Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/09/13 PUBLIC HEARING July 9, 2013 Present: Sara Fisher Chairman Jill Ryan Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney 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: Manager Update Keith Montag, County Manager Communications Update,Kris Friel Information Sharing Discussion Items Meetings Attended/Future Meetings 1. Eagle River Center Solar,Adam Palmer 2. Community Service Block Grant,Toni Rozanski Attorney Update Bryan Treu, County Attorney Open Session Executive Session Legal advice concerning Remonov/Tract K and legal advice concerning Wolcott PUD Commissioner Ryan not in attendance for the morning session Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: 3. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of July 8, 2013 (Subject to Review by the Finance Director) John Lewis,Finance 4. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle County Commissioner Meetings for May 7,May 14 and May 15, 2013 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder 5. Easement Agreement between Eagle County and the Town of Basalt for Sidewalk Improvements to Sopris Village Drive Greg Schroeder, Engineering 6. Agreement between Eagle County and R&H Mechanical for Heating and Cooling Equipment at Miller Ranch Child Care Jan Miller,Facilities 1 07/09/2013 7. Amended Final Plat to amend Block 1 of the Two Rivers plat to reduce the number of lots from 24 to 21 (Eagle County File No. AFP-4207) Sean Hanagan, Planning Chairman Fisher stated that item 4, approval of the meeting minutes would be pulled from the agenda and placed on the next agenda as Commissioner Ryan was not present. Commissioner Chandler-Henry was not present for the meeting being considered and an approval required two commissioners. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the July 9, 2013 Consent Agenda as presented, excluding item 4. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. 8. SD- 4378: Board of County Commissioners to Set Hearing Date for Timber Springs Metropolitan District Service Plan Scot Hunn,Planning Mr.Hunn stated that this was a Service District Plan request. The request was dictated by state statute as far as the timeline. The board needed to set a hearing date for the Planning Commission's review. He requested the date of July 17, 2013. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved that the board set a hearing date of July 17, 2013,the first hearing date for the Planning Commission to review of the Timber Springs Metropolitan District Service Plan. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of Equalization. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. 9. Resolution 2013-063 Regarding Presentation of Reports of Valuation for Assessment of Taxable Real and Personal Property and List of Actions on Eagle Real and Personal Property Appeal and List of Actions on Real and Personal Property Appeals Mark Chapin,Assessor Mary Kessler presented the report. The report included a description of which property accounts were appealed at the Assessor level appeals and the action taken. There was also a list of personal property accounts that did not return their declarations in April. The summary page indicated that the after the Assessor level appeal the assessed value was 2.7 billion. There were 2,082 appeals, 810 were adjusted and 1,272 were denied. Commissioner Chandler-Henry wondered how the numbers compared with a typical year. 2 07/09/2013 Ms.Kessler stated that this was a low appeal year; typically, a reappraisal year would bring about 5,000 appeals. Commissioner Fisher asked about the list of active accounts that failed to report personal property. Ms.Kessler stated that some of the accounts did not carry taxable value because their equipment fell below$7,000. The list is merely informational and must be reported to the Board of Equalizat ion per state statute. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution regarding presentation of reports of valuation for assessment of taxable real and personal property and list of actions on Eagle real a.nd personal property appeal and list of actions on real and personal property appeals. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to adjourn as the Board of Equalization and re-convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Work Sessions (recorded) 10. White River National Forest Authorizing Procedures for Ski Area Facilities and Wildfire Update Dave Neely, District Ranger Don Dressler, Mountain Resorts Administrator 11. Fair&Rodeo Pre-event Presentation Rachel Oys,Fair and Rodeo Planning Files 12. ZC-4068 Remonov Center Tract K Sean Hanagan, Planning Rick Mueller: Remonov& Company, Applicant Rick Pylman: Pylman&Associates, Representative Note: Tabled from 06/18/13 Action: The purpose of this Zone change is to re-zone the Current Commercial General (CG)zoning to a Residential Multi-Family(RMF)zoning designation with the intent of developing 16 Habitat for Humanity units. Location: Tract K of the Edwards Village Subdivision SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant proposes to rezone Tract `K' of the Remonov Center from its current zoning of Commercial General (CG) to Residential Multi Family (RMF). The Residential Multi Family (RMF) Zone District is described in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, as follows: 3 07/09/2013 "Residential Multi-Family(RMF). The purpose of the Residential Multi-Family (RMF)zone district is to provide for higher density residential development within the County's community centers, where transportation facilities, necessary infrastructure and employment opportunities are already available. This is accomplished by permitting development of single-family, duplex and multi family residences on lots of six thousand(6,000)square feet or larger and by setting maximum lot coverage and maximum floor area standards appropriate for such uses and lots. The zone district also permits the development of small, convenience-type commercial uses to serve the neighborhood." Tract K is approximately 1.38 acres. The plan calls for up to 16 residential units with no commercial proposed. All 16 residential units will conform to Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines. The developer proposed for the affordable units be constructed Habitat for Humanity. Tract K' is currently zoned Commercial General but is restricted by the subdivision plat to use for "Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access, drainage structures, landscaping, utilities, trails and recreation structures". BACKGROUND: 1980 Subject property was rezoned from`Resource' to `Commercial-General'. 1981 Subject property was platted as a portion of Parcel 3,Edwards Village.Subject property was re- platted as Tract `K' Open Space of the Edwards Village Center. 1996 Subject property was re-platted as Tract `K' of the Remonov Center. Despite the Commercial- General zoning,Tract `K' is restricted by the Remonov Center Plat to"Pedestrian,bicycle, and vehicular access, drainage structures,landscaping,utilities,trails,recreation facilities". The Remonov Center Plat remains as the currently governing subdivision plat. 2007 Application for"Edwards Condominiums"PUD Sketch Plan proposal was received by Eagle County. 2008 Edwards Condominiums PUD Sketch Plan was withdrawn by applicant 2009 Edwards Village Mixed Use and Affordable Housing PUD Sketch Plan submitted 2009 Edwards Village Mixed Use and Affordable Housing PUD Sketch Plan withdrawn 2013 Current file denied(unanimous vote)by Eagle County Planning Commission SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses/Zoning:. North: Mixed Use `PUD' West End Development South: Residential `PUD' Homestead East: Commercial `CG' Remonov Center West: Residential `PUD' Lower Homestead Existing Zoning: Commercial General(GC) ProPoo04 Zoning: The Residential Multi Family(RMF) Current Development: None 4 07/09/2013 Site Conditions: Flat with drainage ditch(Dodd Ditch) Water: Public: Yes Private: No Sewer: Public: Yes Private: No Access: Via Edwards Village Boulevard Existing Zoning: a; rYsii- i ` N s -- x t r s � ga. ' 4 ` ,.,...,110-A, -.mss,::. .. • x E Sl":u� ` 4 €i y w r: \ er:',R.,..:s t *Nµ:1 I- p 0 '. 1 .s ' 1 4 3;- $a a? 3 r, r '. �., , "`� ,,tom. 4. , :„y �gd _i , ,, � ::,s 'ski,Alf., ^t -,:,....12,;4 •-,: -: --'--.1 i ti t r `� s X14}} -V L,t _ 14 ,..ii yy > : fi j t I', i E Y - [S N f ,c >, a '1. N � 1 . ,4,--, ,cam N ,, y✓`, z , — �*( i ti '-• � a _ �,x t0.e..„4--„,- C r r REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to twenty-nine (29) agencies/entities for review on January 18th 2013. The following section references the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County prior to the date of this report, as well as a list of all agencies which did not provide any referral response. All complete referral agency responses can be found attached. Eagle County Engineering Department: -"At this time the applicant has not developed site specific development plans for this site. The Preliminary Drainage Study reviews previous studies for the area, summarizes the findings of those studies and concludes that there are no irrigation, drainage or flood related reason that Tract K couldn't be developed with finish floor elevations above the maximum predicted 100-year event water surface elevation. The 100-year water surface elevation(WSEL)map provided illustrates the approximate WSEL in the area of Tract K. It is my understanding that this mapping is based on GIS data and not field survey. The magnitude of the area inundated during a 100-yr event appears to present significant challenges in stormwater management. However,there are solutions that could be implemented to construct the new development above the 100-yr WSEL while not impacting adjacent properties. These solutions might include increased conveyance of the downstream culvert and underground storage of stormwater. It is not clear what level of feasibility has been investigated for any solution to this issue. If the zone change is approved a detailed drainage study will be required prior to Building Permit submittal for the first structure. This study shall include field survey, site design, 100-YR WSEL and any mitigation design.." 5 07/09/2013 Eagle County Housing Department: -"We can be supportive of your receipt of Affordable Housing Credits in return for a donation of land to Habitat for Humanity. However, we do not believe that it is appropriate to receive 4 square feet of credits for every 1 square foot of affordable housing built,whether that affordable housing is developed by Habitat according it its delivery model or by another affordable housing developer. We also believe that affordable housing should be located in close proximity to whatever caused the need for such affordable housing to be constructed. -We have also requested a change to Section 3.b that was not made. We would like this section state that sellers must comply with the Guidelines in place at that time,not when this plan is adopted." Eagle River Fire Protection District: -"The road leading down to the fire station is heavily used by the following entities: Eagle River Fire Protection District, Eagle County Ambulance District and Vail Mountain Rescue. Because these are all emergency service vehicles they run emergent out of this location 24/7. Despite the changes the potential for accidents still remains high with this type of proposed project." Eagle County Ambulance District: -"District continues to have concerns with the conflict between emergency vehicles, public vehicles and pedestrians on the access road to the facility and feels that this conflict would create dangerous conflicts between emergency vehicles and the public." Edwards Community Authority: 1. Changing the open space designation. 2. Setting a precedent of approving land for development that had been set aside for open space. 3. Safety because the driveways/parking areas for the affordable housing will be using the Fire Department's access. 4. Lack of adequate yards for the proposed housing. 5. The proposed housing is incompatible with the drainage function that the parcel serves. 6. The broader concern that the traffic impacts of the project need to be mitigated. ERWSD: Plese see application leter dated October 18,2012 Edwards Home Owners Association: Please seen the attached letter dated Feb 11th 2013 Community Members letters: Please see attached letters from members of the community SUMMARY ANALYSIS: The proposed zoning request and associated Amended Final Plat seek to ultimately allow for a 16 unit Habitat for Humanity affordable housing development outlined in the attached application materials. All current dimensional limitations outlined in the application materials DO fit within the RMF zone district standards and limitations. It is important for the BoCC to be aware that the current plat that governs the subject property has plat notes that restrict uses on Tract K. Those plat notes allow for; "Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access, drainage structures, landscaping, utilities, trails and recreation structures". For this development plan to be approved and permitted the zone change must be approved and the above plat notes must be lifted. Simply approving the Zone Change would not allow for the proposed development as the restrictive plat notes would still limit the tract to the above listed uses only 6 07/09/2013 The current area Plan (adopted 2003) reflects a slightly different community attitude toward appropriate uses for that area designated as Tract `K'. The change in attitude is evidenced by the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and policy statements regarding focusing development in the community core of Edwards. However, during the process certain issues have been identified with drainage being a concern. Tract `K' is currently used for drainage from surrounding parcels. The Dodd Ditch currently runs along the western edge of Tract `K'. Concerns have been raised that ditch poses certain constraints on the design of the project. In addition concerns have been raised regarding the dimensions of the tract. Although the tract is in close proximity to the fire and ambulance facilities the current layout does meet all the dimensional limitations (setbacks, parking and building height and lot coverage) of the requested zone district. Although the existing plat notes allow for other active uses such as pedestrian,bicycle and vehicular access, drainage structures,landscaping,utilities,trails and recreation structures, further modification of these plat notes to allow residential uses may adversely affect adjacent property owners. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: At their regularly scheduled meeting on May 1st 2013, the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended denial of the Zone Change by a vote of 4-0. At the time of deliberation the planning commission cited the following issues: • Compatibility with surrounding uses • The tract was De-facto open space • Impacts to adjacent home owners • Safety conflicts with Fire and Ambulance vehicles • Wildlife • Public opposition • Investment based expectations for adjacent property owners • Difficulty to develop SUGGESTED FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-230.D. Standards for a Zone Change, the staff'suggests the following findings can be made: STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1] The proposed amendment DOES consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and IS consistent with most relevant goals,policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designation. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The proposal DOES provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property; dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, COULD result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s)surrounding the subject property. STANDARD:Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.31 The proposal DOES address a demonstrated community need or otherwise results in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation,public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. 7 07/09/2013 STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4] The proposal DOES address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community. STANDARD:Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5] The property subject to the proposal IS served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities. Board of Count/Commissioner Options: 1. Approve [File No. ZC-4068/AFP-40691 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 [File No. ZC-4068/AFP-4069] 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 [File No. ZC-4068/AFP-4069] if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve [File No. ZC-4068/AFP-4069] with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan(and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. A detailed drainage study will be required prior to Building Permit submittal for the first structure. This study shall include field survey, site design, 100-YR WSEL and any mitigation design. 3. The Applicant's Housing Plan shall incorporate the receipt of 1 square foot of housing credit for each square foot of affordable housing built on site. The credits will be awarded upon receipt of certificate of occupancy of the unit and proof of residency of an Eligible Household. The credits can only be used in the area defined in the Edwards Area Community Plan. APPENDIX A A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official Zone District Map 8 07/09/2013 Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. Standards: Section 5-230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.1] Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following: EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Section 3.2 General Development Policies a, c, e,f,g,h,i and k Policy `a': "Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for future generations' This proposal to re-zone the subject property from CG to the RMF zone district can be construed to support Policy `a' by ensuring the subject property will retain those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County for a portion of the Eagle County population that can only be served by affordable housing at the proposed AMI . Policy `c': "Growth should be managed toward future sustainability — a healthy balance between economic success, quality of life and the preservation of the environment". The project manages growth by directing development into an existing community center that is supported by public infrastructure,placing populations in close proximity to jobs, services and amenities. Policy `e': "Urban and suburban type growth should be appropriately designed and should be located within or immediately contiguous to existing towns and community centers': The proposed development is contiguous to and located within the core area of Edwards in close proximity to schools, services and public transportation. Policy 'f': "New communities proposed for unincorporated areas of the County should be subject to a thorough and rigorous set of development criteria" Not applicable. Policy `g': "Redevelopment and/or revitalization of currently underdeveloped, outdated, rundown, or otherwise dysfunctional areas should be encouraged': 9 07/09/2013 Not applicable. Policy`h': "Open corridors between towns and community centers should be preserved". This proposal seeks to develop what is now a community center.Policy h would be supported by this proposal. Policy `I': "A cluster style of development should be encouraged, especially in areas where cultural, environmental or scenic resources at risk". The geometric constraints of Tract K inhibit true clustering but staff would suggest the applicant consider a redesign of the building layouts to better create more usable public spaces. Policy `k': "Local communities should establish unique venues, attractions and design standards directed toward enhancing individual community character and developing a sense of place" Not applicable. Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies b, c,d,e,f, h,j,m and o Policy `b': "A healthy, attractive business environment, appropriate to the area's character and resources, should be fostered". Not applicable. Policy `c': "Those qualities that make Eagle County a world class tourist destination and a great place to live, work and play should be identified,promoted and protected". Not applicable. Policy `d': "The potential impacts of second-home ownership and an aging resident population in Eagle County should be identified and incorporated into the decision making process". Not applicable. Policy `e': "Commercial development should occur at a pace commensurate to growth in Eagle County': Not applicable. Policy 'V: "Commercial uses should be appropriately scaled and should be located within towns and community centers". Not applicable. Policy `h': "Commercial development should fit a regional economic structure that promotes a coherent regional `community'while respecting sub-area character and identity". Not applicable. Policy `j': "Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations". Not applicable. 10 07/09/2013 Policy `k': "Timber harvesting and mining should be recognized as viable economic activities, so long as negative social, cultural and environmental impacts are appropriately mitigated". Not applicable. Policy `m': "Economic infrastructure should be planned for in advance, and should be adequate to support existing and future business needs". Not applicable. Policy `o': "Future economic development in Eagle County should center on the area's existing amenities while encouraging new knowledge and technology based enterprises". Not applicable. Section 3.4 Housing Policies a,d,e, g and n Policy`a': "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". Edwards is one of Eagle Counties core job centers and the proposed development is located within close proximity to the majority of commercial in the Edwards area. Policy `d': "Efforts to increase the stock of affordable rental units for local workers should be supported". The entire 16 units proposed shall serve the needs of the portion of the community that falls into this category of need. Policy `e': "Adequate housing options for Senior Citizens should be available". Not applicable. Policy `g': "Well designed mobile home subdivisions, modular home subdivisions and mobile home parks should be encouraged where appropriate". Not applicable. Policy `n': "Development should share responsibility for fulfilling Eagle County's workforce housing needs". See Policy `d' discussion. Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a,c,g,i,j,k,m and o Policy `a': "Developed areas in Eagle County should be served by multiple modes of transportation". The proposed development is located in close proximity to Highway 6, I-70, ECO regional trail as well as ECO transit stops. Policy `c': "Residential neighborhoods should include an appropriate mix of community services and community centered retail spaces that can be accessed by alternative modes of transportation". Not applicable. Policy `g': "Eagle County should be adequately and efficiently served by mass transportation systems and facilities". 11 07/09/2013 The proposed development is located in close proximity to public transit systems as well and local services. Policy `i': "Exemplary emergency and community services should be available to all residents, visitors and second home owners". The existing property is adjacent to emergency service providers. Policy `j': "The management and distribution of recreation areas and facilities in Eagle County should be implemented in an environmentally conscientious manner". Not applicable. Policy `k': "Adequate and efficient infrastructure should exist within community centers and suburban neighborhoods for the delivery of domestic drinking water and for the treatment of domestic sewage". Adequate infrastructure is located in close proximity to the proposed development and shall be utilized. . Policy `m': "Communication infrastructure should be sufficient to support all anticipated needs in Eagle County" Not applicable. Policy `o': "The service and infrastructure needs of all socio-economic, age and cultural groups present in Eagle County should be fully addressed". See Policy `d' discussion Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a,b,c, d,e,f, g, h and i Policy `a': "The long term viability of both ground and surface water sources should be protected". The propose development will be serviced by public water and sewer systems. Policy `b': "Minimum in-stream flows should be maintained and efforts to establish optimum in-stream flow standards in Eagle County should be supported". Not applicable. Policy `c': "Water conservation efforts by all water users in Eagle County should be implemented". The application does not address water conservation for future potential uses by-right; future uses by right that all buildings will be subject to ECO Build and,therefore, subject to review for water,energy and other natural resource conservation. Policy `d': "New water diversions and water storage projects should result in positive impacts to Eagle County's economy and environmental quality". Not applicable. Policy `e': "Collaborative efforts on regional land and water use planning efforts to address future growth, water supply, and stream flow protection should be encouraged". Not applicable. Policy 'f': "Water quality in Eagle County should meet the highest applicable standards': 12 07/09/2013 Not applicable. Policy `g': "Surface and groundwater supplies should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts". Not applicable. Policy `h': "Aquatic and riparian habitats should be protected from agricultural, industrial and development related impacts" Not applicable. Policy `i': "Water-related recreation should be encouraged where appropriate at a level that will not damage related resources, ecosystems and environments" Not applicable. Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a,b,c, d, e,f and i Policy `a': "The integrity, quality and interconnected nature of critical wildlife habitat in Eagle County should be preserved". As of this writing, the Colorado Division of Wildlife had not responded to Eagle County's referral of the application. Policy `b': "The well-being of wildlife species of economic importance should be actively monitored and protected". Not applicable. Policy `c': "The well-being of wildlife species of less economic importance and those on the rare and endangered species list should be actively monitored and protected." Not applicable. Policy `d': "Development in areas critical to the continued well-being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed". Not applicable. Policy `e': "Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts' Not applicable. Policy `f: "Broad development patterns and the cumulative impacts of incremental development on wildlife habitat and wildlife populations should be accounted for in the decision making process". Not applicable. Policy`i': "Access to public lands and opportunities for public land recreation should be balanced with the need to preserve quality wildlife habitat". Not applicable. 13 07/09/2013 Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a,c,e and g Policy`a': "Development should avoid areas of significant natural hazard". The applicant proposes to develop in an area that currently contains a drainage ditch (Dodd Ditch) that serves as part of the drainage area for not only the subject parcel but also that of areas higher in the drainage basin (Homestead, South Forty.). A drainage study was included as part of this application and its validity is outlined in the comments provided by Eagle County Engineering. Policy `b': "The mitigation of natural hazards should be done in a manner that protects the integrity of the natural environment and the visual quality of the area" See above comment. Policy `c': "Development and development patterns should preserve landscapes that include visual, historic and archeological value" Although the proposal directs density into the core area of Edwards thus preserving larger landscape elsewhere the possibility of visual impacts from development exist for surrounding land owners. Policy`e': "A variety of approaches should be utilized to preserve land as open space". This application seeks to develop in an area that at one time in history had been set aside as open space with the intent of creating a buffer between residential development and commercial uses. The current plat notes (1996) do not restrict the tract as"open space" Policy`g': "Appropriate access should be provided to public lands and rivers". Not applicable. Section 3.9 Environmental Quality Policies a,c and d Policy `a': "Air quality should meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations of local residents': No wood burning is proposed as part of this residential development. Policy `c': "Noise should be minimized to meet the highest applicable safety standards, as well as the aesthetic expectations of local residents': Applicant has proposed to develop covenants similar to those found in adjacent PUD's to help insure aesthetic expectations are addressed and are consistent. Policy `d': "Energy efficiency and the reduction of overall energy consumption should be a primary goal for future operations and developments in Eagle County". In most all cases HFH projects seek to receive LEED certification. Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy `a': "Zone changes and site-specific land use proposals should reflect the written policies of this Comprehensive Plan, the land use designations of the Future Land Use Map and the goals and objectives set forth within Area Community Plans, as applicable". 14 4 07/09/2013 The future land use map for the Edwards area identifies the subject property as being within an area of"Residential High Density" and adjacent to and area designated as "Mixed Use" (may include, commercial, residential high density, office, recreation, among others) Section 4 Adopted Area Community Plans All relevant goals,policies and FLUM designations 2003 Edwards Area Community Plan EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Community Open Space/ Housing Transportation Facilities Environment FLUM Conformance X X Xl Non X Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X Applicable (1) The proposed zone district amendment will generally conform to the 2003 policy goals for the Edwards area by placing development within existing core areas. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-230.D.2J Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s)surrounding the subject property. The proposed zone change from CG to RMF zoning provides better compatibility with surrounding ]and uses. Specifically, when re-zoned to RMF, the property will be more in conformance with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses of surrounding properties. Issues related to the proximity to emergency facilities, possible visual impacts to adjacent property owners and drainage concerns may detract from the proposal's compatibility. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3]Does the proposal address a demonstrated communky need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, 15 07/09/2013 including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi-modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements;preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. The proposal addresses several demonstrated community needs, as delineated in master plan policy statements and goals. Specifically,the public benefit(s) generated by this proposal include: • Affordable local resident housing The applicant exceeds the minimum housing requirements by providing a development that is 100% affordable and at an AMI that is lower than that required by the current housing guidelines. However,the applicant has asked for a level of "Housing Credits" which is above that believed to be appropriate by the Eagle County Housing and Development department. X EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4] Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? While staff agrees with the applicant in that this request represents an opportunity to work with Habitat For Humanity to provide affordable workforce housing, staff believes that there are other changes in circumstances that exist that may help to support this standard. Specifically, the adoption of the 2003 Edwards Area Community Plan and the associated future land use map. The 2003 FLUM designates Tract K as appropriate for the development of "High Density Residential". EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5] Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? While water, sewer, and other public use facilities appear to be adequate to support this development while the question of whether the access road is adequate and or safe is still outstanding. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE AMMENDED FINAL PLAT NECESSARY FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: 16 07/09/2013 The standards per the Land Use Regulations are provided for the BoCC as written in the regulations and Staff's comments are provided below the standards in italics: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine if the proposed amendment adversely affects adjacent property owners. The parcel is currently zoned as CG and in addition contains restrictive plat notes that read `Pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access, drainage structures, landscaping, utilities, trails and recreation structures". The removal of these plat notes MAY adversely affect adjacent property owners. By virtue of the removal of these restrictive plat notes and allowing potential development to occur there exists an increase in a potential for impacts to adjacent property owners. b. Final Plat Consistency.Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine that the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. The "intent"of the current governing final Plat is in question with regard to its conflict-with zoning and restrictive plat notes c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat to determine that the proposed amendment conforms to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations,policies and guidelines. Staff concludes that the proposed "Land Use Notes"do not conform with applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. Adequacy of the proposed improvements agreements and/or off-site road improvements agreement when applicable. Not Applicable. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration.If the amendment is an altercation of a restrictive plat note at least one of the following criteria must be met: (1)That the area for which the amendment is requested has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area; or See Future Land Use Map discussion above. (2)That the proposed amendment is necessary in order to provide land for a demonstrated community need. See Public Benefit discussion above. DISCUSSION: 17 07/09/2013 Mr. Hanagan presented the request. The property was currently zoned Commercial General. The applicant was requesting a zone change to Residential Multi Family(RMF). The plan called for up to 16 residential units with no commercial proposed. The file was unanimously denied by the Eagle County Planning Commission. The plat note allowed for pedestrian,bicycle, and vehicular access, drainage structures, landscaping,utilities trails, and recreation facilities. At the time of plating in 1996,the open space note was removed. Staff was unable to find out why the note had been removed. To remove a restrictive plat note one of two things needed to be demonstrated. One; whether the area had changed in a way it would be in the public's interest to encourage new use or density in the area or two;that the amendment was necessary to provide land for a demonstrated community need. He presented photos of the property. He reviewed the zone change standards. There were some concerns with adjacent property owners so the standard relating to compatibility was mixed. Rick Pylman, Pylman&Associates spoke on behalf of the applicant. He presented photos of the property. The RMF zoning for the size of the lot would allow for a maximum number of 16 units. The applicant was proposing 8 duplex units. Chairman Fisher asked about the space from the back of the homes and the ditch. Mr. Pylman stated that there was a 12.5 ft. The buildings would be similar to those in Fox Hollow. Greg Perkin emphasized that the property was not Open Space and did not have an Open Space designation. He believed the proposal would benefit the community. He spoke about the surrounding property owners' opposition to the proposal. He described the housing plan. The property would be donated to Habitat and would remain affordable housing. Habitat could develop the property within their guidelines but the units were still subject to the county's affordable housing guidelines. The value of the units was speculative. He spoke about the housing credits and the financing structure associated with affordable housing units. Chairman Fisher stated that she had not had the opportunity to review the handouts recently circulated. Commissioner Ryan stated that she had not received the spreadsheet. John Welaj,Executive Director for Habitat for Humanity spoke about the Habitat program. The Fox Hollow project helped to build homes in Stratton Flats and continues to propagate with their mission. They invested well over 100,000 to put in a retaining wall on another project and would continue to invest in safety. Financially they have had success over the years and their investment went right back into the community. Mr.Pylman spoke about the Edwards Area Community Plan. The map indicated that Tract K had potential for future residential development. The housing element met every objective. The proposal would provide housing close to employment centers and provided ownership opportunities. He believed the zone change was appropriate for the property. He believed the proposal was compatible with the other residential uses. There was some concern with sharing a driveway near the Fire Station but they believed they could design a safe project around the driveway. The applicant believed they could provide a much higher public benefit then the existing allow by changing it to permanent affordable housing. Sandy Mendoza, from Intermountain Engineering spoke about the drainage issues and the concerns with the property being located near the flood plain. She believed flooding was not an issue for the site and any water surface increase could be mitigated offsite. Mr. Pylman reviewed the standards for an amended final plat and believed that the proposal met the criteria. Mr. Hanagan reviewed the benefits and disadvantages of the proposal. The board had multiple options. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Bob Warner, Edwards's resident spoke. He spoke about the community profile. He believed there must be growth in the community but there must be a need and desire. He supported Habitat for Humanity but this project did not have community support. This land had been platted several times over the years. There had been a lot of discussion over what the plat note meant. He believed there was a reason for creating the buffers. The future land map identified 5 parcels that were identified as areas of future development. The county zoned the property as Open Space thus it had been taxed as open space and the owner had been given the benefit of lower taxes. The request for 12 units an acre was much higher than the surrounding area. He was surprised that staff's findings were all based on housing and nothing on open space. He supported the preservation of Open Space and believed that the property should remain a buffer. 18 07/09/2013 Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that the property owner paying less in taxes was not something the board could consider. The history of the property was helpful but the board should focus on the request in terms of the plat note. Anyone could request that a plat note be changed as long as it met the standards. Budd Wonsiewicz, Eagle-Vail resident and Vice President of Habitat'spoke. He believed that the board needed to weight the community benefit against the damage done to the community. He complimented staff for the thorough and logical job done on the staff report. The question was whether it was better for the community to have affordable housing on the land or was it better to stay as it was. He believed it looked more like an empty lot than open space. From a Habitat point of view,the parcel was an attractive place to build, it was not their ideal place to build but they did not see anything that was insurmountable. Habitat would build something that would be a positive contribution to the community. John Castillo spoke. He owned a home in the Fox Hollow development and Habitat for Humanity gave him that opportunity. He supported the proposal. Laurin Davis spoke. She sat on the Family Selection Committee for Habitat. She shared some o:1 the safety issues and living conditions some of the families experienced prior to being selected for a habitat home. She spoke about some of the people that were habitat families. She requested the opportunity to re-zone and provide for families in need. Clyde Hanks, Habitat for Humanity employee spoke about the current condition of the property. I[e had great confidence that the Ambulance Service and Eagle River Fire Department would have the ability to get in and out of their facility safely. It could be easily mitigated. He believed the objections related to having a Habitat neighborhood in the Homestead area would be alleviated if people met the applicants. They were fantastic folks. He hoped the board would approve the recommendations. Kristi Moon spoke. She worked for Habitat for Humanity and shared stories about some of the se]ected families. She believed the families were amazing. Chris Neuswanger spoke. He believed this was a land use issue not a Habitat verses Edwards issue. There was no guarantee that the property would be deeded over to Habitat. He presented a petition with 366 signatures from people opposed to the proposal. He believed the flood plain issues were being ignored and there had been no proposal to address the access issues. Emily Peyton,Habitat for Humanity employee spoke about some of the families that were now homeowners because of Habitat for Humanity. Peter Runyon, Edwards resident spoke. He stated that there were over 1000 units currently in Edwards that could qualify as affordable housing. He supported Habitat for Humanity but any land use file was a negotiation. The property was not beautiful but was a nice buffer. The development would add additional car trips and traffic to the area. He did not believe the proposal met the standard of community benefit. Dale Nelson, Edwards resident spoke. He also believed this was a land use issue. He spoke about the tax rate and that the property had been treated as Open Space so should remain Open Space. Tab Bonidy, Tab Associates spoke. He supported Habitat for Humanity. He believed that the Planning Commission based their decision on the falsehood that the property was open space. He hoped that the board would approve the request. He believed that any drainage issues could be mitigated. The location was not ideal but would work just fine. Ms. Ayres-Oliver asked if some of the other allowable recreation facilities were a use by right. Mr.Narracci stated that type of request had never been made,but assumed that the Mr.Mueller would appeal that decision to the board. It was not a use by right. Dick Bourret,Habitat Board Member spoke. He believed that some of the concerns were valid but thought Mr. Mueller and Habitat would work with the county and opposition in resolving the concerns. This was a real opportunity for the homeowners, for Homestead,the community, and the county. Soucemani Bibakari spoke. He supported the proposal and hoped to live in a Habitat home in the future. Gail McFarland spoke on behalf of Eagle River Fire Protection District. As a government entity,t hey had to remain neutral. A letter was submitted by the district expressing concerns over the use of the road. She understood that CDOT owned the gate used to access Highway 6 only in the event of emergencies. For non- emergencies,they were required to use the road past the post office. Commissioner Ryan asked about the development strategies to mitigate the shared access. Mr. Pylman stated that there would be design considerations. They would be fencing,barriers, and they would create a nice play area. 19 07/09/2013 Rick Mueller, Remonov& Company stated that there would be safe sidewalks,pathways, and gathering areas.He provided the plan to the Fire District. He believed the majority of the traffic and traffic issues came out of Homestead. Kevin Hopkins spoke. He believed that the best use for the property was affordable housing. He encouraged the board to let Habitat build homes for 16 families. Jerry McArthur,Homestead resident expressed support for the project. Bethany Boston Johnson,Homestead resident spoke. She believed that the plat notes meant everything. She opposed the request. She could not sell her home with this pending land use proposal. She supported Habitat for Humanity but did not believe that this proposal was a fit. Joyce Bradley,President of the Staggs Leap HOA spoke. She bought her home thinking that the property was Open Space. She supported Habitat for Humanity but did not believe the land was the right property for 16 units. Erin Allen,Homestead resident spoke. She attended the Planning Commission meetings. She believed that there was misinformation being circulated. She found it difficult to trust things being said now. This was the third time that the community had responded to the applicant coming in with different requests involved with changing land use. She did not live immediately adjacent to the property but understood the concerns. The restricted plat notes indicated the designated use of the space when the homeowners purchased their property. Justin Petersmeyer, Elk Meadows homeowner spoke. He supported Habitat but opposed the request. Bob Warner believed the board should focus on the safety issues. There was no backup space. The fire station had been there for 25 years and he did not believe there was any way of mitigating the shared access issue. Barbara Allen, Edwards resident spoke. She expressed concern for the number of cars generated by 16 homes. The Planning Department figured 3 per unit,totaling 48 cars. She spoke about the number of children there would be with 16 units. She believed it was insulting to Habitat to put so many units on 1.3 acres. She believed there were other places in the county that would provide more space. She believed that Mr.Mueller would have much more support if he put the property into a conservation easement. She loved Hispanics and believed Habitat was wonderful but the property was too little. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Chairman Fisher believed a site visit would be helpful. She wanted to see the space and the distances. She requested that the applicant be prepared to demonstrate the sidewalks and any encroachments. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the covenants for affordable housing. Mr.Perkin stated that there was a covenant in place that applied regardless of whether it was a Habitat project or not. The minute the plat note was changed to allow residential,there would be a covenant placed on the property that would restrict it to deed restricted housing and the homes would be sold pursuant to the county's affordable housing guidelines. Ms.Ayres-Oliver understood but believed it would be helpful if Jill Klosterman explained the details to some degree at the next meeting. Commissioner Ryan asked Ms. Ayres-Oliver about the Open Space issue and wondered about the adjacent neighbors buying their homes based on certain expectations with their surroundings. She wondered if the only way to preserve Open Space was to put a conservation easement on the property. Ms. Ayres-Oliver stated that there were no vested rights in a plat note. A plat note could be changed, removed or modified at any time. There was no guarantee that a property could remain open space unless there was a conservation easement placed on the property. Commissioner Ryan expressed concern for the letters submitted by the Eagle County Ambulance District and Eagle River Fire Protection District regarding the shared access. One of the standards speaks to compatibility with surrounding land uses. She wondered if there had been further conversations or proposed development strategies. She would like to hear more at the next meeting. Commissioner Chandler-Henry had the same question and wondered if there were traffic studies or mitigation for the safety issues. Commissioner Ryan stated that the traffic study did not address the shared access. Mr.Mueller believed the 2007 traffic study included the entire area. The proposed plan included a 26 ft. easement at the shared access point. Commissioner Fisher requested a site visit on August. 12th or the 19th at 9 am. 20 07/09/2013 Commissioner Ryan moved to table the file no. ZC-4068 Remonov Center Tract K to August 27, 2013 after 4:30 Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before the Board,the meeting was adjourned until July 16, 2013. dew Attest: ���,Ani a al / W erk to the Boar ,t �t Chairman 21 07/09/2013