HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/25/06
PUBLIC HEARING
April 25, 2006
resent:
Peter Runyon
Tom Stone
Am Menconi
Bruce Baumgartner
Bryan Treu
Walter Mathews
Teak Simonton
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Administrator
County Attorney
Deputy County Attorney
Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration:
Executive Session
There was none.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of April 24, 2006 (Subject to review by the Finance Director)
Mike Roeper, Finance Department
B. Approval of Payroll for April 27, 2006 (Subject to review by the Finance Director)
Mike Roeper, Finance Department
Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meetings for March 28,2006
Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder
D. Agreement Concerning Allocation of Responsibilities of the Conservation Easement (Bair Ranch, Eagle
County) Between Eagle County and Eagle Valley Land Trust
County Attorney's Office Representative
E. Grant Agreement Eagle County Regional Airport AIP Project 3-08-0020-39 Grading and Drainage for
the Future 7/25 Runway Extension
Phillip Bowman, Engineering
F. Agreement with Oldcastle SW Group, Inc. Doing Business as B&B Excavating for Overlay
Proj ect
Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge
G. Consulting Agreement for Assisted Living and Skilled Nursing Market Research of Older Eagle County
Residents, Eagle County Caregiver-aged Adults and Second Home Owners
Allison Ochs, Community Development
H. Agreement between Eagle County and Valley View Hospital Association
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
Agreement between Eagle County and the Resource Center of Eagle County
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
1
4/25/06
J. Consulting Agreement for On-Call Land Use Planning Services with Shapins Associates
Allison Ochs, Community Development
K. ePublic Trustee End-User License Agreement
Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder
Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda.
Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that item D should be pulled for later consideration.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-K excepting Item D.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Citizen Input
There was none.
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the
Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Eagle County Liquor License Authority
Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office
Consent Agenda
Renewals
A. The Boaters Bar, LLC
The Boaters Bar
This is a renewal of a Optional Premise Liquor License (Stand Alone) in Bond. There have been no
complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid.
B. EagleNail Restaurant Group
Paddy's
This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in EagleN ail. There have been no
complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid.
Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for April 25, 2006,
consisting of Items A and B.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene
as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Resolution 2006-049 Honoring Corporal Nate Smith for his Contributions to and
Sacrifice for Eagle County and the United States of America
Peter Runyon, Chairman
2
4/25/06
Commissioner Menconi read the resolution for the record.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2006-049 Honoring Corporal Nate Smith for his
Contributions to and Sacrifice for Eagle County and the United States of America
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Stone added that he felt this was entirely appropriate and thanked the Smiths for their
support of our country.
Chairman Runyon concurred with Commissioner Stone's comments.
Welcome Government Day Students
Peter Runyon, Chairman
Chairman Runyon read the information on National County Government week. He welcomed the students
for taking part in the presentation. He indicated that there would be a demonstration at the airport from emergency
management, the sheriff and airport staff immediately following the meeting.
Northern Colorado Bark Beetle Eagle County Room Cooperative
1. Briefing from County, Barry Smith & Eric Lovgren
2. Identifying Priority Areas
3. Cooperative Strategy
This work session was taped.
Planning Files
5MB-00386 Katz Property Subdivision
Adam Palmer, Planning Department
ACTION:
and 24B.
A request to subdivide Lot 24 of the Highland Subdivision zoned RSM into two lots - Lot 24A
LOCATION:
TITLE:
FILE NO./PROCESS:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
21 07 Vermont Road
Katz Property Subdivision
5MB-00386 / Minor Type B Subdivision
Highland Meadows Filing 1 Lot 24, 21 07 Vermont Road
Steven Katz/David Irwin
David Irwin
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A final plat which would subdivide Lot 24 and create two single-family
lots. Lot 24 is currently 1.06 acres in area and is zoned RSM which requires a minimum lot size of 8,000 square
feet per unit. RSM zoning allows the construction of single-family, duplex and multi-family residences.
SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning:
East: Residential / RSM (Residential Suburban Medium Density)
West: Residential / RSM
orth: Marriott Streamside Hotel / RSM Special Use
outh: Residential / RSM
3
4/25/06
Existing Zoning:
Total Area:
RSM
1.06 acres
STAFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations the Community
Development Director has determined the following in the review of this Type B Minor Subdivision:
a. Access, Water and Sewage. The access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be
subdivided IS adequate;
b. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The subdivision IS in conformance with the Final
Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and
c. Improvements Agreements. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement is NOT applicable to this
application.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Palmer stated that proper posting was not done and staff recommended that the file be tabled until May
16th, 2006.
Commissioner Menconi moved to table File No. 5MB-00386 until May 16,2006.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDF-00094 Fox Hollow PUD
lena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department
ACTION: The purpose of this plat is to create Lots 1 thru 4; certain easements; and Tracts A and B of the
Fox Hollow PUD. By virtue of this plat, associated road right-of-way will also be dedicated to Eagle County.
TITLE:
FILE NO/PROCESS:
LOCATION:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Fox Hollow PUD Final Plat.
PDF-00094 1 PUD Final Plat
32358 and 32400 Hwy 6, West Edwards; South ofHwy 6
Fox Hollow, LLC
Same, Knight Planning
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this plat is to create Lots 1 thru 4; certain easements; and Tracts A
and B of the Fox Hollow PUD. By virtue ofthis plat, associated road right-of-way will also be dedicated to Eagle
County.
SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses 1 Zoning:
East: Unplatted 1 RSL
West: Unplatted 1 RSL
North: ROW: Hwy 6
South: Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD
Existing Zoning:
Total Area:
Fox Hollow PUD
5.218 acres
STAFF FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
4
4/25/06
(1) This final plat DOES conform to the approved Preliminary Plan for subdivision. The lots created
by this plat were anticipated at Preliminary Plan.
(2) Required improvements ARE adequate.
(3) Areas dedicated for public use and easements ARE acceptable. This plat will dedicate right-ofway
to Eagle County; there are no public easements; and,
Pursuant to Sections 5-280.B.3.e. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
(1) Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with
the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and sub-area plan. This finding was made during the
Preliminary Plan approvals.
(2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES 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. The development will be built according to the applicable standards as approved at
Preliminary Plan.
(3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid
creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, require
duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of
development. The intent of this plat is to further subdivide a previously subdivided portion of the
Arrowhead River Ranch.
a. Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's
service plan or shall be required prior County approval of an amendment to the service
plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital
Improvements Plan.
b. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines ARE sized to serve the planned ultimate
population of the service area to avoid future land disruption which would occur if under-
sized lines had to be upgraded.
c. Coordinate Utility Extensions. 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. This area IS presently served by the Edwards
Metropolitan District, as well as other utilities.
d. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for
development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural, or human-
made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, as well as existing
and probable future public improvements to the area. The development has been developed
according to Preliminary Plan approval.
e. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the
character of existing land uses in the area and DOES NOT adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Skinner-Markowitz showed a PowerPoint presentation with maps and photos of the property along
with the associated plat. She indicated that all findings were positive and staff recommended approval.
Chairman Runyon opened public comment. There was none. He closed public comment.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. PDF-00094 incorporating the findings and authorize
the Chairman to sign the plat and related Subdivision Improvement Agreements.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Stone wondered if there would be a water truck on the property for dust control. He believes
1 attempt should be made to control the dust for the surrounding neighbors.
5
4/25/06
PDF-00092 Edwards Desie:n and Craft Center PUD
lena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department
ACTION: The purpose of this plat is to create the Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD parcel; and certain
easements. By virtue of this plat, associated road right-of-way will also be dedicated to Eagle County.
32466 Hwy. 6, West Edwards; South ofHwy 6
Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD Final Plat
PDF-00092 1 PUD Final Plat
EDCC, LLC
Same, Knight Planning
LOCATION:
TITLE:
FILE NO/PROCESS:
OWNER/APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The purpose of this plat is to create the Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD
parcel; and certain easements. By virtue of this plat, associated road right-of-way will also be dedicated to Eagle
County.
SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses 1 Zoning:
East: Unplatted 1 RSL
West: Fox Hollow PUD
North: Fox Hollow PUD
South: Unplatted 1 Resource
Existing Zoning: Edwards Design and Craft Center PUD
Total Area: 3.602 acres
STAFF FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
(1) This final plat DOES conform to the approved Preliminary Plan for subdivision. The lots created
by this plat were anticipated at Preliminary Plan.
(2) Required improvements ARE adequate.
(3) Areas dedicated for public use and easements ARE acceptable. This plat will dedicate right-of way
to Eagle County; there are no public easements; and,
Pursuant to Sections 5-280.B.3.e. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
(4) Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle
County Comprehensive Plan and sub-area plan. This finding was made during the Preliminary
Plan approvals.
(5) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES comply with all ofthe
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. The development will be built according to the applicable standards as approved at
Preliminary Plan.
(6) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid
creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, require
duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of
development. The intent of this plat is to further subdivide a previously subdivided portion of the
Arrowhead River Ranch.
a. Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's
6
4/25106
service plan or shall be required prior County approval of an amendment to the service
plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital
Improvements Plan.
d. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines ARE sized to serve the planned ultimate
population of the service area to avoid future land disruption which would occur if under-
sized lines had to be upgraded.
e. Coordinate Utility Extensions. 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. This area IS presently served by the Edwards
Metropolitan District, as well as other utilities.
d. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for
development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural, or human-
made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, as well as existing
and probable future public improvements to the area. The development has been developed
according to Preliminary Plan approval.
e. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the
character of existing land uses in the area and DOES NOT adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Skinner-Markowitz presented a PowerPoint presentation highlighting the area with maps and photos.
She indicated that all findings were positive and staff recommended approval.
Chairman Runyon opened public comment. There was none. He closed public comment.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve File No. PDF-00092 incorporating the findings and authorize the
Chairman to sign the plat and related subdivision improvement agreements.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDP-00032 & ZC-00076 Willits Bend Planned Unit Development
Joe Forinash, Planning Department
NOTE:
Tabled from January 10, 2006
ACTION: Zone change and PUD Preliminary Plan for a flexible space, mixed use development consisting of
92,555 s.f. for retail/commercial, office, restaurant, light mfg. wholesale & warehouse and residential.
LOCATION: 1712 Willits Lane (east of the Oak Grove Townhouses; west of Aspen Basalt Campground and
Mobile HomePark).
TITLE:
FILE NO./PROCESS:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Willits Bend PUD
PDP-00032 and ZC-00076 1 PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change
Blue Crow, LLC (Stephen Crowley)
Blue Crow, LLC (Stephen Crowley)
Doug Dotson
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with conditions
"taff strongly suggests that the community in which this proposed development is located will best be served
this site is annexed into the Town of Basalt and the application is reviewed within the context of the
~own's Master Plan, development standards and design criteria.
7
4/25/06
This site is adjacent to the Town of Basalt. During the Sketch Plan review, the Town Planning and Zoning
Commission had previously noted that, given its location within its Urban Growth Boundary, it should someday be
included within the Town Limits and the development should meet the Town's standards for infrastructure and
mitigation requirements. The proposed development is very much "urban" in nature and will be a part of what
defines the Town, whether or not it is annexed. The Town's Master Plan includes certain goals regarding diversity
and community character. In addition, the Town has typology recommendations for industrial live-work areas
which are intended to create a quality design for this type of project which includes variety in building elevations,
materials and building heights. The Planning and Zoning Commission had also previously suggested that additional
tools, including computer simulation and physical models, should be utilized to evaluate the scale, visual impact
and character of the development. Further, it is important that the ultimate development of the site not duplicate and
compete with more traditional commercial retail main streets in downtown Basalt and the Willits Town Center.
Further, the Town's more recent referral response makes clear that the Town's support of the proposed
development is dependent on a high degree of coordination and integration with the Town's policies,
standards and proposed additional condition of approval, as illustrated by the following:
. While the Town acknowledges that the project is subject to Eagle County regulations, it has expressed
concern about the projects long-term adherence to the representations of the Applicant and, to this end, has
requested a number of conditions it has proposed be made a part of the approval.
. The Town has expressed support for a "l20 day 'Marketing Program'" which Applicant has presented to
the Town along with a movie and certain "sketches". These materials have only recently been available to
County Staff.
. The Town has requested that certain "design guidelines" be develop or modified to address concerns the
Town has expressed regarding massing near adjacent residential properties.
. The Town has requested that certain "at-site" transportation improvements be made including a 5-foot
sidewalk along Willits Lane, a crosswalk across Willits Lane to the Willits Trail and an illuminated street
light at the project entrance. The Town requests that funds be deposited with the Town for such
improvements.
. The Town has requested certain on-site pedestrian improvements.
. The Applicant is required to obtain an access permit for Willits Lane access, the granting of which may
involve additional off-site improvements and impact fees.
. The Town requires its own subdivision improvements agreement or development agreement be entered into
for certain improvements it has requested.
. The Town has requested certain restrictions be attached to the on-site housing similar to restrictions
approved by the Town for the Willits Town Center.
. The Town has requested that all real estate transfer assessments and/or fees-in-lieu be provided directly to
the Town for use in the Town's affordable housing programs.
. The Town requests that the development conform to the Town's lighting standards.
The Town has further stated that, while it would not try to force the annexation issue, if the Applicant were
to entertain annexation, the Town would be receptive to those discussions.
In addition, the Mid Valley Trails Committee has expressed its concerns regarding potential impacts from the
development and has taken a strong position that the Town of Basalt is the more appropriate venue for review of
the application. (Please refer to the Referral Responses, below.)
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Approval with conditions (3-0)
PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION:
The Planning Commission was satisfied with the site design for the development. The proposed 25 foot setback of
buildings from Willits Lane was acceptable. The Planning Commission did question why the permanent park was
to be located in the far northwest corner of the site rather than a more central location. The Planning Commission
confirmed that the emergency access would not be paved.
8
4/25/06
The Planning Commission sought clarification of the proposed design of the buildings, including the basic design
feature of l,OOO square foot modules which could be combined in various configurations, and the use of overhead
doors on both levels of the buildings. While the Planning Commission had no problem with 2nd story walkways on
the exterior of the buildings, there was some concern with the prospect ofIong, linear buildings with no delineation.
Questions arose regarding how retail uses would fit into the development and whether the outdoor display of wares
might be chaotic. Regarding the latter, designated areas for display were suggested.
Planning Commissioners noted that some of the proposed vegetation shown in the landscape plan may not be
appropriate for such an urban development. The placement of some of the vegetation needs to be reviewed,
especially with respect to the blue spruce trees at the southeast corner near the emergency access and near buildings
1 and 2.
Considerable interest was expressed regarding the proposed restrictions to some of the commercial spaces. The
Planning Commissioners agreed that it is important to have spaces to allow keep local businesses to remain local.
There were questions regarding why [1] only 10 percent of the space was to be restricted, [2] why the price cap
goes away after 5 years, and [3] whether the "incubator spaces" would be clustered. It was determined that the
proposal would allow someone to buy just commercial space without having to also buy residential space, but not
buy residential space without also buying commercial space.
Planning Commissioners expressed an interest in seeing the size of the residential units be limited so that the
number of units would be maximized. The Commissioners also noted that the proposed payment in lieu for local
resident housing was "miles apart" from the payment calculated by Staff.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY:
The proposed development consists of 92,555 square feet of floor area for mixed uses, including fabrication and
trades, office, retail/restaurant and residential, on a 4.5 acre site. Access is from Willits Lane. A total of 75,979
square feet of common recreation and open space is provided, most of which is around and between buildings, but
includes a neighborhood park and three "internal gathering areas". Internal sidewalks will connect to the regional
trail south of Willits Lane south of the site. 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. As proposed in the
Highway 82 Access Control Plan, the development would accommodate an access connection from this site to the
north to connect with Highway 82 at the Valley Road intersection once a right-of-way is acquired through one or
more of the properties adjacent to this site.
CHRONOLOGY:
2004 - PUD Sketch Plan approved.
SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning:
East: Aspen Basalt Campground and Mobile Home Park / RSL
West: Residential (Oak Grove Townhouses) / PUD (Town of Basalt)
North: Commercial / PUD (Town of Basalt) and Resource (Eagle County)
South: Residential (River Oaks Subdivision) / (Town of Basalt)
Existing Zoning: Commercial General
Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD)
roposed No. of Dwelling Units: Up to 16 units
otal Area: 4.524 acres
9
4/25/06
Minimum Lot Area:
Maximum Lot Area:
Entire site is proposed to be condominiumized.
Entire site is proposed to be condominiumized.
Percent Usable Open Space:
Water:
Sewer:
Access:
29.6 percent
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Mid Valley Metropolitan District
Willits Lane
STAFF REPORT
REFERRAL RESPONSES:
Eagle County Engineering Department
. The Applicant has identified several proposed "variances from improvement standards" and should set
forth clearly all of the proposed variances, with references to specific section(s) of the regulations,
justification, and a demonstration of the potential hardship.
. The Applicant has proposed an underground storm water detention system. The maintenance plan
indicates that maintenance will include the cleaning and dredging of drainage structures when
necessary. A quantifiable set schedule for these activities (e.g.., yearly, quarterly, each spring) is
required.
. The Engineering Department is not in agreement with Section 5.l.C. of the draft PUD Agreement
regarding modifications to the parking areas, landscaping, signage, lighting, authorized encroachment,
sidewalks, curb and gutter or driving surfaces of Tract 3, the main thoroughfare through the site.
. The Engineering Department notes that Eagle County will not be responsible for maintenance or snow
removal on the site until the warranty period has expired.
. The Engineering Department is not in agreement with Section 7.6.a. of the draft PUD Agreement
regarding allocation of parking spaces by the Applicant.
. The landscaped space between Lots 5 and 7 contains an underground stormwater detention facility
(referred to as "Central Detention"). The landscaping plan shows six cimmarron Ash trees. These trees
may be in conflict with the underground detention facility. A revised landscape plan is required.
. The locations of the silt fences, straw bale barriers, vehicle tracking controls and other measures are
required to be shown on the erosion control plan.
. Willits Lane is a Town of Basalt road. Prior to construction, a permit is required from the Town of
Basalt to work within the Willits Lane right-of-way.
. The Applicant is required to 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 ofBasaIt
as previously agreed by Eagle County and the Town of Basalt.
. Handicap access to each lot and sidewalk should be adjacent to the applicable handicap parking space,
and should not require the handicapped person to enter a traffic lane for ramp access. Additional
handicap ramps are required.
. The truck turning diagram does not show a turning pattern for the southeast corner, near Lot 2. This
information is required.
. The retaining wall located near the western property line appears to be very close to the adjoining
property and ditch. Excavation in this location, including the installation of the storm inlet, may
infringe on the integrity of the ditch. Necessary mitigation at this location is required and, ifthe
excavation cannot be completely accomplished on the applicant's property, agreements to excavate
from the adjacent parcel's owner and ditch company is needed. Another retaining wall located near the
northeast corner may have similar considerations.
. Several instances of potential for freezing of water and sewer lines have been identified. Appropriate
freezing mitigation is required at these locations.
. All utility services must be terminated within the actual lot boundary. Utility services should be
extended to a position where the connection in the lot does not need to cross a paved, concreted, or
sidewalk surface which requires patching.
Eagle County Environmental Health
10
4/25/06
. A number of additions and amendments to the PUD Guide are proposed. (See memo dated 2l
November 2005 from Raymond Merry, Eagle County Environmental Health Director.)
· Prior to any site disturbance, a detailed site plan must be submitted along with any permit which may
allow site grading which shows the construction staging area and be accompanied by a Spill Prevention
Control and Countermeasures Plan approved by Eagle County Environmental Health.
· Prior to any site disturbance, a dust suppression plan must be prepared and approved by Eagle County
Environmental Health.
· Failure to adhere to the erosion control and dust suppression plans during construction may result in a
Stop Work Order.
Housing Department
· The Director of Housing has provided worksheets showing preliminary calculations of suggested local
resident housing mitigation based on the current Housing Guidelines.
· On-site mitigation would require a total of9.78 housing units at a mitigation rate of20 percent,
including 6.58 low income units based on residential and commercial linkage, and 3.20 moderate
income units based on inclusionary housing.
· Off-site mitigation would require a total of 12.23 housing units at a mitigation rate of 25 percent,
including 8.23 low income units based on residential and commercial linkage, and 4.00 moderate
income units based on inclusionary housing.
· The payment-in-lieu option would require a total payment of $855,968.40 (for a total of 14.67 housing
units) at a mitigation rate of30 percent, including $725,830.80 (for 9.87 low income units) based on
residential and commercial linkage, and $130,137.60 (for 4.80 moderate income units) based on
inclusionary housing.
Town of Basalt (Planning and Zoning Commission)
· The Planning and Zoning Commission considered this referral at a joint meeting with the Town
Council on 6 December 2005 and 10 January 2006. The Planning and Zoning Commission recognizes
the various adjustments made to the current plan based on the Sketch Plan review process.
· These comments are based on representations made by the Applicant at meetings held on 22 December
2005 and 4 January 2006 with Town Staff. As the project moves forward, the Town recommends that
these items should remain a focus ofthe County's attention to assure that they continue to be
addressed.
· As a result of the representations and modifications to the application, the Planning and Zoning
Commission supports the proposal with the following comments which should be conditions of
approval:
· EnduriDl! Development is Built Under Applicant's Vision.
· The Town understands that the project is subject to Eagle County regulations, however, the
following comments are intended to encourage long term assurances that the project remains as
described and represented by the Applicant:
· The Town supports the proposed 120 day "Marketing Program" to buyers of spaces no larger
than3,000 square feet, and only allowing the sale of residential spaces to those buyers of
commercial spaces as represented at the 22 December 2005 and 4 January 2006 meetings.
· In addition, the Town supports restrictions that run with the land and are not limited as part of
the "Marketing Program". The Town recommends including PUD restrictions that would
require at least eight small incubator spaces be provided for local craftsmen. Under this
program eight of the spaces, each approximately 1,000 square feet, are allowed to combine
only one time with another approximately 1,000 square foot space providing a minimum of
eight spaces that are no more than 2,000 i: square feet. The location of said units would be
entirely at the discretion of the Applicant.
· All of the size restriction concepts noted above including the Applicant's "Marketing Program"
warrant additional work by the Applicant on restrictions regarding combining of units.
· The Town supports limiting the square footage of residential development to 24,000 square
11
4/25/06
feet, with a 3,000 square foot maximum per unit as represented at the 22 December 2005 and 4
January 2006 meetings.
. The Town also supports the establishment of specific building footprints/envelopes and height
limits to ensure limitations on building size.
. In order to avoid creating an overriding residential character for the project, and to protect the
vision for an active streetscape within the project, the Town requests limiting 10 % of the total
project's ground floor to small residential apartments no larger than 500 square feet maximum
unless approved by a special review process.
. The Town supports that 10% of the overall residential and non-residential built space (but not
less than 7,000 square feet) will have restrictions to remain affordable commercial space
through deed restrictions with the added restriction of prohibiting owners to lease these spaces
as discussed at the 22 December 2005 and 4 January 2006 meetings. As represented in the
application on page 25 of the draft PUD Guidelines, the Town supports the deed restriction of
reselling the property within 5 years of purchase at initial purchase price plus CPI or 4%
appreciation(whichever is greater) on the abovementioned lO% regarding the initial and
subsequent sales ofthese spaces. Be it noted that the Town recognizes this provision as a anti-
flip mechanism, but not a long-term affordability mechanism.
. The Applicant agreed to develop additional design guidelines to ensure the scale, mass and general
building forms comply with the movie shown at the 6 December 2005 joint P&Z/Town Council
meeting and sketches being provided by the Applicant. In addition, the Town desires that the
design guidelines particularly address the development's western edge and Willits Lane frontage to
reduce the massing next to the townhouses and single family homes across Willits Lane. The Town
does not want to see a full three-story flat roof building bordering Basalt homes.
. The Town suggests that if the developer wishes to keep flexibility in the list of permitted uses and
other aspects of the development program, a review process similar to a conditional review process
or the Town's technical review committee process be designed to consider special review type uses
in the future.
. The Town supports working with the developer to landscape within the Willits Lane right-of-way.
The Town will work with the developer on a license agreements between the developer and the
Town for such improvements.
. Traffic and Transportation Impacts.
. The Town supports the proposed design of Willits Bend Road. The urban design and streetscape
concepts are appropriate for this type of development.
. The Town requests that the developer of Willits Bend fund "at-site" transportation improvements
warranted by the project. The improvements consist of a 5 foot sidewalk adjacent to the property
along Willits Lane; concrete crosswalks across Willits Lane from the project to the Willits Trail; an
illuminated street light at the entrance to the project and Willits Lane. Funds for the improvements
would be deposited in a Basalt fund at the time of final plat.
. The Town also requests that the developer construct an 8 foot pedestrian pathway, along the east
side of Willits Bend Road (proposed new road) as part of their current development proposal.
Minor reductions in width due to pinch points resulting from site constraints are acceptable to the
Town.
. The Town requests that all Transportation Impact Fees paid to Eagle County be passed onto the
Town of Basalt for off-site improvements to the Town's transportation system including, but not
limited to, additional pedestrian connections from the Willits Bend PUD to the existing RFTA bus
stops on Highway 82 and the future implementation of the Town's Willits Lane Master Plan.
. The Applicant will be required to obtain an access permit from the Town for Willits Lane access.
That permit should be obtained prior to recordation of the final plat. The Traffic Study submitted to
the Town must be updated before the Town Technical Review Committee can finalize its
conditions for the access permit. Specifically, the Traffic Study needs to analyze the Highway 82
and East Willits Lane intersection and reflect the most current development program with its
limitations (e.g., maximum 8,000 square foot office/service commercial). As part of that review the
Town will ensure that the impact fees and improvements under Nos. 7 and 8 are adequate to cover
additional improvements caused by the development.
. The Town recommends that CDOT and Eagle County Public Works meet with Basalt Public
12
4/25/06
Works to review the traffic studies and possible short and long-term improvements to the Highway
82 and East Willits Lane intersection and to determine if a fair share fee is warranted for the traffic
signal at Original Road and Highway 82 based on the development's proposed share of future
traffic at that intersection. The Town recognizes the contribution of the grading improvements to
Willits Bend Road which will make the extension of Original Road more feasible in the future. The
Town supports crediting the incremental increase in costs for said fair share.
. The Town envisions that the transportation improvements mentioned above would be incorporated
in to a subdivision improvement agreement or development agreement between the Town of Basalt
and the developer recorded before final plat recordation.
. Worker Housinl!.
. The Town recommends that five live work units be provided within the development with initial
resident owner occupied restrictions (similar to the Willits Town Center restrictions approved by
the Town). The Town proposes that the Real Estate Transfer Assessment or fees-in-lieu be
provided directly to the Town of BasaIt for use in the Town's affordable housing programs within
the Eagle County portion ofBasaIt's Urban Growth Boundary/Urban Services Area. The Town
supports the creation of a mutually agreeable plan to allow the funds generated by the development
to be used to further buy down and deed restrict dwelling units and/or live work units within the
development. Additional refinements of the affordable housing concepts in conjunction with the
Applicant can serve to support both the long term affordability of live work units and the
Applicant's vision for the development.
. Miscellaneous.
. The Town requests that the concerns and comments prepared by the Basalt and Rural Fire
Protection District be adequately addressed, including life safety issues associated with the mix of
residential and industrial type uses.
. The Town requests that the development conform to the Town's lighting standards
. Annexation.
. If the Applicant does not want to seek annexation, the Town will not try to force this issue given
the willingness of the Applicant to address Town concerns. If the Applicant wishes to entertain
annexation at some future time, the Town would be receptive to those discussions.
Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District
[Letter from Bill Harding, Fire Marshal, dated 23 November 2005]
. Willits Bend is intended to be a mixed use commercial, light industrial and residential area. There may
be greater than 92,555 square feet of floor area within the project. The site plan essentially provides the
proposed access and lot locations. There are neither building footprints indicated nor are there any
definitive construction examples. The PUD Guide indicates uses ranging from hot work such as
blacksmiths, welders, and pottery kilns to painting, dry cleaning, auto service shops, warehouse, arts
and crafts, woodworking establishments, retail and wholesale, and so on.
. The PUD Guide intends to address the special review nature of the several uses desired for the PUD.
The applicant indicates that he does not know what specific uses they intend to develop for. It is the
applicant's desire to be allowed flexibility to develop as the market allows and not be encumbered by
Eagle County's special review process. The applicant proposes to essentially have the county extend
authority to a Master Association that will rely on the Building and Fire Department to help determine
suitable use for a given scenario. The PUD Guide, through its suggested parameters, would maintain
flexibility and not require special use review.
. The Fire District recognizes that livelwork developments will be a part of a continued trend and will do
its part to help make these developments feasible. However, there are complexities involved with this
project that, if due diligence is not pursued with respect to the building and fire codes, overall safety
may be seriously compromised. The application does not provide enough information to adequately
determine acceptability of the preliminary plan proposal.
. The Fire District is not comfortable entering into an agreement utilizing a Master Association
(Homeowners Association) as the alternative to the special use review process. Previous experience
with this kind of agreement has been problematic. The proposed PUD Guide appears to be a good start
that with modifications can serve the Applicant, Eagle County and the Fire District as a good tool
13
4/25106
toward future development and building permit review.
. The Fire District requests the Planning Department facilitate dialogue between the Applicant and his
representatives. Eagle County Community Development. and the Fire District to explore other hybrid
review processes that are definitive and maintain Eagle County and Basalt Fire authority in a public
format toward future review. processes that can hopefully meet the flexibility goals the applicant
desires. The District also recommends that the Eagle County Building Department be given the
opportunity to participate. as it will be impacted by this development during the permit process. This
should be done prior to preliminary plan approval.
. The following is a list of the District's concerns for future dialogue. These items are integrated parts
toward the concept of risk management, a key element in the building and fire codes and a component
of emergency response.
. Access and Site Plan - The general concept of the site plan and its access would essentially meet
the minimum requirements of the Fire Code and the uses proposed by the applicant. However, the
following details need to be evaluated for accuracy and compliance.
. The 26- foot roadway as depicted is measured from inside of the curb gutter to inside the
opposite curb gutter. The Fire District prefers to have the unobstructed road width be pavement
to pavement with the curb gutters an added appurtenance. If the proposed width is approved,
then the curbs should have the structural capability of handling the imposed loads of the fire
fighting apparatus so that the Aerial can place its outriggers out and allow the passing of other
Fire Apparatus.
. The wheel analysis indicated in the fire truck turning plan does not appear to accurately reflect
the Fire District's aerial apparatus. The turning radius seems to be tight, especially in the
southern portion of the access ways. The curb near the southeast entry appears overly tight.
Sopris Engineering has agreed to update its analysis based on additional information regarding
the fire apparatus to be provided by the Fire District.
. Observations of similar uses within the Town of Basalt and the industrial park adjacent to this
property indicate a significant amount of tractor-trailer vehicle use for deliveries. Potential
emergency scenarios are accidents and spills created during the off-loading of supplies and
equipment from delivery vehicles. The Town of Basalt has made suggestions ofloading zone
applications that can effectively provide the fluid movement of traffic and parking. Allowing
the use of propane delivery vehicles and bulk fuel delivery trucks are inappropriate with this
subdivision and alternatives should be discussed.
. An emergency access drive has been added at the southeast section of the site. The District
recommends that this roadway be appropriately signed indicating it is for emergency use only
and which meets the design criteria in the International Fire Code. Covenant provisions should
stipulate that this roadway is not to be utilized for excess snow storage and should be kept clear
at all times.
. The District encourages continued efforts to eventually have a through access to Highway 82.
Having more than one access would significantly increase safety.
. Sprinkler Requirement
. Section XXII, Item 2, of the PUD Guide should be amended to read: "All buildings within the
Willits Bend PUD will be provided with a sprinkler system and all sprinklered areas shall be
designed to comply with NFPA 13, as it may be amendedfrom time to time". Based on the
complex nature of the proiect with its mixed use. potential variety of hazards. condensed
development and density of traffic. the District requests that this be a condition of approval of
the preliminary plan and noted on the final plat.
. The nature of the potential hazards with this mixed occupancy and how it may impact the
occupants is considered a high-risk scenario in the International Building Code and the
International Fire Code. These hazards are dealt with through evaluation of separation,
compartmentalization and the use of fire suppression systems such as sprinklers. Sprinklers [1]
provide advantages to the developer in tradeoffs tow building design including separations and
handling of hazardous materials, [2] are given high precedence in the building codes because
they have been proven reliable to attack a fire at a very early stage, and [3] gives the Fire
District, through the fire department connection, the added benefit of being able to gain control
14
4/25/06
of occupancy very quickly with minimal manpower and equipment.
. Hazardous Material Section XII, Item 3(i), in the PUD Guide
. This Section, titled Storage of Hazardous Materials, is a good effort but needs to be more
definitive with respect to the Building and Fire Code review process. Information from the Fire
Code is provided for future discussion and to illustrate the complexities involved in evaluating
these kinds of occupancies.
. It is the Fire District's recommendation that the number of hazardous material control areas be
limited to seven per lot, and that this be decided prior to preliminary plan approval and stated
in the PUD Guide.
. Construction and Mechanical Methods - The District understands the applicant's desire for
flexibility and architectural license regarding building design, but there are components of building
design that are crucial to safety, health and welfare that should be discussed and appropriately be
made a part of the PUD preliminary plan.
. A general guideline for separation between uses should be discussed, especially from industrial
and residential uses.
. Centralizing like uses may have validity, such as [1] locating control and hot work areas where
they may have common chases for optimum ventilation that can be directed away from other
uses, especially residential, and [2] grouping residential, offices and low impact artist's shops.
. Sharing common control areas, such as storing materials such as lacquer in an area with a
commercial paint hood or wall plenum, would meet the intent of the livelwork concept and
provide a cost/benefit to the operation of the individual businesses.
. Rubbish and disposal handling is a key component of this PUD. Due to the mixed uses, it is
important to evaluate the potential of incompatible wastes being placed temporarily in the same
proximity without protective safeguards.
. Bulk Fuel Storage/Fuel Dispensing - PUD Section XXIII, Item 4 - It is the position of the Fire
District that storage of fuel, as proposed for the purposes of motor vehicle dispensing or otherwise,
is inappropriate for this development site. The District would like to discuss alternatives.
. Technical Assistance - The building and fire codes recognize that no one person has the technical
knowledge to evaluate all of the various operations and uses from a safety standpoint. In cases
where outside expertise is needed for a given scenario, the fire official has the authority to request
outside assistance by qualified persons, acceptable to the fire official, at the owner's expense to
determine the final acceptability of a given use. This should be reflected in the PUD Guide.
. Annual Inspection for General Fire Safety - Once built, these premises should be inspected
annually for general fire safety by the Fire District to ensure building and fire protection systems
are maintained. The management is responsible to insure, at a minimum, annual testing of fire
protection systems. Periodic inspections are required, based on national and local experience
because, even with the best of intention, it is common for uses to have hazardous products in
excess of that allowed for a given location and to generate other potential hazards.
[Letter from Bill Harding, Fire Marshal, dated 7 February 2006]
. The meeting with the Applicant's representatives, Basalt Fire Chief Thompson, John PIano and
Carbondale Fire Marshal Bill Gavette was very positive
. The PUD is essentially experimental for this area and does pose potential challenges from a building
and fire code perspective toward meeting safety and health related objectives. The Applicant's
comments are compelling regarding justification toward the PUD in providing for economic diversity
for the Basalt area as well as providing for affordable places for locally owned small businesses to
thrive within a live work environment.
. The District has reviewed the revised site plans presented by Sopris Engineering. Sheet 16 depicting
Fire Truck Turning Radius will serve the Fire District needs for access during emergency events. The
bollard configuration and signage for the emergency access is acceptable. The hydrant locations
depicted within these plans are acceptable as well.
. The District has reviewed the PUD Guide revisions that are a result of the meeting and find they
address most of the concerns regarding building and fire code compliance presented within the
District's earlier letter dated 25 November 2005. These concerns included sprinklering of all buildings,
proper handling of hazardous materials for both storage and use, and planning for ventilation
15
4/25106
of potential noxious fumes directed away from residential and other low impact uses and confined to
property of origin. The PUD revisions also appears to address a request for a building permit and
special review process that would allow the building and fire code officials to adequately prepare for
the needs of the varying uses toward compliance and work with the Applicant toward their desired
goal.
. In summary, the PUD request is experimental in nature and presents challenges for the District and the
Applicants toward meeting compliance with the adopted codes of Eagle County. Many of the solutions
toward compliance will most likely be performance oriented, and has application with the present
International Codes Family. The final revisions presented to the District provide key components to
work with toward a safe and hopefully successful development.
Mid-Valley Trails Committee
. The Mid-Valley Trails Committee (MVTC) is concerned about the potential impacts of the proposed
Willits Bend development and strongly urges Eagle County to deny this application so that it will be
reviewed in Basalt, the more appropriate location.
. The site lies in Eagle County, to which the plan has been submitted, but the site is surrounded by Town
of Basalt property. It is Basalt and its residents who will be impacted by 70,000 square feet of new
construction and the attendant traffic congestion, air pollution, and noise that will result from tucking a
large project into a busy location that is already an uncomfortable mix of commercial and residential.
The pedestrian situation on Willits is already inadequately addressed. Trail and other mitigation
measures to protect the health and welfare of Basalt's citizens will be more appropriate if the local
jurisdiction, which thoroughly understands the local issues, has the final say in this review.
. The MVTC asks that the Town, rather than the County, address the impacts that Willits Bend will have
on public safety. The Basalt community should decide what mitigation will truly address the impacts
from this development. The Committee believes, as does County Staff, that the impacted community
should be included in this review and that this application should be coming to the Town of Basalt and
not Eagle County. If the review occurs in Eagle, there will be no televised coverage in Basalt, the
citizens will not have reasonable access to hearings and the community will have to live with
potentially less mitigation than is possible with an annexation.
. There must be mitigation of the impacts Willits Bend will have upon Basalt streets and Basalt citizens.
The affected citizens in the Willits area will only be able to participate in the review of this application
if it is processed by the Town. Please deny this project and sent it to the rightful jurisdiction for review.
Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
. The focus of the NWCCOG review is on water quality protection and includes evaluation of the
drainage, erosion and stormwater control plans.
. Overall, the approach to protecting water quality associated with this development is adequate.
. During the sketch plan review, NWCCOG noted the need for ongoing inspection and maintenance of
the stormwater system proposed for this project. Nothing was seen in the application that addresses this
issue, but it may be in the CCRs. The manufacturer (StormTech) has suggested a maintenance schedule
as well (See the manufacturer's information submitted with the application).
Colorado State Forest Service
. The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has given the Willits Bend development a wildfire hazard
rating ofIow. A low rating means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by
average wildfire activity.
. After development, vegetation on this property will mainly consist of a few landscape trees and
scattered shrubs. These light fuels, along with the absence of any slope, contribute to the low rating.
. However, even with this low rating, CSFS suggests noncombustible roofing materials be used.
Colorado Division of Wildlife
. The site is previously developed land that currently has little wildlife value. Therefore, this
development should have minimal impacts to wildlife.
. Bearlhuman conflicts have been on the rise in the Roaring Fork Valley in recent years. Due to this fact,
it is recommended that residential tenants and restaurants that may be planned for the area should be
16
4/25/06
required to store garbage in wildlife resistant containers.
olorado Geological Survey
[Letter dated 16 November 2005]
. Drainage - The earlier sketch plan application did not include a drainage report. The detention for the
site will be contained in underground chambers. CGS has several question/comments on drainage.
. The Rhino report (Final Drainage Report prepared by Rhino Engineering, Inc.) states "since the
time of concentration of the site decreases with development, the total peak runoffIeaving the site
decreases where offsite drainage is concluded". Can this statement be clarified? Is offsite runoff not
being considered? Why are the offsite basins not included on Figure 3?
. If the dry well retention structures shown on Figures 3 and 4 are the detention chambers, they
should be labeled as such.
. The letter report from Sopris Engineering implies the detention chambers would be used to detain
flows that are above historic rates. The Rhino report states the chambers will temporarily store
runoff volumes from the 25-year storm. If flow from the 25-year storm is meant to equal the runoff
component that is more than historic flown, this should be stated in the Rhino report. Also, there
should be discussion in the Rhino report that historic flows would exit the site through historic
paths, and these paths should be discussed.
. In the Response to Sketch Plan Approval Conditions, there was a comment questioning the
effectiveness of dry wells because of siltation. The response was that a maintenance plan was
provided. Although information on the chambers (attached to the Sopris report) states "the
contractor must apply erosion and sediment control measures to protect the stormwater system",
CGS does not see a maintenance plan in the application.
. Water quality detention for the site should be discussed in more detail.
. A more coherent way to structure the drainage report (the Rhino report) could be to show the 25-
year and lOO-year flows for reach basin in circles or boxes on Figure 3; label the inlets on Figure 3
and discuss in the text which flows would go to which inlets and, ultimately, to which detention
chamber; and discuss in the text how flows would be directed to historic discharge points.
. If basement or garden level construction is planned, the depth to groundwater should be
determined. Ground floors should be a minimum of 4 feet above seasonal high groundwater. Below
grade construction should include a subsurface drainage system that daylights or that discharges to
a sump that could be pumped.
. Soil- It appears that no subsurface investigation has been conducted at the site. While CGS agrees
with the assessment by Yeh and Associates (in a briefIetter dated 2/24/05), the subsurface material at
each building envelope will need to be evaluated through borehole samples or test pit examination.
Samples should be collected and tested so that foundations and floors can be designed accordingly.
Any fill that was placed during the previous development should be confirmed to be of adequate
density if it would be used beneath structural components. Otherwise, it should be over-excavated.
. There are no geological conditions that would preclude development, but the above comments on
drainage and soils should be satisfactorily addressed at this stage of the planning process.
[Letter dated 1 March 2006]
. CGS received the revised Drainage Report from Rhino Engineering. Some of the imput parameters
have been revised, and this revision has subsequently altered the flow calculations and detention
requirements, although not significantly. Sopris Engineering, which is responsible for the design of the
detention chambers, should receive the revised figures so that the chambers could be designed
accurately.
. For the detention-retention chambers themselves, no geotechnical investigation report has been
submitted to CGS that details the subsurface conditions, specifically, the depth to groundwater during
periods of snowmelt and high runoff. The subsurface material should be sampled and evaluated to
confirm that there would be adequate permeability, and the depth to seasonal high groundwater should
be determined to ensure that regional and potential perched groundwater would not interfere with
infiltration.
17
4/25/06
. There should also be a plan for maintenance and silt removal from the chambers, and the responsibility
for maintenance should be assigned.
. If these issues are satisfactorily addressed, CGS has no objection to the proposed project.
Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Eagle County Roa
& Bridge Department, Eagle County Weed & Pest, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation
Specialist, Roaring Fork School District, Mid Valley Metropolitan District, Colorado Department of
Transportation, Colorado Division of Water Resources, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA),
Qwest, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch
PUD:
STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to al/land that is part of a PUD
shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either
through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and
standards of the PUD.
The property is owned by Blue Crow, LLC.
[+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)]
The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person.
STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses
that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300,
"Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industria
Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the
application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f,
Variations Authorized.
The site is presently in the Commercial General zone district. Currently, allowed uses include retail, restaurants,
personal services, offices, industrial, service-commercial, warehouse and public facilities (e.g., parks). These uses
are all allowed as a use by right, as a special use, or as a limited use.
The list of permitted uses in the revised draft PUD Guide includes a number of uses that, while allowed in
accordance with Table 3-310, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule" of the Land Use
Regulations, 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 list of permitted uses-by-right initially proposed in the Preliminary Plan was considerably more extensive and
included a number of uses which would normally require a special use permit due to inherent potentially adverse
impacts and hazards which might be present. The list of proposed uses-by-right has been pared significantly, but
still include certain uses (based on the revised PUD Guide) which DO require special use permits or a limited
review in the Commercial General Zone District but which WOULD NOT require a special use permit or limited
review in this PUD, and include the following:
. All manner of building contractors, including but not limited to builders, electricians,
plumbers, painters, glazing, heating and mechanical, and related material suppliers.
. Residential dwelling units (and live/work units);
18
4/25/06
. Shop for blacksmith, cabinet maker, woodworking, machining, or sheet metal;
. Warehouse or storage (Limited Review).
Performance standards have been included in the PUD Guide intended to minimize potential impacts on adjacent
nd nearby uses. Initially the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District (Basalt Fire) raised a number of safety-
related concerns regarding the potential number and type of uses which may occur in very close proximity without
the benefit of a special use review on an individual basis. However, the Applicant has met with the Fire Marshal
and Eagle County Building Division Staff to consider revisions to the Preliminary Plan which would limit hazards
potentially resulting from the close proximity of uses. Basalt Fire has reviewed the revisions and determined that
they generally satisfy its earlier concerns.
Given the proposed performance standards to mitigate potential impacts of a broad mix of uses in close proximity
and the apparent progress that has been made to better mitigate potential hazards, concerns in this regard have been
significantly reduced. Nonetheless, those uses which would normally require a special use permit (see immediately
above) still warrant further review at the time the specific use is proposed to ensure that all potential impacts and
hazards have been adequately mitigated.
In addition, a number of the uses initially proposed as uses by right have been designated in the revised PUD Guide
as "special review uses", most of which would require a special use permit in the underlying Commercial General
zone district. However, the procedures proposed for these "special review uses" differ substantially from the special
use review procedures established in the Land Use Regulations. Standards for these special use permits proposed in
the revised PUD Guide are significantly less than that which would otherwise be required and limit the use-related
standards to traffic and parking impacts. Other similar standards are also proposed for alteration of building
designs.
It has been the position of the Director of Community Development that the use of "customized" review procedures
in PUD Guides should be discouraged. Rather, the review procedures provided in the Land Use Regulations should
be utilized whenever possible. Recently approved PUD Guides for other developments have relied almost
xclusively on the standard review procedures established in the Land Use Regulations, such as those for Special
Use Permits and Limited Reviews.
The proposed PUD Guide dated March 3,2006, has been revised and now includes appropriate provisions for
considering certain proposed uses per Section 5-300., Limited Review Use.
The Director of Environmental Health notes that it should be clearly stated in the PUD Guide that all existing uses
and structures should comply with Article 6, Nonconformities, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The
proposed PUD Guide has been revised accordingly.
In the referral response from the Town of Basalt, the Town discusses a number of representations made by the
Applicant in joint meetings with the Town Planning and Zoning Commission and the Town Council and requests
that a number of provisions be made conditions of approval of this PUD Preliminary Plan, including:
. Supporting a so-called "120-day 'Marketing Program'" which limits the size of
commercial spaces;
. Providing for incubator spaces for local craftsmen;
. Recognizing that additional work is required by the Applicant on restrictions regarding
combining units;
. Supporting specific building footprints/envelopes and height limits;
. Limiting 1 0 % of ground floor spaces to small residential apartments (Note: It is not clear
whether this represents a minimum limit or a maximum.]
. Supporting certain representations made by the Applicant in meetings with Town officials
regarding restrictions on commercial spaces.
19
4/25/06
[+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)]
The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed,
allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource
Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the
application for PUD.
STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply
to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district
designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional
limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations
shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper
ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings.
Some variations of dimensional limitations are required for this Preliminary Plan. Variations from certain
dimensional limitations may be approved as part of the Preliminary Plan, pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f.,
Variations Authorized, provided that it is demonstrated and the Board of County Commissioners finds that the
Preliminary Plan "achieves one (1) or more [specified] purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary
for that purpose to be achieved". The purposes outlined in this Section are as follows: (a) obtain desired design
qualities, (b) avoid environmental resources and natural hazards, and (c) to provide incentives for (i) water
augmentation, (ii) trails, (iii) affordable housing, and (iv) public facilities.
Most of the variations necessary for the proposed development appear to be reasonable, given the nature of the
development. However, a 25 foot building setback is proposed along Willits Lane. In addition, buildings proposed
adjacent to Willits Lane would be allowed to include as many as three stories, and be 35 feet in height, plus as 10
additional feet for other features. In the traditional zone districts, front street setbacks are 25 feet along local streets
and 50 feet along collector and arterial streets. Although this site is in unincorporated Eagle County, Willits Lane
itself is in the Town of Basalt. Consequently, Eagle County does not classify Willits Lane by street type. However,
it would likely be classified as a collector street and be subject to a 50 foot setback.
Staff's initial determination was that a 25 foot setback was not appropriate along Willits Lane. However, the Town
of Basalt has taken a position that the lesser setback lli appropriate for the proposed use on this site, and the Roaring
Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission did not approve Staff's proposed condition to require a 50 foot
setback. Consequently, Staff is no longer recommending the greater setback.
[+] 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 I, O(fStreet Parking and Loading
Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that:
(a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not
require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents,
guests and employees of the project will be met; or
(b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than
those set by Article 4, Division I, O(fStreet Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may
commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized
bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard.
The types of uses proposed in this development are limited to avoid a situation noted in the sketch plan review that
could have resulted in so much of certain uses which require a relatively large number of parking spaces that
available parking on-site would be exceeded. All on-site parking areas will remain a common element of the
20
4/25/06
development and the use of parking spaces will be restricted such that inoperable vehicles, recreation vehicles,
trailers, trailer trucks and other large vehicles may not be parked for an extended time period.
Maintenance of parking areas along the main north-south street through the site (proposed to be named "Willits
end") will be the responsibility of the Master Association for the development. Even after the right-of-way for this
.treet is conveyed to Eagle County (proposed to occur when Willits Bend is extended to the north to connect to
Highway 82 at Original Road), Eagle County will be responsible only for snow removal for the 26-foot travel lanes.
The Willits Bend Master Association will be responsible for snow removal in the parking spaces along this street.
The Engineering Department notes that accessible parking spaces and ramps are proposed in such a manner that a
person parking in an accessible parking space and using a wheelchair to move around the site would likely be
required to enter into the drive aisle or traffic lane in order to move to a ramp and access the nearest sidewalk. This
presents an unnecessary hazard and the design should be revised. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should
provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings
and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 2]
The Applicant may anticipate that delivery trucks, including tractor-trailers, will be able to load and unload
materials by parking briefly in the drive aisles other than the main north-south thoroughfare and still allow room for
other vehicles to pass. Section 4-120.B., Off-Street Loading Required, provides that "buildings or structures that are
designed 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". No such loading spaces are
provided in this development. While this approach is contrary to the requirements of this Section, it may prove to
be workable with only limited adverse impacts provided that the parking of vehicles to load and unload materials is
not allowed on the main north-south street, that is, Willits Bend Road. The Applicant has incorporated a provision
in the PUD Guide that prohibits parking in the 26 foot drive aisle of Willits Bend Road for loading and unloading.
The Director of Environmental Health notes that it should be clearly stated in the PUD Guide that construction
elated vehicles or equipment may not block or impede the flow of traffic. An appropriate revision has been made
. the proposed PUD Guide.
[+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)]
It HAS been demonstrated that, with the approved conditions, off-street parking and loading provided in the
PUD complies 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 Preliminary Landscape Plan has been provided. However, the Applicant proposes that on-site irrigation will only
be from an on-site well. No information is found regarding the location of the well and the distribution of water
throughout the site. Nor has it been demonstrated that the Applicant has a legal right to use the well water as
proposed. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of
Community Development that adequate water will be legally available for the proposed on-site irrigation.
[Condition # 3]
As a further condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the
development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory
to the County Engineer.
-Condition # 2]
~ he Engineering Department notes that landscaping, including a number trees, are proposed over the area between
Lots 5 and 7 (west side of the main through street), under which is to be located an underground stormwater
21
4/25106
detention facility. Engineering points out that the trees may conflict with the underground stormwater detention
facility, in terms of tree root growth and of maintenance, if it should be required in the future. A revised landscape
plan has been provided, but the Engineering Department has not yet indicated whether it is satisfactory. As a
condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development,
complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County
Engineer. [Condition # 2]
The Applicant has included in the application a proposed draft PUD Agreement which sets forth a number of
proposed provisions regarding the development of the site. PUD Agreements are required to bind the PUD to any
conditions placed in the Resolution and are prepared by the County Attorney rather than the Applicant.
As a specific example, the Applicant has proposed in Section 5 .l.e. that "although dedicated and conveyed to
Eagle County for the benefit of the public, Eagle County shall not be authorized to modify the parking areas,
landscaping, signage, lighting, authorized encroachments, sidewalks, curb and gutter or driving surfaces within
Tract 1 without the prior consent of the Master Association". Tract 1 will include the main north-south street
(Willits Bend Road) through the development. The Engineering Department has taken exception to this restriction.
In addition, the Engineering Department also notes that Section 7.6.a. of the draft PUD Agreement regarding
allocation of parking spaces by the Applicant is potentially problematic.
The Applicant's draft PUD Agreement proposes to reserve certain authority to the Applicant that may not be
appropriate or in keeping with the intent of the approval otherwise of this PUD Preliminary Plan. As a condition of
approval, the Applicant's proposed PUD Agreement should be considered as a proposed agreement and the
provisions therein should not be considered binding on the County unless specifically provided elsewhere.
[Condition # 4]
Nonetheless, as a specific condition of approval, following dedication and conveyance of the Willits Bend right-of-
way to Eagle County to the benefit of the public, Eagle County may at its discretion make changes to the roadway
provided that such changes do not cause a reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces below the requirement
set forth in the PUD Guide. [Condition # 5]
The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission expressed some concern regarding the proposed
landscape plan. The Planning Commission noted that certain of the proposed vegetation species are not appropriate
for an urban setting and that the placement should be reviewed, especially with respect to those in proximity to the
two buildings closest to Willits Lane. However, the Planning Commission did not approve a condition of approval
which addresses this issue. As a minimum condition of approval, no plant materials should be located in such a
manner as to cause a visual or other obstruction as provided in Section 4-230.A.9. Obstructions Prohibited, in the
Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 16
[+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)]
It HAS been demonstrated that the landscaping proposed for the PUD complies with the standards of Article
4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards.
STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in
Article 4, Division 3, Sign ReJ!ulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit
Develovment (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be
suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area 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,
except as the Applicant has otherwise provided and is approved for this PUD. The proposed exceptions to the Eagle
County Sign Code are generally reasonable, with the exception of an entry sign which is proposed to extend over
the right-of-way near the south entrance. Even though the sign is proposed to be a minimum of 15 feet above the
driving surface, allowing such a sign would represent a significant diminishment of the right-of-way otherwise
granted to the County. Right-of-way necessarily implies all the space above the ground. The extension of a sign of
this type into the public right-of way is not known to be allowed for any other County road. The application has
been revised to exclude the proposed overhead entry sign.
22
4/25106
[+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)]
The Applicant HAS demonstrated that signs within the PUD will be as specified in Article 4, Division 3,
Sign Regulations.
STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the
development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water
supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently
located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
[+] Potable water supplv. - Water service will be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. A letter has
been provided which states that the District has to capacity to provide potable water to the site provided that the
Applicant complies with the District's Rules and Regulations, pays any additional water rights dedication fees and
system development fess that may be required by the District.
The Engineering Department notes that all utility services must be terminated within the actual lot boundary. This
comment was provided based on an initial proposal that individual lots would be created on the site rather than the
entire site being condominiumized, as is now being proposed. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the
Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering
and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #
2]
The Engineering Department also notes that it has identified several instances of potential for freezing of water
lines. Appropriate freezing mitigation is required. The Applicant has provided additional information in this regard,
but the Engineering Department has not indicated whether the response is adequate. Consequently, as a condition of
approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete
Igineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer.
~ondition # 2]
[+] Sewage disposal. - Sanitary sewer service will be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. A letter
has been provided which states that the District has the capacity to provide sanitary sewer service to the site
provided that the Applicant complies with the District's Rules and Regulations and pays any system development
fess that may be required by the District.
The Engineering Department notes that all utility services must be terminated within the actual lot boundary. This
comment was provided based on an initial proposal that individual lots would be created on the site rather than the
entire site being condominiumized, as is now being proposed. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the
Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering
and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition #
2]
The Engineering Department also notes that it has identified several instances of potential for freezing of water
lines. Appropriate freezing mitigation is required. The Applicant has provided additional information in this regard,
but the Engineering Department has not indicated whether the response is adequate. Consequently, as a condition of
approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete
engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer.
[Condition # 2]
[+] Solid waste disposal. - It appears that adequate solid waste disposal services are available in the area. The trash
containers proposed for this site are located in such a manner that direct access to the containers is only possible [1]
'hrough several of the adjacent parking spaces, making those spaces unavailable at certain times, or [2] by manually
lling the containers into the drive aisle. The Applicant has indicated that the solid waste pickup firm is agreeable
.0 the need to manually roll the trash containers into the drive aisle.
23
4/25/06
[+] Electrical supply. - Holy Cross Energy will provide electric service to the site. A letter has been provided
which states that Holy Cross Energy has to capacity to provide electric power to the development and that
necessary improvements will be undertaken upon completion of appropriate contractual agreements and subject to
necessary government approvals.
[+] Fire protection. - The site will be served by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District (Basalt Fire). However,
Basalt Fire has previously raised a number of major concerns regarding the intensity of proposed development and
the potential for significant fire hazards which may not be adequately addressed during the development process
proposed by the Applicant. The types of uses that would be allowed in close proximity include a broad range,
including certain "hot work" such as blacksmiths, welders, and pottery kilns, to painting and dry cleaning and other
uses such as woodworking, retail and wholesale, and so on.
The Applicant seeks flexibility to develop the site in response to the market and not be encumbered by the Eagle
County's special use permit review process. (As Staff has noted above, a number of the uses to be allowed in this
PUD would currently require a Special Use Permit in the Commercial General Zone District.) The potential
proximity of such uses, as well as other more people-intensive uses such as retail, office, service commercial,
restaurant and residential, causes concern regarding whether potential, life-threatening impact will be properly
mitigated. As noted above, the Applicant has met with the Fire Marshal and Eagle County Building Division Staff
to consider revisions to the Preliminary Plan which would limit hazards potentially resulting from the close
proximity of uses. Basalt Fire has reviewed the revisions and determined that they generally satisfy its earlier
concerns.
The proposed PUD Guide dated March 3,2006, has been revised and now includes appropriate provisions for
considering certain proposed uses per Section 5-300., Limited Review Use.
Basalt Fire also notes the high preference afforded in building codes to the proven reliability of sprinkler systems to
attack fires at a very early stage, thereby significantly reducing the hazard to people and property. All buildings are
proposed to be provided with a sprinkler system which will be electronically monitored at an approved central
receiving station.
Basalt Fire also notes the potential hazards associated with the handling and storage of hazardous materials, and
states that allowing the use of propane delivery vehicles and bulk fuel delivery trucks are inappropriate with this
subdivision and alternatives should be discussed. The International Fire Code Commentary encourages the use of
"control areas" for the storage of hazardous materials and suggests limits to the number control areas and the
quantity of hazardous materials of various types. Basalt Fire also notes that there are components of building design
that are crucial to safety, health and welfare that should be incorporated in the design of the PUD. The PUD Guide
now provides limits to the number of "control areas" per building and requires ventilation chases to ensure that
ventilation can be directed away from residential and other low impact uses and confined to the property of origin.
Nonetheless, Basalt Fire recognizes that, from time to time, it and other fire districts do not have the technical
expertise to properly evaluate all of the various operations and uses from a safety standpoint. In certain situations, it
is essential to be able to engage outside assistance. The International Fire Code provides for such assistance at an
applicant's expense. The application has been revised to include this suggestion.
[+] Roads. - It is anticipated that semi-trailer trucks will frequently come onto the site for delivery of materials and,
potentially, to pick up materials. The Engineering Department had noted that the truck turning diagram provided for
semi-trailer trucks is not complete, especially with respect to the southeast corner of the site where a turn of
approximately 130 degrees would be required. However, the Applicant has very recently provided a turning
analysis for semi-trailers which now shows that these larger vehicles can negotiate the required turn in this part of
the site.
The Applicant has included in the application what is referred to as a draft PUD Agreement which sets forth a
number of proposed provisions regarding the development of the site. It should be noted that the final PUD
Agreement will be drafted by the County Attorney and mayor may not include some of the provisions proposed by
the Applicant. Nonetheless, the Applicant has proposed in Section 5.1.C. that "although dedicated and conveyed to
24
4/25/06
Eagle County for the benefit of the public, Eagle County shall not be authorized to modify the parking areas,
landscaping, signage, lighting, authorized encroachments, sidewalks, curb and gutter or driving surfaces within
Tract 1 without the prior consent of the Master Association". Tract 1 will include the main north-south street
(Willits Bend Road) through the development. The Engineering Department has taken exception to this restriction.
s a specific condition of approval, following dedication and conveyance of the Willits Bend right-of-way to Eagle
ounty to the benefit ofthe public, Eagle County may at its discretion make changes to the roadway provided that
such changes do not cause a reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces below the requirement set forth in
the PUD Guide. [Condition # 5]
The Applicant proposes that both [1] "non-permanent architectural design features lower than 14 feet above grade,
such as awnings, canopies and other similar features that project from the front of a building" and [2] above-ground
walkways (external to the buildings) be allowed to encroach into the right-of-way which includes the main north-
south street (Willits Bend Road) through the development and the associated sidewalks. Encroachment by non-
permanent features may be appropriate and beneficial, provided that they may be required to be removed, as
needed, on a temporary basis. The presence of permanent structural features, such as walkways external to the
buildings, are not necessarily appropriate in light of potential conflicts with other activities, including maintenance,
that may be required within the right-of-way. In discussions with the County Engineering Staff, the right-of-way
has been modified in a manner that will eliminate the potential conflict.
It may be noted that the Town of Basalt has indicated that it supports the proposed design of Willits Bend Road and
indicates that the streetscape concepts are appropriate for this type of development.
[+] Proximitv to Schools - There are public elementary, middle school and high schools in the area.
[+] Proximitv to Police and Fire Protection, and Emergencv 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 are within a reasonable proximity to the site.
[+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)]
It HAS been clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be
provided adequate facilities for potable water, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, roads
and fire protection.
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) Internal Pathwavs. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient
system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-
site.
(c) Emergencv Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all
lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as
applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency
services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities.
(d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth
traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a
major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual
lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly
25
4/25/06
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 - It has been demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department ani
the Basalt Fire District that large vehicles, including emergency vehicles can safely negotiate the
site.
The Applicant will be required to obtain an access permit from the Town of Basalt for Willits Lane access. The
Town indicates that the permit should be obtained prior to recordation of the final plat. An updated traffic study
will be required and the request for an access permit will be reviewed by the Town's Technical Review Committee
to finalize conditions of approval.
Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, prior to approval of the initial final plat for this development, it should be
demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Engineer that the Town of Basalt has issued an access permit for
Willits Lane. [Condition # 6]
The Town also indicates that it expects that the various transportation improvements it has recommended in its
referral response will be incorporated into a subdivision improvements agreement or development agreement
between the Town and the developer which would be recorded before the final plat is recorded. This would be in
addition to the subdivision and off-site improvements agreement between the Applicant and Eagle County. The
application has been modified to be consistent in most respects with the recommendations of the Town of Basalt.
[+] Internal Pathwavs - Internal sidewalks are proposed to allow movement within the development and to connect
via crosswalk to the regional trail located on the south side of Willits Lane. The internal sidewalk system will
extend to the north property line, beyond which the pedestrian connection could be made to the Willits
neighborhood to the north once the right-of-way to the north is realized.
The Engineering Department notes that accessible parking spaces and ramps are proposed in such a manner that a
person parking in an accessible parking space and using a wheelchair to move around the site would likely be
required to enter into the drive aisle or traffic lane in order to move to a ramp and access the nearest sidewalk. This
presents an unnecessary hazard and the design should be revised. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should
provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings
and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 2]
The Town has also requested that the developer construct an 8 foot pedestrian pathway along the east side of Willits
Bend Road as part of the current development proposal. Staff understands that this refers to a widening of the
sidewalk proposed by the Applicant and shown on plans submitted to date. Staff further understands that the
Applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with all ofthe recommended conditions proposed by the Town of
Basalt, with the exception of one concerning a 5 foot sidewalk along Willits Lane, the specifications of which have
not been finalized. The application has been modified to be consistent in most respects with the recommendations
of the Town of Basalt.
[+] Emergency Vehicles - The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District (Basalt Fire) has previously noted that this
Preliminary Plan application did not provide enough information to adequately determine acceptability of the
preliminary plan proposal. However, additional information subsequently provided by the Applicant has resolved
its concerns in this regard.
Basalt Fire also notes that an emergency access drive has recently been added at the southeast part of the site. The
District recommends that this roadway should be appropriately signed indicating it is for emergency use only, and
covenant provisions should stipulate that this roadway is not to be utilized for excess snow storage and should be
kept clear at all times. The proposed PUD Guide has been revised to adequately address this concern regarding
snow storage, but not explicitly marking the emergency access for emergency use only. As a condition of approval,
the emergency access drive at the southeast part of the site should be appropriately signed, in a manner satisfactory
to the County Engineer, to indicate it is for emergency use only. [Condition # 7]
26
4/25/06
[+] Principal Access Points - The principal access point is from Willits Lane at the south boundary of the site. An
emergency access, also from Willits Lane will be near the southeast corner of the site. As noted above, this access
is to be for emergency use only.
onsistent with the Highway 82 Access Control Plan, a second principal access is contemplated from the north
boundary of the site at such time as a right-of-way is acquired through the properties between this site and the
Original Road - Highway 82 intersection to the north. The Applicant has committed in the application material to
dedicate the right-of-way for the main north-south street (Willits Bend Road) in this subdivision (referred to on the
Preliminary Plat as Tract 1) at such time as the County has secured by dedicated right-of-way or written
commitment to convey a right-of-way within a specified time from one or more property owners immediately north
of the Willits Bend PUD providing such right-of-way is sufficient to allow the extension of the road north to
connect with Valley Road, Original Road and Highway 82.
[+] Snow Storage - Section 4-140.K., Snow Storage, requires that adequate space be provided for storage of snow
removed from pedestrian and vehicular ways, and parking and loading spaces on any property that contains
commercial or industrial uses, multi-family units, or a common outdoor parking area. As a general guideline, and
considering the varying elevations and snowfall amounts, it is anticipated that a minimum area equivalent to 2.5
percent of the total area of required off-street parking and loading area, inclusive of access drives, are to be
designated to serve as a snow storage area. Some snow storage areas are designated on the Development Plan, but
their adequacy has not been demonstrated.
[+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)]
It HAS been demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as
specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access, (b) Internal
Pathways, (c) Emergency Vehicles, (d) Principal Access Points and (e) Snow Storage.
STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed
'r the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
The area to the west of this site is presently multi-family residential. To the east are an RV park and a mobile home
park. To the north is commercial, and to the south (across Willits Lane) is single family residential. Buffering is
proposed in the form of vegetation and fencing. Performance standards will be in effect to reduce adverse impacts
to acceptable levels established in the Land Use Regulations.
The Town of Basalt has requested that a number of conditions of approval be attached to the approval of this
Preliminary Plan, including a requirements that the Applicant develop additional design guidelines to ensure the
scale, mass and general building forms comply with the movie shown to Town officials and with certain sketches
provided by the Applicant.
staff understands that the Applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with all of the recommended conditions
proposed by the Town of Basalt, with the exception of one concerning a 5 foot sidewalk along Willits Lane, the
specifications of which have not been finalized. The application has been modified to be consistent in most respects
with the recommendations of the Town of Basalt.
[+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)]
The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the
Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
~he consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a
oposal 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.
27
4/25/06
EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation Community
Oualitv Recreation Housing Services
Conformance Xl x2 x3 x5 x6
Non
Confonnance
Mixed x'
Confonnance
Not x
Applicable
Xl - Environmental Quality. The proposed development does not adversely affect critical wildlife habitat, surface
and ground quality, or air quality. Development is not proposed in the floodplain.
x2 _ Open Space 1 Recreation. The proposed development would create some open space and would set aside some
land for active use for parks and outdoor recreation.
x3 _ Development. The proposed development would support and encourage the diversity of the County's economic
base and may balance enhancement of the quality of life for residents and visitors with economic development.
x4 _ Affordable Housing. The proposal includes a housing mitigation plan which is not explicitly consistent with the
Housing Guidelines but which may be found to be acceptable as proposed or as revised in discussions with the
Planning Commission and/or Board.
x5 - Transportation. The proposed development would locate new development near existing transit lines, and
thereby promoting public transportation.
x6 _ Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed development is in an area designated as Community Center, and
is consistent with the Future Land Use Map.
MID VALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN
Housing Transportation Community Environment El Jebel /
Facilities Basalt
Conformance Xl x2 x3 x' x5
Non
Conformance
Mixed
Conformance
Not
Applicable
Xl _ Housing. The proposed housing in this development would be adjacent to an existing population center and
includes free market affordable housing. The proposed housing would contribute to greater diversity of housing
types. However, any or all of those units would be built solely at the discretion of the Applicant.
x2 _ Transportation. The proposed development would tend to support mass transportation, and would indirectly
contribute to improvement of existing roadways through road impact fees.
x3 - Community Facilities. The proposed development would result in development in or adjacent to existing
28
4/25/06
community centers, provide mixed use development, and provide compensation for impacts on schools.
x4 _ Environment. The proposed development would limit wood burning in the Mid Valley area.
5 _ El Jebel / Basalt. The proposed development does not conflict with the policies established for the El
ebellBasaIt area.
EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be
a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and
those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are:
. Housing is a community-wide issue
. Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle
County master plan. . .
. Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes
. Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government,
there will be only limited success
. It is important to preserve existing local residents housing
. Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county
. 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 YES NO N/A
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 X
collaboration with the municipalities. . .
3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers X
in Eagle County
4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Xl
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 X
responsibility of . . . employers. . .
6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents X2
7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased
employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- x3
site where feasible, or if not 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 x
10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock x
11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from
having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are x
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
29
4/25/06
Xl - A maximum of 16 residential units are proposed on the site. However, any or all of those units would be built
solely at the discretion of the Applicant. Ifbuilt, at least 20 percent are proposed to be set aside for persons
employed in the Roaring Fork Valley. 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 - A maximum of 16 residential units are proposed on the site. However, any or all of those units would be built
solely at the discretion of the Applicant. Ifbuilt, at least 20 percent are proposed to be set aside for persons
employed in the Roaring Fork Valley.
X 3 - The proposed development may provide on-site local resident housing. The proposal also includes a housing
mitigation plan which is not explicitly consistent with the Housing Guidelines but which may be found to be
acceptable as proposed or as revised in discussions with the Planning Commission and/or Board
[+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]
With the recommended conditions of approval, the PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but
not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary 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 Applicant proposes to provide each
phase with the infrastructure, access, parking, storm water detention, and utilities necessary support that phase.
As a condition of approval, each phase of the development should include all improvements deemed essential by
the County Engineer and the construction plans for any such improvements should be subject to review and
approval by the County Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit for those improvements.
One or more Subdivision and Off-Site Improvements Agreements should be required as deemed appropriate.
[Condition # 8]
[+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)
A phasing plan HAS been provided for this development.
STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the
following common recreation and open space standards.
(a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted
to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD
shall provide a minimum of ten (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-ofways,
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 (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use
Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standan
even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other ope
space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD.
30
4/25/06
(b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the
Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the
development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD.
(c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to
conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the
common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or
covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of
any common open space.
(d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or
nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational
and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance,
administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned,
and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation
shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the
association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD.
This site includes a total of 4.63 acres, or 20 1 ,522 square feet. Under this standard, a total of 68,675 square feet of
common recreation and open space is required. The Applicant calculates that a total of75,979 square feet of
common recreation and open space is provided. Most of this area is around and between buildings, but also
includes 11,680 of "neighborhood parks" and three "internal gathering areas" totaling 8,070 square feet.
The park and open spaces are to be owned as common elements. A Master Association is proposed to enforce the
provisions of the PUD Guide and the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CCRs). The Master Association will
be responsible for managing and maintaining all common open space, parks and recreation areas. No
improvements, other than landscaping, are proposed for these areas.
The Applicant will be required to satisfy the requirements of this Standard regarding continuing use and
maintenance (including appropriate deed restrictions) and organization of the Master Association.
park is proposed on Lot 3 in the northwest comer of the site. However, the Applicant proposes that the park in
this location may not be part of the developed initial phase of improvements. If that is the case, a temporary park
will be constructed closer to the center of the development as shown on the Landscape Plan. In any event, the park
in its permanent location will be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final phase of
development. The Landscape Plan includes a note which addresses the temporary location of the park as the site is
being developed. But the note makes reference to a PUD Agreement drafted by the Applicant which will most
likely differ from that which will be prepared by the County Attorney's Office. To clarify the requirement in this
regard, as a condition of approval, a park, consistent with the proposed Preliminary Plan and satisfactory to the
Director of Community Development, should be constructed no later than the time the first phase of improvements
are completed, the location of which may moved during the construction of subsequent phases, provided that the
park will be completed in its permanent location prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final phase of
development.
[Condition # 9]
[+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]
The applicant HAS demonstrated that the PUD will comply with the common recreation and open space
standards with respect to (a) minimum area, (b) improvements required, (c) continuing use and maintenance;
and (d) organization.
STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the
recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies
as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards.
Ie Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has noted several issues regarding drainage and soils that arise due to an
complete drainage report and related materials. CGS states that these issues that should be satisfactorily resolved
at this stage in the planning process (See letter dated 16 November 2005 from the Colorado Geologic Survey). The
31
4/25/06
Engineering Department notes that the issues raised regarding the location of historic drainage points could alter the
plan and its design, and that these issues need to be addressed. Additional information has been provided and these
concerns have been resolved.
[+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)]
The PUD DOES NOT 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 Develovment Standards.
Article 3, Zone Districts
See discussion above under Uses, Section 5-240.F.3.e (2). The proposed PUD Guide dated March 3, 2006, has been
revised and now includes appropriate provisions for considering certain proposed uses per Section 5-300., Limited
Review Use.
Article 4, Site Development Standards
[ +] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
See discussion above under Off-Street Parking and Loading, Section 5-240.F.3.e (4).
[+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2)
See discussion above under Landscaping, Section 5-240.F.3.e (5).
Lighting on the site is proposed to be in conformance with the lighting standards of the Town of Basalt. The
Town's lighting standards for exterior lighting are more detailed that those of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations and, although no specific analysis has been provided, may in certain respects be more restrictive. The
Town of Basalt requests that the development conform to the Town's lighting standards. Staff understands that the
Applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with all of the recommended conditions proposed by the Town of
Basalt, with the exception of one concerning a 5 foot sidewalk along Willits Lane, the specifications of which have
not been finalized. The application has been modified to be consistent in most respects with the recommendations
of the Town of Basalt.
[+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3)
See the discussion above under Signs, Section 5-240.F.3.e (6).
32
4/25/06
[+/-] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4)
[+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - Th . t 1 . . .
.. The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW)e s\e p;~s:~t y;;;S mmImal ~egetatlOn and little wildlife habitat value.
ork. VaIley in recent yea~s. E\s a .conse~uenc~,o~~o~ r:~:~~~~sc~;a~I:::i~:~~~et::~~::~~~~;~~~:n~O~~ing
eqUlred to store garbage m wIldlIfe resIstant containers The draft PUD GUI.de would req' th t . h
stor ftr h t.d ..' Ulre a any OvernIg t
Site a:~~. as ou SI e must be contamed m wildlife proof trash receptacles in the locations defined in the PUD
[-] ?eoloflic Ha~ards (Section 4-420) -: The C~lorado Geological Survey (CGS) notet several issues regardin
drama~e and so~ls ~hat needed to be sattsfactonly resolved at this stage in the planning process including the g
foIlowmg: [1] slgnIfi.cant cl.arification which is necessary for a number of unresolved issues re~arding off-site
runoff and why off-SIte basms are not fuIly refle~ted in the Drainage Report, [2] the lack of a maintenance plan for
the ~ weIls, [3] the need for a more complete dIscussion which is necessary for the proposed water quality
detentIOn, and [4] whether there has been any fiIl previously placed on this site and whether it is of adequate density
to be used beneath structural components.
In a~dition, CGS notes s~veral other items, including [1] adequate labeling of the drawings, and [2] the need to
prOVIde (a) adequate vertIcal separati~n (minimum of 4 feet) between ground floors of buildings and seasonal high
groundwater and (b) a subsurface dramage system for below grade construction that daylights or that discharges to
a sump that could be pumped.
The report prepared by Rhino Engineering which was initially submitted with this application has been revised and
reviewed by CGS. AIl issues have been sufficiently resolved to allow approval of this preliminary plan. However,
as a condition of approval, prior to approval of a final plat for this development, the Applicant should demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the County Engineer that all issues raised by the Colorado Geological Survey in its letters
dated November 16,2005, and March 1, 2006, have fully addressed and resolved. [Condition # 11]
[+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) gives the site a wildfire hazard
ting of low and anticipates a similar rating even after the proposed landscaping, meaning that structures on the
)perty will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. However, even with this low rating, CSFS
suggests noncombustible roofing materials be used. The proposed PUD Guide has been revised accordingly.
The site will be served by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District, so adequate water should be available to fight
wildfires. In addition to the principal access, an emergency access is provided at the southeast corner of the site.
See also the discussion above under Improvements, Section 5-240.F.3.e (8).
[+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - Solid fuel burning fireplaces will not be permitted within the
development.
[n/a] Rid[!eline Protection (Section 4-450) - This site is not located on land designated on the Ridgeline Protection
Map.
[+] Environmental Imnact Renort (Section 4-460) - An adequate Environmental Impact Report has been provided.
[+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5)
Performance standards (including those related to noise and vibration; smoke and particulates; odors; water quality;
heat, glare, radiation and electrical interference) have been proposed to minimize adverse impacts of any given use
upon adjacent or nearby uses. These standards mirror in most respects the Commercial and Industrial Performance
Standards of this Division. The entire site is now intended to be condominiumized rather than subdivided into a
number of smaller lots which would generaIly correspond to building footprints.
As stated in the PUD Guide, the performance standards are applied at the perimeter of the larger parcel and when
-e are multiple uses in a building, along any waIl of any building from which the potential pollutant (e.g., noise,
ration, odor) emanates. As stated, the standard initially had several shortcomings, including the following:
33
4/25/06
1. It is implied that if a building has only one use, then pollutants need only be measured
at the perimeter of the larger site, allowing excessive pollutants in the designated
"common recreation and open space" around the buildings and in nearby buildings.
2. In a building in which there are multiple uses, pollutants would be measured at the
walls, but not at the floor or ceiling, potentially unduly impacting users above or belo
a source of pollutants.
3. It appears that "outside work spaces" are allowed in relation to outside storage of
products. In this event, pollutants would be measured at the perimeter of the larger site,
again allowing excessive pollutants in the designated "common recreation and open
space" around the buildings and in nearby buildings.
Not all of these shortcomings have been resolved, specifically with respect to buildings with only one use. As a
condition of approval, the Performance Standards set forth in the PUD Guide should be modified, in a manner
acceptable to the Director of Community Development, to adequately mitigate adverse impacts emanating from a
given use upon all adjacent and nearby persons and uses, including those in other buildings within the PUD and in
the designated open space between buildings. [Condition # 10J
In the performance standards proposed in the PUD Guide, outside storage of products produced by businesses,
artists, and craftsmen located in the PUD, and apparently outside work spaces, are permitted, at the discretion of the
Master Association, provided that such storage does not hinder or adversely affect the enjoyment of open space or
pedestrian or vehicle movement. Since most of the space between buildings is designated as "common recreation
and open space", such storage would necessarily occur in areas that have been set aside for the enjoyment of others
working or residing in the PUD, effectively eliminating portions of what has been claimed to be common open
space. The potential for abuse is significant. The proposed PUD Guide now includes a provision that adequately
addresses these concerns.
The Director of Environmental Health notes that several changes to the performance standards proposed in the
PUD Guide should be made, including those regarding outside storage, noise and vibration, and storage of
hazardous materials. While some revisions have been made to bring about the requested changes, not all have been
adequately addressed. As a condition of approval, the PUD Guide should be revised to include the changes set forth
in the memorandum dated November 21,2005, from the Director of Environmental Health.
[Condition # I J
[+/-J Improvement Standards (Division 4-6)
[+J Roadwav Standards (Section 4-620) - It is anticipated that semi-trailer trucks will frequently come onto the site
for delivery of materials and, potentially, to pick up materials. The Engineering Department initially noted that the
truck turning diagram provided for semi-trailer trucks is not complete, especially with respect to the southeast
corner of the site where a turn of approximately 130 degrees would be required. However, the Applicant has very
recently provided a turning analysis for semi -trailers which now shows that these larger vehicles can negotiate the
required turn in this part of the site.
The Applicant will be required to obtain an access permit from the Town of Basalt for Willits Lane access. The
Town indicates that the permit should be obtained prior to recordation of the final plat. An updated traffic study
will be required and the request for an access permit will be reviewed by the Town's Technical Review Committee
to finalize conditions of approval.
The Applicant has included in the application what he refers to as a draft PUD Agreement which sets forth a
number of proposed provisions regarding the development of the site. It should be noted that the final PUD
Agreement will be drafted by the County Attorney and mayor may not include some of the provisions proposed by
the Applicant. Nonetheless, the Applicant has proposed in Section 5.1.e. that "although dedicated and conveyed to
Eagle County for the benefit ofthe public, Eagle County shaH not be authorized to modify the parking areas,
landscaping, signage, lighting, authorized encroachments, sidewalks, curb and gutter or driving surfaces within
Tract 3 without the prior consent of the Master Association". Tract 1 will include the main north-south street
(Willits Bend Road) through the development. The Engineering Department has taken exception to this restriction.
34
4/25/06
,--
As a specific condition of approval, following dedication and conveyance of the Willits Bend right-of-way to Eagle
County to the benefit of the public, Eagle County may at its discretion make changes to the roadway provided that
such changes do not cause a reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces below the requirement set forth in
le PUD Guide. [Condition # 5]
The Applicant's draft PUD Agreement proposes to reserve certain authority to the Applicant that may not be
appropriate or in keeping with the intent of the approval otherwise of this PUD Preliminary Plan. As a condition of
approval, the Applicant's proposed PUD Agreement should be considered as a proposed agreement and the
provisions therein should not be considered binding on the County unless specifically provided elsewhere.
[Condition # 4]
[+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - Internal sidewalks are proposed to allow movement within the
development and to connect via crosswalk to the regional trail located on the south side of Willits Lane. The
internal sidewalk system will extend to the north property line, beyond which the pedestrian connection could be
made to the Willits neighborhood to the north once the right-of-way to the north is realized. No contribution to the
regional trails system was originally proposed. The Mid Valley Trails Committee has provided a referral response
to this application but has not suggested further connections or contribution.
The Town of Basalt has requested that the developer fund certain "at-site" improvements including: a 5 foot
sidewalk adjacent to the property along Willits Lane; concrete crosswalks across Willits Land from the project the
project to the Willits Trail; an illuminated street light at the entrance to the project and Willits Lane. The Town
suggests that these funds would be deposited in a "Basalt fund" at the time of final plat. The Town has also
requested that the developer construct an 8 foot pedestrian pathway along the east side of Willits Bend Road as part
of the current development proposal. Staff understands that this refers to a widening of the sidewalk proposed by
the Applicant and shown on plans submitted to date.
Staff understands that the Applicant has indicated a willingness to comply with all of the recommended conditions
roposed by the Town of Basalt, with the exception of the 5 foot sidewalk along Willits Lane, the specifications of
which have not been finalized. The application has been modified to be consistent in most respects with the
recommendations ofthe Town of Basalt.
The Engineering Department notes that accessible parking spaces and ramps are proposed in such a manner that a
person parking in an accessible parking space and using a wheelchair to move around the site would likely be
required to enter into the drive aisle or traffic lane in order to move to a ramp and access the nearest sidewalk. This
presents an unnecessary hazard and the design should be revised. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should
provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings
and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 2]
[+] Irrigation Svstem Standards (Section 4-640) - The Applicant proposes that on-site irrigation will only be from
on on-site well. No information is found regarding the location of the well and the distribution of water throughout
the site. Nor has it been demonstrated that the Applicant has a legal right to use the well water as proposed. As a
condition of approval, the Applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community
Development that adequate water will be legally available for the proposed on-site irrigation. [Condition # 3]
As a further condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the
development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory
to the County Engineer. [Condition # 2]
[+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) notes several issues regarding
drainage and soils that needed to be satisfactorily resolved at this stage in the planning process. In addition, CGS
notes several other items, the need to provide (a) adequate vertical separation (minimum of 4 feet) between ground
oors of buildings and seasonal high groundwater and (b) a subsurface drainage system for below grade
nstruction that daylights or that discharges to a sump that could be pumped.
35
4/25/06
The report prepared by Rhino Engineering which was initially submitted with this application has been revised and
reviewed by CGS. All issues have been sufficiently resolved to allow approval of this preliminary plan. However,
as a condition of approval, prior to approval of a final plat for this development, the Applicant should demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the County Engineer that all issues raised by the Colorado Geological Survey in its letters
dated November 16,2005, and March 1, 2006, have fully addressed and resolved. [Condition # ll]
The Applicant is proposing an underground storm water detention system. The Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments (NWCCOG) notes that, overall, the approach to protecting water quality associated with this
development is adequate. The need for ongoing inspection and maintenance of the stormwater system was pointed
out by NWCCOG during the sketch plan review. The manufacturer (StormTech) has suggested a maintenance
schedule as well. The Engineering Department has also noted the need for a set, quantifiable maintenance schedule.
While some additional information has been provided in this regard, the Engineering Department has noted that it is
important that a reasonable maintenance schedule be implemented.
As a condition of approval, prior to the approval of any final plat the Applicant should demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the County Engineer that all drainage related issues raised by Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments in its memorandum dated November 21,2005; the Colorado Geological Survey in its letters dated
November 16,2005, and March 1, 2006; and the memorandum from the Engineering Department dated November
23,2005, have been adequately addressed and resolved. [Condition # 11]
[-] Excavation and Grading Standards (Section 4-660) - The County Engineer notes that certain proposed
excavation for retaining walls near both the western and eastern property lines may infringe on the integrity of the
nearby ditch. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat
for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are
satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 2]
The Director of Environmental Health notes that a detailed site plan showing construction staging area( s), a Spill
Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan and a Dust Suppression Plan are necessary prior to any site
disturbance. A revision to the proposed PUD Guide has been made which partially addresses this issue.
Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to any site disturbance, a detailed site
plan showing construction staging area(s), a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan and a Dust
Suppression Plan which have been approved by the Director of Environmental Health. Failure to adhere to these
plans should, at the discretion of the Director of Environmental Health, result in a Stop Work Order. [Condition #
l2]
In addition, the Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) notes that no subsurface investigation has been conducted at the
site. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) notes that the issues regarding drainage and soils needed to be
satisfactorily resolved at this stage in the planning process. While CGS agrees with the Applicant's geotechnical
engineer in a number of respects, CGS recommends that any fill that was placed during the previous development
should be confirmed to be of adequate density if it would be used beneath structural components. Otherwise, it
should be over-excavated.
The report prepared by Rhino Engineering which was initially submitted with this application has been revised and
reviewed by CGS. All issues have been sufficiently resolved to allow approval of this preliminary plan. However,
as a condition of approval, prior to approval of a final plat for this development, the Applicant should demonstrate
to the satisfaction of the County Engineer that all issues raised by the Colorado Geological Survey in its letters
dated November 16,2005, and March l, 2006, have fully addressed and resolved. [Condition # 11]
[+] Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-665) - The County Engineer notes that certain information, including
locations of silt fences, straw bale barriers, vehicle tracking controls and other measures, is not shown on the
erosion control plan. Some additional information has been provided by the Applicant, but the Engineering
Department has yet to indicate whether it is sufficient. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide,
with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings
and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer.
[Condition # 2]
36
4/25/06
The Director of Environmental Health notes that it should be clearly stated in the PUD Guide that all work should
be in accordance with the Erosion Control Standards of this Section. While some revisions have been made to bring
about the requested changes, not all have been adequately addressed. As a condition of approval, the PUD Guide
.0Uld be revised to include the changes set forth in the memorandum dated November 21,2005, from the Director
f Environmental Health. [Condition # 1]
[+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The Engineering Department also notes that it has identified
several instances of potential for freezing of water and sewer lines. Appropriate freezing mitigation is required. As
a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the
development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory
to the County Engineer. [Condition # 2]
[+] Water Supplv Standards (Section 4-680) - The Engineering Department also notes that it has identified several
instances of potential for freezing of water lines. Appropriate freezing mitigation is required. As a condition of
approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the development, complete
engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer.
[Condition # 5]
[+] Sanitary Sewage DisDosal Standards (Section 4-690) - The Engineering Department also notes that it has
identified several instances of potential for freezing of sewer lines. Appropriate freezing mitigation is required. As a
condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the initial final plat for the
development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory
to the County Engineer. [Condition # 2]
[+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7)
r +] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) - At the discretion of the Applicant, as many as l6 dwelling
tits may be built on the site. Given the nature of the site, the school land dedication requirement will be satisfied
ith a payment of cash in lieu. The Applicant will be required to conform to the requirements of this Section.
[+] Road Impact Fees (Section 4-710) - The Applicant will be required to conform to the standards of this Section.
The Town of BasaIt has requested that all road impact fees be passed on to the Town for off-site improvements to
the Town's transportation system, including but not limited to additional pedestrian connections from the Willits
Bend PUD to the existing RFTA bus stops on Highway 82 and the future implementation of the Town's Willits
Lane Master Plan. This is consistent with an existing Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town and Eagle
County.
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)]
It HAS NOT been fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards 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 Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be
located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services,
or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
(a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's
service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan.
Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle Countv 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.
37
4/25/06
No inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or duplication or premature extension of public
facilities, will result from the proposed development, nor will the proposed development result in a
"leapfrog" pattern of development.
[+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)]
The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies
in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result
in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided
shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made
hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public
improvements to the area.
With the recommended conditions of approval, the property is suitable for development, considering its
topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards.
[+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)]
The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography,
environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the
property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be
compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
The area to the west of this site is presently multi-family residential. To the east are an RV park and a mobile home
park. To the north is commercial, and to the south (across Willits Lane) is single family residential. Given the
nature of the development and the proposed landscape and other buffering, the proposed subdivision will be
compatible with the surrounding uses.
[+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)]
With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of
existing land uses in the area and WOULD NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding
area.
ADDITIONAL FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the
following: A Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions.
A draft PUD Guide has been provided with this application which is generally appropriate for the proposed PUD.
However, the proposed PUD Guide establishes as a matter of zoning specific addresses for the buildings within
the development. The County's customary practice is to use addresses assigned in coordination with the Eagle
County E-9-1-1 Coordinator. . As a condition of approval, the PUD Guide should be revised to delete any
assignment of street addresses. [Condition # 13]
With the recommended conditions discussed above, this requirement has been met.
[+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)]
With the recommended conditions of a roval, the A licant HAS submitted a pun Guide that
38
4/25106
demonstrates that the requirements of this Section have been fully met.
Requirements for a Zone Chan2e The following findings are based on the proposed development if it were to be
revised to conform to the recommended conditions of approval.
NOTE: This application is being reviewed with respect to the zone change standards in effect at the time the
application for a zone change was determined to be complete.
(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 be compatible
with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed
conditions of approval, it MAY 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 MAYbe changed conditions that require an amendment to
modify the present zone district and/or its density/intensity;
(4) [+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment MAY NOT result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from
development under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise,
stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands.
(5) [+] Community need. It MAY be demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a
community need.
(6) [+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment MAY result in a logical and orderly
development pattern, MAY NOT constitute spot zoning, and MAY logically be provided
with necessary public facilities and services; and
(7) [+] Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply MAY have
changed or MAYbe changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage
a new use or density in the area.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
Housin2 Guidelines. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048
adopting Housing Guidelines to establish a framework for discussion and negotiation of applicable housing
criteria. The Housing Guidelines were subsequently amended on July 12, 2005, by Board Resolution 2005-90
The Applicant proposes to have as many as 16 dwelling units on the site averaging 1,500 square feet, including at
least four livelwork units of 500 square feet each. It appears that only the four smaller live/work units will be
restricted, and that would be in regard to employment in the Roaring Fork Valley. The Town of Basalt has
requested that a number of provisions be incorporated into the development which are intended to ensure the
development is built in accordance with the Applicant's vision. The application has been modified to be consistent
in most respects with the recommendations ofthe Town of Basalt.
The Applicant further proposes two alternative approaches to addressing local resident housing needs generated by
the development. The first alternative would involve a graduated real estate transfer assessment on the sale of any
condominium space within the development. The assessment rate would be 5 percent of the sales price if sold
within one year of the previous purchase, 4 percent if sold between one and two years of the previous purchase, and
o on until the end of the fourth year. After year four, the assessment would remain at 1 percent. The Applicant
estimates that, at a price of $300 per square foot, each turnover of all units in the development would generate
$275,000 in real estate transfer fees. If this alternative is accepted, no additional resident housing mitigation would
39
4/25/06
be required.
The second alternative would involve a combination of [I] payment of cash in lieu housing and [2] a limited
restriction of the allowed sales price of at least 10 percent of the commercial/retail space in the development.
The Applicant proposes to calculate the in lieu amount based on the provisions of the current Housing Guidelines
with the exception of the rate of mitigation, which would be based on the 10 percent mitigation rate of the earlier
Housing Guidelines which were in effect at the time the PUD Sketch Plan was approved. The Housing Guidelines
approved in 2005 provides that payments in lieu of housing are to be made at a 30 percent mitigation rate.
The Applicant is also taking the position that the strict application of the employee generation rates set forth in the
Housing Guidelines is not appropriate for this project. The Applicant has cited the actual number of employees in
the existing business on this site (Aspen Cabinet and Millwork) and what he believes are unique characteristics of
the retail and light industrial uses anticipated in this development and has established his own land use categories
and employee generation rates, the latter apparently based on limited observation and somewhat subjective
judgment, as opposed to the data in the Nexus/Proportionality Analysis for Employee Housing Mitigation Programs
prepared for Eagle County in 2001. The Applicant's resulting calculation for a payment in lieu for local resident
housing is a total of $379.136.86.
A preliminary calculation of payment in lieu prepared by the Eagle County Housing Department results in a
payment in lieu of $855.968.40. That calculation would need to be finalized at the time the payment is made.
The Applicant proposes that all funds thus generated by either alternative would be used to "provide funding for
attainable resident housing in the Roaring Fork Valley and for other public purposes", and initially proposed that
the funds be paid and made available to the Mountain Regional Housing Corporation. The Town of Basalt has now
requested that the fees generated by this option be paid directly to the Town for use in the Town's affordable
housing programs within Eagle County. The Eagle County Housing Director has indicated a preference for the
funds to be paid to the Mountain Regional Housing Corporation since that organization currently has affordable
housing projects under way. However, direct payment to the Town of Basalt may be acceptable if the funds are
adequately escrowed for affordable housing purposes.
However, in any event, the Board should make an explicit determination as to the disposition of any real estate
transfer assessments or payments in lieu. Consequently, for purposes of discussion, as a condition of approval, all
real estate transfer assessments and/or payments in lieu of housing should be paid in a manner determined by the
Board of County Commissioners. [Condition # 14]
Regarding the second part of this second alternative, that is, the limited restriction of the allowed sales price of at
least lO percent of the commercial/retail space in the development, the Applicant proposes that the sales price of
commercial/retail space sold within five years ofthe previous sale would be allowed to increase based on the
previous sales price adjusted based on the greater ofthe Consumer Price Index or 4 percent. After five years, the
sales price would no longer be restricted. Planning Staff sees no employee housing mitigation value to this
component and has not factored it into the analvsis.
DISCUSSION:
Chairman Runyon stated that he was not a Commissioner during the sketch plan and as such he would like
to see the site to get a feel for the neighboring property configuration and then decide if the use would be consistent
with adjoining property uses.
Commissioner Stone stated that he didn't think this would be appropriate and suggested that Commissioner
Runyon visit the property on his own. For the benefit of the applicant he is not in favor of delaying the process
further.
Chairman Runyon stated that he would like to have a hearing on the Roaring Fork side of the county. He is
concerned and would like to have this project annexed to the Town of Basalt. He believes a hearing should take
place in EI Jebel for public input opportunities.
Commissioner Menconi asked if Chairman Runyon had reviewed the original minutes and file information.
40
4/25/06
He wondered what Chairman Runyon's comments meant.
Chairman Runyon indicated that he feels the hearing should be in EI Jebel and he believes at a previous
meeting strong direction was given for the applicant to proceed with the attempt to be annexed into the Town of
Basalt.
Commissioner Stone stated that this should have been communicated prior to today's meeting. When
arings have occurred in the Roaring Fork Valley it has only been with files that are controversial in some way.
Normally the hearing on that side of the county occurs first. What Chairman Runyon is suggesting would require
two additional meetings. He believes that government should operate as efficiently as possible. He reiterates that
he visits the sites he wants to see on his own. He will vote against a tabling of the file to accommodate a hearing on
the Roaring Fork side of the county.
Chairman Runyon stated that it has been understood in the past that the Board of County Commissioners
could only make a decision in Eagle and he doesn't believe this is based on Statutes.
Walter Mathews stated that the Attorney's Office was not able to verify that this is or is not the case.
Commissioner Stone stated that this decision should be made outside of this meeting. He believes the
applicant was asked to communicate with the Town of Basalt it was not a demand that they should annex into the
Town of Basalt.
Mr. Mathews asked if the sketch plan meeting was the meeting that Chairman Runyon had missed.
Commissioner Menconi indicated an interest in hearing the file to accommodate everyone's needs. The
original meeting was held in EI Jebel and he is aware that there has been good communication with the Town of
Basalt related to this project. He is comfortable with the way the process has been presented.
Commissioner Stone suggested hearing the file and if there are still questions afterwards he would consider
supporting a tabling for Chairman Runyon to see the site on his own. This would eliminate a decision immediately
however. He asked everyone to keep an open mind.
Chairman Runyon and Commissioner Menconi agreed to hear the file.
Mr. Forinash presented his PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included highlighted maps and
photos of the proposed development. The right of way would remain a private road, but the applicant is committed
to dedicating the right of way through the site to the county. Parking is proposed to be on street and parking areas
rround the perimeter of the site. There would be more than 25% open space around buildings and small parks.
oposed uses includes commercial, light industrial and residential. The applicant is working with Basalt Fire to
ddress potential safety concerns. Staff proposes a limited review process instead of special use permits for each
individual type of unique use. There is a 25 foot setback from Willits Lane. The Town of Basalt was satisfied with
this setback as opposed to the traditional County 50 foot setback. He showed the phase in plan, but indicated that
the applicant does have some flexibility with this plan. He reviewed the Town of Basalt key points of discussion
which included support for the project and its affordability, support for a maximum of 24,000 square feet of
housing with maximum per unit size of 3000 square feet. The Town of Basalt requested certain improvements,
including on-and off-site pedestrian improvements and that off-site impact fees paid to Town. An Access permit
from the Town would also be required for Willits Lane. The Town would not force annexation, but would be
receptive to discussions with the applicant. The issue of fees related to affordable housing would be discussed
further. The town recommended that these fees be paid to the Town for its affordable housing programs. The
applicant has proposed two alternatives to address the housing impacts which are separate from the 16 housing
units on site.
. The first Alternative includes a graduated real estate transfer assessment decreasing from 5% to 1% over 5
years. They applicant estimates $275,000 in fees at each complete turnover - based on $300.00 per square
foot.
. The second Alternative would be a payment in lieu, except the mitigation would be at 10% rate rather than
at 30% and using the applicant's employee generation rates rather than those in the housing guidelines.
The applicant calculates payment in lieu of$379,136 as opposed to the housing department's
recommendation of $855,000, which is subject to adjustment as guidelines are revised.
The applicant and the Town of Basalt requested that affordable housing monies be used for this type of housing on
the Roaring Fork side of the county.
Mr. Forinash indicated that all findings were positive and staff recommended approval. He reminded the
Board that there were two files, one a zone change and the other a PDP preliminary plan and two motions were
quired.
Glen Rappaport, architect for the project was present along with Steve Crowley the owner, and Dave Myler
the land use attorney. He believes the project represents a good idea. They have received a unanimous approval
41
4/25/06
from the Roaring Fork Planning Commission. They have worked closely with the neighbors. It took 9 months to
coordinate the efforts for the project with the Town of Basalt. They have tried to go through a positive process with
the town to incorporate their concerns. He pointed out that the option of the 5% to 1 % repeats as the project is
turned over. There are four units which are restricted to resident occupied units. He believes this project could
become a model for other developments.
Doug Dodsen, planner for the file spoke to the Board. He reiterated that they are trying to build a good
project. There has been good dialog between the Town, County and the applicant. They have had conversations
with the neighbors too. Initially the street was an issue. The applicant worked with everyone to develop a street
design which would meet transportation needs, needs of the county and the needs of the existing residents. There is
currently a 5 foot grade difference between their property and the property to the north. He believes the parking
issue raised initially has been addressed and resolved. They tried to come up with a design that would minimize the
impacts on the surrounding neighbors. He stated that the applicant had tried to consider the future of the area.
They have set up easements that could connect to the surrounding areas to address emergency access in the future.
The Town of Basalt approves of the project. He showed a movie of the proposed project which had been shown to
the interested parties to indicate the overall character of the project. They are in agreement with the conditions of
the staff.
Commissioner Stone stated that perhaps public comment should be covered.
David Myler, attorney for the applicant spoke to the Board. He spoke about the affordable housing part of
the project. He spoke about the local resident housing and commercial attainability program. He spoke about these
two issues congruently. They tried to make the program fit with the project itself. The program starts with a
commitment to providing funding to traditional housing solutions. They initially considered providing housing on
site and there will indeed be 4 ofthese units, but they are proposing to satisfy most of the housing conditions
through a payment in lieu program. Willits Bend is primarily about a place to work, secondly about a place to live
and work and really isn't a place to live and not work. Either of the two previously presented alternatives are
acceptable to the applicant. The graduated real estate transfer assessment option would provide a reliable and
steady source of revenue for housing purposes. This not only applies to the residential but the commercial and
combination properties. This should produce a substantial source of revenue.
Chairman Runyon wondered how this would work within the Tabor restrictions (Taxpayer's Bill of
Rights).
Mr. Myler indicated that this will be carefully structured as a private covenant obligation as opposed to a
tax. The title companies would collect the assessment at the time of closing and remit the money to the county.
Commissioner Menconi stated that a developer could create their own transfer tax.
Commissioner Stone indicated that both Brett Ranch and Riverwalk have these types of taxes as well. The
monies collected can be spent without restriction. This is not a transfer tax, but a transfer assessment. The
difficulty comes during the remittance of the funds to the county. The fact that this is being offered by the
developer and not mandated by the county makes it exempt from the Tabor restrictions. It would be similar to a fee
in lieu situation.
David Myler stated that he believes this option offers advantages to the county because it continues in
perpetuity. They anticipate that at the 1% rate it would generate $250,000 in revenue, and each turnover would
generate another $275,000.00.
Commissioner Menconi asked about the graduated scale of transfer tax.
Mr. Myler stated that the graduation would occur after the initial sales were completed. All initial sales
would be assessed 1 % of the sales fee.
Commissioner Stone liked the concept, but wondered who would administer this type of program. He has
had difficulty with local title companies assessing complicated fees. Once the title companies understood that if
they didn't collect these fees they would be responsible, they remembered to collect the fees. He wondered how the
title company would keep track. He suggested that the housing department would have to keep track of the fees.
He is concerned because the rate is variable instead of fixed. He asked that all of these details be laid out.
Mr. Myler indicated that the county would need to be involved in the coordination. He also indicated that
there would have to be a homeowner's association. He encouraged the county to give this plan consideration.
They are prepared to go with the payment in lieu following the requirements of the guidelines which were
previously in place when the sketch plan was approved. They are voluntarily imposing a number of restrictions
and ask for consideration due to this fact as well. It is up to the board to consider the alternative. They feel it
would be appropriate to direct funds collected to projects in the Roaring Fork Valley. They propose resale price
and rental restrictions, "Live / Work" units, provisions for incubator spaces, and are imposing a marketing program
42
4/25/06
to provide small businesses the first opportunity to buy spaces. They are discouraging flipping. There is no limit as
to sales price or income limit for the buyer. Incubator spaces include small spaces for start up businesses; 6 spaces
of approximately 1000 square feet which could not be combined with more than one adjacent space to create a total
of 2000 square feet. The marketing program would provide the target market with the first opportunity to buy
aces in the building. For the first 120 days no one would be allowed to buy more than 3000 feet in anyone
uilding. None of the residential spaces would be sold to anyone who was not also buying one of the commercial
spaces. No more than 10% of the first floor can be residential.
Glen Rappaport stated that the developer had considered the ways in which the project is viable. They
believe it will attract artisans and craftsmen.
Mr. Mathews asked about the restrictions and whether there would be covenants or deed restrictions.
Mr. Mylar indicated that they're would be a combination of the two.
Mr. Mathews stated that Eagle County has had a policy of not enforcing private covenants on associations.
Doug Dodsen stated that on page 26 of the PUD document they have incorporated the terms into the PUD
guide to cover these restrictions.
Mr. Mylar stated that the reason these would not be put in the master declaration is due to the fact that the
County does not enforce declarations.
Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment as there was none.
Chairman Runyon asked about the mitigation for housing. He understands the concept and likes the idea,
but he believes there is a greater need in the County for housing than jobs. He asked about the 10% mitigation and
wondered what Basalt requires in terms of mitigation.
Mr. Mylar stated that Basalt's mitigation rate is 20% and Aspen's is based on a 65% of job generation.
Chairman Runyon wondered how property tax would be dealt with.
Mr. Mylar indicated that the units that are purely residential would be classified that way and the live/work
would be segregated on some basis for assessment purposes.
Chairman Runyon wondered why annexation to Basalt has not been sought.
Mr. Mylar stated that this is a bit of a misnomer. Negotiations with the Town had taken place and the
nclusion was that annexation was not desirable or in the best interest of the Town or the applicant. He believes
e town recognizes that the process has been in the works for a long time and the approval process would have to
be restarted completely.
Chairman Runyon asked if the applicant had ever considered making the project completely residential.
Mr. Mylar stated that they had not. These types of sites are disappearing rapidly.
Steve Crowley stated that when he bought the property in 1987 he went to lengths to get an original signed
letter from Eagle County ensuring him that the property was zoned commercial general. It also included 25% more
density than is being requested. They have never considered residential.
Chairman Runyon wondered if the applicant had any idea of how many employees will be expected to
come in and out of the project at build out.
Mr. Crowley stated that they had done estimates, and also that the units are combinable.
Mr. Mylar stated that they had prepared calculations, and that they estimated that there could be 154
employees with all of the uses.
Mr. Rappaport stated that all requirements of the County code had been followed and he believes there is
some excess quantity of parking available. He stated that every area has its issues. He believes there is a dire need
for the type of space they are proposing.
Chairman Runyon indicated that there is much about the project that seems advantageous, but he since he
hasn't seen the property he is inclined to refrain from voting.
Commissioner Menconi wondered whether to proceed or ask for a tabling request from the applicant.
Commissioner Stone was in favor of this project and complimented the applicant for their creative thinking
and he was excited about the space which is pro business and pro housing. He complimented them for their
voluntary restrictions. The only restriction he requests was related to real estate transfer assessments. His vote
would be for the variable rate scale of transfer fees and adopting all of the voluntary restrictions. He was concerned
with the administration, but if the applicant could come up with a process for administration which isn't
rdensome to the County. It would ease his concerns if the transfer fee went directly to the County. He suggested
at these funds be reinvested to the maximum extent possible in the Roaring Fork Valley of Eagle County.
Commissioner Menconi stated that he also likes the project and the live/work opportunity. He was a little
43
4/25/06
concerned about condition l4. He wondered if alternative two codified the restrictions in the location.
Mr. Mylar indicated that all of the things listed under restrictions and limitations would apply with either
funding option.
Commissioner Menconi wondered if a hybrid between the two could be negotiated. He sees the advantages
and disadvantages of a 5% fee. It stops flipping but passes the burden to the purchaser. He asked about going wit]
a $379,000 fee and then creating a real estate transfer assessment of 1 %. He is very intrigued by the real estate
transfer assessment but doesn't want to be administering this 15 years down the road.
Mr. Mylar stated that it seemed like a wise compromise.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. ZC-00076 incorporating staff findings.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Chairman
Runyon abstaining from voting.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve File No. PDP-00032, incorporating staff findings and with the
following conditions:
1. The PUD Guide shall be revised to include the changes set forth in the memorandum dated
November 21,2005, from the Director of Environmental Health.
2. The Applicant shall provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete
engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the
County Engineer.
3. The Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development
that adequate water will be legally available for the proposed on-site irrigation.
4. The Applicant's proposed PUD Agreement shall be considered as a proposed agreement and the
provisions therein shall not be considered binding on the County unless specifically provided
elsewhere.
5. Following dedication and conveyance of the Willits Bend Road right-of-way to Eagle County for
the benefit of the public, Eagle County may at its discretion make changes to the roadway provided
that such changes do not cause a reduction in the number of on-site parking spaces below the
requirement set forth in the PUD Guide.
6. Prior to approval of the initial final plat for this development, it shall be demonstrated to the
satisfaction of the County Engineer that the Town of Basalt has issued an access permit for Willits
Lane.
7. The emergency access drive at the southeast part of the site shall be appropriately signed, in a
manner satisfactory to the County Engineer, to indicate it is for emergency use only.
8. Each phase of the development shall include all improvements deemed essential by the County
Engineer and the construction plans for any such improvements shall be subject to review and
approval by the County Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit or grading permit for those
improvements. One or more Subdivision and Off-Site Improvements Agreements shall be required
as deemed appropriate.
9. A park, consistent with the proposed Preliminary Plan and satisfactory to the Director of
Community Development, shall be constructed no later than the time the first phase of
improvements are completed, the location of which may moved during the construction of
subsequent phases, provided that the park will be completed in its permanent location prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the final phase of development.
10. The Performance Standards set forth in the PUD Guide shall be modified, in a manner acceptable
44
4/25106
to the Director of Community Development, to adequately mitigate adverse impacts emanating
from a given use upon all adjacent and nearby persons and uses, including those in other buildings
within the PUD and in the designated open space between buildings.
11. Prior to the approval of any final plat the Applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
County Engineer that all drainage related issues raised by Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments in its memorandum dated November 21,2005; the Colorado Geological Survey in its
letters dated November 16,2005, and March 1,2006; and the memorandum from the Engineering
Department dated November 23,2005, have been adequately addressed and resolved.
l2. The Applicant shall provide, prior to any site disturbance, a detailed site plan showing construction
staging area(s), a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan and a Dust Suppression Plan
which have been approved by the Director of Environmental Health. Failure to adhere to these
plans shall, at the discretion of the Director of Environmental Health, result in a Stop Work Order.
13. The PUD Guide shall be revised to delete any assignment of street addresses.
14. All real estate transfer assessments and/or payments in lieu of housing shall be paid in a manner
determined by the Board of County Commissioners. This would include a housing payment of fee
in lieu of $379, 136.86 and a real estate transfer assessment of 1 % on the sale of the properties
payable to the county in perpetuity. The County would collect the dollars and determine at a later
date how to disperse the monies.
15. 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
approval.
[NOTE: The following condition has been added based on concerns expressed by the Planning Commission
t its hearing on these applications.]
16. No plant materials should be located in such a manner as to cause a visual or other obstruction as
provided in Section 4-230.A.9. Obstructions Prohibited, in the Land Use Regulations.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Chairman
Runyon abstaining from voting.
Earth Day Poster Contest Awards Presentation
Ray Merry, Environmental Health
Mr. Merry introduced the program. He stated that the kids will be an important part of the future for the
environment. Last week the Board of County Commissioners declared "Earth Awareness Week" so that people
would think about the little things they could do to positively impact the environment. He introduced his staff who
worked hard on the program as well; Allen Patterson, Laura Fawcett, Terry Vroman and Lauren Brinker. He also
introduced Cliff Simonton who will frame the winning poster.
The Commissioners presented the winners. The third prize went to Avon Elementary student, Ashley
Pereida, second prize to Eddie Villa and first prize to Jesus Bustillos. All prize winners received an Earth Day T-
shirt and two movie tickets. St. Clair of Assisi awards went to: third prize, Areli Clark, second prize went to
Denisse Holguin, and first prize to Nicole Affleck. Vail Academy third prize went to Shelly Applegate, second
prize to Rachel Wong, and first prize went to Thos Halmi. Gypsum Elementary third prize was awarded to Halie
A. Lengel and Reagen Gass, second prize was awarded to Lane Smith, and first prize was awarded to Mikayla
roomfield. Edward's Elementary School third prize was awarded to Anais Torres, second prize was awarded to
ladys Villa, and first prize went to Samantha Hancock. The grand prize was awarded to Jose Rivera from
Edward's Elementary.
45
4/25/06
There being no further business befor~/~~.~ meeting was adjourned until May 2, 2006.
~,~ ~f'/i{'14r\~;\~
O'~~ -,/ .' .~.; \, ~\}Y,j.'~.~ ..A
Clerk to the Board "1~ (':'.::.::>"-q '.{/ Chairman
~~:"<~:~~~~,~:,:-~:~..~~~.~
Attest:
46
4/25/06