Loading...
Minutes 08/26/08 PUBLIC HEARING August 26, 2008 Present: Peter Runyon Sara Fisher Am Menconi I Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy 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. Special Recognition Jennifer Cuevas, Deputy Registrar Eagle County Vital Statistics Ms. Cuevas explained her position with the county. She spoke of a current case in which she had a mail-in request for a birth certificate, which happened to be a kidnapping case. She forwarded the information to the state office and ultimately prevented the minor child from being taken out of the country illegally. Commissioner Fisher stated the importance of her position and thanked her for safeguarding the health and safety of others in Eagle County. Commissioner Menconi thanked Ms. Cuevas for protecting the life of a young child. Chairman Runyon presented Ms. Cuevas with a certificate of appreciation. 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 August 25,2008 (subject to review by the finance director) Finance Department Representative B. Agreement between Eagle County and Terri Allender to Provide Family Services Rachael Borre, Health & Human Services C. Resolution 2008-101 for Release of Assignment of Certificate of Deposit No. 3536811876 for Road Cut Permit No. 3563 for Contract One, Inc. County Attorney's Office Representative D. Consulting Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Design Workshop, Inc. for the Jobs Housing Balance Analysis Housing & Development Representative E. Cost - Plus - Fee Construction Agreement between Eagle County Colorado and Schreiner and Associates, LLC for the construction and renovation of the Division of Wildlife residence in Basalt, Colorado Facilities Management Representative 1 08/26/08 F. Minor Type B Subdivision / Eagle-Vail Subdivision, Filing 1, are-subdivision of Lot 110, Block 3(Eagle County File No. 5MB-00439) Bob Narracci, Community Development G. Minor Type B Subdivision / Belle Tarre re-subdivision of Lot 1 (Eagle County File No. 5MB-1381) Sean Hanagan, Community Development I Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes to the consent agenda. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-G. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed Public Input, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as County Board of Equalization. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Signing of the 2008 Abstract of Assessment Mark Chapin, Assessor Mr. Chapin reported that the assessed value increased from $3,124,113,490 to $3,189,079,150 ofthat $44,575,000 was wrapped up in tax increment financing between the Town of Avon and Vail. New construction was $128, 888,207. Commissioner Fisher referenced a recent newspaper article that talked about the property tax assessments and how it would relate to 2009. Mr. Chapin stated that it would depend on mill levies, which in the past had gone up marginally. Chairman Runyon asked when the mill levies would be set. Mr. Chapin stated that timing would depend on each of the boards. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Chapin to address some of the concerns and questions that had been in the newspaper frequently. Mr. Chapin stated that the view presented by the Tax Payers for Common Sense was that there wasn't enough information leading up to the increase in property tax and it came as a surprise to many. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Chapin if the last 4 years were unique in terms of county assessment. Mr. Chapin stated that the county saw an average of 38% increase in property value. Mesa and Pitkin County saw similar increases. He stated that the market increased significantly over the last few years. Commissioner Fisher moved to accept the 2008 Abstract of Assessment and authorize the chair to sign the abstract of assessment for submittal to the State of Colorado Property Tax Administrator. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the County Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 08/26/08 Planning Files Eagle County Room ZS-00175 AT&T Eae:le County Landfill Collocation Lisa de Graaf, Planning ~epartment I ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is to extend the county's Emergency Management tower 10' and add a 12'x20' aggregate veneered shelter. LOCATION: Wolcott FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF PLANNER: ZS-00175/ Special Use Permit AT&T Eagle County Landfill Collocation 2250 Highway 131 , Wolcott Eagle County AT&T Wireless Mike Sharlow Lisa de Graaf 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: A Special Use Permit is requested by AT&T Wireless to permit a 10 foot extension and AT&T Wireless antennas to Eagle County Emergency Management's existing 42 feet tower and also add a 12'x20' prefabricated equipment shelter. This is an unstaffed wireless facility consisting of antennas, and related equipment As AT&T Wireless builds out its' cellular network from Denver west along the 1-70 corridor, the site located at the Eagle County Landfill, as an existing communications facility, is available for collocation and would meet AT&T's objectives for expanding coverage. This site and use was approved as a Special Use Permit by Resolution 2007-97, however as conditioned, a new Special Use Permit is required to increase the height of the tower and/or expansion of the equipment shelter. B. SITE DATA: South: BLM Resource East: BLM Resource 3 08/26/08 I C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: . 2007 - Approval of a Special Use Permit to allow a Low Power Telecommunications Facility within the boundaries of the Eagle County Landfill; Resolution #2007 -97 D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Planning Commission recommends adding a condition; · Any justified visual complaint reported to the County, the applicant shaU mitigate immediately by any means necessary. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of ZS-00175. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECL UR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: 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. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division, this Article, and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, including conformity to a specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.l} The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. 4 08/26/08 EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN X1- Existing use already in place, not a significant impact. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5-250.B.2} The proposed Special Use shall be appropriatefor its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. South: Agriculture Resource x X X East: BLM Resource West: BLM/ Agriculture Resource ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 5 08/26/08 STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5-250.B.3} The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards are consistent with Resource Zone District STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4} The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermord the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands I , I regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. (1)0 (;) u .... > 1::;:= u u 000 (;) ~ x x "0 a /:)l)/:)l) .S .S ~~ a 0 ~...J x x x x x No ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5} The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. ~ u ~ o ~ ~ e ~ ECWR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement x x Does Not SatisfY ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable x x x x x ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B} The proposed Special Use Permit shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. 6 08/26/08 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7] The proposed Special Use shall ment Stand rds. X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) X Landscaping and 1llumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) 7 08/26/08 X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.B.8} The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department - Suggested condition, see below. Eagle County Public Works Department - Email dated July 30, 2008; recommends not adding second generator to the site and utilizing the one that is there. However the applicant has removed this request. Eagle County Land fill - had no comments. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Weed and Pest . Federal: BLM . Service Districts: Holy Cross Electric C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: This project will improve cellular coverage in Eagle County and utilize a tower and communication site that already exists. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve ZS-00175, Special Use Permit request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny ZS-00175, Special Use Permit request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both 8 08/26/08 the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table ZS-00175, Special Use Permit request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve ZS-00175, Special Use Permit request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Any justified visual complaint reported to the County, the applicant shall mitigate immediately by any means necessary; DISCUSSION: Ms. De Graafpresented the applicant's request to extend a 10 ft extension antenna to an existing 42 ft. tower located at the Eagle County landfill in Wolcott. The facility would be un-staffed and is currently owned by Eagle County. The site and use were approved as a Special Use Permit by Resolution 2007-097, however as conditioned, a new Special Use Permit would be required to increase the height of the tower. She presented various photos of the site. She indicated that the standards for the special use permit had been satisfied per the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the file with conditions as presented in the staff report. Mike Sharlow, AT&T wireless representative spoke. He stated that they had worked closely with Barry Smith. Mr. Smith believes that the revenue would help offset costs for building the tower. He explained the improvements proposed to the tower. Chairman Runyon asked about the towers current use. Mr. Sharlow stated that he was not certain but they would insure that their frequency would not interfere with others. Commissioner Fisher stated that the extension would be helpful to provide better service and coverage up Hwy 131. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the file number Zs-oo 175 , AT&T Eagle County Landfill site special use. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files Mt. Sopris Room, EI Jebel PDS-00052 - Crown Mountain Plaza Bob Narracci, Planning Department 9 08/26/08 NOTE: Tabled from 7/22/08 ACTION: The purpose ofthis PUD is to create a new, mixed-use Planned Unit Development with: ground level commercial; second floor commercial and residential uses; and residential on the upper levels (3rd and 4th stories). The majority of parking will be found underground; some limited street parking will also be anticipated. The applicant seeks an approval for this PUD Sketch Plan that presents pedestrian streets cape design; proposes new, neighborhood commercial opportunities; and I offers a mix of free-market and onsite local resident housing (Affordable Housing) opportunities. I LOCATION: 018800 Hwy 82, EI Jebel (former Fitzsimmons parcel); adjacent to Valley Road and the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PDS-00052/Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan Crown Mountain Plaza Planned Unit Development Coleman Brothers Construction Owner Stan Clauson Associates FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This proposal is for a Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan on the triangularly shaped 2.28-acre property locally known as the 'Fitzsimons Parcel' . The triangle is bounded on the west by the Sopris View Apartment complex; Valley Road on the south and U.S. Highway 82 on the north. Prior to being acquired by the current owner the subject property had a gasoline service station, garage with residential uses above and a three-bay car wash upon it. These structures have since been razed. This PUD Sketch Plan application proposes redevelopment of the subject property with one large mixed- use, 54 feet 10.5" tall, four-story structure plus subterranean parking. The structure footprint is equal to one-third of the total site area. The total proposed square footage (Residential + Office + Commercial) is 130,263 square feet itemized as follows: (The application form submitted requests a Total Project square footage of 95, 344 square feet for all proposed uses, which differs substantially from the 130,263 square feet referenced elsewhere throughout the application materials.) First Floor: a. The first floor is intended for a variety of service and retail commercial uses including restaurants. b. Narrative in the application states that, "Commercial spaces will be build-to-suit and are located on the ground floor. The gross commercial square footage totals approximately 29, 770 gross leasable square feet, or 25,304 net leasable squarefeet". c. The site plan summary states that the "Total Commercial Net Sq. Ft.for (entire) building = 28,643 square feet ". Presumably, this maximum commercial net square footage is intended for retail and service commercial on the ground level floor. d. The draft PUD Guide clearly itemizes uses allowed on the ground floor but does not specifY a maximum gross or net leasable areafor the groundfloor. Among the commercial uses proposed is 'office, business or professional '; the draft PUD Guide should be amended to specifically not allow commercial office uses to locate on the ground floor of the building rather, requiring that all commercial office uses locate on the second floor of the building. 10 08/26/08 e. The application materials must be revised for numeric consistency between the application form, the text, the site plan and the draft PUD Guide. The total allowable square footage must be clearly itemized in the draft PUD Guide by use type and floor. Second Floor: · Per the draft PUn" Guide, "There are eight affordable housing units rangingfrom 902 - 958 sq. ft. per unit". · Per the draft PUD Guide, "There are 11 unfinished office spaces which may be further organized into smaller or unified office modules based on tenant needs. All or any portion of this 31,509 sq. ft. of office space may be converted to market rate residential if the building owner finds the demand for residential uses exceeds the demand for office space. As part of the building permit process, an affordable housing mitigation fee must be paid to Eagle County as market-rate residential uses are considered higher impact than office uses. The mitigation fee is $163 per fi " square oot . · The PUD Guide does not clearly itemize the total maximum allowable square footage by use type (residential or office) for the 2nd floor. The draft PUD language above will be interpreted to cap the squarefootage availablefor office use to a maximum of 31,509 square feet. · Per the second floor floor plan: ./ "The total secondfloor gross sq. ft. = 44,053 sq. ft. ./ "The second floor net sq. ft. = 40,596 sq. ft. " ./ "Office Net Sq. Ft. = 31,509 sq. ft. ./ "AHU sq. ft. = 9,087 square feet (8 units) " . Per the site plan summary, "The total office net sq. ft. for (entire) building = 36,046 sq. ft.". Is the office use square footage difference between the floorplan and the site plan summary (36,046 sq. ft. - 31,509 sq. ft. = 4,537 sq.ft.) intended to be located elsewhere in the building other than on the second floor? . The maximum allowable square footage by use type (residential/office / commercial retail and service) must be clearly delineated in the draft PUD Guide and reconciled with the proposed site plan. The PUD Guide must define the difference between gross and net floor area calculations and the method used for determining net square footage for the entire development. Third Floor: · Per the third floor floorplan: ./ "Total thirdfloor gross sq. ft. = 37,956 sq. ft. ./ "Total thirdfloor net sq. ft. = 34,587 sq. ft. ./ "Market rate residential net sq.ft = 25,500 sq. ft. (11 units)" ./ "AHU sq. ft. = 9,087 sq. ft. (8 units) " · The draft PUD Guide is consistent with the floor plan. Fourth Floor: · Per the fourth floor floor plan: ./ "Totalfourthfloor gross sq. ft. = 25,694 sq. ft. " ./ "Totalfourthfloor net sq. ft. = 21,900 sq. ft. "(12 units) ./ Total net sq. ft. = Market Rate residential net sq. ft. 11 08/26/08 . The draft PUD Guide must be revised to specify the maximum allowable residential square footage on thefourthfloor (21,900 sq.ft). Subterranean Parkin!! Garage and Stora!!e Area: · This level is proposed to include six storage units varying in size from 1,126 sq. ft. to 6,097 sq. ft. for a maximum gross total of 18,193 sq. ft. · Mechanical and Maintenance areas totaling 2,453 sq. ft. · 61 general parking and 35 private parking spaces (96 total). Currently, the subject property is zoned Commercial-General; Eagle County's most permissive standard commercial zone district. If the Commercial-General zone district standards were applied to the 2.28-acre site then the maximum allowable site coverage would be 50% for the building or 49,658.50 square feet and; 80% for all impervious materials or 79,453.60 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area ratio is 60% of the site or 59,590.20 square feet. Via Special Use review and approval, up to 33% of the allowable square footage could be utilized for residential use. The PUD Sketch Plan proposes in excess of twice the currently allowable floor area on the 2.28-acre parcel. The application states that 26,146 square feet of the site will contain 'open/landscaped places' which is approximately 26% of the total land area. Landscape islands in and around the parking lot and building do not constitute open space. The draft PUD Guide must be revised to specify maximum allowable building footprint; maximum allowable impervious site coverage, including the building and the maximum allowable floor area ratio. ------" --~~ ---~ Maximum 1m ervious Maximum Buildin Foo rint Proposed 74% = 73,171 sq. ft. 33% = 33,180 sq. ft. Maximum FAR 60% = 59,590.20 sq. ft. 0.60: 1 131%= 130,263 sq. ft. 1.31 : I Allowed by 'CG' Zone District 80 % = 79,453.60 sq. ft. 50% = 49,658.50 sq. ft. It must be noted the maximum allowances under the Commercial-General zone district are not by right. The property in question has never been subject to any county land use approval or subdivision processes. As such, any use by right may only be developed on a lot that was part of a subdivision approved by Eagle County for which site specific information was provided regarding lot layout, street pattern, drainage, landscaping and utilities; otherwise the use shall be considered a use allowed by special review. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: North: Existing Use(s) Zoning Eagle Crest Nursery PUD North: Existing Use (s) Zoning El JeBowl Commercial - General South: Existing Use(s) Zoning Crown Mountain Park / PUD Tree Farm Residential West: Existing Use(s) Zoning Multi-family Apartments Suburban Medium Density East: Existing Use(s) Zoning U.S. Highway 82 R.O.W. NA Existing Zoning: Commercial-General Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development Current Development: Fenced / Vacant Site Conditions: Site looks as though the previously existing buildings were recently razed. Total Land Area: 2.28 Acres 99,317 square feet Total Impervious Area Proposed: 1.68 Acres 73,171 square feet 12 08/26/08 Application states that 26,146 sq. ft. of the site will contain , open/landscaped Landscape islands and landscaping around the building do not Total Open Space Proposed places' which is 26% satisfY the open space requirement. of total area in the form of a large I landscaped courtyard. Usable Open Space Proposed: Large courtyard area Landscape islands and landscaping around the building do not proposed. satisfY the open space requirement. (99,317 sq. ft. x 25% base amount of land required = 24.829 ~.) (39 residences x 2.63 people/residence = 102.57 people x .0 I Open Space Per Land Use acreage/person = 1.0257 acres = 44.679.5 SQ. ft.) 24,829 sq. ft. + 44,679.5 sq. ft. = 69.508 SQ. ft. = 70% of the Regulations: site land area. 70% ofthe total land area is required as open space based upon 25% base amount of open space plus open space required for the 39 residential units proposed. Open Space Deficiency: 1.6 Acres 69,508 sq. ft. Water: Mid Valley Metro Sewer: Mid Valley Metro Access: Via Valley Road C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: February 22, 2007: March 9, 2007: July 6,2007: July 18, 2007: September 18, 2007: September 26,2007: March 25,2008: April 25, 2008: May 2, 2008: Application for this PUD Sketch Plan proposal was received by Eagle County. Application deemed insufficient. Applicant submits revisions to Engineering Department. Application deemed insufficient. Applicant submits revisions to Engineering Department. Application deemed insufficient. Applicant submits Affordable Housing Plan and revisions to Engineering Department. Application deemed sufficient. Applicant submits multiple sets of application and public referral process commences. D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELffiERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: During deliberations, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commissioners offered the following comments: The subject property (area on Highway 82) is not "EI Jebel". The Mid V alley Community Plan recommends a maximum density of 4-8 dwelling units per acre unless there is significant public benefit. The proposal does not represent significant public benefit. The Affordable Housing component of the proposal is mitigating the project but not adding beyond the minimum requirement. The Roaring Fork Transit Authority's plans are yet to be funded and implemented; we cannot rely on RFTA's future plans. Shadowing on Highway 82 caused by trees and rocks is not comparable to shadowing that will be created by a five story tall building. "This proposal is ten (10) pounds in a five (5) pound bag." "The height proposed is not at all reasonable." The residential density and amount of commercial proposed is too great. 13 08/26/08 . . . . . . . . Parking on shady side of building will be problematic in winter months. If this proposal moves ahead site cross-sections must be provided; berms are unacceptable. RFVRPC does not believe the applicant's representation that the Basalt & Rural FPD is 'OK' with the proposed parking. "Affordable Housing is 'ghettoized' in that it is not mixed in with the free-market residential and is segregated." "Al(eady have too much office/retail development in the immediate vicinity." "Valley Road / Highway 82 intersection to the west of the subject property cannot handle more traffic. " "Way too close to Highway 82. Should be 50 feet to 70 feet minimum." "Transportation concerns not met." "People regularly attempt to cross Highway 82 from subject property." "Too big. Too tall." "Parking is inadequate." "Parking on Valley Road is dangerous and problematic." Cannot support the application 'as is' and suggested that the subject property be incorporated into a bigger picture solution involving Eagle County, the USFS, Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District, and the Roaring Fork Transit Authority. Reconfigure the property available to give RFTA more land. Give Mr. Coleman a better piece of ground to develop for affordable housing. Mr. Coleman needs to be involved in the Mid Valley Community Plan update process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. ST AFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-240 Sketch Plan for PUD For the Applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether the development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. Section Purpose: Standards: The degree to which the plan conforms to the intent of applicable land use regulations and provisions of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan is determined, as is the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land uses. General agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, access, and the means of water supply and sewage disposal. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the Applicant must address if the project is to receive approval of a Preliminary Plan. Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch Plan application. Given its conceptual nature, standards that must be met at Preliminary Plan will likely not be fully addressed by sketch plan material. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards will be able to be met at Preliminary Plan. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be made for that Standard 14 08/26/08 STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (J) 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 subject property is owned and controlled by Coleman Brothers Construction. I I ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effectfor 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.3j, Variations Authorized. Office, Retail, Service Commercial x x X Special Use required for certain commercial uses and for all commercial >22,000 sq. ft. Proposed is up to 50% of total buildin area b ri ht. Special Use required for residential use in Commercial General zone district up to 33% of total building area. Proposed is 50% or more of total square footage by ri ht. Residential Up to 33% Ox c=J This application proposes mixed use with primary emphasis on residential development. If the Board of County Commissioners approves the PUD Preliminary Plan then, they will also have granted a variation to the land uses. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. Necessary for integration of mixed uses; To allow for reater variety in the t e, desi n, and layout of buildings; To promote a more efficient land use pattern including an opportunity for public transportation and for safe, efficient, compact street and utility networks that lower development and Yes Possibly Yes 15 08/26/08 maintenance costs and conserve energy; No To increase open space; No The property is constrained- use of conventional standards limits quality design; No To increase compatibility with neighboring developments; Other Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: Yes Obtains (applicant's) desired design qualities; No Avoids environmental resources and natural resources; No Provides incentives for water augmentation; No Provides incentives for trails; Yes Provides incentives for affordable housing; No Provides incentives for public facilities. Setbacks Front: 20 feet (Valley Road) 50 feet (Valley Road) "As the code currently does not have a mixed- use zone district, it is appropriate to pursue the PUD process to best define development standards for this oddly-shaped site and the proposed complimentary combination of uses." Rear: 20 feet (U.S. Hwy 82) 50 feet (U.S. Hwy 82) None provided. Side: 10 feet 12.5 feet None provided Stream: N/A 75 feet Max Impervious: 74% 80% "to allow for a mixed-use transit adjacent development. It is appropriate for this height and density of building in the core area ofEI Jebel". "a floor area ratio of 1.31: 1 is consistent with creating a design driven development rather than a land use code restricted desi n" None needed "change in character of the immediate neighborhood from auto-oriented to residential and edestrian-oriented". Height: 54 feet 10.5" 35 feet Floor Area Ratio: 1.31 : I 0.60: 1 Max Footprint: 33,180 sq. ft. = 33 % 50% ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: 16 08/26/08 (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkin$! and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar -'frvices) as a means of complying with this standard. I Office, Retail, Service, Restaurant 64,689 sq. ft. 169 Appx. 250 Per IBC Per IBC Not stated 2 x x Residential 65,574 Shared 100 Per Per NA X X sq. ft. mc mc The ECLUR's allow the Community Development Director to approve shared parking plans for parking and loading areas and may reduce the number of off-street parking spaces by up to twenty percent of the total required for all uses. Assuming, that the total number of spaces required is approximately 250, based upon the ultimate mix of uses, this application is proposing an approximate 33% reduction in total parking provided. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM 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, Landscavin$! and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. 17 08/26/08 The Conceptual Landscape Plan provided very general information regarding landscaping locations. No specificity was provided regarding quantity, size, maintenance, etc. A detailed Landscape Plan is required with the PUD Preliminary Plan application. I ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM 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, Sig:n Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Sif!Yls Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (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. Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? A comprehensive sign plan will be required with PUD Preliminary Plan application. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) 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. Xl X2 X X X3 X4 -- - --- ---- -- --- - --- --- In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No Xl: Water service will be provided by the Mid Valley Metro District. Extending water service to the proposed development will necessitate successful completion of a 1041 Permit application concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan process. X2: Sewer service will be provided by the Mid Valley Metro District. Extending sewer service to the proposed development will necessitate successful completion of a 1041 Permit application concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan process. 18 08/26/08 X3: The Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 22,2008, attached, sets forth concerns stating that water supply with a fire flow of 5,500 gallons per minute for a duration of 4 hours is required to meet International Fire Code; emergency vehicle access is insufficiently wide and the District does not own fire fighting equipment that can reach the 54 foot height ofthe projected building; the fire protection plan is inadequate; and the Districts' fireground operations would be severely compromised. I X4: The Engineering Department response dated May 24, 2008, attached, identifies eleven requirements regarding traffic, storm water drainage, snow storage, pedestrian walks, off-site road improvements, landscaping and retaining walls adjacent to or within Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way. The memorandum also urges the applicant to request a tabling of the application in order to adequately respond to each of the comments. Also, the Road & Bridge Department Director via e-mail dated May 15, 2008, attached, requested that no parking be allowed along Valley Road as requested. It would add to maintenance costs for the county as well as create a traffic hazard along a busy stretch of road. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvement 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 Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. 19 08/26/08 Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 Xl, Xl, X4 & X5: The Engineering Department response dated May 24,2008, attached, identifies eleven requirements regarding traffic, storm water drainage, snow storage, pedestrian walks, off-site road improvements, landscaping and retaining walls adjacent to or within Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way. Also, the Road & Bridge Department Director via e-mail dated May 15, 2008, attached, has requested that no parking be allowed along Valley Road as requested. It would add to maintenance costs for the county as well as create a traffic hazard along a busy stretch of road. X2, X3 & X4: The Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 22, 2008, attached, sets forth concerns stating that water supply with a fire flow of 5,500 gallons per minute for a duration of 4 hours is required to meet International Fire Code; emergency vehicle access is insufficiently wide and the District does not own fire fighting equipment that can reach the 54 foot height of the projected building; the fire protection plan is inadequate; and the Districts' fireground operations would be severely compromised. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. u.s. Hwy 82 ROW PUD and North: Existing Users) Zoning Eagle Crest Nursery and CG Xl El JeBowl South: Existing Users) Zoning Crown Mountain Park / PUD X2 Ea Ie County Offices East: Existing Users) Zoning U.S. Hwy 82 ROW NA X3 West: Existing Users) Zoning Sopris View Apartment RSM X4 Com lex Xl X2 X Xl & X3: Residential uses located slightly more than 20 feet from the U.S. Hwy 82 right-of-way will be compromised due to traffic noise. Conversely, resident workers would benefit from close proximity to existing and proposed RFTA bus stops, as well as, existing commercial establishments in the vicinity. Xl: Traffic generated by the proposed development, all of which is proposed to utilize Valley Road, will create conflicts with users of the Crown Mountain Park and the Eagle County facility. Erecting a four- story building between u.s. Hwy 82 and the Crown Mountain Park will significantly alter scenic views from the highway corridor. Residents living within the proposed development would benefit from close proximity to the Crown Mountain Park. 20 08/26/08 X4: Certain commercial uses such as restaurants and bar establishments increase the likelihood of conflicts between dissimilar uses. Please reference the attached memorandum dated May 23, 2008 from the Department of Environmental Health. Overall, the types of uses proposed for the subject property are appropriate rather, the scale and mass of the structure proposed is incomrtible with surrounding development. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Below are the Recommended Strategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: Xl: Develooment · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". The subject property, in its current state, is not natural and the proposed development will necessitate complete modification of the site conditions. · "Work to identifY and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services". The proposed development will incrementally add additional user impact to local recreational facilities, open spaces and roadways thereby eroding the ability to preserve these quality of life characteristics. · "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". Demographic data was not provided to help justify the proposed development. · "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". The proposal is for mixed-use development within an existing community center; however, it is debatable whether or not the proposed product is compact. · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". The proposal does include an affordable housing plan which satisfies the recently adopted Housing Guidelines by providing sixteen (16) deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free market residential development. 21 08/26/08 . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". Construction, on-going maintenance and the commercial element of the proposed development would help to maintain a healthy economy. To varying extents, the owners of the residential units would infuse money into the local economy. "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". Public spaces proposed with this development, with the exception of landscaping along the front of the buiilding, is non-existent. "Consistently 'apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". This is the purpose of the PUD process. "Analyze development applicationsfor conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as 'Existing Residential Development' which is partially correct given the existing Commercial General zoning and historic commercial use of the property. This development proposes a residential density of 17 dwelling units per acre. "Continue to allow variations from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the surrounding community". The proposal will require variations to setbacks, height and uses. Whether or not the proposal will benefit the surrounding community is subjective. "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing'~ The development application does propose to offset its own housing impact by providing 16 deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free market residential development. This mitigation proposed is in compliance with the Housing Guidelines. "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts". The design of the proposed development is located across the entire site. Identified visual and compatibility impacts span well beyond the property boundaries. . . . . . . X2: Economic Resources · "Ensure that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". The proposed commercial/retail aspect of the development is in close proximity to existing commercial development. · "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance". The development proposes 39 residential units; 16 of which are deed restricted affordable units (plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free market residential development). A portion of the unrestricted free-market units will likely become second homes. · "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population". The proposal does not specify services and business to support a growing senior population. · "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities". The proposed development may serve to provide retirement housing opportunities in a mixed-use setting. · "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation". The project does not target retirement housing per se but the site is located in close proximity to local support services, emergency services and transportation. · "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area". The proposed housing mitigation plan is consistent with the newly adopted Housing Guidelines. · "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population". The 64,689 square feet of commercial development proposed will draw from a more dispersed local population. · "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties". Service commercial uses are proposed and would be contained within the proposed building. · "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs of nearby residents". The 64,689 square feet of commercial development proposed will draw from a more dispersed local population. · "Encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation". The proposed 22 08/26/08 development is located near existing employment opportunities and it is possible that a percentage of the future residents will be employed within the same building as they live. X3: Housinf! · "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". Affordable workforce housing would be provided near job centers. · "Provide incentives to deve{opers who develop workforce housing". The developer is proposing to provide 16 deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free- market housing. The desired incentive is approval for a residential density of one dwelling unit per 17 acres plus 64,689 square feet of commercial development. · llContinue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". The development application does propose a local resident housing plan in conformance with the Housing Guidelines. · llMandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications". If the local resident housing plan proposed by the applicant is implemented, then this recommendation will be satisfied. · llContinue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". The Eagle County Local Resident Housing Guidelines are newly revised, updated and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. This proposal would satisfy the Housing Guidelines. X4: Infrastructure and Services · llLocate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub". The application does propose to introduce pedestrian paths around the building and connections off-site. The overall pedestrian movement network between commercial and residential developments in EI Jebel is; however, currently lacking. The development will also further impact the road network in EI Jebel vicinity, particularly on Valley Road and the intersection ofEI Jebel Road and U.S. Highway 82. A mass transit hub does not currently exist in EI Jebel but is currently being planned by RFT A. An unimproved, informal park & ride exists on the Crawford property across the highway from the subject site. · llAssure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". Via a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateralization of required public infrastructure improvements, there will be assurance that the road and trail improvements will be completed concurrent to the completion of the proposed development. · Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". This is the purpose of a Subdivision Improvements Agreement. · llWork with mass transit providers to expand service". · Encourage transit oriented development". The subject property is located in the core area ofEI Jebel which is a logical place for transit oriented development; however, EI Jebel does not currently benefit from a transit hub but one is currently being planned by RFTA within the walkable vicinity. An unimproved, informal park & ride exists on the Crawford property across the highway from the subject site. · "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". The proposed development does include pedestrian circulation throughout the subject property and connections off of the property. · llEncourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure". The proposal does include pedestrian circulation through the subject property and connections off of the property with the intent of encouraging pedestrian movements and less need for the personal automobile. This vicinity ofEI Jebel, lacks a comprehensive pedestrian trail system interconnecting bus stops, schools, businesses, parks and playgrounds. · "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". This proposal does not include any off-site pedestrian routes. · "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". At this sketch plan level of review, these types of details have not been provided. 23 08/26/08 . "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design". Of all possible development scenarios, the Planned Unit Development process provides the greatest flexibility in planning and design. "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". The proposed development is located near existing employment opportunities and it is possible that a percentage of the future residents will be employed within the same building as they live. I "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". This PUD Sketch Plan proposes an approximate 50/50 mix of commercial to residential development. Vehicular trips saved by future residents patronizing the commercial uses on foot will be offset by traffic generated from 64,689 square feet of commercial development. "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". Eagle County does review all development proposals using the Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards. In this instance, there are concerns regarding ingress / egress to the subject site, and off site traffic impacts. "Assure adequate accessfor emergency responders". The Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 22, 2008, attached, sets forth concerns stating that water supply with a fire flow of 5,500 gallons per minute for a duration of 4 hours is required to meet International Fire Code; emergency vehicle access is insufficiently wide and the District does not own fire fighting equipment that can reach the 54 foot height of the projected building; the fire protection plan is inadequate; and the Districts' fireground operations would be severely compromised. "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". To date, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development will be adequately served by emergency services by the Basalt & Rural FPD. EI Jebel is already served by the Eagle County Sheriff's Department and Road & Bridge Department. "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". Childcare facilities are not contemplated with this proposal. "Use House Bill 1 041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". If this PUD Sketch Plan is approved then, concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan application, a 1041 Permit for new water and sewer lines and efficient utilization of water and sewer infrastructure will be required. "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". If this PUD Sketch Plan is approved then, concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan application, a 1041 Permit for new water and sewer lines and efficient utilization of water and sewer infrastructure will be required. Installation of the water and sewer infrastructure will be required concurrent to the development. "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". If this PUD Sketch Plan is approved, a more detailed transportation analysis will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan application. "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". The proposed development represents a diverse residential choice. . . . . . . . . . . X5: Water Resources · "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". The application includes a 'Will Serve' letter from the Mid Valley Metro District. Nevertheless, if this PUD Sketch Plan application is approved then, concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan, a 1041 Permit must also be obtained. The 1041 Permit process will delve into the legal and physical water supply for the proposed development. · "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". With the 1041 Permit, the viability of the physical water supply will be addressed. · "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". The 'Will Serve' letter from the Mid Valley Metro District states that the owner may connect and receive service provided that all applicable documents have been submitted and fees due paid in full. The District indicates that there is sufficient quantity to support the project. Again, the issue of water quantity will be thoroughly addressed with the subsequent 1041 Permit. 24 08/26/08 X6: . "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination". The subject property is not located in a source water area. "Use pervious surfaces instead ofimpermeable surfaces when possible" The development proposed will maximize use of the site but the total amount of impervious surface proposed (74% of site =1.6872 acres) is less than what is allowable in the Commercial General zone district (80% of site = 2.256 acres) "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". Grading of the site and on site stormwat~r management improvements will require the use of Best Management Practices to protect groundwater and surface water resources. "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". The application does not include plant material details. "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". The subject property does have an existing well which the Mid Valley Metro District encourages to be utilized for on-site raw water irrigation. "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". This concept is not proposed. "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". Via the subsequent 1041 Permit evaluation, water conservation measures are mandatory. "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application". Other than the 'Will Serve' letter from the Mid Valley Metro District, no other information regarding the availability of 'wet' water has been provided. The Colorado State Division of Water Resources had not responded to the referral as of this writing. "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". The Department of Environmental Health requests that the developer work with Environmental Health to site a ground water quality monitoring well on the subject property. "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". As part of the subsequent 1041 Permit evaluation, adherence to the Regional 208 Plan will be mandatory. "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". The subject property is not located within the Eagle River Watershed. "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identify and treat other non-point sources of pollution ". Best Management Practices will be required with regard to stormwater management and grading activities. "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". With the subsequent 1041 Permit, water quality management will be thoroughly evaluated. Adherence to the Regional 208 Plan will be required. Also, the Department of Environmental Health requests that the developer work with Environmental Health to site a ground water quality monitoring well on the subject property. "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". Best Management Practices will be required with all final construction documents and plans. "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". No natural vegetation will remain upon completion ofthe development; very little exists currently. "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". The proposal entails 74% of site =1.6872 acres of impervious surface. Pervious paving systems have not been proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Wildlife Resources "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man-made barriers to wildlife migration ". As of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not yet responded to the referral for this application. Nevertheless, given the historic use of the site and the proximity to U.S. Hwy 82, the wildlife value of the property as habitat or migration route is questionable. "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". The subject property is no longer high quality wildlife habitat. "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". The use of Best Management Practices for on-site stormwater management will be required. . . 25 08/26/08 . "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". The subject property is not critical wildlife habitat. "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". The Eagle County Land Use Regulations require that bear-proof refuse containment receptacles be located on-site. "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". The subject property is nearby existing commercial and residential development. "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". The proposal is for high density, mixed use development in a community center. "Minimize site disturbance during construction ". No portion of the site will remain undisturbed. "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". The landscape plant and tree palate will be specified with application for Preliminary Plan and will incorporate this recommendation. "Require wildlife-proofrefuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". Wildlife-proof refuse containment will be required on-site. . . . . . . X7: Sensitive Lands · "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". A Geotechnical Investigation prepared by CTL Thompson was provided with the application materials. All recommendations within the document must be adhered to; no insurmountable geotechnical challenges are identified. At the time of Preliminary Plan; the application will be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey. · "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". The subject property is no longer a natural landform. Development of the site will disrupt the entire site. · "A void the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification ". Potential hazards will be required to be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. · Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". At the time of Preliminary Plan; the application will be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey. · "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". At the time of Preliminary Plan; the application will be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey. All recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey will be incorporated into the final development construction plans. · "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". The subject property is in the process of being redeveloped; any archeological value that may have once be present no longer is. As mentioned previously; this proposal for a large, mixed use four-story building will significantly alter public views into the Crown Mountain Park from the U.S. Hwy 82 corridor. · "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved". When the adjacent Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD was processed for the Crown Mountain Park and the Eagle County Community Facility; a great deal of discussion and consideration went into preserving the aesthetically pleasing views from the highway corridor to the south through the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm property. Erecting a four-story building within this view shed is inconsistent with the intent ofthe Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD. X8: Environmental Qualitv · "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". The development proposes pedestrian connections within and offsite. Offsite pedestrian movements are somewhat limited due to the lack of a comprehensive sidewalk and trail network in the EI Jebel vicinity. RFT A does serve the EI Jebel area but a transit hub has not yet been established. · "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". The development application does propose to provide affordable housing in close proximity to job centers. Reduction in vehicle trips generated by the development will be related to the convenience of the pedestrian network linking commercial uses and the proximity of a bus stop. The total amount of commercial development proposed will attract residents and visitors from beyond the community center. 26 08/26/08 · "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the needfor daily commuting". The proposal does focus development within a community. · "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". The proposed development is intended to occur in a single phase. Site disturbance will be all encompassing but temporary. If for any reason there is a lull in site work or construction activity, revegetation of earthen stockpiles will be required. I . · "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". These grading mitigation efforts are mandatory. · "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting': With application for preliminary plan, a comprehensive lighting plan will be required inclusive of this recommendation. · "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". As with other existing similar mixed-use developments; residents, visitors and employees will be subjected to sometimes incompatible noises typical of commercial/residential mixed-use development such as early morning delivery vehicles and site maintenance. · "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". Residents, visitors and employees will be subjected to sometimes incompatible noises typical of commercial/residential mixed-use development. · "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". Given the site location, reliance on personal motorized vehicles should be minimized; however, transit service to all regions of EI Jebel does not exist. · "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". The application does not address heating or cooling. At the time of building permit application, the structure will need to comply with the minimum residential and commercial EcoBuild standards. · Implement energy efficiency guidelines. The application does not address energy efficiency. · Implement energy saving techniques. The application does not address energy saving techniques. X9: Future Land Use MaD Desifmation The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the community-specific Mid Valley Area Community Plan Future Land Use Map. Said map designates the subject property on the Future Land Use Map as 'Existing Residential Development' which is partially correct given the existing Commercial General zoning and historic commercial use of the property. This development proposes a residential density of 17 dwelling units per acre. For comparison sake, the adjacent Sopris View Apartment complex is, zoned 'RSM' and is developed at a density of eleven dwelling units per acre. The vacant Crawford land north of U.S. Highway 82 is zoned 'Residential Suburban Medium' as well. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN Transportatio Communit Open Space El Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing y / JebeV Frying Reservoir Heights n Facilities Environment Basalt Pan Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 Conformance Not X X X Applicable Xl- The Plan lists seven policies relative to the Housing Goal: 1. "Reduce residential densities or avoid development in areas that have negative environmental impacts. " The proposed development avoids areas of negative environmental impacts. 2. "Facilitate the development offree market affordable housing by encouraging cluster developments (reduced land and utility costs)." Not applicable. 27 08/26/08 3. "Encourage developers to provide open space amenities that connect to a valley wide open space plan. " No open space amenities are proposed. 4. "Encourage agricultural land developers to cluster development on small portions of their land, leaving the majority in agricultural open space." Not applicable. 5. "Encourage future development adjacent to existing population centers and avoid leapfrog growth. " This proposal satisfies this policy. 6. "Development must provide highway setbacks to preserve valley wide views (200 feet to parking and buildings)." Proposed is a 20 foot setback from the u.s. Highway 82 right-of-way. Paved on-site circulation is less than five feet from and parallel to the highway right-of-way. 7. "Encourage a diversity of housing and lot types and sizes." This proposal will add a minimum of 39 multi-family residential units. Also, the Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied and would be satisfied by the proposed Housing Plan submitted by the applicant. X2 - The Plan lists seven policies relative to the Transportation / Circulation Goal: 1. "Development should accommodate mass transportation based on a valley wide plan." The type of development proposed and its location will facilitate mass transportation ridership based on RFTA's valley wide planning. 2. Developments shall incorporate bike and pedestrian systems that connect to a valley wide network, community centers and to Frying Pan recreation resources". The proposed development provides internal pedestrian walkways, which stub out to the Crown Mountain Park trail network. 3. "Future developments must accommodate the four laning of Highway 82, establish greenbelts along the highway corridor, have limited access and be of parkway character." This policy was partially satisfied when u.s. Highway 82 was realigned and widened in the 1990's. 4. "Use of existing collector road systems should be encouraged. Access to future development should be from existing Highway 82 intersections through the development of collector roads." This development is reliant upon Valley Road, a collector road, and the existing intersection of u.s. Highway 82 and EI Jebel Road. 5. "New development must accommodate improvements for existing roadways." Off-site and adjacent road improvements will be necessitated by the proposed development. 6. "Additional, secure, Park and Ride areas, which are not visible from Highway 82 should be provided as new development occurs." RFTA is actively working to formalize park and ride facilities in the EI Jebel vicinity. In RFTA's referral response dated May 22,2008, attached, RFTA has requested a monetary contribution towards future construction of an improved EI Jebel transit station and roadway improvements needed at the Highway 82 / EI Jebel Road intersection. 7. "Development should be clustered for transit efficiency in existing transportation corridors". In 1991 when the Mid Valley Community Master Plan was first adopted, four-story, high density mixed use development was not likely contemplated. Nevertheless, this policy is satisfied by the development proposal. X3 - The Plan lists eight policies relative to the Community Facilities and Services Goal: 1. "Encourage community scale commercial development in traditional small town patterns and limited to community needs." The commercial development proposed will serve locals in the greater community vicinity and tourists though not necessarily in a traditional small town pattern. 2. "Encourage the development of commercial space, office space, schools, parks and other community services in or adjacent to existing community centers". This policy is satisfied by the development request. 3. "Avoid commercial strip development along highways". The proposed development is linear and parallel to U.S. Highway 82 but will not be mistaken for a commercial strip mall. 4. "Encourage mixed use developments including commercial, residential and office of similar scale". The proposed uses satisfy this policy. The matter of 'similar scale' is not clear as to intent; however, the proposed development will appear to be of significant scale relative to existing development in the immediate vicinity. 5. "Facilitate clean, light industrial uses in or adjacent to existing industrial zones". Not applicable. 28 08/26/08 6. "Assess development impacts on the school system and have developers provide school sites and/or compensation". The proposed development will be assessed fees-in-lieu of land dedication based upon a Summary Appraisal Report that will be required at the time of Final Plat application. 7. "Encourage schools and recreationalists to cooperate in the use and development of recreation facilities". Not applicable. 8. "Encourage development to provide neighborhood recreation centers, as well as community parks and playfields". The proposed d6velopment will not provide neighborhood recreation centers, a community park or playfield; rather, it will benefit from the existing Crown Mountain Park. X4 - The Plan lists 12 policies relative to the Open Space/Natural Environment Goal- most ofwhich are not applicable: 1. "Retain a significant portion of agricultural land to preserve valley wide views, contiguity with adjacent agriculture and flood irrigation". Not applicable. 2. "Limit development on agricultural lands and encourage development on non-irrigated lands". Not applicable. 3. "Establish a process to purchase and preserve important open space". The Aspen Valley Land Trust and Eagle County's Open Space program work together to satisfy this policy. 4. "Development should maintain existing irrigation ditches and adequate water rights for open space irrigation". Not applicable. 5. "New development must maintain existing water quality". The proposed development will be required to meet all NWCCOG 208 Plan for storm water management. 6. "Limit wood burning in the Mid Valley area". The PUD Guide must be revised to clearly prohibit wood burning fireplaces. 7. "Development impacts on wildlife areas must be mitigated". The subject property is no longer wildlife habitat. 8. "Riparian areas, wetlands and floodplains must be preserved and enhanced". Not applicable. 9. "Preserve existing right-of-ways through new developments for access to public lands". Not applicable. 10. "Platted open space must be accompanied by a maintenance plan". Not applicable. 11. "The Roaring Fork River Council in cooperation with Eagle County, Pitkin County and the Town of Basalt must be consulted concerning all modifications to the Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork River Stabilization Plan should be used as a guide for individual land owners proposing work within the floodplain for the Roaring Fork River. " Not applicable. 12. "Locate development at toe of slopes against existing vegetation". Not applicable. X5 - The Plan lists 10 policies specific to the El JebeVBasalt Area: 1. "Expansion of community services and facilities shall be concentrated in and around El Jebel and Basalt within 500 feet of existing facilities". The subject property is within 500 feet of existing community services and facilities. 2. Density Pattern -lengthy narrative not quoted - High Density is defined as "4-8 units per acre concentrated around the El Jebel and Basalt community centers within a ~ mile radius (ten minute walking distance) minimizing the use of automobiles and providing an efficient relationship between the highest numbers of people and the required services". High Density is defined as 4-8 units per acre; the proposal is for 17 dwelling units per acre plus 64,689 square feet of mixed office/retaiVservice commercial development. 3. Preservation of agricultural land and rural character. Not applicable. 4. Maintain 200 foot building and parking setback adjacent to Highway 82. Proposed is a minimum 20-foot structural setback from the U.S. Highway 82 right-of-way. 5. Visual setbacks along Emma Road and Hookspur Road. Not applicable. 6. Setbacksfrom Roaring Fork and Frying Pan Rivers. Not applicable. 7. Rio Grande Trail open space and trails system. Not applicable. 8. The primary road system would be upgraded in its current basic configuration. The proposed development will necessitate improvement of the existing EI Jebel Road / U.S. Highway 82 intersection. 9. "Highway 82 shall remain a limited access arterial of parkway configuration. Intersection spacing shall be a minimum of one mile. Bus stops would be located only at these intersections. No direct connections shall be allowed to Highway 82 except at intersections. Frontage roads adjacent to 29 08/26/08 Highway 82 are discouraged". Ingress / egress to the subject property is off of Valley Road, an existing collector road. 10. "Transit park and ride lots are located adjacent to community service centers, should be screened from the highway and serve both community services and transit needs". RFTA has requested monetary contribution from the applicant to help fund future improvements in the near vicinity. It must be further noted! that the proposed development does not comply with the recommendations of the recently adopted Town of Basalt Master Plan because the subject property lies outside of the urban growth boundary and the Town Core. Please refer to the attached letter from the Town of Basalt dated May 23,2008. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. ID Phasing Plan Provided? L~.J Yes I I No ~ The development is proposed as a single-phase project. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 everyone 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. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) 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. (e) 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. 30 08/26/08 (f) 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 nonproJ;t corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. 1.6872 Acres 1.0257 Acres 1.60 Acres Application states that 26,146 sq. ft. of the site will contain 'open / landscaped places' which is 26% of total area in the form of a large landscaped courtyard. 99,317 Square feet 73,171 Square feet 74 % ofsite 24,829 Square feet 44,679.50 Square feet 69,508 Square Feet 70% of site is required based upon 39 residential units. Landscape islands and landscaping around the building do not satisfy the open space requirement. Landscape islands and landscaping around the building do not satisfy the open space re uirement. The proposal does not satisfy the Common Recreation and Open Space standard. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. 31 08/26/08 x x x x x x I · The proposed development will not adversely impact wildlife. · All recommendations of the CTL Thompson Geotechnical Investigation dated February 5,2007 must be adhered to. · The subject property has a low wildfire hazard rating. · The PUD Guide must be revised to specifY that only Gas fireplaces are allowed; no wood burning fireplaces will be allowed. · Impacts ofthe proposed development upon natural resources on the subject property will be negligible given its historic usage and the infill nature of the site. Redevelopment of the site as proposed will negatively impact scenic views to the south from the u.s. Highway 82 corridor. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARD(S) FOR PUD SKETCH PLAN: The finding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(15): 15. (a) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned (e.g. market study); Per the application the following justification was provided: "The CG zoning supports the type of commercial proposed in this application's proposal. The property is located in EI Jebel, an unincorporated area of Eagle County. The property is zoned Commercial General (CG). The applicant is requesting to redevelop the property into a mixed-use building that includes both commercial and residential uses. As the code currently does not have a mixed use zone district, it is appropriate to pursue the PUD process to best define development standards for this oddly-shaped site and the proposed unique combination of uses". Currently, the subject property is zoned Commercial-General; Eagle County's most permissive standard commercial zone district. If the Commercial-General zone district standards were applied to the 2.28-acre site then the maximum allowable site coverage would be 50% for the building or 49,658.50 square feet and; 80% for all impervious materials or 79,453.60 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area ratio is 60% of the site area or 59,590.20 square feet. Via Special Use review and approval, up to 33% of the allowable square footage could be utilized for residential use. The PUD Sketch Plan proposes in excess of twice the currently allowable floor area on the 2.28-acre parcel. The application states that 26,146 square feet of the site will contain 'open/landscaped places' which is approximately 26% of the total land area. Landscape islands in and around the parking lot do not constitute open space. The draft PUD Guide must be revised to specifY maximum allowable building footprint; maximum allowable impervious site coverage, including the building and the maximum allowable floor area ratio. The maximum allowances under the Commercial-General zone district are not by right. The property in question has never been subject to any county land use approval or 32 08/26/08 subdivision processes. As such, any use by right may only be developed on a lot that was part of a subdivision approved by Eagle County for which site specific information was provided regarding lot layout, street pattern, drainage, landscaping and utilities; otherwise the use shall be considered a use allowed by special review. (b) Proposed schedule of development phasing. The development is anticipated to be a single-phase development. (c) Statement as Ito the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system. Per the application the following statement is provided, "The subject property is located in the EI Jebel area, which is not served by the Eagle County school system. Rather, the Carbondale school system may be impacted by the 39 residential units proposed for this site. The estimated impact is: 39 units x 0.0025 = 0.0975 acres or 4,247 square feet. The applicant requests to pay cash-in-lieu for the school impact rather than dedicating on site area. This will be determined at final plat based on the current full market value of the residential portion of the development." The RE-1 school district will be provided fees in lieu of land dedication based upon a Summary Appraisal Report required with application for Final Plat. The analysis provided above is accurate. (d) Statement of estimated demands for County services; Per the application the following statement of estimates is provided: "Since the area is currently developed and development with a mix of commercial and residential uses, the proposed mixed-use development will not require an extension or increase in County services." Staff disagrees with this statement. The previous gasoline service station, garage, four residential units and 3 bay car wash generated far less demand upon County services than will the 130,263 square feet mixed use development proposed. (e) Statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the previous year's County tax levy and a schedule of projected receipts of that revenue. Per the application the following projection is provided, "Based on the 2007 property assessment rates for Eagle County, the total property tax revenue generated by the proposed development would be approximately $388,910.64. Sales tax revenue will be generated by the proposed commercial retail uses at a rate of 4.4%." (f) Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; Conceptual plans have been provided. (g) Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes; The Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 22, 2008, attached, sets forth concerns stating that water supply with a fire flow of 5,500 gallons per minute for a duration of 4 hours is required to meet International Fire Code; emergency vehicle access is insufficiently wide and the District does not own fire fighting equipment that can reach the 54 foot height of the projected building; the fire protection plan is inadequate; and the Districts' fireground operations would be severely compromised. (h) Employee housing plan. The developer is proposing to provide 16 deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free-market housing. The Housing Plan satisfies the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to the attached response dated May 24, 2008. 33 08/26/08 · Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - Please refer to the attached response dated May 23, 2008. · Eagle County Road & Bridge Department - Please refer to the attached response dated May 15, 2008. . Pitkin County - Please refer to the attached response dated May 20, 2008. . Town of Basalt - Please refer to the attached response dated May 23, 2008. . Basalt & R..ral FPD - Please refer to the attached response dated May 22, 2008. . RFT A - Please refer to the attached response dated May 22, 2008. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County Attorney's Office; . Eagle County Assessor's Office; . RE-1 School District Administration and Transportation; . Eagle County Sheriff s Office; . Eagle County Weed and Pest; . Colorado State: Colorado Department of Transportation; . Colorado Division of Wildlife . The US Forest Service . Mid Valley Metro District . Basalt Water Conservancy District . Crown Mountain Recreation District . Mid Valley Trails Committee . Garfield County . Postmaster . Emma Caucus . Blue Lake HOA . Aspen Skiing Company, LLC . Summit Vista HOA . Sopris Village HOA . Crawford Properties, LLC C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits: · The mix of uses proposed in walkable proximity to RFTA transit facilities may be appropriate on the subject property. RFTA has requested a monetary contribution from the developer to help fund transit improvements in the immediate vicinity; · 16 deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free- market housing will be provided. · Off site improvements to the EI Jebel Road / U. S. Highway 82 intersection will be necessitated. Disadvantages: · The scale of the proposed development is out of character with existing and allowed development in the surrounding area, especially with regard to density, floor area and height. · The property is located outside of the Town of Basalt urban growth boundary. · The site is a transition property where the more intense commercial development ofEI Jebel should gradually transition with less intense residential uses along the north side of Valley Road. · The Mid Valley Area Community Plan calls for a 200 foot setback from the U.S. Highway 82 right-of-way. (A 200foot setbackfrom the highway right-of-way would render the site undevelopable). · A four story building situated 20 feet from the U.S. Highway 82 right-of-way will cast shadows across the highway compounding ice accumulation and removal problems in an area of the highway where vehicles regularly brake rapidly for the stop light at the EI Jebel Road / U.S. Highway 82 intersection. 34 08/26/08 · The four-story building will significantly alter views across the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Property from the u.s. Highway 82 corridor. · The proposed Housing Plan will offset housing impacts generated by the proposed development but will not help the County to catch-up with the affordable housing deficit. · The proposal has mixed conformance with the Mid Valley Area Community Plan recommendations. · The proposal does not ~atisfy the ECLUR with regard to minimum useable open space. · The Basalt & Rural FPD has set forth several significant concerns regarding the District's ability to adequately serve and protect the proposed development. · While it is recognized that the existing Mid Valley Area Community Plan is now 17 years old and that many changes have occurred in this vicinity of Eagle County during that time; Eagle County Staff and the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission have initiated the process to update said Plan. It would be appropriate for this application to be tabled for six months to one year or withdrawn, revised and resubmitted consistent with the revised Mid Valley Area Community Plan after the revised Plan is formally adopted by the RFVRPC. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 5. Approve the PUD Sketch Plan request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines ofthe Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 6. Deny the PUD Sketch Plan request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 7. Table the PUD Sketch Plan request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 8. Approve the PUD Sketch Plan request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines ofthe Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 3. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval; 4. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Engineering Department memorandum dated May 24, 2008 must be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; 5. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan and 1041 Permit, all comments set forth in the Department of Environmental Health memorandum dated May 23,2008 must be resolved and addressed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Director. 35 08/26/08 6. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Road & Bridge Department e-mail dated May 15, 2008 must be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; 7. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Pitkin County letter dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed; 8. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Town of Basalt letter dated May 23, 2008 must be adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the Town; 9. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Basalt & Rural FPD letter dated May 22, 2008 must be adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the District Fire Marshal; 10. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the RFTA letter dated May 22,2008 must be adequately addressed to the satisfaction ofRFTA; 11. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan the application materials, draft PUD Guide and all ancillary documents must provide consistent information regarding dimensional limitations and calculation methodology. 12. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan the draft PUD Guide should incorporate language prohibiting wood burning fireplaces. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci stated that the Roaring Fork Planning Commission heard the application on June 19 of this year. Since that meeting, the applicant had worked closely with the different referral respondents but at this time, he had not received any revised comments for the referral agencies with the exception of the Engineering Department. The property is a 2.28-acre triangularly shaped property on US Highway 82. Prior to being acquired by the current owner the property had a gasoline service station, garage with residential uses above and a three-bay car wash upon it. The applicant proposes one large mixed-use, 54 feet 10.5" tall, four-story structure, plus subterranean parking. The structure footprint is equal to one-third of the total site area. Staff recommended that if the proposal was approved, the ground floor be limited to retail use only. 39 residential units are proposed, in total for a residential density of 17 dwelling units per acre. The density may increase if the second floor office space were converted to residential. The applicant had made some minor adjustments to the site plan based on conversations with the County Engineering Department. The subject property is zoned commercial general. If the zoning standards were applied to the parcel then the maximum allowable site coverage would be 50% building or 49,658.5 square feet. The proposal is asking for twice what is currently allowable on the 2.28 acre parcel. The property in question has never been subject to any county land use approval or subdivision process. The Basalt & Rural FPD has identified concerns regarding the water supply and building height, as they have no equipment to reach the height of the building. The Engineering Department identified 11 requirements regarding traffic, storm water drainage, snow storage, pedestrian walks, offsite road improvement, landscaping, and landscaping retaining walls. The Road and Bridge Department Director requested that no parking be allowed on Valley Road as proposed. Traffic generated by the development may create conflicts with users of Crown Mountain Park. A four- story building situated between U.S. Highway 82 and Crown Mountain Park will significantly alter views from the Hwy corridor. Residents living within the proposed development however would benefit from close proximity to Crown Mountain Park. Certain commercial uses such as restaurants and bars have a tendency to create conflicts between similar uses within and adjacent to the project. Overall, staff believes the types of uses proposed for the subject property would be appropriate; the bigger concern is the scale and mass of what's being proposed. He went through each of the referral responses as presented in the staff report. He provided 10 suggested conditions of approval based on referral responses and indicated that they would need to be adequately addressed prior to preliminary plan or with a preliminary plan application. 36 08/26/08 Stan Clauson of Stan Clauson Associates spoke on behalf of the developer. He stated that the applicant believed there were many reasons why the proposal was worth considering as an appropriate development. He illustrated the proposed bus rapid transit site. He stated that the proposal created a mixed use center and has a substantial amount of residential and commercial opportunity for the area. The development was transit oriented and would be within walking distance to existing and proposed transit. The development would create a mixed residential commercial opportunity. The development would provide 26,146 square feet of affordable housing and 7,292 square feet of resident occupied housing onsite and as such would meet the requirements of the new housing guidelines. The applicant worked closing with the Housing Director to meet the guidelines. The development would create a strong sense of place for commercial and social core of EI Jebel area. The applicant believed the project is in character with existing and proposed development in the area. The proposed housing plan would help the county "catch-up" with the affordable housing deficit. This is one of the first developments to fully address these requirements and provides the largest amount of affordable housing of any prior development in the area however; the affordable housing did increase the scale of the project. 26% of the total site would be usable open space and available for landscaping. The applicant worked closely with the referral agencies and the plans had been revised based on those discussions. He stated that RFTA's referral comments were the most positive. He noted that the traffic study provided in the application concluded that the intersections affected by Crown Mountain Plaza would not experience significant degradation as a result of this development until 2030. The applicant believed the project brings some substantial benefits to the community. The applicant expressed a willingness to provide space for daycare and participate in various kinds of impact fees. The applicant had also expressed a willingness to consider a redesign of the building to address concerns of referral agencies. Overall, they believe the project has considerable value for the area. Chairman Runyon opened public comment Eric Cohen, Willits resident spoke. He stated that he had worked in real estate for Mr. Coleman and supported the project. The parcel is commercial and in an area remembered as a gas station. He believed that the design was appealing and the proposal was better serving than some commercial properties near by. He sees the development as an anchor and central focus for the area. He believed the height of the building would protect the park from the highway and the development would provide some economic stimulus. Drew Sakson spoke. He had been a mortgage broker in the valley for 15 years and supported the project. He believed this type of development was desirable and the affordable housing component was needed. The project made good use of the property. He believed that having a commercial and residential component would meet the needs of the community. Kim Bock, Valley Road resident spoke. She believed the project was too urban. The traffic would impact her family and neighbors. Spencer Sheaffer, Emma resident spoke. He stated that he was adamantly opposed to the project. He believed the project was out of scale and character with the surrounding areas and did not comply with the 2007 Basalt Master Plan. He was concerned with the intersection of Valley Road and Hwy 82. He believed that traffic generated from the proposal would increase traffic during rush hour by 50%. He recommended that the board deny the file or at a minimum, table the file for six months to a year until the Mid Valley Master Plan was developed. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Sheaffer ifhe was in favor of the Willits project or RFTA's proposal. Mr. Sheaffer stated that he had not participated in public comment however he had a negative response to the proposal. He continues to have concerns with RFT A in terms of how bus service could be improved and who would be paying for it. Dallas Gillespie spoke. He recommended approval of the application. He believed that the area needed something that would bring mixed-use development to the area. He stated that the design was beautiful and believed that the development would boost the local economy. His wife and neighbors also supported the development. Shelly Gross spoke. She believed the development was totally out of scale. She requested denial of the application. Jay Levitt spoke. He believed the timing of the proposal was bad and would put a hindrance on the development of the mid-valley master plan. He believed the traffic would never go away but needed to be controlled. He believed the development was massive and out of scale. He asked the board to consider the look of the community in 10 years. Chairman Runyon asked Mr. Levitt his general sentiment about annexing to the Town of Basalt. 37 08/26/08 Mr. Levitt stated that he did not like that idea. He believed EI Jebel had a unique character and should stand on its own. Wendy Gillespie spoke. She stated her support for the development. She believed the project would provide continuity. She was also in favor of having a daycare facility within the development. Pamela Zeker spoke. She echoed everything that Wendy Gillespie stated and encouraged the board to approve the project. Dan Coleman, the devdloper spoke. He stated that his motivation was to feature Crown Mountain Park, which he believed to be the heart ofEI Jebel. The development was originally three stories but after blunt talks with Mr. Potente, the development increased to meet the housing guidelines. He stated that he would like to see the residents ofEI Jebel benefit from the development. The buildings were pushed back to create outdoor dining space. He understood the traffic problems but believed there was a practical solution. He had worked hard to create balance the development. He was willing to eliminate the fourth floor but then the housing benefit would decrease. He was willing to work with the county and requested a method to move forward. Peter Westcott spoke. He stated that he'd seen the pictures and found it hard to believe that the development met current planning and zoning requirements. He questioned whether there was a need for more commercial property. He believed the development was out of scale for the area. Jeff White spoke. He stated that the Willits development had many empty buildings and the area didn't need another large scale commercial development. Tom O'Keefe spoke. He believed the development was outrageous. He believed this was the last thing that the neighborhood needed. He asked the board to consider the quality of life in the valley. Jennifer Kirkbauer spoke. She spoke in support of the Coleman's and the development. She believed the area needed more class. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi stated that the application was complicated. He believed that this type of development could work. He believed Mr. Coleman hit on some key points. He believed there needed to be a connection with RFT A. He stated the importance of meeting the affordable housing requirements. He believed there needed to be some remedy for the traffic on Hwy 82. He believed the applicant was bringing in some community benefits however, there were still some exterior issues. Commissioner Fisher asked Mr. Potente to speak about the affordable housing component. Mr. Potente stated that the proposal met the existing housing guidelines but did not exceed them. He stated that the project was a mixed-use product and the developer was only obligated to meet the greater of the two commercial mitigation requirements. All of the affordable component would be priced at a price point affordable to a family earning 110% of AMI. The developer would set the resident occupied portion and prices would be driven by the market. He stated that the developer was fully mitigating there impacts. Commissioner Fisher asked Mr. Coleman how long he'd owned the property. Mr. Coleman stated that he'd owned the property for two years. Commissioner Fisher stated that she was in favor of transit-oriented development however; she believed the development was too large for the site. She believed the development lacked a sense of community. She encouraged the applicant to take to heart the concerns voiced by those who had responded and review the intergovernmental agreement that was before the Town of Basalt. She suggested tabling the file. Chairman Runyon stated that he had never seen a planning file come from the county planning department with 8 negative findings. He believed the development was too big and a radical departure from the surrounding neighborhood. He asked the applicant whether they wanted to continue the file. Mr. Clauson stated that he had heard some positive comments and the applicant was interested in working with staff to come up with a revised proposal. He understood the concern for the urban growth boundary however, he believed it made sense to have additional density at this location. He requested the file be tabled. Commissioner Menconi stated that he believed the application had possibilities. He asked Mr. Narracci, which one of the 8 minimum standards would be the most difficult for the applicant to meet. Mr. Narracci stated that the entire scale ofthe development was an issue. He did not believe that tabling the file would achieve anything. He suggested that the applicant start over after the Mid Valley Plan was complete and begin at square one with the Town of Basalt. Mr. Clauson stated that the developer had worked long and hard with staff. Carrying the property in this financial environment was very difficult. Withdrawing the application would be a great hardship. He believed that 38 08/26/08 the transit oriented development had potential would be a benefit to the community. He requested that the board continue to work with the applicant to find the right scale. Chairman Runyon asked Mr. Narracci if there was a time line. Mr. Narracci stated that because this was a PUD sketch plan it was not mandatory that the file go back to the Planning Commission however staff strongly recommended that it did if the application was changed substantially. Commissioner Mdnconi stated that based on the IGA and going forward the applicant could just go to the Town of Basalt. . Mr. Potente stated that the IGA was not drafted to remove the discretion of the board with regard to the urban growth boundary. The Town of Basalt was a separate entity from the EI Jebel community. The IGA would allow some room for the developer to go to the town if they desired. Commissioner Menconi stated that there were clearly some community benefits. He wondered whether the applicant was willing to take a chance and move forward. Mr. Clauson stated that the applicant was interested in taking on the challenge and work with all parties. He requested a two-month continuance. Commissioner Menconi moved to table the File No. PDS-00052 - Crown Mountain Plaza until October 28, 2008. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ~being no further business be ~ _~ ,,: . J Attest: ~ Clerk to the Boa (l ~"""'. ~~.... 1C>k..ttVT\. the meeting was adjourned until September 2, 2008. 39 08/26/08