Loading...
Minutes 10/28/08 PUBLIC HEARING October 28, 2008 Present: Peter Runyon Sara Fisher Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Robert Morris Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager Deputy County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was none. Special Recognition for Tobacco Prevention Program Sondra Manske, Public Health Ms. Manske stated that there were two recognitions. The first of the two was presented for a film contest put on last spring by the State Tobacco Prevention Program with approximately 133 entries statewide. There were six winners, and out of the 6 winners, 4 were from Eagle Valley High School. The second part of the recognition acknowledged local business that passed a tobacco compliance sting done by the Colorado Department of Revenue and the county. Out of 47 businesses, 44 were compliant. She thanked the businesses and students for their efforts in tobacco prevention. Chairman Runyon thanked everyone and issued certificates of appreciation to the winners of the film contest. Ron Beard, the Broadcast Teacher at EVHS spoke. He stated that the contest was a great opportunity for his students to work on their film skills and sell a message. He thought the four students did very well and he was proud of everyone who participated. Commissioner Fisher thanked the students for being valued members of the community and standing up to make a difference. Commissioner Menconi stated that he hoped the experience would help each of the students in their future and thanked them for taking a stance for good health in the community. Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of October 27,2008 (subject to review by the finance director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for November 6,2008 (subject to review by the finance director) Finance Department Representative c. Power of Attorney to administer residential down payment assistance programs effective upon execution County Attorney's Office Representative I 10/28/08 D. Agreement for Professional Services for Engineering and Surveying for the Edwards to Wolcott Trail Project between Eagle County and Inter-Mountain Engineering, Ltd. Ellie Caryl, ECO Trails E. First Amendment to Agreement for Preconstruction ofthe Eagle County Recycling Transfer Facility between Eagle County and Shaw Construction Ron Siebert, Facilities Management F. Consulting Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Matrix Design Group, Inc. for the Stone Creek Floodplain Mapping Project Greg Schroeder, Engineering G. Funding Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado; Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District; Eagle-Vail Property Owners Association; Colorado Water Conservation Board; Stone Creek Floodplain Committee for the Stone Creek Floodplain Mapping Project Greg Schroeder, Engineering H. Memorandum of Understanding between the State of Colorado Department of Human Services and Eagle County for the Colorado Works Program and the Child Care Assistance Program Suzanne Vitale, Health & Human Services I. Resolution 2008-122 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle Weber, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Letter of Credit No. 4450303233 in the amount of$l2,175.00 for the Account of Sonnen alp Golf Club, Inc. Prairie Circle Birm County Attorney's Office Representative J. Resolution Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle Weber, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with respect to Letter of Credit No. SLCPPDX04351 in the amount of$21,147.50 for the Account of McCoy Creek Cabins Phase I County Attorney's Office Representative K. Resolution 2008-123 Approving Interfund Transfers Cindy Preytis, Finance L. Resolution 2008-124 Concerning an Appointment to the Citizens' Open Space Advisory Committee Lisa de Graaf, Community Development M. Minor Type B Subdivision I Arrowhead at Vail Filing No. 11, a resubdivision of Lot 14; The intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to subdivide Lot 14, and a newly constructed duplex structure into two halves for separate sale. (Eagle County File No. 5MB-1579) Bob Narracci, Community Development N. AFP-00269I Amended Final Plat. The intent of this plat is to modify the building envelope on Lot 22 of Fox Run Meadows PUD Adam Palmer, Community Development Chairman Runyon stated that Item C would be removed from the consent agenda and item L would be modified. Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bob Morris, Deputy County Attorney stated that Item J would be removed and number 8 would be tabled for a later date. 2 10/28/08 Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-N. Omitting C and J from the consent agenda and modifying Item L, the resolution concerning an Appointment to the Citizens' Open Space Advisory Committee would be approved assuming Bill Heicher would be placed on by the Town of Eagle. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed Public Input, as there was none. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District dlbla Mulligan's #42-01247-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 4 Optional Premises in Eagle-Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. B. Big Sky Restaurant Company, LLC dlbla Beaver Creek Chophouse #07-59769-0003 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 2 Optional Premises in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. C. Vail Food Services, Inc. dlb/a Game Creek Club #13-32488-0000 This is a renewal ofa Hotel and Restaurant License on Vail Mountain/Un-incorporated Eagle County, There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. D. Ski Resort Concepts, LLC dlbla Grouse Mountain Grill #02-87163-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. E. Kotobuki, Inc dlb/a Sushi Ya Go-Go #14-40696-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in El Jebel. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. F. Edwards Discount Liquors, Inc. dlb/a Bottle 'n Cork 3 10/28/08 #14-43341-0000 This is a renewal of a Retail Liquor Store License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. The applicant also wishes to renew their in-store tasting permit which shall be valid until the expiration date of the applicant's liquor license for the succeeding year. Other G. Summit Food & Beverage, LLC dlbla The Summit #40-75239-0000 This is a Manager's Registration for The Summit in Edwards. Summit Food & Beverage, LLC wishes to register Rachel Conneely as its new Manager. The application is complete and the necessary fees have been paid. Ms. Conneely was fount to be of good moral character, based upon both the Sheriff and CBI reports. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for October 28, 2008 consisting of Items A-G. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Authority. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Housing Authority Power of Attorney to administer residential down payment assistance programs effective upon execution County Attorney's Representative Tabled Eagle County Air Terminal Authority County Attorney's Representative I. Approval of minutes of September 16, 2008 meeting; Mr. Baumgartner moved to approve the minutes of September 16, 2008 meeting. Ms. Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Consideration of: Consent to Transfer Concessionaire Agreement and Second Amendment for Operation of Ground Transportation Services between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and East West Resort Transportation LLC; Mr. Baumgartner moved to approve the transfer agreement. Ms. Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3. Consideration of: Second Amendment to Agreement for Operation of Ground Transportation Services between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Hy-Mountain Transportation, Inc.; Mr. Baumgartner moved to approve the second amendment to agreement for the Ground Transportation Services between Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and Hy-Mountain Transportation, Inc.; Ms. Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 4 10/28/08 4. Retail LOI report; Chairman Runyon stated that his post card business did business with both Charlie's T's and NGSI and wondered ifhe should recuse himself. Mr. Morris thought it best if there was direction requested with the report that he do so. Chairman Runyon stated that he would recuse himself from the discussion. Mr. Anderson stated that there had recently been a lot of terminal planning and studies along with passenger intercept surveys. The next step was to issue an invitation for letters of interest (LOI) on the retail location now known as Charlie's T-shirts. Charlie's T-shirts had been in the terminal for 10 years and is currently working on a month-to-month lease. The lease expired in April of2008. They wished to attract to responses from retail operators to see how they'd creatively meet the needs of passengers. There were two spaces for which they they had solicited interest. Space one was the pre-security space, and space two was in the concourse area. Charlie's T and NGSI both submitted proposals and both parties appeared as if they would be capable of fulfilling the obligations outlined in their proposals. NGSI's proposal indicated that they could produce a greater amount of rent on an annual basis as well as a larger amount of capital investment into the terminal. He requested direction from the ECA T board as to which direction to go with the proposals. Commissioner Fisher asked where NGSI was based. Mr. Anderson stated that NGSI was based out of San Antonio Texas and Charlie's Ts was based out of Eagle County. Mr. Baumgartner asked Mr. Anderson's what his recommendation was based on. Mr. Anderson stated that the recommendation was based on criteria outlined in the letter of interest. Both companies were either equal in most categories or NGSI far exceeded. Mr. Baumgartner moved for acceptance of staff's recommendation and asked that a lease be prepared with NGSI based on the terms of the proposal. He asked that as a recommendation, an effort be made to get more participation on inventory with brands of local flavor from NGSI. Ms. Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 5. New Business; There was none. Ms. Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Authority and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Baumgartner seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Other Eagle River Preserve Project update Cliff Simonton, Eagle County Senior Planner presented the update. He stated that currently the project was funding itself through tipping fees collected on site. He stated that the funding mechanism was a bit funky and there might not be as many dollars available in the future, as there was at the onset of the project. Because funding might not be available to bring Phase 2 up to Phase 1 standards, he proposed investing more money enhancing Phase 1. He suggested a nice entrance sign and fixing up the existing green entrance gate. He believed that not a lot of money would be needed for either item. He also suggested that because there might be more visitors next spring a temporary restroom facility might be appropriate. He spoke about river interface improvements which included a trail extension to river, access steps to the water, directional barriers, benches, tables, signs, and fisherman access points, etc. Commissioner Fisher wondered about a dog run area. 5 10/28/08 Mr. Simonton stated that dogs would be allowed to run in the meadow area without leashes, however other parts of the preserve might not allow dogs at all. He believed that signage was necessary to identify area usage. He presented several signage concepts. Commissioner Menconi wondered where the money would come from to pay for signage. He also wondered if the Eagle Valley Land Trust (EVL T) or the Vail Valley Foundation (VVF) would be providing dollars. Mr. Simonton stated that EVLT only monitors the conservation easement. The VVF had indicated that they might be able to contribute. In the absence of tipping fee money, the board would have to decide whether to put any additional dollars into some of the important aspects of the plan. Commissioner Menconi wondered when there might be a meeting with the other partners to determine the best approach. Mr. Simonton stated that there were some elements that the conservation easement doesn't address and as the owners of the property the county could pursue any design they liked. The VVF was interested in maintaining some level of cooperative funding. WECMRD had also indicated an interest in maintaining the property. He asked the board to make some decisions as to design and once the costs had been determined they could begin approaching the other entities. Commissioner Fisher believed that simple was better and preferred the beetle kill pine pole option for signage. She wondered where the money would come from to fund the improvements. She believed the main gate improvement was needed. She spoke in strong support of security and an ADA compliant restroom facility. Commissioner Menconi stated that he did not support infrastructure dollars. He would like to expand phase 2. He believed it was important to continue expanding the floor plan and continue searching for additional dollars. He believed that any signage and/or structures should be modest. Mr. Simonton stated that he liked the idea of a simple signage at the entrance and informative signage at the riverfront. He stated that he would prepare a full budget. Commissioner Menconi wondered if there was the option of putting in Phase 2 without spending a lot of money. Mr. Simonton stated that phase 2 had already been shaped and seeded. Chairman Runyon wondered when all the dirt work would be complete. Mr. Simonton stated that there was another 30 acres in Phase 2-B. He stated that all tipping would be complete by November of 2009. Commissioner Menconi wondered if the county could apply for a GOCO grant. Mr. Baumgartner stated that the grant is usually funded over multiple years. Mr. Simonton stated that GOCO grants were very specific in what they need. They need a detailed plan and up until now, they were not able to provide that information. He believed that GOCO funding would really be helpful however now he was just trying to get through next summer and do something reasonable to make the site available to the public. Chairman Runyon stated that safety and security were paramount. He requested dollar figures for each of the improvements before making any decisions. He indicated his preference to see access by next summer. Mr. Simonton stated that his intention was to get a feel from the board as to what they would support. He stated that some items would include design fees and he didn't want to put a lot of design fees into something the board wasn't interested in supporting. Chairman Runyon suggested various funding options from non-profit groups. Ms. Simonton thought that the discussion was helpful. He can now take these ideas to the Citizens Origination for additional direction on funding mechanisms. Commissioner Fisher stated that she believed that some type of bathroom facility was needed to protect the area even if it is only a temporary facility primarily during the summer season. Mr. Simonton stated that he would look into the funding options and put dollar amounts to each of the items. Eagle River Valley Sustainability Study Preview Chris Green, AlA Colorado West Board of Directors Recorded 6 10/28/08 Planning Files ZC-1561 Flat Water Ranch Sean Hanagan, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this Zone Change is to rezone the property from 'Rural Residential' (2-acre minimum lot size) to 'Resource' (35-acre minimum lot size). North of Ruedi Reservoir on the south edge of Eagle County in the Frying Pan Valley. LOCATION: FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: ZC-001561I Zone Change Flat Water Ranch Zone Change 015575 Frying Pan Road I North of Ruedi Reservoir on the south edge of Eagle County and the Frying Pan Valley F.W. Ranch L.P. F.W. Ranch L.P. The Land Studio, Inc. I Doug Pratte Sean Hanagan OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF PLANNER: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. REOUEST SUMMARY: This proposal is to rezone the subject 38.718 acre property from Rural Residential' (2-acre minimum lot size) to 'Resource' (35-acre minimum lot size).The proposed zone change from Rural residential to Resource will help protect the quality of life and the preservation of the environment by reducing the allowable potential for future development upon the subject property by 19 times. Further, a minimum of 90% of the parcel will remain undevelopedThe applicant is seeking this zone change not only to better protect the property over time but also to allow construction of one accessory dwelling unit by right B. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION AND RECOMMENDATION: The Roaring Fork planning Commission unanimously approved ZC-1561 Flatwater Ranch to include the following staff recommendations. 1. Areas of geologic concern indicated by Colorado Geologic Survey should be mapped and memorialized within the Zone Change Resolution and implemented at the time of building permit application. This step will also be used to advise prospective property owners of the sinkhole potential 2. Except 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. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official Zone District Map Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not 7 10/28/08 intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. Standards: Section 5-230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l} Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following: Section 3.2 General Development Policies a, c, e, f, g, h, i and k · Policy 'a' states that, "Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for future generations". This proposal to down zone the subject property from 2-acre minimum lot size to 35-acre minimum lot size, in combination with conserving a minimum 90% of the subject property in its natural condition will assure into the future that the subject property will retain those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County. · Policy 'c' states that, "Growth should be managed toward future sustainability - a healthy balance between economic success, quality oflife and the preservation of the environment". The proposed zone change helps to protect a healthy balance between economic success for the land owner and protecting the quality of life and the preservation of the environment by reducing the allowable potential for future development upon the subject property by 19 times. Further, a minimum of 90% of the site will be conserved through clustering of building sites. · Policy 'e' states that, "Urban and suburban type growth should be appropriately designed and should be located within or immediately contiguous to existing towns and community centers". The proposal is for rural development. · Policy 'f' states that, "New communities proposed for unincorporated areas of the County should be subject to a thorough and rigorous set of development criteria". Not applicable; although this proposal is subject to all applicable Eagle County Land Use Regulations and Comprehensive Plan conformance. · Policy 'g' states that, "Redevelopment and/or revitalization of currently underdeveloped, outdated, rundown, or otherwise dysfunctional areas should be encourages". Not applicable. · Policy 'h' states that, "Open corridors between towns and community centers should be preserved". Not applicable. · Policy 'i' states that, "A cluster style of development should be encouraged, especially in areas where cultural, environmental or scenic resources at risk". This proposal is for a low density development. . · Policy 'k' states that, "Local communities should establish unique venues, attractions and design standards directed toward enhancing individual community character and developing a sense of place". Not applicable. Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies b, c, d, e, f, h, j, m and 0 · Policy 'b' states that, "A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's character and resources, should be fostered". Not applicable. 8 10/28/08 · Policy 'c' states that, "Those qualities that make Eagle County a world class tourist destination and a great place to live, work and play should be identified, promoted and protected". The proposed zone change helps to protect a healthy balance between economic success for the land owner and protecting the quality of life and the preservation of the environment by reducing the allowable potential for future development upon the subject property by 19 times. Further, a minimum of 90% of the site will be conserved through clustering of building sites. · Policy 'd' states that, "The potential impacts of second-home ownership and an aging resident population in Eagle County should be identified and incorporated into the decision making process". Not applicable. · Policy 'e' states that, "Commercial development should occur at a pace commensurate to growth in Eagle County". Not applicable. · Policy 'f' states that, "Commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should be located within towns and community centers". Not applicable. · Policy 'h' states that, "Commercial development should fit a regional economic structure that promotes a coherent regional 'community' while respecting sub-area character and identity". Not applicable. · Policy 'j' states that, "Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations". Not applicable. · Policy 'k' states that, "Timber harvesting and mining should be recognized as viable economic activities, so long as negative social, cultural and environmental impacts are appropriately mitigated". Not applicable. · Policy 'm' states that, "Economic infrastructure should be planned for in advance, and should be adequate to support existing and future business needs". Not applicable. · Policy '0' states that, "Future economic development in Eagle County should center on the area's existing amenities while encouraging new know ledge and technology based enterprises". Not applicable. Section 3.4 Housine Policies a, d, e, g and n · Policy 'a' states that, "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". The subject property is not located within a community center. · Policy 'd' states that, "Efforts to increase the stock of affordable rental units for local workers should be supported". The accessory dwelling unit can serve as Resident Occupied affordable rentals; however, the location of the subject property is not in proximity to job and shopping opportunities. · Policy 'e' states that, "Adequate housing options for Senior Citizens should be available". Not applicable. · Policy 'g' states that, "Well designed mobile home subdivisions, modular home subdivisions and mobile home parks should be encouraged where appropriate". Not applicable. · Policy 'n' states that, "Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's workforce housing needs". The proposed zone change is not intended to accommodate afJordable worliforce housing. The subject property is not located within a community center. Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a, c, g, i, j, k, m and 0 · Policy 'a' states that, "Developed areas in Eagle County should be served by multiple modes of transportation". Not applicable. · Policy 'c' states that, "Residential neighborhoods should include an appropriate mix of community services and community centered retail spaces that can be accessed by alternative modes of transportation". Not applicable. · Policy 'g' states that, "Eagle County should be adequately and efficiently served by mass transportation systems and facilities", Not applicable. · Policy 'i' states that, "Exemplary emergency and community services should be available to all residents, visitors and second home owners". The Basalt and Rural FPD response dated January 30, 2008 sets forth several requirements which must be met regarding access 9 10/28/08 improvements, water supply and distribution for fire fighting purposes, fire resistive construction materials and fire sprinkling systems within each of the two habitable structures. · Policy 'j' states that, "The management and distribution of recreation areas and facilities in Eagle County should be implemented in an environmentally conscientious manner". Not applicable. · Policy 'k' states that, "Adequate and efficient infrastructure should exist within community centers and suburban neighborhoods for the delivery of domestic drinking water and for the treatment of domestic sewage". Not applicable. · Policy 'm' states that, "Communication infrastructure should be sufficient to support all anticipated needs in Eagle County". Not applicable. · Policy' 0' states that, "The service and infrastructure needs of all socio-economic, age and cultural groups present in Eagle County should be fully addressed". Not applicable. Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f, g, hand i · Policy 'a' states that, "The long term viability of both ground and surface water sources should be protected". The Colorado Division of Water Resources in its letter dated May 14, 2008 opines that the proposed water supply will not cause material injury to decreed water rights, so long as the applicant obtains and maintains a valid well permit issued pursuant to the Basalt Water Conservancy District contract, and is physically adequate. · Policy 'b' states that, "Minimum in-stream flows should be maintained and efforts to establish optimum in-stream flow standards in Eagle County should be supported". Not applicable. · Policy 'c' states that, "Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented". The application does not address water conservation. · Policy'd' states that, "New water diversions and water storage projects should result in positive impacts to Eagle County's economy and environmental quality". Not applicable. · Policy 'e' states that, "Collaborative efforts on regional land and water use planning efforts to address future growth, water supply, and stream flow protection should be encouraged". Not applicable. · Policy 'f states that, "Water quality in Eagle County should meet the highest applicable standards". Not applicable. · Policy 'g' states that, "Surface and groundwater supplies should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts". No farming, manufacturing or other processing is planned for this parcel, therefore no water pollutants will be discharged on this or surrounding lands. · Policy 'h' states that, "Aquatic and riparian habitats should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts". No farming, manufacturing or other processing is planned for this parcel, therefore no water pollutants will be discharged on this or surrounding lands. · Policy 'i' states that, "Water-related recreation should be encouraged where appropriate at a level that will not damage related resources, ecosystems and environments". Not applicable. Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i · Policy 'a' states that, "The integrity, quality and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved". As of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not responded. Per the Wildlife Analysis included in the application materials: The entire site is mapped as Elk Summer and Winter Range by the CDOW; No production areas or migration corridors occur on the property; The entire site is mapped as Black Bear Fall Concentration and Black Bear Human Conflict by the CDOW; The entire site is mapped as Mountain Lion Human Conflict by the CDOW; The entire site is mapped as Turkey Winter Range by the CDOW; and, The entire site is mapped as Osprey Winter Range by the CDOW. The applicant agrees to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development through fence restrictions; dogs must be contained or leashed; precautions such as bear-proof refuse containment, no pet food outside, no bird feeders, etc.; and, native vegetation on the site will be preserved to the maximum extent possible other than alteration required due to wildfire lO 10/28/08 mitigation. Best Management Practices will be employed for erosion control and fugitive dust. · Policy 'b' states that, "The well-being of wildlife species of economic importance should be actively monitored and protected". Please reference above discussion of wildlife habitat and proposed mitigation measures. · Policy 'c' states that, "The well-being of wildlife species of less economic importance and those on the rare and endangered species list should be actively monitored and protected. Please reference above discussion of wildlife habitat and proposed mitigation measures. · Policy 'd' states that, "Development in areas critical to the continued well being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed". Please reference above discussion of wildlife habitat and proposed mitigation measures. · Policy 'e' states that, "Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts". Please reference above discussion of wildlife habitat and proposed mitigation measures. · Policy 'f' states that, "Broad development patterns and the cumulative impacts of incremental development on wildlife habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for in the decision making process". Please reference above discussion of wildlife habitat and proposed mitigation measures. · Policy 'i' states that, "Access to public lands and opportunities for public land recreation should be balanced with the need to preserve quality wildlife habitat". Not applicable. Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a, c, e and g · Policy 'a' states that, "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard". The response received from the Colorado Geological Survey, dated September 17th, 2008 indicates that no observable surface conditions precluding development were witnessed. The CGS does set forth specific recommendations regarding the potential for ground subsidence / sinkholes and grading causing potential slope instability. Compliance with these recommendations will be memorialized in the Zone Change Resolution and implemented at the time of building permit application. · Policy 'b' states that, "The mitigation of natural hazards should be done in a manner that protects the integrity of the natural environment and the visual quality of the area". Site disturbance will be mitigated within the building envelopes and new driveway cuts. The remainder of the subject property will remain in its natural condition. · Policy 'c' states that, "Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include visual, historic and archeological value". · The proposed zone change will help protect the visual and historic value of the subject property by reducing the allowable potential for future development upon the subject property by 19 times. Further, a minimum of90% of the site will remain undeveloped. · Policy 'e' states that, "A variety of approaches should be utilized to preserve land as open space". This proposal includes clustering on a maximum of 1 0% of the subject property in addition to a 19X reduction in potential development density. · Policy 'g' states that, "Appropriate access should be provided to public lands and rivers". Not applicable. Section 3.9 Environmental Qualitv Policies a, c and d · Policy 'a' states that, "Air quality should meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations oflocal residents". Air quality is not anticipated to suffer as a result of the proposed zone change from 'Rural Residential' to 'Resource '. · Policy 'c' states that, "Noise should be minimized to meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations oflocal residents". Other than temporary auditory impacts generated during construction, it is not anticipated that the subject property or neighboring properties will be subject to undue noise. · Policy 'd' states that, "Energy efficiency and the reduction of overall energy consumption should be a primary goal for future operations and developments in Eagle County". All new construction will be required to comply with the County's EcoBuild regulations. 11 10/28/08 Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy a · Policy 'a' states that, "Zone changes and site-specific land use proposals should reflect the written policies of this Comprehensive Plan, the land use designations of the Future Land Use Map and the goals and objectives set forth within Area Community Plans, as applicable". Section 4 Adopted Area Community Plans All relevant goals, policies and FL UM designations · The Future Land Use Map identifies the subject property as appropriate for rural, low density development. The Plan defines Low Density Development as one dwelling unit per 14 to 35 acres. This zone change proposal will allow one primary residence and 1 Accessory Dwelling Unit on 38.719 acres or one dwelling unit per 19.08 acres. Additionally, all relevant goals & policies of the following plans or such equivalent plans and/or future plans, which may be in effect at the time of application for zone change: MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN Community Open Space El Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing Transportation Facilities / Jebel/ Frying Reservoir Heights Environment Basalt Pan Conformance X Non Conformance Mixed Xl X2 Conformance Not X X X X X Applicable Xl - The current Local Resident Housing Guidelines are not Applicable in this down-zone request X2 - Per the Mid Valley Community Master Plan Ruedi Reservoir sub-area recommendations: "A limited amount of the Ruedi Reservoir shoreline lies in Eagle County, most of which is owned by the U.S. Forest Service. There are two large tracts of private land north of the reservoir; a portion of each is already subdivided. The corner of the eastern tract includes a very small amount of shoreline". The Plan sets forth the following policies for this region of Eagle County: 1) Maintain a 200 foot setback for all development from the highway to preserve the visual and recreational qualities of the valley; the existing singlefamily residence and allfuture building sites are situated in excess of200feetfrom the Frying Pan Road right-of-way. 2) No central water and sewer systems shall be approved; The development is to be served by individual well water and separate on-site wastewater treatment systems. 3) All development shall be located to preserve the visual and recreational quality of the valley. Proposed development is to be located at the base of mountain slopes, in forested areas where possible, or on upland terraces not visible from the roadway. Road cuts and fills should not be visible from off-site and must be revegetated; The existing residence and proposed building locations are located on upland terraces 70 to 80 feet above the Frying Pan Road. An existing driveway has been in existence and has been revegetated. 4) Lands proposed for development must preserve fifty percent of the existing open space to retain natural character; This proposal will include a minimum 90% of the subject property being conserved. 5) The pedestrian circulation system basically parallels the highway. A trail easement within the 200 foot setback, or along the historic Stage Coach Road right-of-way, linked to neighboring pathways, shall be a condition of development approval; The Plan does not further speak to the 'Stage Coach Road' and mapping is unavailable. The 2006 Mid Valley Trails Plan does reference a proposed 'Stage Road Trail' which anticipates a public process for the development of this trail. The trail will provide connections to Ruedi Reservoir and US Forest Service lands in the upper Frying Pan valley 12 10/28/08 6) Development proposals must provide adequate room for expansion and improvement of Frying Pan Road, must enhance and preserve historic trail right-of-ways, provide use ofthe Frying Pan River for fishing and must identifY public access locations; The proposal does respect a 200 foot plus setbackfrom the Frying Pan Road which can accommodate future widening. 7) The traffic generated by the number of built units existing in the Frying Pan and Ruedi Reservoir area plus unbuilt but approved units already exceeds the comfortable carrying capacity of the Frying Pan Road. Frying Pan Road improvements must be in place before further development is approved; It is the applicant's intent that the reduction of potential residential density proposed with this zone change application will minimize any future impact on said road. 8) Cluster development to avoid adverse wildlife impact and enhance the high visual quality of the area. Due to the recreation resources at Ruedi Reservoir, unique development proposals may be entertained if the visual, environmental and traffic impacts for Frying Pan Road can be mitigated and the recreation capacity ofthe reservoir is not exceeded. The proposed development will help retain the high visual quality of the area. The proposed development of one primary single family residence and one accessory dwelling unit will not adversely impact the visual impacts and overall recreational experience of Ruedi Reservoir. 9) EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE ST ANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2} Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. The proposed zone change from 'Rural Residential' two acre zoning to 'Resource' 35 acre zoning will help to ensure compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property. The resulting development will be harmonious with the physical character of existing parcels in the vicinity of the subject property. X EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3} Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that o.fJset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi- modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. The public benefit generated by this proposal includes: A 19X reduction in potential development density by down zoningfrom two acre minimum lot size zoning to thirty five acre minimum lot size zoning. A minimum of90% of the subject property will be conserved. The accessory dwelling unit may serve as affordable Resident Occupied units. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 13 10/28/08 U DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS D NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4] Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Little new development potential has been approved in the Ruedi Reservoir region since the adoption of the Mid Valley Community Master Plan in 1991. No notable changed conditions have occurred on the subject property or surrounding area rather, the landowner / applicant believes that a down zoning of the property is appropriate. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5} Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? This amendment will not result in the need for new infrastructure. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eaele County Eneineerine Department: Please refer to the attached memorandum dated September lIth, 2008. Eaele County Department of Environmental Health: Please refer to the attached memorandum dated August 28th, 2008. Eaele County Wildfire Mitieation Specialist: Please refer to the letter dated June 14, 2007 which was included in the application materials. Colorado Geoloeical Survey: Please refer to the attached letter dated September 17th, 2008. Colorado Division of Water Resources: Please refer to the attached letter dated May l4, 2008. Colorado Department of Transportation: CDOT responded verbally with 'no comment'. Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District: Please refer to the attached letter dated January 20, 2008. Eaele County Surveyor: Please refer to the attached letter dated May 16, 2008. Town of Basalt: Please refer to attached letter dated September 5th, 2008 Colorado Historical Society. Please see attached letter dated September 9th 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 Attorney's Office Eagle County Road and Bridge Department Eagle County Housing Department Eagle County Sheriff's Office Eagle County Assessor's Office 14 10/28/08 Eagle County Weed & Pest RE-l School District Colorado Division of Wildlife Colorado Water Conservation Board Natural Resources Conservation Service US Forest Service Century Tel Holy Cross Electric Basalt Water Conservancy District Eagle County Historical Society Mid Valley Trails Committee Postmaster Roaring Fork Transit Authority Ruedi Shores HOA C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: . The proposed zone change from 'Rural Residential' two acre zoning to 'Resource' 35 acre zoning will help to ensure compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property. . The resulting development will be harmonious with the physical character of existing parcels in the vicinity of the subject property . A 19X reduction in potential development density. A minimum of 90% of the subject property will be conserved. . The accessory dwelling unit may serve as affordable Resident Occupied units. Disadvantaees: · No real zoning or land use disadvantages are readily apparent in this proposal for down zoning D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [ZC-1561] 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 [ZC-1561] 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 [ZC-1561] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [ZC-1561] 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 15 10/28/08 Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the file. He stated that the intent of the zone change was to downzone from rural residential to resource zoning to allow for one single family residence of unlimited size, a single accessory dwelling unit of up to 1800 ft and garages and accessory buildings of up to 850 ft. The resulting development would be harmonious with the physical character of existing parcels in the vicinity of the subject property. A minimum of 90% of the property would be preserved. The rezone would preserve the environment by reducing the allowable potential for future development. Mr. Hanagan presented several photos of the site. He indicated that all staff findings were positive and there were no zoning or land use disadvantages. Staff recommended 4 conditions as presented in the staff report. Doug Pratte, representative for the applicant spoke. He stated that the applicant was seeking to utilize all of the uses currently outlined in the regulations. The review standards would apply. The applicant believed it was a better use of the property to rezone it resource. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher asked whether the existing home would be replaced by the construction of the new house and whether the old house wou1c become the ADD. Mr. Pratte stated that the existing house would be replaced. Commissioner Fisher asked about the ridgeline requirements. Mr. Hanagan stated that the ridgeline was not an issue. Commissioner Fisher stated that the zone change was a great solution and it would be an enhancement to the property. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve file no. ZC-OO 1561 Flat Water Ranch Zone Change including staff's findings and conditions as presented: I. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations Otherwise made by the applicant ion this application and in public meeting shall Be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. Areas of geologic concern indicated by Colorado Geologic Survey should be mapped and memorialized within the Zone Change Resolution and implemented at the time of building permit application. This step will also be used to advise prospective property owners of the sinkhole potential. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. FNZ-00006 Mertz Berm Sean Hanagan, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this hearing is due to the fact that the Board of County Commissioners called up a Finding of No Significant Impact determination made by the Community Development Department director for discussion during a public hearing. According to the submittal, the berm would span 465' along the applicant's northern property line parallel to Frontage Road with varying undulation in height limited to l4' from finished grade of the applicant's property. LOCATION: 1090 Valley Road, El Jebel FONSI DETERMINATION: l6 lO/28/08 Pursuant to Section 4-230.A.ll, Approval Process for Large Landscape Berms of Eagle County's Land Use Regulations, an Applicant is required to obtain a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) prior to constructing an earthen berm which is taller than eight feet as measured from natural grade at any point on the side of the berm that faces an adjacent property or longer than 150 feet in length. The Director may determine that a Finding of No Significant Impact should be issued if the construction of the berm in its proposed location is consistent with the spirit and intent of related standards and is unlikely to have any significant adverse impact to adjacent properties or public resources or amenities pursuant to Section 4-230.A.l1.b.(1), Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations FILE HISTORY: Mr. Mertz began work on a sound and sight mitigation berm spring of2006 within the CDOT right-of-way along Highway 82, but outside of, his northern property line. He was alerted to the fact that a grading permit was necessary for any type of earth work as well as a permit from CDOT allowing any changes within their jurisdictional domain. Over the course of a year, Mr. Dan Roussin from CDOT let Mr. Mertz know that a berm the likes of which he was proposing would not be allowed in the right-of-way unless Eagle County was his sponsor and claimed liability for the project via an application process. The berm was subsequently relocated to Mr. Mertz's property Mr. Mertz was also told by Eagle County Engineering Department that a FONSI would be necessary if the proposed berm would be located within his property line under Eagle County Regulations for approval of large landscape berms Section 4-230.A.ll Mr. Mertz applied for the Finding of No Significant Impact in April of 2007. The current FONSI requirements pertaining to a berm built on Mr. Mertz's property above and beyond the standard regulations seem to have been met. Further requirements as well as maintenance agreement will be necessary to obtain the grading permit once and if the FONSI is approved; as such the Community Development Director approved Mr. Mertz'z FONSI request on August 15th 2007. During the referral process the file was called up by Commissioner Runyon and scheduled a hearing late September 2007. Eagle County was unable to contact Mr. Mertz and the hearing did not take place. One Year later in September of2008 Mr. Mertz contacted the county with regard to his FONSI status. The archived file was located and assigned to staff planner Sean Hanagan. New notification was posted in the Eagle Valley Enterprise October 2nd, 2008. A new Board of County Commissioner's hearing is scheduled for October 28th 2008 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting a determination of no significant impact for a berm above and beyond the allowable dimensions as described in Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 4-230.A.IO. According to the submittal the berm would span 465' along the applicant's northern property line parallel to Highway 82 Frontage Rd with varying undulation in height limited to 14' from finished grade of the applicant's property. The proposed berm would not encroach into the CDOT right-of-way and will maintain a clear vision area as required in Eagle County's landscaping standards. The berm will be constructed according to a required submittal and approval for a grading permit through the Eagle County Engineering Department. Please be advised that the Community Development has evaluated the above referenced application. Based upon information provided by the applicant, I have determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact IS APPROPRIATE in this instance for the following reasons: · Significant adverse impacts to the County are unlikely; · The proposal satisfies the applicable Permit Application Approval Criteria as delineated in Section 4- 230.A.10.a-j of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. 17 10/28/08 Pursuant to 4-230.A.l1.b.(3).(a) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, "Within fourteen (14) days after publication of the Director's Determination of a FONSI, the Board may decide to reconsider the Determination. Such reconsideration shall be made at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Board for which proper notice can be accomplished." For this application, the Director's Determination from 2007 has been republished in the Eagle Valley Enterprise on Thursday, October 2nd, 2008 and the Board of County Commissioners hearing scheduled for October 28th, 2008 At the October 28th, 2008 hearing, the Board of County Commissioners must determine weather or not it is appropriate to uphold or overturn the Community Development Directors FONSI determination. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the intent of the file and several recent photos of the site. He stated that the board must vote to uphold or overturn the positive FONSI finding of Community Development Director Keith Montag. Community Development evaluated the application based on information provided by the applicant and determined that a finding of no significant impact was appropriate in this instance. Chairman Runyon asked about the current status of the berm. Mr. Hanagan stated that work had stopped on the berm until the board was able to make their determination. Mr. Mertz, the applicant spoke. He stated that the process had been fairly complicated and involved two different government entities, CDOT and Eagle County. The berm had been sitting unfinished for several months pending this meeting. Chairman Runyon opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Fisher asked Chairman Runyon ifhe had any concerns. Chairman Runyon stated that he wanted to make certain that everyone followed the correct procedures and that the county's berm regulations were followed. He also thought it was important to allow the community to weigh in. He stated that his initial concern was a reflection of what going on, on the other side of the county and he wanted to make sure things were done properly. Commissioner Menconi had no comments on the file. Commissioner Fisher move to uphold the FONSI determination 0(FNZ-00006 Mertz Berm with conditions outlined by staff: 1. A detailed landscape plan that includes provisions for regional native species and irrigation be required of the applicant and this plan be memorialized within the BoCC resolution. 2. A grading permit is submitted and approved relative to the FONSI submittal including any collateral and/or improvement agreements deemed necessary by the Eagle County Engineering Department 3. The CDOT Right of Way fence shall be returned to its original location. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00052 - Crown Mountain Plaza Bob Narracci, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 7/22/08 & 8/26/08 18 10/28/08 ACTION: The purpose of this PUD is to create a new, mixed-use Planned Unit Development with: ground level commercial; second floor commercial and residential uses; and residential on the upper levels (3fd and 4th stories). The majority of parking will be found underground; some limited street parking will also be anticipated. The applicant seeks an approval for this PUD Sketch Plan that presents pedestrian streetscape design; proposes new, neighborhood commercial opportunities; and offers a mix of free-market and onsite local resident housing (Affordable Housing) opportunities. LOCATION: Ol8800 Hwy 82, El Jebel (former Fitzsimmons parcel); adjacent to Valley Road and the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PDS-00052/Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan Crown Mountain Plaza Planned Unit Development Coleman Brothers Construction Owner Stan Clauson Associates FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This proposal is for a Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan on the triangularly shaped 2.28-acre property locally known as the 'Fitzsimons Parcel'. The triangle is bounded on the west by the Sopris View Apartment complex; Valley Road on the south and U.S. Highway 82 on the north. Prior to being acquired by the current owner the subject property had a gasoline service station, garage with residential uses above and a three-bay car wash upon it. These structures have since been razed. This PUD Sketch Plan application proposes redevelopment of the subject property with one large mixed- use, 54 feet I 0.5" tall, four-story structure plus subterranean parking. The structure footprint is equal to one-third of the total site area. The total proposed square footage (Residential + Office + Commercial) is 130,263 square feet itemized as follows: (The application form submitted requests a Total Project square footage of 95, 344 square feet for all proposed uses, which differs substantially from the 130,263 square feet referenced elsewhere throughout the application materials.) First Floor: a. The first floor is intended for a variety of service and retail commercial uses including restaurants. b. Narrative in the application states that, "Commercial spaces will be build-to-suit and are located on the ground floor. The gross commercial square footage totals approximately 29, 770 gross leasable square feet, or 25,304 net leasable squarefeet". c. The site plan summary states that the "Total Commercial Net Sq. Ft.for (entire) building = 28,643 square feet ". Presumably, this maximum commercial net square footage is intended for retail and service commercial on the ground level floor. d. The draft PUD Guide clearly itemizes uses allowed on the ground floor but does not specifY a maximum gross or net leasable area for the ground floor. Among the commercial uses proposed is 'office, business or professional '; the draft PUD Guide should be amended to specifically not allow commercial office uses to locate on the ground floor of the building rather, requiring that all commercial office uses locate on the second floor of the building. 19 lO/28/08 e. The application materials must be revised for numeric consistency between the application form, the text, the site plan and the draft PUD Guide. The total allowable square footage must be clearly itemized in the draft PUD Guide by use type and floor. Second Floor: · Per the draft PUD Guide, "There are eight affordable housing units rangingfrom 902 - 958 sq. ft. per unit". · Per the draft PUD Guide, "There are 11 unfinished office spaces which may befurther organized into smaller or unified office modules based on tenant needs. All or any portion of this 31,509 sq. ft. of office space may be converted to market rate residential if the building owner finds the demand for residential uses exceeds the demand for office space. As part of the building permit process, an affordable housing mitigation fee must be paid to Eagle County as market-rate residential uses are considered higher impact than office uses. The mitigation fee is $163 per square foot". · The PUD Guide does not clearly itemize the total maximum allowable square footage by use type (residential or office) for the 2nd floor. The draft PUD language above will be interpreted to cap the squarefootage availablefor office use to a maximum of 31,509 square feet. · Per the second floor floorplan: ,( "The total secondfloor gross sq. ft. = 44,053 sq. ft. ,( "The second floor net sq. ft. = 40,596 sq. ft. " ,( "Office Net Sq. Ft. = 31,509 sq. ft. ,( "AHU sq. ft. = 9,087 square feet (8 units) " · Per the site plan summary, "The total office net sq. ft. for (entire) building = 36,046 sq. ft.". Is the office use square footage difference between the floor plan and the site plan summary (36,046 sq. ft. - 31,509 sq. ft. = 4,537 sq.ft.) intended to be located elsewhere in the building other than on the secondfloor? · The maximum allowable square footage by use type (residential/office / commercial retail and service) must be clearly delineated in the draft PUD Guide and reconciled with the proposed site plan. The PUD Guide must define the difference between gross and net floor area calculations and the method used for determining net square footage for the entire development. Third Floor: · Per the third floor floorplan: ,( "Total third floor gross sq. ft. = 37,956 sq. ft. ,( "Total thirdfloor net sq. ft. = 34,587 sq. ft. ,( "Market rate residential net sq.ft = 25,500 sq. ft. (11 units)" ,( "AHU sq. ft. = 9,087 sq. ft. (8 units) " · The draft PUD Guide is consistent with the floor plan. Fourth Floor: · Per the fourth floor floor plan: ,( "Totalfourthfloor gross sq. ft. = 25,694 sq. ft. " ,( "Total fourth floor net sq. ft. = 21,900 sq. ft. " (12 units) ,( Total net sq.ft. = Market Rate residential net sq. ft. 20 10/28/08 · The draft PUD Guide must be revised to specifY the maximum allowable residential square footage on the fourth floor (21,900 sq. ft). Subterranean Parkinf! Garage and Storage Area: · This level is proposed to include six storage units varying in sizefrom 1,126 sq. ft. to 6,097 sq. ft. for a maximum gross total of 18,193 sq. ft. · Mechanical and Maintenance areas totaling 2,453 sq. ft. · 61 general parking and 35 private parking spaces (96 total). Currently, the subject property is zoned Commercial-General; Eagle County's most permissive standard commercial zone district. If the Commercial-General zone district standards were applied to the 2.28-acre site then the maximum allowable site coverage would be 50% for the building or 49,658.50 square feet and; 80% for all impervious materials or 79,453.60 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area ratio is 60% of the site or 59,590.20 square feet. Via Special Use review and approval, up to 33% of the allowable square footage could be utilized for residential use. The PUD Sketch Plan proposes in excess of twice the currently allowable floor area on the 2.28-acre parcel. The application states that 26,146 square feet of the site will contain 'open/landscaped places' which is approximately 26% of the total land area. Landscape islands in and around the parking lot and building do not constitute open space. The draft PUD Guide must be revised to specify maximum allowable building footprint; maximum allowable impervious site coverage, including the building and the maximum allowable floor area ratio. Maximum Buildin Faa rint Proposed 74% = 73,171 sq. ft. 33% = 33,180 sq. ft. Maximum FAR 60% = 59,590.20 sq. ft. 0.60: I 131 % = 130,263 sq. ft. 1.31 : I 80 % = 79,453.60 sq. f1. 50% = 49,658.50 sq. ft. It must be noted the maximum allowances under the Commercial-General zone district are not by right. The property in question has never been subject to any county land use approval or subdivision processes. As such, any use by right may only be developed on a lot that was part of a subdivision approved by Eagle County for which site specific information was provided regarding lot layout, street pattern, drainage, landscaping and utilities; otherwise the use shall be considered a use allowed by special review. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: North: Existing Use(s) Zoning Eagle Crest Nursery PUD North: Existing Use (s) Zoning El JeBowl Commercial - General South: Existing Use(s) Zoning Crown Mountain Park / PUD Tree Farm Residential West: Existing Use(s) Zoning Multi-family Apartments Suburban Medium Density East: Existing Use(s) Zoning U.S. Highway 82 R.O.W. NA Existing Zoning: Commercial-General Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development Current Development: Fenced /Vacant Site Conditions: Site looks as though the previously existing buildings were recently razed. Total Land Area: 2.28 Acres 99,317 square feet Total Impervious Area Proposed: 1.68 Acres 73,171 square feet 21 10/28/08 Application states that 26,146 sq. ft. of the site will contain 'open/landscaped Landscape islands and landscaping around the building do not Total Open Space Proposed places' which is 26% of total area in the satisfY the open space requirement. form of a large landscaped courtyard. Usable Open Space Proposed: Large courtyard area Landscape islands and landscaping around the building do not proposed. satisfY the open space requirement. (99,317 sq. ft. x 25% base amount of land required = 24,829 SQ. ft.) (39 residences x 2.63 people/residence = 102.57 people x .01 Open Space Per Land Use acreage/person = 1.0257 acres == 44.679.5 sq. ft.) Regulations: 24,829 sq. ft. + 44,679.5 sq. ft. == 69,508 SQ. ft. = 70% of the site land area. 70% of the total land area is required as open space based upon 25% base amount of open space plus open space required for the 39 residential units proposed. Open Space Deficiency: 1.6 Acres 69,508 sq. ft. Water: Mid Valley Metro Sewer: Mid Valley Metro Access: Via Valley Road C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: February 22, 2007: March 9, 2007: July 6, 2007: July 18, 2007: September 18, 2007: September 26, 2007: March 25,2008: April 25, 2008: May 2, 2008: Application for this PUD Sketch Plan proposal was received by Eagle County. Application deemed insufficient. Applicant submits revisions to Engineering Department. Application deemed insufficient. Applicant submits revisions to Engineering Department. Application deemed insufficient. Applicant submits Affordable Housing Plan and revisions to Engineering Department. Application deemed sufficient. Applicant submits multiple sets of application and public referral process commences. D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: During deliberations, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commissioners offered the following comments: · The subject property (area on Highway 82) is not "El Jebel". · The Mid V alley Community Plan recommends a maximum density of 4-8 dwelling units per acre unless there is significant public benefit. The proposal does not represent significant public benefit. The Affordable Housing component of the proposal is mitigating the project but not adding beyond the minimum requirement. · The Roaring Fork Transit Authority's plans are yet to be funded and implemented; we cannot rely on RFTA's future plans. · Shadowing on Highway 82 caused by trees and rocks is not comparable to shadowing that will be created by a five story tall building. · "This proposal is ten (10) pounds in a five (5) pound bag." · "The height proposed is not at all reasonable." · The residential density and amount of commercial proposed is too great. 22 10/28/08 . Parking on shady side of building will be problematic in winter months. If this proposal moves ahead site cross-sections must be provided; berms are unacceptable. RFVRPC does not believe the applicant's representation that the Basalt & Rural FPD is 'OK' with the proposed parking. "Affordable Housing is 'ghettoized' in that it is not mixed in with the free-market residential and is segregated." "Already have too much officelretail development in the immediate vicinity." "Valley Road I Highway 82 intersection to the west of the subject property cannot handle more traffic. " "Way too close to Highway 82. Should be 50 feet to 70 feet minimum." "Transportation concerns not met." "People regularly attempt to cross Highway 82 from subject property." "Too big. Too tall." "Parking is inadequate." "Parking on V alley Road is dangerous and problematic." Cannot support the application 'as is' and suggested that the subject property be incorporated into a bigger picture solution involving Eagle County, the USFS, Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District, and the Roaring Fork Transit Authority. Reconfigure the property available to give RFT A more land. Give Mr. Coleman a better piece of ground to develop for affordable housing. Mr. Coleman needs to be involved in the Mid Valley Community Plan update process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-240 Sketch Plan for PUD For the Applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether the development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. Section Purpose: Standards: The degree to which the plan conforms to the intent of applicable land use regulations and provisions of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan is determined, as is the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land uses. General agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, access, and the means of water supply and sewage disposal. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the Applicant must address if the project is to receive approval of a Preliminary Plan. Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch Plan application. Given its conceptual nature, standards that must be met at Preliminary Plan will likely not be fully addressed by sketch plan material. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards will be able to be met at Preliminary Plan. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be made for that Standard 23 10/28/08 STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (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 and controlled by Coleman Brothers Construction. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effectfor the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. Permitted in Normally Permitted Underlying Proposed Uses Zoning? As: Nature of Variation Yes No By ZS LR Office, Retail, [J D Special Use required for certain commercial uses and Service Commercial X X for all commercial >22,000 sq. ft. Proposed is up to 50% of total building area by right. D Special Use required for residential use in Commercial Residential Up to X General zone district up to 33% of total building area. 33% Proposed is 50% or more of total square footage by right. I II I c=J This application proposes mixed use with primary emphasis on residential development. If the Board of County Commissioners approves the PUD Preliminary Plan then, they will also have granted a variation to the land uses. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. Yes Possibl Intent ofPUDlUse ofPUD Zonin : Necessary for integration of mixed uses; To allow for reater variety in the t e, desi , and la out of build in s; To promote a more efficient land use pattern including an opportunity for public transportation and for safe, efficient, compact street and utility networks that lower development and Yes 24 10/28/08 maintenance costs and conserve energy; No To increase open space; No The property is constrained- use of conventional standards limits quality design; No To increase compatibility with neighboring developments; Other Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: Yes Obtains (applicant's) desired design qualities; No Avoids environmental resources and natural resources; No Provides incentives for water augmentation; No Provides incentives for trails; Yes Provides incentives for affordable housing; No Provides incentives for public facilities. Dimensional. LilUitations Justification Provided (Proposed) Setbacks "As the code currently does not have a mixed- 50 feet use zone district, it is appropriate to pursue the Front: 20 feet (Valley Road) (Valley Road) PUD process to best define development standards for this oddly-shaped site and the proposed complimentary combination of uses." 50 feet Rear: 20 feet (U.S. Hwy 82) (U.S. Hwy 82) None provided. Side: I 0 feet 12.5 feet None provided Stream: N/A 75 feet "to allow for a mixed-use transit adjacent Height: 54 feet lOS' 35 feet development. It is appropriate for this height and density of building in the core area ofEI lebel". "a floor area ratio of 1.31: I is consistent with Floor Area Ratio: 1.31 : 1 0.60: I creating a design driven development rather than a land use code restricted design" Max Impervious: 74% 80% None needed Max Footprint: 33,180 sq. ft. = 33 % 50% "change in character of the immediate neighborhood from auto-oriented to residential and pedestrian-oriented". ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loadinf! Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: 25 10/28/08 (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street 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. c--. ac--. "0 "0 'B i5:'B "0 lU e '" '" OIl 1::: "0 '" lU lU "0 gf '" I:: 0 ~ e 0 'g. /;! /;! u ~ 8. l~. 0 'g. 0. ~ 0 0. e ~ 0. 0. ~ Q) c.. m m mc..O:: c..~ ~ '" '" S S '" '" Q) lU Proposed Uses Q) lU /;! /;! .2: .2: /;! /;! 0. 0. '0 '0 0. 0. m m ~ ~ m m B ~ ,-.. OIl OIl OIl OIl '" .5 .5 <..> .5 I:: l5' :a ] :g 'B~ ~ ~ tij -g Yes No Yes No 0"0 0"0 c.. ::t ::t ....1 lU ....1 Q) '" 0 <+-< ~ <+-< ~ <+-< '" ~'S 8.tl.. 0 0 0 0 0. o . 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0' O::~ o Q) Z Z Z Z ZO:: Z~ Office, Retail, 64,689 sq. Appx. Not Service, 169 Per IBC Per IBC 2 X X Restaurant ft. 250 stated Residential 65,574 Shared 100 Per Per NA X X sq. ft. IBC IBC The ECLUR's allow the Community Development Director to approve shared parking plans for parking and loading areas and may reduce the number of off-street parking spaces by up to twenty percent of the total required for all uses. Assuming, that the total number of spaces required is approximately 250, based upon the ultimate mix of uses, this application is proposing an approximate 33% reduction in total parking provided. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, 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. Type of Development: Commercial Residential X Mixed Use <+-< gp o ._ 1::"0 ~ .ra .g ~ ~::3"O o as tij ....1~....1 t > o U OIl .5 > ;:j lU :is 'i 0. E tii '" 0<">5 U 0._ {/)~.~ ~.s-g i5:~8 OIl .~ c ._ 0 ~ 'J: ws lU~ ~ Q) m> Q) .!:l m d ~ '" Q) e "0 E-< Q) ~$ ~ o2c.. Z .5 .~ .5 "0 ~ 1a Q) & ,g m ] f c.. '" 5 .~ ~ .0 o '" e lU al <I) B '" "0 a ....1 .5 OIl :€ .S ~~ ~c.. 'Q.. u Bg ~r/.l~ tij~ <I) ....10< "0 1a 8 JI ~.~ -~ ~ ~ ?:< Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X 26 10/28/08 The Conceptual Landscape Plan provided very general information regarding landscaping locations. No specificity was provided regarding quantity, size, maintenance, etc. A detailed Landscape Plan is required with the PUD Preliminary Plan application. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? A comprehensive sign plan will be required with PUD Preliminary Plan application. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. i). t;j ~ ~ i-a ~ '" -00 :=~ 0'- r/lQ 11 '€~ ~~ ~r/l = o OB ~ It ~ ... .~ ~ ~ Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not ApplicablelNo ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Re uirements DeviationNIS Requested XI X2 x x X3 X4 In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No Xl: Water service will be provided by the Mid Valley Metro District. Extending water service to the proposed development will necessitate successful completion of a 1041 Permit application concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan process. X2: Sewer service will be provided by the Mid Valley Metro District. Extending sewer service to the proposed development will necessitate successful completion of a 1041 Permit application concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan process. 27 10/28/08 X3: The Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 22,2008, attached, sets forth concerns stating that water supply with a fire flow of 5,500 gallons per minute for a duration of 4 hours is required to meet International Fire Code; emergency vehicle access is insufficiently wide and the District does not own fire fighting equipment that can reach the 54 foot height ofthe projected building; the fire protection plan is inadequate; and the Districts' fireground operations would be severely compromised. X4: The Engineering Department response dated May 24, 2008, attached, identifies eleven requirements regarding traffic, storm water drainage, snow storage, pedestrian walks, off-site road improvements, landscaping and retaining walls adjacent to or within Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way. The memorandum also urges the applicant to request a tabling of the application in order to adequately respond to each of the comments. Also, the Road & Bridge Department Director via e-mail dated May 15, 2008, attached, requested that no parking be allowed along Valley Road as requested. It would add to maintenance costs for the county as well as create a traffic hazard along a busy stretch of road. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages ojJ- 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 ojJ-street parking areas. Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal Snow Storage Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts 28 10/28/08 Sati~fi~ ECLUR Requirements Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 Xl, X2, X4 & X5: The Engineering Department response dated May 24, 2008, attached, identifies eleven requirements regarding traffic, storm water drainage, snow storage, pedestrian walks, off-site road improvements, landscaping and retaining walls adjacent to or within Colorado Department of Transportation right-of-way. Also, the Road & Bridge Department Director via e-mail dated May 15, 2008, attached, has requested that no parking be allowed along Valley Road as requested. It would add to maintenance costs for the county as well as create a traffic hazard along a busy stretch of road. X2, X3 & X4: The Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 22,2008, attached, sets forth concerns stating that water supply with a fire flow of 5,500 gallons per minute for a duration of 4 hours is required to meet International Fire Code; emergency vehicle access is insufficiently wide and the District does not own fire fighting equipment that can reach the 54 foot height of the projected building; the fire protection plan is inadequate; and the Districts' fireground operations would be severely compromised. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Potential Surrounding Land Uses I ~DiDg Compatit>ility Issues Yes No U.S. Hwy 82 ROW PUD and North: Existing Use(s) Zoning Eagle Crest Nursery and CG Xl Xl EI JeBowl South: Existing Use(s) Zoning Crown Mountain Park / PUD X2 X2 Eagle County Offices East: Existing Use(s) Zoning U.S. Hwy 82 ROW NA X3 West: Existing Use(s) Zoning Sopris View Apartment RSM X4 X Complex Xl & X3: Residential uses located slightly more than 20 feet from the U.S. Hwy 82 right-of-way will be compromised due to traffic noise. Conversely, resident workers would benefit from close proximity to existing and proposed RFT A bus stops, as well as, existing commercial establishments in the vicinity. X2: Traffic generated by the proposed development, all of which is proposed to utilize Valley Road, will create conflicts with users of the Crown Mountain Park and the Eagle County facility. Erecting a four- story building between U.S. Hwy 82 and the Crown Mountain Park will significantly alter scenic views from the highway corridor. Residents living within the proposed development would benefit from close proximity to the Crown Mountain Park. 29 lO/28/08 X4: Certain commercial uses such as restaurants and bar establishments increase the likelihood of conflicts between dissimilar uses. Please reference the attached memorandum dated May 23, 2008 from the Department of Environmental Health. Overall, the types of uses proposed for the subject property are appropriate rather, the scale and mass of the structure proposed is incompatible with surrounding development. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN '" '0 ~ - e '" ~ 1U is e.~ ~ 8 OJ '" '" '" ~ ~ FLUM ._ 1U 1U 1U 1U 0.. 8 ~ OIl 2 i:: OJ ~ OJ ;>- Designation E 0 o =' I:: ~~ .. 3 :.- 5 '.c g.€' 1U "0 S ~ '{il 1U 0 '0 0 '{il .;; ] ;>- ;>- S t;:! '" [i~ is 0 1U OJ 1U .E 16 ~~ tfio c.:J 0 j:,1J~ = en Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X2 X3 X5 X6 X8 Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Majority of Xl X4 X7 X9 Recommendations Not Applicable X Below are the Recommended Strategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: Xl: Develooment · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". The subject property, in its current state, is not natural and the proposed development will necessitate complete modification of the site conditions. · "Work to identifY and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services". The proposed development will incrementally add additional user impact to local recreational facilities, open spaces and roadways thereby eroding the ability to preserve these quality of life characteristics. · "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". Demographic data was not provided to help justify the proposed development. · "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". The proposal is for mixed-use development within an existing community center; however, it is debatable whether or not the proposed product is compact. · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". The proposal does include an affordable housing plan which satisfies the recently adopted Housing Guidelines by providing sixteen (16) deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free market residential development. 30 10/28/08 · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". Construction, on-going maintenance and the commercial element of the proposed development would help to maintain a healthy economy. To varying extents, the owners of the residential units would infuse money into the local economy. · "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". Public spaces proposed with this development, with the exception of landscaping along the front of the building, is non-existent. · "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". This is the purpose of the PUD process. · "Analyze development applicationsfor conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The subject property is designated on the Future Land Use Map as 'Existing Residential Development' which is partially correct given the existing Commercial General zoning and historic commercial use of the property. This development proposes a residential density of 17 dwelling units per acre. · "Continue to allow variations from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the surrounding community". The proposal will require variations to setbacks, height and uses. Whether or not the proposal will benefit the surrounding community is subjective. · "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing". The development application does propose to offset its own housing impact by providing 16 deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free market residential development. This mitigation proposed is in compliance with the Housing Guidelines. · "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts". The design of the proposed development is located across the entire site. Identified visual and compatibility impacts span well beyond the property boundaries. Xl: Economic Resources · "Ensure that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". The proposed commercial I retail aspect of the development is in close proximity to existing commercial development. · "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance". The development proposes 39 residential units; 16 of which are deed restricted affordable units (plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free market residential development). A portion of the unrestricted free-market units will likely become second homes. · "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population". The proposal does not specify services and business to support a growing senior population. · "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities". The proposed development may serve to provide retirement housing opportunities in a mixed-use setting. · "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation". The project does not target retirement housing per se but the site is located in close proximity to local support services, emergency services and transportation. · "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area". The proposed housing mitigation plan is consistent with the newly adopted Housing Guidelines. · "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population". The 64,689 square feet of commercial development proposed will draw from a more dispersed local population. · "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties". Service commercial uses are proposed and would be contained within the proposed building. · "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs of nearby residents". The 64,689 square feet of commercial development proposed will draw from a more dispersed local population. · "Encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation". The proposed 31 10/28/08 development is located near existing employment opportunities and it is possible that a percentage of the future residents will be employed within the same building as they live. X3: Housim! · "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". Affordable workforce housing would be provided near job centers. · "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". The developer is proposing to provide 16 deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free- market housing. The desired incentive is approval for a residential density of one dwelling unit per 17 acres plus 64,689 square feet of commercial development. · "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". The development application does propose a local resident housing plan in conformance with the Housing Guidelines. · "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications". If the local resident housing plan proposed by the applicant is implemented, then this recommendation will be satisfied. · "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". The Eagle County Local Resident Housing Guidelines are newly revised, updated and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. This proposal would satisfy the Housing Guidelines. X4: Infrastructure and Services · "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub': The application does propose to introduce pedestrian paths around the building and connections off-site. The overall pedestrian movement network between commercial and residential developments in El Jebel is; however, currently lacking. The development will also further impact the road network in El Jebel vicinity, particularly on Valley Road and the intersection ofEl Jebel Road and u.s. Highway 82. A mass transit hub does not currently exist in El Jebel but is currently being planned by RFT A. An unimproved, informal park & ride exists on the Crawford property across the highway from the subject site. · "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". Via a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateralization of required public infrastructure improvements, there will be assurance that the road and trail improvements will be completed concurrent to the completion of the proposed development. · Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". This is the purpose of a Subdivision Improvements Agreement. · "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". · Encourage transit oriented development". The subject property is located in the core area ofEl Jebel which is a logical place for transit oriented development; however, El Jebel does not currently benefit from a transit hub but one is currently being planned by RFTA within the walkable vicinity. An unimproved, informal park & ride exists on the Crawford property across the highway from the subject site. · "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". The proposed development does include pedestrian circulation throughout the subject property and connections off of the property. · "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 proposal does include pedestrian circulation through the subject property and connections off of the property with the intent of encouraging pedestrian movements and less need for the personal automobile. This vicinity ofEl Jebel, lacks a comprehensive pedestrian trail system interconnecting bus stops, schools, businesses, parks and playgrounds. · "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". This proposal does not include any off-site pedestrian routes. · "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". At this sketch plan level of review, these types of details have not been provided. 32 10/28/08 · "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design ". Of all possible development scenarios, the Planned Unit Development process provides the greatest flexibility in planning and design. · "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". The proposed development is located near existing employment opportunities and it is possible that a percentage of the future residents will be employed within the same building as they live. · "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". This PUD Sketch Plan proposes an approximate 50/50 mix of commercial to residential development. Vehicular trips saved by future residents patronizing the commercial uses on foot will be offset by traffic generated from 64,689 square feet of commercial development. · "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". Eagle County does review all development proposals using the Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards. In this instance, there are concerns regarding ingress I egress to the subject site, and off site traffic impacts. · "Assure adequate accessfor emergency responders". The Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 22, 2008, attached, sets forth concerns stating that water supply with a fire flow of 5,500 gallons per minute for a duration of 4 hours is required to meet International Fire Code; emergency vehicle access is insufficiently wide and the District does not own fire fighting equipment that can reach the 54 foot height of the projected building; the fire protection plan is inadequate; and the Districts' fireground operations would be severely compromised. · "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". To date, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development will be adequately served by emergency services by the Basalt & Rural FPD. El Jebel is already served by the Eagle County Sheriff's Department and Road & Bridge Department. · "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". Childcare facilities are not contemplated with this proposal. · "Use House Bill 1041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". If this PUD Sketch Plan is approved then, concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan application, a 104l Permit for new water and sewer lines and efficient utilization of water and sewer infrastructure will be required. · "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". If this PUD Sketch Plan is approved then, concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan application, a 1041 Permit for new water and sewer lines and efficient utilization of water and sewer infrastructure will be required. Installation of the water and sewer infrastructure will be required concurrent to the development. · "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". If this PUD Sketch Plan is approved, a more detailed transportation analysis will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan application. · "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". The proposed development represents a diverse residential choice. X5: Water Resources · "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". The application includes a 'Will Serve' letter from the Mid Valley Metro District. Nevertheless, if this PUD Sketch Plan application is approved then, concurrent with the PUD Preliminary Plan, a 1041 Permit must also be obtained. The 1041 Permit process will delve into the legal and physical water supply for the proposed development. · "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". With the 1041 Permit, the viability of the physical water supply will be addressed. · "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". The 'Will Serve' letter from the Mid Valley Metro District states that the owner may connect and receive service provided that all applicable documents have been submitted and fees due paid in full. The District indicates that there is sufficient quantity to support the project. Again, the issue of water quantity will be thoroughly addressed with the subsequent 1041 Permit. 33 10/28/08 . "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination". The subject property is not located in a source water area. "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible" The development proposed will maximize use of the site but the total amount of impervious surface proposed (74% of site =1.6872 acres) is less than what is allowable in the Commercial General zone district (80% of site = 2.256 acres) "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". Grading of the site and on site stormwater management improvements will require the use of Best Management Practices to protect groundwater and surface water resources. "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". The application does not include plant material details. "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". The subject property does have an existing well which the Mid Valley Metro District encourages to be utilized for on-site raw water irrigation. "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". This concept is not proposed. "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". Via the subsequent l04l Permit evaluation, water conservation measures are mandatory. "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application". Other than the 'Will Serve' letter from the Mid Valley Metro District, no other information regarding the availability of 'wet' water has been provided. The Colorado State Division of Water Resources had not responded to the referral as of this writing. "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". The Department of Environmental Health requests that the developer work with Environmental Health to site a ground water quality monitoring well on the subject property. "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". As part of the subsequent 104l Permit evaluation, adherence to the Regional 208 Plan will be mandatory. "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". The subject property is not located within the Eagle River Watershed. "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identify and treat other non-point sources of pollution". Best Management Practices will be required with regard to storm water management and grading activities. "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". With the subsequent 1 041 Permit, water quality management will be thoroughly evaluated. Adherence to the Regional 208 Plan will be required. Also, the Department of Environmental Health requests that the developer work with Environmental Health to site a ground water quality monitoring well on the subject property. "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". Best Management Practices will be required with all final construction documents and plans. "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". No natural vegetation will remain upon completion of the development; very little exists currently. "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". The proposal entails 74% of site =1.6872 acres of impervious surface. Pervious paving systems have not been proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . X6: Wildlife Resources · "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man-made barriers to wildlife migration". As of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not yet responded to the referral for this application. Nevertheless, given the historic use of the site and the proximity to U.S. Hwy 82, the wildlife value of the property as habitat or migration route is questionable. · "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". The subject property is no longer high quality wildlife habitat. · "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". The use of Best Management Practices for on-site stormwater management will be required. 34 10/28/08 · "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". The subject property is not critical wildlife habitat. · "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". The Eagle County Land Use Regulations require that bear-proof refuse containment receptacles be located on-site. · "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". The subject property is nearby existing commercial and residential development. · "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". The proposal is for high density, mixed use development in a community center. · "Minimize site disturbance during construction ". No portion of the site will remain undisturbed. · "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". The landscape plant and tree palate will be specified with application for Preliminary Plan and will incorporate this recommendation. · "Require wildlife-proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". Wildlife-proof refuse containment will be required on-site. X7: Sensitive Lands · "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". A Geotechnical Investigation prepared by CTL Thompson was provided with the application materials. All recommendations within the document must be adhered to; no insurmountable geotechnical challenges are identified. At the time of Preliminary Plan; the application will be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey. · "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". The subject property is no longer a natural landform. Development of the site will disrupt the entire site. · "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification ". Potential hazards will be required to be mitigated to the greatest extent practicable. · Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". At the time of Preliminary Plan; the application will be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey. · "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans". At the time of Preliminary Plan; the application will be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey. All recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey will be incorporated into the final development construction plans. · "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". The subject property is in the process of being redeveloped; any archeological value that may have once be present no longer is. As mentioned previously; this proposal for a large, mixed use four-story building will significantly alter public views into the Crown Mountain Park from the U.S. Hwy 82 corridor. · "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved". When the adjacent Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD was processed for the Crown Mountain Park and the Eagle County Community Facility; a great deal of discussion and consideration went into preserving the aesthetically pleasing views from the highway corridor to the south through the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm property. Erecting a four-story building within this view shed is inconsistent with the intent of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUD. X8: Environmental Oualitv · "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". The development proposes pedestrian connections within and offsite. Offsite pedestrian movements are somewhat limited due to the lack of a comprehensive sidewalk and trail network in the El Jebel vicinity. RFT A does serve the El Jebel area but a transit hub has not yet been established. · "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". The development application does propose to provide affordable housing in close proximity to job centers. Reduction in vehicle trips generated by the development will be related to the convenience of the pedestrian network linking commercial uses and the proximity of a bus stop. The total amount of commercial development proposed will attract residents and visitors from beyond the community center. 35 10/28/08 · "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting". The proposal does focus development within a community. · "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". The proposed development is intended to occur in a single phase. Site disturbance will be all encompassing but temporary. If for any reason there is a lull in site work or construction activity, revegetation of earthen stockpiles will be required. · "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". These grading mitigation efforts are mandatory. · "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". With application for preliminary plan, a comprehensive lighting plan will be required inclusive of this recommendation. · "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". As with other existing similar mixed-use developments; residents, visitors and employees will be subjected to sometimes incompatible noises typical of commercial I residential mixed-use development such as early morning delivery vehicles and site maintenance. · "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". Residents, visitors and employees will be subjected to sometimes incompatible noises typical of commercial I residential mixed-use development. · "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". Given the site location, reliance on personal motorized vehicles should be minimized; however, transit service to all regions of El Jebel does not exist. · "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". The application does not address heating or cooling. At the time of building permit application, the structure will need to comply with the minimum residential and commercial EcoBuild standards. · Implement energy efficiency guidelines. The application does not address energy efficiency. · Implement energy saving techniques. The application does not address energy saving techniques. X9: Future Land Use Mao Desilmation The Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the community-specific Mid Valley Area Community Plan Future Land Use Map. Said map designates the subject property on the Future Land Use Map as 'Existing Residential Development' which is partially correct given the existing Commercial General zoning and historic commercial use of the property. This development proposes a residential density of 17 dwelling units per acre. For comparison sake, the adjacent Sopris View Apartment complex is, zoned 'RSM' and is developed at a density of eleven dwelling units per acre. The vacant Crawford land north of U.S. Highway 82 is zoned 'Residential Suburban Medium' as well. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN Transportatio Communit Open Space El Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing y / lebel/ Frying ReselVoir Heights n Facilities Environment Basalt Pan Conformance Non Conformance Mixed XI X2 X3 X4 X5 Conformance Not X X X Applicable Xl- The Plan lists seven policies relative to the Housing Goal: 1. "Reduce residential densities or avoid development in areas that have negative environmental impacts. " The proposed development avoids areas of negative environmental impacts. 2. "Facilitate the development offree market affordable housing by encouraging cluster developments (reduced land and utility costs)." Not applicable. 36 1 0/28/08 3. "Encourage developers to provide open space amenities that connect to a valley wide open space plan. " No open space amenities are proposed. 4. "Encourage agricultural land developers to cluster development on small portions of their land, leaving the majority in agricultural open space." Not applicable. 5. "Encourage future development adjacent to existing population centers and avoid leapfrog growth. " This proposal satisfies this policy. 6. "Development must provide highway setbacks to preserve valley wide views (200 feet to parking and buildings)." Proposed is a 20 foot setback from the u.s. Highway 82 right-of-way. Paved on-site circulation is less than five feet from and parallel to the highway right-of-way. 7. "Encourage a diversity of housing and lot types and sizes." This proposal will add a minimum of 39 multi-family residential units. Also, the Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied and would be satisfied by the proposed Housing Plan submitted by the applicant. X2 - The Plan lists seven policies relative to the Transportation / Circulation Goal: 1. "Development should accommodate mass transportation based on a valley wide plan." The type of development proposed and its location will facilitate mass transportation ridership based on RFTA's valley wide planning. 2. Developments shall incorporate bike and pedestrian systems that connect to a valley wide network, community centers and to Frying Pan recreation resources". The proposed development provides internal pedestrian walkways, which stub out to the Crown Mountain Park trail network. 3. "Future developments must accommodate the four laning of Highway 82, establish greenbelts along the highway corridor, have limited access and be of parkway character." This policy was partially satisfied when U.S. Highway 82 was realigned and widened in the 1990's. 4. "Use of existing collector road systems should be encouraged. Access to future development should be from existing Highway 82 intersections through the development of collector roads." This development is reliant upon Valley Road, a collector road, and the existing intersection of U.S. Highway 82 and El Jebel Road. 5. "New development must accommodate improvements for existing roadways." Off-site and adjacent road improvements will be necessitated by the proposed development. 6. "Additional, secure, Park and Ride areas, which are not visible from Highway 82 should be provided as new development occurs." RFT A is actively working to formalize park and ride facilities in the El JebeI vicinity. In RFTA's referral response dated May 22,2008, attached, RFTA has requested a monetary contribution towards future construction of an improved El Jebel transit station and roadway improvements needed at the Highway 821 El Jebel Road intersection. 7. "Development should be clustered for transit efficiency in existing transportation corridors". In 1991 when the Mid Valley Community Master Plan was first adopted, four-story, high density mixed use development was not likely contemplated. Nevertheless, this policy is satisfied by the development proposal. X3 - The Plan lists eight policies relative to the Community Facilities and Services Goal: 1. "Encourage community scale commercial development in traditional small town paUerns and limited to community needs." The commercial development proposed will serve locals in the greater community vicinity and tourists though not necessarily in a traditional small town pattern. 2. "Encourage the development of commercial space, office space, schools, parks and other community services in or adjacent to existing community centers". This policy is satisfied by the development request. 3. "Avoid commercial strip development along highways". The proposed development is linear and parallel to u.s. Highway 82 but will not be mistaken for a commercial strip mall. 4. "Encourage mixed use developments including commercial, residential and office of similar scale". The proposed uses satisfy this policy. The matter of 'similar scale' is not clear as to intent; however, the proposed development will appear to be of significant scale relative to existing development in the immediate vicinity. 5. "Facilitate clean, light industrial uses in or adjacent to existing industrial zones". Not applicable. 37 10/28/08 6. "Assess development impacts on the school system and have developers provide school sites and/or compensation". The proposed development will be assessed fees-in-lieu of land dedication based upon a Summary Appraisal Report that will be required at the time of Final Plat application. 7. "Encourage schools and recreationa/ists to cooperate in the use and development of recreation facilities". Not applicable. 8. "Encourage development to provide neighborhood recreation centers, as well as community parks and playfields". The proposed development will not provide neighborhood recreation centers, a community park or playfield; rather, it will benefit from the existing Crown Mountain Park. X4 - The Plan lists 12 policies relative to the Open Space/Natural Environment Goal- most of which are not applicable: 1. "Retain a significant portion of agricultural land to preserve valley wide views, contiguity with adjacent agriculture and flood irrigation". Not applicable. 2. "Limit development on agricultural lands and encourage development on non-irrigated lands". Not applicable. 3. "Establish a process to purchase and preserve important open space". The Aspen Valley Land Trust and Eagle County's Open Space program work together to satisfy this policy. 4. "Development should maintain existing irrigation ditches and adequate water rights for open space irrigation". Not applicable. 5. "New development must maintain existing water quality". The proposed development will be required to meet all NWCCOG 208 Plan for storm water management. 6. "Limit wood burning in the Mid Valley area". The PUD Guide must be revised to clearly prohibit wood burning fireplaces. 7. "Development impacts on wildlife areas must be mitigated". The subject property is no longer wildlife habitat. 8. "Riparian areas, wetlands and floodplains must be preserved and enhanced". Not applicable. 9. "Preserve existing right-of-ways through new developmentsfor access to public lands". Not applicable. 10. "Platted open space must be accompanied by a maintenance plan". Not applicable. 11. "The Roaring Fork River Council in cooperation with Eagle County, Pitkin County and the Town of Basalt must be consulted concerning all modifications to the Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork River Stabilization Plan should be used as a guide for individual land owners proposing work within the floodplain for the Roaring Fork River." Not applicable. 12. "Locate development at toe of slopes against existing vegetation". Not applicable. X5 - The Plan lists 10 policies specific to the El Jebel/Basalt Area: 1. "Expansion of community services and facilities shall be concentrated in and around El Jebel and Basalt within 500 feet of existing facilities". The subject property is within 500 feet of existing community services and facilities. 2. Density Pattern -lengthy narrative not quoted - High Density is defined as "4-8 units per acre concentrated around the El Jebel and Basalt community centers within a ~ mile radius (ten minute walking distance) minimizing the use of automobiles and providing an efficient relationship between the highest numbers of people and the required services". High Density is defined as 4-8 units per acre; the proposal is for 17 dwelling units per acre plus 64,689 square feet of mixed office/retaiVservice commercial development. 3. Preservation of agricultural land and rural character. Not applicable. 4. Maintain 200 foot building and parking setback adjacent to Highway 82. Proposed is a minimum 20-foot structural setback from the U.S. Highway 82 right-of-way. 5. Visual setbacks along Emma Road and Hookspur Road. Not applicable. 6. Setbacksfrom Roaring Fork and Frying Pan Rivers. Not applicable. 7. Rio Grande Trail open space and trails system. Not applicable. 8. The primary road system would be upgraded in its current basic configuration. The proposed development will necessitate improvement of the existing El Jebel Road I U.S. Highway 82 intersection. 9. "Highway 82 shall remain a limited access arterial of parkway configuration. Intersection spacing shall be a minimum of one mile. Bus stops would be located only at these intersections. No direct connections shall be allowed to Highway 82 except at intersections. Frontage roads adjacent to 38 10/28/08 Highway 82 are discouraged". Ingress I egress to the subject property is off of Valley Road, an existing collector road. 10. "Transit park and ride lots are located adjacent to community service centers, should be screenedfrom the highway and serve both community services and transit needs". RFTA has requested monetary contribution from the applicant to help fund future improvements in the near vicinity. It must be further noted that the proposed development does not comply with the recommendations of the recently adopted Town of Basalt Master Plan because the subject property lies outside of the urban growth boundary and the Town Core. Please refer to the attached letter from the Town of Basalt dated May 23,2008. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. if development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Phasing Plan Provided? The development is proposed as a single-phase project. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]- The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for everyone thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. 39 10/28/08 (f) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. Total Subject Land Area: 2.28 Acres 99,317 Square feet Total Impervious Surface: 1.6872 Acres 73,171 Square feet 74 % ofsite Per Regulations 25% Open Space 0.57 Acres 24,829 Square feet Additional Amount of Open Space 1.0257 Acres 44,679.50 Square feet Reauired Per 1000 Persons = 70% of site is required Total Open Space Per Regulations 1.60 Acres 69,508 Square Feet based upon 39 residential units, Application states that 26,146 sq. ft. of the site will Landscape islands and contain 'open / landscaping around the Total Open Space Proposed landscaped places' building do not satisfy - which is 26% of total area in the the open space form of a large requirement. landscaped courtyard. Landscape islands and One large landscaping around the Usable Open Space Proposed: courtyard. building do not satisfy the open space requirement. As proposed; 'Open space' is all area Public, Quasi-Public or Private? Private Describe: of site not covered by a building, parking or other impervious area, Restrictions on Open Space: Yes Describe: Privately owned, Organization Responsible for Maintenance: Property Owners Association The proposal does not satisfy the Common Recreation and Open Space standard. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. t: tS~ ~2 :=0 ~~ t: .;: ~ 5.~ <) 8 E"5O g.~ oS ~ ~5c3~ O<.9:r: t: .;: ~ 5.g, ~ 8.g~ g. r/) :5! ~ ~5~~ o<.9:r: b.Il .8 ~ '" exl- -o,g o t:: o 0 ~u ~ 6 5.- iit> #~ ii:~ 51:: t: 0 ~Q. a~ .~ 'g E;c.. >Ll.5 Exceeds ECWR Requirements 40 10/28/08 ~ ~ .......... ",,", x x x ' '"(I .1 J1< Does Not Satisfy ECLUR RequltemWlt X X Not AppljcablelNo ECLURReqij~ffleRt X . The proposed development will not adversely impact wildlife. All recommendations of the CTL Thompson Geotechnical Investigation dated February 5, 2007 must be adhered to. The subject property has a low wildfire hazard rating. The PUD Guide must be revised to specify that only Gas fireplaces are allowed; no wood burning fireplaces will be allowed. Impacts ofthe proposed development upon natural resources on the subject property will be negligible given its historic usage and the infill nature of the site. Redevelopment of the site as proposed will negatively impact scenic views to the south from the U.S. Highway 82 corridor. . . . . ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARD(S) FOR PUD SKETCH PLAN: The finding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(15): 15. (a) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned (e.g. market study); Per the application the following justification was provided: "The CG zoning supports the type of commercial proposed in this application's proposal. The property is located in El Jebel, an unincorporated area of Eagle County. The property is zoned Commercial General (CG). The applicant is requesting to redevelop the property into a mixed-use building that includes both commercial and residential uses. As the code currently does not have a mixed use zone district, it is appropriate to pursue the PUD process to best define development standards for this oddly-shaped site and the proposed unique combination of uses". Currently, the subject property is zoned Commercial-General; Eagle County's most permissive standard commercial zone district. If the Commercial-General zone district standards were applied to the 2.28-acre site then the maximum allowable site coverage would be 50% for the building or 49,658.50 square feet and; 80% for all impervious materials or 79,453.60 square feet. The maximum allowable floor area ratio is 60% ofthe site area or 59,590.20 square feet. Via Special Use review and approval, up to 33% of the allowable square footage could be utilized for residential use. The PUD Sketch Plan proposes in excess of twice the currently allowable floor area on the 2.28-acre parcel. The application states that 26,146 square feet of the site will contain 'open/landscaped places' which is approximately 26% of the total land area. Landscape islands in and around the parking lot do not constitute open space. The draft PUD Guide must be revised to specify maximum allowable building footprint; maximum allowable impervious site coverage, including the building and the maximum allowable floor area ratio. The maximum allowances under the Commercial-General zone district are not by right. The property in question has never been subject to any county land use approval or 41 10/28/08 subdivision processes. As such, any use by right may only be developed on a lot that was part of a subdivision approved by Eagle County for which site specific information was provided regarding lot layout, street pattern, drainage, landscaping and utilities; otherwise the use shall be considered a use allowed by special review. (b) Proposed schedule of development phasing. The development is anticipated to be a single-phase development. (c) Statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system. Per the application the following statement is provided, "The subject property is located in the El Jebel area, which is not served by the Eagle County school system. Rather, the Carbondale school system may be impacted by the 39 residential units proposed for this site. The estimated impact is: 39 units x 0.0025 = 0.0975 acres or 4,247 square feet. The applicant requests to pay cash-in-lieu for the school impact rather than dedicating on site area. This will be determined at final plat based on the current full market value of the residential portion of the development." The RE-l school district will be provided fees in lieu of land dedication based upon a Summary Appraisal Report required with application for Final Plat. The analysis provided above is accurate. (d) Statement of estimated demands for County services; Per the application the following statement of estimates is provided: "Since the area is currently developed and development with a mix of commercial and residential uses, the proposed mixed-use development will not require an extension or increase in County services." Staff disagrees with this statement. The previous gasoline service station, garage, four residential units and 3 bay car wash generated far less demand upon County services than will the 130,263 square feet mixed use development proposed. (e) Statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the previous year's County tax levy and a schedule of projected receipts of that revenue. Per the application the following projection is provided, "Based on the 2007 property assessment rates for Eagle County, the total property tax revenue generated by the proposed development would be approximately $388,910.64. Sales tax revenue will be generated by the proposed commercial retail uses at a rate of 4.4%." (t) Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; Conceptual plans have been provided. (g) Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes; The Basalt & Rural FPD response dated May 22, 2008, attached, sets forth concerns stating that water supply with a fire flow of 5,500 gallons per minute for a duration of 4 hours is required to meet International Fire Code; emergency vehicle access is insufficiently wide and the District does not own fire fighting equipment that can reach the 54 foot height of the projected building; the fire protection plan is inadequate; and the Districts' fireground operations would be severely compromised. (h) Employee housing plan. The developer is proposing to provide 16 deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free-market housing. The Housing Plan satisfies the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: . Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to the attached response dated May 24, 2008. 42 10/28/08 . Eagle County Department of Environmental Health - Please refer to the attached response dated May 23, 2008. . Eagle County Road & Bridge Department - Please refer to the attached response dated May 15, 2008. . Pitkin County - Please refer to the attached response dated May 20, 2008. . Town of Basalt - Please refer to the attached response dated May 23,2008. . Basalt & Rural FPD - Please refer to the attached response dated May 22, 2008. . RFT A - Please refer to the attached response dated May 22, 2008. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County Attorney's Office; . Eagle County Assessor's Office; . RE-l School District Administration and Transportation; . Eagle County Sheriff's Office; . Eagle County Weed and Pest; . Colorado State: Colorado Department of Transportation; . Colorado Division of Wildlife . The US Forest Service . Mid Valley Metro District . Basalt Water Conservancy District . Crown Mountain Recreation District . Mid Valley Trails Committee . Garfield County . Postmaster . Emma Caucus . Blue Lake HOA . Aspen Skiing Company, LLC . Summit Vista HOA . Sopris Village HOA . Crawford Properties, LLC C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits: · The mix of uses proposed in walkable proximity to RFT A transit facilities may be appropriate on the subject property. RFT A has requested a monetary contribution from the developer to help fund transit improvements in the immediate vicinity; · 16 deed restricted affordable units plus 7,292 square feet of deed restricted Resident Occupied free- market housing will be provided. · Off site improvements to the El Jebel Road I U.S. Highway 82 intersection will be necessitated. Disadvantages: · The scale of the proposed development is out of character with existing and allowed development in the surrounding area, especially with regard to density, floor area and height. · The property is located outside of the Town of Basalt urban growth boundary. · The site is a transition property where the more intense commercial development of El Jebel should gradually transition with less intense residential uses along the north side of Valley Road. · The Mid Valley Area Community Plan calls for a 200 foot setback from the U.S. Highway 82 right-of-way. (A 200 foot setbackfrom the highway right-of-way would render the site undevelopable). · A four story building situated 20 feet from the U.S. Highway 82 right-of-way will cast shadows across the highway compounding ice accumulation and removal problems in an area of the highway where vehicles regularly brake rapidly for the stop light at the El Jebel Road I U.S. Highway 82 intersection. 43 10/28/08 · The four-story building will significantly alter views across the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm Property from the u.s. Highway 82 corridor. · The proposed Housing Plan will offset housing impacts generated by the proposed development but will not help the County to catch-up with the affordable housing deficit. · The proposal has mixed conformance with the Mid Valley Area Community Plan recommendations. · The proposal does not satisfy the ECLUR with regard to minimum useable open space. · The Basalt & Rural FPD has set forth several significant concerns regarding the District's ability to adequately serve and protect the proposed development. · While it is recognized that the existing Mid Valley Area Community Plan is now 17 years old and that many changes have occurred in this vicinity of Eagle County during that time; Eagle County Staff and the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission have initiated the process to update said Plan. It would be appropriate for this application to be tabled for six months to one year or withdrawn, revised and resubmitted consistent with the revised Mid Valley Area Community Plan after the revised Plan is formally adopted by the RFVRPC. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1 Approve the PUD Sketch Plan request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2 Deny the PUD Sketch Plan request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3 Table the PUD Sketch Plan request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4 Approve the PUD Sketch Plan request with conditions andlor 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. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Engineering Department memorandum dated May 24, 2008 must be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; 3. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan and 1041 Permit, all comments set forth in the Department of Environmental Health memorandum dated May 23, 2008 must be resolved and addressed to the satisfaction of the Environmental Health Director. 44 10/28/08 4. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Road & Bridge Department e-mail dated May 15, 2008 must be resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer; 5. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Pitkin County letter dated May 20, 2008 must be adequately addressed; 6. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Town of Basalt letter dated May 23,2008 must be adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the Town; 7. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the Basalt & Rural FPD letter dated May 22, 2008 must be adequately addressed to the satisfaction of the District Fire Marshal; 8. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan, all comments set forth in the RFT A letter dated May 22,2008 must be adequately addressed to the satisfaction ofRFTA; 9. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan the application materials, draft PUD Guide and all ancillary documents must provide consistent information regarding dimensional limitations and calculation methodology. 10. With application for PUD Preliminary Plan the draft PUD Guide should incorporate language prohibiting wood burning fireplaces. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the application. He stated that the Board first heard the proposal on August 26, 2008 in El Jebel. Since that meeting, the applicant met with RFTA, Basalt & Rural FPD, and the Town of Basalt. Originally, the application proposed a 130,263 square foot, mixed-use, four-story structure, and subterranean parking; the structure footprint was equal to one-third of the total site area. The new proposal was reduced to 120,811 square feet. The Town of Basalt indicated that they would like to take the new proposal back to their Planning and Zoning Commission for further review. Staff's opinion was that the revision still did not satisfy the spirit and intent of the existing Mid Valley Community Master Plan. He stated that staff's conditions had not changed from what was presented initially. He had no additional comments. Stan Clauson, spoke on behalf of the applicant. He stated that they hoped to move forward. They have worked diligently with staff and other agencies and believed that some forward action was appropriate. The applicant believed the proposal to be a transit oriented development and hoped that the Mid Valley Master Plan would acknowledge that fact. The building was originally a 3-story building. However, in order to meet the housing guidelines, the applicant added a fourth level. The applicant believed that asking them to withdraw their application and wait until the Mid Valley Community Master Plan was complete would create an unreasonable burden on the applicant. The applicant looked at their options and decided to reduce the project to 106,000 square feet by removing the upper floor and considerably reducing the market rate residential. The current application was based on discussion with Alex Potente. They arrived at 16 units or 18,174 square feet of affordable housing. Even with the removal of the fourth floor, there would be a greater number of housing units and housing square footage. Clearly, they tried to bring the building down to a scale that would be acceptable yet have a building that would function economically and in terms of a successful transit oriented development. The Town of Basalt originally referred the application to their planning commission. The applicant believed it was a productive meeting and they acknowledged that reducing the overall bulk was in the direction they wanted to go. He was happy to answer questions but they were looking for guidance from the board as to whether or not the project was moving in the right direction. Chairman Runyon opened public comment restricting those who spoke at the previous meeting. Jean Paultano, Valley Road resident spoke. She liked the architecture of the 3-story proposal. However, she and her husband were concerned for the traffic that would be created on Valley Road. She was shocked to find that there would be no entrances or exits coming offHwy 82. She believed that using a residential road for commercial use was unacceptable. 45 10/28/08 Mr. Clauslon stated that CDOT did not want any future access from Hwy 82 for any type of development after the gas station closed. The traffic study indicated that the development would not cause any significant traffic issues of the intersection. Tom Redfern, Valley Road resident spoke. He asked the board to consider the size of the development and the increase of traffic on Valley Road. Tom O'Keefe, Valley Road resident spoke. He believed the project was much too large for the surrounding area and needed to be scaled down much further. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi asked the applicant to review the community benefits. Mr. Clauson stated that the development would provide commercial opportunities, provide additional free market as well as affordable housing, and provide a pedestrian oriented development. Commissioner Fisher asked Mr. Narracci why an application would be deemed insufficient. Mr. Narracci stated that the subject application was deemed insufficient 3 times. The last time was relative to the affordable housing mitigation. There was a hold between September 2007 and March of 2008 until the housing guidelines were finalized. Commissioner Fisher wondered about the price range of the free market residential units. Mr. Clauson stated that he did not have that information. The deed-restricted units would be priced in association with the housing guidelines. Commissioner Fisher asked Peter Fralick, of the county Engineering Department to elaborate on the traffic study performed by the applicant. Mr. Fralick stated that because the access would increase by 20% it would trigger a need for an access permit. An additional lane could be required at the intersection. Commissioner Fisher stated that she still believed the development was too large for the property. She believed that it would be disingenuous to the mid valley plan process to have a planning file of this magnitude move forward. She would like the opportunity to review the file again once the master plan had been completed, allowing the community to way in. Chairman Runyon asked Mr. Narracci if the reduction was still denser than the regulations allowed. Mr. Narracci stated that the proposal was more than the regulations allow currently. Chairman Runyon stated that the development was incompatible and too large for such a small piece of land. Commissioner Menconi stated that he had no further questions or comments. He believed that if the community truly wanted to maintain itself as a community, it would have to examine opportunities like this in order to have people living close to where they work. Mr. Clauson stated that he believed that the development would add animation to the park and it become a more exciting and interesting place. He stated that they'd tried to meet the board's objectives and they would like to stay in sketch plan mode and move towards a sketch plan approval rather than withdrawing the application. Commissioner Menconi stated that the board had a priority to affordable housing. He believed the proposal had potential and was better than what currently existed on the site. Commissioner Fisher stated that a sketch plan approval would tell the developer that they were on the right track and she wasn't ready to say that. Chairman Runyon stated the he believed the applicant was trying to exceed the limitation of a difficult site. He encouraged the applicant to honor the difficulty of the site and put in an appropriate size development. Commissioner Menconi stated that he had a different take than the other commissioners. He wondered if the Mr. Clauson could provide examples of similar mixed-use developments on similar size lots in the Aspen downtown area. Mr. Clauson stated that there were several examples and many were similar to the one being proposed. He requested a continuance to go back to the drawing board and address some of the concerns of the board and Valley Road residents. He didn't believe CDOT would approve a full driveway but thought it might be possible to get a right in which would eliminate some of the traffic on Valley Road. Mr. Morris explained why the board was unable to go along with a sketch plan approval. The process was complicated and burdensome to extinguish a previously approved sketch plan. He believed it would be a mistake for the board to approve a sketch plan knowing that they would not approve the preliminary plan. Peter Fraylick, county engineer spoke. He recommended that the applicant update their traffic study as the proposal continued to be revised. Chairman Runyon stated that he was opposed to continuing the file. 46 10/28/08 Mr. Clauson stated that it would take 60-90 days to look at the overall density and what could be done with the building to honor the site as suggested earlier by Commissioner Runyon. If the board chose to deny a continuance they would withdraw the application. Commissioner Menconi stated that he believed if the project were cut back too much there would be a loss of affordable housing and loss of quality. Chairman Runyon stated that he did not believe the proposal was consistent with the community. There would have to be an overwhelming benefit for the community. He stated that he would be in favor of continuing the file but encouraged the applicant to wait to see how well the project integrated within the community master plan. Mr. Clauson requested a continuance. Mr. Morris stated that any new members of the board would have to listen to the tapes of the two hearings, and review the exhibits. Commissioner Menconi moved that the board continue file no. PDS-00052 - Crown Mountain Plaza PUD, to the first Tuesday in March 2009. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0076 Ea21e County Land Use Re2ulation Amendments Bob Narracci, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: Request to table to 12/16/08 The purpose of the Land Use Regulation Amendments is to: . Provide greater clarification regarding public notice requirements; to provide greater control over non- agricultural accessory buildings; · Allow temporary construction and sales trailers/offices; . Promote collocation of wireless communication facilities, it is proposed to introduce greater flexibility in siting free-standing wireless telecommunication facilities; . Establish standards for road improvement requests; . To revise the land use application process to require applications to be more refined by the time they reach the public hearing process; . Place limits on the length of time a land use application can be tabled; . Limit the length of time that a land use application may remain 'open' without activity. . Commissioner Fisher moved to table file number LUR-0076 Eagle County Land Use Regulations Amendments until December 16, 2009. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Attest: the meeting was adjourned until November 18, 2008. ~~ Clerk to the Bo rJ,\.('. ~ I DILf'v r ~ 47 10/28/08