Loading...
Minutes 05/28/10 PUBLIC HEARING May 25, 2010 Present: Sara Fisher Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Jon Stavney Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney Christina Hooper Assistant County Attorney Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board Kathy Scriver 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: Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Weeks of May 24 and May 31, 2010 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of Payroll for June 3, 2010 (subject to review by the Finance Director Finance Department Representative C. Approval of the Minutes of the Board of County Commissioners Meeting for April 27, 2010 Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. Agreement Regarding Provision of Professional Services for Temple Glassier on behalf of the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Trails Committee Planning Department Representative E. Resolution 2010 -056 for Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty Period for Siloam Springs Development Engineering / Attorney's Office Representatives F. Resolution 2010 -057 Vacating Amended Final Plat for Fox Run Meadows PUD, Lot 22, at Request and with Consent of Current Owner of Such Plat so as to Return Such Lot 22 to its State Immediately Prior to Recording of such Amended Final Plat Engineering Department / County Attorney Representative G. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Colorado Family Planning Initiative Task Orders #4 Anne Robinson, Health & Human Services 11. On -call Services Agreement between Eagle County and Meadow Mountain Plumbing & Heating Service, Inc. Ron Siebert, Project Management I. Fixed Bid Construction Agreement between Eagle County Colorado and Mountain Home Properties Rick Ullom, Project Management 1 05/25/2010 J. Eagle County Home Connections Application for United Way of the Eagle River Valley Program Funding for Housekeeping Services Holly Kasper, Health & Human Services K. Annexation Plan for Longview Subdivision Lots 1A, 2, 3, 5 and a Part of Jules Way County Attorney's Office Representative Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes or revisions. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -K. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office APPLICANT: Kirby Cosmos Edwards, LLC TRADE NAME: Kirby Cosmos BBQ Bar of Edwards REPRESENTATIVE: Michael Deutschman, Owner LOCATION: 0056 Edwards Village Blvd. Unit R -7 — Edwards (Edwards Corner) REQUEST: Transfer of Ownership STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has submitted an application to transfer the Hotel and Restaurant liquor license previously held by ARG #1, LLC d/b /a Suza. The applicant is currently operating under a temporary license issued by the local licensing authority on March 16, 2010. LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the fees have been paid. 2. Whether the applicants are of good moral character 3. If applicant plans to make any physical change, alteration or modification of the licensed premises, whether the premises, and if changed, altered or modified, will meet all of the pertinent requirements of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Codes, including, but not limited to the following factors: a. the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants; 2 05/25/2010 b. the possession, by the licensee, of the changed premises by ownership, lease, rental or other arrangement; c. compliance with the applicable zoning laws of the county; and d. compliance with the distance prohibition in regard to any public or parochial school. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees have been paid. 2. The state and local licensing authorities have previously licensed the premises where such alcohol . beverages will be sold and such licenses were valid at the time the application for transfer of ownership was filed with the local licensing authority. 3. The applicant is reported to be of good moral character. 4. The Affidavit of Transfer and Statement of Compliance has been received. 5. The applicant is over 21, fingerprints are on file. 6. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, May 14, 2010, 10 days prior to the hearing. 7. Publication of the notice is not required for a transfer of ownership. 8. The applicant does not wish to make any physical changes, alterations, or modifications to the licensed premises, which would alter the licensed premises, or the usage of the licensed premises. STAFF CONCLUSION: The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for a transfer of ownership and all findings are positive. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the file. Mr. Deutschman was present as the owner. He stated that the establishment was a family restaurant and bar and they had great expectations. They had a very experienced staff and knew how to handle liquor sales and run the business. His son -in -law was the other principal involved in running the business. Commissioner Runyon asked about the location. Mr. Deutschman stated that the location was next to the Marble Slab Creamery in Edwards Corner. Commissioner Stavney stated that he had no concerns. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority, incorporating staff's findings, approve the transfer of the Hotel and Restaurant liquor license held by ARG #1, LLC d/b /a Suza to Kirby Cosmos Edwards, LLC d/b /a Kirby Cosmos BBQ Bar of Edwards. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re- convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 3 05/25/2010 Resolution 2010 -058 Concerning the Abatement Settlement Recommendations County Attorney, Bryan Treu presented the recommendations. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the resolution concerning the abatement settlement recommendations. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Petitioner Schedule Number Raymond Oglethorpe R045612 Joan Berger R033970 Gerald L. Stempler R008205 Resolution 2010 -059 Concerning Hearings on Taxpayer Generated Petitions for Abatements and Refunds of Taxes Assessor's Office Representative Mark Chapin Mr. Chapin spoke about the petition process. He stated that if there was reason to object to the recommendations the assessor's office would bring these objections forward. Once the board approved the recommendations, the owners were given notice. Commissioner Stavney asked if there was a total for the amount refunded to taxpayers through the abatement process for the year. Mr. Chapin stated that this was tracked, and the report would be available but not immediately. He offered to forward a copy to the finance director. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the resolution concerning hearings on taxpayer - generated petitions for abatements and refunds of taxes. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Petitioner Schedule Number Eddress Ahmad Jr. R022373 Alpine Lumber Company R019905 DirecTV, Inc. Multiple Schedule Numbers (2009) DirecTV, Inc. Multiple Schedule Numbers (2007, 2008) Elkhorn Properties LLC R006918 Mary Howell R008227 Jackman Ranch Partners LLC R019944 Jackman Ranch Partners LLC R019943 Stephen & Nancy Kerby R022371 Rick & Nancy Murphy R011605 Chris Ordway R028004 Richard B. Quigley R040434 James & Beth Sankey R045300 SPI Golf Inc. R055645 Mary Jo DeMaio R011551 4 05/25/2010 Coyote River Ranch Open Space Request Kris Valdez, Planning Title: Coyote River Ranch — Final Funding Request Owner: Karl Berger PO Box 2329, Avon, Colorado 81620 Location: Property is located on the Colorado River south of (upstream from) I -70 in Dotsero Date: May 18, 2010 Representative: Kara Heide, Eagle Valley Land Trust Staff Planner: Kris Valdez, Planner I. Project Overview The Eagle Valley Land Trust (EVLT), representing Karl Berger, is requesting Eagle County Open Space Tax funds in the amount of $1.85 million to purchase in fee simple 126.586 acres of Coyote River Ranch, then placing the purchased property under a conservation easement to be held by EVLT. The entire Coyote River Ranch is 166.586 acres. The remaining 40 acres is proposed to remain with the land owner. This would require further subdivision of the property. The property is located on the Colorado River just up stream from Dotsero. That portion of the land proposed for conservation on the east side of the river valley would be used as a large irrigated hayfield and livestock pasture. The balance of the conserved property is proposed to be used as open and recreational space. The property was originally homestead in 1902. Purchasing this property will preserve views, visual quality in the area, and could provide a new public access point to the Colorado River. A draft conservation easement has been submitted, but it is general in nature and does not address the specifics of the property. The land owner did not want to spend money on a more specific conservation easement until a favorable recommendation from OSAC was given to the Board. This was requested at the time of application per the application checklist. The Open Space Advisory Committee preliminarily reviewed this project in executive session in April 2009, then in a preliminary public session November 2009, January 2010, February 2010, and March 2010. A formal funding application was received March 29, 2010. On April 12, 2010, OSAC reviewed the formal submittal and final funding request. The total appraised value of the 126.586 acres that is being considered by this application is $2.379 million. The appraisal was done by David E. Peterson in October 2009. The land owner has agreed to a bargain sale, with a contribution of $529,000 value resulting in a funding request to Eagle County of $1.85 million, or 77% of the appraised land value. EVLT will be applying to Great Outdoors Colorado and Colorado Conservation Partnership for additional funding if the County does not fund the full amount. II. Land Description The Coyote River Ranch is located on the Colorado River south of the 1 -70 corridor in Dotsero. (see map) The property contains both sides of Colorado River for almost a mile as it flows into Dotsero and a large amount of riparian habitat. On the eastern side, there are 17 acres of irrigated hayfield and livestock pasture. There is one livestock/animal fence separating the lower and upper portions approximately where the conservation easement line would be on the ranch. There is also a small weather shelter for horses. The east side of the property, described as the upper bench, is hilly and characterized by sparse vegetation and sage brush habitat. The train right -of -way separates the lower and upper benches. 5 05/25/2010 According to the application, legal access is from Cotton Lane, for the western half of the property. The eastern tract has physical access but not legal access. It consists of a paved driveway that crosses Mr. Jay Taylor's property which is located on the southern side of Coyote River Ranch. Please see the Zoning and Ownership map provided in the packets for the exact location. The land owner has spoken with Mr. Taylor and he has agreed to provide legal access to the eastern portion of the property in the future. Verification of this access agreement should be required prior to funding the project. The senior water rights on the property date back to 1902 and are intended to stay with the land. A portion of these rights would be transferred with the purchase but this has not been valued in the appraisal yet. The amount to stay with the land has not been provided. If the County purchases the property with the use of open space funds the property would be placed in the County's open space program, and would restrict the uses on the property to those detailed in Eagle County Resolutions 2003 -097 and 2004 -015, which established the Open Space program. Improvements consistent with the intent of the Eagle County Open Space Program might be contemplated, but no specific plans exist at this time. III. Site and Transaction Information Total land area: 126.586 acres Land Area in Eagle County: 126.586 acres Current Land Use /Zoning: Agricultural/Resource Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Public Land BLM /Resource and Resource Preservation West: Colorado River, Public Land BLM /Resource and Resource Preservation, Private Land/Resource North: Public Land BLM /Resource and Resource Preservation, Private Land/Resource South: Private Land/Resource, Commercial General Proposed Ownership: Ownership of the ranch would be transferred to Eagle County and a Conservation Easement would be held by Eagle Valley Land Trust Preliminary Appraised Value of the Property: $3,130,000 — This included the entire ranch property and was valued as a conservation easement, not a fee simple purchase. The price for purchase requested by the applicant as $2,379,000 Owner's Contribution: $529,000 (23 %) Other Funding Sources: No other funds are listed at this time Open Space Funding Request: $1,850,000 (approximately 100% of value) Budget Shortfall: None IV. OSAC Limited Review: At its scheduled meeting on April 2009, November 2009, January 2010, February 2010, and March 2010, the Citizen's Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) considered the information submitted by the owners' representative and EVLT. A motion was made to request additional information about this project and that a formal application be submitted. A formal application was submitted on March 29, 2010. As stated previously, a final draft of a conservation easement and final appraisal were not submitted due to financial commitment required by the owner. On April 12, 2010, OSAC reviewed the formal submittal and final funding request. V. Criteria Analysis — OSAC Recommendation The following analysis is offered pursuant to Eagle County Resolution 2004 -021, Approving and Adopting Open Space Criteria to Prioritize the Selection of Eligible Lands for Open Space: 6 05/25/2010 A. Background On November 5, 2002, the voters of Eagle County approved Referendum IH, which provided for an increase in taxes to fund an open space acquisition and maintenance program for the County. The ballot provided that open space funds could be used for preserving wildlife habitat, protecting working farms and ranches, conserving scenic landscapes and vistas, protecting wetlands and floodplains, providing public access points to rivers and streams and servicing future voter approved debt related to this purpose. Pursuant to this end and in concert with the Referendum IH ballot language, six criteria were developed to be used by OSAC to evaluate properties that might be acquired or set aside as open space within the County. For each criterion, qualitative ratings of High, Medium, Low and Not Applicable can be assigned based on the property's known physical characteristics. B. Open Space Criteria A description regarding the attributes of this portion of the Colorado River Ranch considered for a conservation easement follows each of the open space evaluation criteria listed below. I. Scenic Landscapes and Vistas. Preserve and protect Eagle County's outstanding natural beauty and visual quality. Staff Comments: There is high public visual exposure, specifically from I -70, a primary travel route, the Colorado River Road, and to recreationalists on the Colorado River. This property has high visual quality, vegetative diversity and contributes positively to the rural sense of place in the Colorado River valley. Prominent ridgelines on the property are visual throughout the view corridor from I -70. The project would preserve the visual quality, the irrigated agricultural land and riparian areas along river. The property on the upper bench is generally undisturbed and in a natural state. The long term visual benefits are free from potential future obstructions on adjacent or surrounding properties. The protection of this property would greatly add to the community and the open space surrounding it, not only in the current state, but also as the first step in preserving other private lands along the Colorado River corridor. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. OSAC Unanimous Recommendation — Scenic Quality Ranking: High II. Regional Heritage, Agriculture and Ranching. Retain Eagle County's history, culture and agricultural land uses. Staff Comments: The Coyote River Ranch was homesteaded in 1902, but the property has not been used continuously as a working ranch since that time. The current use on that portion of the property proposed for purchase is a 17 acre irrigated hay field and livestock pasture on the east side of the river and the rest of the 126.586 acres is proposed for use as open and recreational space. The preservation of the Coyote River Ranch would maintain the rural character and visual quality of the area preserving it for future generations. The senior water rights on the property date back to 1902 and are intended to stay with the purchased land. A portion of these rights would be transferred with the purchase but this has not been valued in the appraisal yet. The entire ranch has 2.01 CFS. The amount proposed to stay with the land has not been provided. The property is contiguous to BLM lands. The portion of the property devoted to ranching is smaller in scale and the long term viability of the ranching use is less certain therefore the ranking drops from High to Medium. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. 7 05/25/2010 OSAC Unanimous Recommendation — Regional Heritage Ranking: Medium III. Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat and Migration Routes. Set aside areas critical to the long term health and vitality of indigenous wildlife. Staff Comments: The Coyote River Ranch contains significant mapped wildlife areas according to the Colorado Division of Wildlife. The property provides critical winter range, highway crossing, overall range, severe winter range, summer range, and winter range for mule deer. The property contains critical habitat, breeding and nesting areas for waterfowl and raptors. The ranch provides nesting areas for peregrine and a foraging area for blue herons as well as winter forage and winter range for bald eagles. Mountain lions, moose, black bear, and big horn sheep have overall range on the property. The area is considered overall range, severe winter range, summer range and winter range for elk. The ranch is contiguous with other existing public lands of importance to wildlife. Please see the maps provided in the packet. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. OSAC Unanimous Recommendation — Wildlife Ranking: High IV. Sensitive Lands & Environments. Protect riparian areas, floodplains, and other sensitive, unique or endangered ecosystems or environments. Staff Comments: The 126.586 acres proposed for conservation contains riparian or wetland areas, specifically on the Colorado River corridor. Protection of the Coyote River Ranch would contribute to the long term viability of the larger ecosystem in the Colorado River. Once again, this property is contiguous with other existing public lands. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. OSAC Unanimous Recommendation — Sensitive Lands Ranking: High V. Physical and Visual Buffers. Promote community separation and distinction, and provide separation between developed areas and sensitive lands. Staff Comments: Currently, there is limited development on the surrounding properties since large portions of the adjacent properties are public, but some areas to the south of the property are zoned Commercial General. If preserved, this property would serve as a community buffer between the Colorado River corridor and the Dotsero community. The property is somewhat isolated from development centers as well as development corridors and therefore the ranking drops from high to medium. OSAC Comments: Some members of OSAC believed this will be a future buffer area for the Colorado River valley corridor agricultural lands from the future development of Dotsero. Therefore, according to some OSAC members, the ranking should be moved from Medium to High. Staff Recommendation — Physical and Visual Buffer Ranking: Medium OSAC Recommendation — Physical and Visual Buffer Ranking: High — one OSAC member opposed the change in ranking 8 05/25/2010 VI. Access to Streams, Rivers, Public Lands and Dispersed Recreation Opportunities. Provide access to public lands, and improve opportunities for high quality dispersed recreation. Staff Comments: The acquisition would permit access to an area of high desirability and suitability for dispersed recreational uses. It is close to Dotsero and is on a primary travel route. It has yet to be determined the cost of necessary improvements, maintenance, and monitoring of the public access to determine if those would be reasonable for the project. The areas of public access would require mapping for a 404 application to the Army Corp of Engineers. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of dredged, excavated, or fill material in wetlands, streams, rivers, and other U.S. waters. Depending on the scope of the project and method of construction, certain farming activities may require this permit. Examples include ponds, embankments, and stream channelization. Staff is concerned about the necessity and time to obtain an Army Corp of Engineers 404 permit to create river access which could occur anytime after the purchase through the riparian areas. Additionally staff is not certain that the effort to provide access is this area would result in significant public benefit. The impact to sensitive riparian areas and would require the County to obtain a 404 permit as well as construct, maintain and monitor the new river access, therefore the ranking drops from High to Medium. OSAC Comments: Two members stated the ranking should be moved from Medium to High because the ranking should not be reduced based on potential project costs and obtaining 404 permits. OSAC Recommendation — Access Ranking: Medium — two OSAC members opposed the ranking of Medium and wanted it changed to High B. Additional Project Considerations The following represents those items listed as `Additional Criteria and Considerations" in Eagle County's Open Space Criteria. For the purpose of discussion, the two sections, "Factors Favoring Land Protection" and "Factors Weighing Against Land Protection" have been consolidated into single positive statements that can be evaluated for conformance. At the April 12, 2010 OSAC meeting, all 11 Project Considerations were unanimously approved. Economy. Discounts, other funding, partnerships, land donation, and /or endowment contribution favorably reduce the County's portion of the purchase cost. Staff Comments: According to the information in application, the $1.85 million is proposed for funding from the County. The land owner's representative has indicated the County will probably only fund between 60% and 70% of the request. Depending on the amount funded by the Board of County Commissioners, the land owner's representative will then seek other funding sources, such as Great Outdoors Colorado and the Colorado Conservation Partnership. OSAC Comments: Some members are concerned with the lack of funding partners, but one member would like it noted that the property owner is contributing $529,000 off the appraised value of the property and should be considered a funding partner. Since the Coyote River Ranch is included in one of the 24 most important conservation landscapes in Colorado as identified by five of the state's leading conservation organizations; the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Lands, The Conservation Fund, Colorado Open Lands, and Colorado Conservation Trust, these organizations should be contacted as possible funding partners. It was also suggested commercial rafting companies should be contacted for funding as well. 9 05/25/2010 • II. Master Plan. Land or development rights acquisition is supported by the intent and purposes of applicable Eagle County Master Plan documents. Staff Comments: The preservation of this property meets the intent of the Eagle County Open Space Plan, which states that the functions of Open Space include the following: Maintain rural atmosphere Protect natural and social resources Maintain visual quality Control development in unsuitable areas Policies within the 2006 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan that also apply to this project include 3.2.2 - Quality of Life, Policy — a. Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for future generations. 3.3.5 — Other Industries, Policy — j. Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations. 3.6.5 River Recreation, Policy — i. Water related recreation should be encouraged where appropriate at a level that will not damage related resources, ecosystems and environments. 3.7.6 Wildlife Resources — a. The quality, integrity and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved. Eagle County's Future Land Use Map (FLUM) indicates this area as "Rural ", which contemplates densities of one unit per 35 acres and agricultural or resource - oriented uses. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. III. Urgency. Development of the property, to a degree that open space values would be significantly compromised, is imminent. Staff Comments: According to the land owner, the following parties are currently interested in portions of the ranch: 1. Greenport systems: They are interested in the whole 166 acres to access the active rail owned by Union Pacific, as well as construction of a manufacturing facility for panelized construction of homes, and to implement commuter rail service to Vail and Leadville. Greenport is currently in the earliest stages of negotiations with the parties involved and any action at this time is premature, according to the landowner, but the suggested price range for the entire ranch is $4 to $5 million. 2. Colorado State Land Board, the State Land Board Director, Brownell Bailey and Chris Smith are negotiating a land exchange for a parcel owned by the State Land Board in Eagle Vail for 70 to 80 northern acres of the Coyote River Ranch. This could potentially be completed by fall 2010. 3. Jerry Butters, an adjoining land owner, is interested in obtaining 10 acres and a portion of water rights to supplement his 25 acres, allowing him to build an additional home on his parcel. This would include the 10 acres indentified for a parking area and river access point. 4. Colorado River Center, Rio Ranch are interested in a lease, lease to purchase or outright purchase of river frontage to operate another river center and recreational facility. According to the landowner, the representatives have had several conversations with Bob Narracci, Eagle County Planning Manager to discuss current land uses allowed under Resource zoning. This would require a special use permit and a CDOT access permit. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. 10 05/25/2010 IV. Uniqueness. The subject property is the only remaining, or one of a very few remaining, opportunities to protect open space of its kind. Staff Comments: The proposal presents the opportunity to obtain additional access to the Colorado River, where it was formally private property. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. V. Precedent. The project sets positive precedent for open space preservation values and objectives, and may motivate other landowners to consider preservation alternatives. Staff Comments: This project sets a strong positive precedent for conservation easements and open space acquisitions in the Dotsero Area and along the Colorado River corridor. Purchasing the property and having EVLT hold a conservation easement on this property could provide the first stepping stone to conserving sections of the Colorado River corridor. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. VI. Education. Preservation would provide unique educational opportunities Staff Comments: Partnerships could be created with the school district and the Eagle Valley Historical Society since there is a rich history on the property. Any education opportunities would be provided by Eagle County since we would be the property owner. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. VII. Support. There is wide - spread community support for the project. Staff Comments: There are no letters of support or objection for the project. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. VIII. Big Picture. The project has potentially significant benefit on a regional or state -wide basis. Staff Comments: The Coyote River Ranch is included in one of the 24 most important conservation landscapes in Colorado as identified by five of the state's leading conservation organizations; the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Lands, The Conservation Fund, Colorado Open Lands, and Colorado Conservation Trust. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. IX. Encumbrance. The property is not negatively encumbered by mineral rights, rights - of -way or easements. Staff Comments: The surface and subsurface mineral rights are owned by the land owner. In the past, the land owner has been approached by Elam Paving, La Farge as well as B &B to discuss the possibility of removing gravel from the property. The railroad bisects the property and holds an easement to maintain their corridor of operation which ranges from 100 to 150 feet wide. Dorothy Hague, an adjoining property owner, has a right -of -way along the east side of the Colorado River on the northern portion of the property, but has agreed to sign a quit claim deed to the present land owner. A copy of the quit claim deed has been submitted to staff and distributed to OSAC. 11 05/25/2010 OSAC Comments: No additional comments. X. Environmental Hazards. The property is not significantly burdened by environmental hazards (chemicals) or other waste or refuse. Staff Comments: According to the application, the owner is not aware of any current or historic use of hazardous materials on the property. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. XI. Maintenance. The long term cost to the County of maintaining and /or monitoring the land is expected to be reasonably low. Staff Comments: It has yet to be determined the cost of necessary improvements, maintenance, and monitoring of the property to determine if those would be reasonable for the project. Staff suggests the property owner works with EVLT to determine the costs for improvements, maintenance, and monitoring. Then submit these findings for review by the Board of County Commissioners prior to a funding decision. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. DISCUSSION: Cliff Simonton presented the findings of the OSAC using a PowerPoint presentation. He stated that the Coyote River Ranch was just north of Dotsero. The proposed sale area was 126 acres, of which there were currently 17 acres irrigated, with just over one mile of river frontage. The request was for $1.85 million fee simple purchase. The Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) met at least four times to discuss this potential purchase. There was still the question of the senior water rights as they might go with the property. Tom Edwards stated that there could be access to rafters and anglers and for that reason, a medium grade was given. He spoke about the consistency with the purposes and intents of the master plan. The Colorado River center had approached the owner with the idea of offering a river take out location on the land. The project was unique due to the river frontage and views provided. This would set a positive precedent for open space acquisitions. No educational programs were proposed but there were opportunities. The Colorado River corridor had been identified as one of the most important conservation landscapes in Colorado. There were questions about the long -term costs to the county. Commissioner Stavney asked whether there were any other private properties upstream on the east side of the river. Mr. Simonton stated he did not believe there were any until further up the river. Commissioner Runyon asked to know how many private parcels there were on the entire up the river parcel. Kara Heide offered to bring answers to these questions at a later date. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the Conservation Fund had identified or prioritized the properties along the river corridor. Ms. Heide stated that this had all been done and she would provide it for the board's review. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the Conservation Fund had taken any leadership on purchasing parcels. Commissioner Stavney asked about the section identified as one of the most important corridors. Ms. Heide stated that the upper Colorado River north of Dotsero was the area involved. Chairman Fisher spoke about Grand County having done their inventory study. Paul Bird presented the request on behalf of Karl Berger. He stated that this piece of land satisfied many of the Open Space Fund criteria. He provided a project overview. Portions of the parcel had been considered for gravel extraction by Elam Paving, LaFarge and B and B. The zoning was currently resource zoning and would allow up to 6 home sites. There could be space for public access for boaters and tubers. The project was appraised at $2,379,000 and Mr. Berger was asking for $1.85 million. Mr. Berger's donation would be $529,000.00. This would be allowed as a tax deduction. He highlighted the gains to Eagle County. The 126,000 acres could provide 12 05/25/2010 space for parking and boat intake / outtake, space for passive recreation and the proper use of the Open Space tax fund. New New Wallace spoke to the board. She rode the river road last year and spoke about the potential for development as of yet not identified. Kara Heide spoke as the executive director of the Eagle Valley Land Trust. There was $130,000,000 in real estate sales occurred in April, double the amount sold in 2009. She shared that she recently had an opportunity to attend the Eagle River watershed council. She spoke about House bill 1188. The Colorado Association of Realtors was against this bill, but it was a bill, which supported the right to float. She acknowledged that funding decisions were never easy. The need and opportunity were current in this situation. Commissioner Runyon stated that he was not prepared to make a decision. One of his concerns with fee simple purchases with no access for foot or vehicle traffic was that access by land was difficult. Ms. Heide stated that people could access the property over BLM land by foot. Commissioner Runyon stated that access from Dotsero would not be possible. Karl Berger stated that there was an irrigation bridge, which could provide access. If the bridge could be improved, there could be space for 10 — 15 cars. This bridge could be made a pedestrian bridge. Commissioner Runyon asked Mr. Berger if he would allow a public road to go through the 40 -acre property that he was retaining. Mr. Berger stated that he would not. Commissioner Stavney spoke about access. He spoke about the potential encumbrances, including additional easements from the front 40 to the back 126,000 acres. He stated that the real value to the property was to replace the takeout on CDOT land with a finer takeout on a portion of the bench. He was not prepared to push the line on public access across the front acreage. He didn't know a rancher who would purchase a piece of property with no vehicle access. Mr. Berger stated that county vehicles would be allowed. He was concerned about the number of vehicles across his property, which could lead to liability issues. He would love to offer a conservation easement, but the liability exposure was too great. He believed public access should be provided if tax dollars were used. Commissioner Stavney asked Mr. Berger to talk about the irrigation system recently installed. Mr. Berger stated that they put in a system last fall with a pump on the 40 acres he would retain. He got an alternate point of diversion. He recommended installing a pump. He mows the pastures twice a year, which takes about 3 days total. Commissioner Stavney asked about the maintenance on the ditch. Mr. Berger stated that the maintenance from the head gate forward is a consideration. Commissioner Stavney asked about abandoning the siphon across the river. Mr. Berger has 2 CFS, and his current system was using about half of that currently. Chairman Fisher asked about the irrigation of the meadow. Mr. Berger stated that a pump would need to be installed including a couple of poles, which he figured could be done for about $5000.00. Chairman Fisher wondered about the total maintenance initial investments and ongoing annual upkeep would be. If this were purchased outright, there would also be regular maintenance involved. She wondered how the county could keep this beautiful. She wondered about the 10 acres on the other side of the river and whether this could be the input and takeout. She wondered what type of improvements could make this option viable. Commissioner Stavney wondered about the ongoing maintenance costs and how this would be done. It is allowable for this type of tax dollar use. He suggested regular improvements having designated funding as well. He asked if there was any thought given about the west side of the stretch along the river. He would like to enter into discussions with the adjacent landowners. He was not sure if there was a safe pullout point along the river on the west side of the river. He spoke about the 35 acres parcels and whether land within a conservation easement could be included in this calculation. Chairman Fisher wondered about the additional funding partners. Mr. Bird stated that this would offset the asking purchase price. Ms. Heide stated that when she talked to the CCP they were mostly concerned with the backdrop. Commissioner Stavney stated that there was diminished value due to the difficulty of public access. He expressed frustration that there were currently no other funding partners. The Board had no idea whether the other funding partners had any funding available. He struggled with this approach. 13 05/25/2010 Ms. Heide stated that she was impressed with the movement in conjunction with OSAC talking about this type of challenge. The other funding organizations do not know how much funding they may have available. She compared the process to the legacy grant program. Ms. Wallace wondered if it would be possible to sublet the property to someone who needed the hay for ranching. Chairman Fisher stated that they had arrangements like this and the person who needed the hay was not usually the person who did the irrigating. Ms. Wallace spoke about river development and its impact to the enjoyment of the river. Mr. Edwards spoke to the board. He stated that as far as funding went he would like to see a commitment from the county to let GOCO know the level of our interest. He believed this property was important, as it was the start of the river corridor. He hoped the county would contribute a significant amount of funding. Commissioner Stavney asked about an amount recommended. Mr. Edwards asked that somewhere between 60 and 70 percent be pledged. Mr. Berger stated that his motivation came from his love of the history of Colorado. A mining company, one of the original homesteaders in Dotsero, owned the property. He had taken three different school classes out to the property. Commissioner Stavney stated that there wasn't enough land for other types of development. The worse case scenario was that there could be up to four trophy homes along the river. Mr. Berger stated that he has a prescriptive easement through one of the other properties. There were development opportunities there. However, he preferred not have the area developed. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the road above the property. Mr. Berger stated that it comes off highway 6 and was part of his prescriptive easement. It was an old ranch road. Chairman Fisher asked that a site visit be scheduled. Commissioner Stavney recapped the maintenance and improvement issues, which needed costs determined. The board needed to be wise about future issues. He spoke about some limitations with the conservation easement the way it was currently drafted. Mr. Berger spoke about existing roads and trails. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the difference between the owner's and buyer's interests. Ms. Heide stated that flexibility was important. This flexibility should be in a separate document, which would be a management plan. Mr. Edwards stated that this was a draft easement. OSAC and the Land Trust were interested in preserving the land. Ms. Heide wondered if a site visit in the next few weeks would work. Chairman Fisher asked about early next Tuesday morning. She'd get the visit scheduled. Commissioner Stavney stated he would be comfortable proposing around $1.2 million for their share of the cost. Mr. Berger stated that some picnic tables, garbage cans, and portable bathrooms should be considered. He wondered if he might be able to name the parcel Dewey Park in honor of a sister who was killed in an accident. Ms. Heide suggested a zip line. Commissioner Runyon also wanted to see the property. He stated that functionally they were buying a conservation easement and yet it was a fee simple purchase requested. He was not prepared to say it was or was not worth the asking price. Chairman Fisher had no comment. Executive Session - Open Space Retreat Robert Morris, County Attorney's Office Recorded • 14 05/25/2010 Planning Files PDS -2313 Eagle River Meadows Scot Hunn, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose for this Sketch Plan is for a mixed use Planned Unit Development, inclusive of residential, commercial, medical, and office uses. Proposal also includes active and passive recreational and open space uses. LOCATION: Former `B &B Gravel Mine" site generally situated along Hwy 6 Edwards, Colorado, NW 1/4, Section 5, Township 5, Range 82. FILE NO./PROCESS: PDS -2313; PUD Sketch Plan OWNER: The Atira Group APPLICANT: Owners REPRESENTATIVE: Lance Badger STAFF PLANNER: Scot Hunn STAFF ENGINEER: Ben Gerdes 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant requests Sketch Plan review for a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) — "Eagle River Meadows." The 105 -acre PUD is being planned as a mixed -use residential and commercial development the former `B &B Gravel Pit" site in Edwards, Colorado. The property is owned by BWAB REEF Gravel Pit LLC, and currently accommodates approved industrial uses including the B &B Excavating batch plant operations. The project consists of three primary land use components: mixed use commercial/medical, professional office uses, as well as multi - family residential uses. In addition to these primary use categories, the applicant proposes the inclusion of significant recreational and conservation oriented open space. The following is proposed: • 380 Residential Dwelling Units, of which 301 are proposed as "multi- family" units, while 79 are proposed as town home units. (The applicant has committed to providing 160 deed restricted units, with the remainder of the housing being offered as either free market or "resident occupied "). • 261,000 square feet of commercial uses, comprised of "medical office ", "support commercial ", and "support retail ". (The commercial components of the project center on creating a medical, health and wellness campus). • 68 acres (or approximately 65% of the site) in open space — to be preserved for conservation and active recreation purposes. (A majority of the proposed open space acreage is currently identified as being within designated floodplain areas consisting of sensitive wetland, riparian and mesic meadow land areas). The property is located adjacent to and immediately westward of the Eagle River Preserve property, along the State Highway 6 corridor in Edwards, Colorado. The property is bordered to the north by the Interstate 70 right -of -way; to the south by Highway 6; to the east by the Preserve (open space) and Eaton Ranch; and, to the west by the Brett Ranch PUD, inclusive of the South Fork Meadows, Brett Ranch Villas and Lake Creek Apartments. B. BACKGROUND Gravel Mining History 15 05/25/2010 Eagle River Meadows PUD is planned at the site of the B &B Gravel Mine. The gravel pit operations have existed on or near the subject property since the early 1970's, prior to the enactment of zoning regulations in Eagle County, in 1974. The earliest record of an approved special use (to allow for expansion of the operations) for excavation on the site was in 1976, via a special use permit (Eagle County File No. ZS- 23 -76). Since that time, several special use permits have been approved to allow further expansion of mining operations in the vicinity of the subject property, with the last expansion approved in 1996. During the processes to review and approve expansion of mining operations, environmental violations (chemical and fuel spills) on the site were documented, requiring clean up actions. The Eagle County Environmental Health Department has characterized (portions of) the site as being an area of "known of fuel contamination ". Evidence of contaminants in soil and groundwater samples are addressed within a Corrective Action Plan Modification report dated April 8, 2009, by Terracon Consultants. The site has been undergoing remediation work to meet State of Colorado Health Department requirements. The Preserve In 2005, Eagle County, working in collaboration with the Vail Valley Foundation, facilitated the purchase of 72 acres of the former B &B Gravel Mine, to create "The Eagle River Preserve ". The Preserve is currently held in a conservation easement by the Eagle Valley Land Trust and serves the community as a regional, passive -use park. Previous land uses contemplated on this parcel included mixed use commercial, residential and service development. Remaining B &B Parcel The Applicant purchased the subject property, comprised of several, separate parcels of land collectively known as the `B &B Gravel Pit" site, in 2008, and currently leases back certain portions of the property located on the south side of the Eagle River to B &B Excavating for ongoing gravel extraction and batch plant operations. The aforementioned lease is for a period of five (5) years. The Edwards Plan — Site 2 In 2003, Eagle County completed the Edwards Area Community Plan Update. This plan update, made part of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, provided general updates to the 1985 master plan for the Edwards area. The update sets forth the future land use for the area as well as preferred development scenarios. More recently, Plan was updated again in 2009 to include Urban Design Elements for the Edwards Core Area. The Eagle River Meadows site is not subject to the Urban Design guidelines. The Plan includes a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and associated narrative sections depicting and describing where future development should occur. This section of the Plan describes individual parcels or "sites" which have been identified as having a "high probability for development pressure over time." The subject site is currently identified as "Site 2" on the Future Land Use Map and is described, along with several sites in the Edwards area, as a site with "high probability for development pressure over time." Such designation anticipates mixed use and "medium density" development on the southern portion of the site, while prescribing open space uses as the preferred land use opportunity for the northern portions of the property. The PUD and the Eagle River The proposed PUD includes 105 total acres, with development proposed on approximately 36 acres on both the south and north portions of the property (see site plan below). The site is bisected by the Eagle River and contains significant floodplain, riparian and wetland areas. In 2007, Colorado State University prepared the Eagle River Inventory and Assessment on behalf of the Eagle River Watershed Council. The primary objectives of the study were to "create an inclusive, baseline inventory and assessment of the 110 miles of the main stem and lower tributaries of the Eagle River, as well as develop a set of recommendations to efficiently guide future river conservation work" The study set forth a prioritized list of restoration and conservation projects for the river. Working from that list, in conjunction with past and present owners of the subject site, the Watershed Council has undertaken a multi - million dollar restoration project along the stretch of the river running through the subject site. Water and Sewer The Eagle River Water and 'Sanitation District has reviewed the proposal preliminarily and has indicated their intention and capacity to provide water and sewer service to the development site. The applicant will be required to provide adequate evidence of the District's ability to serve the development. 16 05/25/2010 Context of Area The map below depicts the proposed site plan for the PUD "ortho- rectified" on top of aerial photography. This map also shows the Eagle River Preserve master plan next to the proposed development, to add context to Eagle River Meadows and the surrounding land uses. C. CHRONOLOGY 1976: Application for Special Use Permit to expand pre- existing gravel mine operations (ZS- 23 -76). 1981: Application for Special Use Permit to amend and expand approved gravel mine operations (ZS- 131 -81). 1984: Application for Special Use Permit to amend and expand approved gravel mine operations (ZS- 208 -84; Amendment to ZS- 131 -81). 1996: Application for Special Use Permit to expand approved gravel mine operation (Amendment to ZS- 131 -81). 2009: Application submitted to Eagle County for Sketch Plan for PUD for "The Eagle River Meadows PUD ". D. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: North: I - ROW `R' Cordillera Valley Club PUD `PUD' South: Hwy. 6 ROW `R' Homestead PUD. `PUD' East: "The Ea River Preserve " / `R' /'PUD' Eaton Ranch Parcel B `RI' Edwards Nursery PUD Brett Ranch PUD (South Fork West: Meadows; Villas at Brett `PUD' Ranch) Existing Zoning: Resource (R) Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Current Development: B &B Excavating Batch Plant Relatively flat irrigated pasture; Eagle River and associated wetland and riparian areas Site Conditions: (including native and restored river corridor), and; previously disturbed areas associated with previous gravel mine operations. Total Land Area: Acres: 105 acres Square feet: 4,573,800 sq. ft. Total Open Space Acres: 68 acres Percentage: 65% The ECLUR's recommend that Usable Open Space; Acres: 68 acres = 65% Percentage: 25% of the total land area be set aside as useable open space Water: ` Public: UERWA Private: N/A Sewer: Public: ERWSD Private: N/A Access: Via State Highway 6; Hillcrest Drive E. REFERRAL RESPONSES: 17 05/25/2010 Referral copies of this application were sent to thirty -seven (37) agencies for review on July 21, 2009. 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 August 12, 2009; and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. • See condition(s): 2 Eagle County Engineering Department — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated August 12, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. • See condition(s): 3 Eagle County Housing and Development Department — Please refer to attached letter from the attached referral response letter dated January 12, 2010 and corresponding letter from the Applicant, dated January 8, 2010, regarding the Applicant's intent to meet the requirements of the housing guidelines and their commitment to continue working with Eagle County Staff to explore potential mitigation alternatives. • See condition(s): 6 ECO Trails Committee Please refer to attached referral response letter dated August 13, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. • See condition(s): 4 ECO Transit — Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated August 11, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. • See condition(s): 5 State of Colorado Geological Survey — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated August 14, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. • See condition(s): 7 State of Colorado Division of Wildlife - Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated August 10, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. • See condition(s): 8 State of Colorado, Solid Waste and Materials Management Unit — Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated August 11, 2009. • See condition(s): 9 Colorado Division of Water Resources - Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated July 23, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Northwest Council of Governments (NWCOG) — Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated August 12, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. • See condition(s): 10 18 05/25/2010 Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC) — Please refer to the attached referral response letter(s) dated August 17, 2009 and October 21, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. • See condition(s): 11 Eagle Rive Water and Sanitation District (ERWSD) - Please refer to the attached "Conditional Service Capacity Commitment" letter dated November 25, 2009. • See condition(s): 12 Brett Ranch Villas Home Owner's Association — Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated August 5, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Homestead Home Owner's Association - Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated August 12, 2009 and follow -up correspondence from the Applicant. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no written response received as of this writing: • Eagle County: Assessor's Office; Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Road and Bridge; Sheriffs Office; Weed and Pest Control; Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist • Colorado State: CDOT; Division of Water Resources; State Historical Society; Health Department; Water Conservation Board • Federal: Bureau of Land Management; Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) • Service Districts: Eagle River Fire Protection District; Holy Cross Electric; Quest /PTI/Century Tel; Ambulance District; Source Gas /Excel Energy • Other: Town of Avon; School District; Edwards Authority; Edwards Metropolitan District; Colorado Historical Society; Eagle County Historical Society • Home Owners Associations: Cordillera Valley Club F. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION The Eagle County Planning Commission (ECPC) held a series f i Eagle River g y g ( ) es o eight hearings to consider the Ea g g g Meadows Sketch Plan for PUD application — from December, 2009, until April, 2010. During the course of the Planning Commission's review, several major topics of consideration and /or concern were identified by the Commission members. Such topics were addressed by Staff and the Applicant in manner that grouped issues together logically over the course of the review. The following is a list of the topic areas, the dates in which they were discussed, as well as a general description of the discussions that occurred. December 16, 2009 At the Applicant's request, the Planning Commission tabled the file until January 20, 2010 to allow Staff and Applicant to continue working on certain aspects of the file, including discussions regarding the housing guidelines and potential options for mitigation. January 20, 2010 The Planning Commission discussed several topics of concern, or asked general questions about the proposed PUD — to be addressed at future meetings. February 3, 2010: Exception to the Edwards Area Community Plan The Commission clarified that any "exception" to the Edwards Area Community Plan and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) would occur as part of any Preliminary Plan approval process; while the Planning 19 05/25/2010 Commission could recommend approval of the exception on a conditional basis during their consideration of Sketch Plan, no "action" to either approve or deny the exception would be taken until Preliminary Plan. The Commission agreed to schedule and advertise a hearing to discuss the exception process in more detail. Of note: at the suggestion of the planning commission (De Chant), Staff sent mailed notification to each citizen volunteer who participated in the 2003 update process (the Update Committee), inviting them to participate in an advertised hearing on the matter to be held on March 3, 2010. Trails and Open Space Ellie Caryl was present to discuss ECO Trails recommendations for paved trail sections running through the property. The Commission and the Applicant discussed issues related to proposed trail segments on the property, the trade -offs between paved and unpaved or "naturalized" trials and the specifications of the Eagle County Regional trail system. Ultimately, the Applicant agreed with a recommendation by ECO Trails to provide a 10' wide paved regional trail segment. Environmental Health & Corrective Action Plan Ray Merry was present to discuss the "Corrective Action Plan" for the B &B mine clean -up and he clarified that, although the clean up was a state regulated (oversight) activity, the Eagle County Environmental Health Department is recommending that the Applicant be required to contract a 3` party review of hazardous materials remediation efforts on the southern portion of the property. The Applicant clarified that portions of the site are currently being remediated and that prior to B &B Excavating relinquishing their lease for batch plant operations (2014), they are required under an agreement with the Atira Group to conduct additional clean -up operations as a result of their ongoing, limited operations. Wood burning controls were also discussed, with the Applicant confirming that wood burning devices are addressed within the PUD Guide. Existing Conditions The Commission discussed the existing conditions on the site, expressing some concern regarding the grade differences between the Highway 6 platform and the proposed grade of new access roads and development planning areas. Specifically, questions were asked regarding the amount of fill required to construct internal circulation, as well as the proposed use of building foundations within Planning Parcels A, B and C as retaining walls — to hold back steep slopes and large amounts of fill on the south side of the property. The Applicant addressed this concern by stating that such design is possible and common place, but the solution will be more costly (due to the amount of fill required to match and blend finished grades to surrounding sites). Access Points A question was raised regarding the original (existing) access to the property; why the Applicant had not used this access point rather than creating the need for filling of the site to accommodate the proposed access — opposite Lake Creek Road. Staff and Applicant addressed this by discussing the fact that CDOT, in previous meetings held to discuss the intersection at Lake Creek, prefers to create any new access to the site at the Lake Creek Road intersection; that the existing access point Wetlands Mapping The Applicant described the latest wetlands mapping that had been completed by their consultant, Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers. The new mapping, completed since development and submittal of the Sketch Plan application, showed additional areas of supposed wetlands associated with two named tributaries — Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch - on the northern portion of the property. The Applicant described how both stream channels appeared to have been damaged — causing flood irrigation on the northern portion of the site. As well, the Applicant explained future steps that would be taken to work with Walsh and the Army Corps of Engineers to further delineate the wetlands and to provide for a "Tributary Restoration Plan" to essentially re- channelize the streams (to their historic alignments) and to rebuild and restore natural drainage patterns. The Applicant explained how any wetlands mitigation needed (in response to any wetlands disturbed by development) would be undertaken elsewhere on the property — working in conjunction with the Eagle River Watershed Council. The Applicant and the Planning 20 05/25/2010 Commission discussed how the land plan will most likely be revised to reflect any restoration plan approved by the Corps. Senior and Affordable Housing Alex Potente was present to discuss the Eagle County Housing and Development Department's position regarding senior housing in the valley, as well as the need and appropriateness for affordable housing stock in the Edwards area. Mr. Potente described the property locale as "advantageous" for housing due to its proximity to job and community centers and transportation/transit routes and characterized the north side of the property as being appropriate for housing, similar to the Villas at Brett Ranch. Questions were raised regarding the location of housing on the north side of the property necessitating a local "feeder" bus system. The Applicant did acknowledge conceptual plans to provide funding for such feeder system, adding that such system could benefit adjacent developments (Villas at Brett Ranch and Lake Creek Apartments), but that such system would NOT be run by ECO Transit. On the issue of senior housing, the Applicant reiterated that the PUD was drafted to be broad in its potential use categories (if to be inclusionary to a range of future uses), and that discussions have been held with senior housing /Assisted Living (AL) and Continuum of Care Retirement Community (CCRC) operators. However, the Applicant also acknowledged the County Housing and Development Department's preference to pursue development of such facilities in Eagle. February 17, 2010 Traffic, Transportation and Funding Solutions The Applicant and the Eagle County Engineering Staff discussed the project in context to the 2004 U.S. 6/I -70 G Corridor Feasibility Study, which based anticipated improvements, as well as estimated costs, on assumptions are likely out of date. As well, Ken Marchetti of the Edwards Community Authority provided an overview of pending State legislation regarding the formation of Regional Transit Authorities and Local Improvement Districts. The Applicant's traffic study was reviewed, as was the impact of round -about construction (vs. signalized intersection) at the Lake Creek Road intersection; the Applicant's traffic consultant verified that a round -about will have a positive impact on capacity levels in the area, but not necessarily Levels of Service (LOS). Staff suggested that traffic numbers (vehicle trips per day) have "dropped" since the 2004 study was conducted and the Commission agreed that new studies and/or information regarding 1) current/updated traffic counts; and 2) levels of service on existing road segments would be necessary at future meetings to more fully understand the proposed development's impacts on local roads. One Commissioner (Brock) confirmed with the Applicant's consultant and Staff that Hwy. 6 could be widened in the future. Another member (Heicher) suggested that phasing plans be developed for discussion — to include "trigger" points tied to development impacts such as LOS and other factors. Transit Kelly Collier from ECO Transit was present to discuss the proposed development's potential impacts on ECO's routes and operations, stating that while Sketch Plan details indicate that there will be certain impacts on service provision and will most likely require additional capital improvements, details revealed at any Preliminary Plan submittal will allow ECO Transit to determine exact impacts. Ms. Collier highlighted the fact that an internal feeder system to serve the north side of the property would need to be paid for and operated by the developer, and that ECO Transit could potentially "bid" on provision of such services. The issue of senior housing and (para) transit needs was raised, with Ms. Collier estimating that the cost per person for a para- transit trip would be $5. She also stated that the PUD is a good location for such uses due to proximity to existing medical facilities. A question was raised regarding future bus stops on both the east and west bound lanes of Hwy. 6, with Ms. Collier affirming that in addition to the stops, cross walks would be needed for pedestrian safety. Phasing The Applicant presented preliminary information regarding proposed phasing, summarizing the intent to tie future capacity issues to build -out of the project. The Applicant estimated that approximately one -third 21 05/25/2010 (33 %) of the project could be completed before major off -site improvements would be required. Commission members discussed the need to better understand (at a future meeting) how the development phasing would be tied to "triggers" such as traffic impacts and Levels of Service (LOS). Specifically, one commission member (Heicher) highlighted the need to better understand the LOS for the road segments in the area; the only information presented to date concerned intersection LOS. March 3, 2010 Exception to the Edwards Area Community Plan — (See condition No. Staff presented the exception criteria to be addressed — inclusive of twenty -two (22) separate Community Plan objectives. The Commission took public comment regarding the proposed "exception "to the Community Plan policies, objectives and future land use designations. March 17, 2010 Water and Wastewater Linn Brooks from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District was present to discuss the District's review of the proposed Sketch Plan. Specifically, Ms. Brooks described the District's "Developer Approval Process" in relation to the "conditional capacity to serve" letter received by the Applicant. Wetlands and Conceptual Site Plan In response to discussions held at the February 17, 2010 hearing, the Applicant provided a conceptual site plan showing how the project design may be altered as part of any Preliminary Plan application to reflect the Tributary Restoration Plan and/or wetlands mitigation plan. The applicant estimated that 60 dwelling units may need to move from the north to the south portions of the development to ensure development impacts on wetland and riparian areas will be minimized; or that such units would simply have to be eliminated. Land Use - Planning Parcels, Uses and Density The Applicant presented a matrix showing proposed uses, including residential density and commercial square footage throughout the PUD. Questions were asked about "support residential" categories (ie. short- term residential units provided for clients, doctors and employees of medical uses), as well as what "medical" uses were anticipated. The Applicant indicated that the PUD was purposefully drafted to allow a broad range of potential "medical and wellness" related uses; that such details would be further defined with any Preliminary Plan submittal. Commissioners made clear that a higher level of detail — in the form of a market and needs analysis — would be required at Preliminary Plan. In answer to a question regarding whether rental housing would be provided, the Applicant committed once again to work with Staff and that rental housing will be looked at in greater detail as part of any market and needs analysis at Preliminary Plan. Draft Housing Mix and Consideration of Live -Work Units Related to the matrix discussed, the Applicant and Commission discussed the possibility (due to wetlands mitigation and the potential loss or relocation of units on the north side of the property) that units would transfer to the south side. One member (Campos) asked if Planning Parcel C could be a "receiving area" for density from the northern parcels; the Applicant confirmed the possibility, noting that in the event that units are relocated, the goal would be to achieve "no net loss" of density; that a planning principle involved in the creation of the land plan for the PUD has been to create vitality in and around the medical campus portions of the site by incorporating the largest portion (114 dwelling units) of deed restricted housing units within the commercial planning parcels. Trails and Public Parking In response to a request by the Planning Commission made at the previous hearing, the Applicant presented the Trails and Open Space Plan again, describing how new trails would connect to existing trails at the Eagle River Preserve, and verifying that (per Eagle County) an additional ten parking spaces were to be 22 05/25/2010 provided on the eastern portion of the property, next to the Preserve in order to provide additional open space access to the public. Highway 6 Right -of -Way The Applicant and the Planning Commission discussed the existing Highway 6 corridor Right -of -Way (ROW), with the Applicant confirming that 1) there is enough ROW to accommodate proposed improvements, inclusive of a round -about at the Lake Creek Road intersection; separated bike paths; shoulders; ditches; full lane widths in either direction and bus stops. One member (Heicher) asked for clarification regarding the provision of a bus stop on the east -bound lane; the Applicant clarified that, including CDOT ROW and Eagle River Meadows Property, there would be enough area to construct the stop. School Impacts and Capacity Issues In response to a concern expressed regarding school capacity issues (whether or not the District can absorb the impact from school aged children resulting from the PUD in the future), the Applicant informed the Commission that he had spoken with representatives of the School District to confirm the land dedication amount (1.153 acres) and that the District's representatives indicated that there may be other options to meet there required mitigation. April 7, 2010 Applicant Response to Edwards Area Community Plan Objectives The Planning Commission was given the opportunity to ask the Applicant questions regarding a written statement or report (by the Applicant) responding to all twenty -two (22) Community Plan objectives; no comments or questions were received and the Planning Commission reiterated that any formal "exception" would only be granted as part of any Preliminary Plan approval. Medical Uses — Need and Market One Commission member (Hammond) expressed concern regarding the proposed medical and wellness uses — specifically the amount of square feet associated with such uses. A question was posed to the Applicant regarding anticipated need and absorption rates. A related question was posed by another member (Moffett) regarding the flexibility of the PUD (in the future) in the event another community in the region also developed new medical and/or wellness campus uses. The Applicant confirmed that the PUD, as drafted, was broad enough to allow flexibility in the future without coming back for a major amendment and that the PUD (medical) uses reflect a substantial amount of due diligence and market study to support the medical campus concept. Community Character The Applicant responded to a previous concern by Commission members regarding one aspect of the Edwards Area Community Plan — "community character ". The Applicant reiterated the design of the PUD reflects a conscientious effort to respect the character of the Edwards Area and, specifically, (although not required) to incorporate certain elements and overarching themes of the recently completed "Urban Design Elements" for the Edwards core area. There was no further discussion regarding this topic. Natural Resource Protection The Applicant briefly responded to another objective of the Edwards Area Community Plan regarding natural resource protection. The Applicant reiterated the design of the project which includes the preservation of 68 acres of riparian, river and upland open space. Likewise, the Applicant re- stated a commitment to continue working with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Eagle River Watershed Council to incorporate additional wildlife habitat enhancement and protection design elements, restoration efforts and ongoing maintenance into any future planning. Traffic and Level of Service (LOS) The Applicants traffic consultant was present along with Eagle County Engineering Staff, to specifically re- address issues related to existing and projected levels of service in the Edwards Area — specifically the 23 05/25/2010 Hwy. 6 segment from Lake Creek Road to the Spur Road, and the Spur Road/Hwy. 6 intersection. Staff summarized the need (of Staff and the Applicant's consultant) to approach the analysis of LOS using a hybrid classification ( "Urban" and "Rural ") due to the unique nature of the Edwards area and the rigid standards /criteria of the International Traffic Engineer (ITE) manual. Using such hybrid classification changed the level of service calculations to be more realistic to the Edwards area, which isn't quite rural or urban. Staff also highlighted the fact that the 2004 Corridor Feasibility Study Stud was outdated and that a condition of approval may need to be drafted to contemplate an "update" to the study prior to any P Yp Y Preliminary Plan. One Commission member (Heicher) asserted the need for a condition of approval, Pp , requiring the project to conform to a level of services `C' or better. Another member (Brock) did not believe the Applicant should be held accountable for updating the entire study, suggesting rather that the Applicant participate in creating a "localized improvement plan" for corridor improvements directly tied to impacts from the PUD. April 21, 2010 Conditions of Approval Staff presented a list of twenty -seven (27) suggested conditions of approval — revised to reflect input from Planning Commission members — Brock, Campos, De Chant, and Heicher - as well as a suggested motion which included language specific to the "endorsement" of an exception to the Edwards Area Community Plan and Future Land Use Map. Commission members discussed several conditions. Of note, Commissioner Hammond suggested that, with regard to condition number 6, the Applicant be required (rather than "encouraged ") to work with Eagle County staff to integrate certain housing types within the development. Commission member Campos suggested that condition number 18 be revised to specifically mention/require "xeriscape" materials and design elements within any future landscape plans. Commissioner Hammond asked why, in regard to condition number 19, the Applicant would not be required to submit a market study with each phase of development. The Applicant assured the Commission that, typically, a market study is conducted prior to commencing subsequent phases of development. Commissioner Hammond reiterated a concern — to ensure that a detailed phasing plan be submitted that includes all necessary and required public improvements (and public benefits). Commissioner Hammond suggested that are constructed in the first, or early phases of the development and that the County have certain assurances in place with any final approval. The same Commission member expressed her ongoing concern regarding proposed development on the north side of the property, citing issues related to wetlands impacts and mitigation; Commissioner Hammond also indicated a preference to not transfer units from the north side of the property to the south side. General comments — final deliberations The following summarizes, in general and in order of testimony, the Eagle County Planning Commission's final deliberation comments regarding the proposed PUD: Commissioner Campos Stated that the PUD was in general conformance and that, among other significant benefits, development on the north side and additional connectivity to /from existing developments (Villas at Brett Ranch and Lake Creek Apartments) is paramount. Commissioner Campos suggested conditions of approval were appropriate and that the Applicant — with any future Preliminary Plan — must set their bar "high" due to the unique opportunity presented within the development and business plan, and in specific recognition of the potential for economic development with regional and far reaching impacts. Commissioner Long 24 05/25/2010 Agreed with Commissioner Campos, reiterated support for the suggested conditions and the process of review undertaken by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Hammond Stated her general support for the development concept, but reiterated concerns regarding potential impacts to wetlands (and the need to further delineate wetlands and assess the impacts from any re- channelization of Beard Creek and Deadhorse Gulch); she suggested that details regarding the locations and types of affordable housing units deserves further scrutiny and she reiterated her contention that the burden of proof regarding market viability and absorption of the proposed medical, wellness and residential uses will be on the Applicant in future planning and review stages. Commissioner De Chant Expressed support for the proposed tenant mix, specifically the concept of medical and wellness uses in the Edwards area and stated agreement with suggested conditions of approval. Chairman Heicher Citing general support for the development concept and specifically the potential benefits of the project — such as its proximity to transportation corridors and the Edwards Community center, Chairman Heicher stated several issues of concern, including development potential on the north side of the property; traffic impacts; a lack of concern shown by Edwards residents during the hearing process; and potential for the development to be approved in the future, and — like the West End project — fail to be completed. As well, the Chairman questioned what would happen if development on the north side does not occur and the Applicant could not meet the requirement for dual access? Commissioner Franks Stated general support for the project. Commissioner Moffett Had nothing further to add and made a motion to approve the file, citing the specific "exception" language suggested by Staff. The motion passed unanimously. Commission Brock Was absent. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5- 240/5 -280 Sketch Plan; Section Purpose: 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 25 05/25/2010 outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to receive approval for a Preliminary Plan for PUD from the County. Where the PUD proposes activities that constitute a subdivision, the applications for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall also be required to meet the requirements of Section 5 -280, Subdivision, regarding procedures for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision, respectively. Standards: Section 5- 240.F.3.e., Standards; Section 5- 280.B.3.e Standards and Section 5- 230.D Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch & Preliminary Plan for PUD (with subdivision) application. All standards that would be met at a Preliminary Plan level must addressed by the application materials. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards have been met at this stage. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, 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 BWAB REEF Gravel Pit 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.31:, Variations Authorized. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Permitted in Normally Permitted Underlying As: Nature of Variation Proposed Uses Zoning? Yes No Right ZS LR Mixed -Use: (Commercial, X Variations for allowed uses. Residential, Civic and Recreation) 26 05/25/2010 This application proposes mixed uses including commercial and medical offices, community health center, research facilities, senior care, out /in patient care, emergency care and medical/health/wellness facilities. Such uses are not currently permitted as an allowed use by right or by special or limited review. Therefore, such uses would be applied for pursuant to Section 5 -240 F.3.f, Variations Authorized during any application for Preliminary Plan for PUD. 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..f, 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 Intent of PUD/Use of PUD Zoning: Yes Necessary for integration of mixed uses; Yes To allow for greater variety in the type, design, and layout of buildings; To promote a more efficient land use pattern including an opportunity for public transportation Yes 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; Yes Other- to minimize site disturbance PUD Zoning PUD zoning is being applied for in this instance to specifically allow for a greater mix of commercial, service, residential and recreational uses associated with the development of the subject property. The subject property, specifically the south side of the property, has been identified in the Edwards Area Community Plan as being a preferred site for mixed use commercial and residential development, as well as open space preservation. PUD Intent The intent of this Sketch Plan for PUD proposal is to integrate uses, and to promote greater efficiencies in land use patterns in relation to the provision of community oriented commercial and medical facility uses in coordination with the provision of affordable housing. Land Use Pattern The plans locate substantial portions of high intensity uses such as service and retail commercial as well as medical, health and wellness facilities within or around a central commercial `core' area along State Highway 6. Such uses are located in close proximity to a proposed regional bus stop on Hwy. 6. Such uses are located to facilitate pedestrian friendly land use and transportation patterns, promote the use of regional mass transit and resource efficiency. As well, the commercial core portion of the plan on the south side of the property supports appropriate development (density) within or in close proximity to existing community centers. However, development proposed on the north side of the property, while presenting logical extensions of existing circulation patterns, may ultimately fail to meet these same objectives. Constrained Design Without the use of PUD zoning the potential for development on the subject property would be constrained. Specifically, the applicant's ability to develop the property in a manner that strives for more creative and quality design features, and which furthers specific master plan goals related to mixed use commercial on 27 05/25/2010 the subject property, economic diversification, housing, transit - oriented development patterns, environmental preservation and open space projection - would be constrained. See Condition(s): 14 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 uses proposed are not permitted under current Resource (R) zoning; therefore, the applicant will be required to apply for "variations authorized" during any Preliminary Plan submittal. Such variations, specifically to allow for certain mixed uses including commercial and medical offices, community health center, research facilities, senior care, out /in patient care, emergency care and medical /health/wellness facilities, would create desired design qualities by permitting "the integration of mixed uses" and allowing for "greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings. ", pursuant to Section 5- 240.F.3.f ** The Applicant has designed the project to avoid any development on, over or within existing wetlands or floodplain areas on the subject property, with the exception of certain improvements associated with bridge construction over the Eagle River as well as the construction of passive recreational trails. Overall, the plans demonstrate the applicant' s intent to avoid development within valued natural resource lands and hazard areas on the site. The plans have been reviewed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) and the Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC) to review the plans and to specifically discuss the plans. The applicant should be required to revise the plans prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to ensure that recommendations by both CDOW and ERWC are integrated into the design of the project as well as within governing documents such as the PUD Guide and covenants. In addition, the potential negative impacts from increased access to the river corridor and riparian areas by future residents and the public, and the reducing the overall potential for environmental degradation resulting from the introduction of high intensity residential and commercial uses should be the focus of future design development. The Applicant should be required to work with County Staff towards integrating recommendations and design criteria found in both the Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) and ECO Build. Proposed Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification for Variation Requirement Front Unknown 25'/50' None proposed at this time Rear Unknown 12 or '/z ht of None proposed at this time tallest building Side Unknown 12.5' or 'h ht of None proposed at this time tallest building 28 05/25/2010 Proposed Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification for Variation Requirement Stream 75' or 100 year 75' or 100 year None proposed at this time floodplain floodplain The Applicant has provided only limited details regarding the proposed dimensional limitations for the project at this time. General information has been provided within the Draft PUD Guide relative to setbacks from the 100 - year floodplain for all proposed development as well as proposed building heights within individual planning parcels. However, the applicant has stated in the application that certain "variations" from development standards will most likely be applied for with any Preliminary Plan submittal. Staff suggests that as this is a sketch plan review, such details, while helpful to understanding the qualities of the proposed development, are not critical for the proper review of general locations intended for development as well as the appropriate range and types of residential units and commercial space. However, dimensional limitations are important to consider relative to the amount of "variations" anticipated and whether such variations outweigh development as a conventional subdivision. As well, variations such as reduced roadway widths, reduced parking dimensions, and reduced front, side and rear yard setbacks are to be encouraged within the context of allowing innovation in design, reduced development footprints /impact and reduced costs of infrastructure. Such details should be discussed during the hearing process, specifically to allow the Planning Commission, Staff, emergency service providers and the general public to better understand what the applicant's intentions are by way of design. Such details will be required as part of any Preliminary Plan submittal. See Condition(s): 13, 17,18 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 Restaurant 1/ four seats 1/ four seats X X X Recreation X X ° x a zo o = to a c a ° • a a c x a a v' a ` c c o Proposed Uses P oa o w wa wtx `� t ° t ° c a cat c a c a c v Z crr Z cn to. Z cry Z rn Z rs. Z Yes No Yes No Multi- Family: 2/DU 2/DU X X 1- Bedroom/ Studio Multi - Family: 2.5/DU 2.5/DU X' X X 2 to 3 Bedroom Multi- Family: 3/DU 3/DU X X X 4 or More Bedrooms Retail, Service 1/250 s.£ 1/250 s.f. Commercial and Xl X 2 X 3 (NLFA)* (NLFA)* Office 29 05/25/2010 (1) Per the ECLURs, one (1) "van accessible parking space shall be provided for every five (5) accessible parking spaces, or fraction thereof." The Applicant was not asked to provide the level of detail necessary to determine the number of 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 10,000 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 and residential units meet the required parking standards. The proposal makes no specific provision for "shared parking ", although in order to meet the Sustainable Communities goals of Eagle County, the plan could be revised to include shared parking for the higher intensity use areas (commercial and live /work), thus reducing the overall footprint of the development. As plans are further developed, the applicant may want to include provisions for shared parking. Note * NLFA — Net Leasable Floor Areas include only those areas that are designed to be leased to a tenant and occupied for commercial or office purposes, exclusive of any area dedicated to foyers, bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors and mechanical areas and storage areas used solely by tenants on the site. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (5)] — Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Type of 3 . p o Development: cr g i v 0 2 Commercial a= ,a '' °° E= Q c X Residential w Mixed Use c o >° ° o a o a� c a a c c w on � W 7, 2� 5 N ,..)12-. ` 5 cid > ° :; L cC a - 1 P... v v i a O S Exceeds ECLUR Requirements X X Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X' X X X X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR X y 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 30 05/25/2010 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 generally specify the use of native and /or compatible plant species. Specifically, trees or shrubs proposed are either native, naturally occurring species in the region, or are ornamental species proposed to blend with those species found in the 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. Such plans should strive to proposed, locations and maintenance requirements will reduce overall resource use and result in an environmentally neutral landscape plan. (4) The plans submitted conceptually depict proposed limits of disturbance for the site. Large portions of the site on the south side of the Eagle River are currently disturbed from historic industrial uses. At certain, limited areas trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate development of access roads. Removal of significant existing vegetation is minimal based on conceptual level plans; 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 showing proper tree protection specifications will be required. (5) Plans submitted generally depict tree and shrub sizes to meet or exceed the minimum standards of the ECLURs. 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. Also, the applicant will be encouraged to add to the proposed list of plantings and to increase the variation of planting sizes to add variety in the mix of native species (specifically evergreen species) and to produce variety in the tree canopy within the development. As well, the applicant should consider the placement of evergreen and deciduous plantings relative to screening, solar access and shading. (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 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- 230.B. 12 — Parking and Storage Prohibited. (9) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to be in non - conformance in several areas of the plan. Specifically, proposed deciduous tree plantings are shown within or close to "clear vision areas" at the corner of certain intersections; in other instances, trees are shown close to curbs or edges of internal streets. As this is a conceptual level of detail, staff encourages the applicant to maintain the overall number and general location of proposed plantings, but to revise the plans as necessary to meet the requirements of Section 4- 230.B.13 — Obstructions Prohibited, ECLURs (10) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to be in non - conformance in several areas of the plan. Specifically, the plans fail to include planting islands, with tree plantings, every fifteen parking spaces. As plans are 31 05/25/2010 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. Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? Yes X 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. 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 MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 3 3 U U O a V] 1 Q U] Q W C% Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X' X X X X X Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Re uirements Deviation/VIS Requested No In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services X Yes No (1) Potable water for the project is proposed to be provided by the Eagle River Water Authority (see attached "Conditional Service Capacity Commitment" letter from the Authority dated November 25, 2009). Specifically, the Authority states that any future commitment to serve the project will be conditional on the provision of a comprehensive water requirements analysis, and associated water rights evaluation. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide infrastructure plans and referenced water requirements to the Authority prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal. The Authority's letter states "evaluation for a Project this size will include an assessment of its impact upon the entire water system." 32 05/25/2010 (2) Sewage disposal for the project is proposed to be provided by the Upper Eagle River Water and Sanitation District (see attached "Conditional Service Capacity Commitment" letter from the District dated November 25, 2009). (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) Road networks proposed within the PUD are generally acceptable and provide adequate circulation within and through the development (new through road, and intersection serving the area). (5) See above comments regarding access and roadway standards. See Condition(s):12, 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, Improvement Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right -of -way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off - site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off - street parking areas. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 ECLUR Requirement 33 05/25/2010 Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirement Deviation/VIS Requested (1) The applicant has indicated that any Preliminary Plans submitted may include requests for "variations" to improvement standards. The applicant should be required to work with emergency service providers such as the Eagle River Fire Protection District to ensure plans comply with applicable codes related to access, setbacks and road widths. See Condition(s):3, 5, 12, 17, 18, 24 STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (9)] — The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Potential Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning Compatibility Issues Yes No Cordillera Valley Club North: 1-70 R.O.W. ` PUD `PUD' X South: Single - Family Residential `R' State Highway 6 R.O.W. `R' X "The Eagle River East: Preserve " / Edwards `R' /'PUD Eaton Ranch Parcel B `RL' X Nursery PUD West: Residential and Open Space `PUD' X (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 Interstate -70. Staff does not feel that the proximity of proposed residential units to I -70 (and the potential for noise impacts) will be any more detrimental to the quality of life of the future residents than that of the current residents of Lake Creek Apartments or Brett Ranch Villas, Staff does suggest that the applicant should be required to design and construct such units with sound abating construction materials and techniques. As well, upon any future final platting of Planning Parcel `N', and/or upon construction and sale of such units, Staff suggests plats, covenants and contracts for individual units include disclosures regarding the proximity to the interstate and the potential for adverse impacts from noise. (2) The wholesale nursery located to the east of the PUD may produce noise and/or other potential nuisances to residential uses located within planning parcels `A', `B' and `G' of the PUD. 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. See Condition(s): 17, 18, 19, 23 EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 34 05/25/2010 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS b 6 a 8 , ; FLUM E ° ' o , '3 '. g Designation w .,.. c� A 4 g 3r 3 v, w Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X X X X X X X' X X Recommendations Does not Satisfy Majority of Recommendations Not Applicable - Below are the Recommended Strategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: (1) Development • "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 preclude development in unsuitable areas of the site such as wetlands and floodplain areas. In this sense, the property is naturally constrained, literally. However, within those areas of the site that are developable, the applicant has presented a land plan that generally introduces compact development patterns and clustering to create walkable pockets of development. The most intense building is concentrated on the south side of the property on lands previously disturbed by industrial activity, while the highest amount of residential density is clustered on the north side of the property. In addition, the proposed development plan calls for preservation and/or creation open space totaling approximately 65% of the overall 105 acre site. Such open space is proposed to include passive and active (recreational) uses including conservation oriented preservation of existing wetlands and floodplain areas existing in the meadows, as well as small "neighborhood" parks, a dog park, trail improvements and limited fishing access to the Eagle River. However, as the plans are further developed, opportunities to increase the project's conformance with the County's Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) should be pursued by the applicant. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Further minimizing paved areas by seeking design variations from Eagle County Land Use Regulation design standards for road widths, parking and loading standards and committing to use pervious pavement materials where possible. • Integrating Distributed Stormwater Management strategies into the layout and design of the PUD as well as individual buildings to improve overall performance of drainage and stormwater discharge systems while committing to a higher level of environmental projection of sensitive riparian and wetland areas found on the site. • Concentrating the more residential uses at or near the Highway 6 corridor and within walking distance (1/4 mile) to regional transit and the existing community core. • Incorporating additional lands for community or neighborhood scale (local) food and energy production (solar arrays). • Introducing revised building orientations where possible to take advantage of solar access, thereby potentially increasing the energy efficiency of individual buildings and units while reducing the annual energy consumption of residents and commercial tenants. 35 05/25/2010 • "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 concept is generally consistent with goals associated with preserving the existing quality of life characteristics of the surrounding vicinity. Specifically, the plans strive to cluster development and to preserve and make available to the public significant amounts of open space along the Eagle River Corridor for use as an extension of the Eagle River Preserve, including regional and local trail systems for passive use. Although the proposed development is projected to impact local roads by introducing approximately 6,990 additional vehicle trips per day to the area, the applicant has worked proactively with the Edwards Authority to facilitate discussions regarding creation of a local or regional transportation and transit "authority" for the express purpose of creating sustainable funding mechanisms for future transportation and transit improvements including the creation of a local transit "feeder" system. Such improvements (local and regional mass transit) and associated funding mechanisms will be critically important to the development of this site as well as the future build -out of the Edwards area in order to create a more transit oriented community in the future. Overall, the design of the project has the potential to create a compact, transit oriented development in the Edwards area and to enhance the connectivity of the development and surrounding neighborhoods (Villas at Brett Ranch and Lake Creek Apartments) with the core area of Edwards. As the plans are further developed, opportunities to increase the project's conformance with the County's Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) should be pursued by the applicant. Specifically, the plans should be revised to include energy efficient design and construction techniques to reduce the development's environmental footprint and to reduce overall energy and maintenance costs to future residents and commercial operators. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to include more areas of active recreation. Specifically, residents within the development, especially on within the North Residential (Planning Parcel N) development may benefit from the integration of additional, larger areas of open -air, active parkland for improvements such as ball courts, play structures and the like. As well, additional areas for "dog parks ", placed closer to planned residential clusters may benefit the residents and the environment by providing more space for "active" recreation with pets away from the Eagle River corridor and sensitive riparian areas. • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all, development on the south side of the property, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the core of Edwards and in within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the planned regional bus stop. • Designating the proposed fishing cabin structure for use as a regional trail information center and/or cultural center to educate local residents and visitors about area history, wildlife and culture. • Integrating uses and specific building /commercial space design to facilitate early childhood education and daycare facilities for local residents and local workforce; • Integrating uses and specific building /commercial space design to facilitate senior's services industry and retail opportunities. • Integrate an on -site solar "farm" or array to ensure a minimum percentage of energy needs are met on -site. • Integrate an on -site recycling program for the PUD. • Work with the Eagle River Watershed Council and area educational institutions to create outdoor, environmental research and monitoring programs and curriculum ( "living" classrooms). • "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives ". 36 05/25/2010 The applicant has included a report by Jill Hunsaker, Principal of Silver Street Consulting, LLC. outlining qualitative and quantitative reasoning and data to support the development of medical campus, health and wellness industries on the subject property. The report highlights the burgeoning "destination" medical wellness industry and the assertion that Eagle County may well be "medically underserved." However, as plans are further developed, detailed needs analyses and market studies will be required to justify the overall amount of medical and commercial as well as residential uses proposed. 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 and to ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and residential land uses. • Incorporating needs and market analyses with the latest ridership studies available from ECO Transit with the formation of local transit feeder systems and associated funding sources to ensure that the land plan responds to and, at the same time, facilitates the creation of a transit - oriented community. • "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 southern portion of the property is specifically identified within the Edwards Area Community Plan as being appropriate for mixed use, commercial and residential uses. However, the northern portion of the property is currently identified with the same plan as being appropriate for additional, "highly desired" open space recreational uses. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, specifically residential uses, on the south side of the property, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the core of Edwards and in within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the planned regional bus stop. • Further minimizing paved areas by seeking design variations from Eagle County Land Use Regulation design standards for road widths, parking and loading standards and committing to use pervious pavement materials where possible. • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity': In that the applicant proposes to meet the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines by creating approximately one hundred and sixty (160) "affordable" dwelling units of varying sizes, types and price points within the development, the majority (114) located within walking distance to regional transit, social equity may be improved. As well, the project has the potential to provide additional public access to significant amounts of "highly desired" open space recreational opportunities in close proximity to existing park lands. 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 increase the total number and 37 05/25/2010 type of deed restricted and local resident occupied dwelling units within the project and specifically within walking distance to regional transit; • 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 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 to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County, and prepare detailed needs analyses and marketing studies to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; and to ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live /work land uses. • Specifically integrate 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 senior's services industry and retail opportunities. • "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy: The applicant has provided a brief financial overview (chart) of the projected fiscal impacts of the development. This chart generally describes how the proposed metropolitan district within the PUD will provide for administrative and operational revenues through the application of additional property tax assessments (mills). However, little (detailed) analysis has been provided showing the need for the proposed amounts, types and sizes of residential and commercial (medical and medical support commercial) uses, nor the potential economic or fiscal impact of the development on the local and regional economy, the impacts on county services or the impact on jobs to housing ratios. Such analyses will be critical to understanding the potential impacts of the project on the local economy as well as understanding the overall need for the proposed uses. Logically, such need analyses and marketing studies produced will inform the design development of the project and will specifically clarify how the applicant proposes to phase the project to meet future market demands. Overall, the information provided by Jill Hunsaker, Silver Street Consulting, LLC. provides a basis to begin discussions of medical uses and commercial support uses on the subject property. Such information, when combined with information provided from the Economic Council of Eagle County relative to destination medical industries and how such industry might further diversify the local and regional economy, is helpful. Indeed, Eagle County and the Edwards area in particular, appear to be uniquely situated to facilitate destination and regional medical uses as the next "growth" industry within the County. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Complete detailed commercial and residential needs analyses and market studies, tied to the most current demographic and regional jobs to housing data, prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. Such details will be critical to any further review of the proposed medical campus, health and wellness and support commercial concepts being proposed for the subject property; • 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. • Work with County Staff to use the `Site Stats' economic and fiscal impact modeling tool to inform the future design development of the project to ensure the types and amount of uses are appropriate for the local economy and to accurately forecast potential (negative) impacts on County services. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide detailed fiscal and economic analyses showing 38 05/25/2010 projected impacts on County services, local taxing jurisdictions and the proposed metropolitan district within the PUD. • "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 areas. It appears the central "core" of the commercial /mixed use area of the project is designed to emulate a village concept, with courtyards and appropriately scaled public spaces relating to building masses. 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. Specifically, residents within the development, especially on within the North Residential (Planning Parcel N) development may benefit from additional, larger areas of open -air, active parkland for improvements such as ball courts, play structures and the like. As well, additional areas for "dog parks ", placed closer to planned residential clusters may benefit the residents and the environment by providing more space for "active" recreation with pets while maintaining such uses away from the Eagle River corridor and sensitive riparian areas. • "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". This is the purpose of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation process. • "Analyze development applications for conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Edwards Area Community Plan regarding recommended "future land uses" in the Edwards area and, specifically, for the subject property. The property is described in the Plan as "Site 2 ". The Plan states: "This site may provide the best opportunity for additional and highly desired recreational space. This section could become the centerpiece to a broader recreational linear park along the river. • Potential Uses: Residential Medium Density or Mixed Use type developments may be appropriate for the area south of the trail and out of the floodplain. The appropriate commercial uses might include retail, service, office. • Character: The character of the area should reflect that of the broader Edwards community and reinforce the pedestrian environment, particularly along Highway 6. A continuation of the `Main Street" feel to Highway 6 should be reinforced by the development. • Pedestrian Connections: The proposed trail through the site should follow the bench that marks the end of the floodplain. This trail would split the activity of the medium density /mixed use area with the more passive area surrounding the Eagle River and new lake. • Access: Access should be shared with site #1 to limit the number of access points off Highway 6. As suggested in the Access Control Plan, this could best be accommodated at the intersection of the Edwards Building Center, but may also be feasible at the intersection of Lake Creek Road. • Parking: Parking should be buffered from Highway 6 and /or underground. • Other: New development will avoid the floodplain." 39 05/25/2010 The above narrative highlights several salient considerations regarding this site, not the least of which is the preference by the community while drafting the Edwards Area Community Plan to direct development to the southern portion of the site and to preserve the existing river corridor and associated open lands to the south and north of the river for regional recreational uses (as an extension to the Eagle River Preserve). As well, the property is uniquely situated to provide a "bookend" to any commercial, "main street - like" development along Hwy. 6. Mixed use as well as "Medium Density" residential uses are desired as are tying the development to the rest of Edwards through design and context. Parking should be somehow buffered from views along Hwy. 6. However, the applicant has correctly stated within the application that, due to the creation of the Eagle River Preserve in 2005, residential density and commercial uses that may have been envisioned further to the east and within the existing "core" of Edwards are being pushed further west. As well, the previously established goals of creating a "main street" along the Hwy. 6 corridor in this portion of Edwards may no longer be feasible or appropriate, as originally envisioned, given the boundaries of the conservation easement that now encumbers the Eagle River Preserve lands along Hwy. 6. The Edwards Area Community Plan, under Plan Amendment & Exception Process, outlines situations where the applicant may propose, and the Planning Commission may consider amendments to the Plan, including the Future Land Use Map. The Plan states: "Flexibility in plan policies should be provided for unique or extraordinary proposals or parcels, and to accommodate changing conditions. Exceptions or modifications to the plan policies may occur at two levels: case -by -case exceptions and broad plan changes." Further, the Plan states under "Exceptions ": "The Planning Commission may approve exceptions to the plan policies if they find that the original objectives of the Plan are met and the proposal is a unique situation, one not anticipated when the plan was adopted such as a new church or school. Important elements in considering the appropriateness of a plan exception are. a) Applicant can demonstrate an attempt at informing the homeowners and community of the proposal, and resolution of any conflicts; and b) There should be no significant opposition from surrounding homeowners associations or property owners raising germane issues (those that are addressed in the Area Community Plan's objectives and policy statements)." Obviously, the presentation of the Eagle River Meadows application to the Planning Commission at this time, with residential uses planned for the northern half of the property (rather than open space as identified on the FLUM) represents a requested "case -by- case" exception to the Plan. Staff believes there are grounds for the Planning Commission to consider the exception, as general conditions in the immediate area did change upon creation of the Eagle River Preserve. Such situation was not anticipated upon adoption of the plan in 2005. However, the applicant still has the burden of addressing both criteria (`A' and `B') above, specifically proving that there has been a documented attempt at "informing" the community of the proposal, and that there is no "significant ", germane opposition to the plan from surrounding associations or property owners. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance with the Future Land Use Map and associated comprehensive plan goals and policies include: • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, specifically residential uses, on the south side of the property, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the core of Edwards and in within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the planned regional bus stop and allowing for the preservation of the northern portions of the site for use as "additional and highly desired recreational space." 40 05/25/2010 • Working with Eagle County and the Eagle Valley Land Trust to explore opportunities to permanently protect those portions of the site to the north of the Eagle River as open space. Specifically, preservation of such areas could achieve the original Plan goal of creating the "centerpiece to a broader recreational linear park along the river." • Pursuing an exception to the Edwards Area Community Plan and 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" The proposal concentrates (clusters) development within limited portions of the site. Approximately 65% of the site is preserved as open space. The application states that no variations to improvement standards (dimensional limitations and site development standards such as road widths, parking space dimensions, etc) are currently being applied for, but that such variations will most likely be part of any Preliminary Plan submittal. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, specifically residential uses, on the south side of the property, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the core of Edwards and in within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the planned regional bus stop; • Revising the land plan for the North Residential (Planning Parcel N) area to be more compact and reduce the overall footprint of buildings and paved areas — "pull -in" limits of disturbance. • "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing': The project is integrates the majority of planned "affordable" housing opportunities within the southern, mixed use portion of the site. Overall, the applicant has demonstrated a commitment, if at a conceptual level, to comply with the 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 on the south side of the property 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. (2) Economic Resources • "Ensure that commercial / retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses" The project is designed, in part, as a transit oriented, mixed use development supplying "community scaled" medical, commercial and office uses for the local community and to compliment existing retail and service commercial uses in the surrounding area. 41 05/25/2010 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Perform detailed needs and market analyses to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; and to ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live /work land uses; • "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. • "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population" The project has specifically designed to focus on the provision of medical facilities, health and wellness facilities and related support and service commercial uses. As well, the application makes specific provisions for senior housing and assisted living development as a primary (allowed) land use within the PUD Guide. 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 Eagle River Valley, as well as with Eagle County Health and Human Services Department staff to identify those "services and business" needed in the 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. 42 05/25/2010 • "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. The application appears to be able to meet the Count's minimum requirements, however the applicant will be required to continue working with the Housing and Development Department Director to ensure that minimum requirements are met and/or that other mitigation techniques are employed that have substantial benefit to the larger community. 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 towards the creation of a housing mitigation plan that responds to the immediate and future (anticipated) needs of the area; • Perform detailed needs and market analyses to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; and to ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live /work land uses. • "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population" The proposed mixed use PUD zoning will allow approximately 261,000 square feet of additional commercial (medical and support commercial) uses in unincorporated Eagle County. The proposed medical, health and wellness facilities and commercial uses are intended to serve the needs of the immediate local population as well as those traveling to the site from outside the community and, perhaps, from outside the State. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Perform detailed needs and market analyses to ensure the project serves the needs of the immediate local population as a priority, while ensuring the project is viable in terms of a regional or national destination wellness development; • Prepare a detailed Phasing Plan, based in part on detailed needs and market analyses, to allow flexibility in the design, construction and marketing of commercial, office and residential real estate offerings while providing a reasonable level of predictability of in commercial and residential real estate offerings, timed to respond appropriately to the local population, as a priority. • "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 uses have been primarily concentrated around a planned regional mass transit stop and directly adjacent to the Hwy. 6 right -of -way. The majority of planned multi- family residential uses have been concentrated along the northern boundaries of the property, in proximity to a planned connector road and in general proximity to existing multi - family residential uses (Villas at Brett Ranch and Lake Creek Apartments) located along Hillcrest Drive. 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 wholesale and retail nursery uses and business operations located on the adjacent Edwards Nursery PUD ( "Wildflower Farm ") are buffered to the highest extent practical. Architecture and building materials (construction techniques) that specifically provide sound attenuating properties should be considered. 43 05/25/2010 • "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. 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 Edwards area, as well as with Eagle County Health and Human Services Department staff to identify those "services and business" needed in the 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. • "Encourage live -work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed -use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation" The project does not include any provision for live -work arrangements or uses; however such uses may be appropriate and viable on the site. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to specifically include development parcels for live -work arrangements; • 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. (3) Housinw • "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". Although the subject property is generally not located within easy or convenient walking distance to the main commercial areas of Edwards, the project is within close proximity to existing job centers located in the core of Edwards (CMC, Riverwalk, Edwards Commercial Center, etc.). As well, the mixed use component of the project (a new potential job center) will be developed in close proximity to regional mass transit routes. The proposal will be required to provide deed restricted affordable and workforce (resident occupied) housing thus achieving 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: 44 05/25/2010 • 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 land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, specifically residential uses, on the south side of the property, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the core of Edwards and in within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the planned regional bus stop. • "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". The property is currently zoned Resource (R), allowing for one dwelling unit per 35 acres (plus one accessory dwelling unit per 35 acre parcel) as a use "by right ". Therefore, the proposal represents a substantial up- zoning of the subject property based on the proposal to construct a total of 380 residential dwelling units (501,435 sq. ft.), 42% of which are proposed to be "affordable." If this Planned Unit Development (as proposed) is ultimately approved, the incentive to the developer will be the ability to develop 160 deed restricted units averaging 100% AMI (per the County Housing Guidelines), and; 220 market rate and/or "resident occupied" units priced at or above 140% AMI. In addition, 261,000 (Net) sq. ft. of commercial development is proposed. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revise the Housing Plan to specifically provide affordable, deed restricted housing at a target (average) AMI of 100% • 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. • Revise the land plan and environmental design of the site and buildings to achieve a higher percentage of on -site, alternative energy production and to increase the efficiency of individual buildings and units to reduce the cost of operation over time. 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. Per the Housing and Development Department Director, the County is willing to work with the applicant to quantify such real (actual) savings in order to allow the purchase price for some of the required deed restricted units to be raised (higher return to the developer with long term savings passed back to residents). • "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. In addition, the Applicant has committed to meeting the required housing mitigation, and to continue working with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • See above comments. 45 05/25/2010 • "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications." The project is designed, in part, to provide "attainable workforce housing ". The applicant will be required to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department during any Preliminary Plan application process and will be required to meet the minimum requirements of the Housing Guidelines. • "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 • "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 to provide residential and commercial uses directly adjacent to a planned regional mass - transit stop. In addition, the project incorporates a regional trail connection through the property. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, specifically residential uses, on the south side of the property, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the core of Edwards and in within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the planned regional bus stop. • "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development ". If this PUD proposal is ultimately approved, at Final Plat a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateral will be required to ensure that all necessary infrastructure improvements are installed correctly in a timely manner. • "Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements ". This is the primary purpose of subdivision improvement agreements. • "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". The applicant has met several times with Eagle County Engineering Department and ECO Transit representatives to specifically discuss potential impacts of the development on existing transportation and transit systems. Both entities have identified several issues related to future improvements and capital expenditures that will be required to support a development of this size and scope, and both entities have expressed concern regarding the need to create a sustainable, reliable funding source that will be applied toward future (ongoing) road and transit system improvements needed to support this and any other future development in the Edwards area. Specifically, ECO Transit has pointed out that in order to truly assess the potential impacts and needs placed on the existing transit system, additional information will be required relative to proposed dwelling unit price points as well the amount of senior and/or assisted living housing proposed. Such information will be useful in determining total ridership anticipated on the regional bus system as well as the need for 46 05/25/2010 additional "para- transit" services (for disabled persons). ECO Transit also states that there may be potential demand for a park- and -ride facility on the site. Of critical importance is the issue of creating a funding source or mechanism that will support the regional transit needs generated by this development while providing additional funding for local feeder systems in the Edwards area. Staff believes the applicant's ongoing discussions with the Edwards Authority towards creation of such funding sources for future transportation improvements and transit provision will need to result in the identification of actual, implementable solutions prior to any submittal of a Preliminary Plan application. • "Encourage transit oriented development". The project is generally designed to meet this objective. Concentrating medical facilities, ancillary (support) medical office and support retail uses in close proximity to a regional mass transit route will create the core of the applicant's transit oriented vision. Likewise, concentrating additional residential density on the south side of the property may aid in supporting the mechanics of a true transit oriented development, adding critical mass within walking distance of the transit stop. As well, integration of a park- and -ride facility (per discussions with ECO Transit) may warrant further discussion as a means to provide additional public benefits to the larger community while adding to the vibrancy of the development. • "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking': The land plan incorporates commercial /mixed -use development patterns on the south side of the property. Such uses form the `core' of the project and are oriented around a medical campus (Planning Parcel B) and "village" area (Planning Parcel F). The village area will allow for "support retail" operations and residential uses oriented around a pedestrian oriented "mall" area. • "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure". The development plan centers its open space and recreational amenities on the preservation of significant open space lands and the provision of new pedestrian connections through the property. The plan incorporates new regional trails through the subject property, connecting the site with existing, relatively isolated neighborhoods (Brett Ranch Villas and Lake Creek Apartments) with the community center of Edwards. The proposed trails add significantly to the provision of a "seamless pedestrian infrastructure" in the Edwards area and are designed to compliment the existing trail system within the Eagle River Preserve. • "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings' The development plans show the provision or new local and regional trail segments generally running east to west in a parallel manner to Hwy. 6. • "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". Conceptual plans appear to meet this particular objective. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide higher levels of details showing typical streetscape sections as well as details demonstrating the relationship between building and store fronts and the pedestrian realm. Plans for landscaping, plaza areas, cross walks and traffic calming designs will be required. • "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design" 47 05/25/2010 This is a PUD Sketch Plan application. As such, the applicant has taken advantage of flexibility in the layout, design and densities proposed. • "Promote live -work arrangements where appropriate': The project currently does not include any provision for the development of live -work residential and commercial real estate offerings. This is one area of the plan that may warrant further consideration upon completing detailed needs and market analyses. • "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars" This mixed use project incorporates office, medical service and "support" retail commercial uses in conjunction with planned medical and health wellness uses. However, no provision for "convenience" or other service commercial has been made at this time. 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. • Integrate small scale neighborhood convenience and other service commercial uses within the development to specifically serve the daily needs of residents and to reduce the use of personal vehicle trips out of the development. • "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards': The proposal currently complies with the ECLUR roadway standards. Any future "variations to improvement standards" will be required to be requested with any Preliminary Plan submittal and will need to be integrated and reviewed in close coordination with all emergency service providers such as the Eagle River Fire Protection District. • "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". No response was received from applicable emergency response agencies. See above comments. • "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services" No response was received from applicable emergency response agencies. • "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity ". At this level of review, specific service commercial plans have not been developed. The applicant is aware of this master plan goal and has included "day care" as an allowed use within the draft PUD Guide. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • 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 1041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants': 48 05/25/2010 Not applicable until Preliminary Plan submittal and review. • "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development': This proposal entails installation of new public water and sewer infrastructure. Sewer main lines are already installed on portions of the property. "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". The applicant has provided traffic analysis for the Sketch Plan review. Such analysis indicates that approximately 6,990 additional vehicles per day 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 ". Potable water for the project is proposed to be provided by the Eagle River Water Authority (see attached "Conditional Service Capacity Commitment" letter from the Authority dated July 8, 2009). Specifically, the Authority states that any future commitment to serve the project will be conditional on the provision of a comprehensive water requirements analysis, and associated water rights evaluation. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide infrastructure plans and referenced water requirements to the Authority prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal. The Authority's letter states "evaluation for a Project this size will include an assessment of its impact upon the entire water system." • "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". See above comments. • "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". See above comments. • "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination" During site construction, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required for storm water management, erosion control and dust suppression. In addition, the applicant has committed to investigating integration of "Distributed Stormwater Management Strategies into the design of the project, as suggested by the Eagle River Watershed Council. Protection of wetland and riparian areas, during construction and in perpetuity, should be a design priority for this site. • "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible". The application does not preclude the use of pervious surfaces. Such materials and construction techniques should be incorporated where practical within the project in addition to other efforts to reduce the amount of storm water runoff from the site to highest extent possible. • "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". ". 49 05/25/2010 The development seeks to cluster as much density as possible; to limit overall (total) building footprints, and; to preserve large portions of the site generally in their original state as floodplain meadows and wetland areas. As well, as part of the "Corrective Action Plan" proposed by Terracon (for clean up of previous industrial site soils contamination), monitoring wells will be installed on the property to ensure groundwater resources are protected. 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. Such revisions may require "variations" to improvement standards. • Provide 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': 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': At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. • "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". The application does not address water reuse at this time. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Integrate water reuse and recycling components into the building, landscape and irrigation plans. • "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Incorporate 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 development application ". The property brings no water rights. Potable water for the project is proposed to be provided by the Eagle River Water Authority (see attached "Conditional Service Capacity Commitment" letter from the Authority dated July 8, 2009). Specifically, the Authority states that any future commitment to serve the project will be conditional on the provision of a comprehensive water requirements analysis, and associated water rights evaluation. In addition, the applicant will be required to provide infrastructure plans and referenced water requirements to the Authority prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal. The Authority's letter states "evaluation for a Project this size will include an assessment of its impact upon the entire water system. 50 05/25/2010 • "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts ". As part of the "Corrective Action Plan" proposed by Terracon (for clean up of previous industrial site soils contamination), monitoring wells will be installed on the property to ensure groundwater resources are protected. In addition, the applicant has discussed with Staff the possibility of working with local schools (Gore Range Natural Science School) and entities such as the Eagle River Watershed Council to provide strategic water quality and restoration monitoring partnerships, essentially creating a "living" classroom for such entities using the restored riparian areas and existing wetland areas of the property. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Partner with local educational and not - for - profit organizations to provide ongoing water quality and riparian restoration monitoring. • "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan" The use of Best Management Practices for on -site storm water management will be required. • "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan" The Eagle River Watershed Council has reviewed the proposal and has made comments relative to the overall goals of the Council, and the Watershed Plan. In addition, the application will be reviewed against the recommendations of the Plan. • "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identify and treat other non point sources of pollution': Best Management Practices will be required with regard to storm water management and grading activities. See above comments related to integration of Distributed Stormwater Management Strategies. • "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development': The application did provide concept level details regarding drainage and detention of water on -site. A detailed water quality management plan will be required with any Preliminary Plan application. • "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals': Best Management Practices will be required with all final construction documents and plans. • "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways' The development has specifically been designed to incorporate and protect natural buffers and drainageways. With the exception of certain, limited areas of disturbance of wetlands, the plan seeks to avoid disturbance of wetlands and natural drainage ways. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revise land plan to provide a bridge over existing, mapped wetland areas along the northern portions of the site (Hillcrest Drive extension; Planning Parcel N). 51 05/25/2010 • "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 generally in their original state as floodplain meadows and wetland areas. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Revise the land plan to further cluster development to the extent possible 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. Such revisions may require "variations" to improvement standards. • Integrate pervious paving where practical within development. • Consider building designs that incorporate "green roofs" and water re- capture /treatment within roof design and materials. (6) Wildlife Resources • "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing human -made barriers to wildlife migration" The Colorado State Division of Wildlife has reviewed the Sketch Plan and has provided a response (attached). As well, the applicant has included a `Wildlife Habitat Assessment ", outlining the potential or likely use of the project site by certain wildlife species as well as the potential for impacts to the continued use of the site by such species. According to the report, big game migration or "movement" within the project boundary will likely not be impeded because development is generally proposed outside of floodplain and riparian areas, where certain big game species, if they currently use the property for migration, would continue to move. Nevertheless, as the plans are further developed, the applicant should be required to work closely with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the consulting wildlife biologist to ensure proper measures are taken in the design of the project that will specifically minimize potential impacts to big game, aquatic and raptor species that may inhabit the site and to ensure their continued use of specific habitat types found on the property. • "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat': The project generally avoids development impacts to high value habitats contained within wetland and riparian areas. In addition, the applicant continues to work with the Eagle River Watershed Council to facilitate the ongoing efforts of the Council to rehabilitate degraded riparian habitat along the Eagle River. While the Council has submitted comments and recommendations outlining related to the treatment of stormwater, wetlands banking and mitigation. As well, the referral response letter received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife (attached) appears to provide a neutral or favorable referral response, stating that "If the project does limit any development to outside of the riparian zone of influence and facilitates the recovery of the riparian zone the project could have a positive impact on the aquatic and riparian communities." As well, the CDOW states that it will look forward to working with the applicant towards design and implementation of a public fishing program and access. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: 52 05/25/2010 • Revise the land plan to further cluster development to the extent possible. • Incorporate specific controls or standards within the PUD Guide document restricting the total amount and height of fencing allowed. • Provide additional areas for "dog parks ", placed closer to planned residential clusters to benefit the residents and the environment by providing more space for "active recreation" with pets away from the Eagle River corridor and sensitive riparian areas. • Partner with local educational and not - for - profit organizations to provide ongoing water quality and riparian restoration monitoring. • "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers ". The use of Best Management Practices for on -site storm water management will be required. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: • Integrate "Distributed Stormwater Management Strategies" into the design of the project. • "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat': No critical wildlife has been identified on the subject property by the applicant's wildlife biologist or the Colorado Division of Wildlife. • "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials': All comments /recommendations provided by the consulting wildlife biologist should be followed during any PUD Preliminary Plan design development. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has made no specific recommendations for the project design or PUD control documents at this time. • "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments' The applicant's wildlife biologist has concluded in a report dated March, 2009: "Habitat within the project area is not capable of supporting species listed under the [Endangered Species Act] or identified by the CDOW as state threatened, endangered, or sensitive. Thus, there will be no long -term or cumulative impacts to any of these species as a result of the project implementation. " Although there are no mapped migration corridors or critical habitats identified for the site, the proposed development will add a connector road on the northern boundary of the project that will bisect the site from west to east. The addition of the proposed road and associated residential development on the northern portion of the site will create a new barrier for any wildlife (big game) using the property as a means to migrate from north to south across the property to access the Eagle River corridor. Additional traffic from Brett Ranch Villas and Lake Creek Apartments will use this new connector road, therefore increasing the potential conflicts with any wildlife that may frequent this corridor for migration. There is a "Wildlife Mitigation Agreement" for the Brett Ranch Property that was brought to Staff's attention by one of the referral entities (Ellen Eaton, on behalf of Brett Ranch Villas) that relates wildlife mitigation to development on certain portions of the Brett Ranch. Staff suggests any existing agreements be taken into account by the applicant in context to the Eagle River Meadows planning process. Specifically, the applicant should consider drafting a similar agreement that would compliment or act as an amendment to the one executed for Brett Ranch PUD. • "Encourage high - density development within existing community centers': 53 05/25/2010 Portions of the project are designed to focus high- intensity commercial and mixed use development along Hwy. 6 and in proximity to the existing community center. However, the highest density residential development is proposed on the northern portion of the property, within Planning Parcel N. This portion of the site is over'/ mile (walking distance) from the `core' of the project and the nearest regional mass transit stop. • "Minimize site disturbance during construction" A construction management plan, dust suppression plan and other Best Management Practices (BMPs) 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 should be addressed in sufficient detail with the submittal of any Preliminary Plan. • "Require wildlife proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions" The application is required to adhere to the ECLUR standards for wildlife refuse containment. (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 August 14, 2009, references geologic reports by the applicant indicating that the subject property is encumbered by geologic hazards that will effect proposed development. Such hazards or general conditions include sinkholes, rock fall (Planning Parcel N), 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 and that the specific recommendations of the applicant's consulting engineer "should be strictly adhered to." 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 natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible' The southern portion of the site has been severely altered after several decades of intensive industrial use (resource extraction). Further site disturbance on the southern portion of the site will be minimized and proposed development on the northern portion of the site will generally be restricted to roadway construction as well as grading of Planning Parcels M and N. • "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" Application referred to CGS on August 14, 2009. 54 05/25/2010 • "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 a majority of the development on the southern portion of the site along the Hwy. 6 corridor and along the northern boundary of the property, at the toe of the south facing slope. The southern portion of the site has been severely altered after several decades of intensive industrial use (resource extraction). Development on both the south and north sides of the property have been clustered outside of floodplain meadows and wetland areas which are to be preserved as high value open space recreational areas. Such areas also serve as visually important open space. However, 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 ". The proposed development plan calls for preservation and/or creation of open space totaling approximately 65% of the overall 105 acre site. Such open space is proposed to include passive and active (recreational) uses including conservation oriented preservation of existing wetlands and floodplain areas existing in the meadows, as well as small "neighborhood" parks, a dog park, trail improvements and limited fishing access to the Eagle River. The property is identified within the Edwards Area Community Plan as "Site 2 ". The Plan narrative describes Site 2: "This site may provide the best opportunity for additional and highly desired recreational space. This section could become the centerpiece to a broader recreational linear park along the river." Staff believes the applicant has designed around sensitive and other high value areas of the site, including floodplain mesic meadows and wetlands as a practical matter and as a means to respond to the goals and policies of the Community Plan. Overall, the entirety of the proposed 68 acre open space tract will add tremendous value to the community as a logical extension to the Eagle River Preserve. Of particular note, the Eagle River and associated riparian areas may be considered the most valuable portions of the proposed open space parcels. These natural features are the subject of a multi - million dollar habitat restoration project undertaken by the Eagle River Watershed Council and, therefore are deserving of the most stringent protection and preservation. Larger areas of floodplain mesic meadows and wetlands offer additional value visually and as potential areas where passive recreational trails, adding to the amenity base for the intended residents of the development as well as the general public. (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 ", with the highest intensity uses located on the southern portion of the property, along Hwy. 6 and within walking distance of existing and/or planned regional mass transit stops. Within the property, trails provide intermodal connections to regional and local bike and pedestrian networks. The applicant has discussed the creation of a local "feeder" transit system that would serve the northern portions of the site, and which 55 05/25/2010 could also serve existing residential neighborhoods to the west. Concentrating additional residential density on the south side of the property may aid in supporting the mechanics of a true transit oriented development, adding critical mass within walking distance of the transit stop and eliminating the need to create a separate internal feeder bus system. • "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". See previous comments regarding affordable housing and the transit oriented development (TOD) nature of this project. • "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting': The project is located within general proximity to an existing community center. Further, the development is centered on the creation of significant amounts of medical, health and wellness (commercial) uses. While detailed needs, market and jobs -to- housing analyses are necessary at future stages of plan development and review, Staff believes such uses could generate significant numbers of local, "living wage" jobs — in close proximity to the existing population center of Edwards and within walking distance to proposed residential uses. • "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': The draft PUD Guide establishes general standards for exterior lighting. However, 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 ". No uses are proposed that would generate unsafe noise levels. • "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals': No uses are proposed that would generate unsafe noise levels. • "Promote transit - oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles" See previous comments regarding the project design and TOD. • "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling': See previous comments regarding TOD, energy efficiency and on -site alternative energy production. In addition, all new construction is required to meet EcoBuild and Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) 56 05/25/2010 regulations. Staff encourages the applicant to work with "sustainable design" experts, including Eagle County ECO Build Coordinator, to integrate specific design and construction strategies within the land plan, site design and building designs during design development of Preliminary Plans. • Implement energy efficiency guidelines. See previous comment regarding the design of the project. • Implement energy saving techniques. See previous comment regarding the design of the project. 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 Edwards Area Community Plan. The southern portion of the property is specifically identified within the Edwards Area Community Plan as being appropriate for mixed use, commercial and residential uses. However, the northern portion of the property is currently identified with the same plan as being appropriate for additional, "highly desired" open space recreational uses. The Plan narrative highlights several salient considerations regarding this site, not the least of which is the preference by the community while drafting the Edwards Area Community Plan to direct development to the southern portion of the site and to preserve the existing river corridor and associated open lands to the south and north of the river for regional recreational uses (as an extension to the Eagle River Preserve). As well, the property is uniquely situated to provide a "bookend" to any commercial, "main street - like" development along Hwy. 6. Mixed use as well as "Medium Density" residential uses are desired as are tying the development to the rest of Edwards through design and context. Parking should be somehow buffered from views along Hwy. 6. However, the applicant has correctly stated within the application that, due to the creation of the Eagle River Preserve in 2005, residential density and commercial uses that may have been envisioned further to the east and within the existing "core" of Edwards, are now being pushed further west and that any notion of creating a "main street" along the Hwy. 6 corridor in this portion of Edwards may no longer be feasible or appropriate given the boundaries of the conservation easement that now encumbers the Eagle River Preserve lands along Hwy. 6. The presentation of the Eagle River Meadows application to the Planning Commission at this time, with residential uses planned for the northern half of the property (rather than open space as identified on the FLUM) represents a requested "case -by- case" exception to the Plan. Staff believes there are grounds for the Planning Commission to consider the exception, as general conditions in the immediate area did change upon creation of the Eagle River Preserve. However, the applicant still has the burden of presenting evidence demonstrating an attempt at informing the homeowners and community of the proposal. As a reminder, the Plan states "There should be no .significant opposition from surrounding homeowners associations or property owners raising germane issues (those that are addressed in the Area Community Plan's objectives and policy statements)." Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance with the Future Land Use Map and associated comprehensive plan goals and policies include: • Revising the land plan to concentrate more, if not all development, specifically residential uses, on the south side of the property, thereby focusing more intensity nearer to the core of Edwards and in within walking distance (1/4 mile) of the planned regional bus stop and allowing for the preservation of the northern portions of the site for use as "additional and highly desired recreational space." 57 05/25/2010 • Work with Eagle County and the Eagle Valley Land Trust and/or other not - for - profit entities to explore opportunities to permanently protect those portions of the site to the north of the Eagle River as open space. Specifically, preservation of such areas could achieve the original Plan goal of creating the "centerpiece to a broader recreational linear park along the river." • Pursue an exception to the Edwards Area Community Plan and Future Land Use Map (FLUM). EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS o , n o E _ ° o Exceeds Recommendation X Satisfies Recommendation X' X X X X X Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable (1) To the extent the applicant has collaborated with the State (CDOW) and other, state and/or regional entities, including the Eagle River Watershed Council, the project meets the master plan policy of cooperating with other agencies. (2) The project provides open space and recreation land within the PUD well in excess of the minimum recommended and required open space pursuant to the ECLURs. (3) The Plan defines Unique Land Forms as "Lands having unique or outstanding characteristics." As well, definitions provided by the State Historical Commission provide that "unique geological or ecological systems that have historic or prehistoric associations and that have not been disturbed...natural features having a historic or aesthetic and visually pleasing characteristic." Large portions of the subject property have been previously disturbed by industrial activities. However, significant tracts of relatively undisturbed open lands exist, and serve as important natural wetland and floodplain habitat. To the extent the project clusters development on the site, and specifically avoids highly development of valuable open lands, the policy is met. (4) See above comment No. 3. (5) To the extent the project avoids development on slopes exceeding 40 percent and generally 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. There are no other identified natural hazards on the subject property with the exception of those identified by the Colorado Geological Survey; to the extent the recommendations of the CGS are adequately addressed with any Preliminary Plan submittal, the policy is met. 58 05/25/2010 EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN o € �, -c+ cd `*� E .9 o FLUM °r' a a� i .?; 5 a 5 U 5 Designatio v� 0 o o .171 c o > a c1) c .1) 00 w o 0-4 H t7 Cs. ✓ cn W W a W PQ o4 Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority of X' X2 X4 Xs X6 X7 Xs X9 X'° X" X12 Recommendations Does Not Incorporate X Recommendations Not Applicable (1) Land Use • "The location and type of land uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental, and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and man made environment, ensures the timely, cost - effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". In that the applicant proposes to meet the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines by creating approximately one hundred and sixty (160) "affordable" dwelling units of varying sizes, types and price points within the development, the majority (114) located within walking distance to regional transit, social equity may be improved. As well, the project has the potential to provide additional public access to significant amounts of "highly desired" open space recreational opportunities in close proximity to existing park lands. Whether or not the proposed development balances the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident population is not clear at this time. The project will, however, contribute in some manner to the existing physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic condition of Edwards. Overall, development has been planned to avoid valued natural resource and open space recreational lands and to enhance and respect the existing character and "context" of the community. Portions of the development will protect the natural environment by utilizing infill development and avoiding sprawl by reusing previously disturbed gravel mine areas. Public facilities and services are present and service providers have indicated a "conditional" availability to serve the project. However, Staff believes the applicant should consider the cost of extending services and infrastructure (roads, water and sewer) to the northern portions of the property in comparison to concentrating all development on the south side of the property. The proposal, if approved, could add to the unique variety of lifestyles, employment and quality of life found in Edwards. 59 05/25/2010 (2) Housing • "There is an adequate supply of safe and affordable housing to meet the needs of the Edwards Planning Area, including low and moderate income households and populations with special needs': The applicant has committed to meeting the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Local Resident Housing Guidelines and the plans conceptually propose to provide approximately one hundred and sixty (160) "affordable" dwelling units of varying sizes, types and price points within the development. As plans are further developed, following completion of detailed market and needs analyses by the applicant, there may be opportunities to further diversify the variety of housing types, sizes and values to meet the specific master plan objectives. As well, the Community Plan would support additional housing to be placed closer to the Hwy. 6 corridor, in closer proximity to the community center and jobs. (3) Transportation • "The Edwards traffic circulation network has sufficient capacity to efficiently; conveniently and safely move people, goods and services throughout the Edwards Community and Eagle County with minimal adverse impact to the natural environment". Pursuant to the attached Eagle County Engineering Department Memorandum dated August 12, 2009 the County has stated concerns regarding the traffic to be generated by the proposed development and the amount of roadway (transportation) capacity improvements that will be necessary to serve the project at full build -out. Specifically, the applicant's traffic analysis estimates that the project will generate approximately 6,990 new vehicle trips per day at full build -out. This analysis also recommends certain major improvements to the Edwards traffic circulation network, and it presumes that such improvements will be in place at the time of full buildout. In response, the County has essentially put the applicant "on- notice": that the County will most likely not be in a position to complete such improvements at an estimated (total) cost of $62 million dollars and that the applicant should explore "ideas for funding these improvements ". The applicant is participating in discussions with the Edwards Authority towards the formation of a "regional transportation authority" or similar entity, for the purpose of funding ongoing transportation and transit improvements in the Edwards area. Staff is supportive of this process, yet cautions that until and unless there is an actual, sustainable funding solution presented — one that is tied to capital improvements strategic planning and budgeting in coordination with phasing plans for individual development proposals in the Edwards area — the County will not be in a position to make a positive finding regarding capacity of the transportation system. • "The Eagle County Transit Authority and other entities cooperate to increase utilization of mass transit opportunities, provide a more viable alternative to the automobile user, and improve services to the non - driving public' The subject property is located just outside what could be considered the "core" area of Edwards. The property is located along Hwy. 6 and adjacent to existing and planned regional bus stops. As such, the development parcel is particularly well suited for transit oriented development patterns. ECO Transit has submitted comments regarding the proposed land use, stating general concerns about the ultimate impacts from a ridership and "para- transit" needs analysis standpoint. Essentially, ECO Transit has asked for additional information regarding the number, type and price point of residential units as well as details regarding any future proposed senior or assisted living proposed on the site. Like the concerns of the Eagle County Engineering Department, ECO Transit will ultimately benefit from any sustainable funding solutions such as a regional transit authority to make up anticipated capital improvements and operational expenditure shortfalls. 60 05/25/2010 (4) Open Space • "Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with land owners, developers, and other agencies and organizations". Open space preservation is a true cornerstone of this development proposal and the applicant has agreed to coordinate with Eagle County and the Eagle River Watershed Council towards crafting a land plan with specific physical improvements (trails, parking lots, public access points) that work with planned or constructed improvements at the Eagle River Preserve as well as multi - million dollar restoration improvements recently completed or underway on the Eagle River and associated riparian habitat. (5) Potable Water and Wastewater • "Adequate potable water and sanitary sewer service is available for most existing and proposed development. When either are not available, private systems are required to operate in such a manner as to protect the community and environment of Eagle County and the Edwards area': It is anticipated that the subject property will be served by public water and sanitation facilities. • "Natural groundwater aquifer recharge areas, surface water reservoirs and well -field zones are protected from environmental degradation" As part of the Corrective Action Plan proposed by Terracon, monitoring wells will be installed on the property to ensure groundwater resources are protected. In addition, the applicant has discussed with Staff the possibility of working with local schools (Gore Range Natural Science School) and entities such as the Eagle River Watershed Council to provide strategic water quality and restoration monitoring partnerships, essentially creating a "living" classroom for such entities using the restored riparian areas and existing wetland areas of the property. The development seeks to cluster as much density as possible: to limit overall (total) building footprints and to preserve large portions of the site generally in their original state as floodplain meadows and wetland areas. Incorporating more pervious paving materials, integrating "green roof' designs for individual buildings and generally seeking to increase the clustering of the development footprint to the highest extent possible may allow for more protection of recharge areas and surface water quality. (6) Services and Facilities • "Solid and hazardous wastes are managed in an environmentally sound manner within the Edwards Planning Area" The proposed development is not anticipated to generate any hazardous wastes; however the site has been the subject of a "Corrective Action Plan" (CAP) to clean up soils previously contaminated by historic industrial use on the southern portion of the property. The Eagle County Environmental Health Department has reviewed the application and, specifically, the CAP ". As part of the CAP, monitoring wells will be installed on the property to ensure groundwater resources are protected. Medical uses on site may produce "bio- hazards" and, therefore, the applicant may be required to provide details regarding proper handling of such waste within the PUD Guide and/or protective covenants for the development prior to or concurrent with Preliminary Plan submittal. It is anticipated that solid wastes will be handled by one of the refuse management companies doing business in the Eagle Valley. 61 05/25/2010 • "The Eagle County School Board, private schools, and Colorado Mountain College are supported and encouraged to provide a strong educational system" This Plan Goal is not directly applicable. To the extent the project will impact the local school system; the School District was sent a referral for the Sketch Plan and will be included in any future referrals for Preliminary Plan review. The applicant will be required to mitigate impacts to the school system. (7) Environmental Quality • "Ecosystem management, multi jurisdictional, multiple use and travel management issues within and adjacent to the Edwards Planning Area are a cooperative effort among all involved agencies and organizations': The subject property is not boarded by any federal or state lands, but does share a common boundary with the Eagle River Preserve, a public open space parcel held in a conservation easement by the Eagle Valley Land Trust. As well, the Colorado Division of Wildlife has reviewed the Sketch Plan and has provided initial comments regarding the proposed plans. The applicant has met with representatives of the Eagle River Watershed Committee to discuss ongoing riparian and river habitat restoration projects occurring on the property. • "A technically and economically feasible drainage system with adequate protection from flooding, storm -water inundation, surface and groundwater pollution due to storm -water runoff is ensured in a manner compatible with the policies contained herein" Best Management Practices for stormwater management will be required for the project. At the recommendation of the Eagle River Watershed Council, the applicant has indicated a willingness to explore opportunities to integrate "Distributed Stormwater Management Strategies" as plans are further developed in order to improve the overall stormwater management and environmental performance of the project. • "Clean mountain air, scenic vistas and the visual qualities of the night sky are amenities of the Edwards area and are protected from environmental and scenic degradation" Overall, the development plan limits disturbance of the site to those areas already altered by previous industrial activities, or concentrates new areas of building activity and site disturbance within relatively compact clusters. Scenic vistas from the I -70 and Hwy. 6 corridors, from the Eagle River Preserve and the Edwards area in general to the river corridor and associated floodplain meadows will largely be preserved. The applicant will be required to implement a construction and dust /erosion control management plan during construction. As well, the applicant will be encouraged to meet the goals and policies of the County's ECO Build Code and Sustainable Communities Index and to integrate energy efficient site and building designs as well as construction techniques that reduce the overall amount of materials and waste. Such efforts could cause the project to have a reduced or neutral impact on "clean mountain air ". • "Development activities that would damage or destroy unique natural resources are discouraged as is improvements on or near natural hazards': Overall, the development plan limits disturbance of the site to those areas already altered by previous industrial activities, or concentrates new areas of building activity and site disturbance within relatively compact clusters. Importantly, the plan preserves significant portions of "highly valued" natural resources. According to initial geotechnical and soils investigations performed on the site, the property does include potential natural hazards such as sink holes, subsidence and rock fall hazards. However, such conditions are not atypical for most areas within the Eagle River Valley or tributary valleys and the initial report sets forth specific recommendations to be followed through any further design of the project. • "Riparian areas, wetlands and aquatic habitat located within the Edwards Planning Area are preserved and enhanced': 62 05/25/2010 Overall, the development plan limits disturbance of the site to those areas already altered by previous industrial activities, or concentrates new areas of building activity and site disturbance within relatively compact clusters outside of mapped floodplains, wetlands and riparian areas. • "Unique and rare upland vegetative communities as identified by Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado National Heritage Program, White River National Forest, and Bureau of Land Management are protected from environmental degradation, and native habitat of each community type and for each designated species are also protected to ensure that representative communities of each type remain intact within the Edwards Planning Area and adjacent public lands". Staff is not aware of any unique or rare upland vegetative communities have been identified on the site and the Colorado Division of Wildlife has not identified any such habitat or vegetative communities on the site. (8) Economic Development • "Balanced, orderly and sustainable growth of the Edwards economy is supported and promoted". The commercial component of the development plan centers on the provision of significant amounts of and medical service, support retail, research and office uses. Such uses and industry, if created on this site, could further enhance the economic diversification of the immediate area as well as on a regional basis. The provision of additional professional and skilled service sector jobs could enhance economic sustainability within Eagle County. (9) Recreation and Tourism • "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system' The proposed preservation of 68 acres of "highly valuable" recreational and conservation oriented open space within this project provides the following: park area, additional river access, passive and active recreational uses, and a logical extension to the Eagle River Preserve. • "Access to all public open spaces is preserved. All public open space is connected through an effective network of bicycle, equestrian and pedestrian trails that maintain a safe distance from the river" The plans show several new trail segments within the property, connecting regional and local trails to regional trails as well as those proposed on the Eagle River Preserve. Additional access therefore will be provided through the site — to high value open space areas and to the river for fishing access. ECO Trails has reviewed the plans and has recommended that certain trails become paved to connect with existing or planned regional trails. (10) Historic Preservation • "Historical and cultural resources in the Edwards area are protected and interpreted for future residents and tourists': No historical or cultural resources have been identified upon the subject property. However, to the extent the north meadow areas represent historic agricultural open lands as a cultural resource; the applicant has worked to design a land plan that focuses most development in limited areas on the northern boundary of the north meadow area. (11) Implementation 63 05/25/2010 • "All capital improvement planning by service and infrastructure providers to the Edwards Planning Area supports the growth management goals and objectives of this Area Community Plan': If this application is approved, the developer will be responsible for installing the public infrastructure necessary to support the proposed development as well as mitigation of the impacts it would create. To the this plan is being reviewed against the master plan goal of balancing growth and evaluating applications based on need and impact (Community Plan Objective 1.2), Staff believes service provision will only occur if and when capacity improvements have been made and/or impacts quantified during the review process have been properly mitigated. • "Agencies and interest groups such as the Bureau of Land Management, United States Forest Service, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Valley Regional Water Authority and the Eagle River Watershed Council cooperate to ensure the smooth enactment and realization of this plan': Staff has received referral responses from several of these groups and will incorporate their recommendations and findings in this report for use by the applicant, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. • "The community is supported in any grass -roots endeavor to incorporate': This goal is not applicable. (12) Future Land Use Map Designation The Edwards Area Community Plan Future Land Use Map identifies the subject property as appropriate for mixed -use development and open space. See previous comments regarding Future Land Use Map designation, "case -by- case" exceptions to the Community Plan/FLUM and recommended strategies to increase conformity with the goals and policies of applicable master plan documents. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority X3 Xs of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate X X Recommendations Not Applicable X (1) Water Quantity Although the application does not necessarily propose or commit to any specific water conservation methods, measures such as reuse or recycling of "gray water" on site and requiring the use of xeriscape landscape design and planting methods will be encouraged throughout the design development of the project to reduce the overall amount of domestic (central) water demand for the project. As well, throughout the process, the applicant will be required to demonstrate the provision of "wet" water (2) Water Quality Proposed installation of groundwater monitoring wells on the property by the applicant, when combined with future requirements to utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) during and after construction of the project, will serve to incorporate two objectives of this goal. Further, protection of wetlands on the property, reduction of impervious surfaces and integration of "Distributed Stormwater Management Strategies" will add to conformance with water quality goals. Forming strategic partnerships with entities 64 05/25/2010 such as the Eagle River Watershed Council and the Gore Range Natural Science School for the purpose of ongoing education and monitoring of river and riparian habitat restoration will also increase conformance. (3) Wildlife To the extent the development does not hinder, harm or preclude river and riparian habitat restoration projects, the project meets the objectives of the Plan. Specifically, the development will preserve significant amounts of aquatic and riparian habitats. Measures should be taken to minimize the impact of proposed trail placement and direct access points in close proximity to the Eagle River. In addition, the applicant may be required to implement seasonal closures in wetland and riparian areas of the property. (4) Recreation To the extent new access points along the Eagle River are created in consideration of the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan, the objectives for improving and providing additional public access can be met. (5) Land Use The development follows the recommendation of the Plan by limiting building activity to those areas outside the floodplain while protecting riparian areas. As well, the provision of trails and park areas as well as the preservation of open spaces in perpetuity meet the objectives of the Plan. The plan also lists open space and recreational uses are listed as "appropriate" uses in proximity to rivers and streams. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (11)] — The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Phasing Plan Provided? X Yes No EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS The developer has provided conceptual phasing information. Due to the complex nature of the proposed mixed use development, the intensity of uses and the potential impacts generated from the development on County services and local infrastructure, a detailed phasing plan will be required with the submittal of any Preliminary Plan for the property. See Condition(s): 23 STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5- 240.F.3.e (12)] — The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for 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 -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, 65 05/25/2010 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. (f) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Total Subject Land Area: 105 acres 4,573,800 square feet Recommended 25% of Total Land Area as Usable Open Space 26.25 ac. = 65 % 1,143,450 square feet Additional Amount of Open Space 380 DU x 2.63 persons /1000 population = 999 new Required Per 1000 Persons = 10 acres residents x 10 acres /1000 population = 10 acres = 435,000 square feet Open Space Required and Provided 10 acres Total O p p q (per ECLUR's) 68 acres provided Public and Quasi- Quasi- Public or Private? Q Describe Wetlands and Floodplain; parkland; Public trails and River Access Restrictions on Open Space: TBD Describe: The overall amount of open space exceeds the requirements in the ECLURs. However, the applicant should be required to revise the plans to include more provisions for active parkland and/or "dog parks" in close proximity to planned residential areas. As such, the plan should respond appropriately to the amount of usable open space provided to ensure the actual daily needs (active and passive recreation, community gardens, etc.) are met while providing for conservation and environmental goals and objectives of applicable master plans. See Condition(s): 20, 22 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 66 05/25/2010 . «+ (v O 00 5 te:." E g� .43° • o t4 ro ° A¢ c) a w Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X' X X X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirement X (1) The comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey's response dated August 14, 2009 must be adhered to prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. (2) Development of the site must comply with all applicable ECLUR wildfire regulations as well as any future recommendations of the Eagle River Fire Protection District. (3) The PUD Guide states that wood burning devices are to comply with the provisions of the ECLURs. The Guide should be revised to specifically restrict wood burning fireplaces within the proposed development. See Condition(s): 15, 17, 18, 22 OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARD(S) FOR PUD SKETCH/PRELIMINARY PLAN: The finding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5- 240.F.2.a. (15): 15. (a) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned (e.g. needs and market analyses); although the applicant has provided a report by Jill Hunsaker, Silver Street Consulting, LLC. entitled "Rationale for Development of a Health Campus ", no specific analyses were provided for this PUD Sketch Plan. Detailed needs and market analyses will be required prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. Such analyses should inform the creation of detailed phasing plans. (b) Proposed schedule of development phasing; the proposal includes conceptual information 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 -1 School District has not responded as of this writing; nevertheless, pursuant to the ECLUR's, the total amount of school land dedication required for this development is 1.18 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; While the applicant has provided initial information related to the amount of infrastructure (capital) improvements that will be necessary to adequately serve the development at full build -out, no actual statement of estimated demands on County services has been declared at this time. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be require to provide detailed analyses of such impacts or demands on ALL applicable County services. Also, Eagle County will be completing 67 05/25/2010 further analysis of the incremental benefits and costs to Eagle County using "Site Stats" financial 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; the applicant has provided a general statement of tax revenues based on current mill levies. Also, Eagle County will be completing further analysis of the incremental benefits and costs to Eagle County using "Site Stats" financial 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. (g) Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fire fighting purposes; The development will be served by the Eagle River Fire Protection District. No comments were received from the District at the time of writing. (h) Employee housing plan. The applicant has submitted a housing plan; however the applicant and County Staff have discussed alternate means to meet the minimum standard of the Guidelines. 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 FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 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 68 05/25/2010 5 44 4 Article 4, Site Development Standards Conditions 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) 8, 15 X Geologic Hazards (Section 4 -420) 7 X Wildfire Protection (Section 4 -430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4 -440) 2, 14 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) 16 X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4 -530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4 -540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non - hazardous Materials (Section 4 -550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4 -560) 2, 9, 10, 11,17 X Roadway Standards (Section 4 -620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4 -630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4 -640) 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) 12 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). 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 Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. 69 05/25/2010 (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 certain utility /service lines. 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 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 Colorado Geological Survey. 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: During the course of review of this file by the Eagle County Planning Commission, both Staff and the Applicant have worked to identify and address issues of concern related to the proposed PUD. Issues such as senior housing provision, development of the north side of the property relative to conformance with the Edwards Area Community Plan and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), traffic and possible funding sources for future (regional) transportation improvements have dominated months of discussions — within the hearing room and in numerous meetings with Eagle County Staff members from ECO Transit, ECO Trails, the Housing and Development Department and the Environmental Health Department. Likewise, meetings held between Eagle County Staff and representatives from the Edwards Community Authority (ECA) regarding the need to update transportation corridor feasibility studies and the potential formation of 70 05/25/2010 local improvement districts (LIDs) or a regional transportation/transit authority (RTA) have been of particular value to furthering our review of this Sketch Plan for PUD. The Planning Commission, in eight hearings, provided a thorough review of major topics germane to the concept's conformance with applicable comprehensive plans, as well as requirements of the Land Use Regulations (LURs). Issues such as the proposal's conformance with the County's Sustainable Communities Index (SCI), although not a major topic of discussion, were discussed - with a general recognition that as the plans are further developed, the Applicant will be required to work with Staff to further integrate suggested changes meant to increase the project's SCI score. Overall, the suggested conditions of approval reflect the major issues of concern moving forward and demonstrate both the Planning Commission's attentiveness to giving clear direction to the Applicant in the event a Preliminary Plan is submitted in the future, as well as Staff's ability to work with other County departments and the Applicant to proactively agree on those issues which will be "non - negotiable" submittal requirements on the front end of any Preliminary Plan submittal. Given the summary of Planning Commission deliberations provided on pages 8 -15 and the suggested conditions of approval forwarded with a unanimous recommendation for approval of the Sketch Plan, the following aspects, at a minimum, should be considered in the review of this Sketch Plan: 1. Traffic and transportation issues, including a discussion regarding updating the U.S. Hwy. 6 /I -70G Corridor Feasibility Study vs. providing a "localized improvement plan ". 2. The formation of Regional Transportation/Transit Authorities, Local Improvement Districts and other project specific funding mechanisms (mill levies) to fund on and off -site improvements. 3. Walkability of the project. 4. The appropriateness, benefits and disadvantages of development on the north side of the property. 5. Timing of development phasing, "triggers" and the need for detailed phasing plans. 6. Riparian area and wetlands delineation/restoration planning (working with the Eagle River Watershed Council) and future revisions to the proposed PUD layout. 7. Eagle County Local- Resident Housing Guidelines and the dispersion of affordable /deed restricted housing throughout the PUD. 8. Open space, trails, public parking, river access and ongoing maintenance of open space tracts. Similar to the organization of Planning Commission review of the file, Staff and the Applicant will coordinate the presentation of topics for each Board of County Commissioner's hearing — based on Board input — in a logical manner, grouping certain topics together to maximize efficiency of review. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [PDS -2313] 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 -2313] 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 -2313] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 71 05/25/2010 4. Approve the [PDS -23131 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). E. 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 Environmental Health Department dated August 12, 2009, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 3. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum(s) dated August 12,2009, and March 31, 2010, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 4. Recommendations set forth in the ECO Trails correspondence dated August 13, 2009, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan. 5. Comments set forth by the ECO Transit in correspondence dated August 11, 2009 and in correspondence received October 19, 2009, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. 6. The Applicant shall work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department Director as well as other County Staff towards finalization of the housing plan and the applicant's housing mitigation obligations under the Eagle County Local Resident Housing Guidelines. In addition, the applicant will be required to work with Eagle County Staff to further explore opportunities and options to integrate deed restricted and resident occupied housing of varying types, sizes and price points throughout the development, to dedicate lands to the county for mitigation purposes, to provide affordable - commercial space aimed at local businesses and entrepreneurs, to provide live -work units and to examine other funding mechanisms, such as transfer and sales assessments, to mitigate fully the development's impacts. 7. All comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey response dated August 14, 2009, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 8. Comments and recommendations set forth in a letter from the State of Colorado Division of Wildlife dated August 10, 2009, shall be incorporated into any future design development of the PUD and shall be otherwise be adequately be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 9. Comments and conditions set forth in a letter from the State of Colorado, Solid Waste and Materials Management Unit, dated August 11, 2009, regarding approval of a Corrective Action Plan Modification dated August 10, 2009, shall be addressed prior to any Preliminary Plan application. Pursuant to the letter from the State, the Eagle County Environmental Health Department shall be provided a copy of all reports describing the "results of remediation at the site." 10. Comments and recommendations set forth in a letter from the NWCCOG dated August 12, 2009, shall be incorporated into any future design development, specifically drainage, and construction storm water discharge planning, and shall otherwise be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 72 05/25/2010 11. Comments and recommendations set forth in letters from the Eagle River Watershed Council dated August 17, 2009 and October 21, 2009 shall be incorporated into any future design development of the PUD and shall otherwise be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 12. Comments and conditions set forth in the "Conditional Service Capacity Commitment" letter from the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, dated November 25, 2009, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 13. The Applicant shall coordinate any and all future design development for the PUD with the Eagle River Fire Protection District and other applicable emergency service districts for the purpose of ensuring any and all variations to dimensional limitations and/or Eagle County road and improvement standards are in conformance with applicable codes prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 14. The PUD Guide shall be revised to include, but not be limited to: a) more specific provisions, language and limits pertaining to all proposed uses; b) detailed dimensional limitations and development standards such as maximum building height, bulk and mass controls, and setbacks for each planning parcel; c) additional controls such as lighting standards; d) a master (comprehensive) sign program for the development; e) a definitions section; f) amendments provisions; g) landscape standards; h) renderings and illustrations necessary to adequately communicate absolute and "recommended" development standards, and; i) provisions and details addressing the administration, development and ongoing maintenance of all internal trails, "dog parks" and amenities such as community gardens. 15. 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 additional "dog parks ". In addition, the Applicant shall work with County Staff, as well as representatives from the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Eagle River Watershed Council towards the mitigation of any potential negative impacts from increased access to the river corridor and riparian areas by future residents and the public. Pathways, "dog park" areas, and drainage plans within the site are to be designed specifically to ensure that wetlands, riparian areas and the Eagle River resources within the PUD are not permanently damaged by any and all construction and to ensure that the potential for increased damage occurring from future use of such amenities by area residents and the general public is minimized and mitigated to the highest extent. 16. The Applicant shall incorporate certain design and construction techniques into any future design development of the project, specifically incorporating site design, building and landscape standards within any Preliminary Plan application and within the PUD Guide, to ensure that sound - abating construction materials and techniques are used where necessary to mitigate potential noise impacts from Interstate 70 and/or Hwy. 6 on any units proposed in close proximity to such transportation corridors. 17. The Applicant shall work with Eagle County Staff and the Eagle River Watershed Council to identify and incorporate, where applicable and practical, certain revisions to the overall design of the project for the express purpose of improving the project's conformance with master plan goals and objectives to improve ground water recharge and to reduce the amount of impervious surfaces, and specifically to incorporate techniques and technologies such as those listed in the applicant's official response to the Edwards Area Community Plan — Objectives — including but not limited to pervious paving materials, bio- swales, green roof construction, rain gardens, "Distributed Stormwater Management Strategies" and rainwater harvesting. 18. The Applicant shall work with Eagle County Staff to identify and incorporate, where applicable and practical, certain revisions to the overall design of the project for the express purpose of increasing the project's Sustainable Communities Index score. Specifically, areas to focus on will include: site design, solar orientation of buildings, on -site energy and agricultural (neighborhood gardens) production, energy efficient building design and construction techniques, xeriscaping, reduced parking lot footprints, increased diversity of convenience and neighborhood services uses, greater diversity in the types of housing, and additional affordable housing (over that required as a minimum). 73 05/25/2010 19. The Applicant is required to perform a detailed needs and 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 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. 20. Revise the plans to include provisions for an on -site recycling program for the PUD. 21. Revise the plans to include opportunities for senior services and children's day care as Eagle County Staff requests and in response to market demand prior to any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal. In so doing, the Applicant shall work with child and senior care service providers, the Eagle County Housing and Development Department, Health and Human Services Department and the Economic Council of Eagle County to identify housing, business, service and amenity demand and use. Such uses, if any, are to be incorporated into any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 22. The Applicant shall submit a Wetlands Delineation Plan and Mitigation Plan concurrent with any Preliminary Plan for PUD application. Such plan shall indicate the extent of mapped jurisdictional wetlands (pursuant to any Jurisdictional Delineation performed in accordance with Walsh Environmental Scientists and Engineers, LLC.'s, Draft Eagle River Meadows Wetlands Action Plan, dated October 14, 2009), and shall include specific recommendations for wetlands avoidance and mitigation measures. Such measures and the findings or recommendations of the Plan (as approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) shall be integrated into the design of any Preliminary Plan and may require the applicant to revise the land plan to relocate and/or eliminate certain amounts of proposed residential density. 23. The Applicant shall prepare a detailed phasing plan prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal. Such plan shall specifically address and identify the phased build -out of all proposed uses, by planning area, within the PUD and shall be drafted to specifically correspond with anticipated traffic impacts thresholds associated with the PUD and related transportation and other off -site public improvements required to mitigate identified impacts generated from the proposed PUD. The phasing plan will address future Levels of Service (LOS) for any and all road segments and intersections that will be directly impacted by the proposed PUD and will tie future impacts from the PUD to those on and off -site infrastructure improvements directly linked to such impacts. Accordingly, the phasing plan shall address the future responsibilities of the applicant /developer towards constructing certain improvements for the express purpose of mitigating the PUD's direct impacts and insuring that Edwards Area intersection and roadway segment LOS thresholds established by the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLURs), as may be amended from time to time, are maintained in the future. 24. It is anticipated there will be a need to update and, specifically, to supplement the 2004 Edwards Area Transportation/Highway 6 Corridor Feasibility Study (the "study ") with a transportation improvements plan specific to the Edwards Area, prior to any vote by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners to approve any Preliminary Plan for the Eagle River Meadows PUD. Such plan will be completed for the purpose of testing and revising transportation and land use assumptions used for the study and to aid the Applicant, other local quasi - governmental entities, CDOT and Eagle County in accurately assessing the need for and costs attributable to specific off -site transportation improvements in the Edwards planning area associated, in part, with the phased build -out of the proposed Eagle River Meadows PUD. Prior to any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal, the Applicant shall work with the Eagle County Engineering Department to quantify the scope, estimated costs and the level and extent of the Applicant's participation (financial and otherwise) in such plan project to the extent such participation is directly related to the Applicant's obligations pursuant to the ECLUR's to provide detailed traffic studies and analysis quantifying the impacts from the proposed PUD, and proposing certain solutions, concurrent with Preliminary Plan application. 25. The Applicant shall work with Staff, prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal, to establish a schedule (subject to approval by Staff) and work plan regarding the Applicant's initiative, as reported by the Applicant during the Planning Commission hearings on the matter of PDS -2313, to create a 74 05/25/2010 special district(s) or similar legal bodies to levy a property assessment millage that may be deeded to mitigate impacts from the proposed PUD on transit, transportation, and affordable housing, prior to any Preliminary Plan for PUD submittal. The creation of any special districts or mill levies for the project will be the sole responsibility of the applicant. 26. The Applicant shall reimburse Eagle County for any and all reasonable expenses incurred by the Eagle County Engineering Department for the purpose of contracting with a third party consultant to provide, after a competitive bid process, at the County's sole discretion, expert review of the applicant's Preliminary Plan for PUD traffic study. The selection of any such expert consultant hired by Eagle County for this purpose will be at the sole discretion of Eagle County and paid for by the applicant. 27. The Applicant shall develop site specific architectural and landscape design guidelines (separate from the PUD guide). Such standards, in accordance with the applicant's representations made during Sketch Plan for PUD hearings held before the Eagle County Planning Commission, shall compliment and/or reflect the intent — goals, policies and objectives - of the Urban Design Elements for the Edwards Core Area to the highest extent practical, where appropriate, in context to the PUD and its natural and man -made surroundings. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hunn explained the hearing process. He stated that the next hearing would be held on June 8, in Edwards. The hearing would address issues related to transit and transportation, project phasing, open space and trails, and comprehensive plan conformance. He provided an overview of the site plan and a planning parcel map. Both staff and the Eagle County Planning Commission considered the Edwards area Community Master Plan, Eagle County Open Space Plan, and Eagle River Watershed Plan when reviewing the application. 105 acres were zoned primarily resource. It was the former site of the B & B gravel mine site and batch plan operations. Currently there were still some batch plan operations occurring on the site. There were 20 acres on the south side of the site that were previously disturbed by the gravel operations and the subject of a corrective action plan. 68 acres of the site were in the flood plain or wetland areas. The northern portion of the site was currently used as rangeland. Commissioner Runyon asked how the 68 acres in the flood plain were determined. Mr. Hunn stated that the application and mapping indicated this determination. Lance Badger stated that the information came directly from the county's flood plain mapping. Mr. Hunn stated that this was a mixed -use project, which included 380 residential dwelling units, 261,000 sq. ft. of medical and wellness, support commercial, office space and open space totaling 68 acres. The purpose of a planned unit development was to permit variations from the strict applications of the standards of the county's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for land owner to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application of the minimum standards of the land use regulations. The purpose of the sketch plan review was to give the applicant, county, and the public the opportunity to discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD and consider whether development would result in significant improvement. He explained the Edwards Area Community vision and stated that the area was site 2 on the future- land -use map. The area community plan described the site as providing the best opportunity for additional and highly desired recreational space. Any consideration of development on the north side would require an exception to the plan. Approval of the Preliminary Plan would be valid for 2 years. In the Edwards Area Community Plan there was an exception process provided for unique circumstances. This allowed the Planning Commissioner to apply exceptions to the plan if the proposal was a unique situation. However, the applicant must inform and the homeowners and community of the proposal and provide a resolution of any conflicts. There should also be no significant opposition from the surrounding homeowner's associations or property owners raising germane issues. The Planning Commission wanted to make sure the community understood that they would be considering an exception to the plan so they held eight hearings covering a wide range of issues and topics, which resulted in a unanimous recommendation for approval. Overall, the original objectives were met by the applicant or could be met with conditions. He summarized the benefits of the development, explained the board's options, and presented the 27 suggested conditions. Lance Badger spoke on behalf of the Atira Group, which represented the landowner. He explained the experience of the Atira Group and their recent projects. His firm believed that longevity and sustainability were 75 05/25/2010 m. important to the community in order to support the economy. He explained the benefits of a health, wellness, and medical campus in terms of an economic driver. The applicant believed the development would create additional jobs, supports lodging, and was a new and unique concept for the Vail Valley in response to a growing trend in the country for better health and wellness. He provided an aerial map of the gravel operations and presented photos of the site in its current state. The applicant tried to create something more complementary not competitive that hung together as a community. He showed various photos of the site and the proposed bridge site over the river. The flood plan would be kept in tact. Any retail would be support retail and not destination retail. There would be trails within the development and all the trails would connect the community. In terms of road access there were challenges. The corridor study required a road connection at Lake Creek. However, they were able to connect to another property and run the road along the existing sewer line. The health, wellness, and medical facilities would be located in parcel A. Parcel B would be integrated residential and support retail. Planning Parcel C would be an extension of the health, wellness and medical and/or residential. Parcel D would be townhomes and an open space park. Parcel H would be townhomes. Parcel I would be multi - family /senior housing. Parcel J, K, and L, would be open space. Parcel M and N, on the north side of the property would be more residential. The architectural rendering would be similar to Miller Ranch. There would be cobble streets, a fishing cabin, and other amenities open to the public. Public benefits included bringing in destination dollars to the local economy, creating jobs and a viable economic model to the community, site reclamation, open space along the river, trails, county easement, public fishing program, 3 bus stop locations, two means of access, public roadways, and a portion of the residential would meet the county housing guidelines. He understood there were still traffic issues that needed to be resolved which included 40 -50 million dollars in traffic improvements. However, they believed there was a potential for a mill levy and tested assumptions, which would be presented at a later date. The ultimate vision was to provide a medical facility that would benefit the community and bring in outside dollars. They hope that this campus would be a real hallmark for the county. Commissioner Runyon agreed and appreciated the applicant's analysis about the economy. He believed that medical tourism seemed to be a viable solution. He asked if the applicant had any major funding partners. He also asked about the need for so many residential units. Mr. Badger stated that part of the reason for the density was because of the housing guidelines. He spoke about the current lack of demand for housing and the possibility of giving the north side of the property to the county in response to satisfying the housing requirement. However when presenting the idea to the ECPC it did not go over well. They have spoken to many people but had no funding partners as of yet. Commissioner Runyon believed that it was worth looking at all the options when it came to the housing component. Commissioner Stavney believed that the viability of this proposal required some kind of anchor. Mr. Badger stated that there were other people in the state aggressively pursuing this model. This was not an established industry but a pioneering concept. He believed this was something that could take on any form. He hoped to have the needed partners at the time of the preliminary as well as more definition. Chairman Fisher believed there would plenty of time to have further discussion. She believed that public dialog was essential. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Ceil Folz spoke on behalf of the Vail Valley Foundation. She spoke about the Foundations opposition to the proposed bridge that butted up to Eagle River Preserve, as there was a desire to purchase the property in 2005 to keep it whole for restful relaxation. Commissioner Stavney stated that the adjoining parcels and bridge was a challenge and he preferred preserving the north side of the property. Mr. Badger stated that this was a public process and the board would have the chance to view the site in person prior to the next hearing. Commissioner Runyon stated that he too had a problem with development on the north side of the property. Mr. Badger asked if Ms. Folz spoke on behalf of the entire Vail Valley foundation as he had spoken to 3 other members that no objections to the project. Mr. Folz stated that they had a large board and the day that every one of them is unanimous is unusual. She represented the nine executive committee members. 76 05/25/2010 Commissioner Stavney stated that any development on the north needed to have a crossing. He believed there were too many dead end developments. He had no interest in making a crossing across the development just for Lake Creek and Brett Ranch. Commissioner Runyon believed a half diamond interchange at Hillcrest Drive intersection on to the interstate was needed. Mr. Badger believed that working with CDOT was an uphill battle but they were happy to help in the process. He believed there needed to be some kind of consensus within staff and at the board level to push it forward. Commissioner Runyon understood that CDOT would not pay for the road improvements and it would need to be funded locally but from conversations, he has had it was really federal highways (FHWA) that had the real reservations because they did not like half diamonds. Commissioner Stavney stated that there would need to be some road impact mitigation and because of that, he believed that the cost would need to be part of the discussion. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Commissioner Stavney moved to table the file PDS -2313 Eagle River Meadows until June 8, 2010 Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business befe Cr' : - .rd, the meeting was adjourned until June 1, 2010. a r Attest: .ag, 424 4� "Intl o e . • oa Chairman r gyp., w � ocoer► � 77 05/25/2010