Loading...
Minutes 09/08/09 PUBLIC HEARING September 8, 2009 Present: Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Jon Stavney Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Christina Hooper Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was none. Resolution 2009-092 Designating September 6-12, 2009 as Suicide Prevention Week Jill Baron, Sheriff's OffIce Ms. Baron read the resolution for the record. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve Resolution 2009-092 designating September 6-12,2009 as Suicide Prevention Week. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Chairman Fisher thanked Ms. Baron for her work and the work of others to help prevent this type of tragedy. The motion passed unanimously. 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 September 7, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Holy Cross Underground Right of Way Easement for the Justice Center Project Rick Ullom, Project Management Representative C. Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and LBA Associates, Inc. for USDA Solid Waste Management Grant technical assistance Ron Rasnic, Solid Waste Manager D. Resolution 2009-093 Appointing Arbitrators to Conduct Arbitration Hearings for Appeals From Decisions of the 2009 County Board of Equalization County Attorney's OffIce Representative 1 09/08/09 E. Resolution 2009-094 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with Respect to Letter of Credit No. 0260295433 in the Amount of $90,600.00 for the Account ofDotsero Realty Partners, LLLP - Two Rivers Village Phase II - Landscaping Carryover County Attorney's OffIce Representative F. Resolution 2009-095 Conferring Power of Attorney upon Bryan R. Treu, County Attorney, Robert L. Morris, Deputy County Attorney, Christina C. Hooper, Assistant County Attorney and Kyle L. Weber, Assistant County Attorney to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, with Respect to Letter of Credit No. 02650658435 in the Amount of$99,092.l8 for the Account of Dotsero Realty Partners, LLLP - Two Rivers Village Phase II - Security for Warranty Period County Attorney's OffIce Representative G. Agreement for Inmate Health Care Services in Eagle County, Colorado Jail Administration Representative Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's OffIce if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that item G should be considered separately. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-F. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Item G was considered. Bryan Treu stated that the agreement had not yet been received and asked that the motion authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement for inmate health care services. The amount was $246,000.00; an increase of about $17,000 over last year. A reduction in staff training should offset the increase. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve of the agreement and authorize the chairman to sign the agreement. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Big Sky Restaurant Company d/b/a Beaver Creek Chophouse #07-59769-0003 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 2-0ptional premises in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on fIle in the Clerk's OffIce and proof of server training has been provided. B. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Arrowhead Alpine Club #04-51098-0005 2 09/08/09 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on fIle in the Clerk's OffIce and proof of server training has been provided. C. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Spruce Saddle Restaurant #04-51099-0001 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 3-0ptional premises in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on me in the Clerk's OffIce and proof of server training has been provided. D. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Toscanini #04-51099-0015 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on fIle in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. E. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Trapper's Cabin #04-51098-0001 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with I-Optional premises in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on me in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. F. Vail Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Two Elk Restaurant #04-38327-0001 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with I-Optional premises in Beaver Creek There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on fIle in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. G. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Zach's Cabin #04-51098-0006 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with I-Optional premises in Beaver Creek There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on fIle in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. H. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Allie's Cabin #04-51099-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 3-0ptional premises in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on fIle in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. I. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Beano's Cabin #04-51099-0005 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with I-Optional premises in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on fIle in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. J. Beaver Creek Food Service, Inc. d/b/a Osprey at Beaver Creek #04-51099-0010 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on fIle in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. Commissioner Stavney stated that their packet didn't include items I and 1. Ms. Scriver indicated that neither of these renewals were of concern. 3 09/08/09 Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for September 8, 2009 consisting of Items A-J. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF CONCERNS I ISSUES: Eagle River Youth Coalition "Valley Tasting: Food for Youth" Amelia Lange, Event Manager Vail Christian High School- 31621 Hwy 6, Edwards Kathy Scriver None DESCRIPTION: Eagle River Youth Coalition a non-profIt organization dedicated to providing programs for local youth has requested a special events permit for their 3rd annual fundraising event being held in the Vail Christian High School Auditorium on Thursday, September 24, 2009 from 6:30 - 9:00 p.m. Additional time has been requested on the application to allow for set-up and tear-down. Past events have been held at the Singletree Community Center and Westin without incident. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. All fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on August 28, 2009, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been filed in the Clerk OffIce. 4. The applicant has provided a detailed alcohol management plan and diagram. 5. The applicant has provided proof of server training. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All fIndings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the application. Amelia Lange was present. Chairman Fisher wondered about server training, and asked how many were expected. Ms. Lange stated that they were not entirely sure, but expected close to 250 people. She explained the details of the event including the participating restaurants. All proceeds would benefit the Eagle River Youth Coalition. There would be entertainment and youth performers. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Event Permit for the Eagle River Youth Coalition event being held in the Vail Christian High School Auditorium on September 24, 2009, from 6:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 4 09/08/09 Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Resolution 2009-096 Adoption of Temporary Regulations to Limit the Location of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within Unincorporated Eagle County County Attorney's OffIce Representative Bryan Treu explained the regulation. Land Use Regulations allowed temporary regulations for 30 days prior to more formal regulations being adopted. The regulations allowed medical marijuana dispensaries in commercial limited, commercial general, and industrial zone districts with distance restrictions of 200 ft from any residence, public school, private school, public park, play ground, licensed childcare facility, church or religious institution, drug or alcohol rehabilitation facility, public community center, and any publicly owned or maintained building open for use to the general public. There were one or more dispensaries currently open. These dispensaries would be treated as a non-conforming use and could be required to meet all medical marijuana dispensary regulations drafted in the future. Commissioner Runyon asked about the powers the board had to regulate businesses. Mr. Treu stated that the county general powers, police powers and some businesses could regulate transporters of ashes, waste and rubbish, escort services, pawnshops, door-to-door salespersons, nude dancing facilities, ftreworks, alarm installers and building contractors. The county did not have the power to limit marijuana dispensaries. Some towns had these powers, but the county did not. Commissioner Stavney clarifIed that as an arm of the state the board could only follow the state's lead. Mr. Treu stated that sometimes towns have home rule abilities to regulate these types of businesses. Chairman Fisher stated that she had proposed pushing legislation that would allow the counties to regulate businesses, but Colorado Counties Incorporated did not choose to promote such legislation. Currently there were no means for knowledge of new business start -ups. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the laws that bind the situation. Mr. Treu stated that it was still a controlled substance, but in 2000, Colorado passed the question with a 70% majority in Eagle County. Commissioner Runyon asked for clarification that land use and zoning were the only tools to regulate the location of these establishments. By law, these regulations could not be so onerous that the business could not comply. Mr. Treu stated that this was correct. The authority to regulate medical marijuana dispensaries had been given to the state. There was a lawful use in the state of Colorado and to preclude it could not be accomplished. Commissioner Stavney stated that the county could limit and regulate but could not ban the use. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Troy Wright spoke to the board as someone who was trying to open a location in Bond / McCoy area. He wondered whether the residents could eliminate the 200 foot residency distance restriction. Commissioner Stavney stated that home businesses were not allowed. Mr. Treu indicated that home businesses were not allowed in many instances. Gerald Olsen spoke to the board as an 8 year resident. After his second liver transplant he noticed signifIcant improvement in his recovery due to medical marijuana use. He had a genetic liver problem. He was concerned that this type of distribution could be like Walmart or Costco rather than community members. He believed community minded people needed to be involved. Greg Honnen, Eagle-Vail resident spoke about some of the laws. He stated that 25% of the country has medical marijuana approved. In 2001 54% of the voters approved this type of business. He spoke about the course of events related to this type of business. He believed that the recent influx of requests was due to changes in limits to service. Pat Bultemeier from Edwards spoke to the board as a resident for the past 25 years. He supported the use as a pain control opportunity. 5 09/08/09 Buddy Sims spoke to the board. He was a resident and taxpayer. He objected to any dispensaries in the county but did not object to residents who used the drug as a means to control their pain. He questioned dispensaries starting a new business in the county when the state indicated there were only 69 users in the county. He considered this use a red herring to advocate broader use. Medical marijuana was not regulated, he wondered where they buy their marijuana and whether it's safe for our residents. Second, there were known cases of people who do not need this help getting permits to use the drug. He believed there would be a black market in Eagle County. He believed people could buy two ounces a day and sell it on the black market. Third, he believed that medical and recreational users of the drug would be detrimental to the safety of our residents. Chairman Fisher limited his comments, due to the limitations the county had by law. She indicated that the county did not have authority to require a business license or a sales tax on this distribution. Mr. Simms believed the Health Department should regulate the supply and quality of the product. He wondered why these stores needed to be in Eagle County. He showed an ad for home delivery. Jennifer Honnen, Eagle-Vail resident for the past 10 years spoke. She spoke about drugs as medicine and the other medication's ingredients that were unknown. Medical marijuana was a plant grown from the ground. Cannabis was previously part of 85% of the medicines in the United States. She suggested looking at the potential. She agreed with the concerns about the black market. She spoke about the penalties of being caught driving under the influence of this type of medical marijuana. She wondered about the issue of driving on other medications. She believed it was a great opportunity for people to manage their pain, nausea, and other related ailments for which medical marijuana would help. Scott Ziegler spoke to the board. He grew up in this area and has Parkinson's disease which may have come from the cleanup site. He showed a large bag of empty containers for drugs he had been given for his condition over the past year. He hoped his dispensary and others could continue to operate. Commissioner Stavney clarifIed that the board did not have the authority to shut down a store. He stated that existing businesses would have legal, non-conforming use. Mr. Treu stated that this regulation related to zoning and requirements for these types of businesses. Patrick Tuarkunas spoke to the board. He stated that amendment 20 was approved by 69% of the voters. Michael Gallagher spoke to the board. His cousin was given the HIV virus and the original cocktail was devastating on his system. Eventually he found that smoking marijuana helped him resume his appetite and keep food down. This was one example of how cannabis was effective at treating nausea and lack of appetite for cancer and aids treatment. The issue of selling to others without a prescription was a separate issue. The crime was issuing the prescription to people who do not have a prescription. He had friends who have prescriptions who were not abusing the program. He believed there were valid reasons for medical marijuana. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Chairman Fisher asked about expanding the distance between any location and a school facility, childcare facility or playground wondered if it would include all of these facilities or if it would be some but not all. Mr. Treu read the paragraph with the change in the distance restriction. Commissioner Runyon stated that the larger debate about this versus alcohol was not what was being discussed today. Functionally the board's hands were tied. This was independent of the larger issue at hand. He felt that public health could get involved at some point in the future. He thanked all present for being on hand to testify. He spoke about the ad saying doctors were standing by and delivery could be accommodated. This was a good way to make people very angry about medical marijuana. Commissioner Stavney looked at this as any other land use request. He thought the effort was not to ban it but to put regulations and parameters on it. It's about protecting the community as would be done in any other type of use. Chairman Fisher spoke about the role of the physician. The county did not have any ability or authority to regulate who practices medicine nor did they have the authority to issue business licenses. She stated that the goal was to benefit those who would benefIt for health reasons. Commissioner Runyon wondered about increasing the distance to 500 feet. Commissioner Stavney desired to err on the side of limiting the distance. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Adoption of Temporary Regulations to Limit the Location of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries within Unincorporated Eagle County with the additional verbiage by Bryan Treu regarding distance. 6 09/08/09 Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Economic Stimulus Projects Update Tom Johnson, Public Works There were no updates. Work Session - Prenatal Program Funding Suzanne Vitale, Health & Human Services Recorded Abatement Hearings Attorney's Office Representative Christina Hooper presented the fIles. She introduced Ed Smith and Shannon Hurst from the Assessor's office. 1. Petitioner Number Recommendation Skylark Lake Creek, LLC Moore, UJrike Newton R060684 P030778 Approval Approval Commissioner Runyon moved that the Petitions for Abatement/Refund of taxes for the following individuals and schedule numbers be approved for the tax year(s) 2008 in the amounts and for the reasons set forth in the Assessor's recommendation sheet, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference. Petitioner Skylark Lake Creek, LLC Moore, Ulrike Newton Number R060684 P030778 Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. Petitioner Schnakenberg, Michael Number R056106 Recommendation Denial Roger Pack tax agent for Mr. Schnakenberg was present. Shannon Hurst, Assessor's OffIce representative explained that the property was compared to comparable sales for the same type and neighborhood of properties. The subject property was valued lower than any of the comparables. She explained how the grid was used which included type of build, bedroom and bath configuration and square footage. The petitioner was arguing about the time of the comparison. She believed an increase of 2.875 was reasonable, but the appraisal had used 1.6%. The subject property sold after the comparison period, but the prior value was the 2007 - 2008 value. Most of the units did go down in value from 2007,2008 to 2009. Mr. Pack stated that there were two sections, the fIrst was his report, and the second was maps and exhibits. He showed some comparable properties and associated sales prices. The big issue with this particular unit was the lack of view of the Gore Range and ski area. The subject property overlooked an access road and a building. He found that views drove the value significantly. The property sold during the time period. His comparative unit had better views. The time adjustment of 1.6% per month reflected the original developer contract price before the building was constructed. He felt this was overstated and too high for this type of unit. 7 09/08/09 Commissioner Stavney asked about the comparable sales used by the Assessor's offIce. Mr. Pack stated that three were actual re-sales that occurred in 2005 and 2006. The time adjustment was too high in his opinion. He stated that the development of the 1.6% was based on original contract sales prior to construction. Commissioner Runyon stated that most pre-construction sales were below the market prices. Mr. Pack indicated that this could or could not be the case. However, the data that supported the time adjustment was not appropriate. It was also derived from the entire area. He presented comparable sales in the period required. The indication for these sales was anywhere from.4 to .5 % per month. The actual sales price of the property was $1.8 with $532,000 of time adjustment added. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the time adjusted price. He spoke about it being $300,000 in one year. Mr. Pack stated that it depended on the original sales price. He spoke about the most current sale of the property. He thought it provided additional support to his other arguments. He provided some photos of the comparable unit's views. He provided MLS listing sheets for the properties he used for comparison. They tried to select sales that are as close to the June 2006 time frame as possible. His comparable sale 1 was for a similar size unit during that time. Based on the disparity in time adjustments he reduced the adjustments on his grid by half. He felt a site and view adjustment of $700,000 was warranted. His comparable units three and four had similar view situations. There were four sales in the project, three of which had better views. The inferior view of the subject property and the time adjustment needed to be considered when deciding if the adjustment was warranted. Commissioner Stavney stated that the Assessor's offIce was using only in building comparisons. He wondered if the difference between the valuation for the owner and the Assessor was around $408,000. Mr. Pack confIrmed this. Ms. Hurst stated that the Assessor does time adjustment based on a super neighborhood, which included all of Beaver Creek, Bachelor Gulch, Arrowhead, and Mountain Star. To accurately come up with a time adjustment there needs to be at least 30 sales. They went from 2004 to 2006. One ofMr. Pack's time adjustments was based on the 2006 to 2008 time period. To do an accurate time adjustment a longer period of time was preferable. Her adjusted prices were well above what she had on the subject property and the view had been taken into account. Commissioner Runyon wondered if Ms. Hurst still respectfully disagreed. If the applicant came up with something with which the Assessor agreed, they would likely make an adjustment. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the process for this petition. Ms. Hooper stated that this was a separate review because they were for 2007 and 2008, as she believed the property was overvalued at that point. She explained that the state board step would be the next available step for the owner of the property. Ed Smith felt it only appropriate to accept the Assessor's offIce determination and offered the applicant's representative the method for taking the appeal to the next level. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Petition of for Abatement/Refund of taxes for the following individuals and schedule numbers be denied for the tax year(s) 2007 & 2008 in the amounts and for the reasons set forth in the Assessor's recommendation sheets, such recommendations being incorporated into this hearing by reference: Petitioner Schnakenberg, Michael Number R056106 Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. Chairman Fisher stated that all information presented at the meeting will be entered into the file by reference. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Pack stated that if the board did not have the expertise to make a recommendation at the hearing he would like to have an offIcer with those qualifIcations to make these decisions present. Chairman Fisher thought that his comments were a little back handed. She felt that if the petition had gone through the process during the proper time it would have been more possible to have qualifIed people looking at this issue. The hearing officers were hired to do this work on behalf of the board and they were on board for 5 weeks. She felt that Mr. Pack's client was getting fair treatment. This decision did not deny the client the opportunity to have the request reviewed by people that are more qualifIed. 8 09/08/09 Commissioner Stavney stated that he would have been interested in tabling the question. Howewr, he believed that Mr. Pack's client would be better served going to the state. Planning Files PDA-2142 Willits Bend PUD Amendment Sean Hanagan, Planning Department Tabled from 5/19/09, 6/23/09, 8/4/09, 8/25/09, & 9/1/09 NOTE: The purpose of this PUD amendment is to change language within the text to include "residential" as a use by right use as well as change language regarding mezzanines and how they are counted toward floor area ratio. ACTION: LOCATION: Willits Bend, EI Jebel FILE NO./PROCESS: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: PDA-2142 / Willits Bend PUD Amendment 1712 Willits Lane Basalt, Colorado Willits Bend LLC Willits Bend LLC The Myler Law Firm, David Myler 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Willits Bend LLC request consideration of the following specific amendments to the PUD Guide: 1. Add "Residential" to the list of allowed uses set forth in Section IV.1 and remove Residential as a limited review use pursuant to Section V. 2. Amend the language in Line 4 of the definition of Floor Area in Section 111.12. to read.... to enclosed lofts and mezzanines, fIreplaces, halls, habitable attics, bathrooms, closets and..... Consistent with Plat Note 5 on the Final Condominium/Subdivision Plat of Willits Bend Building 4 which was approved by the County on May 27, 2008, add the following new sentence to the end of the defInition: "Any mezzanines which may be installed within any unit shall comply with the requirements of Section 505 of the International Building Code. In particular, the clear height above and below the mezzanine floor construction shall not be less than 7 feet; the aggregate area of the mezzanine shall not exceed 1/3 of the area of the units; and the mezzanine shall be open and unobstructed to the unit except for wall not more than 42 inches high, columns and posts. No loft or mezzanine may be utilized as a bedroom. The square footage of a mezzanine which satisfies the foregoing requirements shall not be counted in determining the maximum building square footage for Willits Bend pursuant to this PUD Guide, provided, however, that the square footage of any mezzanine, whether or not enclosed, that is contained within a unit designated entirely for office use shall be counted in determining the maximum building square footage for Willits Bend". 9 09/08/09 The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the fact that (i) mezzanines and lofts cannot be used as bedrooms and (ii) enclosed lofts and mezzanines are to be counted as developable square footage but open mezzanines which satisfy the IBC requirements are not to be counted as developable square footage, unless they are incorporated into a purely offIce use. 3. Revise the Parking by Type of Use provisions in Section IX.5. for live/work units to provide that the minimum parking allotment requirements for the residential component of a live/work unit will be 1 space per 1 bedroom or studio unit, 1.25 spaces per 2 or 3 bedroom units; and 1.5 spaces for 4 or more bedrooms. In additional, the minimum parking allotment requirements for the non-residential component of a live/work unit would be one half of that otherwise required for that use. Since the occupant of the residential area within a live/work unit will be the same individual utilizing the work space, the parking allotment requirements would be adjusted to reflect that overlap. 4. Revise Section X.4. To eliminate the cap on the number of residential units. The Developer does not propose to eliminate or increase the residential floor area cap of 24,000 square feet. Elimination of the cap on the number of units currently 16 units will allow for smaller residential units to be combined with work space in order to create true live/work units while not increasing the total amount of residential floor area. 5. In order to increase the potential for true live/work units, the applicant is also requesting that the 10% limitation on fIrst floor residential square footage, as set forth in Section X.3. of the PUD Guide be changed to 50% with all commercial frontage to face Widget Street. This amendment will not affect either the existing 500 square foot residential use limitation for an individual, ground floor unit or the overall residential square footage limit of 24,000 square feet. B. CHRONOLOGY: . April 25th 2006 the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approved the Willits Bend PUD in its current form. . January 26th 2009 Willits Bend PUD amendment fIle processed . July 16th 2009 file heard by Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission with the decision to table until August 20th to allow for follow up and additional data. . August 20th 2009 the RFVRPC voted unanimously to approve/recommend approval of the PUD amendment C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning: North: Mid Valley Medical Center Town of Basalt South: Crown Mountain Area Town of Basalt> Resource East: Commercial (Mid Valley Town of Basalt Business Center) Residential ( Oak Grove Town Town of Basalt West: homes) RSL Existing ZonIng: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Proposed ZonIng: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Current Development: Mixed use community 10 09/08/09 1.318-acres Square,feetl Pen:entage: Percentage: Private: 196,020 sq. ft. TOtal Total Acres: 4.5-acres Acres: 29.3 percent Acres: N/A Mid Valley Metro District Mid Valley Metro District N/A Water: Public: N/A Sewer: Public: .'.'< Private: N/A Aeeess: Via Willits Lane 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-240 Sketch Plan for PUD Section Purpose: For the Applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether the development of the property as a PUD will result in a signifIcant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. The degree to which the plan conforms to the intent of applicable land use regulations and provisions of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan is determined, as is the compatibility of the proposal with surrounding land uses. General agreement is reached regarding the types of uses, dimensional limitations, layout, access, and the means of water supply and sewage disposal. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identifIcation of issues and concerns the Applicant must address if the project is to receive approval of a Preliminary Plan. Standards: Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch Plan application. Given its conceptual nature, standards that must be met at Preliminary Plan will likely not be fully addressed by sketch plan material. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards will be able to be met at Preliminary Plan. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be made for that Standard STANDARD: Unified ownership or controL [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The title to all land that is part of the PUD is not owned or controlled by one (1) person; the written consent ofthe owner ofthe lands that will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD, as amended, has been provided. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS [K] MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 11 09/08/09 D MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS U DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in 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.3j, Variations Authorized. The lists of allowable uses within the Willits Bend PUD are in compliance with current commercial and residential zone districts. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3j, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The Dimensional Limitations set forth in the current Willits Bend PUD will not change as a result of this PUD Amendment proposal. Conformance with PUD Intent ofPUDlUse ofPUD Zoning: Intent Yes Necessary for integration of mixed uses; Yes To allow for greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings; Yes To promote a more efficient land use pattern including an opportunity for public transportation and for safe, efficient, compact street and utility networks that lower development and maintenance costs and conserve energy; Yes To increase open space; Yes The property is constrained- use of conventional standards limits quality design; Yes To increase compatibility with neighboring developments; Other STANDARD: Section 5-240.F.3j, Variations Authorized. provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: No variations will be required as a result of this proposed PUD Amendment. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: 12 09/08/09 (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD [hat 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. The applicant is requesting to take advantage of sub paragraph (a) Shared Parking above by requesting a parking allotment reduction. The applicant's justifIcation for the parking is that a true live/work confIguration would overlap with regard to per unit requirements and this live/work confIguration would reduce the need for parking spaces. The applicant will provide a "Best/W orst case scenario" model to demonstrate how the live/work configuration would impact parking needs for the development. Within the model the applicant will demonstrate all possible iterations that could result from allowable uses dictated by the current PUD guide. Staff is in general support of the applicants plan to reduce the need for parking spaces if the model provided by the applicant demonstrates a legitimate reduced need for parking than was originally proposed in the Willits Bend PUD. Staff feels that if a shred parking model was successfully proposed and executed that this would in fact increase the projects conformance to the master plan by encouraging a Walkable community with less reliance on the automobile to conduct normal business as well as daily activities. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations ;rom 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. Landscaping within Willits Bend will otherwise not be altered as a result of this PUD Amendment proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD ), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Signage provisions as delineated within the current Willits Bend PUD Guide will not be changed as a result of this PUD Amendment proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 13 09/08/09 STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not ApplicableINo ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR It uirements DeviationNIS Requested b j 1;i B ~ ~"i :0; B o >- ~l :g& 'y i; '" <II 8- ] ~ '" - '" e ~i5 ~i5 - ;:s ii: Q.,lI} ~lI} X X X X X X ----~- In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No Development within the Willits Bend PUD is already served with Adequate Facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fIre protection and roads. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO)for thatfunctional 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 14 09/08/09 connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal Snow Storage Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECWR Requirement Not ApplicableINo ECLUR Requirement Deviation/VIS Requested The Improvements standards governing how Willits Bend has developed since its inception will not be altered as a result of this PUD Amendment proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Compatibility of the Willits Bend PUD with all existing and allowed adjacent land uses should not be adversely affected by this proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its confOrmance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN II) lJ t.! ~ 1 ~ t .~ ~ i ~ ~ h PLUM tlO ~ ~ Designation ~ .S b '.t:l c:l ~ ... .a.~ ::a 'Ii! 8 ! ::s 1;1 - 53 ~~ ~ .ala ~~ ~~ VJ Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 Recommendations 15 09/08/09 Does not Satisfy Majority of Recommendations Not Applicable X X Below are the Recommended Strategies intended to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies. Xl: Develooment · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". · "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 ". · "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". · "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". · ~~Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". · "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". · "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". · "Analyze development applicationsfor conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". · "Continue to allow variations from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the surrounding community". · ~~Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing". · "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts'~ The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD' s current level of compliance Xl: Housinf! · "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". · "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". · "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Planfor all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". · "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructurefor all new development applications". · "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD's current level of compliance. The square footage cap on "Residential" will remain unchanged. X3: Infrastructure and Services · "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub'~ · ~~Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". · Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". · "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". · Encourage transit oriented development". · "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". · "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". 16 09/08/09 · "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". · "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". · "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design ". · "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". · "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". · "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". · "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". · ~~Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". · "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". · "Use House Bill 1041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". · "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development", · "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". · "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD' s current level of compliance. X4: Water Resources · "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". · "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". · "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". · "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination ". · "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible" · "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". · ~~Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". · ~~Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". · "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". · "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". · "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application ". · "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". · "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". · "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". · "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of stormwater runoff and work to identi'/y and treat other non-point sources ofpollution". · "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". · "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals'~ · "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways ". · "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD's current level of compliance X5: Wildlife Resources · "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man-made barriers to wildlife migration ". · Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". · "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". 17 09/08/09 . "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". "Minimize site disturbance during construction". "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". "Require wildlife-proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". . . . . . . The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD' s current level of compliance X6: Sensitive Lands · "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". · "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". · "A void the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification ". · Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". · "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans ". · "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". · "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". The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD' s current level of compliance X7: EnvironmentalOualitv · "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". · "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". · "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the needfor daily commuting". · "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". · "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points'~ · "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". · "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". · "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". · "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". · "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". · Implement energy efficiency guidelines. · Implement energy saving techniques. The proposed PUD amendment will not affect the PUD's current level of compliance X8: Future Land Use MaD Desiflnation The FLUM ofthe Eagle County Community Plan identifIes the subject property as a "Community Center". "Community Centers are places where mixes of residential and non-residential activities appropriate to serve the Community Center and surrounding rural areas take place. Community facilities, commercial, residential and mixed use communities, are appropriately located within Community Centers as are community-oriented facilities" . 18 09/08/09 EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance Xl Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x x x x x x Applicable XI The subject property is not located in an area identifIed as a "unique landform". Overall, the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and ancillary documents. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. This fInding is not applicable. D EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS 19 09/08/09 ~ MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)J- 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 Master Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor 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. Open space as delineated within the current Willits Bend PUD Guide will not be changed as a result of this PUD Amendment. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)J - 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. d d : 'j li .;: li iJ B [ :S' '&i 5.= e .~ o d I [~ ~.- .2bJ~1 O~~l l%l~ 9.sa i6i ~!~ !~ :Vi jl ~ := e ~!g~ iia~ ~Q., 20 09/08/09 ... Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR R.equitement X X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable!No ECLUR Requirement Natural Resource Protections will not be altered as a result of this proposed PUD Amendment. ~ 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 Sketch and Preliminary Plan for a Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (l)} - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. Overall, the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the spirit and intent of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and ancillary documents. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - 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. ts a'(! a'(! fj fj .[.~ ! .~ !~ <<) Si '" l]~j ~1 is ",1;1 ] ~'jl ~.S I 8 (/J] 'Om '" Sii! 6b i ~ ~~ 39 .... "'JeB (/J Z .,:l..r/) _(/J Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable!No ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR uirements Deviations Requested X X X X X x X X ---~--- The existing Willits Bend PUD complies with all applicable standards and provisions of the Land Use Regulations utilized by Eagle County during the initial evaluation and approval of the Willits Bend PUD in 2006 and subsequent amendments. This proposal to amend the Willits Bend PUD will not alter Consistency with the Land Use Regulations. 21 09/08/09 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - 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. (a) 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 Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) 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. (c) 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. No ineffIciencies have been identifIed with respect to this proposal. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] -The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affixt the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. The Board of County Commissioners in 2006 determined that the subject property was suitable for development. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - 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. The compatibility of the Willits Bend PUD with surrounding uses will not be affected by this PUD amendment. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: 22 09/08/09 Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240. F. 2. a. (8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: A Proposed PUD guide settingforth the proposed land use restrictions. This requirement has been satisfIed. ~ 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 5-240.F.3.m Amendment to Preliminttrv Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3. m.} - No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provision of Section 24-67- 104(1)(e) Colorado Revised Statutes that: (1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not effect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or public interest; (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. In addition to the above requirements a Preliminary Plan for PUD may be amended, extended, varied or altered only pursuant to the standards and procedures established for its original approval. (1) The modification, removal or release of the provisions of the existing Willits Bend PUD Guide is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development; (2) The proposed PUD Amendment will not effect, in a substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Willits Bend Planned Unit Development or public interest; (3) This proposed PUD Amendment, if approved, will not confer a special benefit upon any one person but rather, may confer a uniform special benefit upon all owners of property located within the Willits Bend Planned Unit Development. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department: Please refer to the attached Engineering Department memorandum dated February 10th, 2009. These comments are incorporated as conditions of approval. Town of Basalt: Please refer to the attached response from the town of Basalt dated March 17th 2009 Note: Referrals were also sent with no response received to the Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County environmental Health, ECO Transit, Eagle County Housing Department, Eagle County Road & Bridge Department, RE-IGarfIeld County School District (Transportation), Eagle County Sheriff's OffIce, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Basalt & Rural FPD, Holy Cross Electric, NWCCOG, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Pitkin County and Water Conservation Board. 23 09/08/09 C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELffiERATION: On July 16th the RFVRPC heard and chose to table the file and requested the applicant to provide the commission with the following information: (All referenced information is included in the Board of County Commissioners packet) I. Updated traffic study to quantify how the lifting the cap on residential units from 16 would impact development traffic. 2. A general visual overview of the Willits Bend PUD 3. A point-by-point response to the Town of Basalt's response letter dated March 17th 2009 4. Current build out use type with allotted parking distribution D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: 1. Currently approval ofa residential unit in the Willits Bend PUD requires staff to process a Limited Review file. Allowing removal of this administrative process would free up valuable staff time and streamline the approval process. Tracking mechanisms currently exist to monitor the 24,000 square foot residential cap. 2. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify the fact that (i) mezzanines and lofts cannot be used as bedrooms and (ii) enclosed lofts and mezzanines are to be counted as developable square footage but open mezzanines which satisfy the IBC requirements are not to be counted as developable square footage, unless they are incorporated into a purely offIce use. 3. The parking reduction rationale (included in the memo dated June 29th) asserts that the development is currently operating at a 25% parking surplus. The applicant is asking for what amounts to a 12% reduction in required parking. Eagle County Engineering has found this rationale to be acceptable. 4. This would not affect the total allowable square footage of the residential component of the PUD. The Allowable square footage would remain at 24,000 square feet. Lifting of the cap would allow additional smaller "attainable" units and could help to promote Live / Work confIgurations. 5. Maximum 50% of 1st floor area with all commercial (non-residential) facing Widget Street. Would help to ensure live-work feel. Benefits/Disadvanta2es BenefIts: . Adding "Residential" to the list of allowed uses would streamline the permitting and eliminate unnecessary use of staff resources needed to evaluate and process Limited review applications as well as encouraging mixed use. . Lifting the 16 unit residential cap would allow for a more market compatible square footage units and thus also provide for a potentially more "attainable" unit size without increasing the total square footage of the project. . Additional clarifying language regarding Mezzanines will streamline building permit review. Disadvantages: . The parking reduction request if improperly calculated and managed could create a burden on the residents of the development. 24 09/08/09 E. Board of County Commissioners OPTIONS: 1. Approve the PUD Amendment without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the PUD Amendment if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the PUD Amendment if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the PUD Amendment 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. The applicant shall provide a detailed account of current owner confIgurations as well as provide documentation of each new owner finish at time of building permit to include: new use configuration and parking allotment changes. This documentation would provide evidence to Community Development of adequate parking for each new unit fmish. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the fIle. He presented a PowerPoint slide show detailing the request. The purpose of the PUD amendment was to add "residential" to the list of allowed uses, revise the parking type, eliminate the cap of the number of residential units, and revise the 10% limitation on fIrst floor residential square footage. David Myler, representative for the applicant spoke to the board. He was trying to get approval to produce smaller live / work units. There was a cap on the number of units and they were going to run out of units before they ran out of the allowable square footage. Commissioner Runyon asked about the original building configuration. Mr. Myler stated that it had always been envisioned that the second floor could be commercial and some portion of the fIrst floor could be residential. They'd like to have the ability to put more residential on the ground floor as long as it wasn't fronting on Widget St. Commissioner Runyon stated that his understanding of the live/work concept was that they were a single unit. Mr. Myler stated that the project was designed with 1000 square foot bays and there could be a bedroom as part of the bay. The horizontal dimensions were the same, but the roofs were a little different. Glen Rappaport, architect on the project spoke. The project had changed a little since they started. When they started the project, they thought they would be able to sell more manufacturing and wholesale space to balance out larger and smaller users. They were responding to what they saw on the market. Commissioner Stavney stated that they were looking for more residential density in the same footprint. 25 09/08/09 Mr. Myler agreed that it would be more residential density. Chairman Fisher asked if the sales price would vary, whether they would consider leasing units, and what the sale price was. Rob Tobias spoke to the board as owner of the property. The sales prices started as low as $495,000 into the upper $600,000 range. Commissioner Stavney asked how they were adding residential to the list of allowed uses. Mr. Hanagan stated that the applicant originally requested a limited review process. The applicant was now requesting to remove that because it had become cumbersome. After the cap in a certain building were met there would no longer be any additional residential. When the property reached 24,000 square feet, they would not be able to sell more residential. Mr. Myler stated that they were required to provide 4 deed restricted units subject to resident occupancy. They were only building the second of nine buildings. The fIrst two buildings did not have any restricted RO units. Chairman Fisher wondered if the proposal was to increase potential residential units by decreasing the size from 1000 square feet to 500 per unit. Mr. Hanagan provided the fourth amendment request. The request would increase the number of units, by up to 14 additional units. The intent was to create more live / work units. Mr. Myler stated that more residential units would create more traffic. They did a traffIc study, which indicated it would not cause any additional problems. They felt that adding units would add vitality and vibrancy to the project. Commissioner Stavney stated that some units were 500, some were 900, and some were 1000. He stated that they were probably talking about going from 16 to 30 units. Mr. Rappaport mentioned that they had envisioned some non-separated live / work units. In the 2009 code, they could defIne a single 1000-foot space with no separation between the live / work accommodations. Mr. Hanagan spoke about mezzanines and lofts, and the restrictions for using these as bedrooms. Chairman Fisher wondered if in each of the units there was an upstairs / downstairs component. Mr. Rappaport indicated that in building 4 there were no mezzanines constructed, however several owners had constructed mezzanines. Either first or second floor could accommodate a mezzanine due to the 16-foot ceilings. Mr. Hanagan showed two open spaces. The third amendment related to parking. The applicant didn't feel it necessary to allot parking for both live and work functions. They were currently working at a 25% parking surplus. Mr. Myler stated that they would still have the number of spaces on the site, but be reducing the number for each live / work units. Mr. Rappaport indicated that the parking had been discussed at homeowner's meetings. Commissioner Runyon stated that the formula was based on the developer's formula and the developer was asking for a reduction in the formula. The question became what is the appropriate ratio. Mr. Rappaport stated that it would not be in their best interest to sell small units because the parking requirements would become a problem. Commissioner Runyon stated that when the project was started a better market survey might have been completed. He felt it seemed pretty open ended and suggested market studies prior to changing the PUD at this time. Mr. Rappaport stated that a study was done in the beginning. They determined that there was a piece ofthe market place that was not being served. They had a lot of activity before the economy went down. He thought they had a great product out there. Commissioner Runyon wondered what was currently built and if they intended on taking some of the designating parking spaces from the existing units. Mr. Myler stated that if any of the units were to become truly live / work then the new parking regulations would apply. Commissioner Runyon asked if current owners would lose parking spaces with the new formula. Mr. Myler stated they would not lose parking spaces. However, they would have the ability contractually to limit or expand the amount of parking that a buyer might need. Commissioner Stavney asked how many limited reviews had been gone through. He wondered if it was an administrative review. He wondered if the owner would be willing to put a limit on the minimum square footage for residential. He asked for 500 square feet. 26 09/08/09 Mr. Rappaport stated that the minimum in the mc was 350 square feet. The units would vary from between 900 and 1400 square feet - which would then be divided into some configuration of live / work. The live portion would never be less than 350 square feet. Mr. Myler stated that the Town of Basalt was concerned that someone would buy the entire second floor and put in a penthouse. They found that there was a demand for smaller units and no demand for pure residential. Mr. Hanagan described the difference between limited review and a non-limited review. Chairman Fisher wondered why the staff recommended this type of review. Mr. Hanagan stated that there was a lot mentioned about the concept of live / work. The limited review process allowed the county to make sure there was a good mix oflive / work. Commissioner Runyon wondered about buying three adjacent units. Mr. Rappaport stated that this was the largest of the possibilities. Commissioner Runyon stated that at one point there was a concept of more artisan type of use. Mr. Rappaport indicated that there was a list of allowed uses. There were covenants based on hazardous use and noise levels. There was an eclectic mix of uses currently. Chairman Fisher wondered if she were to buy 500 square feet to turn into her live / work studio. In this scenario, she wondered how much she could spend. Mr. Tobias stated that the current minimum was a 900 square foot unit. The square footage of the unit was still 900 feet. They have a 24,000 square foot quota for residential. Mr. Rappaport stated that typically a live /work unit would be 50 / 50. If the owner desired to change the live / work ratio they would have to apply to the association. Mr. Tobias explained the formula for residential feet allowed. The absolute number of units at 16 creates a problem in building out the project. Mr. Rappaport stated that they would not be able to provide adequate parking unless the total number of units was less than 30. Mr. Myler stated that he understood the discomfort about the number of units. He felt it would be no more than 30 units, and possibly less. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the response from the Town of Basalt. He wondered about conditions related to this letter. Mr. Hanagan stated that the letter he received in March spoke about some of the amendments, but ultimately recommended approval of the amendments. Mr. Morris stated that when Jacquie Whitsitt was at the previous hearing she supported the project. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the town being opposed to the limited review process. Mr. Myler stated that the town mis-stated the limited review process. They were promoting live work, but owners could actually work there but live elsewhere. Commissioner Stavney wondered if residential owners could lease their space to renters. Mr. Myler stated that this was possible. Commissioner Stavney stated that the live / work was sort of experimental and he understood how this evolved. He felt that perhaps too many restrictions were put on the project to allow the project to be successful. He would be happy to table the request to another meeting if the other commissioners wanted more time to consider it. Commissioner Runyon stated that he did not see a down side, the request seemed reasonable. The concept was a good one and it should be allowed to proceed. Mr. Greg Schroeder stated that he agreed with the parking calculation based on the surplus currently available. Commissioner Stavney wondered about parking utilization. Mr. Rappaport indicated that visitors would park on Widget St. Chairman Fisher stated that if units were subleased it could open the door for abuse. Mr. Rappaport stated that he did not believe this would be a legal use of live/work space because it would still have to be purchased as a legal live/work space. Chairman Fisher was a bit overwhelmed and confused - and she requested the opportunity to sit with staff and get more clarity. Commissioner Runyon agreed, as he wanted a better handle on the ultimate ratio and perhaps a cap on the number of dwelling units. He felt perhaps that 30 would be a reasonable cap. He also wanted to understand why the original number of 16 was set. He indicated that he was in favor of some increase. Commissioner Stavney stated that he would be okay with tabling the fIle. However, he had been ready to move it forward. 27 09/08/09 Chairman Fisher wondered if this was truly work force housing and whether the live / work concept made sense. She wondered about restrictions for owner or local occupation because the majority of the Willits units had been sold as second home investments. Commissioner Stavney spoke about issues with requiring owner occupied requirements - and the potential drawbacks associated. He suggested a site visit. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public input, as there was none. Mr. Morris stated that they could do a site visit on Monday the September 14th, 2009. Commissioner Stavney moved to table file number PDA-2142 Willits Bend PUD Amendment until September 29,2009. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Work Session - TreasurerIPublic Trustee Budget Karen Sheaffer, Treasurer Recorded Work Session - Facilities Management Budget Tom Johnson, Public Works Postponed There being no further business befl o ..., , the meeting was adjourned until September 15, 2009. ~~ ~ Q-- ~ f&k... Chairman 28 09/08/09