Loading...
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