Loading...
Minutes 09/16/08 PUBLIC HEARING September 16,2008 Present: Sara Fisher Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Robert Morris Kathy Scriver Chairman Pro-Tem Commissioner County Manager Deputy County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Peter Runyon Chairman 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 - Finance Department for Certificate of Achievement in Financial Reporting Commissioner Menconi stated that Eagle County had been awarded the Certificate of Achievement for comprehensive annual financial reporting by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and Canada. This is the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting. He asked John Lewis to elaborate. Mr. Lewis stated that he'd been asked to review comprehensive annual financial reports for other counties. He stated that it had been a team effort with the auditors and the Finance Department and he appreciated everyone on his team. It's great to be able to say once again here's proof that this county is fiscally responsible. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher thanked everyone for his or her continued efforts. Consent Agenda Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of September 15, 2008 (subject to review by the finance director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for September 25, 2008(subject to review by the finance director) Finance Department Representative C. Agreement between Eagle County and James Dumesnil MS, LPCMHC, CCFC fer mental health and family parenting services Charlene Whitney, Health & Human Services D. Agreement between Eagle County and Lynn C. Gottlieb, LLC to provide mental health and family parenting services Charlene Whitney, Health & Human Services E. Software Maintenance Agreement between Eagle County and Gatekeeper Systems, Inc. used in the operation ofthe Cpmmercial Vehicle Management System Airport Representative I 09/16/08 F. Public Improvements Agreement between Eagle County and Salt Creek Equestrian Center. Eagle County File No. GRAD-5-08-1381 Taylor Ryan, Engineering G. Application for Early Head Start 2009 continuation of funding Jennie Wahrer, Health & Human Services H. Agreement between Eagle County and Flatirons, Inc. for consulting services for surveys Kelly Miller, Engineering Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bob Morris, Deputy County Attorney stated that there were no legal issues raised by any item. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-H. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Public Input Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher opened and closed Public Input, as there was none. Resolution 2008-111 adopting the Fourth Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2008 and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated monies between various spending agencies Finance Department Representative Mr. Lewis presented highlights of the fourth supplementary budget. He stated the appropriations were based on some entries given to him by the Treasurer's Office on increased commissions and payments to towns. He spoke about the restricted fund balance that the Clerk and Recorder maintained for e-filings and stated that some of the money would be spent on a new document imaging machine. The Clerk and Recorder had also requested additional dollars for a special two-page ballot that she must provide for the upcoming election. The Assessor requested additional dollars to support commercial appraisals. There was a purchase of 17 MHz radios. The Senior Center needed additional dollars for food at the senior center site. Facilities Management needed $17,000 for a ditch. The total amount being requested out of the supplemental contingency, which was a million dollars at the beginning of the year, was $754,000.00. He spoke about some of the larger items, which included rent and utilities for the Gypsum childcare center. ECO requested dollars for changes to the Leadville bus barn. Some restricted money from the Eagle River Preserve would be moved to the Capitol Improvement Fund. The Hazmat fund was being moved to RHMAEC and they will be managing the fund from here on out. Some of the capital improvement funds would go towards the Avon office remodel for HHS. Commissioner Menconi asked about the remodel of the Avon facility. He stated his support, however, he'd like to make sure that the value cost savings would take place. He asked about the GIS mapping request and stated his approval for the request for $200,000 but requested more information before a check was released. He asked about the rent and utilities for the Gypsum childcare facility and the matching dollars. Mr. Baumgartner stated that the building owner donated close to $75,000 to the county for the Early Childhood Matching Grant Program. Therefore, there was a total of$150,000 in grant funds available for the improvements on the facility. Commissioner Menconi requested better details regarding the Gypsum daycare facility. Mr. Tom stated that the facility had to be brought up to standards required by the state in order to be licensed. 2 09/16/08 Mr. Lewis stated that the total investment for the facility was $500,000. Commissioner Menconi asked about the School District's involvement. Mr. Baumgartner stated that the scheduled opening date was November. The District would pay for everything but a small portion of the rent; they would also operate the facility, and pay for the staffing. The ongoing expense for the county would be small. Commissioner Fisher believed the facility was important but would like a clear understanding of the investment. Commissioner Menconi wondered how it compared to the Miller Ranch facility. He would like to have greater back up moving forward with the costs. He wondered ifHHS would be capable of getting some grant dollars in order to put in the fixtures. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the resolution. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher seconded the motion for discussion. Commissioner Menconi withdrew his approval in order to provide a more inclusive motion. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher called for the vote. The motion failed. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Fourth Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2008 and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated monies between various spending agencies and include the $200,000 requested by the GIS Department for contour mapping and overhead mapping; release of funds will occur after additional information has been reviewed and signed off by the board. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanImous. Chairman Pro- Tem Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanImous. Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Meeting County Attorney's Office/Airport Representative 1. Approval of minutes of April 8, 2008 meeting; Mr. Baumgartner moved to approve the minutes of the April 8, 2008 meeting. Ms. Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Consideration of Proposal to Lease Space between DHS Transportation Security Administration and ECAT; a. Proposal to lease 658 sq. ft. space at $52.80 per sq. ft. per year for $34,742.40 annual; b. U.S. Government Lease for Real Property -lease number: LCO 14295. c. General Services Administration - Lessor's Annual Cost Statement Chris Anderson stated that the lease was merely an extension of the present agreement. Approving the agreement would extend the lease for the TSA break room and training facility in the terminal for an additional 3 years. Mr. Baumgartner asked how the $52.80 per sq. ft rate related to other commercial rates that the airport charged. Mr. Anderson stated that it was in line with the rates that the rental car companies and ground transportation providers are charged. 3 09/16/08 Mr. Baumgartner moved to approve the lease space between DHS Transportation Security Administration and ECAT. Ms. Fisher seconded the motion for discussion. Mr. Menconi asked if the lease rate was an increase or decrease in revenues. Mr. Anderson stated that the lease rate remained flat. Mr. Menconi called for the vote. The vote was declared unanimous 3. New Business; Mr. Anderson stated that there was no new business. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Baumgartner seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed Public Input, as there was none. Abatement Hearings Eagle County Room Ed Smith from the Assessor's Office stated that all items were partial adjustments. Chairman Pro- Tem Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Petitioner Ronald A. Russlee T. Mosher Ronald A. Russlee T. Mosher Richard L. & Nancy V. Knowlton John Lyon Chaves & Lora L. Russell John Lyon Chaves & Lora L. Russell Jim Cotter Gypsum Investors, LLC Gypsum Investors, LLC Paul and Mary Miller 89 Holden LLC Steam Master Carpet Cleaning and Restoration Inc Schedule No. R059282 R059281 R007508 R057869 R057870 R054441 R058639 R059192 R015556 P030340 P004l46 Commissioner Menconi moved that the Petitions for Abatement/Refund of Taxes for the following individuals and Schedule Numbers be approved for the tax years, in the amounts, and for the reasons as set forth in the Assessor's recommendation sheets, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference: Ronald A. Russ1ee T. Mosher Ronald A. Russ1ee T. Mosher Richard L. & Nancy V. Knowlton John Lyon Chaves & Lora L. Russell John Lyon Chaves & Lora L. Russell Jim Cotter Gypsum Investors, LLC Gypsum Investors, LLC Paul and Mary Miller 89 Holden LLC Steam Master Carpet Cleaning and Restoration Inc R059282 R059281 R007508 R057869 R057870 R054441 R058639 R059192 R015556 P030340 P004146 4 09/16/08 Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files PR-1560 Easde County Skate Park Bob Narracci, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this Plan Review is for the new addition of a concrete half pipe to the Eagle County Skate Park at Freedom Park. TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: Berry Creek Miller Ranch Skate Park Expansion PR-1560 / Planning Review Tract C, Berry Creek Miller Ranch PUD; located generally south of Interstate 70; east of the 1-70 Edwards Spur Road; Eagle County Eagle County Rick Cook Approval OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This Planning Review application is to allow expansion ofthe existing skate park facility located on the Berry Creek Miller Ranch Recreation Tract. The Recreation Tract has been subject to prior Planning Review for each of the existing improvements including: [1] a skate park; [2] a playground; [3] a building pad for future buildings; [4] proposed parking sub-grade preparation and stabilized road base, as well as grading and drainage; [5] baseball, soccer and football fields; [6] a grassed berm along the west side of the synthetic soccer field; [7] sub-grade preparation and stabilized road base for roadways around the future building pad, including storm drainage facilities; and [8] sod and seeding and an irrigation system around the pond. This site specific review does not include building footprints or design. Any future buildings proposed for the site will be subject to subsequent site specific reviews. Mr. Cook has been working for well over a year to secure funding for this proposed skate park expansion. Following are the donators to date: Berry Creek Metropolitan District: $40K Edwards Metropolitan District: $40K Arrowhead Metropolitan District: $5K Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District: $40K and will donate more as may be necessary. Eagle County: $40K Edwards Rotary: $5K Private Party Donations: $6K Commitment from a local Landscape Architect to develop and implement a landscape plan consistent with existing landscape improvements in the vicinity of the existing skate park. B. CHRONOLOGY: 1999 - The Eagle County Recreation Authority (whose interests were later to be transferred to Eagle County) and the Eagle County School District (RE-50J) entered into a Intergovernmental Agreement to develop the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch site on a joint basis. 2000 - A PUD Sketch Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2002 - A Combined PUD Sketch / Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in March. The final plat for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD was approved in May. 2002 - Site Specific Development Plan approved for Phase I improvements on Tract C which included [1] three multi-purpose athletic fields; [2] a passive park area to include a picnic shelter, seating and 5 09/16/08 playground apparatus; [3] landscaping, including a berm along Miller Ranch Road; and [4] drainage and detention improvements. 2003 - Site Specific Development Plan approved for a multi-purpose pond on Tract C to provide stormwater detention, water supply for irrigation (including operational storage), recreation and aesthetics. 2003 - Site Specific Development Plan approved for Phase II of recreation field improvements, including: [1] a natural grass softball field with a 200 foot foul line and backstop; [2] a natural grass softball field with a 300 foot foul line and backstop; [3] a natural grass multi-purpose field (partially overlapping the two softball fields); [4] an irrigation system to support the fields and open space in between; [5] a path from recreation fields to the adjacent residential neighborhood; [6] eighty additional parking spaces (gravel); and [7] a 20 by 30 foot maintenance building. 2004 - Site specific development plan for Phase III: [1] a skateboard park; [2] a playground; [3] a building pad for future buildings; [4] proposed parking sub-grade preparation and stabilized road base, as well as grading and drainage; [5] a grassed berm along the west side of the existing synthetic soccer field; [6] sub- grade preparation and stabilized road base for roadways around the future building pad, including storm drainage facilities; and [7] sod and seeding and an irrigation system around the pond. The only new structure was a restroom facility adjacent to the playground. 2008 - Application received for this proposed Skate Park Expansion C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: West: North: South: Existing Zoning: Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: Total Area: Percent Usable Open Space: Water: Sewer: Access: 2. A. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Miller Ranch (residential) / PUD Colorado Mountain College 1 PUD Miller Ranch Road; school site 1 PUD Union Pacific Railroad ROW; residential 1 RSM PUD None 35.6 acres 100 percent Public Drinking Fountain Public Restroom Facility Miller Ranch Road STAFF REPORT Eagle County Engineering Department: Please refer to the attached response dated July 25,2008. Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District: Please refer to the attached letter of support and commitment to assist with funding the Skate Park Expansion dated July 22,2008. Eco Trails: In a verbal response, Eco Trails indicated that the proposed expansion should not encroach on the core trail to the south of the skate park. It is planned to eventually widen this section of the core trail from 10 feet to 12 feet. Facilities Management: In a verbal response, Facilities Management indicated that it is fully aware and supportive of the proposed skate park expansion. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney's Office. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Approval of this proposed improvement to the Berry Creek Recreation Tract may occur after consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board that the development is consistent with the PUD Guide, the PUD Preliminary Plan, the Master Circulation Plan, and the Master Drainage Plan for the PUD. 6 09/16/08 Consistency with the PUD Guide The PUD Guide establishes that the purpose for this Tract is to "provide sites for indoor and outdoor recreation, including active and passive recreation areas, parking facilities, and other community-oriented facilities." Permitted uses, specifically as they relate to this planning review file, include, among other things: Sports fields; recreation and community centers; ball fields and hard court areas; skate parks; parks and playgrounds; picnic areas; trails; childcare facilities; other similar indoor and outdoor recreation facilities; and utility facilities. All of the uses existing on the subject property are uses permitted by the PUD Guide; this proposal is to further improve upon one of the existing amenities. The number and design of on-site parking spaces is to be established through this site specific development review. Phase I recreation field improvements entailed three soccer fields, including parking for 128 vehicles. The rationale was to provide spaces for 30 vehicles for participants on each of the three fields, plus 38 additional spaces for transition times between games. A limited amount of this parking was also required to accommodate visitors to the multi-purpose pond at the west end of the Recreation Tract. Phase II improvements included 80 additional spaces. Phase III improvements brought the total parking count up to approximately 365 parking spaces total. This proposed Skate Park Expansion can be adequately accommodated by the existing available parking. All of the proposed uses fall well within the dimensional limitations prescribed in the PUD Guide as it relates to minimum setbacks (20 feet from perimeter), maximum lot coverage (buildings: 50%; all impervious materials: 80%), and building height (45 feet). Currently, all existing structural improvements are substantially below 80% impervious area. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Guide [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Guide. Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan The Preliminary Plan approved for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD contemplates the development of this Tract as a recreation site. This proposal is to improve upon an existing, well used amenity. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Preliminary Plan. Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan The Master Circulation Plan approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan provides a primary access point into the Recreation Tract near the location currently being used to access the existing parking lot. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Circulation Plan. Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan The drainage improvements have been designed and installed to direct run-off from the site to the multi- purpose pond near the west end of the Recreation Tract. The Engineering Department has not noted any concerns with respect to the drainage plans which have been provided for this proposed skate park expansion. 7 09/16/08 [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Drainage Plan. C. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: The Eagle County Planning Commission heard the proposed skate park expansion request on September 3, 2008. The Planning Commissioners had questions for the applicant pertaining to liability insurance, continued maintenance responsibility, landscaping, storm water drainage, security issues, parking and a firm statement that the skate park not be illuminated. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the proposed skate park expansion. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the request. He stated that the proposal would allow expansion of the existing skate park facility with a new, in-ground, half-pipe feature. Mr. Cook has secured donations to support the construction of the project from several entities. The expansion is consistent with the Berry Creek/Miller Ranch PUD Guide and Preliminary Plan. The proposal is also consistent with the master circulation plan and master drainage plan for the Miller Ranch Recreational area. The Berry Creek Miller Ranch Design Review Board has granted approval of the proposed expansion. The Planning Commission heard the application on September 3rd and unanimously recommended approval of this proposal. Rick Cook stated that he had just received the completed construction plan and they are now prepared to get things going. He expects to open the half-pipe in June of 2009. Commissioner Menconi thanked Mr. Cook for helping out youth in the community. Mr. Cook stated that it had been a great experience. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. PR-1560, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following condition: 1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and in all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Prior to site disturbance for the skate park expansion, all comments set forth in the Engineering Department Memorandum dated July 25,2008 must be addressed to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 3. Prior to site disturbance, the Berry Creek Miller Ranch Design Review Board must approve the proposed skate park expansion. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. PDS-00057 - Coleman Ranch Bob Narracci, Planning Department Table from 6/17/08, 7/1/08, & 9/9/08 NOTE: ACTION: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan application is to allow the subject 24-acre property to be subdivided into an eight lot subdivision. The eight lots are no less than 2 acres each and are all proposed on the Eagle County portion of the site. That portion of the 8 09/16/08 property located within Eagle County is approximately 18 acres in area. The balance six acres, located in Pitkin County, will remain as 'open space'. LOCATION: 2701 Emma Road: On the north side of Emma Road; east of Hooks Spur Lane. The property is located in both Eagle and Pitkin Counties. FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PDS-00057; PUD Sketch Plan Coleman Ranch PUD Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. / Patrick Rawley 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This PUD Sketch Plan proposal is to subdivide a 24.16 acre, 'Resource' zoned parcel into eight (8) single-family residential lots ranging from 2.0 acres to 3.5 acres in size. One additional 'lot' is six (6) acres in area and is located entirely within Pitkin County. Eighteen (18) acres of the subject property lie within Eagle County and the balance six (6) acres in Pitkin County. Each of the proposed lots would be served by individual wells and sewage disposal systems. Access to the subject property is via Emma Road. A. SITE DATA: North: Fonner Railroad R.O.W. 'R' Vacant Undeveloped 'R' East: Pitkin County Residential/Agricultural (Si ido Subdivision Residential (Dreager Subdivision) Residential/Agricultural 'AFR 10' South: 'R' Residential/Agricultural Residential (Crown Mountain Estates Subdivision) 'R' West: 'RR' 'RR' 'AL' PUD- Planned Unit Development Single family residence and agriculture. Relatively level pastureland with one single-family residence. (24 acres) 18 acres in Ea Ie Coun 6 in Pitkin County 784,080 sq. ft. 25% (67% of the site, including the 6-acre open space and the area within each lot surrounding the building envelopes is proposed as a 'Conservation Area;) None in Eagle County Individual Well N/A Individual Septic N/A 9 09/16/08 B. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: June 8, 2007: February 12, 2008: April 29, 2008: Initial discussion with representative from Stan Clauson Associates, Inc. Initial application received by Eagle County. Formal application referral process initiated. C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning recommended denial of the proposed development in a vote of 5 to 1. During their deliberations the following comments were made: · The proposed lot configuration should be clustered; · Need a compelling reason to approve; what is the public benefit of the proposed development to Eagle County citizens? · The property owner should benefit but so should the public. Greater creativity is necessary; perhaps homes with agricultural appearance, ADU's should be attached to the primary residence and perhaps share a common entryway - better control over who rents the ADU's; · The existing 'Resource' zoning at one dwelling unit per 35 acres is appropriate. Will not support small lots. Eagle County takes the brunt of development repeatedly where the property is split between Eagle and Pitkin Counties; · Landowners are not entitled to develop beyond existing allowances. The property can be a viable small farm. Homes located on agricultural properties are typically situated close to the road (Emma Road) leaving the balance of the property uninterrupted for agricultural activities. · The one planning commissioner who did not support the motion to deny offered the following perspective: The subject property is not agricultural property it is rural and compatible with existing development in the vicinity and suggested that a compromise of 4 lots with the access road oriented to the side of the property versus down the middle so as to not interrupt the 6 acre open space in Pitkin County. Also suggested that common open space should be retained along the sides of the property to provide clean connection to the Rio Grande Trail corridor adjacent to the north line of the subject property. Further, believes that Resident Occupied accessory dwelling units located over garages or attached to the primary residence is more appropriate than fees-in-lieu of providing affordable housing. This planning commissioner requested that the application be tabled to allow the applicant opportunity to revise the proposal. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: Section Purpose: 5-240/5-280 Sketch Plan; The purpose of sketch plan review is 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 development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. It is the time when determination should be made as to whether the proposed PUD complies with the purpose and intent of these Regulations and with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. It is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and commercial space for development; the types of use, dimensional limitations and other variations that may be considered; the general locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; 10 09/16/08 the general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via on-site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to receive approval for a Preliminary Plan for PUD from the County. Where the PUD proposes activities that constitute a subdivision, the applications for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall also be required to meet the requirements of Section 5-280, Subdivision, regarding procedures for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision, respectively. Standards: Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards; Section 5-280.B.3.e Standards and Section 5- 230.D Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch & Preliminary Plan for PUD (with subdivision) application. All standards that would be met at a Preliminary Plan level must addressed by the application materials. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards have been met at this stage. 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. 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 (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The subject property is owned by the Coleman Brothers Construction, LLC. ~ 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 applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. Permitted in Underlying Normally NrinittCd As: Nature of Van at ion Proposed Uses Zoning? Yes .... R.~:ht zs LR Residential; Primary Single Residential as uses by right; only one (I) Family Dwellings with single family/primary unit is permitted on a Accessory Dwelling Units X X - X nonconforming, Resource-zoned property. (ADU) One ADU is potentially allowable via Limited Review. This application proposes primary residential development with Accessory Dwelling Units. If the Board of County Commissioners approves this application, they will also have granted the necessary variations to the proposed land uses. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS [X] MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 11 09/16/08 D MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ST ANDARD: 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. No No No Yes No No No 1- This property has been utilized for residential and agricultural purposes historically. The site consists of approximately 24-acres and is bisected by the Eagle County / Pitkin County line. 18 acres are located within Eagle County and the remainder 6 acres are located within Pitkin County. All residential development is proposed to occur within the Eagle County portion of the property. The 6 acres in Pitkin County is to remain as private 'open space '. 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: POO Achievement(s): Yes Obtains (applicant's) desired design qualities; No A voids environmental resources and natural resources; No Provides incentives for water augmentation; No Provides incentives for trails; No Provides incentives for affordable housing; No Provides incentives for public facilities. Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification (Proposed) Requirement Setbacks: Ft Front 50' 25' Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement Rear 75' ]2.5' or Y, ht of Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement tallest building Side 30' 12.5' or Y, ht of Proposed is greater than ECLUR Requirement taIlest building Minimum of75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 12 09/16/08 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 Parkinf! and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loadinf! Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. Proposed Uses '" .Sf ~ ~~ ~ j (.';>13 8. 'S .~ '5 e o:gZ' p... z......~ (;'. "0 "0 Oll ~ v.S 8. ta ~ 0 ~.p...O: Residential Minimum 2 car garage per residence; guest parking spaces in driveways; no on street arkin . 3 spaces per dweIling unit EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS a (;'. a: 13 Ollt:: .S 8. ~g. p...oo Yes No x x STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. :i 6 "0 .~ 'j V ~ .!::l v ..R' -C'/'.l u l.g :> ~Oll t Oll """. C > s:a. .S 0.... 0 o 5 ~ u c!a- u Uu .x N .g .~ Oll '" .~ 00 <<1."0 .S j 1a u ~ 15 a .e t) ~ 0 l-.b...'l ....l p... ....l 00 Xl X X X2 X3 X '" 6 ''8 ~ ,D. o ECLUR Is Comments/Description: 13 09/16/08 .~ lXl u !a- t) '" "0 a ....l ~ o .S ~ .;;.... .... <e: ~Oll Oll.S .s~ ~p... "'- "Ou a~ ....loo "0 a v C t) .g a <<I 5 ~j ..5..-s X Xl - Exceeds quantity requirements. X2 - ECLUR's recommend low water consumptive xeric landscape materials. The proposed plant pallet is not low water consumptive. X3 - Newly introduced landscaping will be confined within each residential building envelope plus entry landscape feature; street trees and buffer adjacent to the bicycle path. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 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, Sifm Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Si&!ns Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. 101 Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? II Yes I X I No Only one entry sign and individual lot address signs are allowed. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not AppIicablelNo ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisty ECLUR Re uirements ~ s;:: 0 1<i 0 'g ~ il_ ~ 0 o ;>., oi ~ ~ .~~ ~ ~]: gfo 0 '" ~ ~ :sac. ~g: e ! - '" o :::l o .- o .- ..!:! :::l ii: i:l...OO 000 000 ~oo X Xl X2 X X3 X4 In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No Deviation/VIS Requested XI - The total number or group of wastewater systems serving this subdivision (16 dwelling units) exceeds 10 Single Family Equivalents and may be subject to 1041 review. Please reference the attached memorandum dated May 20, 2008 from the Department of Environmental Health. X2 - The development will comply with the ECLUR's by providing a central wildlife proof refuse station. 14 09/16/08 X3 - Per the attached Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 20, 2008, the information provided with the application does not adequately address the requirement for dual access, driveway access or water supply for fire fighting purposes. X4 - Per the attached Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated May 21,2008, dual access is required per the ECLUR's and the proposed cul-de-sac configuration in exceeds the maximum 1000' length for a rural cul-de-sac. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 deviatefrom the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of irifrastructure 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-o.fway, 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. Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal Snow Stomge Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts Exceeds ECWR Reqllirefilents Satisfies ECLUR Requirefilents Xl X Does NotSatistY ECLUR X 1 X3 X4 Requirement Not Applic$J)fetNo ECLUR Requiremenl DeviationJV:IS Requested 15 09/16/08 XI - Per the attached Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated May 21,2008, dual access is required per the ECLUR's and the proposed cul-de-sac configuration in exceeds the maximum 1000' length for a rural cul-de-sac. X2 - Access to the adjacent bicycle path must be clearly delineated as a pedestrian / bicycle path only. Proper motorized vehicle deterrent methods shall be implemented. X3 - Per the attached Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 20, 2008, the information provided with the application does not adequately address the requirement for dual access, driveway access or water supply for fire fighting purposes. X4 - Dual points of ingress 1 egress are required per the ECLUR's. ~ 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. Potential Compatibility Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning Issues Yes No North: Former Railroad 'R' Vacant Undeveloped 'R' X R.O.W./Regional Path South: Pitkin County 'AFR 10' Xl East: Residential/Agricultural 'R' Residential/Agricultural 'R' X2 X2 (Sipido Subdivision) Residential Residential (Crown West: (Oreager Subdivision) 'RR' Mountain Estates 'R' X3 Subdivision) West: Residential/Agricultural 'AL' X4 (Rather Subdivision) XI - Per the attached correspondence from the Pitkin County Community Development Department dated May 16, 2008: "The Pitkin County Community Development Department has serious concerns about the appropriateness of the Coleman application for an eight lot subdivision in the 'Sinclair' property in Emma. The proposal is incompatible with the prevailing development pattern in Emma and with all the efforts that Pitkin County has made and continues to make to preserve the rural character of the area. There are some historical subdivision s in the area with smaller lots, but they were established before zoning in Pitkin County. The Emma area has been zoned with a minimum lot size of 1 0 acres since 1973. This proposed development, though in Eagle County, will have its only access in Pitkin County on Pitkin's Emma Road. For all intents and purposes the development would function as if it were in Pitkin County. This proposal constitutes a 'suburban', not 'rural', development pattern at this time, in this configuration, would directly conflict with the Emma neighborhood's and Pitkin County's goalsfor the area. Pitkin County and the Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Department have invested millions of dollars to preserve the rural character of Emma through land purchases and conservation easement purchases on the Clark property, the Fender property, the Grange property, and the Thomas property ". The Town of Basalt comments dated May 20,2008 also emphasize the absence of compatibility. 16 09/16/08 X2 - The Sipido Subdivision was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners on February 14, 1978. The subdivision consists of one 4-acre lot and one 2-acre lot. This approval occurred almost fourteen years prior to the creation and adoption of the first Mid Valley Community Master Plan (December 19, 1991). Said Plan emphasizes low density development south ofthe Roaring Fork River. The Plan defines Low Density as I dwelling unit per 14 to 35 acres. If all Master Plan goals and policies are satisfied then a limited number of one or two acre lots may be allowed. Also adjacent to the east of the subject property is a 7.35 acre unplatted residential/agricultural parcel. X3 - The Dreager Subdivision was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners on February 22, 1978. The subdivision consists of five lots ranging in size from 1.8 acres to 2 acres. The Crown Mountain Estates Subdivision consists of six lots ranging in size from 2 acres to 3.59 acres. Again, these subdivisions were both approved many years prior to the creation and adoption of the first Mid Valley Community Master Plan. X4 - The Rather Subdivision was approved by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners on March 18,2003. The subdivision consists of two lots in Eagle County (5.978 acres and 6.706 acres) and one 13.833 acre lot in Pitkin County. In 2003, both the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners found the proposed subdivision to be consistent with the spirit and intent of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, given the Agricultural Limited zoning, to preserve the active agricultural character of the immediate vicinity - including the Coleman Ranch property. This Coleman Ranch PUD Sketch Plan proposal for eight lots ranging from 2 acres to 3.5 acres on 18 acres is generally not compatible with existing and allowable land use in all directions from the subject property. The draft PUD Guide expressly prohibits the keeping of any type of livestock or horses and the minimum two acre lot size proposed is not consistent with the currently adopted Mid Valley Community Master Plan. The proposed development is comparable to the Sipido, Dreager and Crown Mountain Estates subdivisions; each of which comprises similar development densities as that which is proposed. A maximum density of 1 dwelling unit per 6 acres to 9 acres, retaining the right to certain agricultural activities, may be appropriate in this vicinity of Eagle County; for a total of2 or 3 primary residences on the 18 acre portion of the property located in Eagle County. This would result in a development with increased compatibility relative to the adjacent Rather Subdivision and other unplatted properties. Further, for the purposes of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation; the 6 acre portion of the subject property located within Pitkin County is currently non-conforming in terms of the Pitkin County' AFR 10' 10 acre zoning and should not be included in density calculations for development proposed to occur in Eagle County. Lastly, it must be noted that per Section 3-310.A.8, Dimensional Limitations of the ECLUR's, "Accessory dwelling units shall be developed so as to conform to all setback, height, lot coverage, floor area and other dimensional limitations ofthe underlying zone district, but shall not count towards any applicable density limitations for the property". This application proposes that Accessory Dwelling Units must either be constructed or a fee-in-lieu paid by the individual future lot owners. These units shall be a minimum of 1,286 square feet and are intended to satisfy the applicant's affordable housing mitigation requirement. As proposed, the Accessory Dwelling Units may be owned by the owner of each respective lot and primary residence or may rent or sell the units as Resident Occupied units. This concept satisfies Eagle County's Housing Guidelines. The ECLUR's; however, require that Accessory Dwelling Units not be sold as condominiums or sold separately from the principal use of the 17 09/16/08 property. The Accessory Dwelling Units must be utilized for the owner's personal use or rented as Resident Occupied units. If through this Planned Unit Development review process it is determined that Accessory Dwelling Units may be subdivided and sold separately from the primary residence then, the units must be included in the development density calculations; thereby effectively doubling the proposed density. ~ 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 ~ ~ II) E ~ <Il ta II) a 8 ..J (J E (J <Il <Il <Il II) FLUM ta ._ II) (J.- (l) ~8 II) ~ e g. E (J .~ 2 1:: ~ ;> Designation o ... ]~ ~ g :=3 .;tl e.€' II) '0 s:: g <Il "00 ";.j .~~ ;> ;> o <Il ;::l <a <Il := tn 5 0 II) ~a2 0 .Eta ~a2 ~a2 " Ci :::r: r.n tLlO' Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X X X X Recommendations Does not Satisty Majority of X X X X X Recommendations Not Applicable - Below are the Recommended Strategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: Xl- Development . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". The proposed 8 lot subdivision would incrementally degrade the natural beauty and environmental integrity in this vicinity of Eagle County. . "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 alter the current quality of life characteristics present in the Emma vicinity by increasing and promoting suburban-like development. . "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". The Mid-Valley Community Master Plan is currently in the process of being updated wherein; the most current population and job growth data available will be incorporated into long range planning objectives. With regard to this proposal, no supporting demographic data was provided with the application. . "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". The proposed development is neither compact nor mixed-use nor is it adjacent to an existing community center. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". The proposal does include one Accessory Dwelling Unit per each of the 8 lots. The Accessory Dwelling Units must either be constructed or a fee-in-lieu paid by the individual future lot owners; shall be a minimum of 1,286 square feet and are intended to satisfy the applicant's affordable housing mitigation requirement. As proposed, the Accessory Dwelling Units may be owned by the owner of each respective lot and primary residence or may 18 09/16/08 rent or sell the units as Resident Occupied units. This concept satisfies Eagle County's Housing Guidelines. The ECLUR's; however, require that Accessory Dwelling Units not be sold as condominiums or sold separately from the principal use ofthe property. The Accessory Dwelling Units must be utilized for the owner's personal use or rented as Resident Occupied units. If through this Planned Unit Development review process it is determined that Accessory Dwelling Units may be subdivided and sold separately from the primary residence then, the units must be included in the development density calculations. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". The application states that, "The Town of Basalt will have a significant relationship with the subject site, as future residents of the property contribute sales tax revenue to Basalt's economy to a greater extent than to Pitkin County or Eagle County", the application further asserts that, "The proposed project is for residential development. Taxes collected as part of sale of the eight individual lots will create revenue for the County". Information regarding costs to Eagle County due to the development, such as law enforcement and road maintenance was not provided. . "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". This finding is not applicable. . "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". This is the purpose of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation process. . "Analyze development applications for conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, which identifies the subject property as appropriate for low density residential development. "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 PUD process is intended to facilitate flexibility in development planning; however, no effort has been made to cluster the development on the Eagle County portion of the subject property. The application sets forth a perspective that the development is indeed clustered because the non-conforming 6 acre area within Pitkin County is being preserved as open space. Staff disagrees due to the fact that the home sites are not grouped closely together and no common area is included on the Eagle County portion of the site. . . . .. 1] IT UdU ,?Y,"j>.'*,","'Yb";"~A'/""/!"!,,_,,,!;,},'9''-,,W,>,\''''*'_''''S""":~W~W4W~WA6<:\ffi.'V"~~f_"'CiY;~;>..t&"'''''X>>f.>S>(;CP^''!<'1ifI''8'!Wi<:'~<<""''N Not an acceptable Cluster Layout. .---r-'- /" . I '. /..., ... It .~ ~'" . .,/~ \ . ...-..... .-....-.. : I . I . L.._.. .._..--: :. .. I n u. . JjJ This is an acceptable Cluster Layout. . "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing". Not applicable . "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts". In its current configuration and density, the proposed development does not minimize impacts. X2- Economic Resources . "Ensure that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". Not applicable. . "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance. It is likely that at least a portion of the proposed development will become second home development. If the housing plan 19 09/16/08 set forth in the application is satisfied (less the ability to sell the ADU's separately) then the jobs to housing balance should be impact neutral for this development. . "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population". Not applicable. . "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities". Not applicable. . "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation". Not applicable. . "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area". Not applicable. · "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population". Not applicable. . "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties". Not applicable. . "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs of nearby residents". Not applicable. . "Encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation". The subject property is located approximately 2 miles from the El Jebel / Willits Community Centers. X3- Housing . "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers" The subject property is located approximately 2 miles from the El Jebel / Willits Community Centers. . "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". This development proposal is not for workforce housing. . "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. The main issue which must be determined by the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners is whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. . "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications". The main issue which must be determined by the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners is whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. . "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". The Housing Plan as provided in the application satisfies the requirements of the Local Resident Housing Guidelines. X4- Infrastructure and Services . "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub': The subject property is located in an area served by adequate roads and paths. It is approximately two miles from a mass transit hub. . "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". If this PUD proposal is ultimately approved, at Final Plat a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateral will be required to ensure that all necessary infrastructure improvements are installed in correctly in a timely manner. . "Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". This is the primary purpose of subdivision improvement agreements. . "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". This application was referred to the Roaring Fork Transit Authority for review and comment. As of this writing, a response has not been received. . "Encourage transit oriented development". This proposal does not constitute transit oriented development. . "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". Not applicable. 20 09/16/08 . "Encourage 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 proposed development does include a trail connection to the adjacent Rio Grande Trail. It is unclear if this connection is intended as a public trail access point or as an amenity for residents of the proposed subdivision. . "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". Not applicable. . "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". Not applicable. . "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design ". This is a PUD Sketch Plan application; however it is not being utilized effectively to achieve a unique solution for appropriate development. . "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". Not applicable. . "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". Not applicable. . "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". The proposal does not comply with the ECLUR standards for dual points of access and maximum cul-de-sac length. . "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". The Basalt and Rural FPD has indicated that the information provided with the application does not adequately address the requirement for dual access, driveway access or water supply for fire fighting purposes. . "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". If the application is revised to satisfy the Basalt and Rural FPD concerns then the proposed development can be adequately served. . "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". Not applicable. . "Use House Bill 1041 powers tofully evaluate proposalsfor new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". If this PUD Sketch Plan is approved to allow 10 or more residential units, including Accessory Dwelling Units, then the PUD Preliminary Plan application must be accompanied by an application for 1041 Permit review of the total number or group of wastewater systems. . "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". This proposal entails individual on-site wastewater treatment systems and individual wells that will be the responsibility of future lot owners to install. . "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". Using accepted engineering standards, a trip generation rate of 10 trips per day per home may be used. As proposed, the amount of trips per day generated by this development would be between 80 and 160 based upon 8 primary and 8 accessory dwelling units. . "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". This proposal does represent a high-end housing choice. X5- Water Resources . "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". The State Division of Water Resources, in its letter of May 8, 2008 has opined that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains valid well permits and is physically adequate. The existing well on-site produced an average of 30 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on November 15, 1980. If the new wells have similar production rates, the water supply should be physically adequate. . "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". Baseline data to make this determination is not available at the County and was not provided with the application. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a current well water quantity and quality report will be required. . "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". The existing well on-site produced an average of 30 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on November 15, 1980. If the new wells have similar production rates, the water supply should be physically 21 09/16/08 adequate. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a current well water quantity and quality report will be required. . "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination". During site construction, Best Management Practices will be employed for storm water management, erosion control and dust suppression. . "Use pervious surfaces instead ofimpermeable surfaces when possible". The application does not propose the use of pervious surfaces. . "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". ". During site construction, Best Management Practices will be employed for storm water management, erosion control and dust suppression. Individual on-site wastewater treatment systems must be designed by a registered professional engineer to accomplish de-nitrification and be pressure-dosed to shallow trenches. . "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". The proposal does not incorporate low water consumptive landscape materials. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. . "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". The application indicates that stormwater will be retained in a vault and used on the site for irrigation. This must be authorized by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. . "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". The application indicates that stormwater will be retained in a vault and used on the site for irrigation. This must be authorized by the Colorado Department of Natural Resources. . "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". With 1041 Permit review, water conservation techniques will be required. . "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application". The State Division of Water Resources, in its letter of May 8, 2008 has opined that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant maintains valid well permits and is physically adequate. The existing well on-site produced an average of 30 gallons per minute over a two-hour period on November 15, 1980. If the new wells have similar production rates, the water supply should be physically adequate. . "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". Not applicable. . "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". ". The use of Best Management Practices for on-site stormwater management will be required. . "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". . "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". The proposal does not include vegetative buffers between developments. A buffer is proposed adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail. . "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". The use of pervious paving systems has not been proposed. X6- Wildlife Resources . "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing human-made barriers to wildlife migration". As of this writing, the Colorado State Division of Wildlife had not yet responded. The subject property is not located within any mapped Elk or Mule Deer habitat, range or migration route. . "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". The subject property has historically been utilized for residential/agricultural uses and is not pristine wildlife habitat. . "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". The use of Best Management Practices for on-site stormwater management will be required. 22 09/16/08 . "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". Dependant on the Colorado Division of Wildlife response, this may become necessary. . "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". Dependant on the Colorado Division of Wildlife response, this may become necessary. . "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". This is the intent of the PUD Sketch Plan process. . "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". The subject property is not located within a community center. . "Minimize site disturbance during construction ". Other than access construction and infrastructure, the application proposes to contain all site disturbances within the designated building envelopes. . "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". With application for Preliminary Plan, a detailed landscape plan will be required. . "Require wildlife-proofrefuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". The application does include a central wildlife proof refuse containment and recycling area. X7- Sensitive Lands . "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". The attached Colorado Geological Survey response dated May 20, 2008 indicates that no observable surface conditions would preclude the proposed land use or subdivision. CGS did note concern about the very close proximity ofthe Roaring Fork River, located immediately north of the site, indicates that groundwater and perched water should be expected to occur at very shallow depths, at least seasonally. Groundwater levels tend to fluctuate and perched water is likely to collect above the clayey, less permeable soil layers and within foundation excavations (which tend to be more loosely backfilled), causing wet or moist conditions in the soils immediately surrounding basement walls and foundations. Since the lowermost floor and crawlspace levels must be located at least three feet above maximum anticipated groundwater levels, full-depth basements should not be considered feasible on this site. Due to the likely presence of very shallow groundwater and fast-draining alluvial terrace soils, engineered septic systems will likely be required. Site specific, design-level geotechnical investigations including drilling, sampling, lab testing and analysis will be needed at the building permit phase and once building locations are finalized, to identify uncontrolled fill areas, if present, to determine groundwater levels and percolation rates, and to characterize soil and rock engineering properties such as density, strength, swell and consolidation potential, and bearing capacity at and below approximate foundation bearing depths. This information is needed to determine maximum bearing and minimum dead-load pressures, and to develop final design criteria for foundations, floor systems, pavements and subsurface drainage. . "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". It is not proposed to overlot grade the entire property. . "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification'~ The above delineated recommendations from the Colorado Geological Survey will be made conditions of approval. . Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". Done. . "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". All CGS recommendations will be made conditions of approval. . "Consider the cumulative impact of in crem en tal development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". The subject property is located within a scenic area with an historical agricultural past. As new development has occurred over time, the cumulative impact on the local landscape has been compromised. . "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". Not applicable. X8- Environmental Quality . "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". The site is adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail; it is conceivable that future residents will regularly walk or bicycle the two miles to the El Jebel / Willits community center. 23 09/16/08 . "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". The site is adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail; it is conceivable that future residents will regularly walk or bicycle the two miles to the El Jebel / Willits community center. . ~~Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting". The subject property is not located within a town or community center. Residents will either be second home owners; they will be locals that need to commute to work (or the RFT A bus stop in the community center) or they will be locals that need not commute daily. . "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". Site specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes. . "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". Site specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes. . "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". The application materials do not address lighting standards for the development. . "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". Other than temporary auditory impacts during construction, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will generate undue impacts. . "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". Other than temporary auditory impacts during construction, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will generate undue impacts. . "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". The subject property is not located in an area conducive to transit-oriented development. . "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". The proposal does not address the use of renewable resources. . Implement energy ejJiciency guidelines. Each habitable structure in the subdivision will be required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. . Implement energy saving techniques. Each habitable structure in the subdivision will be required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. Future Land Use Map Designation The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the community-specific Mid Valley Area Community Plan Future Land Use Map. Said map identifies the subject property as appropriate for low density residential development. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN 6 ~ I:: ta 6 'E 0 0'- 0'= E "'E 0..0 <<l 0..", 1 I ;:;0 r:n .- o i: -c ~5 '" '0 0.. C'- &0 ~.- a 8 o ~ .- '" ",ta iii 8'0: ;5J: .- =: .....u >0 OQ., ::I: Exceeds Recommendation Satisfies X X X X X X Recommendation Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable X MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN Transportatio Communit Open Space EI Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing / lebeI/ Frying n y Reservoir Heights Facilities Environment Basalt Pan 24 09/16/08 Conformance X Non Conformance Mixed XI X2 X3 Conformance Not X X X X Applicable Xl - The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied and would be satisfied per the proposed Housing Plan submitted by the applicant. The main issue which must be determined by the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners is whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. X2 - The Plan suggests limiting development on agricultural lands and encourages development on non-irrigated lands. X3 - The Plan identifies the region of the subject property as appropriate for low density development with a gross density of one dwelling unit per 14 to 35 acres. The plan also states that undeveloped areas on the south side of the Roaring Fork River are proposed to remain at current zoning levels. The Plan; however, allows a 'density bonus' for proposals which include preservation of agriculture and open space. This proposal does contain 6 acres of open space, albeit not in Eagle County. Also proposed is a 'Conservation Area' which is draped over 67% of the total 24-acre land area. The majority of the 'Conservation Area' is located in and around the building envelopes on each individual lot. The draft PUD Guide does expressly prohibit the keeping of any type of livestock or horses which is not consistent with the Plan's recommendation to preserve agriculture and open space. It must be further noted that the proposed development does not comply with the recommendations of the recently adopted Town of Basalt Master Plan. Please refer to the attached letter from the Town of Basalt dated May 20, 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. Phasing Plan Provided? X Yes The developer intends to ready the site for sale of the individual lots by installing the access road, landscaping and utilities stubbed to each lot - this will constitute one phase. It will be the responsibility of each individual lot owner to run utilities and driveways to the building envelope. ~ 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. 25 09/16/08 (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 Comprehensive 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. (/) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. (24 acres) 18 Total Subject Land Area: acres in Eagle County Building Envelopes range from 24,620 sq. ft. to 42,507 sq. ft. The PUD Guide states that there are no limitations on site coverage within the Total Impervious Surface: Calculation Not building envelope nor is there provided a maximum floor area ratio. Narrative elsewhere in the application states that the maximum home size is 5,750 sq. ft. - this must be rectified with the PUD Guide. Cumulatively, the access road, building allowances and Recommended 25% (-Imp. Surface) no maximum site coverage within each building envelope will exceed the recommended 25% maximum impervious surface recommendation. Additional Amount of Open Space NA ReQuired Per 1000 Persons = The 6 acre Open Space located in Pitkin County 6 acres in Pitkin also cannot be counted County + The 'Conservation Area' as Open Space fOr the Total Open Space 'Conservation located on individual lots purposes of this PUD Area' on 17.91 cannot be counted as Open evaluation because acres of the total Space per the ECLUR's. Eagle County's land use 24 acres regulations do not apply across jurisdictional boundaries. 26 09/16/08 Private Describe: Owned and maintained by HOA. Yes Describe: Commonly owned landscaped area. HOA ~ 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. .5 =~ e:E'~ !:l.~!ij '" o _'" ] ~~ ~ Cl<S::r: .Sf e &L!!l ",0 o~ ~8 Q) 5 .5.,: 1)0 ,gp~ ii!J: ]It: = 0 <1.) !:l. a~ ~'5 ..... '" ~J x Xl X X4 X2 X3 Xl- The comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey's response dated May 20,2008 must be adhered to. X2 - Even though the overall wildfire hazard rating for the subject property is 'low' per the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist's response dated May 19,2008; the Basalt and Rural FPD response stresses that the potential of catastrophic grassland fires occurring is ever present. X3 - The PUD Guide should be revised to restrict wood burning fireplaces within the proposed development. At a minimum, the provisions of the ECLUR's should apply limiting each residence to only one EP A approved new technology wood burning device. X4 - The Environmental Impact Report submitted with the application satisfies the ECLUR requirements; however the comments from the Department of Environmental Health, the Colorado Geologic Survey and any other applicable responding agency shall be made conditions of approval to ensure minimized environmental impact. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS OTHER APPLICABLE ST ANDARD(S) FOR PUD SKETCH/PRELIMINARY 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); Not applicable. Proposed schedule of development phasing; This is a one-phase development. (b) 27 09/16/08 (c) Statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system; The RE-l School District has not responded as of this writing; nevertheless, pursuant to the ECLUR's, the total amount of school land dedication required for this development is 0.1057 acres. The fee-in-lieu amount will be determined based upon a summary appraisal report at the time of Final Plat application. (d) Statement of estimated demands for County services; The application indicates that Police services will be provided by the Town of Basalt as opposed to the Eagle County Sheriffs Office. This will need to be verified at Preliminary Plan. Eagle County will not perform road maintenance within the development or on Emma Road because it lies within Eagle County. Fire Protection will be provided by the Basalt and Rural FPD. (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; A statement is provided in the application but it does not project what the resulting revenue would be. (1) Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; A conceptual site plan has been provided. (g) Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes; The application proposes interior fire protection sprinkler systems in each home and a neighborhood fire hydrant system served by well water. The Basalt and Rural FPD has requested additional specific information regarding the water supply and distribution system for fire fighting purposes. (h) Employee housing plan. The employee housing plan submitted satisfies the intent of the Housing Guidelines. The main issue which must be determined by the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners is whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. 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. Please reference the Comprehensive Plan evaluation detailed above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. 28 09/16/08 :=;r I I ~ ~.B ..J . El ~ if' x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x << << ^"~" <",",^"J:, ^"~. < < < Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) ~ < <<< <<< < < < <<< <: < << Landscaping and II1umination Standards (Division 4-2) Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Heat. Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS < Detailed Landscape Plan and Lighting Plan Required with Preliminary Plan As conditoned Water Quality Report Required with Preliminary Plan Required at Preliminary Plan As conditioned Applicable STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] B The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of 29 09/16/08 public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eaele Countv Road Capital Improvements Plan. (2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. The proposed subdivision is located such that it would not result in a 'leapfrog' pattern of development and the site is already served with electric, natural gas, cable and telephone. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. No natural or human-made hazards have been identified that would preclude successful development ofthe subject property. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Please refer to the Compatibility discussion above. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Eagle County Housing Department- In a verbal discussion with the Housing Department Director; the Housing Plan submitted with the application satisfies the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. . Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist- Please refer to the attached letter dated May 19, 2008. . Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 21,2008. 30 09/16/08 . Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 20,2008 from the Director of Environmental Health. . Colorado Geological Survey - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 20, 2008. . Colorado Division of Water Resources - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 8, 2008. . Town of Basalt - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 20,2008. . Pitkin County - Please refer to the attached memorandum dated May 16, 2008. . Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 20, 2008. . Emma Caucus - Please refer to the attached letter dated May 16,2008. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County Animal Services . Eagle County Assessor's Office . Eagle County Attorney's Office . Eagle County Road & Bridge . RE-l School District Administration and Transportation . Eagle County Sheriff s Office . Eagle County Weed & Pest . Colorado Division of Wildlife . Colorado Water Conservation Board . USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service . Holy Cross Electric . Qwest/PTIICenturytel . Basalt Water Conservancy . Colorado Historical Society . Eagle County Historical Society . Mid Valley Trails Committee . Postmaster . Roaring Fork Transit Authority Also, as of this writing, 16 letters and e-mails indicating concern and opposition has been received from concerned citizens and organized Home Owner's Associations in the immediate Emma vicinity. Copies are attached. C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: . The proposed development would provide eight new exclusive housing opportunities in the El Jebel 1 Emma vicinity. . Six acres of open space will be preserved in Pitkin County. . 67% of the land area in Eagle County will be designated 'Conservation Area' and be privately owned. . Up to eight new affordable housing opportunities would be created or a fee-in-lieu of affordable housing would help to fund future affordable housing projects throughout Eagle County. . The Emma area is a very desirable location to call home. . The additional development will generate additional property tax for the County; local sales tax revenue and will help to sustain local businesses and merchants. . The subject property is relatively flat and developable. 31 09/16/08 Disadvantal!es: . The development, as currently proposed, does not satisfy the spirit and intent of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, The Town of Basalt Master Plan or all applicable provisions of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. . The subdivision layout consumes the entirety of the 18 acres located within Eagle County with no common active or passive open space. . The development proposed is not clustered. . The proposal is not compatible with existing and allowed land uses in all directions from the subject property; exceptions being three 1970's subdivisions which received approval many years prior to adoption of the first and current Mid Valley Community Master Plan . The adjacent Rather Subdivision was approved by Eagle County in 2003 allowing only two residential/agricultural lots on 12.6 acres. This same application of the residential land use densities recommended in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan if applied on the subject property would result in two or three primary residences on the 18 acre property; retaining the right to certain agricultural uses. . The proposal does not satisfy the minimum road standard requirements for secondary emergency vehicle ingresslegress, turn around areas, cul-de-sac length or water distribution for firefighting purposes. . Regarding the proposed affordable housing mitigation plan; the RFVRPC and the Board of County Commissioners must determine whether or not the rural Emma area is an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product or if a fee in lieu of affordable housing be required of the development applicant, not future lot owners. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [PDS-00057] 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 the [PDS-00057] 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). 3. Table the [PDS-00057] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [PDS-00057] 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. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Engineering Department Memorandum dated May 21, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 32 09/16/08 3. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Department of Environmental Health Memorandum dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 4. All comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey response dated May 20, 2008 must be incorporated as plat notes on the Final Plat and implemented at the time of building permit application for each of the primary and accessory residential dwelling units. 5. If it is determined that the rural Emma area is not appropriate an appropriate location for affordable Resident Occupied rentals or for sale product then, a fee in lieu of affordable housing should be required of the development applicant at the time of Final Plat approval, not future lot owners. 6. All comments set forth in the Town of Basalt letter dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 7. All comments set forth in the Pitkin County Community Development Department letter dated May 16, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 8. All comments set forth in the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District letter dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed prior to PUD Preliminary Plan application; 9. A maximum development density of one primary dwelling unit per six to nine acres should be allowed on the subject property; 10. The PUD Guide must be revised to rectify the applicant's intent with regard to capping maximum home size versus no specified maximum floor ratio. The PUD Guide must also incorporate limitations on overall site coverage and maximum impervious surfaces. The PUD Guide should prohibit wood burning fireplaces. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci stated that the board had heard the application on July I, 2008 in El Jebel following a site visit of the property. The property consisted of a 24-acre parcel, 18 acres of the subject property lie within Eagle County and the balance, 6 acres, lie in Pitkin County. The proposal was for 8 lots on the 18 acres within Eagle County. At the July 15t hearing all three commissioners stated that they would not support the application in its current form. Since that time, the applicant has amended their proposal. He requested that the applicant elaborate on the new proposal. Stan Clauson, representative for the applicant stated that they had met with the Emma caucus and provided a revised plan. The revised plan included 3 lots with a 4th lot intended for a care taker unit. The feedback they received was mixed. Since that time, they'd simplified the proposal and now were proposing only a 3 lot proposal. The 3 lot proposal would create two lots of eight acres and a third lot of 10 acres. They believed that the new proposal was consistent with development patterns in the area. The applicant was also willing to grant public access to the Rio Grande trail, this being a significant community benefit. During the presentation to the Emma caucus, they discussed their willingness to provide a right of way for an easement that would allow for a pedestrian bike path adjacent to Emma Road. The applicant believed the division of the property into 3 lots seemed to make more sense in terms of the ownership and the entire development would be consistent with the surroundings. Dan Coleman, owner and developer spoke. His only disappointment in the process was with the Emma caucus's stance on the proposal. He believed by taking his proposal down to 3 lots would allow locals a shot at living there. He stated his desire to create a positive atmosphere. He proposed the creation of the Emma conservancy to protect the essence of the neighborhood. He believed that taking the number down to 3 lots was the as low as he could go and still have a chance of living on the property. He stated his commitment to comply with any regulations. He believed ifhe doesn't develop the property someone else would. He would like the development to be a win win for everyone. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher opened public comment. 33 09/16/08 Shelly Gross spoke. Her property neighbors the subject property. She believed that Mr. Coleman had presented a much better plan, however, it was still not consistent with the zoning. She believed the development would change the value of her property. She summarized Spencer Schiffer comments made at the prior hearing. Dave Slaubaugh spoke. He stated his concerns with the availability of water, sewage, and septic systems. He is not a member of the Emma caucus because he lives in Eagle County. The Emma caucus pertains to only Pitkin County. He was disappointed with the applicant's attempt to contact adjoining property owners in Eagle County. He believed that the applicant had ignored the commissioners and adjoining property owners. He recommended that the board allow only one house be built on the property with a required contribution of the property to a conservation easement adjoining the trail. Ann Austin Clapper spoke. She attended the Emma caucus meeting, this was the first time she'd seen the new proposal. Although she does not live within the caucus area, she attends their meetings. She indicated that out of approximately 35 attendees' only 2-3 people supported the new proposal. She believes the new proposal should go back to the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission. She stated her concern that other property owners might ask for the same density in the future. She suggested that there be a single-family house, keeping the original home as a deed restricted resident occupied unit. She opposed the zone change and believed the project should be denied as presented. Willard Clapper spoke. He spoke about the meeting with the Emma Caucasus. He was impressed with the applicant's new proposal however; he preferred to see one home and a caretaker unit on the property. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Narracci if it was staff s suggestion that the file go back to the Roaring Fork Planning Commission. Mr. Clausen stated that they would be willing to take the file back to the Planning Commission. He stated that carrying the project forward was a big expense and he welcomed any feedback from the board. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher stated that she found it frustrating that the Emma Caucasus did not include the Eagle County neighbors in their discussions. She encouraged Mr. Coleman to meet with all the neighbors. She believed that because the proposal had changed significantly she could not cast a vote one way or another. Mr. Morris stated that the land use regulations require that an application be sent back to the Planning Commission ifthere had been substantial changes. The board was entitled to have the view of the people who live closest to the proposal. The board can without the consent of the applicant decide that the file be sent back to the Roaring Fork Planning Commission. Commissioner Menconi stated that he hoped the applicant could work towards a positive solution. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher recommended that the applicant reconnect with RAFTA to discuss the trail before showing it as an amenity. Commissioner Menconi moved that the applicant return File No. PDS-00057 - Coleman Ranch to the Roaring Fork Planning Commission. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. AFP-00274 Remonov Center Yuri Kostick, Planning Department To be tabled to 11/18/08 NOTE: The purpose of this Amended Final Plat will be the removal of restrictive plat notes to allow commercial general land uses subject to special use review process pursuant to Section 5-520 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. ACTION: LOCATION: Edwards 34 09/16/08 Commissioner Menconi moved to table File No. AFP-00274 Remonov Center until November 18, 2008. Chairman Pro-Tem Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 35 09/16/08