that there is $1,088,000 in the unalIocated fund, $900,000 in the general fund,
$1,700,000 in the airport fund, and the capital fund is about $800,000. He allowed that the option exists to further
reduce'the airport fund balance.
Commissioner Gallagher stated that he did not want to spend the operational fund balance down more than
2 or 3% from the 25% reserve.
11/16/2004
2
Mr. Roeper stated this would still be the case.
Chairman Stone concurred with Commissioner Gallagher. He felt reducing the capital fund would be
preferable to a loan from another account. He stated that the capital fund balance was 15% and several years ago
the policy decision to up this amount to 25% was prudent because of the economic uncertainty, but he is optimistic
about the future.
Commissioner Gallagher stated that he concurred as long as this reduction was temporary and not
permanent.
Mr. Irtgstad wondered ifby taking more money out of the general budget it would decrease its flexibility.
He thought ifthe$1.5 million for the radar was taken from the airport fund balance it would leave about $200,000
in the airport fund balance for capital only, not for operational costs.
Commissioner Gallagher asked what the payback schedule might be.
Mr. Roeper indicated that it could likely take 3 years. He then stated that the loan from the General fund
would be removed from the supplemental budget.
Mr. Ingstad asked about other projects. He indicated that the money for the runway would be part of the
hext year's budget, but the contract needed to be signed at this time.
Mr. Roeper stated that the other major spending was in the capital improvements fund. Major items
included a command vehicle and many items related to Berry Creek.
Chairman Stone thanked Ms. Migchelbrink for taking over at Facilities Management and asked about the
expense for relocating the dumpster.
Ms. Migchelbrink suggested postponing the move.
Commissioner Gallagher recommended adding doors, but suggested removing it from the supplemental
budget and revisit it during the next year's budget hearings. He then asked about the bridges at Berry Creek and the
command vehicle.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated that the two lines items are for design and cost of building of the bridge.
Mr. Barry Smith spoke to the board about the command center. He told the board that this vehicle would
be completely built fromthe factory. He stated this vehicle was the most economical option.
Chairman Stone asked what the net cost would be.
Mr. Smith stated that the net .amount would be approxim<:ltely $60,000, and this amount might be reduced
even futtherifgra.nts were received.
Mr. Roeper stated that another $800,000 would be needed for the health insurance fund. He stated this is
the best guess estimate.
Chairman Stone asked about the anticipated increase in health insurance for next year.
Mr. Roeper stated the total cost for health insurance would be around $5.2 million. He clarified that there
would be an increase of around $200,000 net after changes are implemented.
Chairman Stone asked whether the fairgrounds project would need additional funds. He suggested that
some money that would have been spent to re-locate the dumpster could be used for this purpose.
Mr. Ingstad stated that there is not currently a contract with Kenney for this project.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated that there was $50,000 allocated to move the barn, but the barn had since been
burned. She requested that a contract be entered into with Kenney and to use these funds for the fairground project.
Chairman Stone wondered ifthis money would have to be re-appropriated.
Mr. Ingstad stated that he felt the scope had changed and he would be more comfortable appropriating a
dollar amount with this supplemental budget.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated that Kenney had been paid about $5,000. She then requested an expanded scope
of his responsibilities in the form of a contract.
Mr. Roeper reviewed the extra costs at ECa, but clarified that these would come from the ECa budget.
Chairman Stone reviewed the items on the Consent Agenda that would be affected by this supplementary
budget.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the Sheriff s request for the Road Supervisor Sergeants.
Mr. Ingstad stated that all requested positions would be reviewed in December.
Commissioner Gallagher then asked about the cable franchise costs.
Mr. Ingstad stated that these were for equipment and franchise fees.
Commissioner Gallagher wondered why money would be moved from one fund, placed in another, and
hen spent, rather than just be spent from the initial fund.
Mr. Roeper stated that revenue would be coming in to the Weed and Pest fund for expenditures that Road
and Bridge had already made, and this request would transfer the funds back.
Mr. Ingstad stated that a lot of Road and Bridge work is related to Weed and Pest.
11/16/2004
3
Brad Higgins stated that this money would be used to reimburse Road and Bridge for previous
expenditures.
There was some discussion about the reason behind this transfer, and it was decided to remove it from. the
Supplementary Budget.
Chairman Stone asked a few questions related to newspaper advertising and confirmed that it could be
removed. He also asked about the Edwards annexation renovation costs.
Mr. Roeper stated that these additional costs were requested by Kathleen Forinash.
Mr. Ingstad stated that all of these discussions would occur during the consent agenda.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2004-114 Adopting a Third Supplementary Budget
and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2004 and authorizing the transfer of Budgeted and
Appropriated Moneys between Various Spending Agencies as amended: Lines 1, 15, and 34 will be deleted. Lines
12 and 21 will be removed. With Line 61, the fund balance usage will change by the appropriate amount. Line 70
will be deleted, and $3,500 will be moved from Line 76 to 75. In the Airport Fund, Line 159 will be deleted, and
the loan from the CIP fund will be reduced by the amount used by Line 60, taking the fund balance down to
$200,000.
Chairl11an Stone opened and closed Public Comment, as there was none.
Chairl11an Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Stone stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Weeks of November 15, November 22 and November 29,2004 (Subject to
review by the COUllty Administrator)
Mike Roeper, Finance Department
B. Approval of the Payroll for November 24,2004 (Subject to Approval by the County Administrator)
Mike Roeper, Finance Department
C. Resolution 2004-115 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Diane H. Mauriello, County Attorney, Walter
MatheWs, IV, Deputy County Attorney, Bryan R. Treu, Assistant County Attorney and Debbie Faber,
Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with
respect to Letter of Credit No. SLCPPDX01548 in the Amount of$115,594.60 for the Account of Vail
Corporation Drawn on US Bank National Association and Expiring on November 30,2004
County Attorney's Office Representative
D. Preconstruction Services Agreement for the Eagle County ChildcarelCommunity Center Building at Miller
Ranch
County Attorney's Office Representative
E. Agreement Establishing the Obligation of Berry Creek Limited Liability Company Regarding the
Installation of Underground Drainage Piping at Tract C, Berry CreekIMiller Ranch Planned Unit
Development
County Attorney's Office Representative
F. Memorandum of Agreement between the Federal Aviation Administration and Eagle County, Colorado for
the Radar System at the Eagle County Regional Airport
County Attorney's Office Representative
G. Master Agreement Regarding Provision of Architectural Services for Freedom Park between Eagle County
and Shepherd Resources, Inc.
County Attorney's Office Representative
Facilities Management Representative
11/16/2004
4
H. Residential Lease Agreement Renewal for 30265 Colorado River Road, McCoy, Colorado, between Eagle
COl111ty and Kelsy McCoy
Helen Migchelbrink, Facilities Management
1. Animal Services Contract with the Town of Red Cliff
Debbie Brown, Animal Services
J. Animal Services Contract with the Town of Minturn
Debbie Brown, Animal Services
K. Animal Services Contract with the Town of Eagle
Debbie Brown, Animal Services
L. Animal Services Contract with the Town of Vail
Debbie Brown, Animal Services
M. Animal Services Contract with Town of Gypsum
Debbie Brown, Animal Service
N. Agreement between Eagle County and Angela Mueller for Child Care Capacity Grant
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
O. Agreement between Eagle County and Mountain Valley Development Services for use of Space at the
Health & Human Services Edwards Annex
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
P. Agreement between Eagle County and the Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District
(WECMRD) for use of Space at the Health & Human Services Edwards Annex
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
Q. Agreement between Eagle County and Lead, Inc. for use of Space at the Health & Human Services
Edwards Annex'
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
R. Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle River Youth Coalition for use of space at the Health &
Human Services Edwards Annex
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
S. Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability for use of Space at the
Health & Human Services Edwards Annex
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
T. Agreement betWeen Eagle County and Jeanne McQueeney for Staff Development Services
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Service
U. Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle Valley Child Care Association
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
V. Agreement between Eagle County and Custom House Construction
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
W. Amendment to Cable Television Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Comcast of Colorado,
VI, LLC and Comcast of Colorado VII, LLC
County Attorney's Office Representative
11/ 16/2004
5
X. Amendment to Cable Television Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Comcast of
ColoradolFlorida, Inc.
County Attorney's Office Representative
y. Resolution 2004-116 For Final Release of Collateral and Termination ofthe Warranty Period for Red
Sky Ranch Plath Side
County Attorney's Office Representative
Z. Resolution 2004-117 Concerning Approval and Authorization of the Reissued Mortgage Credit
Certificate Program
KT Gazunis, Housing
AA. Reissued Mortgage Credit Certificate Program Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado Housing
and Finance Authority
KT Gazunis, Housing
BB. Miller Ranch Road Transformer Agreement with Holy Cross Energy
Facilities Management Representative
Chainnan Stone asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda.
Diane Mauriello, County Attorney stated that items 0, p, q, r, s, v, g, and d should be removed for future
discussion.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the source of funds for Item U.
Ms. Forinash stated that those funds were coming from State and Federal Child Care Block Grant Funds.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Consent Agenda for November 16,2004, Items A-BB,
otnitting items D, G, 0, P, Q, R, S, and V.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve item D of the consent agenda.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Chairman Stone asked Mr. Bryan Treu about Item G, the work related to Shepherd .Resources, Inc..
Mr. Treu stated that they had added a spending cap to consulting fees and additional services.
Cormnissioner Gallagher asked about Appendix A related to the scope of the work. Some of these
conditions were not longer accurate, and wondered whether this master agreement should be postponed until after
the break, to give staff the opportunity to make the necessary revisions.'
Ms. Migchelbrink clarified that the contract was flexible enough to cover changes discussed.
Cornmissioner Gallagher moved to approve Item G, the Master Agreement Regarding Provision of
Architectural Services for Freedom Park between Eagle County and Shepherd Resources, Inc.
Chainnan Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous:
ItemS V, 0, P, Q, Rand S were then discussed in conjunction with each other.
Ms. Forinash discussed the scope of the construction related to Item V. She gave the commissioners a copy
of the floor plan for the proposed facility in Edwards. The purpose is to provide a site for a parent-child group
socialization and parenting activities, and this space would also allow room for non-profit entities. The associated
lease agreements were available as well.
Chairman Stone asked what LEAD, Inc. represented.
Ms. Forinash stated it is a new family outreach organization for families in crisis and under stress. She
stated that some of the goals include interior painting, updating fire alarms and extinguishers, cleaning, rent costs
for the remainder ofthe year, improvements to the playground area, installation of kitchen equipment and
miscellaneous fixtures. There is a requirement for the sanitation district to approve sub-lease agreements and
improvements to the facility, and they have been approved by the district. Building permits and land use issues
have been handled properly.
Chairman Stone asked about maintenance.
11/16/2004
6
Ms. Forinash stated that Service Master had been retained for cleaning services. With regards to major
maintenance, Eagle County would be responsible. She stated that the non-profits would not pay rent or utilities, but
would be responsible for improvements to their portions of the building and to assist in the shared costs.
Commissioner Gallagher had several questions related to the sub-lessees. He wondered if fees should be
charged for Mountain Valley Developmental.
Ms. Forinash stated that Eagle County had not provided much in the way of funding for this type of
organization and she felt this would be anice way to grant some assistance to them.
Commissioner Gallagher asked about the playground.
Ms. Forinash reviewed the location. She stated it is a small area with a fence and minor improvements.
COl11n1issioner Gallagher wondered if this playground would be available to others.
Ms. Forinash stated that the parenting area will be open to a variety of community agencies and this
playground will allow a place for the children to stay during these meetings.
Commissioner Gallagher spoke about the non-profits not being required to pay their expenses.
Ms. Forinash stated that these entities would pay their pro-rata share of the cleaning expenses.
Commissioner Gallagher requested that these entities pay their share of the utilities. He then wondered
what was in the unavailable space listed in the lease.
Ms. Forinash stated shewas not aware of the answer, as they do not have access to it.
Ms. Mauriello stated that the other parties are not aware ofthe changes and, as such, these items should be
broughtback later, unless the board wanted to approve it contingent upon approval of the sub-lessees.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Items 0, P, Q, R, and S, contingent upon the approval of the
sub.:.Jessees.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Item V, the Agreement between Eagle County and Custom
House Construction.
ChairIl1an Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Pla.nning a.nd Lan.d Use Resolution Consent Agenda
Cliff Simonton, Community Development
A. Resolution 2004-118 Approving a Special Use Permit for Employee Housing for the Eagle River Water
and Sanitation District on Brett Ranch - Tract F (Eagle County File No. ZS-00121). The Board cQllsidered
this proposal on November 9th, 2004.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Planning and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda for
November 16,2004, consisting ofItern A.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
COl11n1issioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the
Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion.. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Eagle County Liquor License Authority
Don DuBois, Clerk & Recorder's Office
Consent Agenda
Renewals
A) Sato Sushi
Edwards, CO
This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant liquor license in Edwards. There have been no complaints or
disturbances during the past year. All fees have been paid.
11/16/2004
7
B) Zach's Cabin
Beaver Creek, CO
This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant liquor license in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints
or disturbances during the past year. All fees have been paid.
C) Fi~sta's New Mexican Restaurant
Edwards, CO
This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant liquor license in Edwards. There have been no complaints or
disturbances during the past year. All fees have been paid.
Other Consent
D) Zach's Cabin
Beav~r Creek, CO
This is a request for a modification of premises. The applicant wishes to remove Anderson's Cabin from
their licensed premises. All fees have been paid.
Comniissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Liquor Consent Agenda of November 16, 2004, Items A-D.
Chairnian Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Other Liqoor
A. CMLRestaurant Mallagem~nt Company
DBA Falling Creek
CONCERNS / ISSUES:
Chris Randall, President
676 Sawatch Drive (Country Club of the Rockies)
Edwards, CO
None
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a temporary Hotel and Restaurant License for CML Restaurant
ManagementCompany dba Falling Creek. CML Restaurant Management has applied for a Transfer of Ownership
from Dahiel' s Bistro, Inc. dba Daniel's Bistro. The applicant has submitted all of the required documents and
associated fees for a transfer of ownership. The applicant is requesting a temporary license to operate until the
transfer of ownership process can be completed.
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS:
1. The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold has been previously licensed by the state and
local licensing authorities, and it was valid as of the date of receiving the application.
2. The applicant has applied on forms provided by the Department of Revenue and includes the name and
address of the applicant, the names and addresses of the president, vice-president, secretary and
managing officer, the applicant's financial interest in the proposed transfer, and the premises for which
the temporary permit is sought.
3. A statement that all accounts for alcohol beverages sold to the applicant are paid has been filed.
4. The application for the temporary permit has been filed no later than thirty (30) days after the filing of
the application for the transfer of ownership and the appropriate fees have been paid.
11/16/2004
8
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval.
Christopher Randall was present for the hearing. He explained that this is the previous location of the
Bristol Restaurant.
Chairman Stone asked whether the premises would be the same as previously licensed.
Mr. DuBois replied that they would be the same.
Mr..Randall shared his background in alcohol management. He stated that for the past 7 years he had
managed the Game Creek Club and, as such, was familiar with Colorado law and TIPS training.
Comtnissioner Gallagher stated that he wondered about the Golf Course. He referred to paragraph 7 of the
Alcohol Management Plan and requested that this be more detailed. He spoke about the hours of operation and
indicated that 2:00 a.m. would be the limit.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the issuance of a temporary hotel and restaurant license to
CML Restaurant Management Company dba Falling Creek, which will be valid until such time as the application to
transfer ownership of the license is granted or denied or for one hundred twenty (120) days, whichever occurs first;
except that, if the application to transfer the license has not been granted or denied within the one-hundred-twenty
day period and the transferee demonstrates good cause, the local licensing authority may extend the validity of said
pertl1it for an additional period not to exceed sixty (60) days.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
B. Beaver Creek Food Services
DBA Zach's Cabin
REPRESENTATIVE: Julie Papangelis and Bernard McManus, Manager
LOCATION: Beaver Creek Mountain Beaver Creek, CO
DESCRIPTION:
This is a Manager's Registration for Bernard McManus.
STAFFFINbINGS
~ This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, and all fees have been paid.
~ The applicant is reported to be of good moral character, based upon Sheriffs reports.
~ Mr. McManus has been server trained.
CONCERNS / ISSUES:
RECOMMENDATION:
None
Approval
Comtnissioner Gallagher assumed that the applicant is familiar with the Colorado Liquor Code. He
wondered why the management change had not been taken care of previously.
Mr. McManus stated that the owners wanted to be sure he would be stable in this position.
Conimissioner Gallagher moved to approve the manager's registration for Bernard McManus of :J3eaver
Creek Food Services, Inc;, dba Zach's Cabin. .
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
C. K.K. Simon Enterprises, Inc.
The Flying Burrito
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
CONCERNS / ISSUES:
Lynette Miscio, Owner
175 Main Street, C-lOl, Edwards
None
)ESCRIPTION: This is a new application for a Hotel and Restaurant liquor license. This establishment is
located in the Riverwalk in Edwards. The applicant does have a Hotel and Restaurant liquor license at its Vail
establishment in Lionshead. The proposed licensed premises had been previously licensed to Alpinista Pizzeria,
also.
III 16/2004
9
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS:
ESTABLISHING THE NEIGHBORHOOD: During prior discussions the Staff determined that the
neighborhood would be based on a two mile radius to the proposed location. Staff recommends the following
neighborhood: A two mile radius including but not limited to the major subdivisions of Singletree, Lake Creek,
Homestead, Berry Creek, Arrowhead, and Riverwalk.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to establish the neighborhood to include the area within a two mile radius
from the proposed location of The Flying Burrito, including, but not limited to, the major subdivisions of
Singletree, Lake Creek, Homestead, Berry Creek, Arrowhead, and Riverwalk.
Chaitman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
1. All members of the Board have been provided with copies of the petition submitted by the applicant in
support of the issuanc~ ofthis license. As of the date of the hearing, no protests have been filed with the
clerk. The Board will consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood, the desires of the adult
inhabitants of the neighborhood and whether the existing licenses are adequate to meet these needs and
desires, per the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12-347-301 (2) (a).
2. There are currently 20 Hotel and Restaurant licenses issued in Edwards. There are no provisions in the
Colorado Liquor Code for denial based upon undue concentration, however.
3. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been
received, and all fees have been paid.
4. The applicants have been server trained, are reported to be of good moral character, and are over 21 years
of age.
5. No concerns about this application have been received from the following Eagle County Departments:
Sheriff, Community Development, Environmental Health, Building, Road & Bridge, and Engineering.
6. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises and by
publication in the Eagle Valley Enterprise and Vail Daily on November 4th and 11th, 2004.
7. The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a
license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood
and the desires ofthe adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets.
The premises are not for the sale of fermented malt beverages at retail where, within one year preceding the
date of the application, a license has been denied at the same location for the reason that the reasonable
requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets.
The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college,
university, or seminary.
8. These findings have been made mown, in writing, to the applicant and other interested parties, five (5) days
prior to this hearing.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval.
Ms. Lynette Miscio was present for the hearing.
Chairman Stone opened public comment. There was none. He closed public comment.
Commissioner Gallagher wondered if staff had reviewed the petition to determine if the signatures on the
petition were all eligible.
Mr. DuBois indicated that this had been done and all signatures were valid.
11/1612004
10
Chairman Stone stated that he did not have any questions.
Commissioner Gallagher asked Ms. Miscio about the bartender provision in her alcohol management plan.
He spoke about the floor plan and wondered how the bartender could be responsible for all ofthe area in the dining
area didn't seem reasonable.
Ms. Miscio stated that there are no servers in the restaurant - it is a self-service situation. She clarified that
bar service would be separate from food service. She stated that all staff would work together to identify over-
served clients.
Commissioner Gallagher requested that the alcohol management plan be more specific in this regard.
C01ll1l1issioner Gallagher moved the Board find that there is a reasonable requirement and desire for the
issuance of this license and that the existing licenses do not adequately satisfy these needs and desires and,
therefore, approve a new Hotel and Restaurant liquor license for K.K. Simon Enterprises, Inc. dba The Flying
Burrito based on the testimony, petitions, and evidence submitted today and incorporating the staff findings. Such
license is to be issued upon the written findings and decision of this Board and upon a final inspection of the
premises by our Clerk and Recorder to determine that the applicant has complied with the site information provided
today and as may be required by the Colorado Liquor Code.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the
Board of County Commissioners.
ChairrIian Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Other
Ms. Mauriello spoke to the board about a letter to Mr. Montoya, Mayor of Red Cliff, concerning road
maintenance services debt. She read the letter stating that Eagle County would forgive the debt in the amount of
$7,806.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to authorize the chairman to sign the agreement forgiving the debt of
$7,806 fotroad maintenance services provided in Fiscal Year 2001.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion; Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Ms. Mauriello inquired about incorporation for the Land Trust. She wondered if these should be filed or
considered at a future meeting.
Chairman Stone clarified the reason for this organization.
Commissioner Gallagher asked for an opportunity to review the articles and by-laws.
Ms. Mauriello clarified that she was requesting approval to submit the documents to the Secretary of State.
C01ll1l1issioner Gallagher moved to conditionally approve the filing of the Articles of Incorporation for the
Eagle County Land Trust to the Secretary of State.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Abatement Hearings
County Attorney's Office Representative
A.
Thomas K. Ritzel
Schedule No. R039203
John Harrison of the Assessor's Office presented this file. He stated that they had visited the property and
had made changes to the square footage and inventory of the property and recommended the abatement be
approved.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the abatement of Thomas K. Ritzel and refund of taxes for
.::lchedule No. R039203 be approved.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
11116/2004
11
B.
Altair Vail Inn Associates
Schedule No. R012993
Mr. Harrison stated the applicant's declaration of a.! acre parcel into ownership of the homeowners'
association had been changed in May of2003 and they would like the 0 value for 2003. The assessor's office
recommends denial.
Mr. Treu stated that the applicant's attorney agreed with the denial recommendation and therefore, would
not be present at the hearing.
Commissioner Gallagher asked what a 0 value entails.
Mr. Harrison replied that common area owned by a homeowners' association carries by itself no value.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to deny the petition of Altair Vail Inn Associates for abatement and refund
of taxes for Schedule No. ROl2993 be denied for the tax year of2003.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
C.
Red Mountain Ranch Partnership
Schedule No. R018349
Mr. Harrison stated that this parcel was located east of the Town of Eagle and had been used as a gravel pit
for years and was currently being reclaimed. There is no direct indication to show agricultural use, so the
Assessor's Office recommends denial.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to deny the petition of Red Mountain Ranch Partnership for abatement and
refund of taxes for Schedule No. R018349 be denied for the 2003 tax year.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Planning Files
PR-00027 Miller Ranch Landscapinl! Plan
Joe Forinash, Community Development
NOTE: Tabled from 9/21/04 and 10/12; Request by applicant to table to January 4, 2005
ACTION: Proposed revisions to the Landscaping and Fencing Plan for Miller Ranch
LOCATION: Miller Ranch, Tract D, Berry Creek Miller Ranch PUD in Edwards.
Commissioner Gallagher asked why this file was continually being tabled.
Mr. Forinash replied that there were some possible changes to the landscaping that were going to be made.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to tableJ'ile PR-00027 Miller Ranch Landscaping Plan, at the applicant's
request, until January 4,2005. .
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
AFP-00198 - CordilletaFilinl! 24
Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development
ACTION: To create a new Lot 32 by vacating the common lot line between Lots 32 and 33 as well as the
building envelope on Lot 33
LOCATION: 0435 Bearden Road; Cordillera Filing 24 - The Bearden Parcel, Lots 32 and 33
TITLE:
FILE NO./PROCESS:
OWNERS:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Lots 32 and 33, Cordillera Subdivision Filing 24; the Bearden Parcel
AFP-00198; Amended Final Plat
Stephen and Grace Gamble
Owners
Steve Gamble
Approval
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
11/16/2004
12
SUMMARY: The intent of this project is to combine two (2) lots into one by vacating the shared/common lot
line between Lots 32 and 33, and the building envelope on Lot 33. The existing building envelope onLot 32 shall
remain in the original location. The newly combined lot shall be known as Lot 32; 0435 Bearden Road.
SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning:
East: Open Space: D I Cordillera Subdivision PUD
West: Residential I ROW: Bearden Road I Cordillera Subdivision PUD
North: Residential I Cordillera Subdivision PUD
South: Open Space: D I Cordillera Subdivision PUD
Existing Zoning: Cordillera Subdivision PUD
Total Area: 4.048 acres
Water: Public
Sewer: Public
Access: Bearden Road
STAFF FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat:
a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed
amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. All adjacent property
owners were notified for this file. No responses were received from the following adjacent property
owners, as supplied by the applicant: Robert and Suzanne Bluestein, Steven and Anita Gilbert;
Goshawk Development , LLC.
b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed
amendment IS NOT inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. Originally platted in November
of 1996, the intent of the original plat was to create Cordillera Filing 24, consisting of 61
residential lots, open space, etc. The residential intent of this plat has not changed; the building
envelope on Lot 32 shall remain in the same location as originally platted.
c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined
that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable
regulations, policies and guidelines.
d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply.
e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply.
Pursuant to Section 1.05.3: Buildin!! Envelove Adiustments of the Cordillera Subdivision PUD Guide,
the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following in the review of an Amended Final
Plat undergoing the Public Process:
1. The proposed amendment will not substantially impact in an adversely manner that view
corridor of any property owner to whom notice of the proposed building envelope adjustments
has been sent, or is required by geologic or other hazard considerations; this property is south
and east of the nearest residential building site; the southern and eastern sides of the property
currently abut open space lands.
2. The envelope change does not adversely affect wildlife corridors; No envelopes are being
modified with this Plat; one of two envelopes is being eliminated.
3. The envelope change does not adversely impact ridgelines nor create any increase in impacts to
ridge lines; not applicable.
4. The envelope amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat; and the envelope
amendment is not an alteration of restrictive plat note; not applicable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
11/1612004
13
Jena Skinner-Markowitz presented this file to the board and gave a background of the proposal. She
showed the location of the lots in question and the lot lines and building envelopes that are to be vacated. She
stated that staffrecommends approval.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve File No. AFP-OO 198 incorporating the Staff findings and
authorize the Chainnan to sign the plat.
Chairtnan Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
ZC..00069 . Mountain Meadow Ranch Lot 23
Joe Forinash, Planner, Community Development
Change the zonin.g from Agricultural Residential (AR) to Resource (R) on a 1.581 acre portion of
Lot 23 (total of24.932 acres). A companion File (No. AFP-00195) would reduce the size of Lot 23
by 1.581 acres and cause the newly created 1.581 acre parcel to merge with an adjacent parcel,
zoned Resource (R) and also owned by the applicant.
ACTION:
LOCATION: Lot 23, Mountain Meadow Ranch Subdivision, 2nd Filing (0098 Blue Creek Overlook, EI Jebel)
TITLE:
FlLE NOJPROCESS:
OwNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mountain Meadow Ranch, Second Filing, Lot 23 Zone Change
ZC-00069 I Zone Change
Crawford Properties, LLC
Crawford Properties, LLC
Schenk, Kerst & deWinter, LLC (Dan Kerst, Carolyn Strautman)
StAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Approval (3-0)
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS:
. Resulting size of Lot 23 and of the adjacent parcel after the zone change and amended final plat.
. Nature of the adjacent parcel and its intended use. I
. Clarification of the intended conservation easement.
. Need to avoid appearance of a quid pro quo to have the full advantage of the tax benefit of a conservation
easement.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY: Application to re-zone a 1.581 acre portion of Lot 23 (of a total of24.932 acres) from Agricultural
Residential (AR) to Resource (R) so that, when the boundary of Lot 23 is adjusted by an accompanying amended
fin.al plat (see File No. AFP-00195), the new 1.581 acre parcel will have the same zoning and merge with the
adj acent parcel, also owned by the Applicant. Staff understands that it is the Applicant's intent to create a
conservation easement on the adjacent parcel which would include the 1.581 acres which are the subject of this
application.
CHRONOLOGY:
1977 - Zone change from Resource (R) to Agricultural Residential (AR) approved.
1979 - Final Plat for Mountain Meadow Ranch, Second Filing, approved.
SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning:
East:
West:
North:
South:
Existing Zoning:
Proposed Zoning:
Proposed No. of
BLM / Resource
Residential I Agriculture Residential
Rural I Resource
Rural I Resource
Agriculture Residential
Resource
11/1612004
14
Dwelling Units:
Total Area:
Access:
N/A
1.581 acres
Blue Creek Overlook; Private road from El Jebel Road
STAFF REPORT
REFERRAL RESPONSES:
Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Engineering Department, Eagle County Attorney, Eagle
County Assessor, US Bureau of Land Management
DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for the
review of Amendments to the Official Zone District Map are as follows:
STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1.] - Whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM (Future Land Use Map) of the
Master Plan.
EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
Xl
x2
x3
x
x
x
x
Xl ~ Will help to protect, maintain and enhance critical wildlife habitat.
X2 ~Wi11 help to preserve land as open space.
X3 ~ Parcel to be re~zoned is in an area designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural. The proposed Resource
zoning is appropriate.
MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN
Xl x2
x
x
x
x
x
x
Xl - Will help to preserve wildlife habitat and the rural character of the valley.
X2 - Will help create open space.
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
11/16/2004
15
x
x
x
x
x
x
Xl _ Proposed zone change will help to provide open space and preserve it in a natural condition in a manner that is
sensitive to open space values.
[+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1.] - The proposed amendment
IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM (Future Land Use Map) of the Master
Plan.
STANDARD: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2.] Whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the
appropriate zone district for the land, considering its. consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed
zone district.
The area immediately to the south of Lot 23 is zoned Resource (R), as is the area to the west which is
owned by the US Bureau of Land Management. Lot 23, as well as that portion of Mountain Meadow Ranch Second
Filing which is adjacent to it, is zoned Agricultural Residential (AR). Rezoning this 1.581 acre parcel to Resource
(R) is appropriate and would be compatible with the surrounding uses.
[+] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2.] - The proposed
amendment IS compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and IS an
appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of
the proposed zone district.
STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] Whether and the extent to which there ARE changed
conditions that require an amendment to modifj; the use or density/intensity. .
The proposed zone change will provide for less intense uses on this small portion of Lot 23. Past and future
development in the EI Jebel area increases the importance of preserving open space.
[+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3.] - There ARE changed conditions that
require an amendment to modify the use or density/intensity.
STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA.] Whether and the extent to which the
proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not
limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands.
No development is proposed as a result of the proposed zone change, nor will the residential density of the
area be increased. Consequently, no adverse environmental impacts are expected.
[+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.DA.] - The proposed amendment
WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not
limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands.
STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
addresses a demonstrated community need.
11/16/2004
16
The change in zoning ofthe 1.581 acres to Resource and its incorporation into the adjacent property, also
zoned Resource, will be beneficial to the community.
[+J FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5.] - It HAS been demonstrated that the
proposed amendment addresses a community need.
STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] Whether and the extent to which the proposed
amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern, and not constitute spot zoning, and whether
the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services.
The proposed change in zoning from AR to R does not contribute to an illogical or disorderly development
pattern, nor will it constitute spot zoning. No additional public facilities or services will be required.
[+J FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6.] - The proposed amendment WILL
result in a 10giQal and orderly development pattern, WILL NOT constitute spot zoning, and WILL
logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services.
STANDARD: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7.] Whether and the extent to which the area to which the
proposed amendment would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to
encourage a new use or density in the area.
The proposed zone change and re-configuration of Lot 23 will be in the best interest of the community.
[+J FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7.] - The area to which the proposed amendment
would apply HAS changed or IS changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to
encourage a new use or density in the area.
.
AFp..00195 Mountain Meadow Ranch Second Filin2 Lot 23
Joe Forinash, Planner, Community Development
ACTION:
Amend the final plat to reduce the size of Lot 23 by 1.581 acres (from 24.932 to 23.351 acres) and
cause the 1.581 acres to merge with an adjacent parcel, also owned by the Applicant. A companion
File (No. ZC-00069) would change the zoning on the 1.581 acres from Agricultural Resource (AR)
to Resource (R) corresponding to the zoning on the adjacent parcel.
LOCATION: Lot 23, Mountain Meadow Ranch Subdivision, 2nd Filing (0098 Blue Creek Overlook, EI Jebel)
TITLE:
FILE NO./PROCESS:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Mountain Meadow Ranch Second Filing Lot 23
AFP-00195/ Amended Final Plat
Cra.wford Properties, LLC
Crawford Properties, LLC
Bonnie *** and Schenk, Kerst & deWinter, LLC (Dan Kerst, Carolyn Strautman)
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY: An amended final plat which would reduce the size of Lot 23 by 1.581 acres (from 24.932 to
3.351 acres) and cause the 1.581 acres to merge with an adjacent parcel, also owned by the Applicant. A
ompa.nion File (No. ZC-00069) would change the zoning on the 1.581 acres from Agricultural Resource (AR) to
Resource (R), corresponding to the zoning on the adjacent parcel.
11/16/2004
17
CHRONOLOGY:
1977 - Zone change from Resource (R) to Agricultural Residential (AR) approved.
1979 - Final Plat for Mountain Meadow Ranch, Second Filing, approved.
SITE DATA:
Su.rrounding Land Uses / Zoning:
East: BLM I Resource
West: Residential I Agriculture Residential
North: Rural I Resource
South: Rural I Resource
Existing Zoning: Agriculture Residential
Proposed No. of
Dwelling Units:
Total Area:
Access:
1 on the balance of Lot 23
24.932 acres (23.351 acres after the amended final plat)
Blue Creek Overlook
STAFF REPORT
STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community
Development Director has made the following findings:
STANDARD: Adjacent Property. [Section 5-290.G.3.a.] -- Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the
proposed amendment adversely affects adjacent property owners.
The following adjacent property owners have been notified: James W. Griffith, Jr., and Mary Farver; Gary
L. and Lynne U. Haynes; US Bureau of Land Management; Robert Oliver and Kristine I. Hubbell; Jonathan and
Sta.cey Stuart; QuentD. and Kara S. Williatns; Cleve E. Williams and Kerry McCune; and Doug Dolginow. No
letters have been received by the Community Development Department.
[+] FINDING: Adjacent Property. [Section 5-290.G.3a.]
The Amended Final Plat DOES NOT adversely affect adjacent ro erty owners.
STANDARD: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.] - Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine
that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat.'
[+] FINDING: Final Plat Consistency [Section 5-290.G.3.b.]
The ro osed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat.
STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-290.G.3.c.] - Review of the Amended Final
Plat to determine if the proposed amendment conforms to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable
regulations, policies and guidelines.
[+] FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-90.G.3.c.]
The proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other
a licable re ulations, policies and idelines.
STANDARD: Improvements Agreement [Section 5-290.G.3.d.] -Adequacy of the proposed improvements
agreements and/or off-site road improvements agreement when applicable.
[+] FINDING: Improvements Agreement [Section 5-290.G.3.d.]
An Improvements Agreement IS NOT applicable.
STANDARD: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.e.] - If the amendment is an alteration of a
restrictive plat note at least one of the following criteria must be met:
11/16/2004
18
(1) That area for which the amendment is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that
it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area; or
(2) That the proposed amendment is necessary in order to provide land for a demonstrated community
need.
[-) FINDING: Restrictive Plat Note Alteration [Section 5-290.G.3.e.]
This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive plat note.
Joe Forinash presented these two files to the board concurrently and showed various slides and
photographs to illustrate what was being proposed. He stated that the applicant was requesting a zone change to
1.58 acres of land from AR to R and an amended final plat. He then stated that most of the property was
unbuildable dUe to the topography of the land. The property owners and the adjacent property owner have agreed
to merge their patcels,to result in two conforming parcels. Staff and Planning Commission both recommend
approval.
Adelle HubbefI, the applicant, was present to answer any questions for the Board.
Chairman Stone opened and closed Public Comment, as there was none.
COmlllissioner Gallagher asked why the applicant was going through all this trouble for just 1.581 acres.
Mr. Forinash stated that this was being done for the tax benefit of a conservation easement of 35 acres, as
this zone change would then allow.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve File No. ZC-00069, incorporating the staff findings.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve File No. AFP-00195, incorporating the Staff findings, and
authorize the Chairman to sign the plat.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Ofthe two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
PDS~00039 Willits Bend
Joe Forinash, Planner, Planning Development
NOTE: this me was tabled from June 1, July 13, and August 3, September 14 and October 12
ACTION: PUD Sketch Plan for a flexible space, mixed use development consisting 0,[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
LOCATION: 1712 Willits Lane (east of Park Avenue and the Oak Grove Townhouses)
TITLE:
FILE. NO./PROCESS:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Willits Bend PUD
PDS-00039 I PUD Sketch Plan
Blue Crow, LLC
Blue Crow, LLC
Glenn Rappaport (Studiograppa Architectura LLC)
NOTE: This Staff Report has been revised to include additional analvsis ofthe proposed development, including
consideration of revisions proposed by the Applicant and additional resllonses from referral agencies. Additions to
the text of this Staff Report are shown in bold. Deletions are noted by strike through.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with conditions
The Applicant has provided a substantial amount of additional information since this Sketch Plan application was
initially submitted which has clarified certain aspects of the proposed development and modified certain other
aspects. There are a number of "lesser" issues of the sort that are typical for a Sketch Plan application, and
~commended conditions of approval have been provided to address these. There are also certain more significant
"ssues about Staff has previously expressed concern, including [1] the nature of the central "roadway", [2] the
nature of the common recreation and open space, and [3] compatibility with surrounding uses.
11116/2004
19
Additional recommendations addressing the central "roadway" have been added to this Staff Report which would
(a) create a 68 foot wide right-of-way for traffic, parking and sidewalks, (b) reduce setbacks along the centr~l
"roadway" to 2 feet, (c) and allow appropriate on-street parking. The result would be to permit a more urbart feel,
and when the traffic connection between Willits Lane and Valley Road/Highway 82/0riginal Road is completed to
the Ilorth, the resulting roadway traffic will be a "calmed", urban street rather than a thoroughfare.
The proposed number of on-site dwelling units has been reduced from 24 to 14 units in order to achieve the.
recommended amount of common recreation and open space. Nonetheless, the configuration of the common
recreation and open space, which would largely be between buildings, is consistent with the letter of the Land Use
RegUlations. The adequacy of the common recreation and open space, especially in light of the residential
componeht of the development, is a matter for the Board's consideration.
Given the Board's determination of these two latter issues, recommended conditions of approval have been
provided that common recreation and will cause the development to satisfy the required standards.
The proposed development represents a very intense mix of uses which push the limits of the site in many respects,
including:
. 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 asa 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
meahingful 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 hasptovided extensive comments regarding the proposed development. Particularly significant ate 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 streets cape are all concepts consistent with design typology ideals included in the Basalt 1998 Master
Plan. "
"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. . . ."
.
'.
.
.
11/1612004
20
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.
This Staff Report reflects the additional information in the "Response to Eagle County Staff Comments" and
the revised POD Guide, both prepared by the Applicant in response to an earlier draft of the Staff Report. The
additional infonnation notwithstanding, Staff is not able to support this Sketch Plan. The basis for Staff's
recommendation for denial are the deficiencies discussed above and elsewhere in this Staff Report and, as noted
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:
special focus and concern, including:
. Open space and landscaping issues
. Stonnwater runoff issues
. Future traffic impacts and roadway design
Approval with conditions and with areas of
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 the entire 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.
. Stonnwater 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 part 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.
11/16/2004
21
. 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.
. 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, retaiVrestaurant 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:
SurroundilJ.g Land Uses I Zoning:
East: Aspen Basalt Campground and Mobile Home Park I RSL
West: Residential (Oak Grove Townhouses) I (Town of Basalt)
North: Commercial I 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 LotArea:
MaximUJD Lot Area:
Percent Usable
Open Space:
Water:
Sewer:
Access:
Up to 24 units
4.524 acres
Not specified - parcel may be subdivided into smaller lots generally
conforming to the building footprints
Not specified
29.3 percent
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Willits Lane
STAFF REPORT
REFERRAL. RESPONSES:
Ea2:leCoulJ.tv En2:ineerin2: Department
[Memo dated 20 April 2004]
. 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.
11 /16/2004
22
. 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 ofthe 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.
. 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 ofthe Agreement is attached.)
[Memo dated 15 October 2004]
. The revised plan has added the following: a second vehicle access, improved phasing, and additional
automobile stacking at the entrance at the entrance to the site.
. O'n str~et parking is discouraged by the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR). On street
parking generally decreases through traffic capacity by 50 to 80 perc~nt, and incr~ases the potential
for vehicle acddents.
. If a variance for on street parking is allowed, the following needs to be incorporated:
o Parking angle needs to be defined because the angle of the parking has a direct relationship
to the required drive lane width. The design of the angled and diagonal parking spaces Illust
conform to ECLUR Section 4-140.
o Since this development involves mixed uses, cars will be parked on the street during all hours
of the day. This complicates snow plowing and removal efforts. It may be necessary to
prohibit on street parking during heavy snowfall or winter evenings. A winter Illaintenance
plan for snow removal will be required as part of the Preliminary Plan application.
o The proposed perpendicular and diagonal parking spaces are designed fora two foot
overhang over the adjacent sidewalks. These overhangs should not reduce the adjacent
walkway to less than four feet. See ECLUR Section 4-140B.
. Grasscrete is propo~ed in the through lane of the western parking lot. Grasscrete is not as durable as
asphalt and is not suitable for this area because of the amount of through traffic that is expected.
. Since the roadway width of the extension of Original Road is proposed to be less than the required
width Set forth in the ECLUR, a variance from commercial roadway improvement standards needs
to be requested at Preliminary Plan.
. This proposal has parking aisles that dead end, hindering circulation. The parking aisles that are 150
feet or longer must have an appropriate turn around area that meets standards defined in ECLUR
Section 4-640.J.9.c. or the site layout needs to be modified to eliminate the dead ends.
. Parking spaces designated for the multi-family dwelling units are less that the requirements as
stipulated in ECLUR 4-120. The proposal assumes that these will be live-work units but the proposal
11116/2004
23
also states that these units will likely be condominiums. There does not appear to be a standard 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
wills. Based on the experience of the Engineering Department, dry wells eventually tIll with silt
becollling ineffective over time. A maintenance plan or a different water detention solution is
required.
. 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 upon between Eagle County and the Town of Basalt.
Eaele Countv Road & Bridee Department
. Proposed developmentwill have no impact on Road & Bridge. Willits Lane is all in the Town of Basalt.
Eaele Countv HousineDepntment
. The application does not sufficiently guarantee fair market rents andlor "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 commerciallink(.!.ge, inclusionary zoning, 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.
Eaele Countv Sheriff
. Advantages
. Quick access to Highway 82.
. Close to shopping center and downtown Basalt.
. Mote housing for the public.
. Disadvantages
. Too tall of trees around buildings will make easy hiding places for burglars.
. RecomlUendations
. 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.
EaldeCountv WildfIre Mitieation 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.
. 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.
11/1612004
24
Town of Basalt (Plannin2 and Zonin2 Commission)
[Letter dated 3 May 2004]
. The Cornmission 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 conununity 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
reconunendations 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 reconunended design strategy which would prevent
creation of a 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 Town jointly adopted with Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Transportation
(CDOT) an Access Control Plan for this section of Highway 82. The Plan reconunended creation of an
extension between the East Valley Road intersection at Highway 82 and Willits Lane. This PUD should
incorporate the reconunendations 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 systerns 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 conunercial 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 of the 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 of the
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 reconunendations for system improvements. The
current estimate appears to undercount traffic generation from the conunercial and retail uses possible
on the site. Access is directly onto a Town road (Willits Lane) and appropriate access
permitslapprovals 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 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
11116/2004
25
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
appropnate 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 shoplgarage 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.
[Letter dated 21 October 2004]
. 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 sa 82 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 mitigation would also support the addition of a secondary access point.
. 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 been contacted to request such access
modifications or review potential intersection and off-site system 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. (public Works may request the funding of a third party
traffic analysis to determine appropriate traffic impact mitigation measures.)
. 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.
11/16/2004
26
. Storm water drainage plans and the proposed use of dry-wells should be carefully evaluated.
Prc>ximity of dty wells to any Mid Valley Metro District well sites should be noted and addressed to
the satisfaction of the district.
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
[Letter dated April 16, 2004]
. Overall the concept and general layout ofthis 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
protection 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 of the 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 commerciallindustrial 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 IFe (International
Fire Code) and dealt with accordingly through the evaluation of separation, compartmentalization and.
the use of fire suppression systems such as sprinklers.
. 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/laddet 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
of 26 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 tobe
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.
[Letter dated October 4, 2004]
11/16/2004
27
. Applican.t is making good faith efforts to comply with key provisions of the International Fire Code
and the needs of the Basalt Fire Department.
. The main corridor has been extended to a width of 26 feet which provides the ability to more
effectively utilize the department aerial (ladder).
. The Applicant has allowed for more avenues of ingress and egress, inclusive of:
. Removing a building along the west side of the parcel that was blocking access. The
Department recommends that this area be appropriately signed for emergency use only and
to be kept clear at all times.
. An emergency access drive has been added at the southeast section of the site. The
Department recommends that it be appropriately signed indicating emergency use only, and
that covenant provisions stipulate that this roadway is not to be utilized for excess snow
storage during snow removal operations and shall be kept clear at all times.
. Two hammerhead turnarounds located south of building envelope 8 have improved radii to
accommodate the fire department apparatus.
. The Department recommends that the roadways should be designed with an all-weather surface
handling the imposed load of fire apparatus weighing at least 75,000 pounds.
. Water available for this area is estimated at 2,900 gpm. The Applicant will have to verify actual fire
flow at 20 psi residual. The proposed buildings will have to be sized and constructed to meet the
capability of this water supply. Options are available.
. The number of hydrants and their location and distance criteria appear to comply with applicable
standards.
. The Applicant has stated that they are making it a condition of the PUD that all buildings over 5,000
square feet be sprinklered. The Basalt Fire Department has certain requirements for allY
building with a sprinkler, including fire department connections, outside horn and strobe,
supervisory alarm and trouble signaling, and an external key box.
. The revised phasing plan is acceptable to the fire department, having met previously provided
comments.
Mid Vallev Metropolitan District
Letterfrom 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.
. 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 ofthis 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.
Colorado Department of Transportation
11/16/2004
28
· 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 82/0riginal 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 oflow,
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 ofthis 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 ofWlldlife (voice messtlf!e onlv)
· CDOW will not be responding in writing. Site is less than 5 acres, is developed, and there is no wildlife.
Colorado Geolocical Survev
· 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 ate 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.
11/16/2004
29
. In summary, there are no geologic conditions that would preclude development, but drainage improvements
should be thoughtfully implemented to prevent future problems.
AdditionalReferral Aeencies: Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental
Bealth, Roaring Fork School District, Mid-Valley Trails Committee, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA), Qwest, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy.
DISCUSSION:
Pu.rsnant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch
POO:
STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part ofa 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 ofthis PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person.
STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses
that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3~300,
"Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial
Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the
applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5.;.240 F.3.j,
Variations Authorized.
The site is presently in the Commercial General zone district. Proposed ~ses 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 ofthe 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".
Bowever, while the intent may be to allow the continuation of certain current uses, this item does not describe nor
lihlitthe uses that may be allowed in these existing buildings, nor does it indicate whether all of the current uses ate
conforming and/or legal in the Commercial General zone district. Alternatively, 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" .
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 conditions to ensure the compatibility
of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses."
The uses (based on the revised PUD Guide) proposed in this PUD which require special use permits in the
Commercial General zone district include the following:
. Repair garage;
. Vehicle, aircraft and pleasure boat service or repair;
11/16/2004
30
. 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 POO 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 performance standards
may be sufficient to make unnecessary any additional review to determine compatibility of proposed uses and to
mitigate potentially adverse impacts.
The concerns noted above regarding the ''temporary relocation of any existing metal building on the
property for continued use by existing tenants to accommodate the PUD phasing plan" have not been
adequately addressed. While the intent may be to allow the continuation of certain current uses, this item
does not describeuor 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. As 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.
[Condition # 1]
The revised draft PUD Guide .received by Staffon 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 ofthe
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. However, the performance standards appear to be effective only at the
perimeter of the Willits Bend site when only one use is located on a given lot. In addition, since most of the
proposed open space is between buildings, this open space should be protected from noise and other adverse
impacts of adjacent uses. As a condition of approval, the proposed performance standards should be
effective at the boundaries of adjacent uses, at any wall of the building from which any noise or other
environmental pollutants emanate, or the perimeter of the PUD site, whichever is more restrictive.
[Condition # 13]
[+] 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 POO. HOWEYER, potentially adverse impaets
among uses within the PUD M.-\ Y be avoided or mitigated by the proposed performance standards.
eTANDARD: 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
11/16/2004
31
limiiationsmay only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. provided variations
shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper
ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings.
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, it is 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.P1an, pursuant
to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variatiorts Authorized, provided that it is demonstrated and the Board of County
Commissioners finds that the Preliminary Plan "achieves one (1) or more (specified] purposes and that the granting
of the variatiort 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 rtecessary 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 POO 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 oflandscaped open space. A Detailed
Landscape :Plan is required as part of a Preliminary Plan application. The landscaped open space will be
specified in response to this requirement.
[+] 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 parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents,
guests and employees of the project will be met; or
(b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than
those set by Article 4, DJvision 1, Off-Street Parking and Loadin'i! 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 Parkin!! Sl1aces
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.
11/16/2004
32
The proposal a.nticipates 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 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 ()f"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", [b] 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 spa.ces 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 permitted 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 permits. "-
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 POO 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. [Condition # 2]
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.
The Applicant's presentation on October 12 proposes limitations on the various categories of uses
proposed for this devel()pment, and commits to provide sufficient distinctions between certain types of uses
that have different parking requirements, specifically, between Service Commercial and Light
IndustriaVMahufacturing. It will be incumbent on the ApplicantJDeveloper to demonstrate the adequacy ()f
parking at each stage throughout the build-out of the development. These limits on uses would also ensure
adequate parking as uses change over time.
Not all engineering issues have been adequately addressed; Consequently, it continues to be
appropriate to incorporate in an approval of this PUD Sketch Plan a condition of approval that the
Preliminary Plan should clearly demonstrate that all issues raised by the Eagle County Engineering
Department in its memoranda of April 20 and October 15, 2004, have been adequately addressed to the
satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Condition # 3]
11/16/2004
33
Size 0' Parkin!! Soaces
The size of the proposed parking spaces is 9' by 18'. Section 4-140.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.
The Applicant has proposed certain parameters with respect to the size of parking spaces that may
be acceptable.
Shared Parking
"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 of
the 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.
The matter of shared parking has been adequately addressed in recent representations by the
Applicant.
On-Street vs. Off-Street Parkin!!
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.
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.
If the Board is inclined to consider favorably on-street parking along the central roadway, certain
parameters should be incorporated in the Sketch Plan approval. Engineering has noted in its memo of 15
October 2004 that there is a direct relationship between the parking angle and the required drive aisle width.
For example, 45 degree diagonal parking requires a 13 foot wide drive aisle, while 60 degree diagonal
parking requires an 18 foot wide drive aisle. The proposed drive aisle for traffic in each direction in Willits
Bend is 13 feet in width. Using a portion of the drive aisle in a two way street (as opposed to a parking lot)
for traffic moving in the opposite direction to enter and back out of a parking space is contrary to the intent
of Section 4-140, Desi2n Standards for Parkin2 and Loadin2 Areas. A 60 degree diagonal parking angle
would require a wider drive aisle, i.e., 18 feet. On the other hand, a 45 degree diagonal parking angle
requires only a 13 foot drive aisle width, but allows fewer parking spaces along a given stretch of roadway
11/16/2004
34
than would a 60 degree diagonal parking angle. As a condition of approval, diagonal parking along the
central roadway should be at no more than 45 degrees unless the drive aisles in each direction are widened
accordingly. [Condition # 14]
Parking on the both sides of the north end of the central "roadway" is shown in the most recent site
plan to be perpendicular. When the connection to Valley Road, Highway 82 and Original Road to the north
is completed, it will be appropriate that all perpendicular parking become diagonal within the same design
parameters diScussed above. Nonetheless, perpendicular parking along this portion of the central "roadway"
is appropriate until the connection to the north is made. However, as a condition of approval, perpendicular
parking may be permitted on the northern portion of the central "roadway" until such time as a vehicular
connectiol1 is completed to Valley Road, Highway 82 and Original Road, at which time the parking should be
converted to diagonal parking as allowed elsewhere on the central "roadway". Notwithstanding, for
purpoSes of calculating available parking, all parking along both sides of the central "roadway", except for
areas of proposed parallel parking, shall be treated as diagonal parking from the outset. [Condition # 15]
Further, as a condition of approval, the Preliminary Plan should clearly demonstrate that all issues
raised by the Eagle County Engineering Department in its memoranda of April 20 and October 15, 2004,
have been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Condition # 3]
Off-Street Loadin!!.
The uses proposed to be allowed are of the sort that may require significant loading and unloading of
materials. Section 4-120.B., Off-Street Loading Required, provides that "buildings or structures that are designed to
receive and distribute materials and merch.mdise 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 intel11al 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-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 of the Basalt
and Rural Fire District have, in fact, been satisfied. However, this has not been confirmed by the Fire District.
The Basalt Fire District has provided an additional response dated October 4, 2004, which is
generally favorable, but does include certain additional recommendations. NOfletheless, if this PUD Sketoh
Plan v:ereto be approved, It continues to be appropriate to incorporate in an approval ofthis PUD Sketch
Plan 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 letters dated April 16 and October 4,2004, have
been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Condition # 4]
Given the configuration of the site, it is also important that the Applicant demonstrate that proposed
truck movements are feasible, including in and out of loading spaces. As a condition of approval, the
Preliminary Plan should include an "autoturn demonstration" for all reasonably anticipated truck
movements on the site. [Condition # 19]
.arkin!! Area Landscavin!!.
Section 4-140J., 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
11/16/2004
35
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. Areas
immediately adjacent to the site are residential, including Oak Grove Town Homes 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
of the 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.
The Applicant has proposed certain LandscapinglBuffering "solutions" which may be deemed to be
:reason.able.
All Factors Considered
It has not been demonstrated that the development concept, including the proposed parking and loading
provisions, has sufficient merit to warrantthe 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.
Ifthe 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.
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
aU 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.
A significant outstanding issue has to do with whether it is appropriate to allow on-street parking on
the central "roadway" which may someday be connected through to Valley Road, Highway 82 and Original
Road to the north. On-street parking would tend to slow traffic significantly. The Highway 82 Access Control
Plan lacks information indicating appropriate design standards for this proposed connecting road.
Consequently, it is necessary to make a "best guess" as to what is appropriate.
Eagle County Engineering has pointed out that a 70 foot right-of-way, without on-street parking, is
indicated in the Land Use Regulations for a commercial road of the sort proposed. The Applicant has noted
that a 70 foot right-of-way, with typical setbacks, would render the site virtually impossible to develop. As it
turns out, nearly 70 feet is required for the central "roadway", including sidewalks on both sides, as follows:
11/16/2004
36
26 foot drive aisles (combined), 22 feet for diagonal parking on one side, 10 feet for parallel parking on the
other, 10 feet for sidewalks (4 feet on either side plus a 2 foot overhang) - a total of 68 feet. An additional
consideration is that the application indicates that public vehicular and pedestrian access through the site
will be provided.
An alternative that may reconcile the right-of-way width issue would be to require a 68 foot right-of-
way, which would provide for driving aisles, parking and sidewalks. In addition, a 2 foot building setback on
either side of the central "roadway", as opposed to the typical 25 foot setback, would allow for a construction
and maintenance easement along the right-or-way. This is consistent with setbacks in portions of the Willits
Towll Center PUD which range from 2 to 3.5 feet. Such a right-of-way and easement configuration would be
generally consistent with the proposed site plan, with only minor modifications of the footprints potentially
being necessary.
As a cOlldition of approval, the Preliminary should provide a 68 foot right-of-way along the central
"roadway" which would include driving aisles, parking and sidewalks, along with a 2 foot wide construction
and maintenance easement on either side of the right-of-way. In addition, setbacks from the central
"roadway" right-of-way Dlay be reduced to 2 feet. [Condition # 16]
The Applicant has proposed to maintain the central "roadway" until such time as the connection
through to Valley Road, Highway 82 and Original Road to the north is completed. At that time, it would be
appropriate for central "roadway" to be publicly maintained. As a further condition of approval, The
Prelbninary Plall should propose a viable mechanism, including timing, for conveying a public right-of-way
for the central "roadway" and dedicating the public improvements to Eagle County at such time as the
connection through to Valley Road, Highway 82 and Original Road to the north is completed. [Condition #
17]
[+1-] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)]
It HAS NG+ been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD MAY
comply with, or that it MAY 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 PUD shall comply with the
standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may
be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses
from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and
other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the
area.
A Conceptual Landscape Plan has been provided which satisfies the requirements of Section 4-220.B.,
Conceotual.Landscape Plan. Landscaping in planned unit developments may differ from what is required in Section
4-230, Landscaping Desi.gn 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-
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 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
11/16/2004
37
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 cOmlTIercial and/or multi-family uses, and
the burden for buffering falls on 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 landsc~ping.
As a part of the PUD Preliminary Plan, a Detailed Landscape Plan will be required pursuant to Section 4-
220., Landscape Plan.
The application now includes certain performance standards to mitigate potentially adverse impacts
from noise, sIJloke, and so on. Landscaping will be an important component of buffering uses and making
the site attractive for workers and residents. It continues to be appropriate that 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, Landscapim! and Illumination Standards, and/or clearly demonstrate that,
within the context of representations made during the PUD Sketch Plan review, 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 fuinimize noise, glare and other adverse iDlpacts, create
attractive streetscapes and parking areas and to be consistent with the character ofthe area. [Condition # 5]
[+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)]
It lIAS NG+ been demonstrated that the landscaping proposed for the PUD MAY comply with the
standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and TIlumination Standards. However, it 1\1......& Y be
pmlsible 10 demonstrate the required camphane€! 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
Develooment (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be
suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
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 me,dical services.
[+] Potable water suoplv. - 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.
[+] Sewage 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.
11116/2004
38
[+] Solid waste disposal. - 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 SUTJplv. - 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.
[+] Fire protection. - The site will be served by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, which has indicated that
access to the site and Water supply appear to be adequate. However, the District does present several concerns, a.nd
requests that [ a] the central corridor be a minimum unobstructed width of 26 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. ill the Applicant's "Response to Eagle County Staff
Comments", the Applicant's intent has been clarified regarding the width of the 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.
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 memoranda of April 20 and October 15, 2004, have been
adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Condition # 3]
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 Transpdrtation (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 prdvides 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 dbjectives 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 Tdwn 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 ofthe
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.
As noted above, an alternative that may reconcile the right-of-way width issue would be to require a
68 foot right-of-way, which would provide for driving aisles, parking and sidewalks. In addition, a 2 foot
building setback on either side of the central "roadway", as opposed to the typical 25 foot setback, would
allow for a construction and maintenance easement along the right-of-way. This is consistent with setbacks
in portions of the Willits Town Center PUD which range from 2 to 3.5 feet. Such a right-of-way and
easement configuration would be generally consistent with the proposed site plan, with only minor
modifications of the building footprints potentially being necessary.
As a condition of approval, the Preliminary should provide a 68 foot right-of-way along the central
roadway" which would include driving aisles, parking and sidewalks, along with a 2 foot wide construction
and maintenance easement on either side ofthe right-of-way. In addition, setbacks from the central
"roadway" right-of-way may be reduced to 2 feet. [Condition # 16]
11/16/2004
39
Given the configuration of the site, it is also important that the Applicant demonstrate that all
proposed truck movements are feasible. As a condition of approval, the Preliminary Plan should include an
"autoturn demonstration" for all anticipated truck movements on the site. [Condition # 19]
[+] Proximitv 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.
[+] Proximity to Police and Fire Protection. and Emergency Medical Services. - Law enforcement will be provided
by the Eagle County Sheriffs 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 NQ+ been clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for
PUD will MAYbe provided adequate facilities for potable water, sewage disposal, solid waste
disposal, electrical supply, roads and fire protection. HOWEVER, adeqeate faeilities 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 (1) or
more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway.
(b) InternalPathwavs. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe andconvenient
system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-
site.
(c) Emergencv Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all
lots or units. An access easement shall be grantedfor 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) Princival Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth
traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a
major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual
lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly
connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are
necessary to maintain the County's road network.
(e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street
network and from off-street parking areas.
[ +] Safe. Efficient 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. Thee
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.
11/16/2004
40
The use of "hardscape" and "grass crete" to facilitate vehicular movement along the western
perimeter of the site may be appropriate to merely enhance open space and to provide access for emergency
vehicles, but it is not appropriate to accommodate delivery and other large vehicles that may enter the site on
a daily basis. Backing large vehicles out of the parking area along the west perimeter of the site is unduly
dangerous. As a condition of approval the site plan should be modified to provide paved access through the
parking area along the western perimeter of the site. [Condition # 18]
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
Applica.nt 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, it continues to be appropriate to include as a condition of approval that the Preliminary
Plan should clearly demonstrate that all issues raised by the Eagle County Engineering Department in its
memoranda of April 20 and October 15, 2004, and by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District in its letters
dated April 16 and October 4, 2004, have been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
[Condition # 3 & 4]
[+1..] Internal Pa.thways - 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 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. It continues to be
appropriate to include as a condition of approval that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates how it reflects
consideration of com:ments of the Town of Basalt in its letters dated May 3 and October 21,2004. [Condition # 9]
[+] 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. It
continues to be appropriate to include as a condition of approval that the Preliminary Plan clearly
demonstrates that all concerns raised by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, in its letters dated April
16 and October 4,2004, have been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Condition
#4]
[+] 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. As a condition of approval the
proposed road system should be modified to conform to applicable requirements of Article 4, Site Development
Standards, of the Lm1.d Use Regulations, or an application for appropriate Variances from Improvement Standards,
pursuant to Section 5~260.G., Variance From Improvement Standards, of the Land Use Regulations, shall be
submitted prior to or as part of the Preliminary Plan application. [Condition # 8]
[+] 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
c011lmercial 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 PUDGuide 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
11/16/2004
41
circulation problems. The location(s) of appropriate snow storage should be clearly demonstrated as part of the
Preliminary Plan.
The Applicant has represented that snow storage areas totaling 6.4 percent of the site will be
provided. The location of the snow storage areas can be considered during the review of the PUD
Preliminary Plan.
[+1_] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)]
It HAS 00+ been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the
development will MAY be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards
regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access, (b) Internal Pathways, (c) Emergency Vehicles,
(d) Principal Access Points, and (e) Snow Storage.
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.
The area to the west ofthis 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 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 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.
It may be determined that the proposed development is compatible with surrounding land uses.
[+1_] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)]
The development proposed for the PUD IS NOT MAYBE compatible with the character of
surrounding land uses.
STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - the PUD shall be consistent with the
Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level,
i. e., how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to
preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain
static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED.
11/16/2004
42
X2
Xl
X4
X
Xl _ Environmental Qualitv. 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 I 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.
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 (PLUM). The proposed development is in an area designated as Community Center, and
is consistent with the Future Land Use Map.
MlDYALLlty COMMUNITY PLAN
X4
X'
Xl
X2
Xl
Xl - 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
community 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 I Basalt. The proposed development does not conflict with the policies established for the EI
JebellBasalt area.
ItAGLE 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:
11/16/2004
43
. 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
. 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. . .
3.
Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers
in Eagle County
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
5.
Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the
responsibility of. . . employers. . .
6.
New residential subdivisiOlls will provide a percentage of their units for local residents
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 ifnot feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . .
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
10.
Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock
II.
There is a need to segment aportion 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
12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue
x
x
Xl
x
x2
x2
x
x
x
xl _ 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).
11/16/2004
44
STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan
for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided
for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of
benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if
this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable.
The 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 Fire 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". As a condition
of approval the PUD Preliminary Plan should demonstrate clearly the manner in which the recommendations of the
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, in its letters dated April 16 and October 4,2004, have been adequately
addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Condition # 4]
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. As a condition of approval the
PUD Preliminary Plan should demonstrate clearly the manner in which the issues of the Eagle County Engineering
Department, in its memoranda dated April 20 and October 15,2004, have been adequately addressed to the
satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Condition # 3]
A more specific phasin.g plan has been provided. Assurances have been provided that utilities and
infrastructure will be provided with each phase. This will be required to be demonstrated in the Preliminary
Plan.
[+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)
A pha.sing plan HAS been provided for this development.
STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the
follOWing common recreation and open space standards.
(a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted
to open ait recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, thePUD
shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for
every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the
number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two
and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each
dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan.
i Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ol-ways,
and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open
space.
11 Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas,
riparian areas, and one hundred (l00) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use
Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard,
even when they are not usable by. or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open
space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD.
(b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreationalfaGilities shall be shown on the
Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the
development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD.
11/16/2004
45
(c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to
conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the
common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or
covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of
any common open space.
(d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or
nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational
and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance,
administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned,
and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation
shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the
association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD.
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 on 8.9 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. In addition, no play grounds for children residing on-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 he 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.
f
If the development concept were to be tevised 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.
In correspondence dated 28 October 2004, the Applicant has proposed to accomplish the
recommended amount of common recreation and open space by reducing the number of dwelling units,
correspondingly reducing the amount of common recreation an.d open space necessary to satisfy the
recommendation of this standard. Previously, the site plan had been revised to include a "tot lot" in the
northwest corner of the site. Otherwise, the common recreation and open space continues to consist
primarily of space around the proposed buildings. While this satisfies the letter of this standard, the Question
remains rei!:ardini!: the adequacy of the nature of the proposed common recreation and open space.
In addition, the Applicant has indicated an interest in purchasing an adjacent parcel to the north
and, in the Preliminary Plan, increase the number of residential units. Assuming the area added to the site is
devoted to open space and recreation, such a revision may be reasonable.
Nonetheless, as a condition of approval the Preliminary Plan should clearly demonstrate that common
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 Spa.ce, have been satisfied. [Condition # 10]
I [+/-] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]
The applicant Hf~S NOT MAY HA VE demonstrated that the PUD will comply with the common
11/16/2004
46
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.FJ.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 recommendatioris applicable analysis documents with
respect to natural resource protection.
[+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)]
ThePUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis
documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of
referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have
been considered.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a
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)] - 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 of the standards and provisions of the Land Use
Regulations, including Article 3, Zone Districts.
However, the draftPUD Guide would allow "outside storage of products produced by local businesses,
artists, and craftsIllen 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.
In the Applicant's letter of 28 October 2004, it is proposed that certain "artist product" be permitted
to be stored outside, in a manner to be specified in the Preliminary Plan application. Staff points out that the
areas proposed for storage of "artist product" is also proposed as open space. Such dual, conflicting uses of
the open space is not appropriate and could lend itself to abuse. However, a limited amount of display of true
artwork for sale may be an attractive amenity. The Applicant has committed to provide certain specific
.etails of the proposed "artist storage" as part of the Preliminary Plan.
11/ 16/2004
47
Nonetheless, as a condition of approval all outside work activity and outside storage of "artist
product" should only be permitted consistent with guidelines and restrictions approved as part of the
Preliminary Plan. [Condition # 111
Article 4, Site Development Standards
[+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
ill 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,
[c] shared parking, Cd] off-street vs. on-street parking, [e] 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 basiG 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.
:However, ifthe 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.
illcidentally, 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
cOmmUhity 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.
The Applicant's presentation on October 12 proposes limitations on the various categories of uses
proposed for this development, and commits to provide sufficient distinctions between certain. types of uses
that have different parking requirements, specifically, between Service Commercial and Light
IndustriallManufacturing. It will be incumbent on the ApplicantJDeveloper to demonstrate the adequacy of
parking at each stage throughout the build-out of the development. These limits on uses would also ensure
adequate parking as uSes change over time. A condition of aJ)proval 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. [Condition # 2)
Nonetheless, it continues to be appropriate to incorporate in an approval of this PUD Sketch Plan a
condition of approval that the Preliminary Plan should clearly demonstrate that all issues raised by the
Eagle County Engineering Department in its memorandum of April 20 and October 15, 2004, have been
adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Condition # 31
[+] Landscaping and lllumination Standards (Division 4-2)
Section 4-230.A.l., Location of Required Landscaping, of the Land Use Regulations specifies that "all lots
in residential zones containing multifamily dwellings and all portions oflots in the Commercial Limited (CL),
Commercial General (CG) and illdustrial (I) 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
11/1612004
48
proposed zoning is POO, in the absence of justification to the contrary, these requirements are applicable in any
developl11ent that has both multi-family residential and commercial components.
. Internal landscaping appears to satisfy the requirements of Section 4-230.B.2., Interior Planting Areas,
although no specific calculations have been provided.
Section 4-230.B.1., 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 of ten
(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.1., 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 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 ate 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.
As a condition of approval the Detailed Landscape Plan submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan should
either conform to the requirements of Division 4-2, Landscaping and TIlumination Standards, and/or clearly
demoIlstrate that, within the context of representation made during the PUD Sketch Plan review, the proposed
landscaping provides sufficient internal landscaping and buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD
and between the POO 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.
[Condition # 5]
The proposed exterior lighting appears to conform to the provisions of Section 4-250, TIlumination
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.
_The Colorado Division of Wildlife has declined to provide formal comments, noting that the site is developed and
ere 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
11/1612004
49
development, but drainage improvements should be thoughtfully implemented to prevent future problems". It
continues to be appropriate that a condition of approval should be that the PUD Preliminary Plan should
demonstrate clearly the manner in which the recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey, in its
letter dated April 16, 2004, have been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
[Condition # 6]
[+] 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 ofthe 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 he addressed in the Preliminary Plan, but also notes that the northernmost hamrrlerhead
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 in this regard, but the Fire District has not confirmed that this matter is
resolved. It continues to be appropriate that 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 letters dated April 16 and October 4,2004, and the Colorado State Forest Service, in
its letter dated April 28, 2004, have been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
[Conditions # 4 &7]
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 conn~cting 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. An emergency access has been added to the site design.
[+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) -- The draft PUD Guide states that "solid fuel burning fireplaces will
l10t 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.
[nla] 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.
[+] C01Il1Ilercial and Ii1dustrial Performance 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 PUD Preliminary Plan
and which adequately address potentially adverse impacts, are appropriate.
The reVised draft PUD 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 Ii1dustrial .
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
11/16/2004
50
standards may be sufficient to make unnecessary any additional review to detennine compatibility of proposed uses
and to mitigate potentially adverse impacts.
The revised draft PUD 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 ofthe
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. However, the performance standards appear to be effective only at the
perimeter of the Willits Bend site when only one use is located on a given lot. In addition, since most of the
prop()sed open space is between buildings, this open space should be protected from noise and other adverse
impacts of adjacent uses. As a condition of approval, the proposed performance standards should be
effective at the boundaries of adjacent uses, at any wall of the building from which any n()ise or other
environmental pollutants emanate, ()r the perimeter of the PUD site, whichever is more restrictive.
[Condition # 13]
[+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6)
[+/-] Roadwav 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 of the 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. It continues to be appropriate to incorporate in an approval of
this PUD Sketch Plan a condition of approval that the Preliminary Plan should clearly demonstrate that aU
issues raised by the Eagle County Engineering Department in its memorailda of April 20 and October 15,
2004, have been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Condition # 3]
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 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".
[+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - No external pedestrian improvements are proposed. The ToWIl
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". The Applicant's response dated 28 October 2004 includes a commitment to make
certain Sidewalk and trail improvements.
en/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. It continues to be
ppropriate that a condition of approval should be that the Preliminary Plan clearly demonstrates that all
ssues raised by the Eagle County Engineering Department, in its memoranda of April 20 and October 15,
2004, and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments, in its memorandum dated April 12, 2004, have
been adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. [Conditions # 3 & 12]
11/16/2004
51
[+] 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.
[+] 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 SUTJTJlv Standards (Section 4-680) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards of this
Section.
[+] Sanitary SewaQ'e 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 reauired to conform to the
standards of this SectiOl1.
[+] 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 NQ+ been fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision MAY 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.
STANDARD: Spatial PaUern 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 Capital Improvements
Plan.
(b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of
the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines.
(c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire
range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service
into an otherwise un-served area.
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.
11/16/2004
52
STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.BJ.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided
shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or mew-made
hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public
improvemelltsto the area.
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 ",hich was prepared jointly and adopted by Eagle County, the
TOWh of Basalt, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). See the discussion above under Roadwav
Standards (Section 4-620).
The site may be found to be suitable for development.
[+/-] F':I"NDtNG: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)]
The property proposed to be subdivided MAY 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.
STANDARD: Compaiible 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 otthis site is presently multi-family residential. To the east are an RV park and a
mobile hOll1epark. To the north is c01Il1Ilercial, andto the south (across Willits Lane) is single family residential.
TheTown of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission notes that the "inclusion, particularly along Willits
Lane; ofa 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 reco1Il1Ilended condition of
approval intended to adequately address this consideration would require a substantial re-design of the proposed
development. Consequently, no reco1Il1Ilended condition of approval is provided. The result is a significant negative
finding which contributes to a reco1Iln1endation for denial of this proposed development.
The proposed development may be found to be compatible with surrounding uses.
[+/-] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)]
With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision IS NOT MAY BE
compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and "'OULD MAY NOT adversely
affect the future development of the surrounding area.
. Requirements for a Zone Chanee It has been recommended by the Eagle County Attorney that these
nsiderations 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 almost impossible 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
11/1612004
53
found at Preliminary Plan. Staff, therefore offers the following preliminary analysis, without discussion, pursuant
toEagle 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.
(1) [+) Consistency With Master Plan. The proposed PUD MAY be consistent with the purposes,
goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan;
(2) [+/-] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment MAY NW be compatible .
with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed conditions of approval, it MAY
. NW be an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the
proposed zone district;
(3) [+/-] Changed conditions. There MAY NQ+ 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 CUffent zoning],
including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands.
(5) [+/-] Community need. It MAY NW be demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a
I
cOrrlmunity 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) [+/-] Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply MAY have changed
or MAY be chan.ging to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Housin.!! Guidelines. - On April]3, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048
adopting Housiqg Guidelines to establish a framework for 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 ofthe 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 eitherrented
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 affordability of the units. Further, 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.
ill the "Response to Eagle County StaffConcems", 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 priOri4
basis to employees of businesses located between Glenwood Springs and Aspen.
11/16/2004
54
Joe Forinash presented this file to the Board. He stated that the applicant has provided a revised sketch
plan, and then proceeded to show various slides and photographs to the Board to better illustrate the proposal. He
showed a revised central roadway with new parking plans and new, solid fences to be placed on the East and West
boundaries of the property. The applicant has added emergency access and open space has been provided. There is
also a revised phasing process, totaling four phases in all. Staff does have additional concerns with the nature of
the central roadway proposal, common recreation and open space, and compatibility with surrounding uses. Staff
has come up with necessary conditions to alleviate these concerns to give an approval recommendation. The
concern about diagonal parking is that the applicant proposes 60 degree parking, but staff feels that the amount of
space provided for backing up out of the space is not enough. Therefore, staff believes that diagonal parking should
be 45 degrees. The concern about the perpendicular parking has to do with the road currently not being a
throughway. Ifthe road does become a throughway, the parking should become diagonal, rather than perpendicular,
and it would reduce the amount of parking available.
Chairman Stone asked if that would still make enough parking available for the proj ect.
Mr. Forinash stated that staff did not make that calculation, but perhaps the applicant had. He said the next
issue had to do with the right-of-way width of the central roadway, and a condition addressing that had been added.
Commissioner Gallagher asked what the anticipated speed limit would be when the road is made a
throughway.
Mr. Forinash stated that it would be 20-25 mph. He stated that applicant should propose a dedication of the
right-of-way to the County at the Preliminary Hearing. He then went over the remaining conditions that staffhad
placed on the applicantfor approval of the file. He mentioned that the applicant did have some concern about the
45 degree angle parking and the resulting loss of parking spaces. Staff does recommend approval with conditions.
Glenn Rappaport, architect for the applicant, was present to answer the Board's questions. He reiterated
what the purpose of this project was and who they were targeting with this project. He stated that the reduction in
living units was the result of the focus of the project being an incubator for craftsmen and artisans, and there is no
housing shortage in the area. This would make for an appropriate density. They have tried to make this affordable
commercial space and propose to deed-restrict 20% of the residential units and have a 5-year repeating appreciation
cap on those units. They will attempt to have the same restrictions placed on the commercial units, as well. He
referred to the grassctete surface access for emergency vehicles and stated that regular traffic could go through
there at any time.
Chairman Stone asked how the surface would work and the grass would look.
Mr. Rappaport stated that he has seen this work in other projects and believes it would work here, as well.
Commissioner Gallagher asked the applicant to describe the product.
Mr. Rappaport explained that there are many different types, including PVC and concrete blocks.
Chairman Stone stated that the PVC-type was being installed at Freedom Park and was familiar with it. He
then clarified that the area would be accessible at all times by all vehicles.
Mr. Rappaport cohcurted with that statement.
Co1Il1Ilissioner Gallagher asked for clarification of some of the sketches that the applicants had brought
with them, with regards to the proposed open space.
Mr. Rappaport explained that these spaces would be fairly open and non-defined so that the eventual
building users could define them for themselves, as they see fit.
Chairman Stone asked about the width between two buildings he pointed to on the sketch.
Mr. Rappaport stated that it was 85 feet.
Doug Dodson, representing the applicant, went over the changes that had been made since the previous
hearing. He stated that they agree with the performance standards listed by staff. They would provide the
perpendicular parking and then change it to diagonal, when it became necessary. They do want to try and connect
the central green area and create a gathering spot. They are also trying to create a trail connection with the adjacent
property owner to an existing "greenbelt".
Commissioner Gallagher asked ifthe applicant had seen the Trail Master Plan for the Roaring Fork Valley.
Mr. Dodson stated that they had looked at it and there are currently no opportunities near the project site.
That is why they are pursuing this opportunity with the adjacent property owner. They do plan to provide the
grasscrete data with the engineering department.
Chairman Stone asked about Condition #8 in the Staff Report and if the grasscrete area would require the
pplicant to get a Variance from Improvements Standards, and ,are the side "roadways" considered as such.
Mr. Forinash stated that they are being treated as parking, not roads.
Chairman Stone asked what the potential areas were for Variance from Improvement Standards.
11116/2004
55
~
Justin Hildreth of Engineering stated that the first point of contention was the two points of access that the
fire department wanted, and that had been addressed by the applicants. They were also concerned with some
parking issues, such as angles and lane width. He stated that they ate comfortable with the autoturn
demonstrations.
Commissioner Gallagher if the grasscrete required a variance or approval of Engineering.
Mr. Hildreth stated that these were not required, the applicant only needed to demonstrate that it could
support the proposed generated traffic.
Chairman Stone asked if there were any conditions or comments that the applicant disagreed with.
Mr. Dodson stated that they would like to discuss the angle of parking along the central road. They have
tried to provide a road that would work for everyone involved. They have provided the county a 26-foot drive aisle
through the middle of the property to allow for snow plowing, and have' provided a sidewalk that would be cared
for by the association that would be formed with this project.
Chairman Stone asked what the applicant's preference was.
Mr. Dodson stated they would like to convey the 26' right of way to the county and the Development
Association would maintain the sidewalks and parking spaces. .
Chairman Stone asked if the applicant opposed the 45 degree recommendation.
Mr. Rappaport stated that he disagreed with it, but he would not stand on it. He stated that they would have
sufficient parking if they had to go to 45 degree parking.
Chairrtlan Stone stated that it needs to be a safe roadway, should the road ever get connected, and the 45
degree angle parking would achieve this, not the 60 degree parking. He then stated his concerns about the County
maintaining the right of way and the association maintaining the other portions of the road.
Helen Migchelbrink of Engineering agreed with Chairman Stone that this would not be a viable solution.
She stated that there needed to be single, unified maintenance, not a "mixed-bag".
Mr. Dodson asked what the county's philosophy was for road maintenances.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated that her recommendation would be for the County to not have any maintenance of
the roads or sidewalks. It could be a dedicated public road that is privately maintained.
Chairman Stone stated he was more concerned with road ownership rather than road maintenance.
Mr. Dodson statedthat the association would maintain any or all of the right of way, but they were
concerned about what to dedicate as the right of way.
Commissioner Gallagher stated gave an example ofHwy. 24 going through Minturn. He stated how
CDOT owns and operates the right of way and that taking dedication of full width would be necessary for the
County for future development.
Chairman Stone asked about the reluctance on the part ofthe applicant to dedicate the entire right of way.
Mr. Dodson stated that some of the buildings come quite close to the right of way and they want to be able
to provide awnings or other items that enhance the buildings. They would like to have some control over this,
rather than rely on the County's whims.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated that this is an item that would be discussed at preliminary plans.
Chairman Stone stated that one of the conditions did address this, so the matter did need to be discussed.
Ms, Migchelbrink stated that an "adequate" right of way would be better than a definitive number.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if there were Engineering specifications that needed to be met.
Mr. Hildreth stated that there were and the numbers given were the result of negotiations with the applicant
and others.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if they could anticipate the traffic flows, based upon the addition of a traffic
light, and come up with a necessary right-of-way width.
Chairman Stone stated that he feels as though the applicant is squeezing this site. He doesn't think that this
has a residential feel, rather it is very urbanized. As long as the traffic can be accommodated, he is okay with it.
Mr. Rappaport agreed with Chairman Stone's comments and asked about what a traffic study should entail.
Chairman Stone stated that it needs to show that the project would work from a practical standpoint. He
stated that the County will have to have legal access to the property in the future, should it be required. He stated
that ultimately, the applicant will need the support of the Engineering Department.
Mr. Crowley, the applicant, stated that their concerns dealt with exterior stairwells, overhangs, and other
items dealing with building permits.
Chairman Stone stated that the applicant could address these through easements. He then opened and.
closed Public Comment as there was none. After closing Public Comment, he asked if there were any conditions to
approval that the applicant disagreed with.
Mr. Dodson stated that the applicant was agreeable to those conditions.
11/16/2004
56
-
Commissioner Gallagher asked if Condition 8 satisfied Condition 16.
Mr. Forinash stated that Condition 8 was more inclusive than Condition 16, therefore should remain.
Commissioner Gallagher asked if the areas of mixed conformance on the various Master Plans will change
to performance with the addition of the conditions.
Mr. Forinash stated that they would.
COrrlmisSioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. PDS-00039, incorporating the staff findings
and with the following conditions:
I. The continuing use of existing structures and the uses allowed within them shall be clarified in the
proposed PUD Guide submitted with the PUD Preliminary Plan application.
2. The Preliminary Plan shall 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.
3. The Preliminary Plan shall clearly demonstrate that all issues raised by the Eagle County
Engineering Department in its memoranda of April 20 and October 15, 2004, have been adequately
addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
4. The Preliminary Plan shall clearly demonstrate that all the issues raised by the Basalt & Rural Fire
Protection District in its letters dated April 16 and October 4,2004, have been adequately
addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
5. The Detailed Landscape Plan submitted as part of the Preliminary Plan shall conform to the
requirements of Division 4-2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards, and/or clearly demonstrate
that, within the context of representations made during the PUD Sketch Plan review, 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, create attractive streetscapes and parking area~ andtoQe co:p.sistent With the
character of the area. . ,
6. The PUD Preliminary Plan shall demonstrate clearly the manner in which the recommendations of
the Colorado Geological Survey, in its letter dated April 16, 2004, have been adequately addressed
to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
7. The PUD Preliminary Plan shall demonstrate clearly the manner in which the recommendations of
the Colorado State Forest Service, in its letter dated April 28, 2004, have been adequately
addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
.8. The proposed road system shall 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, of the Land Use Regulations, shall be submitted prior to or as part of the
Preliminary Plan application.
9. The Preliminary Plan shall clearly demonstrate how it reflects consideration of comments of the
Town of Basalt in its letters dated May 3 and October 21,2004.
10. The Preliminary Plan shall clearly demonstrate that common 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 ofthe requirements of Section 5-240.F.3.e (12), Common Recreation and Open Space,
have been satisfied.
II. All outside work activity and outside storage of "artist product" shall only be permitted consistent
with guidelines and restrictions approved as part of the Preliminary Plan.
12. The Preliminary Plan shall clearly demonstrate that all issues raised by the Northwest Colorado
Council of Governments, in its memorandum dated April 12, 2004, have been adequately
addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer.
13. The proposed performance standards shall required to be effective at the boundaries of adjacent
uses, at any wall of the buUdingfrom which any noise or other environmental pollutants emanate,
or the perimeter of the PUD site, whichever is more restrictive.
14. Diagonal parking along the central roadway shall be at no more than 45 degrees unless the drive
aisles in each direction are widened accordingly.
15. Perpendicular parking may be permitted on the northern portion of the central "roadway" until
11/16/2004
57
such time as a vehicular connection is completed to Valley Road, Highway 82 and Original Road,
at which time the parking shall be converted to diagonal parking as allowed elsewhere on the
central "roadway". Notwithstanding, for purposes of calculating available parking, all parking
along both sides of the central "roadway", except for areas of proposed parallel parking, shall be
treated as diagonal parkingfrom the outset.
16. The Preliminary Plan shall provide an adequate right-ol-way along the central "roadway" which
would include driving aisles, parking and sidewalks, and construction and maintenance easements
to the satisfaction of the county engineer.
17. The Preliminary Plan shall propose a viable mechanism, including timing, for conveying a public
right-ol-way for the central "roadway" and dedicating the public improvements to Eagle County at
such time as the connection through to Valley Road, Highway 82 and Original Road to the north is
completed.
18. The site plan shall be modified to provide access or other durable surface to the satisfaction of the
County through the parking area along the western perimeter of the site.
19. The Preliminary Plan shall include an "auto turn demonstration" for all anticipated truck
movements on the site.
20. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in
this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of
approv(ll.
Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Ofthe two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous.
7,2004
There being no further business to be brought . ."e Board the meeting was adjourned until December
~)\.GlJ?","~f.~
. ~o~'':1,~'.4'~~'):''\
?if"*, b.i;f.?....'::...:.' ~.
1\ \\\'-'L' i .'. ~
. ,'i1r[/ '.c, l .
OI.OflI'S.i~,p\Chain · .
'~:':!'-f-"
,':';1 ,,_.
r'.hd'<<"'\
Clerk to the Board
Attest:
_._.~~,"._- -'.'._'.~~'
11/1612004
58