Loading...
Minutes 07/21/09 PUBLIC HEARING July 21, 2009 Present: Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Keith Montag Christina Hooper Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner County Manager Assistant County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Jon Stavney Commissioner 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 fIrst item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of July 20, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for July 30, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative c. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meetings for June 2 and June 16, 2009 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. Resolution 2009-070 Releasing Assignment of CertifIcate of Deposit No. 29365 for Road Cut Permit No. 3607,684 Frying Pan Road, EI Jebel, Colorado for Avalanche Excavation LLC County Attorney's OffIce Representative E. Resolution 2009-071 for Final Release of Collateral and Termination ofthe Public Improvements Agreement for Colorado Mountain Express Transportation Eagle-Vail Satellite Lot, File No. ZS-00176 County Attorney's OffIce Representative F. Minor Type B Subdivision / Willits Bend Building 4 (Eagle County File No 5MB-2276), The intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to subdivide building 4 of the Willits Bend P.U.D into 9 condominiumized buildings. The exterior surfaces of the buildings and all areas around them, including streets, parks, and landscaping will be common elements Sean Hanagan, Community Development Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's OffIce ifthere were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Christina Hooper, Assistant County Attorney stated that there were no changes. 1 07/21/09 Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-F. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda A. CVC Management, LLC d/b/a The Chaparral #03-78536-0000 Cordillera F&B, LLC, have filed a Report of Change regarding the purchase of stock. Majority Member, Patrick D. Wilhelm. All supporting documentation has been received. B. Mountain F&B, LLC (f/k/a Gemsa Corporation) d/b/a Cordillera Golf Club #12-18901-0000 Cordillera F&B, LLC, have filed a Report of Change regarding the purchase of stock. Majority Member, Patrick D. Wilhelm. All supporting documentation has been received. C. Summit Food and Beverage, LLC d/b/a The Summit #40-75239-0000 Cordillera F&B, LLC, have filed a Report of Change regarding the purchase of stock. Majority Member, Patrick D. Wilhelm. All supporting documentation has been received. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for June 21, 2009 consisting ofItems A-C. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. APPLICANT: REQUEST: EVENT: DATE OF EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Vail Valley Medical Center Foundation Special Events Permit "Art of Caring" August 7, 2009 Barney Dill, Event Manager Shaw Cancer Center Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The Vail Valley Medical Center Foundation has requested a special event permit for an event being held at the Shaw Cancer Center on Friday, August 7,2009. The event, "Art of Caring" will benefit the Efraimson Sutphen Cancer Support Fund, which provides financial support to patients undergoing treatment at the Shaw Cancer Center. Petals and Pours out of Eagle will provide the alcohol service, Foods of Vail will cater the event and volunteers from the VVMC volunteer corps will provide security. Set up and tear down time is included the times requested on the application. 2 07/21/09 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, July 9,2009. 11 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 1 ISSUES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Barney Dill was present. He stated that his foundation provided financial support to patients currently in active treatment at the Shaw Cancer Center. In years past, they had received funding from the Cordillera home tour but that money was re-allocated. There will be a silent auction and entertainment. The foundation has given out over $180,000.00 to locals. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Events Permit for the Vail Valley Medical Center Foundation event held at the Shaw Cancer Center on Friday, August 7, 2009, from 6:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened citizen Input. Michael Gallagher encouraged the commissioners and anyone interested to attend the August 20th forum for one of the most serious problems in Eagle County, the high suicide and depression rate. Chairman Fisher closed citizen Input. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of Equalization. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Eagle County Board of Equalization 3 07/21/09 A. Resolution 2009-072 Regarding Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization Attorney's Office Representative Ms. Hooper stated that the first resolution was regarding petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization heard by the appointed hearing officers in the past week. Out of the 283 hearings, there were 184 adjustments, 106 denials, and 37 stipulations. By approving the resolution, the board would be approving the recommendations made by the hearing officers. Mark Young, Hearing Officer was present for any questions. Chairman Fisher thanked Mr. Young for coming back to the county to help with the process. She stated that the board oversaw the efforts through the County Attorney's Office. Commissioner Runyon stated that the board was not an appeals step at this point; the appeals officers appointed by the board were the ones that step in on the board's behalf. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. B. Resolutions Regarding Equalizing Property Valuation throughout Eagle County Assessor's Office Representative Mary Kessler was present. Chairman Fisher spoke about the purpose and goals behind the resolutions. She stated that it was discovered that units within the developments were undervalued. Ms. Hooper stated that these individuals would have the same rights to appeal as any person that petitions the CBOE at the protest and adjustment stage. 1. Resolution 2009-073 Snow Cloud condominium complex 2. Resolution 2009-074 Eagle Airport Warehouse condominium complex Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the resolutions both equalizing property valuation throughout Eagle County. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of Equalization and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Economic Stimulus Projects Update Tom Johnson, Public Works Mr. Johnson spoke briefly about the Tiger fund and stated that the 1-70 airport interchange project was now endorsed by CDOT. Commissioner Runyon stated that the Gypsum Airport Interchange project was one that had been on Eagle County's radar screen for almost 10 years. Without this pot of money, it would be unlikely the project would be done. The board had been pursuing this since the stimulus became a reality. The application must come from a local government but CDOT had the ability to endorse it or not. The application was for $70 million. The project was shovel ready and the county would make the greatest effort to work with CDOT to put together the best possible application. Mr. Johnson stated the Eagle County Engineering Director, Eva Wilson would lead the project with the professional grant writers from CDOT. 4 07/21/09 ECO Transit Fares and Schedules Harry Taylor, ECO Transit Mr. Taylor spoke about the budget balancing options for fares and services. The increase in fares would make up about 1/3 of what was needed to reach the $2 million shortfall. The other 2/3 would need to come from service reductions. He presented the latest proposal. Local routes $3 to $4 cash fare $6 to $8 I-day pass $60- $100 30-day pass Premium routes $5 to $7 cash fare $10 to $14 I-day pass $135 to $200 30-day pass Proposed service reductions Run summer level of service throughout the winter season with the following eliminations possible, 2 stops in Dotsero, 1 Leadville bus, 10 hours/day of Minturn, and all late night service after midnight. Staff recommended that the board approve the proposed fare policy and service reductions, effective August 30, 2009. Chairman Fisher opened public input. Gregg Ayers spoke. He believed that the new fares were too high. He believed there should be additional funding. He believed that some of the local teens were just joy riding and should be paying, and kids under 10 and seniors should ride free. Ifthe rates increased to $100, he would prefer to drive. He believed that ECO was a public service and funded by the county. He would like to take it to the voters. Creative ideas were needed. The proposal was not acceptable. He believed that the people making the decisions were not the ones riding the bus. Chairman Fisher responded to Mr. Ayers comments. She stated that if the economy continued to tank this could be just the beginning. Everyone was trying to work towards the best possible solution. There was only so much money. Mr. Ayers believed the service should be a public service and funded by the county by either an increase in sales tax or property tax. Chairman Fisher stated that this was a countywide challenge and the county could not wait for people, such as employers to step up. Mr. Ayers believed that the service should continue to run and he hoped the county would come up with a better solution. Chairman Fisher stated that the county had tried its best. One of the biggest challenges was that other county services and demands were up while ECO rider ship was down. The community grants were all focused around providing services to keep the community safe and healthy. Funding for ECO was equivalent to what it was in 2004. Andy Teichman spoke. He stated that he did not ride the bus but was concerned for his workers that did. He further stated that here was a limited supply of parking in the Vail Village and if fares increased too much people may not ride and this could create a parking problem. He encouraged the county to look at other sources. He owned 3 vehicles and would be willing to pay additional registration fees to support the service. Chairman Fisher didn't believe that parking in Vail Village was a problem that was on the backs ofECO transit. Mr. Teichman stated that he was not opposed to a slight fare increase but raising the rates 40% and up could cause a fInancial burden for some. He encouraged the board to fInd other solutions. 5 07/21/09 Chairman Fisher stated that there were two separate statutes under which transportation systems could be created in Colorado. The county's was created under a local regional transit authority but was really a county department. The other option was a regional transit authority. This option was one that was currently being considered because it would allow for increased funding options. However, this option would have to go to the public for a vote and would take time. Michael Gallagher, 26-year resident of Eagle County spoke. He believed that cutting routes after midnight was stupid and grossly unfair and would have a negative impact on the local economy in Vail. He believed that most of the riders were not able to attend the meeting at 10:00 a.m. He believed that bus routes needed to continue in the winter because parking was not affordable during the winter months. He believed that the individuals riding the bus should have the right to vote. He believed that public transportation was drastically needed. He would like to see the county support public transportation. He believed that second homeowners and wealthy residents would not be in favor of a tax increase or support public transportation. He suggested cutting bus service during the day in order to continue bus service after midnight. Chairman Fisher thanked Mr. Gallagher for his input and expressed appreciation for his ideas. Jeff Shroll, Chairman of the ECO board spoke. He spoke about the process that the board had gone through over the years. He stated that the system was set up to be funded by sales tax. For 11 years ECO had been able to provide excellent service. Sales tax was heavily relied upon for these types of services and kept mill levees down. The ECO board is made up with council members and others that did utilize the bus service. The board looked at various options and believed that fare increases and service reductions would continue to provide great service. He was optimistic that the sales tax revenues would increase and wanted nothing more than to reinstate services. The ECO board was open to other options. If the BoCC approved the recommendations, they would continue to monitor conditions. The ultimate goal was to reduce emissions and encourage ridership. He understood that the increase was high but was still cheaper than driving an automobile. Ron Wolfe spoke as a member of the ECO Board and elected official of the Town of Avon. He supported the plan of fare increases and route adjustments. He thanked the board for their contribution. He believed that ECO needed more money and there were no other options. He did not believe that the government should pay for the service and employers needed to step up to the plate. He did not believe that taxpayers should be asked to pick up the slack and he believed that a long-term solution was needed. Matt Sherman, Minturn council representative on the ECO board stated that this was a painful decision. Many in Minturn would be impacted by the service cuts. The long-term solution may be a transit agency. This was the most beneficial solution for the time being. Mr. Wolfe stated that a countywide transportation system was needed. He believed that employers needed to provide for their employees. This was the only solution. He believed that their reluctance to raise fares earlier was a mistake. Mr. Gallagher stated that he considered the bus system as important as the road system. Chairman Fisher stated that there had been a great pouring in of public comment. Commissioner Runyon believed this was a complicated unfortunate situation. There were near term, mid term and long term solutions needed. He believed the fare increases were acceptable considering there had not been a fare increase in 5 years. He disagreed with the free market solution because it would only affect fares and would not address the service. He believed that moving towards a regional authority needed to be discussed and looked at. He stated that Commissioner Stavney had reviewed the proposal and gave the board a letter that supported the recommendations of the board. Chairman Fisher read the statement provided by Commissioner Stavney into the record. She spoke in favor of supporting the recommendations but wanted to continue to look at solutions and continue the dialog. She stated that she received an email from Tony O'Rourke from the Town of Vail expressing concern for route cuts. Commissioner Runyon moved to accept the fare and route structure as presented by the board of ECO transit. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion and amended the motion to include the board's commitment to look at ways of reducing expenses and increasing revenues and doing their best to put all those monies back into increasing services to riders. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. All Commissioners were present for the afternoon session. 6 07/21/09 Planning Files PDS-1567 The Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD Scot Hunn, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 6/30/09 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. LOCATION: 401 Tree Farm Drive; located along Hwy. 82, due east of the intersection ofHwy. 82 and EI Jebel Road, in E1 Jebel. FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF ENGINEER: PDS-1567; PUD Sketch Plan The Tree Farm PUD Woody Ventures, LLC. Owners Jon Fredericks, Nobel Design and Rick Py1man, Py1man & Associates, Inc. Greg Schroeder RFVRPC RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REOUEST: 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 E1 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 E1 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 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 7 07/21/09 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 Jebe1 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 El 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 of land 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 Will 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 RFTA 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 Staff but do not reflect any official position of the 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. 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. 8 07/21/09 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 fann/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 Lanct,?UM:/ Zoning: South: Residential (Private Residence); McKelvey parcel Mixed Use (Willits Town Center Residential (Laura J Estates) Residential (Shadowrock); Willits Town Center 'R' BLM / Resource 'RP' North: 'C3 PUD' (Town) State Highway 82 RO.W. 'R' East: 'RR' Christine State Wildlife Area 'R' West: 'PUD' /'C3 PUD Town) Orchard Plaza 'C3' Crown) Planned Unit Development (PUD)* Planned Unit Development (PUD) Wind River Tree Farm; Professional Office; Yoga Studio; Recreational Ski Club Relatively flat irrigated pasture; competition-sized man made water ski lake; wetland area; Robinson Ditch and associated native riparian vegetation; operational nursery and landscape storage stock (plantings), and; previously disturbed areas associated with previous grading, stora eo erations (tree farm 0 erations). Acres: 71.71 acres Square feet: 489,245 sq. ft. 36.7 acres Percentage: 51% The ECLUR's recommend that 25% of the total land area be set aside as useable open space. Useable open space should not exceed 30% slo e. Usable O(ieCl $P!lce: 17.2 acres = 24% Percentllge: Sewer: Mid Valley Metro Mid Valley Metro Private: frlvate: N/A N/A Water: Aooen: Via State Highway 82; Tree Farm Drive/Shadowrock Note: * PUD zoning exists on the property; all previous development approvals (site specific development plans) have lapsed and are otherwise expired. 9 07/21/09 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 . See condition(s): 2 Eagle County Housing and Development Department Please refer to attached referral response letter dated January 14, 2009 . See condition(s): 4 Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist Please refer to attached referral response letter dated January 14, 2008 . Seecondition~):6 Eagle County Pest Management Program Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 5, 2008 . See condition(s): 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 . See condition(s): 8 Roaring Fork Regional Transit Authority Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated November 17, 2008 . See condition(s): 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 . See condition(s): 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 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; 10 07/21/09 Sheriffs 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 DELffiERATION 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. 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. 11 07/21/09 5. One Commission member expressed concern regarding the categorization ofthe 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. Commission member asked why the number of elementary students generated development would be more than high school aged students. Specifically, one by the proposed 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 RFTA, 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 development are used to determine trip generation rates. Such assumptions are generated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manuals. 12 07/21/09 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 revised/updated 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, Staff stated 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 Staffs 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. Staffresponded by stating the applicant has been asked to provide fu rther 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. 13 07/21/09 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. 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 14 07/21/09 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 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. " 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 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. " 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. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECL UR Section: 5-240/5-280 Sketch Plan; 15 07/21/09 Section Purpose: Standards: 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 Pun 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 (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. ~ 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 16 07/21/09 Permitted in l1nderlying Normally Permitted As: Nature of Variation Proposed Uses Zoning? Yes No By ZS LR Rll!ht 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 commercial/wholesale 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 agricultural/light 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 F.3.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. 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 17 07/21/09 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 agriculturaVnursery 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. ** 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 18 07/21/09 * 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 MINIM:UM STANDARDS MEETS MINIM:UM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIM:UM 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 / 15 feet 25'/50' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 10 feet 12.5' or Yz ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Side o feet 12.5' or Yz ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Minimum of 75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater Planning Area B: Live/Work Area Setbacks: Front 20 feet Arterial / 15 feet 25'/50' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 10 feet 12.5' or Yz ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Side o feet 12.5' or Yz ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Minimum of 75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater Planning Area c: Multi-Family Setbacks: Front 25 feet Arterial / 25 feet 25'/50' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 15 feet 12.5' or Yz ht of Proposed exceeds the ECLUR Requirement given maximum building tallest building heiclIt of 25 feet. Side 15 feet 12.5' or Yz ht of Proposed exceeds to the ECLUR Requirement given maximum tallest building building height of 28 feet. 19 07/21/09 Proposed Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification for Variation Requirement 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'/50' 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 of 75' - 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 1 0 feet 12.5' or Y, ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Side 1 0 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 (walkab1e) 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 walkabi1ity within the development by increasing densities and reducing the distances between residences, commercial and transit facilities. 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. 20 07/21/09 STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and 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 five (5) accessible ! .. ~ i' i' bO~ II f .3 l <> <> ~3. .J :a :a ~ !;l1 ~1 jen .3.. <I) ",. ~C'- .SOI Proposed Uses f 'a =8. ]1 ;:) ~.d: ~! ~ 131 ~ ~1 ~1 >1 1:1 end: ~ ::s ~8. ..... il il .~..~... ~en . ~ <> ~d: .O'~ .os o i if ~~Q o Q. o Q. o ~ Zen Zen z~ Z~~ Yes No Yes No Single Family or Per 3/DU Xl x2 X Duplex Residential ECLUR"s - - Multi-Family: 2/DU 2/DU Xl X2 X I-Bedroom! Studio Multi-Family: 2.5/DU 2.5/DU Xl X2 X 2 to 3 Bedroom Multi-Family: 3/DU 3/DU Xl X2 X 4 or More Bedrooms Retail, Service 1/250 s.f 1/250 s.f Xl X2 X3 Commercial and Office (NLF A)* (NLF A)* Restaurant 1/ four seats 1/ four seats Xl X2 X Live/Work Residential 2.5/DU 2.5/DU 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 10,000 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. (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. 21 07/21/09 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 ] oS s:l 1 ~ 1 Type of ~ 0 Development: ! 1 '" '" jJ ! ~ ~ ~ e Commercial :O;!j '" '': ~ .9 J Residential '0 ~ a.g bIl .... "3 tI) ~bIl X Mixed Use bIl a:a .S 0 ~ '0 '" .[j ~ s:l .~ s:l u 'a 8 o s:l til ~ 0 ~ a ~ .g ~ 8 '" u8 ~ .~ zll .S bIl l "'~ 'i~ bIl '" tI) ~ ~ ~j ,.!1l.Y .~ ~ta ~ .s .s] ~ i'~ ~~ ii:.3 ~ ~ ~ ;:J tI) ~ ~tI) .s~ Exceeds ECLUR Requirements XS 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 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. 22 07/21/09 (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.11- 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. 12 - Parkin!! and Storage Prohibited. (9) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to be in non-conformance in several areas of the plan. Specifically, proposed deciduous tree p1antings 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 conceptua11evel 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 4-23 O.B.13 - Obstructions Prohibited. ECL URs (10) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to meet or, in many cases, exceed the minimum standards for p1antings 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 Off-Street Parking Areas. ECL URs. 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. 101 Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? II Yes I X I No 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. 23 07/21/09 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 ApplicableINo ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR It uirements DeviationIVIS Requested In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services ~ Q) ~ 6 '" ~ 'g Q) >. Q)0:l 1 B ~ bO'" .~~ '" ~~ '" 8. :s!8. 8: "t:l ...P.. ~ '" - '" e '" o ;:l Q) .- 0'- - ;:l ii: ~ ~oo 000 000 ~oo Xl X2 x3 X X4 XS -~-~-~-- Yes 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 fire 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. (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 24 07/21/09 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.fway, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from offstreet parking areas. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY O.'F MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal Snow Storage Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts 25 07/21/09 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X3 X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR X2 Requirement Not ApplicablelNo ECLUR Requirement DeviationIVIS 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 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. 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 E1 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 Highwav 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). 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 26 07/21/09 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 LandlJseSl Zoning Compatibility Issues Yes No . North: Residential! 'R' BLM I Resource 'R' Xl Motorcross Track South: Single-Family Residential 'R' State Highway 82 'R' X RO.W. East: Residential 'RR' Christine State Wildlife 'RP' X2 Area Commerical and 'C3/PUD' West: Residential (mixed use) in (Town) X Town of Basalt (1) The proposed PUD 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 PUD 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 PUD 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 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 27 07/21/09 ~ l Q) 1:: ~ ~ ~ Q) ~ 8- .~ ~ u.~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ FLUM ~ ~ bl) g ~ 0 ~ 0 Designation ~ ..9 .8 ~ !3 .- !3 'a Q) Q 0 '" ~~ :a 0 'fjJ !:l .- ~ ~ o '" :::s ~ ~ := ~ i3 -> <<i ~~ 0 ~~ I:l :::s 0 ::I: ..s ~ ~ci:: 00 ~O' Exceeds Xl Xl Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X3 X4 XS 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 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. 28 07/21/09 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 LiveIW 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 CommerciallResidentia1 and LiveIW ork planning areas located along Tree Farm Drive and the Highway 82 right of way - to create a more compact, wa1kab1e 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 (BR T) 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". Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: 29 07/21/09 · 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 water ski club use groups, and/or providing unique offerings to compliment pedestrian oriented commercial 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; · 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 30 07/21/09 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 CommerciallResidentia1 and LivelW ork planning areas located along Tree Farm Drive and the Highway 82 right of way; to create a more compact, wa1kab1e 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 Mfordab1e 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. 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 31 07/21/09 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 livelwork 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". This is the purpose of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation process. 32 07/21/09 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. . nAnalyze 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. . nContinue 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 agricultura11ands. 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. . nRequire new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing". 33 07/21/09 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. " The proposal is not intended to be a second home development. 34 07/21/09 . "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 the jobs 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: · Revise the Housing Plan to adjust AMI target to 100% (rather than 105% proposed by applicant) for deed restricted units. 35 07/21/09 . "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 livelwork 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 project is geared towards providing convenience and service commercial uses to serve the needs of local residents and commuters. 36 07/21/09 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) Housinfl . "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 Jebe1 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/Work 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 of 319 residential dwelling units (392,819 sq. ft.); 35% of which are proposed to meet the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. 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 37 07/21/09 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 ofthe 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 aUainable 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. (4) Infrastructure and Services 38 07/21/09 . "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 Pun 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". 39 07/21/09 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 parallel 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 accessfor emergency responders". See comments from Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Engineering Department regarding access and requested variances by the applicant. 40 07/21/09 . "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". See above comments. 41 07/21/09 . "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 potential for 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. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: 42 07/21/09 · 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 of pollution". 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. 43 07/21/09 . "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. 44 07/21/09 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. 45 07/21/09 (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 off-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 46 07/21/09 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 (TaD) nature of this project. . "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for 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. 47 07/21/09 · "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 1. 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 TaD. . "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". See previous comments regarding TaD, 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 EcoBui1d 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 s ,.; ~ Q) ] s ~l its U'./:l ~'" '" '" ~ rIl .... 8 e; -0 ~ ~ ] '" ~ '08 c:l ';> .Sf ~ i:.= ju SJ: :3J: ~& ~~ ~ ~ Exceeds Recommendation XZ Satisfies Recommendation Xl X3 X' XS Xb X7 Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incomorate 48 07/21/09 F~ I Recommertdations 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. . .natura1 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 I EI Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing Transportation ty Jebel! Frying Facilities Environment Basalt Pan Reservoir Heights Conformance Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X Applicable 49 07/21/09 (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 (RFT A) 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 EI 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 E1 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 JebeVBasalt 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 Pun 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 ~ 1 cCI cCI i;ii [{i ~~ Q) ij~ ij s (,) FLUM as Q) = .- .- tS ~ ~ .~ ~ ~bO o~ S ; en .- '.0 Designation ~ 0'.0 ~..9 ].~ ~8. me .....- = Q) ~~ !~ .- '" > l:: ~~ lS 5 8cC1 ~~ <::t: Exceeds XS X7 Recommendation Incorporates Majority Xt X2 X3 X4 X6 of Recommendations 50 07/21/09 Does Not mcorporate 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 trai1linkages 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. " 51 07/21/09 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 Pun 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 Affordable 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 ~ 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 52 07/21/09 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 (IND) 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 1999 FL UM 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 Industrial 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 ID Phasing Plan Provided? I X I Yes II 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. 53 07/21/09 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 (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-oi-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (/) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. ~ 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 ODen SDace Additional Amount of Open Space Required 3 I 9 DU x 2.63 persons/l 000 population = 839 new Per 1000 Persons == 8.39 acres residents x 10 acres/1000 population = 8.39 acres = 365,468 square feet Total Open Space Required and Provided 8.39 acres 36.7 acres provided (17.21 acres usable) Public, Quasi-Public or Private? Public and Quasi- Describe: Usable; Wetlands/Ski Lake; and Public Quasi-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. 54 07/21/09 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 8 r:l 0 r:l 0 bl) .- ~ rI.) .- - .S '.Q '" -~ I =.!~ =.~ ~ ~ 1i u.g. p:: $= u;::lp:: U r:l ~ Koo Q Koo u '" r:l .S! ~IX o .~ ,g ~ "'] .- 1J ~ "0 Ot$ "O~_ u ~ ~- .l:l = ~~~ ~~~ g g > Q. ~ ~u ~J: &L@ Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X Xl X2 X3 X4 Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable/No 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 wi1dftre regulations and the recommendations of the Basalt & Rural FPD, as conditioned. (3) The POD Guide states that wood burning devices are to comply with the provisions of the ECLURs. The Guide should be revised to speciftcally restrict wood burning ftreplaces 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 satisftes the ECLUR Sketch Plan for POD 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 SKETCH/PRELIMINARY PLAN: The ftnding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(15): 55 07/21/09 15. (a) (t) (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" fmancial 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" fmancial 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 56 07/21/09 EJ MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 d ~ ~ ~II) II) :>.2l 3ij .~ ~ ~ gS tij. &l~ ~g. '8: Article 4, Site Development Standards Conditions '" .!:l rLEl ~12 1 ::s lflar "'~ -< (J~ .~~ 83 "0 ~ Z (I) U ~ X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) X Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Inteiference (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) 57 07/21/09 ~ ~ ~ij II) :>.2l 3~ 'i ~ ] ....:l ~ . !:I &l ~ u II) oog. ~ ~ "O~ 'a Article 4, Site Development Standards Conditions 1'~ 0.= ~ ~ ::s ~~ (J~ 'i~ 11):> "0 ~ 8....:l Z 00 &l 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 Eallle 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 58 07/21/09 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. . . . . . 59 07/21/09 Disadvanta2es: · Any additional development will produce additional traffic 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 if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated 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 60 07/21/09 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 Wildftre 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 ftre 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 ftreplaces, 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. 61 07/21/09 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 ofthe 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 introduced the presentation and explained the protocols for the meeting. Scott Hunn, Planner stated that he was not presenting any new information during the meeting, but the Town of Basalt would have a IS-minute presentation. Issues from the prior meeting included traffic, transit oriented development, RFT As plans for a transit system, the walk-ability of the project, adjacent lands, sustainability, amount of commercial square footage relative to surrounding developments, the phasing plan and market analysis, number of units relative to the Town's recently adopted growth control caps, and fmally the public benefits. He discussed these items with the applicant and indicated that they needed further discussion at this meeting. He had received many emails about the project. He also received a letter from the Town of Basalt that the board had received. He reminded everyone present that it was a sketch plan review intended to look at large picture master plan and land use regulation guidelines. He would like to try to identify issues that could not be solved by conditions. The existing conditions were written in January and when the planning commission reviewed them, they only changed one, requiring a market analysis of the project. Chairman Fisher asked if a RFT A representative was present. Mr. Hunn indicated that Jason White was present. Mr. Morris stated that this was a sketch plan versus preliminary plan, which meant it doesn't create any vested rights to the developer, but was intended to get a reaction from the board. There would be conditions that would be mandatory and some that are suggested. The round table format would aid in communication but would not give the Town board any status during the meeting. The county and the town are parties to an Intergovernmental agreement and there would likely be some disagreement. The county reserved the rights to decide to allow development within the unincorporated areas of the county. In the end, any development approved should be good for everyone concerned. 62 07/21/09 Chairman Fisher disclosed that she had a conversation with Mayor Duroux regarding how there could be better dialog with the Town in order make the hearing more meaningful for all that were participating. Commissioner Stavney requested that all emails and citizen input be entered into the record including a book distributed by the development team. ( this record is maintained in Community Development) Jon Fredericks, project manager for the project spoke to the board. He introduced the team members and stated that they would be available for questions. Mr. Fredericks provided a PowerPoint presentation higWighting the details of the request. He spoke about the commercial spaces within the project. The main commercial area surrounds the transit station comprising four buildings at 30,000 square feet, primarily service and convenience commercial. The secondary commercial area was the entertainment and lifestyle area, totaling 16,500 square feet, and included restaurants and specialty stores on the lake front. There were two portions of live / work areas. There was also a stand-alone restaurant with a terrace overlooking the lake. The Wind River trees facility would be relocated to the east end of the property. There were two community park cabins. There was a grand total of 96,000 square feet of commercial. He compared the proposed development to the Willits Town Centre. Willits Town Center was 362,000 square feet. 20% ofthe Tree farm was commercial but 72% of the Town Center was commercial. The Tree Farm was for sale only vs. lease only in the Town Center. There was 392,000 square feet of residential or around 80%. They believed strongly that the commercial space in the Tree Farm would feed the Willits Town Center. They proposed a build out of six years. The majority of the employee units would be built within the fIrst three years. On the free market side, they projected 25 units being built per year. The sketch plan application had been in production for about two years. The intent for his team was to work with the county throughout the phase planning process allowing some flexibility to meet market demand. He highlighted some service providers for the project including Eagle County Road and Bridge, Roaring Fork School District, Basalt Library District, Crown Mountain Recreational District, Eagle County Sheriff and Mid Valley Metro District. They suggested that they could create a revenue stream to the Basalt Police Department to help them fund service in that area. Public benefits include intangibles and tangibles. Some benefits included a new transit station and day lit pedestrian underpass, 169 deed restricted homes, 50 parking spaces dedicated to RFT A, potential for early childhood learning center, and the project was ideally suited for senior services and would support local businesses. There was a public trails system, regional trail connectivity, a community park, a pond, and 1700 acres of usable open space. The affordable housing subsidy paid by the developer was approximately $9 million, usable open space worth $3 million, Willits lane improvements valued at $1.5 million, 50 parking spaces for RFT A, $1.47 million, $2.75 miles of public trails and amenities worth $1 million, transit station worth $950,000 and a public park worth $650,000. Paul Spencer, President of Bonsai Communities spoke to the board. He presented a graph indicating tri county population trends between Garfield, Eagle, and Pitkin counties. They believe the project was a solution to smart growth. The analysis was not done by the applicant. To catch up with existing need there were approximately 4000 units needed for affordable housing units. From a keep up need, there were approximately 1300 units in Basalt alone, including over 100 trailer park replacements. By 2013, the town hoped to develop 200 affordable units, but it would not come close to satisfying the 800 needed. These numbers did not include all of the area needs. Within commercial space of96,375 square feet it was largely supported by the 24% projected growth from the state demographer. As of December 2008, there were no commercial business ownership opportunities. The Tree Farm was designed solely around ownership. The 35 live / work units represent around 33,000 square feet. There was an existing documented interest for 38,500 square feet from people interested in the units today. Roughly, 51 % of the project has a documented interest. He spoke about the greenness of the project. Energy Star spurs energy efficient investments and has minimal criteria. A minimum of 80 points were required, which meant the proposed homes were 20% more efficient based on the 2006 international energy conservation code. Less than 1 % of the homes in America have achieved this certification. The Tree Farm was the only known neighborhood in Western Colorado with its own energy source. The preliminary eco build score was 300% for residential. Bonsai Communities recently built two locally sustainable homes. The Tree Farm was the most sustainable development in Western Colorado. The Tree Farm provided employee housing and public benefit. He spoke about the alternative areas for development. In these environments, there was no transit possibility and rural sprawl would occur. This would require more roads, water, septic, infrastructure and government expense with no public benefit. Neal Dawes, Project Engineer spoke about the pedestrian underpass and the configuration of the fire turnarounds. One concern of the proposed underpass was based on the current use of the underpass in EI Jebel. He showed an underpass from CU in Boulder and explained its successful components. A day lit entrance was essential, appropriate width, maximum height, appropriate lighting, and the aesthetics designed on a pedestrian scale. Many of these elements were not provided in the EI Jebel underpass. He also spoke about the Fire apparatus 63 07/21/09 turnarounds. He spoke about the importance of the three point turnarounds. As far as continuing the roads beyond the limits of the PUD, they felt it should be handled through the approval of the PUD plat and not by reconfiguring the buildings. Mr. Fredericks spoke about the conformance of the plan to the various guiding documents. In relation to the Town of Basalt's master plan, he stated that the commercial square footage oftheir project were well within these limit. Light industrial definition included the type of development they were proposing. Looking at residential density the memo stated that the proposed density of 319 units was within the guidelines in the master plan. They found substantial compliance with the other guiding documents, including the Mid Valley master plan draft update, Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Eagle County Comp plan, Open Space plan, and Eagle County sustainable communities 2010. He summarized the request and stated that the project would set a new benchmark for sustainable communities, including a solar farm and energy efficient buildings. They felt that the county's current planning philosophy and land use philosophy was in line with their goals. He reiterated that the sketch plan had been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission. Mike Hoffman, attorney for the applicant spoke. As they had stated early on, it had been their intention to apply for rezoning of the balance of the property. They would commit to applying for resource zoning at the time they filed the preliminary plan application and invited the board to make that a condition of sketch plan approval. The Lanes want to reserve the right to preserve a few home sites to their children. The purpose of the IGA between the County and the Town recognized the need for all interested parties to have a reasonable role in the process. He spoke about the choices of the applicant. Within a reasonable time, the Town must make a recommendation on the proposal. In this case, the town received their application in July of last year. The Town chose to provide its written recommendation more than a year later. County staff delayed the application process in order to gain the Town's recommendation. The Town's timing of response was a violation of the IGA and clear evidence that it was not dealing with the applicant or the process in good faith. The IGA required that the Town and the County must make every reasonable effort to give consideration to the concerns raised by the other entity and incorporate recommendations. Section 12 of the IGA stated that the approving entities agreement to participate shall not be interpreted as a waiver of its powers under the approving entity's code or otherwise provided by law. He believed the Eagle County Land Use Regulations apply. Mayor Duroux stated that he believed that the application circumvents the requirements of the Town's 2007 master plan. In response to the requirement that growth pay its own way, they agreed. Mayor Duroux was concerned about the cost of police protection and the applicant agreed. The issue of financial viability was just as important to the county should be the viability to the county of this development as a model of smart growth, green development, affordable housing and transit oriented community. Jason White with RFT A spoke to the board. He did not have a prepared presentation but he felt that RFT A would like to remain neutral related to whether they would or would not serve the development. There were also realities of what was already in front of them. They had no desire to be land use police. The discussion about this station began as long as the fall of 2006. RFT A did not have money or desire to build a pedestrian underpass but they would put in a transit platform to provide service to this development. He spoke about the need for a station in EI Jebel compared to another station in this development. They were trying to focus on the CDOT right of way in front of the county building. The El Jebellocation was intended to be are-location of the park and ride. The idea of the Willits station has been more ofa walk and ride scenario. The fact that there would be 50 spaces in the Tree Farm parking lot was comparable to what was provided at the county building. RFTA has had no ability to weigh in on the approval of either development. Commissioner Runyon asked if all things were equal would the bus have two stops; one at Willits and one in EI Jebel. He wondered if the underpass would still be of interest if there were no development at the tree farm. Mr. White explained that combining the two stations was something not outside of their reality. They were still moving forward with having two separate stations. If there were an ability to have more parking on the Willits area, the design team might consider that. There was a lot of activity in the area. They would like to keep the two stations separate but a combination was also possible. They were interested in the underpass for pedestrian safety issues, but fmanciallimits must be considered. RFT A wasn't interested in having a transit facility without either an under or overpass. They have grown reactively in the past years as part of their necessary reality. He felt that everything from here on had to be a good plan. Commissioner Stavney asked if the easy on / off platforms would be used for rapid transit system. He asked if it mattered to RFT A which site would be preferred. Mr. White explained that it didn't matter much, but RFTA preferred site 2.5 due to the fact that there was visual distance and it worked well for keeping the underpass as close to the signal as possible. He understood that site 2.5 was currently marked with an orange pylon. 64 07/21/09 Commissioner Stavney asked ifRFTA had done any transit oriented studies. He wondered what kind of densities would require a BRT stop. Mr. White stated that they do not have this information yet, but they intend to work on such a document over the next couple of years. Chairman Fisher clarified that there was a difference between what was contemplated in EI Jebel in terms of a park and ride and either of the other locations, which would be more of a walk and ride. Commissioner Stavney wondered ifRFTA would put in a BRT stop if the Tree Farm development did not happen. Mr. White thought it was possible that there would be a stop, but possibly not a BRT station. If it were a BR T station, it would be a bit nicer station. He indicated that the application would push RFT A to consider additional bus service at that location, not necessarily a BRT station. Joint roundtable discussion with the Town of Basalt board The Town of Basalt introduced themselves, Leroy Duroux, Amy Capron, Chris Seldin, Gary Tennenbaum, Katie, Schwoerer, Peter McBride, and Jacque Whitsitt. Mayor Duroux thanked the board for their willingness to discuss the issues on this side of the county. He reviewed the major points of the letter. The development of the Tree Farm did not comply with the 2007 Town master plan. The project did not comply with the Basalt replacement-housing requirements in the master plan pertaining to those identified as being in flood plains and flood ways. There were no plans for revenue sharing between the county and the town and the applicant did not comply with the land use patterns of the 2007 master plan. Chairman Fisher asked Mr. Hunn to respond to the points in the letter. Mr. Hunn stated that he responded to the proposed draft regulation and made some comments. Eagle County complimented the town for the document. That being said it did not necessarily jive with any other jurisdiction around, as they did not have those types of requirements. The document represented a very restrictive cap on growth. The Tree Farm was proposing a phasing plan. It would be important for the applicant to prepare a detailed phasing plan to address some of the growth cap issues. Commissioner Runyon spoke about the phasing plan related to the market realities. There was an argument to be made that if the building commitments were not made future building rights could be restricted. Mr. Hunn had discussed drafting a phasing plan to require additional future traffic studies until build-out was complete. Impact fees and legal aspects along with market analysis in the future should be considered. Chris Seldin stated that the growth management system / community priority scoring system related to the way the applicant had presented it would zero out the allotments. If the county put itself in the business of doing the build-out for the town, it could become a huge problem. Their community would be growing in a manner not consistent with the master plan. There were currently over 600 approved residential developments in the pipeline. If this kind of urban level development were approved by the county, it would effectively change the urban growth boundary and how would everyone work together to make something that would be sustainable for the community. Commissioner Stavney responded that he understood that this restricts the town's ability to approve other development. Pete McBride spoke about the inclusion of the Lane parcel and the difficulty combining the other parts of the town planning. Mr. Seldin spoke about the 200 units in the pipeline, which had already received sketch plan approval for development. He didn't believe that everything should be approved at once. Commissioner Stavney asked how many units were in Willits. Susan Philp, Director of Town of Basalt Planning stated that approximately 47 were deed restricted units. Mr. Seldin stated that their pipeline projects were very heavily geared towards affordable housing. Commissioner Stavney asked if their concerns were for the layout or the distance from the town. Mr. McBride wondered how they answer their constituents regarding a smart growth rate. Amy Capron spoke about the location on the western side of Basalt. She felt it would be a competing interest if not incorporated into the town. Commissioner Runyon spoke about up zoning in Eagle County. He stated that the identification as light industrial was a bit of a concern. He suggested an assisted living / nursing home / independent living center. He wondered about building that which would be a real community benefit. 65 07/21/09 Commissioner Stavney spoke about the trailer park and the flood plain issues. Mayor Duroux stated that the greatest issue was to find replacement locations for the units in the flood plain. They have been requiring the percentage be included in all new developments. Chairman Fisher wondered what that meant - land for another trailer or rental units. Mayor Duroux indicated that they would not be replacement trailers. Commissioner Stavney asked how the requirement worked. Mayor Duroux indicated that the issue was how to relocate a unit out of the mobile home park with assurance that another trailer would not be moved back in. Tom Smith, Town Attorney stated that the Roaring Fork mobile home park was located in Pitkin County and Eagle County. Ms. Philp stated that tail of the mobile home park was in the river flood way and was in Eagle County. The Pana Fork mobile home park had about 38 units and about half were in the flood way. Mr. Smith added that these were units of concern for safety issues and redevelopment of the non-flood plain units in the parks. The current master plan had a requirement of a certain percent of affordable housing to serve the need to replace the trailer dwelling units. Chairman Fisher asked what appropriate housing would be considered to mitigate the trailer parks. Mr. Smith stated that it was up for negotiation, but probably rental units. Bill Kane, Town Manager spoke about the possibility of development in the county and why it would be a problem if the town's conditions were met. He stated that it would be developed at variance with the town's growth management plan, which considered schools, sewers, water etc. Secondly, the thought about the future of the project was of concern as resource zoning could also be up-zoned in the future. The replacement housing situation was of concern. They were waiting for the Whole Foods decision in the future. The additional 96,000 square feet of commercial across the road could make things more confusing. It was difficult for the town to deal with this on the periphery of the town borders. The traffic impact would not be trivial when one considers the current traffic impacts. This was not just about money or police protection, it was about school enrollment too. Mr. Seldin stated that the infrastructure concerns were there. The people living there would be using the parks, roads, and schools. If there were a tax increase that part of the community would be, exempt. He believed incorporation was the proper approach. Jacque Whitsitt spoke she believed that money was the least of it, it was more about the concern of the constituents related to the rate of growth and how it would be handled. She spoke about the approved, un-built units. Gary Tennenbaum stated that the property had been included in their urban growth boundary as future development. They prefer to be able to incorporate the property into their development plan. Mr. Seldin spoke about the light industrial use. He stated that it was an immediate reaction to another application. In the process, they put a conservation easement on a fair amount of property that was previously zoned light industrial and had to find a new place for it. Mayor Duroux stated that municipalities and counties make different types of approvals. He wondered whether in the development with 169 affordable units where the homeowner's associations are expected to cover the maintenance, would people in affordable housing units be financially able to pay these fees. The town would never approve a project without considering their need to maintain it. Commissioner Stavney asked if the addition of residential or commercial is more of a concern. Mr. Tennenbaum stated that both are of concern due to adjacent commercial developments and.... Tom Smith stated that all of these issues were not raised on an ad hoc basis. These concerns were issues that had been given a lot of thought. Ms. Whitsitt wondered about the sales tax comparison. Chairman Fisher stated that the town would have a rate 3% higher. She added that the Town would get nothing unless there was a condition of a transfer tax, public improvement tax or other creative means of providing the town some revenue to support it. She stated that sketch plan only encourages the applicant if conditions can be met and that the board will continue to consider the project. Mr. Seldin stated that two or three years ago the voter approved a 1 % open space tax. Commissioner Stavney asked how many deed restricted units were in the town James Lindt, Assistant Director of Planning for the Town of Basalt indicated that there were 45 units with price caps and an equal amount that had ROs, and in the pipeline, there were probably over 100 category units and 300 total units. In Basalt at this time, there were about 30 units. He indicated that employment could be from the Snowmass Area to Carbondale. 66 07/21/09 Ms. Philp stated that when the affordable housing regulations were adopted they were very comparable to Eagle County's regulations. Commissioner Stavney asked if someone lived in Eagle County, not within Basalt whether they would have a lower tier than Basalt residents. Mr. Lindt clarified that residents of the Town would get higher priority. Mr. Seldin stated that they tried to be mindful of the two partner jurisdictions in the process. Affordable housing was exempt from the growth rate. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the need analysis at various levels of the Adjusted Minimum Income. He wondered how long it would take for 100 units of deed restricted housing opened up how long would it take for them to be absorbed. Mr. Lindt stated that the needs assessment indicated a significant demand. The suggestion was that units would be grabbed up quickly. They also had an employer's survey that indicated there was a large need. Commissioner Runyon spoke about the number of rental units on the market and the current need. Ms. Whitsitt stated that the RO units did not satisfy the need. Commissioner Stavney indicated that there were 150 units that would be built some time soon. He wondered if another 169 units would be flooding the market. Chairman Fisher asked how many people intended to speak and then opened public comment. George Newman, Pitkin County Commissioner spoke to the board. Mr. Newman presented referral comments. Regional implications indicated the following position. The Tree Farm represented urban development with impacts on Basalt. New development in the area in consideration of the already approved development not yet built would result in an over growth situation once all are built. This development does not address the deficit in the valley. While the concept was well intended it was not proven to achieve the goal of long-term affordability. Pitkin County concurs with the Town of Basalt's conclusion that the commercial development requested would compete with like development. The light industrial development must be considered along with the Town master plan. The Tree Farm was proposed as a transportation-oriented development yet was anticipated to generate 3700 additional vehicle trips per day. Pitkin County was against the development. Basalt recently adopted a growth management plan, which limited residential growth to 32 dwelling units per year. Given the property's location the development would impact most significantly affect the town. Pitkin County recommended denial of the Tree Farm sketch plan application as proposed. Glen Rapaport spoke to the board. There were many things that he liked and believed were consistent with his goals when he was on the board ofthe Town of Basalt. He was disappointed that the town could be present and not say one positive thing. He believed the polarity created in the discussions was a red herring. He hoped the commissioners would look hard at the details and suggested moving on past the sketch plan. There was a land use code with rules and regulations and this project had tried diligently to comply with them. He was fascinated as an architect and planner due to the green strategies, open space, and other quality considerations. He did not think the town's opinion was fair. The analogies of the other projects were not reasonable. These neighborhoods were about people and friends who could not be here without those types of developments. He was the architect for Willits Bend and they tried to get the Live Work project. He argued that incubator businesses were important. He thought that the project should be denied for the right reasons only. He believed it deserved to go to the next level. David Johnston, architect and local resident for the past 20 years spoke. He had seen the growth of the valley and felt the concentric organization of land use was important. He submitted a letter supporting the project to the board. He spoke about the ability for residents to walk to services rather than driving. The Tree Farm provided a true mix of residential and non-residential units. Recent information about Missouri Heights slated to add 300 homes. The Tree Farm would be denser by far. Social and cultural attributes were important and this development would encourage them. The design protocol set a higher bar than any other project known to him. Robert Furlow spoke to the board. He attended the meetings and was continually impressed with the applicant's commitment. He supported the applicant and looked forward to walking through the neighborhood. He was stunned that the Basalt board had not tried to be involved and now in the last hour wasted the public's time. The town had proved that they exceed their own numbers. Kelly McKenny, resident and board member of Blue Lake spoke. She was happy that the board met with the Basalt board. She was offended that the applicant could not be heard where they want to be heard - by the county as the property is in unincorporated Eagle County. She spoke about impacts to the Town of Basalt and related that she uses Crown Mountain rather than the Town's parks. She spoke about how the residents affording 67 07/21/09 the homeowner's fees. The situation in the area had changed - not everyone worked in Aspen anymore. Many people work in the area. She supported previous comments about the beauty of the application due to the environmental and transit focus. She thought the dedication of open space would be helpful. She also acknowledges the infusion of income over the next few years to the county. Jim Cardamone, local real estate broker spoke. He liked the project for its green, energy efficient, transit oriented nature. He hoped the board would support the development, which may represent the future of building. He would like to see his clients have the opportunity to pick a project like this over less green properties. Lisa McGuire, 20-year resident spoke. She believed there were numerous positive aspects, but opposed the project due to traffic, existing construction, currently approved development, impact on schools and emergency services. The El Jebel intersection was already overcrowded and dangerous. She was thankful for the RFT A buses, but rush hour was difficult in the area already. The new road had very little traffic now, but it was not an adequate road. The Basalt elementary school was already at capacity. The biggest scare to her was the emergency services and having greater demands placed on them. She urged denial. Dave Jensen spoke. He was highly disturbed about the process. He wished that the board would try to work with the town, but urged the board to consider the application on its merits and rights and he urged approval. Mark Cole resident of Willits spoke to the board. His neighbors recently wrote a letter suggesting that none of the Willits residents would be in favor. He in no way agreed with this letter and was for the project. He believed the town had a split personality. Old Town Basalt preserved the character of a small town. This end, including Willits was completely different. He was excited about this end of the valley becoming the hub of the central valley. He looked at the growth management plan and believed the application of that to Basalt as if it were one entity epitomized the metaphor. He spoke about employee housing. The Town of Basalt currently had 30 units and he thought it was ridiculous. He had lost staff due to lack of housing availability. He loved the project's affordable housing aspect. He urged approval. Phelps Lane spoke. He repudiated negative competition as a valid concern as it encourages price competitiveness and was a positive thing. Second, the address of the building was Carbondale and perhaps they should be included in the discussion. He preferred that the board make the decision as an application in unincorporated Eagle County. There was a runaway problem with affordable housing and the county was behind the eight ball already to a great degree. Inclusionary zoning was not working and in fact achieved the opposite of what was intended. Ken Ransford spoke. He appreciated the dialog with the Town of Basalt tonight. He hoped the board would take the town's comments to heart. Emily Suther understood that it was a long process. She was hearing "what I'm paying," comments from people. She had not heard "what are they giving us." She would love to hear more about what would be given back to the community. She believed that Eagle County should be leading the country not just the county. Cory Ross spoke to the board. He lived in the area for 4 years. He was supportive of the project for the housing being offered. He could not ever consider owning a house in this valley. He did not agree with the Town of Basalt's arguments. He urged approval. Traffic was bad, but cutting down on development was not the solution - the roads needed to be improved. He believed there were other ways around the traffic issue. Ace Lane spoke to the board. He respected what Basalt had done with their town. He urged consideration of the merits of the project and his record of accomplishment. He did not have constituents besides the world. He wanted to put together a great, green project. This was not a government-subsidized project. He had traveled a lot in Europe and understood why their villages worked and why ours did not. He was trying to address the challenges our nation was facing. In this valley, there were no disasters. He wanted to build something cool, sustainable, and green. He believed there were too many cooks in the kitchen. Hilary Maley stated that she was baffled. The project was beyond leading edge and gave back affordable housing to the community. The community needed it. It leads the nation with its vision. There are countless travesties due to the lack of affordable housing. Michael Buhl spoke. He spoke as a character reference for Ace Lane. He stated that the desire of the developers and Mr. Lane to provide a quality project was real. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Written comment would continue to be received. She responded to the comments made about the process. The process was defined by law and the landowner and developer had to be allowed due process and respect. She reminded everyone that this project was only in the beginning stages. This evening has gone past the previously set deadline of 8:30 p.m. She allowed the applicant the opportunity to respond to concerns. 68 07/21/09 Commissioner Runyon spoke about the current growth graph. He did not necessarily want to support the projection or the historical projection. The state demographer was only taking past trends and extrapolating them. The rate of growth was up for debate and perhaps Pitkin County had been too low. Historical growth rate in Eagle County had been close to 7 or 8%, which was quite high. He believed it was an outstanding development if it were in a vacuum. He wondered if anything had been done to mitigate previous bad decisions. Mr. Fredericks stated that it was the right project in the right location. Everyone agreed that no one wanted open space to be continued to be developed. Private land had to be used in a sensible manner. Previous bad decisions might include previously approved projects that have not been built - and for a reason. He believed the project fit in with community values. Paul Spencer spoke about future mitigation. He believed the path needed to be started towards correction. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the major public benefit values. He spoke about the $9.5 million the applicant presents as the public benefit of the affordable housing situation. He felt that if the project did go before the Basalt Town Council almost half ofthe project would not be subject to their growth restrictions. He wondered about a formalized community recreation facility on site. Neal Dawes stated that the $9.5 million dollars was not lost profit, but was the developers contribution to pay for the project. Commissioner Runyon stated that the 169 units would cost more than they could be sold for in this downturn economy. David Mars stated that the cost estimates were done in the fall of 2008. Commissioner Stavney stated that he believed the applicant's presentation answered many questions. He wondered about the inclusion of the entire parcel in the PUD. He shared the idea of putting the rest ofthe parcel into a conservation easement to protect it from future development. He wondered about resource zoning and its value. He also asked about discussions about access control and location connections and hoped that if the plan moved forward there would need to be more detail. He was also concerned about the configuration of the Highway 82 access. He was much friendlier to the need for the workforce housing than the need for more commercial space. He was also concerned about the traffic related to the commercial development. Many of the regional impacts could be addressed related to schools and emergency services. He was concerned about the lack of public recreation area in the project. He thought there should be a contribution to Crown Mountain across the way. With 319 units, there would be an impact on the schools. He had a tough time with the complaints about traffic, because this was taking trips closer to home rather than people commuting from Rifle and New Castle. He addressed phasing and encouraged positioning the project to other market triggers. He understood that a large percentage was affordable, but wondered if the applicant would be willing to commit to fewer non-deed restricted units. He would like to know more about the details of the deed restrictions. In good faith, it complied with many of the Eagle County guiding documents. The applicant had gone over the top of the bar for county requirements. Ace Lane spoke about the fact that the ski lake was private, but people bring friends to enjoy the lake. He added that automakers had a similar challenge and they took a risk by building the green cars. People wanted these products. The product was the highest known in the area. He was an extreme optimist. He compared the Empire State building when it was built. Mr. Fredericks asked for time for the applicant to respond. Chairman Fisher asked about the necessary findings and description of sketch plan. She read the description of sketch plan review. She asked for opportunities to zero in on the rest of the properties surrounding the proposal. She wanted to know about the tree farm itself if the special use went away in the future. Traffic and traffic mitigation would be addressed further in the process. She acknowledged that traffic was a concern during peak times as it was in other communities. Highway 82 had received millions of dollars in improvements for future needs. Traffic studies would more clearly define what the requirements would be. She felt she did not have time to consider all the new opinions presented prior to this meeting. She asked why the applicant did not want to go to the Town of Basalt. David Mars indicated that the property was purchased in 1991 and since then there had been collaboration with the county. The Lanes made a good faith gesture to put in a road and they have worked with the county and they had a good history with them. Mr. Fredericks felt there was a strong alignment of values. The documents were very in line with their way of thinking. 69 07/21/09 Commissioner Stavney moved to table the file until September 151 with the consent of the applicant Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous Attest: 70 07/21/09