Loading...
Minutes 06/30/09 PUBLIC HEARING June 30, 2009 Present: Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Jon Stavney Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was none. Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the ftrst item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of June 29,2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meetings for May 19 and May 26, 2009 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder C. Resolution 2009-061 Appointing Referees for the 2009 County Board of Equalization County Attorney's Office Representative D. Second Amendment to Resolution No. 2008-120: Resolution 2009-062 Establishing Regular Public Meeting Days for the Eagle County Board of Commissioners for Fiscal Year 2009 and Establishing Days and Office Hours for the County Offices to Transact Business for Fiscal Year 2009 and Designating Legal Holidays for Fiscal Year 2009 and Establishing the Bi-weekly Payroll Schedule for 2009 County Attorney's Office Representative E. Land Use Authorization Allowing Eagle County School District to use Property Located at 3289 Cooley Mesa Road for Commercial Drivers License Testing Purposes Harry Taylor, ECO Transit F. Land Use Authorization Allowing ECO Transit to use Property Located at 3289 Cooley Mesa Road for Commercial Drivers License Testing Purposes Harry Taylor, ECO Transit G. Cost-PIus-Fee Construction Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and JJP Companies, Inc. for EI Jebel Community Center Roof Repairs Project Management Representative H. Resolution 2009-063 Establishing the Eagle County Public Health Agency and Appointing the Eagle County Board 0 Commissioners as the County Board of Health 1 06/30/09 Health & Human Services/Environmental Health Representatives I. Approval of Ambulance Licensing for Western Eagle County Ambulance District (WECAD) Anne Robinson, Public Health J. Resolution 2009-064 Approving an Amendment to The Two Rivers Village and Two Rivers Estates Planned Unit Development, (Eagle County File No. PDA-2112) Bob Narracci, Community Development Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-J with the exception of item G. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Stavney asked that item G should be pulled for discussion and separate consideration. Commissioner Stavney thought it would be beneficial to discuss the need for roof repairs on a relatively new building. Tom Johnson stated that the roofleaked and during the process of evaluation, other issues were identified that exacerbated the problem. The reason the project was costly was that there was no knowledge of the depth of the proj ect. Chairman Fisher agreed that it needed to be fixed. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve item G. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Vilar Center for the Arts Foundation d/b/a Vilar Center for the Arts #18-18611-0000 This is a renewal of a Arts 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. B. Behringer Harvard Residence at Cordillera d/b/a Lodge and Spa at Cordillera #42-50069-0001 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 4-0ptional Premises in Cordillera. 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. Behringer Harvard Residence at Cordillera d/b/a Cordillera Mountain Club #42-50069-0002 This is a renewal of a Tavern 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. D. eat!, Inc. d/b/a eat! #41-76466-0000 2 06/30/09 This is a renewal of a Tavern 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. Other E. X-Bar Fly, Inc. d/b/a Sato Sushi #04-33696-0000 This is a request for a permit to change location. This application was approved by this board on June 16,2009 and was placed on the agenda to comply with the 30-day statutory requirement. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for June 30, 2009 consisting ofItems A-E. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: REQUEST: EVENT: DATE OF EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Vail Valley Charitable Fund, Inc Special Events Permit Paul Maloney Fundraiser August 9,2009 Marcie Jaeger, Event Manager 538 Eagle Road - Eagle-Vail Pavilion Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: Vail Valley Charitable Fund, Inc., a non-profit corporation, has requested a special event permit for the Paul Maloney Fundraiser event being held at the Eagle-Vail Pavilion on Sunday, August 9,2009. The organization has been facilitating events for over 20 years assisting locals in medical crisis. The applicant has requested service hours from 12:00 pm until 10:00 pm. to allow for set up and tear down although; they will only be serving alcohol from 4-9 pm. Local restaurants and caterers will be providing appetizers. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, June 19, 2009, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office. 4. The applicant has provided proof of server training and an alcohol management plan per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority. CONCERNS / ISSUES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver described the event and status of the application. Malinda Brown described the event. The event was being held on August 9th from 4 pm until 9 pm to raise funds to offset medical costs for Paul Maloney. 3 06/30/09 Commissioner Runyon asked about the time. Ms. Brown stated that there would be a silent auction and the setup. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Special Events Permit for the Vail Valley Charitable Fund event being held at the Eagle-Vail Pavilion on August 9,2009 from 12:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: REQUEST: EVENT: DATE OF EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Namche Endowment Fund Special Events Permit Edwards Fine Art & Wine Festival July 17, 18 and 19th, 2009 Marie Shipley, Event Manager Freedom Park, Edwards Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: Namche Endowment Fund a non-profit corporation has r~uested a special event permit for the 10th Annual Edwards Fine Art & Wine Festival to be held July 17th, 18 , & 19th, 2009, at Freedom Park in Edwards. This event targets patron's from Vail, Beaver Creek, Avon and surrounding areas. There will be entertainment and wine tasting. Glasses will be provided and sold for $10, which will include 6 tasting tickets. This is the ftrst year alcohol service will be provided at this event. WECMRD is in approval of the wine tasting based on the fact that there are no youth programs scheduled on these days. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, June 19, 2009, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office. 4. The applicant has provided proof of server training and an alcohol management plan per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority. CONCERNS / ISSUES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver described the event. She stated that this was the ftrst time an event would be held in the park and WECMRD had submitted a letter of approval for use. Chairman Fisher asked about the Namche Endowment fund. Marie Shipley stated that it was a private foundation for animal welfare. The event included a collection of artists showing their work and a wine tasting. The proceeds would benefit the foundation. Chairman Fisher wondered how many wine vendors there would be. Ms. Shipley stated that there would be one. Char Quinn spoke to the board. She stated that this was the fIrst event in Edwards to have liquor available complimenting the Thunderbird Art Show. 4 06/30/09 Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Events Permit for the Namche Endowment Fund event held in Freedom Park on July 17 - 19, 2009, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: REQUEST: EVENT: DATE OF EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Roaring Fork Conservancy Special Events Permit (2) River Rendezvous July 15, 2009 Rick Lofaro, Event Manager 2561 Frying Pan Road (Dallenbach Ranch) - Basalt Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: Roaring Fork Conservancy has requested two (2) special event permits for their 10th annual River Rendezvous DinnerlDance. The event will be held at the Dallenbach Wooden Handle Ranch in Basalt (un- incorporated Eagle County). The applicant has requested two (2) permits, as Frying Pan Road divides the property. Permit 1 - Dining Tent and surrounding area and Permit 2 - Auction Tent and surrounding area. The applicant expects approximately 300 people will attend this event. Indigenous Catering will cater the event and all their servers and bartenders will be server trained. Alcohol service will be provided from 5:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given at each location by the posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, June 18, 2009, 11 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office. 4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority and will provide proof of server training before issuance of the permit. 5. The applicant has provided a traffic/pedestrian mitigation plan, which has addressed staffs concerns. CONCERNS / ISSUES: Frying Pan Road pedestrian crossing - Permit 2 (auction tent) STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff fmdings are positive DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver described the request. There were two permits being requested at the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Commissioner Stavney stated that he believed it was a big deal. Rick Lafaro explained the event. Commissioner Runyon asked if the group was the equivalent of the Eagle River Water Shed Council. Mr. Lofaro indicated that it was and that they work with the ERWSC frequently. Chairman Fisher asked about the alcohol management plan. Mr. Lofaro indicated that all servers would be TIPS trained and they would be taking all prudent safety precautions for the road crossing. Chairman Fisher asked if tickets needed to be purchased in advance. 5 06/30/09 Mr. Lofaro stated that they were a non-profit organization and the event was expected to raise 35% of their operating budget. They hoped to release rainbow trout into the river that evening with the Division of Wildlife. The event would be held on Wednesday, July 15th and more information was available at Roaringfork.org. They expected to serve alcohol from 5:30 until around 9:30. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Events Permit(s) for the Roaring Fork Conservancy event being held at the Dallenbach's Wooden Handle Ranch in Basalt on July 15, 2009 from 4:00 pm to II :00 pm. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: DBA: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: REQUEST: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: CONCERNS / ISSUES: ARG #1, LLC Suza Baja Grill Brian White, Owner 56 Edwards Village Blvd. Unit R7- Edwards Temporary Permit Kathy Scriver None DESCRIPTION: ARG #1, LLC d/b/a as Suza Baja Grill has applied for a Transfer of Ownership from Moe Mentum, LLC d/b/a Moe's Southwest Grill and has requested a Temporary permit to allow them to operate during the period in which the application to transfer ownership of the license is pending. The applicant has submitted all of the required documents and associated fees for the transfer. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold have been previously licensed by the state and Local Licensing Authorities, and were valid as of the date of receiving the application. 2. The applicant has applied on forms provided by the Department of Revenue and includes the name and address of the applicant, the names and addresses of the president, vice-president, secretary and managing officer, the applicant's financial interest in the proposed transfer, and the premises for which the Temporary Permit is sought. 3. A statement that all accounts for alcohol beverages sold to the applicant are paid has been filed. 4. The application for the Temporary Permit has been filed no later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the application for the transfer of ownership and the appropriate fees have been paid. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Stavney asked if Mr. White if he had worked in restaurants before. Mr. White indicated that his family had been in the restaurant business for many years and he intended to gain his TIPS training. His family had 30 restaurants including some Kentucky Fried Chicken franchises and some Bar and Grills. The restaurant concept was California / Baja. Commissioner Stavney asked about the layout. Mr. White clarified the entrance and exits. Chairman Fisher encouraged and required that all alcohol servers be TIPS trained. Mr. White indicated that they hoped to open the third week of July so there would be plenty of time. 6 06/30/09 Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the issuance of a Temporary Permit to ARG #1, LLC d/b/a which will be valid until such time as the application to transfer ownership of the license is granted or denied or for one hundred twenty (120) days, whichever occurs fIrst; except that, if the application to transfer the license has not been granted or denied within the one-hundred-twenty day period and the transferee demonstrates good cause, the local licensing authority may extend the validity of said permit for an additional period not to exceed sixty (60) days. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened public comment. She closed public comment as there was none. Resolution 2009-065 adopting the Fourth Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2009 and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Agencies Finance Department Representative John Lewis eXplained the requests. Mr. Lewis indicated that the e-filing restricted fund balance would fund the Fidlar maintenance contract. There were only a few items on the request that did not require additional expenditures from the general fund and primarily represented transfers and items for proper accounting approvals. Chairman Fisher stated that this supplemental was intended to take money out of the general fund and establish a public health fund tat could receive and expend funds. Mr. Lewis stated that what was not spent in 2008 needed to be approved for 2009 carryovers. The Housing authority requested approval to spend those amounts on revolving loans. The Road and Bridge department did a great job at saving ECO trails money by helping with trail maintenance. These were mostly transfers and there was no increase to the overall budget. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the resolution adopting the Fourth Supplementary Budget and Appropriation of Anticipated Revenues for Fiscal Year 2009 and Authorizing the Transfer of Budgeted and Appropriated Monies between Various Spending Agencies Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP- 2317 Edwards Design & Craft Sean Hanagan, Planning Department The purpose of this Amended Final Plat is to condominiumize unit D2 of the Edwards Design and Craft Center. ACTION: LOCATION: TITLE: FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNERS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 5 Murray Rd. Unit d2, Edward Amended Final Plat Edwards Design & Craft Center Unit D2 AFP-2317/ Amended Final Plat 5 Murray Road Unit D2 Lot 19 Inc. Owners Phil Woodward 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 7 06/30/09 A. SUMMARY: The intent of this application is to condominiumize Lot19 building D of the Edwards Design & craft center into Units D2-A and D2-B. B. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: RSL West: Residential/ PUD [Fox Hollow] North: RSL South: Resource Existing Zoning: PUD Total Area: .394 +/- Acres Water: Public Sewer: Public Access: Via Murray Road C. ST AFF FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. . b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. D. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All applicable Eagle County Land Use Regulations have been satisfied. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the file. The purpose of the plat was to subdivide the plat into two units. He showed several slides of the location of the property. Commissioner Stavney asked if this was anticipated from the start. Mr. Hanagan indicated that it was. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve file no. AFP- 2317 Edwards Design & Craft amended final plat. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 8 06/30/09 Public Meeting - ECO Transit Fare Policy Harry Taylor, ECO Transit was present for the hearing. Chairman Fisher explained the process. She opened public comment. Harry Lujan spoke to the board. He stated that all the figures he had seen were based on a $60 local pass. He had ridden the Minturn bus on several occasions and had been the only person riding. The majority of people with passes from Leadville don't get the full benefit of the pass. He worked in construction and wondered why if the bus was not running they don't cut the route. He wondered about the option of a voucher system. He felt that the people down valley abused the service. Harry Taylor, Director ofECO transit stated that the purpose of the hearing was to provide a forum for the public to express their concerns or needs related to mass transit and/or ECO transit, as it exists today. His office sent out requests for public comment and had received many responses from the public, which he passed on to the commissioners. In March the shortfall in sales tax of 24% had a large effect on ECOs operating funds. ECO operated using 80% sales tax revenues. He explained the position of the ECO board. Under the Board of County Commissioners the ECO transit department operates. When the ECO department was formed, the BoCC setup through a resolution an advisory board (ECO board) to help with the overall operations of transit and trails. The ECO board and the BoCC met in April and formed another advisory committee made up of one representative from Gypsum currently on the board, Town Manager from Avon and the transit manager from Vail along with Tom Hyatt from our Finance Department. They tried to determine how to approach the shortfall. The committee recommended a fare increase that would essentially negate the shortfall in revenue. Coupled with that was around $300,000 in reduction in expenses. This recommendation had been submitted to the BoCC. Commissioner Stavney thanked Mr. Taylor for the work he did on getting the word out about the proposed changes could be. Chairman Fisher acknowledged the financial difficulties but expressed concern about how the county could keep ECO whole. During strong financial times ECO thrived. Now that the economy had tanked ECO was feeling the crunch. She had learned that the transfer component was very important. She wondered about charging less for transfers than for the original leg of the ride. She was concerned about continuing to spend funds from the General Fund to support transportation. Commissioner Runyon agreed that it was all about money and hoped that the sales taxes would increase in the future. Chairman Fisher stated that the county contribution included the reduction in administrative fees charged to ECO transit and enterprise fund. The department was the second largest in the county government and had a big impact on many support departments. The Board's up front involvement in what the administrative fees should have been fell short. Mayor Elliot from Leadville spoke to the board. He thanked the board for having the hearing even though it was not legally required. He admired Eagle County for their commitment to the citizens. He had developed a relationship with ECO in the last couple of years. About this issue, Eagle County had been a member of the Rural Resort Region. There was a report called the benchmark report that compiled and extrapolated information from the census reports related to childcare and transportation. Many employees who work at business collecting sales tax live in Lake County. He understood that there was not a transit system in the world that was self-sustaining. To think that ECO transit could be was not be realistic. The people using the bus from Leadville might have a very hard time absorbing an additional $200.00 a month. Many of these people make $8.00 an hour or less. He hoped the increase in fares would not encourage people to pack into dilapidated vehicles to get to work. He hoped there were people in the audience from businesses who benefit from the Leadville bus service that would step up. Douglas Crab, ECO transit driver spoke. He said that he gets into a lot of trouble with money and relies heavily on an emergency fund. He did not know how the county runs, but encouraged the county to have its own emergency fund. Chairman Fisher explained the possible uses of reserve funds that the county maintained. If there were no revenue coming into ECO and they turned to reserves, they would out of money by the end of the year. The goal, even though some of the reserve was being used currently was to determine a long-term solution, which included a replenishment of these reserves. Charlie Ridgway spoke. He didn't think the county could afford the luxury of running empty buses and recommended privatizing the bus system. He believed the county should pull the plug. Chairman Fisher agreed that empty buses were not effective. She did not know the advantages of a private system over a public system. She indicated that the board would continue to investigate this option. 9 06/30/09 Commissioner Stavney wondered if it should be run as a business or a public service, but felt there needed to be a balance. Mike Kiprel spoke to the board. He rode the bus daily. He did not think he could afford the new proposed fares. He agreed with raising the monthly passes to $80-100. Chairman Fisher asked how many times he rode the bus a day. Mr. Kiprel indicated that he used the bus three or four times a day. Greg Ayers spoke. He moved to Eagle a year and a half ago and rode the bus 6 days a week. He stated that everyone agreed that the bus service was needed. He urged the commissioners to come up with a comprehensive plan that overhauled ECO into a sustainable service that would benefit the community. He thought that the outside committees assisting in the decision-making were nonsense. He felt that the board was trying to go to a pay per ride system. He wanted to keep the 30 day unlimited pass option. He wondered if picture !D's would be a way of avoiding unlimited bus pass abuse. He found it hard to understand that there was not a 100% contingency fund. Chairman Fisher stated that each bus costs $750,000. Mr. Ayers stated that increased fares and cuts in services were not a workable solution. He thought the county owed the taxpayers to provide a workable bus system to Eagle County workers. He knew there was up to $9 million set aside to buy a conservation easement. Chairman Fisher stated that this was a restricted fund. Mr. Ayers asked about the sale of the Lake Creek housing and wondered if some of the funds could be used to sustain ECO. He blamed ECO for scheduling issues with buses. He heard the radios talking about backup buses because the Highway 6 buses were packed. He suggested looking seriously at overlapping routes. He urged no fare increases. He wondered about passes with pictures on them so they could not be shared. David Johnson spoke about sharing passes. He spoke about technology which restricts this type of use. Kay Ferry spoke to the board. She was part of the original group forming the ECO tax initiative. When this passed some of the reasons included reducing traffic and parking pressures along with providing an economical way for residents to get to work. At that time they approached the commissioners and asked that it be put on the ballot and then attempted to get it passed. She added that the tax typically did not fund transportation - it comes from the general fund. It's assumed that the economic situation was temporary. She believed that the reserves were intended for this type of situation. The people of Leadville can least afford the increases. These people hold entry-level jobs. She believed it was the government's job to fund the service. Chairman Fisher spoke about whether it was only Eagle County's responsibility to pay for the service. She spoke about the bus schedules and the reason for the multiple buses. Vail's remodeling efforts in the last two years had put tremendous strain on the service. Vail was no longer the highest producing sales tax generator. Ms. Ferry responded to the comments. She stated that Vail raised the parking rates last season to deal with the overflow of cars on the frontage roads. Vail changed these rates to maintain control. Except for unincorporated Eagle County Vail still provided the largest part of sales tax for the county. In the amount of money that came from Vail, 8% was returned for supplementation for services. Vail was the only municipality that took money out of its own general fund to build and sustain affordable housing. She believed the funds were available and it was the job of the board to provide this service. Commissioner Stavney asked if Ms. Ferry believed going back to the voters was a good idea to increase the funding for this service. He agreed it was a public service. Ms. Ferry stated that maybe contracting a private contractor to provide the smaller routes could be a good idea. There would always be a need for more money for transit in the county. She believed employers would support a tax increase. Mr. Ayers added that the people who ride the bus were not stupid and hoped that a comprehensive bus schedule would be developed. Commissioner Stavney clarified that shaving routes would be a good idea. Chairman Fisher stated that the ECO department kept track of specific route ridership numbers. The ridership changed dramatically two to three times per year. Matt Jones, HR director for Vail Mountain spoke. He thanked the board for the extra time for public input. He knew that the ECO staffhad a tough job. He also believed this was a temporary issue and urged the proper amount of time be spent in considering the next steps. He shared the view that it was an essential public service. He shared Ms. Ferry's opinion that dipping into the reserve would be the right approach. Vail's employees had paid more than $61,000 and Vail has paid over $57,000 to subsidize these passes. He wondered if the additional steps that were taken to address the shortfall in the budget. The unlimited pass was the lifeblood for his employees. Chairman Fisher asked how many passes were supplemented. 10 06/30/09 Mr. Jones wondered with a per ride program how they would supplement the costs for the employees. Chairman Fisher stated that Vail Resorts supplements $25.00 per employee that rides the bus. She took $57,000 on 2100 passes averaged to $25 per pass. Mr. Jones stated that they were the largest employers. Chairman Fisher stated that she was inferring that it was a bigger problem involving municipalities, large employers, and riders. She understood that Vail Resorts contributed a larger percentage in the past but this was not the case currently. Mr. Jones agreed to help with any possible solution in the future. He did not want the burden to be passed on to the riders, as they were the ones least able to pay for it. Commissioner Stavney stated that he had letters from Gallegos Masonry and Vail Valley Medical Center. They indicated that they pay for bus passes for employees that request them. Gallegos stated that they buy 45 passes each month and their H2B workers did not have transportation at all and use the buses for all of their daily needs. Mr. Jones spoke about the administrative costs. They were seeing less use of visas and it was a lot easier and less expensive to recruit locally. Chairman Fisher stated that this was the ftrst year in many that ECO was fully staffed. Randy Davis, employee of the Antler Hotel in Vail spoke. She stated that the Antlers purchased 16 passes per month and covered the expense by 100%. She saw that with any potential increase they might need to be tougher on those requesting the passes. With the higher cost of the pass she thinks revenue could be lost. Ann Russell spoke to the board as an employee of the Charter in Beaver Creek. She had some comments from employees that she submitted to the board, many from Leadville residents who use the bus service. Mayor Elliot added that this discussion was really about planning. He commended the board and the advisory council for their work on this. He'd seen many buses coming and going from Leadville and never saw an empty bus. Privatization was a non-issue. If anyone were interested, they would have come forth already. Commissioner Runyon stated that a lot of good points were made. The reality was that the county was short money. The county needed to make up the difference one way or another. He spoke about funding mechanisms and the possibility of raising sales tax with the approval of the voters with a possibility of limiting the duration. There were a number of different ways to increase the funding. This would provide time to have a more extensive conversation to determine phase three of transit for the county. He believed that sales tax was equitable because everyone benefited and shared in the cost. Commissioner Stavneyagreed. He stated that he had learned how important the Leadville route was to many. He felt a bit more enlightened about the way bus passes were used. The proposed change in the 30 day pass represented the most significant solution to the funding problem. He felt the exercise of taking a hard business look at the entire funding and operation was prudent. Philosophically it wasn't a business, but it was a public service and needed to be efficient. Chairman Fisher spoke about the fact that the department had been moving along pretty well up until about a year ago. ECO transit had tried to be all things to all people. They have had to be reactionary to fulfill the obligation and provide the critical public service. She suggested continuing the discussion about possible solutions. She suggested looking at every possible opportunity related to the swipe system to maximize the opportunities. She also suggested looking at other transit systems in resort communities and comparing their approaches. Eagle County government could not solve the problem alone. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the youth and senior bus fares. He did not think asking a youth for an annual pass at a nominal cost was too much to ask. The skier bus between Vail and Beaver Creek should be looked at and this would save around $230,000. He preferred putting the money into the Leadville route. Chairman Fisher indicated the discussion would continue with public involvement. Keith Montag spoke about the county hosting a transportation summit. Chairman Fisher indicated that the board realized a transportation summit should be organized later in the summer with respected and qualified transportation individuals participating. Mr. Taylor mirrored Chairman Fisher's comments. Budget Update - Postponed John Lewis, Finance 11 06/30/09 Planning Files Tree Farm Site Visit 401 Tree Farm Drive EI Jebel Recorded PDS-1567 The Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD Scot Hunn, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this Sketch Plan is for a mixed use Planned Unit Development, inclusive of residential, commercial, office and "live/work" uses. Proposal also includes active and passive recreational and open space uses including an existing ski lake and associated quasi-public recreational activities. Existing nursery and tree farm uses and operations are to be incorporated into the PUD. 401 Tree Farm Drive; located along Hwy. 82, due east ofthe intersection ofHwy. 82 and El Jebel Road, in El Jebel. LOCATION: FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF ENGINEER: RFVRPC RECOMMENDATION: PDS-1567; PUD Sketch Plan The Tree Farm PUD Woody Ventures, LLC. Owners Jon Fredericks, Nobel Design and Rick Pylman, Pylman & Associates, Inc. Greg Schroeder Approval 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests Sketch Plan review for a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) - "The Tree Farm PUD". The Tree Farm PUD is a 71.71 acre, mixed-use and transit oriented development (TOD) located along the State Highway 82 corridor in El Jebel, Colorado. The subject property is currently owned by Woody Ventures LLC, and currently accommodates approved commercial, light industrial and recreational uses including the Wind River Tree Farm, Nobel Design Studios, Woody Ventures LLC offices, a Yoga studio and Kodiak Park Ski Lake. The project consists of three primary land use components configured in a transit-oriented pattern that generally radiate from a planned Roaring Fork Regional Transit Authority (RFTA) "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) station and pedestrian underpass located on State Highway 82. Components include Mixed Use Commercial, Live/Work and Residential uses. In addition to these primary use categories, the applicant proposes the inclusion of open space, recreational and agricultural/light-industrial uses. The property is located just south and east of the main EI Jebel commercial district and directly across State Highway 82 from the Old Orchard Plaza and Willits Town Center commercial and residential (mixed use) developments. The property is bordered to the north and west by the 100-unit Shadowrock Townhomes development; a private in-holding (McKelvey exempt parcel); Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and; 127 acres of land owned by Ace and Jennifer Lane. Laura J Estates and Christine State Wildlife Area form the eastern border of the proposed PUD boundary. (See attached vicinity map). B. BACKGROUND 12 06/30/09 The Tree Farm PUD is planned at the site of the former Kodiak Park PUD. The Kodiak Park PUD zoning was originally approved on approximately 199 acres in 1994 and was granted a one year Preliminary Plan extension in 1997. The approval for the development plan expired with no Final Plat approval and in 2000 a new Sketch Plan approval was granted by Eagle County. That plan has also since expired, leaving the entire 199 acre property zoned PUD but with no approved development plan. The previous development plans did not initiate development due to access issues with the proposed Blue Ridge Lane access onto El Jebel Road. In 2006, with the approval of the Blue Ridge project (now Shadowrock PUD) a formal access easement and road construction cost sharing agreement was put into place and the access connection from Highway 82 through the Shadowrock project to EI Jebel Road is now complete and open to traffic. This new connection (Tree Farm Drive) was designed and constructed to accommodate the traffic volumes of Shadowrock and The Tree Farm project. The current proposed development plan includes 71.71 acres - significantly less land area than was approved previously with the Kodiak Park PUD which included the entirety (199 acres) of the Lane Property. The remainder of the Lane Property, approximately 127 acres ofland located outside of the proposed 71.71 acre Tree Farm PUD, is proposed to be re-zoned from PUD to the Resource (R) Zone District via a separate application. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District has provided a "Can and WilI Serve" letter stating the District's intention and capacity to provide water and sewer service to the development site. One condition placed on the District's commitment to serve the development requires the applicant to construct certain water storage improvements on or near the subject property in order to serve the development, provide proper fIre flows for the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and to serve the larger community. Negotiations between the applicant and the different Districts are ongoing relative to the final location and construction (design) requirements of such improvements. As well, the applicant has worked proactively with the Roaring Fork Regional Transit Authority (RFTA), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Eagle County, the Town of Basalt and other stakeholders over the past two years to participate in the planning for a new, regional mass transit hub, including dedicate RFT A parking on the subject property for commuter use. A pedestrian underpass connection and a commitment by the applicant to cost share in construction of the underpass has also "informed" the design and development of this land plan. This component of the proposed land plan forms the primary basis for the plan's transit-oriented design and its mixed use core area located along the Highway 82 right-of way. The Town of Basalt's 2007 Community Plan identifies this area as being within the Town's Three Mile Area. Specifically, the Town's Urban Growth Boundary encompasses the subject property. Pursuant to an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) executed between the Town and Eagle County on September 23,2008, Staff has proactively sought comments via a "joint review" process working with Town Staff. In November, 2008, Staff met with the Town's Technical Advisory Committee (TRC) to discuss the application and in January, 2009, Staff prepared this report to include analysis of the Town's 2007 Master Plan goals and policies applicable to the subject property. The County received "un-official" comments (attached) from the Town's Mayor, the honorable Leroy Deroux, dated February 12, 2009. In his letter, the Mayor notes that comments were derived and forwarded via the Town's TRC (Technical Review Committee) and Staffbut do not reflect any official position ofthe Town Council. C. CHRONOLOGY 1992: Kodiak Ski Lake approved as Special Use by Eagle County via Resolution 92-75 1993: Kodiak Park Sketch Plan for PUD approved by Eagle County via Resolution 93-100. The plan included the water ski lake, the existing home, 18,000 square feet of commercial space and other ranch and open space uses. 1994: Kodiak Park Preliminary Plan for PUD approved by Eagle County. 1994: Special Use Permit approved by Eagle County for the existing wholesale and retail tree farm and nursery operation. 13 06/30/09 1994: Eagle County reviewed but did not approve the Final Plat for the Kodiak Park PUD due to access issues with the then proposed Blue Ridge Lane connection to EI Jebel. 1997: Eagle County granted a one year extension to the 1994 Preliminary Plan. This extension has since lapsed. This resulted in the property being zoned PUD with no approved plan or uses. 2000: Eagle County granted approval to a new Kodiak Park Sketch Plan PUD application. This PUD Sketch Plan included approximately 80,000 square feet of commercial space, a 50-60 room hotel, retail and wholesale nurseries, the water ski lake and 27 new residential units. This sketch plan approval has since expired. 2006: Eagle County approved the final plat for the 100 unit Blue Ridge multiple-family development adjacent to the subject property. At that time, Ace Lane (Owner of subject property) and the Blue Ridge (Shadowrock PUD) project owners executed a formal access easement and road construction cost sharing agreement. This allowed both properties to create dual access points and eliminated the previous access issues that affected the Kodiak approval process. 2008: Construction of Tree Farm Drive from State Highway 82 at Willits Lane intersection, through the subject property, has been completed and opened to the public per the Access Agreement between the Lanes, Blue Ridge Investments (Shadowrock), and Eagle County. The completion of this project resolves the access issues that had previously restricted Final Plat approval of this property, and provides a full-motion signalized intersection access point to the proposed Tree Farm community from Highway 82. The property is currently zoned PUD with no approved plan. The Special Use Permits for the existing tree farm/nursery and water ski lake remain valid. 2008: Application submitted to Eagle County for Sketch Plan for PUD for "The Tree Farm PUD". D. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning: North: Residential (Private 'R' BLM / Resource 'RP' Residence); McKelvey parcel South: Mixed Use (Willits Town 'C3 PUD' State Highway 82 RO.W. 'R' Center) (Town) East: Residential (Laura J Estates) 'RR' Christine State Wildlife Area 'R' West: Residential (Shadowrock); 'PUD'/'C3 Orchard Plaza 'C3' (Town) Willits Town Center PUD (Town) Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD)* Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Current Development: Wind River Tree Farm; Professional Office; Yoga Studio; Recreational Ski Club Relatively flat irrigated pasture; competition-sized man made water ski lake; wetland area; Site Conditions: Robinson Ditch and associated native riparian vegetation; operational nursery and landscape storage stock (plantings), and; previously disturbed areas associated with previous grading, storage operations (tree farm operations). Total Land Area: Acres: 71.71 acres Square feet: 489,245 sq. ft. Total Open Space Acres: 36.7 acres Percentage: 51% The ECLUR's recommend that 25% of the total land area be set Usable Open Space: Acres: 17.2 acres = 24% Percentage: aside as useahle open space. Useable open space should not exceed 30% slope. Water: Public: Mid Valley Metro Private: N/A Sewer: Public: Mid Valley Metro Private: N/A 14 06/30109 Access: Via State Highway 82; Tree Fann Drive/Shadowrock Note: * PUD zoning exists on the property; all previous development approvals (site specific development plans) have lapsed and are otherwise expired. E. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to thirty-nine (39) agencies for review on October 22, 2008. The following section references the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County prior to the date of this writing: Eagle County Environmental Health Department Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 12,2008; and follow-up letter from applicant. . Seecondition~):3 Eagle County Engineering Department Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 24,2008 . Seecondition~):2 Eagle County Housing and Development Department Please refer to attached referral response letter dated January 14,2009 . Seecondition~}:4 Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist Please refer to attached referral response letter dated January 14, 2008 . See condition(s}: 6 Eagle County Pest Management Program Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 5, 2008 . Seeconduwn~}:5 Town of Basalt Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 21,2008 Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Please refer to the attachment dated January 9,2009 . Seecondition(~:8 Roaring Fork Regional Transit Authority Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated November 17, 2008 . Seeconduion~}:9 Garfield County Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 13, 2008; and follow up letter from applicant. Mid-Valley Trails Committee Please refer to attached referral response letter dated October 29, 2008 . Seeconduion(~:10 State of Colorado Geological Survey Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 12,2008 . See condition(s}: 7 RE-l School District 15 06/30/09 Please refer to attached referral response letter dated March 30, 2009. Additional Referral Agencies This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no written response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Road and Bridge; ECO Trails; ECO Transit; Sheriff s Office . Colorado State: CDOT; Division of Wildlife; Division of Water Resources; State Historical Society; Health Department; Water Conservation Board . Federal: Bureau of Land Management; Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) . Other: Basalt Water Conservancy District; Colorado Historical Society; Eagle County Historical Society; Northwest Council of Governments (NWCOG); Pitkin County . Home Owners Associations: Shadowrock HOA; Laura J. Estates F. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATION The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission (RFVRPC) held a public hearing on May 7, 2009, to consider File No. PDS-1567. At their regular meeting, the Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Sketch Plan for PUD for the Tree Farm. During their deliberations, the Commission members had the following questions and/or comments: 1. One Commission member expressed concern regarding the total acreage of the Lane's landholdings relative to the proposed 71.71 acre PUD. Specifically, a question was raised as to the reason why the entire 199 acres (previously included in the Kodiak Park PUD) was no longer being proposed. Further, the Commission member questioned what would happen to the remaining 127 acres under ownership by the applicant and why those lands were not being proposed to be preserved under a conservation easement. The applicant responded by stating the Lanes propose to re-zone the remainder of their land holdings from PUD to Resource Zone District; and, the Lanes have no intention at this time to place those lands in a conservation easement, develop additional dwelling units or subdivide the remaining 127 acres into 35 acre tracts. 2. One Commission member asked if Whole Foods is a potential tenant given the defunct nature of the Whole Foods development site at Willits Town Center development. The applicant stated there is no intention on behalf of the developer to create a pad site for Whole Foods or any other major grocer; that such consideration would dictate specific site planning not apparent on the current land plan and that the land plan does not necessarily accommodate stores of that size. 3. A concern was stated regarding the approximate price points for proposed deed restricted affordable housing units. Specifically, the Commission member stated that the price points may be too high for lower income individuals or families. The applicant responded by stating the approximate sales prices were based on achieving an average 105% AMI, per Eagle County Housing Guidelines. Generally, one half of the proposed for-sale units would fall below 105% (in the 80%-90% range), with half being sold above 105% to arrive at an average. This allows smaller units to be sold at lower price points to suit lower household incomes. He added that sales prices are listed (estimated) as "maximum" sales prices; this doesn't necessarily mean those will be the final purchase prices. As well, the applicant stated phasing plans should aid in bringing the right amount of units, at certain price points to market at the right time to meet the needs of the community. 4. A question was asked about the Phasing Plan. Specifically, how affordable housing will get built and how phasing will respond to the economic conditions of the Mid-Valley. 16 06/30/09 The applicant responded by describing the Phasing Plan and the fact that, in addition to commercial space that will be brought on-line, affordable (deed restricted and resident occupied) housing units will be offered in each phase; that such housing will "track" proportionally with the overall square footage (commercial and residential) developed. He clarified that affordable housing will be dispersed throughout the whole project. 5. One Commission member expressed concern regarding the categorization of the ski lake as open space, questioning the "public" use of the lake as a member's only ski club. The applicant responded by stating that the lake is a separate parcel and use within the PUD; it is quasi- public, but the water ski activities are allowed through club membership. He clarified the lake does qualify as "open space" and that even without the lake (as open space), the project provides approximately 25% usable open space in other forms. Further, the applicant stated the proposed trails around and near the lake would be open to the general public. 6. A question was raised regarding the projected impacts to the school system. Specifically, one Commission member asked why the number of elementary students generated by the proposed development would be more than high school aged students. The applicant responded by stating the number of projected school-aged children to be generated by the development (in this case more elementary students than high school students) is primarily determined by the types (Single-Family, Townhomes, Multi-Family) of housing proposed. The applicant was not able to speak to the disparity between elementary and middle school aged children projected. 7. One Commission member inquired about the availability of local housing data to support the applicant's housing plan. Specifically, while data exists on a regional and County-wide basis, the member questioned if there was more accurate local "catch-up" and "keep-up" data. The applicant responded by stating there was no local data available. Staff confirmed the applicant's answer. 8. One Commission member questioned if the fifty (50) parking spaces within the proposed parking structure provided to RFT A was adequate. The applicant responded by explaining the difference between a transit oriented development (TOD) and typical park & ride developments; that TOD's are designed around walkability and compactness for residents and are not heavily dependent on large amounts of parking. He added that the proposed commercial components within the Tree Farm will depend on limited available parking within a planned structure. In contrast, he stated park & ride situations are generally designed to accommodate commuters and are also dependent on large amounts of parking in close proximity to transit stops. He stated that park & rides and TOD's don't necessarily function well together. Introducing a park & ride within a TOD would produce a conflict between compactness and walkability and the need to provide a large amount of parking for regional (transit) feeder systems. He added that this development has been designed as a TOD and not a park & ride. Therefore parking for the commercial component was planned first, and represents the majority of spaces (225) within parking structure. As a result, and working with RFT A, a limited number of spaces will be allocated to meet RFTA 's needs to support the planned BRT stop. 9. A general question was raised regarding trip generation and traffic projections. Specifically, one Commission member asked why Single-Family residential units generated higher vehicle trips than other residential units. The applicant responded by stating generation rates are somewhat driven by assumptions made regarding the income levels or socio-economic status of residents who occupy homes of differing sizes and price points. Specifically, a person's or family's ability to afford more than one vehicle per household is somewhat correlated to their ability to afford certain size homes. As well, the number of bedrooms per unit within a 17 06/30/09 development are used to determine trip generation rates. Such assumptions are generated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manuals. 10. One Commission member inquired as to the accuracy of projected (incremental governmental) costs associated with the development and whether projected revenues from the development were sufficient to cover such costs. Staff responded by reiterating issues encountered with the Site Stats model as well as their intention to use a revisetlJupdated Site Stats model during the Preliminary Plan stage of development review; that Staff is not comfortable with the (cost) conclusions generated by the Site Stats model at this time. Staff intends to revise the model in the future to ensure a higher degree of accuracy is attributed to ongoing, incremental operational and capital improvement costs to Eagle County over the life of the project. 11. One Commissioner raised a concern regarding traffic projections and trip reduction factors. Staff responded by stating the applicant's projections and trip reduction factors (attributed to transit oriented development) are based on ITE assumptions and standards as well as examples of reduced vehicle trips generated by TOD's in front range communities; however, such assumptions do not necessarily correlate to mountain communities. Specifically, Staffstated that there are simply no examples of TOD's in the Western Slope or mountain region from which to draw comparisons to for trip reduction purposes. 12. A general question was raised regarding funding partnerships for the proposed pedestrian underpass under Hwy. 82. Specifically, one Commission member asked 1) what the developer's monetary contribution will be; 2) when (which phase of development) such improvement would occur and; 3) what would happen if one of the funding partners was unable to participated as planned. The applicant responded by stating the developer is prepared to contribute $950,000 towards the construction of the $3 million underpass; that the developer has committed to construct improvements in phase one of the development, and; that if other funding partners fail to contribute to construction, there will most likely be implications to RFTA 's plans to locate a BRT station at the Tree Farm. 13. A question was raised regarding the status of proposed trails and paths and whether additional access to adjacent or nearby BLM lands would be made possible. The applicant responded by stating proposed trails within the development will be public, and the applicant is working with a group represented by BLM, Mid-Valley Trails Committee, U.S.F.S and CDOW to address the Mid-Valley Trails Committee's concerns regarding public access to BLM lands. The applicant has identified a potential access route to BLM lands, but final determination depends on the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the potential impacts (of additional public access) through State Wildlife Areas. 14. One Commission member asked for clarification regarding the status of Staff s review of the financial modeling tool Site Stats. Specifically, the question was raised as to how "far off' the model was and whether there were any parts of the Site Stats model and conclusions the Commission could use or draw upon to make a more informed decision regarding the fiscal and economic impacts of the proposed development. Staff responded by stating County Staff is working with the County Finance Director, the developer and Site Stats owner/representatives to revise the model to reflect projected government costs more accurately. Staff clarified that there are portions of the model that appear to be entirely accurate and that the projected fiscal and economic impacts of the project are only one consideration in reviewing the PUD proposaL 15. A question was raised about the Town of Basalt's concerns regarding the Lane Property and the Town's desire to see additional Light Industrial uses on the site. 18 06/30/09 Staff responded by stating the applicant has been asked to providefurther information regarding the amount of light industrial space proposed relative to the Town of Basalt's desired or projected need for additional light industrial space. Staff also stated that the applicant is being encouraged to continue working with the Town to better understand the need for additional light industrial space in the Hwy. 82 area. 16. One Commission member asked if the Planning Commission could make a motion to recommend the property for annexation to the Town of Basalt. The County Attorney responded by stating the Planning Commission could make such motion; but clarified that the Board of County Commissioners were legally bound to consider the application. 17. One Commission member suggested requiring a performance bond, tied to phasing and completion of the project, to insure against incomplete projects similar to Shadowrock and Willits Town Center (Whole Foods). 18. One Commission member suggested that all members should complete a site visit to the property prior to taking any formal action on the file. 19. A concern was stated regarding potential impacts to local traffic and specifically regarding up-valley traffic movement and turning movements at the uncontrolled access point on Hwy. 82. The applicant responded by stating there have been conversations with CDOT regarding the existing uncontrolled intersection and that such intersection will remain a full movement intersection (allowing for left hand turns). However, CDOT may close that turning motion by installing medians or the like in the future. 20. One Commission member asked for clarification regarding the proposed solar array or "farm". Specifically, the member questioned why the farm was proposed outside the PUD boundaries. The applicant responded by stating the solar farm will remain on a separate parcel owned by the Lanes due to optimal (mapped) solar access, but that an easement will be granted across adjacent properties to ensure access to the solar farm in perpetuity. 21. A question was raised regarding the School District's referral response letter. Specifically, one Commission member asked why the "Red Brick" building was being identified as a future District facility relative to recent actions to renovate that building for (other) community uses. The applicant responded by stating the Red Brick building has been identified by the District for some time as a solution to future facilities planning needs. 22. One Commission member questioned if traffic counts and projections included background traffic from Shadowrock and Willits Town Center. The applicant responded by stating that Shadowrock and Willits Town Center (traffic counts) are required to be included in the projections and background traffic. 23. One Commission member inquired about the proposed commercial space. Specifically, the member questioned the price points of 'for-sale' commercial relative to purported opportunities for local business ownership. The applicant responded by stating that price points have not been estimated at this time. County Staff has indicated an opportunity to create "affordable commercial" space and price points and the developer is willing to explore such option. 19 06/30/09 24. Upon making a motion to approve the application, one Commission member stated that the file was appropriate for review by Eagle County, that elements of the plan such as live-work, density located near Hwy. 82, the size of proposed residential units and proposed open space and trail improvements were positives. As well, the member stated that the combination of transit oriented development (TOD), the preservation of fifty percent of the site as open space and the provision of affordable housing in this location were determinants in making a motion to approve. However, there remained concerns regarding the proximity of the PUD to existing motor cross and ski boat uses and the member encouraged the applicant to continue working on mitigation of any compatibility issues. Another Commission member stated general support for the development concept, but stated concerns regarding traffic impacts and the fact that such transit oriented developments, while representing a step in the right direction, may be of limited benefit since the rest of the Roaring Fork Valley is not necessarily transit oriented in design and function; that personal vehicle trips will remain the norm due to limited mass transit options at this time. 25. During further discussion, one Commission member suggested the (man made) ski lake be moved or "filled-in" to make room for more (affordable housing and commercial) development closer to Hwy. 82. As well, another Commission member suggested that the applicant be required to provide a concurrent re-zoning file for the remainder (127 acres) of the Lane Property. The County Attorney responded to the second suggestion by stating that the Planning Commission could not require the down zoning of lands located outside the proposed PUD boundaries via approval of the Sketch Plan for PUD for the Tree Farm. The applicant clarified that the remaining 127 acres is not part of this application and the land owner is not willing to down zone those properties until such time vested rights for the Tree Farm PUD are obtained. In making a motion to approve the file with staff recommended conditions, the Commission modified condition No. 16 to read: "The applicant is required to perform a detailed market analysis demonstrating the financial viability and compatibility of the project within the local conditions prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; such analysis will be undertaken to test previous market assumptions and financial iriformation used in the Sketch Plan submittal and will aid the applicant, other local jurisdictions and Eagle County accurately assess market viability and phasing plans necessary to ensure the continued enhancement of the local economy and to mitigate any potential (adverse) fiscal impacts to existing businesses. " Condition number 16 previously stated: "The applicant is encouraged to perform a detailed market analysis demonstrating the financial viability and compatibility of the project within the local conditions prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; such analysis will be undertaken to test previous market assumptions and financial iriformation used in the Sketch Plan submittal and will aid the applicant, other local jurisdictions and Eagle County accurately assess market viability and phasing plans necessary to ensure the continued enhancement of the local economy and to mitigate any potential (adverse) fiscal impacts to existing businesses. " The Commission stated that, per Staffs recommendation, requiring rather than recommending or encouraging a detailed market analysis will be important in any future consideration of the proposed development and that such requirement is justified given the size, scope and complexity of the proposed development in context to surrounding jurisdictions and commercial developments. 2. ST AFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: 20 06/30/09 PROCESS INTENT ECL UR Section: Section Purpose: Standards: 5-240/5-280 Sketch Plan; The purpose of sketch plan review is for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether development of the property as a PUD will result in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. It is the time when determination should be made as to whether the proposed PUD complies with the purpose and intent of these Regulations and with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. It is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and commercial space for development; the types of use, dimensional limitations and other variations that may be considered; the general locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; the general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via on-site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to receive approval for a Preliminary Plan for PUD from the County. Where the PUD proposes activities that constitute a subdivision, the applications for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall also be required to meet the requirements of Section 5-280, Subdivision, regarding procedures for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision, respectively. Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards; Section 5-280.B.3.e Standards and Section 5- 230.D Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch & Preliminary Plan for PUD (with subdivision) application. All standards that would be met at a Preliminary Plan level must addressed by the application materials. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards have been met at this stage. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be made for that Standard. STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (i) 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS The subject property included within the PUD boundaries is owned by Woody Ventures, LLC. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. 21 06/30/09 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Permitted in Underlying Normally Permitted As: Nature of Variation Proposed Uses Zoning? Yes No By ZS LR Ri2ht Mixed-Use: ( Commercial, No variation for use is required; property Residential, Civic and X X Recreation) previously zoned PUD. This application proposes a mixed-use, transit oriented planned unit development (PUD). Existing zoning on the parcel is PUD (Eagle County Resolution No. 93-100) and there exist a special use permit (Resolution 92-75) in good standing for the Kodiak Park Water Ski Lake and Club uses. As well, a separate special use permit for the existing Wind River Tree Farm commerciaVwholesale nursery and landscaping operations occurring on the subject property. Previous PUD preliminary plans for Kodiak Park PUD were approved with certain mixed uses including recreation (existing water ski lake and club membership), residential, commercial (retail and live/work), lodging (hotel) and office uses. However, all previously approved PUD preliminary plans have expired, necessitating a new Sketch Plan for PUD application for the purpose of reviewing the most current uses and standards proposed. Proposed uses include a mix of market rate and deed-restricted housing types, 'for-sale' commercial (retail, entertainment, restaurant and live/work) space, office, civic, recreational and agriculturaVlight industrial uses. Specifically, existing Wind River Tree Farm (wholesale nursery) and landscape uses are proposed to remain on the subject property. 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 F3.j, 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes PUD Zoning Existing zoning on the subject property is PUD, however all previously approved site specific development plans specifYing land uses, location, pattern and intensity of development and establishing any vested development rights for such plans have expired. 22 06/30/09 PUD Intent The intent of this Sketch Plan for PUD proposal is to integrate uses, and to promote greater efficiencies in land use patterns as they relate to and support the provision of affordable housing, public transportation and pedestrian oriented commercial uses serving the local community. Further, the intent of using PUD zoning in this instance has been to create safe, efficient and compact street and utility networks for the purpose of furthering the environmental and development goals and policies of both Eagle County and the Town of Basalt. Land Use Pattern The plans submitted differ significantly from previously approved site specific development plans approved for the subject property by locating the majority of development (infrastructure and building footprints) away from the adjacent McKelvey property located to the north of the proposed PUD boundary, surrounding hillsides and generally away from existing irrigated pasture lands on the east side of the property. A substantial portion of agricultural/nursery lands are to be preserved as open space and working tree farm/nursery operations. The plans locate substantial portions of high intensity uses such as service and retail commercial, live/work commercial and housing density within or around a central commercial 'core' area along State Highway 82 and directly correlated with a proposed RFTA Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) station. Such uses are located to facilitate pedestrian friendly (walkable) land use and transportation patterns, promote resource efficiency and support further development (density) within community centers. Constrained Design Without the use of PUD zoning and the opportunity to work with approval agencies (Eagle County) and referral agencies such as the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and the Town of Basalt regarding specific master plan goals and dimensional standards, the potential for development on the subject property is limited. Specifically, using PUD zoning and development review allows the flexibility to develop the property in a manner that exemplifies quality design and which furthers significant master plan goals related to housing, transit-oriented development patterns, environmental projection and preserving and enhancing local economies. STANDARD: Variations Authorized [Section 5-240.F.3.f. - 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: ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS PUD Achievement(s): Yes Obtains (applicant's) desired design qualities*; Yes Avoids environmental resources and natural resources**; Yes Provides incentives for water augmentation; Yes Provides incentives for trails; Yes Provides incentives for affordable housing; Yes Provides incentives for public facilities. Note: * The applicant proposes certain variations to Eagle County Roadway Standards (ECLUR, Section 4- 620) in order to further project design goals to minimize overall pavement amounts, promote pedestrian friendly design principles and otherwise promote compact, efficient. However, the Eagle County Engineering Department, working with the Basalt and Regional Fire Protection District has informed the applicant regarding certain minimum design standards involving road widths, routes and access requirements for emergency vehicles which must be addressed (revised) to meet or exceed (via the "performance design" process) minimum standards prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal. 23 06/30/09 ** The applicant has designed the project to avoid any development on, over or within existing wetlands on the subject property. As well, the PUD avoids development of adjacent hillsides. The applicant should be required to revise the site plans prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to ensure proper setbacks of any and all development away from existing wetland areas on the subject property and to work with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to develop a wildlife protection plan inclusive of seasonal closures and interpretive signage for migratory birds and other wildlife species known to use and inhabit the aforementioned wetland areas. See Condition(s): 8, 12 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Proposed Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification for Variation Requirement Planning Area A: Mixed Use Setbacks: Front 20 feet Arterial I 15 feet 25' ISO' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 10 feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest buildin~ Side o feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest buildin~ Minimum of 75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSl- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever IS greater Planning Area B: Live/Work Area Setbacks: Front 20 feet Arterial I 15 feet 25' ISO' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 10 feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Side o feet 12.5' or Y, ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest buildin~ Minimum of75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever IS greater Planning Area c: Multi-Family Setbacks: Front 25 feet Arterial I 25 feet 25'150' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local 24 06/30/09 Proposed Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification for Variation Requirement Rear 15 feet 12.5' or Y, ht of Proposed exceeds the ECLUR Requirement given maximum building tallest building height of 25 feet. Side 15 feet 12.5' or Y, ht of Proposed exceeds to the ECLUR Requirement given maximum tallest building building height of 28 feet. Minimum of 75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever IS greater Planning Area D: Landscape Nursery Area Setbacks: Front 25 feet Arterial I 25 feet 25' 150' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 15 feet 12.5' or Y, ht of Proposed is equivalent to the ECLUR Requirement given maximum tallest building building height of 25 feet. Side 15 feet 12.5' or Y, ht of Proposed is equivalent to the ECLUR Requirement given maximum tallest building building height of 25 feet. Minimum of75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater Planning Area E: Recreation Area Setbacks: Front 20 feet Arterial I 20 feet 25'/50' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 10 feet 12.5' or Y, ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Side 10 feet 12.5' or Y, ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Minimum of 75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater Note: This application proposes several deviations or variations to design standards such as setbacks and road widths for the purpose of facilitating a more compact, transit oriented (walkable) and energy efficient design. Specifically, the applicant proposes to cluster development sites, reduce the overall amount of pavement (impervious surfaces), reduce the overall amount of raw materials used to construct the development, create greater walkability within the development by increasing densities and reducing the distances between residences, commercial and transit facilities. 25 06/30/09 The Land Use Regulations (ECLURs) and pertinent sections of applicable master plans support such concepts and the PUD process is proposed to allow Eagle County the opportunity to review the totality of the proposed development and to consider those variations which further the goals, objectives and policies of Eagle County. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division i, O(f-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division i, O(f-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS (1) Per the ECLURs, one (1) "van accessible parking space shall be provided for every jive (5) accessible U ua i' i' oou lOIlU f ~ l l Q Q ~a ~a :a :a ~l fa "0 ,SrJ'} ,SrJ'} ll-o ('-. 11 f 00 == .m ]11 Proposed Uses I ~ 'Sd: 'Sl .... 'S b'1 ll-ol ll-o 1 00 o b'1 rJ'}1 'Sg, 'S. ~ ~ 01 . ~ g, ;.' ~~ Q . :.= g' ~J: ~l~ 08, ~~J: ZrJ') ZrJ'} ~~~ Yes No Yes No Single Family or Per 3IDU Xl x2 X Duplex Residential ECLUR"s - - Multi-Family: 2IDU 2IDU Xl X2 X I-Bedroom! Studio Multi-Family: 2.51DU 2.51DU Xl X2 X 2 to 3 Bedroom Multi-Family: 3IDU 3IDU Xl X2 X 4 or More Bedrooms Retail, Service 1/250 s.t: 1/250 s.t: Xl X2 X3 Commercial and Office (NLF A)* (NLF A)* Restaurant 1/ four seats 1/ four seats Xl X2 X Live/Work Residential 2.51DU 2.51DU Xl X2 X3 Commercial 1/250 s.t: 1/250 s.t: Wholesale 1/1000 s.f. of Xl X2 X Establishment floor area Recreation Xl X2 X parking spaces, or fraction thereof" The applicant was not asked to provide the level of detail necessary to determine the absolute number of handicap accessible spaces required for the development; this level of detail will be provided at any subsequent Preliminary Plan submittal and the applicant will be required to meet the minimum requirements for handicap/van accessible parking spaces per the ECLURs. (2) Per the ECLURs, one (1) off-street loading berth shall be provided for commercial buildings with a gross floor area "Up to iO,OOO sq. ft."; two (2) off-street loading berths shall be provided for commercial buildings Greater than 1 0,000 sq. ft." While the plans submitted do not depict dedicated off-street loading areas, the applicant will be required to meet the minimum requirements for off-street loading for all commercial uses designed to be served by tractor-trailer delivery vehicles, per the ECLURs. 26 06/30/09 (3) The proposed plans for commercial, residential and live/work units meet the required parking standards. The proposal makes no specific provision for shared parking, although in order to meet the Sustainable Communities goals of Eagle County, the plan could be revised to include shared parking for the higher intensity use areas (commercial and live/work), thus reducing the overall footprint of the development. As plans are further developed, the applicant may want to include provisions for shared parking. Note * NLFA - Net Leasable Floor Areas include only those areas that are designed to be leased to a tenant and occupied for commercial or office purposes, exclusive of any area dedicated to foyers, bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors and mechanical areas and storage areas used solely by tenants on the site. 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS -g .,s 8 'Q a:: 'Q Type of .!:l ~ .~ fa 0 fa Development: ~ '" i '" 2 ~ j~ <l) ~ Commercial ~ :o~ e '" > ~ -< J .~ .'( '.Q ~tlIl Residential 8,.g -g - .... ~ tlIl .... {I.l o tlIl 8:0 .$ 0 ~ 'Q '" tlIl] <l) X Mixed Use = 8 =. = () '13.. 0 88 t! 2 0 ~ fa ~ 'S-a .2 i .~ ~ U ;B Z.ll .$ tlIl 'is ~~ .1\lj tlIl '" fI3 = ~ 1;! t;l'Q .~ ~] <l) d .S] ~ :s;l 'Q ]J -a .~ sj ~ ~ a ~ a t!:::?J ;:j ei:.3 {I.l :::?J{I.l ~ ~ ...J .s Exceeds ECLUR Requirements X5 X6 Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Xl X2 X3 X4 X7 X8 X9 XIO Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirements Is Not Applicable X X (1) Generally, the proposed location of plantings is appropriate for the site and the uses proposed. As the plans are further developed and prior to any submittal of Preliminary Plans, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans and specifications regarding the location, installation and irrigation details demonstrating conformance with ECLUR standards. (2) Plans generally depict the types and locations of proposed 'living cover' - as re-vegetation materials and methods as well as permanent landscape treatments. as the plans are further developed and prior to any submittal of Preliminary Plans, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans and specifications regarding the location, installation and irrigation details demonstrating conformance with ECLUR standards. (3) Plans submitted specify the use of native and/or compatible plant species. Specifically, tree, shrub and grass species proposed are either native, naturally occurring species in the region, or are proposed to blend with those species found on the subject property (wetland and/or riparian species) or immediate vicinity which have been planted or imported to the area as successful plant species. As the plans are further developed and prior to any submittal of Preliminary Plans, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans and 27 06/30/09 specifications regarding the location, installation and irrigation details demonstrating conformance with ECLUR standards. Specifically, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that species proposed, locations and maintenance requirements will reduce overall resource use and result in an environmentally neutral landscape plan. (4) The plans submitted depict proposed limits of disturbance for the site. Large portions of the site (the boundary running from the south, around the eastern boarder to the north) are surrounded by the 'Robinson Ditch' and associated riparian vegetation such as mature Cottonwood trees. At certain limited areas at the southern edge and northern boundaries of the PUD, trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate development of access roads and, in some instances, buildings. Removal of significant existing vegetation is minimal, therefore the plan meets this standard. However, as plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide site specific tree removal and preservation plans depicting which existing trees are proposed to be removed and which are to be preserved. Plans will be required showing proper tree protection specifications. (5) Plans submitted generally depict tree and shrub sizes to meet or exceed the minimum standards of the ECLURs. In several instances (evergreen trees, deciduous trees and shrubs), the sizes proposed will exceed minimum standards and will provide variety in age, size and cover (canopy) within the overall plan. As well, the applicant proposes to exceed the required amount of landscaping (plantings). This exemplifies the applicant's commitment toward creating a more sustainable and 'net-nuetral' development. As plans are further developed, site specific details and plan legends will be required specifically calling out the location and size of individual trees and shrubs; in the case of large areas of similar plantings, plans shall specifY the range of sizes in a particular plant grouping. (6) See above comment No.5 (7) The plans submitted are conceptual in nature and are meant to provide general information as to the types, sizes, amounts and locations of proposed plantings and other landscape treatments. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide detailed landscaping plans and calculations demonstrating conformance with Section 4-230.B.II- Trees within a Paved Area. ECLURs (8) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to meet or, in many cases, exceed the minimum standards for plantings within parking and storage areas. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide detailed landscaping plans and calculations demonstrating conformance with Section 4-23 O. B. i2 - Parking and Storage Prohibited. (9) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to be in non-conformance in several areas of the plan. Specifically, proposed deciduous tree plantings are shown within or close to "clear vision areas" at the corner of certain intersections; in other instances, trees are shown close to curbs or edges of internal streets. As this is a conceptual level of detail, staff encourages the applicant to maintain the overall number and general location of proposed plantings, but to revise the plans as necessary to meet the requirements of Section 4-230.B.13- Obstructions Prohibited. ECLURs (10) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to meet or, in many cases, exceed the minimum standards for plantings within required off-street parking areas. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide detailed landscaping plans and calculations demonstrating conformance with Section 4- 230. C - Landscaing Standards within O(f-Street Parkin!? Areas. ECLURs. 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 Development (PUD ). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. [0 Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? I~Yes I X I No 28 06/30/09 A detailed comprehensive sign plan, including signage for all internal building and way-finding signage will be required as part of any Preliminary Plan submittal. The sign plan shall be included within the PUD Control Document (pUD Guide) and shall include details of proposed locations, sizes (dimensioned), materials, color schemes lighting and installation specifications to be permitted or prohibited within all planning areas of the PUD. See Condition(s): 11 STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR R, uirements ~ i s:l 0 ~ ~ .~ ~.c -a 'i ~ "0 ~'" .~ .?;> ,:t '" ';;I:l.. o.s 0 :g8.. 8: 'i "O~ ~~ ...... '" ~ ~Cl o.~ lii~ ii: ~ ll.Yl YlO Xl X2 X3 X X4 x5 DeviationNIS Requested ~--~ Yes In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No (1) Potable water for the project will be provided by the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District (see attached "Will Serve" letter from the District dated June 23, 2008). The District's commitment to serve, however, is conditional on the provision of additional water storage within the scope of the PUD project. The District and the applicant are currently in negotiation and ongoing discussion regarding the final design related elements of a new water tank or other such improvement (see attached letters dated September 25, 2008, and October 2, 2008, from Leavenworth & Karp, P.C., representing the District's position in the negotiations). As well, the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District response dated January 9, 2009, indicates its general support of the proposed PUD. Specifically, District expresses support for the provision of additional, gravity fed water supply (as is being contemplated) and ftre flow capacity improvements associated with the proposed development - a positive for the project and the surrounding area from a fIre protection and service standpoint. (2) Sewage disposal for the project will be provided by Mid-Valley Metropolitan District (see attached "Will Serve" letter from the District dated June 23, 2008). A pump and lift station to serve certain portions of the site will be required. (3) The applicant has not provided evidence of solid waste disposal (service) for the project. Proof of adequate facilities for solid waste disposal will be required prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. 29 06/30/09 (4) Although road networks proposed within the PUD are generally acceptable and provide adequate circulation within and through the development (new through road, and completed intersection serving the area), issues related to conformance with the roadway standards of the ECLURs and the requirements of the Fire District remain. The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District response dated January 9, 2009, indicates its general support of the proposed PUD and the proposed circulation plan. Specifically, District representatives reference the benefit provided to emergency service providers and the general public by the proposed connection of Tree Farm Drive to the CDOT "Frontage Road" (and Original Road intersection) as a secondary access route through the site. However, the District also expresses specific concerns regarding the project design as it relates to roadway widths, access and maneuverability standards - as provided for in the ECLURs. Several meetings have been held involving the applicant, the Fire District and Eagle County to discuss specific areas of non-conformance and optional means available to the applicant to address such issues. As plans are further developed for any Preliminary Plan submittal, the applicant will be required to either redesign the project to meet the prescriptive code requirements outlined in the International Fire Code and the ECLURs, or; pursue a performance based approach to conformance by consulting with a qualified, registered fIre protection engineer to aid in subsequent design of the project - to specifically ensure compliance of the plans with applicable fIre and engineering codes relative to access, roadway standards, building design and construction and the like. (5) See above comments regarding access and roadway standards. See Condition(s): 8, 13 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-o.f-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 oif- 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 oif-street parking areas. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 30 06/30/09 Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal Snow Storage Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X3 X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR X2 Requirement Not ApplicableINo ECLUR Requirement DeviationNIS Requested Xl (1) The circulation system is generally designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. However, because the plans are based on requested deviations (variances) to roadway standards, the applicant will be required to address Fire District and Eagle County Engineering comments specific to roadway widths as well as clearances (access) for emergency response vehicles (aerial apparatus). As plans are further developed for any Preliminary Plan submittal, the applicant will be required to either redesign the project to meet the prescriptive code requirements outlined in the International Fire Code and the ECLURs, or; pursue a performance based approach to demonstrate conformance by consulting with a qualified, registered ftre protection engineer to aid in subsequent design of the project - to specifically ensure compliance of the plans with applicable ftre and engineering codes relative to access, roadway standards, building design and construction and the like. As well, the plans should be re-designed to the extent possible to reduce the overall amount (length) of roadways and associated areas of pavement (driveways) proposed - concurrent with reevaluating the compactness of the overall land plan - to ensure the development achieves the stated environmental sustainability and walkability goals. (2) See above comment No.1. (3) Access and circulation has have generally been designed to provide for smooth traffic flow which minimizes hazards to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Three points of access are proposed for the site. Primary access will be via the existing and recently completed full movement intersection at State Highway 82 and Willits Lane. Tree Farm Drive currently extends northwest from this intersection through the site and connects through the Shadowrock subdivision to EI Jebel Road as a secondary access. A third access point is proposed at the southwest end of the project, using an existing uncontrolled access with Hwy 82. This uncontrolled access point is identified in the 2002 State Highway 82 Access Control Plan as "to be closed" in the future. The applicant proposes to use this uncontrolled access for the primary purpose of maintaining direct access from Hwy. 82 to Wind River Trees nursery and tree farm (to be relocated to the south end of the subject property) until such time the Colorado Division of Transportation (CDOT) acts to close the access in favor of other controlled access points (Willits Lane and Original Road intersesctions). The applicant has included correspondence from Dan Roussin, CDOT Region 3, indicating CDOT's general acceptance of the applicant's proposal to maintain the uncontrolled access in the near term with the express understanding that such uncontrolled access point(s) may be closed in the future. As well, it appears CDOT has endorsed the creation of a connection from Tree Farm Drive with the existing Frontage Road to the south of the subject property - to create a continuous local connection and alternative (emergency) access and travel routes through the project and paralleling Hwy. 82, to connect with Original Road, in the event of a closure on Hwy. 82 (see letter under Appendix G in the application from William Fox, Fox Higgins Transporation Group, dated September 12, 2008, regarding Hwy. 82 access and the extension of Tree Farm Drive). 31 06/30/09 Given plans calling for the eventual closure of certain uncontrolled access points and the creation of a 'through road' connecting the east Frontage Road with Tree Farm Drive, Staff suggests the applicant will need to examine and potentially re-design the circulation plan and associated land plan - to accommodate potentially high volumes of local traffic through the center of the live/work and convenience commercial portions of the project - to ensure safety of pedestrians and bikers along and within the Tree Farm Drive roadway system (with specific reference to "Woonerf' design principles per recommendations of the Eagle County Sustainable Communities Index). See Condition(s): 8, 14 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Potential Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning Compatibility Issues Yes No North: ResidentiaV 'R' BLM / Resource 'R' Xl Motorcross Track South: Single-Family Residential 'R' State Highway 82 'R' X R.O.W. East: Residential 'RR' Christine State Wildlife 'RP' X2 Area Commerical and 'C3IPUD' West: Residential (mixed use) in (Town) X Town of Basalt (1) The proposed POD development plan calls for the creation of residential dwelling units in the northern portions of the subject property and in close proximity with a private motor cross track developed by the applicant on an adjacent tract of private land previously included in Kodiak Park POD plans. Such recreation use, although private in nature, may present compatibility issues with proposed residential development within the PUD. Understanding the importance of this recreational use to the property owner/applicant, it may be in the best interest of the applicant to proactively address any potential conflicts that may arise by proposing self imposed controls and/or improvement standards (significant re-vegetation/landscaping and/or sound attenuation measures) to effectively mitigate potential nuisance issues associated with dust or noise. (2) Uses for the wholesale nursery located on the south eastern portion of the POD may produce noise and/or other potential nuisances to residential uses located to the south/east; specific provisions within the PUD Guide and!or protective covenants will be required to ensure compatibility of uses. See Condition(s): 15 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 32 06/30/09 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ~ 1 CI) 1:: ~ ~ ~ CI) ~ ~ .~ ~ ts .S:! ~ ~ ~ ~ FLUM ~ ~ bO j! ~ <2 (.) Designation i .9 .S .- !:l 'l:l .gg CI) d 0 '" ~ 0 :a 0 'fiJ ~ o '" ;:l 1i:! '" :-::: r.I:) 5 ;> ~ 0 0 ~~ ~ ..s 1il ~~ ~~ en &10- Exceeds Xl X2 Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 Recommendations Does not Satisfy Majority of Recommendations Not Applicable - Below are the Recommended Strategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: (1) Develooment . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". The proposed mixed-use development has been specifically designed to reduce or, in certain instances, eliminate development in unsuitable or undesirable areas of the previously approved PUD Preliminary Plans for this area. Specifically, the reduced PUD footprint (71.71 acres vs. 199 acres previously approved) eliminates any further residential development of hillsides surrounding the proposed PUD. In addition, the proposed development plan calls for preservation and/or creation of open space totaling approximately 51 %, or 37 acres of the overall 71.71 acre site. Such open space is proposed to include passive, active (recreational) and agricultural uses, including the existing Wind River Tree Farm operations. The ECLURs recommend a minimum of 25% of the total open space provide to be "usable". As well, the applicant is required to provide 10 acres of "common recreation and usable open space" for every 1000 persons residing in a development. At 319 units, and 2.63 persons per dwelling unit (per the ECLUR's), the applicant is required to provide approximately 8.39 acres of recreation and usable open space. Currently, the applicant proposes 17.2 acres, or nearly 24% of the site as usable open space. Although this amount exceeds the requirement, this figure could easily be increased through slight modifications in the overall design. Staff has discussed the possibility of further enhancing the land plan to include areas for neighborhood gardens and local food production. As well, the plans generally propose clustering of residential building footprints, minimizing paved areas by seeking design variations from Eagle County Land Use Regulation design standards for road widths and concentrating the most intense concentrations of residential, commercial and civic uses at or near the Highway 82 corridor. Such design attributes, in combination with maintaining large portions of existing irrigated agricultural lands for continued nursery (agricultural) uses and avoiding development on steep hillsides previously contemplated for development demonstrate conformance with this master plan goal. The project introduces compact, transit oriented and walkable design attributes, resource efficient building design, construction and operational practices and active (alternative) energy production (200 KW solar farm and micro-hydropower stations) as a means to significantly reduce the development's environmental footprint over a conventional subdivision of similar size. Such project features specifically support the environmental goals and policies of Eagle County. The plans were evaluated against the Sustainable Communities Index (SCI). Preliminary scoring indicated approximately 109 points out of a possible 228 points. As a reference, 70 points are typically considered a 33 06/30/09 minimum threshold, while 136 points in this case would exceed compliance. As proposed, the application meets the requirements, however as indicated throughout this section, there remain opportunities to either re-design or enhance the development (land plan) to better achieve the goals and policies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and, specifically, the requirements of SCI. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan for the North Meadow Residential Area to: · Improve the design of proposed roadways and increase clustering of building footprints, and otherwise "pull-in" the proposed limits of disturbance to reduce the overall development impact (footprint); · Reduce the amount of paved areas by re-designing the roadway network, and reducing the amount of individual driveways by creating shared driveways and/or parking areas serving more than one unit; · Provide a larger setback (buffer) to the existing wetland areas to the south of this planning area - to protect water quality and wildlife populations (migratory bird species) and to ensure compliance with ECLURs, and; · Provide neighborhood or community-scale gardens and areas for local food production. · Revising the land plan for the Live/W ork area located along the Highway 82 right of way to specifically reduce the amount of surface parking areas adjacent to the existing ski lake and providing an enhanced landscape buffer between hardscape improvements and the lake; consider re-designing this area of the land plan to relocate parking areas and building footprints to allow buildings to front on the ski lake as well as Tree Farm Drive. · Revising the land plan to enhance the functional (horizontal and vertical) integration of the parking garage, Convenience Service CommerciallResidential and Live/W ork planning areas located along Tree Farm Drive and the Highway 82 right of way - to create a more compact, walkable and!or pedestrian friendly design to further support the viability of transit oriented real estate development. . "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 is generally consistent with this policy and!or enhances the existing quality of life characteristics of the surrounding vicinity. Although the proposed mixed-use development will impact local roads by introducing approximately 3,729 additional vehicles trips per day (3,390 originally calculated plus 10% to account for 70 additional dwelling units added per the Housing Plan), the design of the project goes a long way towards the creation of compact, transit oriented and energy efficient development in the Mid Valley region. The applicant proposes energy efficient design and construction to reduce the development's environmental footprint and to reduce overall energy and maintenance costs to future residents and commercial operators. Additionally, the applicant has worked proactively with the Roaring Fork Regional Transportation Authority (RFTA), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Town of Basalt to coordinate and plan for the location and design of a regional, multi-modal transit stop, park-n-ride facility (parking garage) pedestrian underpass and associated improvements within and without the Tree Farm PUD to support regional mass-transit (BRT) and the creation of a true transit oriented development. Proposed "Convenience and Service" commercial uses located within walking distance to planned regional transit stops and existing population centers; the preservation of productive agricultural lands; the preservation of unique, active recreational uses such as the ski lake, and; the potential for alternative energy production on-site support the provision of "quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services". 34 06/30/09 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to include more areas of 'active recreation; although this project is located within close proximity to planned or existing regional (recreation) amenities such as the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm/Crown Mountain Park, residents within the development and those living or working in nearby population centers may benefit from additional active recreation opportunities. Consider expanding proposed lakeside park areas, use of the lake facility when not in use by watcr ski club use groups, and/or providing unique offerings to compliment pedestrian oriented commcrcial core plaza areas. · Consider maintaining/preserving the historic cabin structure located at the northwest corner of the subject property for use as a regional trail information center and/or cultural center to educate local residents and visitors about area history, wildlife, culture and alternative energy produced on-site. · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate early childhood education and daycare facilities for local residents and local workforce; · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate seniors services industry and retail opportunities. · Integrate an on-site recycling program for the PUD. . "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". The Mid-Valley Community Master Plan is currently in the process of being updated wherein; the most current population and job growth data available will be incorporated into long range planning objectives. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live/work land uses. . "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". The proposed project is specifically designed as a mixed-use development and is adjacent to, or included within exiting community center designations containing higher residential densities, commercial (mixed use), recreational opportunities and existing and or planned civic facilities. The project location is identified within the Town of Basalt's Three Mile Plan and is specifically located within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan for the North Meadow Residential Area to: · Improve the design of proposed roadways and increase clustering of building footprints, and otherwise "pull-in" the proposed limits of disturbance to reduce the overall development impact (footprint); · Reduce the amount of paved areas by re-designing the roadway network, and reducing the amount of individual driveways by creating shared driveways and!or parking areas serving more than one unit; · Provide a larger setback (buffer) to the existing wetland areas to the south of this planning area to protect water quality and wildlife populations (migratory bird species) and to ensure compliance with ECLURs, and; 35 06/30/09 · Provide neighborhood or community-scale gardens and areas for local food production. · Revising the land plan for the Live/W ork area located along the Highway 82 right of way to specifically reduce the amount of surface parking areas adjacent to the existing ski lake and providing an enhanced landscape buffer between hardscape improvements and the lake; consider re-designing this area of the land plan to relocate parking areas and building footprints to allow buildings to front on the ski lake as well as Tree Farm Drive. · Revising the land plan to enhance the functional (horizontal and vertical) integration of the parking garage, Convenience Service Commercial/Residential and Live/W ork planning areas located along Tree Farm Drive and the Highway 82 right of way; to create a more compact, walkable and/or pedestrian friendly design to further support the viability of transit oriented real estate development. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". In that the proposal meets the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines by providing 169 new, deed restricted and/or Local-Resident Occupied dwelling units of varying sizes, types and price points within an existing community center and within walking distance to regional transit, shopping, employment, civic and recreational uses; social equity may be improved. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise the land plan where needed and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department in pursuit of a public/private partnership to potentially increase the total number and type of deed restricted and local resident occupied dwelling units within the project and specifically within walking distance to regional transit; · Revise the land plan to include provisions for "affordable commercial" space. Similar to proposed affordable and resident occupied housing, the applicant may gain credits for meeting the Eagle County Mfordable and Resident Housing requirements by introducing affordable, deed restricted and/or resident occupied commercial and/or live/work space within the development to attract local buyers and entrepreneurs. · Revising the land plan prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live/work land uses. · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate early childhood education and daycare facilities for local residents and local workforce. · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate seniors services industry and retail opportunities. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy: The applicant has provided a financial analysis by Stan Bernstein, Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. This report generally describes how the proposed development will positively impact the local economy and local taxing jurisdictions through the introduction of additional property tax valuations and sales tax generation. The analysis provided by Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. generally asserts that there will most likely not be additional (incremental) costs or impacts on Eagle County personnel and equipment. Further, the applicant has spent considerable time working with Staff to implement "Site Stats" - a fiscal and economic impact modeling tool being used for the fIrst time by the County to provide enhanced (internal) analysis of "incremental" project costs and benefits to the County. Despite the applicant's assertions that the project will most likely not be cost implications to Eagle County, the Site Stats model will be used in more depth to review any Preliminary Plan submittal to better assess the incremental impacts (capital costs and general operational and/or administration costs) to Eagle County. 36 06/30/09 One aspect of the project's influence on the local economy that may need further analysis as plans and project pro-forma are further developed, is how this development will compliment the existing and!or planned (but not yet built) commercial land uses in the immediate vicinity (Willits Town Center). The project differentiates itself by introducing a mix of convenience, service and "live/work" commercial, office and light industrial uses that are 'for-sale'. Nearby developments such as the Willits Bend live/work real estate offerings have proven popular and indicate additional market demand for such 'for-sale' Light Industrial and residential spaces which are intended to promote investment by locals in the business community and to create further diversification of the local economy. The project has been specifically designed to serve the local population by proposing to meet or exceed the County's affordable housing requirements, providing sustainable design and active alternative energy solutions to reduce environmental impacts associated with the development and to reduce long-term operating and maintenance costs for residents of the development, thus providing additional means to perhaps keep a higher percentage of personal income within the community and within the local economy. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: . Revising the land plan to include provisions for "affordable commercial" space. Similar to proposed affordable and resident occupied housing, the applicant may gain credits for meeting the Eagle County Affordable Housing and Resident Housing requirements by introducing commercial and/or live/work space within the development that is deed restricted to attract local buyers and entrepreneurs. Integrate information gained from using the 'Site Stats' modeling tool to re-design the project, where applicable, and to reduce any potential burden on Eagle County Government or other local jurisdictions that may be financial impacted by the development, and; to increase the long-term economic benefits generated by the development to bolster a sustainable and diversified local economy. Revising the land plan prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local jobs to housing ratios; ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live/work land uses. . . . "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". The project is generally designed to incorporate parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development, such as residential cluster neighborhoods and commercial and/or entertainment-commercial areas. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to provide neighborhood or community-scale gardens and areas for local food production; · Revising the land plan to include more areas of active recreation; although this project is located within close proximity to planned or existing regional (recreation) amenities such as the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm/Crown Mountain Park, residents within the development and those living or working in nearby population centers may benefit from additional active recreation opportunities. Consider expanding proposed lakeside park areas and/or providing unique offerings to compliment pedestrian oriented commercial core plaza areas. . "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". 37 06/30/09 This is the purpose of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation process. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to meet ECLURs as they specifically relate to roadway standards and fIre code standards. · Re-design and/or enhance the development (land plan) to achieve better conformance with the requirements of SCI. . "Analyze development applicationsfor conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. This document was adopted in 1991 and is currently being updated to reflect current conditions of the Mid-Valley and the current values and goals of the citizens. The proposed project meets the majority of the goals and policies of the Plan by focusing growth service commercial and medium to high density residential uses near existing developed areas. However, two areas of non-conformance relate to the preservation a 200-foot buffer along Hwy. 82 for agricultural uses or as recreational trail corridors. The Master Plan specifically identifies the Hwy. 82 frontage and existing irrigated pasture lands on the Tree Farm property as being preserved as open lands; it shows the surrounding JuniperlPinyon hillsides to the north and east as being residential development of between 4-8 units per acre. For several reasons, including conflicts with current provisions of the ECLURs and other planning principles and policies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, these two elements of the 1991 Mid- Valley Master Plan (Future Land Use Map) run counter to contemporary concepts of development within Eagle County. First, encouraging development of highly visible and geologically sensitive hillsides is generally not supported by other applicable regulations and master plan documents. As well, other applicable sections of the Mid-Valley Master Plan would suggest directing development within community centers and encouraging a higher density than is proposed in the Tree Farm application. Lastly, although the update to the Mid-Valley Master Plan is not complete, the updated document - reflecting community input and clarification of goals and policies for the area - will most likely support a future land use map that more closely aligns with the proposed land plan for the Tree Farm and surrounding areas that have developed since adoption of the original Master Plan document in 1991. . "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 proposed development requests variations from dimensional and development standards via the PUD process. The plan groups duplex, three and four-plex home sites generally within a limited portion of irrigated pasture land on the northern portion of the PUD and concentrates the remainder of the development along the western portion of the property between the ski lake and the Hwy. 82 right-of-way. Approximately 51 % of the site is preserved as open space and/or productive agricultural lands. Overall, such an approach will create a reduced development footprint, increase efficiency in service provision and increase the livability of the area by producing walkable residential and commercial development within a community center and in close proximity to planned mass transit. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan for the North Meadow residential cluster area to be more compact and reduce the overall footprint of buildings and paved areas - "pull-in" limits of disturbance away from existing wetland boundary. . "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing". 38 06/30/09 The project is specifically designed to provide workforce housing and live/work opportunities to the local population; the project meets the minimum requirements of the County's Housing Guidelines. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to increase opportunities to incorporate more deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to explore potential public-private partnerships to increase the affordable housing stock. . "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts". The project has been designed as a compact, clustered development located in close proximity to planned regional mass transit hubs. It has been designed as an energy efficient, pedestrian friendly project serving local populations through the creation of significant amounts of deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing options to specifically minimize and otherwise mitigate impacts from development. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan for the North Meadow residential cluster area to be more compact and reduce the overall footprint of buildings and paved areas - "pull-in" limits of disturbance away from existing wetland boundary. · Integrate information gained from using the 'Site Stats' modeling tool to re-design the project, where applicable, and to reduce any potential burden on Eagle County Government or other local jurisdictions that may be financial impacted by the development, and; to increase the long-term economic benefits generated by the development to bolster a sustainable and diversified local economy. · Revising the land plan prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local jobs to housing ratios; ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live/work land uses. (2) Economic Resources . "Ensure that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses ". The project is specifically designed as a transit oriented, mixed use development supplying "community scaled" commercial and office uses for the local community and to compliment existing retail and service commercial uses in the surrounding area. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Perform a detailed market analysis to test certain assumptions made and to specifically address potential, negative impacts resulting from unsupported competition for specific retail commercial uses in the immediate area (Willits Town Center and Orchard Plaza). . "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance. " 39 06/30/09 The proposal is not intended to be a second home development. . "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population". Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to ensure appropriate, adequate (ADA compliant) and efficient access at the ground or pedestrian level of commercial buildings for such "services and businesses" benefiting a growing senior population. · Work with senior or elder-care service providers in the Mid-Valley area, as well as with Eagle County Health and Human Services Department staff to identifY those "services and business" needed in the Mid-Valley region. And, to the extent practical within the over all land plan and commercial real estate pro-forma, designate or reserve certain commercial spaces and locations to accommodate businesses aimed at serving senior populations. . "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities". The plans do not specifically anticipate creation of "retirement housing"; however, the nature of this pedestrian friendly, transit oriented design may be complimentary to this particular master plan goal. Proposed affordable and deed restricted housing will be available to those segments of the population approaching or at retirement age. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department, as well as with the Eagle County Health and Human Services Department to further identifY rental and 'for-sale' housing price points (thresholds) that may be attractive and/or attainable for a growing segment of Eagle County's population living on fixed incomes. · IdentifY those housing and!or amenity features designed specifically for aging populations and consider incorporating those features into overall project plans and individual building design. . . "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation ". See above comments. In addition, the proposed development is in close proximity to emergency services providers. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · See above comments and strategies. . "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on thejobs to housing balance of the area". The project's affordable housing plan has been reviewed by the Eagle County Housing and Development Director for compliance with the Guidelines. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: 40 06/30/09 · Revise the Housing Plan to adjust AMI target to 100% (rather than 105% proposed by applicant) for deed restricted units. . "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population". Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the proposal to include a detailed market study for the immediate trade area. Staff believes the applicant's proposal, when submitted for review in August of 2088, was based on the best available market data at that time. The application included preliminary financial analysis to support the proposed mix, types and sizes of retail, service and entertainment commercial uses. However, national, regional and local economic conditions have changed in considerable and profound ways since the completion of any initial financial feasibility and market studies. Therefore, Staff suggests that as the project moves forward to Preliminary Plan design, a detailed market analysis should be performed to test certain assumptions made and to specifically address potential, negative impacts resulting from unsupported competition for specific retail commercial uses in the immediate area (Willits Town Center and Orchard Plaza). · Revising the proposed Phasing Plan to allow flexibility in the design, construction and marketing of commercial, office and residential real estate offerings. Phasing should be structured and timed to respond appropriately to potentially unpredictable market conditions in the future. · Work with the Town of Basalt, to the extent practical, to ensure that any proposed commercial and/or light industrial development best serves the immediate local population and compliments existing commercial and/or light industrial development in the area. . "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties". Service and convenience commercial uses as well as office and live/work uses have been primarily concentrated around a planned regional mass transit stop and directly adjacent to the Hwy. 82 right-of-way. Light industrial, wholesale nursery and/or agricultural uses associated with the relocated Wind River Tree Farm operations will be located on the southeastern portion of the PUD and in relatively close proximity to an existing, low to medium density residential neighborhood (Laura J. Estates). The PUD Guide included in the application allows for certain uses that are likely to generate noise and other potential nuisances. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: . Revising the land plan and site specific development plans to ensure particular light industrial, agricultural and/or wholesale nursery uses and business operations are contained within properly designed and constructed buildings - to include architecture and building materials (construction techniques) that specifically provide sound attenuating properties and which meet all applicable building code requirements for venting, hazardous materials storage and lighting standards. Provide protective covenants that specifically control and otherwise limit 1) hours of operation for certain outdoor activities; 2) permissible noise levels; and 3) lighting standards. . . "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs of nearby residents". The project has been specifically designed to provide commercial buildings of certain, limited (gross) square footage to be attractive to local businesses and entrepreneurs. Commercial, office and light industrial uses are integrated within the residential fabric of the development to create a mixed use, pedestrian friendly environment. Live/work and other 'for-sale' commercial real estate is to be offered to local businesses. No medium or large format "box" stores are proposed and the commercial core of the 41 06/30/09 project is geared towards providing convenience and service commercial uses to serve the needs of local residents and commuters. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Work with senior or elder-care service providers in the Mid-Valley area, as well as with Eagle County Health and Human Services Department staff to identify those "services and business" needed in the Mid-Valley region. And, to the extent practical within the over all land plan and commercial real estate pro-forma, designate or reserve certain commercial spaces and locations to accommodate businesses aimed at serving senior populations. · Perform a detailed market analysis prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. · Work with the Town of Basalt, to the extent practical, to ensure that any proposed commercial and/or light industrial development best serves the needs of nearby residents and compliments existing commercial and/or light industrial development in the area. . "Encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation". The project has been designed in strict conformance with this policy. (3) Housim! . "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". The subject property is located within the main EI Jebel community center area and is identified in the Town of Basalt Master Plan as being within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary. The subject property is located within walking distance to the main commercial areas of EI Jebel and includes a new BRT stop - providing direct access to regional mass transit routes connecting future populations to job centers outside the immediate planning area. As well, the proposal seeks to provide deed restricted affordable and workforce (resident occupied) housing along side 'for-sale' commercial spaces and Live/W ork opportunities for locals, thus striving to meet the goal of providing "affordable workforce housing" near job centers. And, as a matter of course for satisfYing the Eagle County Housing Guidelines, affordable workforce housing will result and the applicant has submitted a revised housing plan as a result of feedback from the Eagle County Housing and Development Department. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to increase opportunities to incorporate more deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to explore potential public-private partnerships to increase the affordable housing stock. · Revise the Housing Plan to adjust AMI target to 100% (rather than 105% proposed by applicant) for deed restricted units. . "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". Although the property is currently zoned PUD, there is no approved site specific development plan approved; any vested rights associated with PUD development plans previously approved have expired. Therefore, the proposal represents a substantial up-zoning of the subject property based on the proposal to construct a total of319 residential dwelling units (392,819 sq. ft.); 35% of which are proposed to meet the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. 42 06/30/09 If this Planned Unit Development (as proposed) is ultimately approved, the incentive to the developer will be the ability to develop 150 free-market units; 128 deed restricted units averaging 100% AMI, and; 41 "resident occupied" units priced at or above 160% AMI. In addition, 96,375 sq. ft. of commercial development is proposed. The applicant recently amended the Housing Plan for the development to reduce the size (gross square feet) of certain residential unit types and to subsequently increase the total number of dwelling units (total gross residential square footage was not increased). This resulted in seventy (70) additional dwelling units which are subject to the Eagle County Housing Guideline requirements, but which also factor (significantly) into the applicant's pro-forma. Staff is in general support of the increased density on this transit-oriented, mixed use development; density and TOD are inextricably linked. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise the Housing Plan to adjust the AMI target to 100% (rather than 105% proposed by applicant) for deed restricted units. · Revising the land plan to increase opportunities to incorporate more deed restricted and!or resident occupied housing and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to explore potential public-private partnerships to increase the affordable housing stock. · Revising the proposed Phasing Plan to allow flexibility in the design, construction and marketing of commercial, office and residential real estate offerings - timed to respond appropriately to potentially unpredictable market conditions in the future. · Work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to quantify actual savings to residents of the development through energy efficiency and on-site energy production measures. Staff is willing to work with the applicant to quantify such real (actual) savings in order to potentially allow the purchase price for some of the required deed restricted units to be raised. While ensuring that savings to residents are real and ongoing over the life of the project, such a scenario may allow the developer to realize higher up-front returns. Higher up-front returns could equate to additional investment by the developer in energy efficient building techniques and technology. . "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. Pursuant to the attached e-mail from the Director of Housing and Development dated January 14, 2009, the Housing Plan meets the minimum requirements of the Guidelines, and could be modified concurrent with Preliminary Plan submittal to exceed the Guidelines for the purpose of increasing the public benefit of the project. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · See above comments. . "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications. " The project is designed specifically to provided "attainable workforce housing" as part of the project infrastructure (per the Local Resident Housing Guidelines) for this development plan and is specifically provided for as a key component to the overall objective of the development proposal. . "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". See above comments. 43 06/30/09 (4) Infrastructure and Services . "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub". The subject property is served by adequate public roads and has specifically been designed, working in collaboration with multiple agencies to provide appropriate residential density, park-n-ride facilities and commercial uses directly adjacent to a planned BRT. In addition, the project incorporates a regional trail connection running parallel to Hwy. 82 (please reference attached correspondence from RFTA, CDOT, Eagle County and the applicant regarding transit and roadway improvements, design, and funding solutions ). Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to address outstanding issues related to roadway and access standards per the ECLURs and applicable fIre codes. · Revise the land plan to ensure proposed pedestrian circulation (paths) that serve outlying parts of the project (North Meadow residential) promote efficient and safe pedestrian travel routes. · Work with the Mid-Valley Trails Committee and the Town of Basalt to ensure trails through the project meet the design standards and needs of regional trail connectivity. . "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". If this PUD proposal is ultimately approved, at Final Plat a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateral will be required to ensure that all necessary infrastructure improvements are installed correctly in a timely manner. . "Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements ". This is the primary purpose of subdivision improvement agreements. . "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". The proposed plans respond to and at the same time support RFT A plans to expand regional bus service (please refer to attached correspondence from RFTA, CDOT, Eagle County and the applicant regarding transit and roadway improvements, design, and funding solutions). . "Encourage transit oriented development". The project is specifically designed as a transit oriented development. . "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". The land plan incorporates mixed-use development around a pedestrian mall strategically located ill relation to a planned pedestrian underpass and in proximity to a planned BR T station and parking. . "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". 44 06/30/09 The project includes pedestrian connections and incorporates new regional trails through the subject property, connecting the site with the larger community center. The proposed plans add significantly to the "seamless pedestrian infrastructure". Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: o Work with the Mid- Valley Trails Committee and the Town of Basalt to ensure trails through the project meet the design standards and needs of regional trail connectivity. . "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with para/lei pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". The project includes the provision of Tree Farm Drive and associated sidewalk and/or pedestrian pathways running parallel to Hwy. 82. Pedestrian paths generally run parallel to Tree Farm Drive and will include marked street crossings at certain intersections and road segments. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Work with the Mid-Valley Trails Committee and the Town of Basalt to ensure trails through the project meet the design standards and needs of regional trail connectivity. . "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". Not applicable. . "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design". This is a PUD Sketch Plan application. . "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate': The project includes a significant live/work component. . "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". This mixed use project incorporates convenience and service retail commercial uses as well as office uses. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: . Perform a detailed market analysis prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal to determine the appropriate mix of uses. . ~~Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". The proposal does not comply with the ECLUR roadway standards for access width. . "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". 45 06/30/09 See comments from Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Engineering Department regarding access and requested variances by the applicant. · "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". Refer to the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District response dated January 9,2009. . "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". At this level of review, specific plans (programming) for service or other commercial spaces have not been developed. The applicant is aware of this master plan goal. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate early childhood education and daycare facilities for local residents and local workforce. . "Use House Bill 1 041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". Not applicable. . "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". This proposal entails installation of new public water and sewer infrastructure. 12" main lines are already installed and stubbed out at existing (completed) sections of Tree Farm Drive - running from the Shadowrock Townhomes development to the project boundary. The applicant has a reimbursement agreement with the Shadowrock developer/owner for such improvements benefiting the Tree Farm. . "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". The applicant has provided traffic generation analysis for the Sketch Plan submittal. Such analysis was further revised to reflect recent changes (increased number of dwelling units) made to the Housing Plan for the development. Analysis provided to date indicates that approximately 3,729 additional vehicles per day (3,390 originally calculated plus 10% to account for additional dwelling units added per the Housing Plan) will be added to local roads. A detailed analysis will be required with any Preliminary Plan submittal. . "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". The proposal will provide a mix of free market, deed restricted and resident occupied housing options of varying sizes, types, locations and price points throughout the development. (5) Water Resources . "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". The Mid-Valley Metropolitan District has provided written evidence ("Can and Will Serve" letter) demonstrating the District's legal and physical ability to serve the development; with conditions to provide additional water storage as part of the project. . "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". 46 06/30/09 See above comments. . "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". Staff suggests that the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District would not have entered into a contract ("Can and Will Serve") with the applicant to serve the subject property if the District could not provide a sufficient quantity of water to support the proposed development. However, the intent to serve is conditional upon the applicant fulfilling certain water storage/augmentation requirements. . "Protect source water areas and reduce the potentialfor source water contamination". During site construction, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be employed for storm water management, erosion control and dust suppression. . "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible". The application does not preclude the use of pervious surfaces. Such design and construction related details should be examined further during any Preliminary Plan level of design and development. . "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources'~ The project generally includes provisions for the capture and treatment (on-site) of storm water runoff using bio-swaleslbio-filtration islands throughout parking areas and other hardscape areas. In addition, the development seeks to cluster as much density as possible; to limit overall (total) building footprints, and; to preserve large portions of the site as irrigated pasture and/or agricultural production. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise the land plan to further cluster development and reduce the amount of paved areas (roadways, individual driveways) to reduce the total amount of building footprint and!or impervious surfaces - to increase or preserve groundwater recharge capabilities within the site. · Include controls with PUD and!or protective covenants that limit and!or require monitoring and reporting of any chemicals (pesticides, herbicides) used in proposed agricultural (nursery) operations. · Require ground water monitoring stations within the PUD boundaries. · Consider building designs that incorporate "green roofs" and water re-capture/treatment within roof design and materials. . "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". The proposal does incorporate low water consumptive/Firewise landscape materials and treatments. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. · "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". The proposed plans include provisions for the use of non-potable irrigation for all outdoor irrigation needs/requirements. . "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". The application does not address water reuse at this time. Reuse options should be examined further with any Preliminary Plan level of design and development pursuant to the most current State legislation on water storage and re-capture. 47 06/30/09 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Consider integrating water reuse and recycling components into the building, landscape and irrigation plans. . "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". The application proposes to limit the total amount of spray irrigated area; no specific (maximum) square footages are proposed. Also, the use of xeric plant materials, conservation of native vegetation and drip irrigation techniques are to be applied. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Consider incorporating specific limits and/or controls regarding the maximum areas per lot to be irrigated within PUD Guide documents and/or within protective covenants. · "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of developmentapplication~ Staff suggests that the Mid- Valley Metropolitan District would not have entered into a contract ("Can and Will Serve letter) with the applicant to serve the subject property if the District could not provide a sufficient quantity of water to support the proposed development. . "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". No provisions or proposals for water quality monitoring were included within the application. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Include controls with PUD and!or protective covenants that limit and/or require monitoring and reporting of any chemicals (pesticides, herbicides) used in proposed agricultural (nursery) operations. · Require ground water monitoring stations within the PUD boundaries. . "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". The use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for on-site storm water management will be required. . "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". The subject property is not located within the Eagle River Watershed. . "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identify and treat other non-point sources ofpollution". Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required with regard to storm water management and grading activities. . "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development'~ Such plan is not proposed at this time. 48 06/30/09 . "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". Best Management Practices (BMP' s) 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". Development is proposed near the 'Robinson Ditch' which runs from south to northwest around the eastern border of the PUD boundary. The Ditch is located at a higher elevation and is surrounded by existing, mature riparian vegetation such as Cottonwood trees. As well, development is proposed near existing (created) wetlands located adjacent to the ski lake. Lastly, the plan contemplates creation of drainage ways and pond features to run through the North Meadow residential neighborhood to serve as storm water detention and treatment and as natural amenities for residents. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise land plan to "pull-in" proposed North Meadow residential neighborhood further away from existing wetlands to provide a larger buffer. · Ensure proposed residential structures near the Robinson Ditch are located and/or designed to withstand any potential hydrologic events (high water tables, storm water runoff during significant events ). . "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". The development seeks to cluster as much density as possible; to limit overall (total) building footprints, and; to preserve large portions of the site as irrigated pasture and!or agricultural production. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise land the land plan to further cluster development and reduce the amount of paved areas (roadways, individual driveways) to reduce the total amount of building footprint and/or impervious surfaces - to increase or preserve groundwater recharge capabilities within the site. (6) Wildlife Resources . "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing human-made barriers to wildlife migration ". As of this writing, the Colorado State Division of Wildlife had not yet responded. According to a report submitted by Richard Thompson, Western Ecosystems, Inc., the project boundary located generally along the Robinson Ditch does not overlap with Elk migration routes which are located outside project boundaries and within the surrounding JuniperlPinyon hillsides boarding the State Wildlife Area. Mule Deer migration routes also do not overlap the PUD. . "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". The project generally avoids development impacts to high value habitats contained within and along the Robinson Ditch and around the existing wetland. However, no specific programs or projects are proposed to enhance existing wildlife habitat. 49 06/30/09 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise land plan to "pull-in" proposed North Meadow residential neighborhood further away from existing wetlands to provide a larger buffer (50-100 feet recommended by the consulting wildlife biologist). · Incorporate specific controls or standards within the PUD Guide document restricting the total amount and height of fencing allowed. · Consider maintaining/preserving historic cabin structure located at the northwest corner of the subject property for use as a regional trail information center and/or cultural center to educate local residents and visitors about area history, wildlife, culture and alternative energy produced on-site. . "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". Although the project is not located along or in close proximity to area streams or rivers, the use of Best Management Practices for on-site storm water management will be required. . "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". With the exception of a planned solar farm/array to be located outside of the proposed PUD boundary, development is contained within PUD boundary which is generally delineated by the Robinson Ditch. According to a report by Richard Thompson, Western Ecosystems, Inc., "... the current Tree Farm proposal would avoid the most sensitive wildlife issue associated with prior proposals by limiting development to the area below the irrigation ditch, thereby avoiding mule deer and elk winter range associated with the juniper forest above the ditch." . "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials': All comments/recommendations provided by the consulting wildlife biologist will be conditions of approval. included as . "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". This is the intent of the PUD Sketch Plan process. . "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". The project is designed to focus high-density/high-intensity development within the existing community center and within the urban growth boundary of the Town of Basalt. . "Minimize site disturbance during construction". A construction management plan, dust suppression plan and other Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required as part of any development approvals. . "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". Ornamental tree species are proposed as part of the conceptual landscape plan for the development. This issue, in sufficient detail should be addressed with the submittal of any Preliminary Plan. . "Require wildlife-proofrefuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". The application is required to adhere to the ECLUR standards for wildlife refuse containment. 50 06/30/09 (7) Sensitive Lands . "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". The attached Colorado Geological Survey response dated November 12, 2008, references geologic reports by the applicant indicating that the subject property is encumbered by "numerous geologic hazards that will significantly effect all proposed development." Such hazards or general conditions include sinkholes, landslide deposits, evaporate subsidence potential debris flow hazard, and the potential for construction- related instability. The CGS response further notes that all of the identified geologic hazards will require special consideration and mitigation. Additional evaluation and investigation will be required with application for PUD Preliminary Plan. All recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey have been made conditions of approval. (please refer to attached CGS letter and follow-up letter from the applicant regarding further geologic investigation and exploration that is proposed prior to or concurrent with Preliminary Plan submittal). . "Minimize alteration of the natura/landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". Site disturbance is to be minimized to the greatest extent feasible and is concentrated entirely within areas previously disturbed by human activity. Surrounding hillsides containing geologically sensitive areas, as well as JuniperlPinyon forest were avoided with this application. . "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification ". All CGS recommendations encouraging further site-specific investigations and studies will be made conditions of approval. . Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". Referral to CGS completed. . "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans ". All CGS recommendations encouraging further site-specific investigations and studies will be made conditions of approval. . "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". The project concentrates all development along the Hwy. 82 corridor or generally within the valley floor of the subject property which is generally situated at a lower elevation than the Hwy. 82 road platform. Overall, this proposal achieves a higher level of visual protection than previous proposals as no development (other than the proposed location of a solar farm/array to the north of the PUD boundary and situated within an area of hillside with maximum solar access and minimal visibility from ofT-site) is proposed to encroach on adjacent JuniperlPinyon hillsides. Staff is not aware of any historic and!or archeological sites on the subject property. No referral responses were received from either the State Historical Society or the Eagle County Historical Society. . "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". Open spaces of different kinds and values (active, passive, conservationlenvironmental- oriented) are proposed throughout the development. Overall, the open space plan serves many different purposes 51 06/30/09 appropriate to a mixed use development which includes "Usable" open space percentages proposed will need to be and minimum requirements of the ECLURs. commercial, residential, and agricultural uses. studied (potentially increased) to meet the intent (8) Environmental Quality . "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". The project is specifically designed to "assure access to multi-modal transportation options".; the property and proposed residential and commercial development is situated within walkable (within ~ mile; 10- minute walk) proximity to planned transit service, provides intermodal connections to regional and local bike and pedestrian networks. . "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". See previous comments regarding affordable housing and the transit oriented development (TOD) nature of this project. . "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the needfor daily commuting". The project is located within an existing community center and within the Urban Growth Boundary of the Town of Basalt. . "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". Site-specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes and with each building permit. . "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points'~ Site specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes. . "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". Detailed lighting standards will be reviewed with any Preliminary Plan submittal for conformance with ECLUR's and applicable master plan goals and policies. . "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". Other than temporary auditory impacts during construction, light industrial uses may have some impact on noise levels within the development. Overall, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will generate undue impacts. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Incorporate appropriate controls within the PUD Guide document and/or protective covenants to regulate hours of operation and permissible noise levels within the live/work and other light industrial areas of the plan. 52 06/30/09 . "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals'~ See previous comments regarding noise and other potential impacts associated with Wind River Tree Farm uses proposed adjacent to Laura J. Estates. Appropriate measures must be included within PUD Guide documents and/or protective covenants. . "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". See previous comments regarding the project design and TOD. . "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". See previous comments regarding TOD, energy efficiency and on-site alternative energy production proposed. The project is specifically designed to provide residential development that significantly increases energy efficiency through sustainable building design and construction practices. In addition, all new construction is required to meet EcoBuild and Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) regulations. . Implement energy efficiency guidelines. See previous comment regarding the design of the project and internal project goals to meet or exceed the EcoBuild/Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) criteria. Each habitable structure in the subdivision is required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. . Implement energy saving techniques. Each habitable structure in the subdivision is required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. Additional ideas: 1. Community-based agriculture and composting on-site for yard and kitchen waste; 2. Community-based recycling program and facilities on-site. Future Land Use Map Designation The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, which incorrectly identifies the subject property as being located within the Town of Basalt. The development proposed; however, is generally consistent with existing development in all directions from the subject property. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 6 i15 ~ d 5 ..cl.g ~l u <IS ~'" '" ~ CIl .- 8 t: -~ l~ i '" ~ "0 0 d 'S .~ ~ !:.::: ~8 8~ '" <IS ~ 8~ >6 j:l., ~ ~ Exceeds Recommendation XZ Satisfies~mmendation Xl X3 X4 XS X6 X7 Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incoroorate 53 06/30/09 ~ Recommendations Not Applicable (1) To the extent the applicant has collaborated with the State (CDOT) and other, regional entities this land use proposal as it relates to land use decisions, regional transit and pedestrian improvements, the project meets the master plan policy of cooperating with other agencies. regarding circulation (2) The project exceeds the minimum requirement for open space and recreation land within the based on the uniform standards of the ECLURs. PUD (3) The plan defines Unique Land Forms as "Lands having unique or outstanding characteristics." As well, definitions provided by the State Historical Commission provide that "unique geological or ecological systems that have historic or prehistoric associations and that have not been disturbed. . .natural features having a historic or aesthetic and visually pleasing characteristic." The subject property has been previously disturbed by historic human activities. To the extent the project clusters development on the site, specifically avoids highly visible adjacent hillsides and protects/preserves relatively signficant portions of existing, productive agriculture lands as a buffer between the development and surrounding State Wildlife areas, the policy is met. (4) See above comment No.3. (5) To the extent the project avoids development on slopes exceeding 40 percent and focuses development within and around existing community (centers) in order to enhance open space values in the outlying areas (of Eagle County), the policy is met. (6) To the extent the project avoids development on steep slopes, the policy is met. identified natural hazards on the subject property with the exception of those identified Geological Survey; to the extent the recommendations of the CGS are adequately Preliminary Plan submittal, the policy is met. There are no by the addressed other Colorado with any MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Communi Open Space / EI Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing Transportation ty JebelJ Frying Facilities Environment Basalt Pan Reservoir Heights Conformance Xl X2 X3 X4 XS Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X Applicable 54 06/30/09 (1) The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. Pursuant to the attached e-mail from the Director of Housing dated January 14, 2009, the Housing Plan meets the minimum requirements of the Guidelines and should be revised to adjust the Average Median Income (AMI) target for deed restricted units. The project proposes a diversity of housing types in a clustered/transit oriented design within proximity to services. The plan preserves existing agricultural lands, focuses development within existing community center and (voluntarily) incorporates sustainable design and construction techniques to reduce utility costs. (2) The project is specifically designed to accommodate mass transportation based on a valley wide (RFTA) plan. The project incorporates bicycle and pedestrian systems and connections and utilizes the recently completed Willits Lane intersection with Hwy. 82 while providing additional collector road connections between E1 Jebel Road and the Frontage Road. Additional parking facilities have been incorporated in the land plan as have plans for a pedestrian underpass to connect the development (and the east side of the EI Jebel community center) to Willits Town Center. (3) The project incorporates "community scale" commercial development in traditional small town patterns (pedestrian oriented) within an existing community center and with direct access to a new mass transit facility. The project is not considered "strip commercial" development, but is proposed as a mixed use development. The project includes provisions for "clean" light industrial uses. (4) Although development is proposed on portions of irrigated agricultural lands, the project is clustered to preserve significant portions of the site as productive agricultural lands in an area of the development most visible from the Hwy. 82 corridor. This area also provides an open space buffer between proposed development and State Wildlife areas located to the east of the project site. The project maintains and makes use of the historic 'Robinson Ditch' to produce 'micro-hydro' power generation on-site. Development is generally located at the toe of slopes and specifically to avoid development on adjacent hillsides. (5) The proposal is consistent with the EI JebeIlBasalt Area policies set forth in the Plan gIven the property's proximity to the Town of Basalt services. Recommended density for this area is 4-8 units per acre; the project proposes an average density of between 3-4 units per acre. Although the project does not propose to preserve thirty (30) or more acres of agricultural land, approximately 51 % of the total site area included in the PUD is preserved or created as open space. A 200 foot building setback from Highway 82 (and other plan goals related to preserving the Hwy. 82 corridor as a "parkway") would render development of the subject property or other properties in proximity to the community center unpractical; such constraint would otherwise preclude any development on the subject property from meeting or exceeding other master plan goals related to land use and development patterns, resource protection, housing and the economy. BASALT MASTER PLAN ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ~ 00 1 o:g v 6~ i:l 0 a8 v Vl .- ~ ~ .~ ~ d~ o ...:;: ~..9 !:l .- = v . '" 8~ ~ ~ S8 ~Vl Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Xl x2 x3 x4 o:g 5 FLUM ~ = .- o't;! ~oo ..0 1:: Designation 'E .~ ..98- ~5 G '" .!:l f! <::I: u... XS X7 X6 .o~ .- "tl !3 ; ~e 8o:g 55 06/30/09 I """ N '" fu""""",.. Recommendations Not Applicable (1) The Community Size and Character goal directs the town to: "[T] ake advantage of community assets, (particularly the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers, small-town character and the architectural character of the Midland Avenue business district) in the design and implementation of new projects, both private and public to foster a balanced community made up mostly of year-round residents with a broad mix of income, age and ethnic backgrounds. " Two objectives stated in the plan to achieve the goal encourage: "Acknowledging the separate and distinct characters of East Basalt and West Basalt, develop and improve linkages between the two areas with trails, transit, and river corridor open space, and develop strategies to foster a stronger sense of a common community ", and to; "Examine land use and physical planning concepts and other possible improvements along and adjacent to Highway 82 to ensure that the Highway 82 Corridor complements, and does not detract from, the Town's existing small-town qualities" The proposed project, while not proposed to be annexed into the town at this time, is located within the town's urban growth boundary. The project has been designed, in part, to incorporate the objectives stated in the Town of Basalt Master Plan and Future Land Use Map. Goals and objectives related to maintaining small town character by introducing mostly two and three story commercial and residential development along and adjacent to the Hwy. 82 corridor and within an existing community center. Also, the project will support the creation of a more balanced community by providing additional deed restricted and resident occupied housing opportunities of varying types, sizes and price points - to attract mostly year-round residents of varied income, age and ethnic backgrounds. The project is specifically designed to support (and be supported by) regional mass transit. As well, it provides additional trail segments and a new 'through road' connecting the project with the Frontage Road. Such design elements support the objective of improving linkages with trials and transit and may have a positive impact on fostering "a stronger sense of a common community ". (2) The Open Space and Recreation goals and objectives encourage the creation of additional trail linkages between East and West Basalt and across Hwy. 82 using grade separated crossings. In addition, the plan seeks to "[P]rovide diverse, year-round recreational opportunities for persons of all ages and abilities. ", and to: "Require active recreational facilities from developers as part of parks and recreation mitigation when such facilities are identified on the Master Plan fOr the property being considered for development" The project has been designed with usable open space, but not specifically to provide active recreational activities beyond the ski lake uses which are based on club membership. Staff is not aware of any designation for the requirement of active recreational facilities for the subject property on Town of Basalt Maps. (3) Environmental goals and objectives set forth seek to "protect and enhance the natural environment", and to: "Maintain the ecological integrity of the natural landscape, streams, surface waters and wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, big game migration corridors and critical habitats such as critical winter range and production areas. " 56 06/30/09 Objective number 4.8.13 states: "Strictly enforce the UGB identified in this master plan which was, in part, established in response to the desire to preserve wildlife habitat areas and migration routes; " The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the Town of Basalt and has been designed, in part, to avoid high quality wildlife habitat and migration corridors located outside the PUD boundaries. Furthermore, one of the primary goals of the project is to create a truly sustainable development using energy efficient building design and construction techniques, resource efficient land use patterns (clustering and transit oriented design) and to conserve large areas of existing irrigated agricultural lands for continued agricultural and open space values. (4) The Economic Development goals of the Plan seek to create a balanced and sustainable economy in character with the Town which provides a "broad range of job opportunities and goods and services for local residents and visitors..." An implementing action item is to: "Support existing local business and small-town business character and encourage local ownership of business properties and facilities. " The project is designed to create live/work and other 'for-sale' commercial real estate opportunities - to support and encourage local ownership of business properties and facilities. Such opportunities are in relatively high demand based on recent, similar real estate offerings in the nearby Willits Bend live/work project. In addition, additional job opportunities will be created in connection with proposed commercial, live/work, restaurant and wholesale nursery uses (although further analysis of jobs to housing ratios and 'living wage' information relative to proposed commercial uses will need to be provided with any Preliminary Plan submittal). (5) The Mfordable Housing goal promotes "the development of a diversity of housing close to existing and planned commercial and transit centers, thus providing for residents with different economic and housing needs and giving mid-valley employees the opportunity to live affordably and close to where they work." An objective of the Plan states: "Seek to attract and encourage developers to produce local resident housing. Bring together cooperative partners and consider public-private and public-nonprofit partnerships. Encourage developers to build smaller homes on smaller lots. Publicize good local resident housing solutions by local builders. Encourage developers and land owners to pursue innovative approaches in the pursuit of developing affordable housing. " The Plan also speaks to requiring those developments "outside of town boundaries where annexation is requested" to provide a minimum of 50% of the total residential dwelling units to be deed restricted, with 30% fully deed restricted and the remaining 20% restricted to resident occupied housing. The proposed development will meet the Eagle County Housing Guidelines by providing 35% of the total residential square footage in deed restricted and resident occupied housing. However, when considering the proposal based on number of units provided as either deed restricted or resident occupied, 52% of the total residential dwelling units proposed fit those two categories. (6) The Transportation goals and objectives of the Plan clearly support the creation of a multi-modal system and the integration of park-n-ride facilities in conjunction with transit oriented communities. An objective is to plan developments so that 80% of residences are within l;I.\ mile of transit stops in close proximity to "convenience and service commercial" uses. The proposed project is specifically designed to incorporate these goals and objectives. (7) The Future Land Use Map clearly shows the subject property as being with the Urban Growth Boundary for the town and depicts land uses within the subject property that very closely match those proposed by 57 06/30/09 this development plan. The Plan states the following regarding the "Lane Property" under Section 5.2 - Future Land Use Map: "The UGB has been expanded to include a significant portion the of the Lane property on the north side of Highway 82. The recommended land uses for the area within the UGB are primarily Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Light Industrial (lND) with small areas of Community Facilities (CF), Service commercial (SERV) and Open Space. The Light Industrial designation is intended for live/work, mixed-use development. The Light Industrial designated area on the Lane Property in combination with inclusion of Light Industrial on the Stott North property would provide an equivalent amount of job-generating commercial use as was shown on the Grange property in the i999 FLUM While the acreage of the Light Industrial area on the Lane and Stott properties is not as large as was depicted for the Grange property, the amount of square footage would be roughly the same due to an increase in the floor area ratio for the Light Industria/land use category. The Medium Density Residential category would provide a significant number of residential dwelling units which should comply with this master plan's policies regarding affordable housing (See Sections 4 and 7 of this document). The recommended land use pattern for the Lane property also includes an area of Community Facilities. This designation is located in this vicinity to correspond to a planned pedestrian connection (either an underpass or an overpass) to the future transit station in the Willits development as shown on the Transportation Network Map for West Basalt (Figure 3c). The pedestrian connection would provide safe access for transit users and residents on the north side of Highway 82 to and from the commercial and residential development at Willits. At the time this master plan was being prepared the location of the pedestrian connection had not been determined. The intent here is to reserve the necessary land for transit facilities including parking to support the transit station. The Service Commercial area would allow other convenience-oriented service commercial uses for transit users and residents on the north side of Highway 82, including residents of the Medium Density Residential area on the Lane property. " The above narrative clearly supports the proposed Sketch Plan in several aspects. Specifically, each of the preferred land use categories called out for the Lane Property are provided for in the proposed development plan. The project proposes an overall density of approximately 4.5 units per acre (gross). Convenience and service commercial, light industrial, live/work, open space and community facilities (pedestrian underpass and associated plaza areas) are proposed, and; a park-n-ride facility is proposed to support a transit station. While the final location of the pedestrian underpass is still to be determined, the land plan for the proposed project follows the recommendations of the Future Land Use Map almost without exception. 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 10 Phasing Plan Provided? !Xl Yes I I No ~ The developer has provided details related to proposed phasing of the development. Staff anticipates that such phasing plan will be revised to reflect current market conditions and provide greater flexibility to the developer relative to the timing, financing, marketing and construction of the development. 58 06/30/09 STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]- The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (i,OOO) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ofways, 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 (i 00) 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 andlor covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (/) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Total Subject Land Area: 71.71 ac. 3,123,687.60 square feet Recommended 25% of Total Land Area as 17.92 ac. = 25 % 7,805,952 square feet Usable Open Space Additional Amount of Open Space Required 319 DU x 2.63 persons/l 000 population = 839 new Per 1000 Persons = 8.39 acres residents x 10 acres/lOOO population = 8.39 acres = 365,468 square feet Total Open Space Required and Provided 8.39 acres 36. 7 acres provided (17. 2 I acres usable) Public and Quasi- . Usable; Wetlands/Ski Lake; and Public, Quasi-Public or Private? Public Describe: Ouasi-Public Restrictions on Open Space: TBD Describe: Note: The Open Space Plan for the project delineates the following breakdown in open space provided within the PUD: Usable Open Space: 17.2 Ac. Quasi-Public Open Space: 11.8 Ac. 'Resource' Open Space (wetlands): 7.7 Ac. Total 36.7 Ac. 59 06/30/09 As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to analyze the project's conformance with the intent of the Regulations. Although the overall amount of open space exceeds the requirements in the ECLURs, the plan should respond appropriately to the amount of usable open space provided to ensure daily needs (active and passive recreation, community gardens, etc.) can be met while providing for conservation and environmental goals and objectives of applicable master plans. 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 5 = 0 = 0 0/) .- ....... rn .- - .51 '': '0 Ul B'~ ~ _'0 ~ tJ Bj,~ II B ~ ..i5"::I: (Q ~ ~~ tJ ~~::I: Ul u 5 ~~ o '60 ~~~ 8~ =.- .- ~ 01;$ ~ -]0 Q) u _ ~o .~ a ~ ~ rier:: ~ o<~ ~8 lia~ &3l3 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X Xl X2 X3 X4 Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not ApplicableINo ECLUR Requirement X (1) The comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey's response dated November 12, 2008 must be adhered to prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. (2) Development of the site must comply with all applicable ECLUR wildfIre regulations and the recommendations of the Basalt & Rural FPD, as conditioned. (3) The PUD Guide states that wood burning devices are to comply with the provisions of the ECLURs. The Guide should be revised to specifIcally restrict wood burning fIreplaces within the proposed development. At a minimum, the provisions of the ECLUR's should apply limiting each residence to only one EP A approved new technology wood burning device. (4) The Environmental Impact Report submitted with the application satisfIes the ECLUR Sketch Plan for PUD requirements; however the comments from the Department of Environmental Health, the Colorado Geologic Survey and any other applicable responding agency shall be made conditions of approval to ensure minimized environmental impact. OTHER APPLICABLE ST ANDARD(S) FOR PUD SKETCII/PRELIMINARY PLAN: The fInding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(15): 60 06/30/09 15. (a) (I) (g) (h) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned (e.g. market study); A fInancial analysis was provided for this PUD Sketch Plan; a detailed analysis and market study will be required for any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. (b) Proposed schedule of development phasing; the proposal includes details regarding phasing; a detailed phasing plan will be required for any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. (c) Statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system; The RE-l School District has esponded and has estimated the projected impact upon the school system. Pursuant to the ECLUR's, the total amount of school land dedication required for this development is .7975 acres. The fee-in-lieu amount will be determined based upon a summary appraisal report at the time of Final Plat application. (d) Statement of estimated demands for County services; See report by Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. Also, Eagle County will be completing further analysis of the incremental benefIts and costs to Eagle County using "Site Stats" [mandai impact modeling tool. (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; See report by Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. Also, Eagle County will be completing further analysis of the incremental benefIts and costs to Eagle County using "Site Stats" [mancial impact modeling tool. Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; A conceptual site plan, landscape plans, circulation plans, and architectural renderings have been provided. At the time of Preliminary Plan application greater detail and typical renderings of site and architectural design, mass and bulk will be required. Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes; See previous comments regarding Mid-Valley Metropolitan District capacity and intent to serve and letter from the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. Employee housing plan. The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. Pursuant to the attached e-mail from the Director of Housing and Development dated January 14, 2009, the Housing Plan meets the minimum standard of the Guidelines with one correction needed to Average Monthly Income (AMI) levels proposed for deed restricted dwelling units. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS m MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 61 06/30/09 o MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. Please reference the Comprehensive Plan evaluation detailed above. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS r::.::!3 r::.:: ~B U :3 ij ::J!3 '': ~ ~ ...:l ij "'.- ~.I ~ ~ tIl ::l ~.= 'O! 8: Article 4, Site Development Standards Conditions l! !!j ::l ~r::.:: <( .~! u::J '0 ~ 8...:l Z tIl ~ X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) X Landscaping and llIumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental impact Report (Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Perfonnance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electricalinteiference (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Variation from X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) Standards required X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) X irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) 62 06/30/09 d r::.:: r::.:: ~U U ::J!3 :3~ .E ~ j ...:l ij C) U ",.!:l ~ ~ tIlg. ~ ~ 'O~ -a Article 4, Site Development Standards Conditions .g's '" .... ~ U'- ~r::.:: !/=l ::l 8! .~! 83 '0 ~ 1;j Z tIl ~ X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Applicable (1) Refer to attached letter from the Colorado Geological Survey (and previous comments regarding further geologic analysis that will be required by the applicant. (2) Refer to attached letters/memos from the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Engineering Department regarding ECLRs and National Fire Code compliance related to proposed roadway standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] B The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eaflle Countv Road Caoital Imorovements Plan. (2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS The project is located such that it would not result in a 'leapfrog' pattern of development and the site is already served with electric, natural gas, cable and telephone. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 63 06/30/09 D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS No natural or human-made hazards have been identifIed at this level of review that would absolutely preclude successful development of the subject property as proposed if properly mitigated pursuant to the recommendations of the Eagle County Engineering Department, Basalt & Rural FPD, The Town of Basalt, the Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Division of Wildlife, etc. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Please refer to the Compatibility discussion above. Additional controls and potential revisions to the site and landscape plans may be necessary to prevent any potential nuisances occurring from proposed wholesale nursery and light industrial activities. Nothing is proposed that would preclude or adversely affect the development of the surrounding area in the future. C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: · The subject property is located immediately adjacent to a community center and a major transportation corridor - it is designed to integrate, facilitate and otherwise maximize the opportunity to create a transit oriented development with in "walkable" proximity to planned multi- modal, mass transit service, commercial, civic and housing uses. · The project will provide planning, design and funding feasibility to create a much needed pedestrian underpass under State Highway 82; this benefIts the applicant, the developers of the Willits Town Center, RFTA, the Town of Basalt and the residents of Eagle County. · The project is compatible with existing development in the immediate surrounding vicinity and would provide a logical transitional land use radiating out, away from the community center and major transportation corridor. It is designed to compliment to existing community center uses such as the Willits Town Center, Old Orchard Plaza, and medium density residential uses found in surrounding subdivisions. · The Basalt & Rural FPD has been provided better access to existing and proposed development in the immediate vicinity via the recently constructed intersection and access road (Tree Farm Drive) running through the subject property; as well, the District will be provided additional capacity (water storage and fIre flows) to serve the needs of the Tree Farm development and surrounding developments. · Substantial amounts of attainable, deed restricted and resident occupied residential units will become available within an existing community center; specifIcally, appropriate levels of transit oriented density is proposed to be located within walking distance to multi-modal, mass transit facilities as well as existing and proposed commercial and civic uses and public amenities. In addition, future plans could include "affordable" or deed restricted commercial space to serve local business and the local economy. · The proposal includes protecting large portions of the existing "Wind River Tree Farm" in a state of active or productive agricultural use; as well, a highly visible natural hillside boarding the PUD and providing a buffer between the PUD and the Christine State Wildlife Area will be re-zoned in the future under a separate application to 'Resource' (R) Zone District, thus aiding in the preservation of the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County. 64 06/30/09 Disadvanta2es: · Any additional development will produce additional trafftc on local roadways. · Any additional development may incrementally degrade environmental integrity in this vicinity of Eagle County. · Development of this site will create more exposure to geologic natural hazards than what exists currently. · Additional commercial uses, unless appropriately designed, located and marketed -- per the recommendations of a detailed market analysis - could produce competition with other, approved (built and un-built) commercial and service uses existing in the surrounding area. · Potential conflicts could occur between planned residential development on the subject property and existing recreational (motor cross track) uses and activities located in the immediate vicinity. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [PDS-1567] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [PDS-1567] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [PDS-1567] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specifIc direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [PDS-1567] request with conditions and/or performance standards ifit is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modifIed by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated November 24, 2008, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 3. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Environmental Health Department dated November 12, 2008, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 4. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Housing and Development Department memorandum dated January 14, 2009, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. In addition, the applicant shall work with the Housing and Development Department to explore opportunities and options to integrate housing for 65 06/30/09 retirees/seniors, where appropriate, and to include provisions for "affordable commercial" space aimed at local businesses and entrepreneurs. 5. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Pest Management Program memorandum dated November 5,2008, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 6. All comments set forth in the Eagle County WildfIre Mitigation Specialist memorandum dated January 14, 2009, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 7. All comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey response dated November 12, 2008, must be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 8. All comments set forth in the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District letter dated January 9, 2009, must be adequately addressed - working in coordination with the Fire District and the Eagle County Engineering Department - prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application; specifIcally, all issues requiring compliance (either prescriptive or performance based) with all applicable roadway standards and other applicable codes shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and the Eagle County Engineering Department. The applicant shall be required to employ the services of a qualifIed, professional fIre engineering consultant to aid in the response to all issues specifIed in the aforementioned memorandum. 9. Comments set forth by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) in a memorandum dated November 17, 2008, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; specifIcally, issues related to the fInal location of the grade separated pedestrian crossing and timing of proposed 'park-n-ride' parking facilities dedicated or allocated to RFT A uses shall be substantially resolved and specifIcally addressed within subsequent applications. 10. Recommendations set forth in the Mid-Valley Trails Committee memorandum dated October 29, 2008, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal - to the extent such recommendations can be achieved without compromising other, potentially competing master plan goals or other specifIc recommendations set forth in a report by Richard Thompson, Western Ecological Systems, Inc., with regard to limiting additional trails or access within wildlife habitat and migration routes adjacent to the subject property. 11. The PUD Guide shall be revised to include more specifIc provisions, language and limits on all proposed uses within each planning area and to introduce additional controls such as prohibition of wood burning fIreplaces, use standards (nuisance controls) and seasonal closures of the wetland area; the document shall be further revised to include a master (comprehensive) sign program for the development, as well as provisions for a defInitions section, amendments provisions. 12. The plans shall be revised to the extent necessary to provide a minimum 50 foot buffer or setback from the boundary/extent of existing wetland areas and to specifIcally limit human activities and other disturbances (seasonally if applicable) around and within the wetlands to ensure continued viability and health of wildlife populations observed and documented to use said wetlands. 13. The applicant shall provide written evidence and design information (site plans, technical drawings, etc.) demonstrating that all conditions applied by the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District with regard to the District's "Can and Will Serve" commitments have been addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; specifIcally, the applicant shall be required to submit evidence of a proposed water tank location and design, or other water storage solution as may be approved by the District prior to submittal of subsequent applications. 66 06/30/09 14. The applicant shall examine and potentially re-design the circulation plan and associated land plan - to accommodate potentially high volumes of local traffIc through the center of the live/work and convenience commercial portions of the project - to ensure safety of pedestrians and bikers along and within the Tree Farm Drive roadway system (with specifIc reference to "Woonerf' street design principles per recommendations of the Eagle County Sustainable Communities Index). 15. The applicant shall be required to address any potential conflicts that may arise with the proximity of the existing "motor cross" track located on the Lane Property, and the proposed PUD. Mitigation may be demonstrated by proposing self imposed controls and/or improvement standards (signifIcant re-vegetation/landscaping and/or sound attenuation measures) to effectively mitigate potential nuisance issues associated with dust or noise. Additionally, such issues may be addressed through the re-design of certain elements of the proposed PUD such as the location and design of residential structures, revisions to landscape plans, or revisions to the PUD Guide. 16. The applicant is required to perform a detailed market analysis demonstrating the fInancial viability and compatibility of the project within the local conditions prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; such analysis will be undertaken to test previous market assumptions and fInancial information used in the Sketch Plan submittal and will aid the applicant, other local jurisdictions and Eagle County accurately assess market viability and phasing plans necessary to ensure the continued enhancement of the local economy and to mitigate any potential (adverse) fIscal impacts to existing businesses. 17. The applicant shall revise the land plan as necessary to provide or specifIcally defIne additional locations or areas within the PUD to provide active recreational uses, where appropriate, and to include provisions for community gardens and composting sites. 18. Revise the plans to include provisions for an on-site recycling program for the PUD. 19. Revise the plans as necessary to include specifIc provisions within the retail and serviCe commercial areas to provide opportunities for senior services and day care. DISCUSSION: Chairman Fisher opened the meeting by introducing the board and county staff. She asked that everyone to be respectful of everyone's time and not turn the meeting into a debate. She requested that public comment be kept below 2-3 minutes due to the number of people wanting to speak. Scot Hunn presented a PowerPoint presentation detailing the proposal. The applicant proposed a mixed- use commercial and residential development. The uses included 96,375 sq. ft. service, convenience, and entertainment commercial uses, 392,819 square feet of residential and recreationaVopen space. The development would be transit oriented and include work/live possibilities. The purpose of the PUD zone district was to permit variations from the strict application of the standards of the County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility and creativity in designing the project. The PUD district purposes included integration of uses, effIcient land use patterns, preservation of land, maintaining water quality and quantity, contributing to local trail system, and incentives for affordable housing. He presented the sketch plan considerations, issues, and areas of non- conformance. The project did not meet the 200-foot setback or meet roadway and access standards. The proposed road widths and right-of-ways were narrower than ECLUR (Eagle County Land Use Regulations and IFC (public Facilities) standards allowed and the applicant proposed variances to standards. Staffhad issues with the trip reduction factor based on percentage because staff believed that the factors were not applicable to rural western resort areas. Staff suggested that additional data be collected from similar areas. He presented the benefIts and disadvantages of the project and presented the 19 suggested conditions. Commissioner Stavney asked Mr. Hunn to explain to the public the process of sketch plan and where the full staff report and other information detailing the proposal was available. 67 06/30/09 Mr. Hunn stated that sketch plan was the fIrst step in the review of a major new development proposal. The next stage would be the preliminary plan where the level of detail would be greater. The staff report and entire application as it was submitted were available on the county website as well as all updates. Chairman Fisher asked Mr. Hunn to explain what had taken place with the Roaring Fork Planning Commission. Mr. Hunn stated that the application was presented to the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission in January of2009. The Planning Commission recommended approval 4-1 after several months of deliberation. Jon Fredericks, Planner, and Project Manager presented a PowerPoint presentation detailing the proposal. The design of the project began two years ago. The applicant's goal was to create one of Western Colorado's true transit oriented communities and a community designed around local residents and business owners. He presented an image of the Mid Valley area that illustrated future bus rapid stations RFTA had planned for completion in 2012. This project would be supported by the bus rapid system. He spoke about the adjacent land uses and densities. The applicant believed the proposal was consistent with the surrounding area. He presented the site plan and explained the reasoning for the confIguration. He clarifIed that the live-work units would be 2-3 stories and the owner of the commercial space would occupy one of the two spaces. He presented a housing unit summary. There would be 128 units of affordable housing, 41 units of resident occupied housing, and 150 units of market rate housing. 53% of the units in the project would be deed restricted. The commercial spaces would be for sale and designed for local businesses. The units would be smaller than other commercial spaces in the area. The design of the project was to provide localized jobs and support the mid valley economy. The proposal included 7 commercial buildings which totaled 46000 square feet and 33000 square feet of live-work. The stand-alone restaurant totaled 5000 square feet. Paul Spencer spoke about the sustainable strategies. The applicant's goal was to set a new community standard and propagate that standard outward from Eagle County. There would be 50% less electricity consumption, 45% less gas consumption, and 40% less water consumption. He spoke about the proposed solar system. The sketch plan included many trails and walkways and access to local trail networks. There would be many trees on the property and drought tolerant landscaping was proposed. Mr. Spencer stated that Bonsai Developers was an energy star certifIed developer committed to 100% of its structures meeting or exceeding the energy star standard. They incorporated into the HOA a mechanism in place that would allow the sustainable community to continue to operate under this vision. Bill Fox spoke He provided a review of various projects throughout Colorado including Eagle County. He acknowledged the transportation system improvements that would be added in the area and the proposed connections from the development. Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers national average trip rates for the types of uses proposed was the starting point for customizing the trip rates for this site and specifIcs of this location. He believed that the reductions he proposed were achievable and conservatively low. He thought this site could generate about 3700 new car trips off site per day. The directional distribution projections were calculated to be 45% going up valley, 35% down valley, and 20% staying in the local area. The projections considered future growth and CDOT traffIc growth rates. They hope that this site would minimize down valley trips if people worked and lived in the area. He spoke about the peak hour congestion and stated that the development was rated average and at a level that would function. He stated that the design of the project would minimize traffIc impacts through the provision of easy transit access, bike, and pedestrian trails. This project was currently projecting about half the amount of daily traffic projected from previous proposals on this site. Amy Greer representing Stan Bernstein and Associates spoke. Her fum conducted a revenue impact analysis to identify the potential property and sales tax revenues generated from the Tree Farm PUD. Based on the development plan they calculated the assessed valuation of the entire Tree Farm project to be $27.7 million at project completion. Property tax revenues for Eagle County were estimated $235,576 with approximately $136,484 allocated for general fund operations. Other governmental agencies property tax revenues were based on continuation ofthe current mill levy rates totaling 53.89 mills. Those revenues totaled approximately $1,493,711. Incremental taxable sales from retail sales operation were expected to total approximately $13.1 million annually. Mr. Fredericks spoke about the impact to the Roaring Fork School District. School tax revenues from the project were estimated at $940,806 annually. The Mid Valley Master Plan encouraged transit oriented development and efficient reliable public transportation services and comfortable inviting pedestrian roads, which were all tendencies of the project. The proposal was ideally sited for senior services, designed for local businesses, would provide a public trail system, regional trail connectivity, etc. He believed the Tree Farm met the goals and objectives of the applicable County and local Master Plan. 68 06/30/09 Mike Koffman, Attorney for the applicant spoke. He spoke about the regulatory framework and history of the land use approvals for the Tree Farm project. He stated that the property owner had worked actively with Eagle County over the years. The applicant had sought the towns input even though the county had jurisdiction over the application. He stated that there was no involuntary annexation in the state of Colorado. Those opposed to the application would suggest that the town annex the property to bring it within the town's jurisdiction or deny the application. The applicant had done an excellent job at applying the county standards to the application and those were the standards that should be applied. He stated that the sketch plan had two aspects; whether there were any no-go factors and whether the design of the proposal addressed the standards of the county's LUR's. The applicant believed that they had followed the rules and created a project which met or exceeded all of the important land use goals of Eagle County. Chairman Fisher asked Bob Morris, Deputy County Attorney to explain the objective behind the adoption of the intergovernmental agreement between the County and the Town of Basalt. Mr. Morris stated the meeting being held this evening was primarily to see whether there were any game stoppers in this proposal and identify any issues that may have to be resolved to the county's satisfaction before a preliminary plan would be approved and vested rights would occur. To address Chairman Fisher's question, he stated that state law encouraged municipalities and the counties in which they are located to inter into agreements to cooperate, coordinate, and consult with respect to land development. In order to respect the views of the Town of Basalt, the board asked that the town present their comments tonight first and make their comments in a public hearing. Tom Smith, Attorney for the Town of Basalt spoke. He stated that the town council and staffhe1ped him prepare a letter, which he distributed to the board. He stated that it was not his intent to address the issue of annexation even though the property was within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary and the Town Council believed the property should be annexed to the town. He highlighted some the issues of compliance. He stated that the applicant had failed to include the entire parcel in the application, owning 205 contiguous acres and only including 71.71 acres in the application. The basic design ofthe project was contingent on an access control plan and plans for hwy 82 pedestrianlbicyc1e underpass that were unresolved. The fIscal impacts on the Town of Basalt had not been adequately identifIed. The proposed commercial uses were inconsistent with the Town of Basalt Master Plan. Ten percent of the deed restricted affordable housing should be identifIed as replacement housing, and the construction of deed restricted affordable housing should be proportionate to the free market development. The Town believes that the Tree Farm application, as amended, was inconsistent with certain aspects of Eagle County's Mid-Valley Area Community Plan. The Town believes that the Tree Farm Application was seriously lacking active, public recreation opportunities. The Mid Valley Plan encourages maintaining a rural character. The town did not believe this proposed development, which is urban in nature should be developed outside the town boundaries and conflicts with both the Mid-Valley Plan and Town's 2007 Master Plan. The application was premature and requested that the Board of County Commissioners deny the application. Councilor Jacque Whitsitt spoke. She believed that the community had made it clear that implications of the development were huge and far out way any benefIts. She would like the area to remain low density and continue to look funky. Councilor Chris Seldin spoke. He spoke about the impacts on the town. He believed that the project would create additional infrastructure, traffIc, and law enforcement problems. This was urban level growth located immediately adjacent to the town having obvious impact on the town and did not comply with the Eagle County or Town Of Basalt Master Plan. He believed that county staff missed a provision dealing with small town character; this was the biggest issue for the residents in the town. He spoke about the town's growth rate plan and stated that the town believed that that growth should be digested slowly. He spoke about the lack of recreational facilities offered. The urban growth boundary allows for light industrial use for the property and what they were proposing for in this development was more commercial use. He encouraged that the board be sensitive to the decline in jobs in the region due to downturn. A land use approval was not a stimulus measure. Basalt Mayor, Leroy Duroux spoke. He believed that the biggest issue was the difference between county development and town development. He expressed concern that if the HOA's were taking care of the facilities, at what point in time would they become privatized and the public would be excluded. He believed there was also a lack of recreational facilities within the development. He thanked the board for allowing public comment to be heard locally. Keith Ikeda, Basalt Police Chief, spoke about the current staffmg level of the Sheriffs Offtce. They responded to 2/3 of the calls in unincorporated Eagle County. If this project were approved their offtce would be more in need. 69 06/30/09 Councilor Katie Schwoerer stated that this development was not green. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Jeff Gorsuch spoke about the Mr. Lanes high integrity and involvement in the community. He believed by right he had the right to do what he wanted to do with the property. He thought it was an appropriate development for the property. Dave Hjerleid concurred with Mr. Gorsuch's comments regarding the property owner. He spoke in favor of the development. Dave Zamansky spoke favorably about Ace Lane and that he was a perfectionist and he believed that he would do a great job of developing the property. Robert Clark spoke in support of the Tree Farm PUD. He believed the developer, Nobel Design Studios, had shown a willingness to work with the county and community. This project would be an asset to both the Eagle County and the Mid Valley area. The Mid Valley Metro District strongly apposed the Town Council's growth policy to be inconsistent with the attitude of the majority outside of the Town limits. Commissioner Runyon asked Mr. Clark the rate of growth his fIgures were based on. Mr. Clark stated that he did not have that figure. He also stated that the Mid Valley Metro District was currently fInancially sound. They had a new facility and room to accommodate this development. Ken Ransford spoke. He believed the development was too big. He recommended that the Town of Basalt hear the application. He believed that traffIc could increase by 10,000 cars a day. The developer was seeking approval for another development 3.5 miles west along highway 82. He urged the board to deny the file. Anne Freedman from the Town of Basalt spoke. She expressed love for the small town feeling and believed the development would degrade the quality of life in the Roaring Fork Valley. Steve Isom spoke. He spoke in favor of the project. Steph Lewis spoke in support of the project and that having more commercial opportunities in the valley would be positive for everyone and might even help the Town of Basalt by keeping residents near by. She thought that people should open their minds and quit fIghting progress. Bob Woodward spoke. He spoke in favor of the development. David Culp, Edwards resident spoke. He worked in the Roaring Fork Valley and supported the project. Dr. Dave Jensen, valley business owner spoke in support of the project. He believed growth was inevitable and should be done right. Ross Douglas, neighboring property owner requested that the board deny the project. He believed the development would cause more problems than it was worth. John Spencer spoke. He moved to Basalt in 1973. He supported the project. Denying developments such as this would not stop people from coming to the Town of Basalt. Laurie Dows spoke. She believed the project was too large and believed the Town of Basalt should make the fInal decision. She would like to see growth slow down. Emily Ransford did not support of the project. She believed the project did not help the community. Helen Carlsen spoke in opposition for the project. She believed the application should be referred to the Town of Basalt. Frank Me Swain Jr. expressed support for the project. Ken Olson spoke in support for the project. He believed the project would be an inspirational model and set a higher standard for future development. Duane Stewart spoke in favor of the development. He believed this was a great development and the community would continue to change whether the residents liked it or not. Ruby Burkhalter expressed concern for the added trafftc and the trips generated from kids getting to schools. She believed the community was very interactive and the board should consider the surrounding areas. She asked the board to slow down growth and consider it carefully. Kevin Tucker believed this would be a great project. He was opposed to sending the application to the Town of Basalt. He believed that competition was healthy and the better it was for the consumer. He was in favor of the project and thought it was smart development. He thought there were some minor changes that could be worked out. Art Rothman, Missouri Heights resident spoke. He believed that the municipality should be the one to consider the application and asked the board to deny the application. 70 06/30/09 Amanda Murray spoke. She believed the project fIlled a need in the community. She expressed concern for the anti-growth sentiment. She believed the development was refreshing because the developer was sensitive to the impacts they would be making. She applauded the amount of proposed affordable housing that was so much needed and impressed by the amount of open space. Ann Austin Clapper stated that she believed the development was too much. She would like to see growth slowed and allow the Town of Basalt to be more involved. The trafftc was bumper to bumper now and this project would increase the trafftc problems. Shelly Gross stated that the project was too big and the trafftc was bad already. John Blatz spoke in support ofthe project. He believed the economy would turn around by the time the project was approved. He would like to have affordable housing available for his employees. CatWeen Krahe believed there was currently a shortage of jobs and the board should hold off on approving the project for three years. Cathy Click believed it was too soon for a development of this size and deserved to be build when the community and rural nature of the valley could support it. Parker Maddox stated that the development was over scale. He asked the board to make a decision in the interest of the public welfare as a whole. He believed the applicant should voluntarily annex the property to the Town of Basalt. Scott Ely stated that he was inspired by the project and it was refreshing that the developer lived next door. John Davis, builder, stated that development was inevitable in the valley. He supported the project and believed there should be more like it. N. Philps Lane, applicant's nephew spoke. He supported the project and believed that growth was a natural phenomenon. Jeff Lauckart stated that the development didn't seem that big. He believed it was perfect. He believed the environmental aspect was important. Jim Paussa stated that there was too much in the pipeline and the project wasn't green as it could be. Philip Ring expressed support for the project as one he would buy into. Dave Munk, 20-year Mid-Valley resident spoke. He expressed concern for the infrastructure and services support. He spoke about the commercial areas that were not currently connected for non-motorized transportation. This development would accelerate trafftc and as a citizen, he wondered how this would be worked out. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Commissioner Stavney asked Mr. Morris staffs position on deliberations in El Jebel. Mr. Morris stated that all decisions needed to be made in the Eagle County Building although he'd never fIgured out the basis for that. Commissioner Stavney wondered whether the issue of trafftc for housing was a viable question. He was curious at how the applicant arrived at the commercial square footage. If the project was a transit-oriented development, was it dense enough. He wondered if the walking tunnel would be something that people would really want to use. He wondered if annexing the property into the Town of Basalt was just a way of killing the project. He would like to see more public benefIt to the people living outside the development. Commissioner Runyon stated that he had a number of concerns. He understood that growth was inevitable but the issue was the rate of growth. Eagle County's affordable housing program was meant for the people who worked in Eagle County. The need for housing was largely up valley. Mr. Hunn stated that under the local housing guidelines, owning and renting local resident housing shall be owned or rented by one eligible household member that met the edibility requirements. Commissioner Runyon believed that this matter should be addressed. Commissioner Stavney responded to Keith Ikeda, Basalt Police Chiefs comments and thought there should be further discussion as to law enforcement impacts. Chairman Fisher read a letter into the record written by Jason White, RFT A planner. The letter indicated that RFT A was interest in talking to all key partners affected by the new plans but were in no position to stall their project for continued debate over adjacent development approvals. She thanked everyone for attending the meeting and sharing his or her comments. She didn't think she could make any decisions before reading through all the material presented by staff and the Town of Basalt. She understood the Town's concerns although she felt that she could not consider herself a local. Her concern was how this development could negatively affect the community 71 06/30/09 and what would be the right development. She believed that allowing the property to become light industrial was disingenuous to a property that was so beautiful. She asked Mr. Hunn how to proceed. Mr. Hunn suggested tabling the fIle to the July 21st. Commissioner Runyon moved that the board table fIle no.PDSA-1567, the Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD to July 21,2009. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Attest: ard, the meeting was adjourned until June 7,2009. .{jU/LO.- Q J;;; k. Chairman I Dl(Afu T ~ 72 06/30/09