TOWN OF BASALT MEETINGS Meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday, September 1, 2015 Basalt Town Hall 5:30 pm Site Visit – meet at Fisherman’s Park 6:00 Call to Order 101 Midland Avenue Minutes and Notes June 30, 2015 – Approval of Minutes August 18, 2015 - Acceptance of Notes 6:05 Public Hearing Pitkin County Whitewater Park - an application submitted by Pitkin County for Site Plan Approval, an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Exemption, and an ESA Floodplain Review for development within Reach II of the Roaring Fork River in order for Pitkin County to construct a whitewater park in the Roaring Fork River. Recommended Action: Staff and Applicant Presentation, Public Hearing, and if P&Z is comfortable recommendation for Approval per Staff Recommendations 6:50 Worksession: Our Town Planning – Discussion with Don Elliott, Clarion Associates, on Zoning Options 7:15 Eagle County Referral – The Fields Subdivision Application Referral Comments Recommended Action: Motion for Chair to transmit letter 7:35 Update and Schedule – Introduction to Community/Affordable Housing Code Amendments and Amendments to Town’s Community Housing Guidelines 7:45 Commissioner and Staff Updates 8:00 Adjourn Items on the agenda are approximate and intended as a guide for the Commission. Times are subject to change, as is the order of the agenda. For deadlines and information required to schedule an item on the agenda, please contact Basalt Town Hall at 927-4701. 1 of 151 DRAFT TOWN OF BASALT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION JUNE 30, 2015 ROLL CALL The Planning and Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:07 pm. Commissioners answering roll call were Dylan Johns, Gino Rossetti. Eric Voziok, and Alternate Tracy Bennett. Staff present was Philp, Town Planner; James Lindt, Assistant Planning Director; and Denise Tomaskovic, Recorder. Several members of the public attended this meeting but failed to sign in on the form provided. APPROVALS Minutes of June 16, 2015 Referring to paragraph nine on page 5 ofthe Jone 16'? minutes, Commissioner Rossetti said that he thought the Commission had agreed to building heights on the CDC parcel ranging between two and 3-5 stories with the half story being set back. That is his preference. Chair Johns said that it would be worth amending the June 16?? minutes to reflect Rossettl?s comments. Johns added that the Commissioners had discussed a number of different possibilities and he, himself. had been in favor of keeping building heights to 2.5 stories on the CDC parcel. Philp suggested adding Rossetti's preference to the June 16'? minutes. Chair Johns and Alternate Bennett were okay with the suggestion. Rossetti said that he wants to see a lot of variation to the rooflines. not just flat two?story structures. The developer's architect needs to have some creative leeway. There had been some talk about possibly having a rooftop restaLIrant which would require more height. Alternate Bennett said that the Commissioners hadn't set anything in stone. Chair Johns added that the purpose of that conversation was to steer the generalities in a more resolute direction. Commissioner Rossetti reiterated that he thought the intention was to set parameters. He suggested the June 16?? minutes be amended to state that he preferred 3.5 stories instead of 2.5 stories. Philp noted that the Commissioners can have more discussion about this later in tonight's meeting, too. Johns suggested adding that the Commission had discussed the 3.5 stories. we RDSSETTI AND BENNETT To APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 16. 2015 AS AMENDED. THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 3-0-1 WITH COMMISSIONER VDZICK ABSTAINING DUE To NON-ATTENDANCE AT THE JUNE 16? MEETING. WORK SESSION Philp noted that an email from Marl-t Kwiecienski had been submitted today and copies given to the Commissioners. She then reviewed the discussion items for this evening: Master Plan Amendment Materials Option 3E Refinements Acceptable Development Recommendations Lions Park and Merino Park Acceptable Development Recommendations Clark?s Market area 2 of 151 Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission June 30. 2015 Page 2 dis Phin eXplained the changes that were made to the TypologiesI noting that this is still a work in progress. She invited the Commissioners to feel free to send her photos or drawings of ideas they think represent the intentions. Architect, John Cottle, was present to advise the commissioners of the changes made to the drawings (Option 3E to Options 3E.?l and SEE) since the June 16?? meeting. He noted that the polygon piece is depicted as having a ?community porch' element attached to a potential hotel. Option 3E.2 shows a 2,500 sq. ft. building in the polygon. What that 2,500 sq. ft. structure shown in Option 3E2 actually will house can be determined in the future. The strUcture depicted is referred to as the ?placeholder building? and is shown with 1.5 stories. He added that this could accommodate a visitor center with public restrooms. Cottle also reviewed potential square footage amounts and associated cost projections of Options 3E.1 and 3E2. He said that the amounts reflect hard costs only. lfthe Fitz Commission or Town Council determines they want to see more along these lines, CCY can calculate projected gross costs. Referring to CCY's typology interpretation sheets, Cottle explained how they used the historic downtown typology elements applied to compatible existing building scales to arrive at a contemporary interpretation for structures. These include modulated facades. 30-feet wide parcels. stepped building heights from one to three stories, a variety of Western roof forms, porches and loggias on street level, use of awnings, decks and balconies, and allowing additional ground floor heights. Chair Johns said he liked the typology images- Commissioner Rossetti said he liked having the hotel more a part of the community (not hidden behind another building) and visible from the bridge as people come into town from that direction. Also, it helps frame the park entrance, even though the entrance is still too big. He asked if it is possible to get the needed density within 2.5 stories to be economically feasible. Cottle said that Lowe Enterprises isn?t involved in the process at this point. The Town had directed CCY to come up with a scenario that essentially reduced the [Lowe Enterprises] proposal by half, for both the buildable parcel and structure size, in order to determine how the community felt about a reduced proposal size of that type. In Cottle's opinion, if the citizens do embrace the revised plan, then the value of the land has to change. There is still 75,000 sq. ft. with the possible addition of another 2,500 sq. ft. [including the polygon portion] of buildable area. Philp noted that the cost information is a starting point if the community decides the revised scenario is acceptable and wants to move forward with it. Commissioner Rossetti said he hopes the Commission supports the project's moving along. He doesn't want to be still working on this in December. It was Rossetti?s opinion that if Cottle thinks that 75,000 sq. ft. works using 2.5 to 3 stories the other 2,500 sq. ft.) but the developer says he needs more square footage. eg. 90,000 sq. ft, then the only option would be to allow more height with a combination of 3 to 4 stories. Cottle said he hasn?t been party to the negotiations between Lowe Ent. and the CDC. His personal working assumption is that if the program gets out in half then the developer cannot pay the same amount as before for the land. In that sees the community or the seller/purchaser needs to come to a different agreement. 3 of 151 Town of Basel! Planning and Zoning June 30, 2015 Page 3 ot?H Michael McVoy. president of the CDC. said that they extended their contract with Lowe Enterprises today, so they are still in the ballgame and intend to stay. McVoy thought that 75,000 sq. ft. might work but that depends on other requirements such as affordable housing, parking. river improvement, and relocation costs. The reduction to T5000 sq. ft. by itself doesn?t appear to be a deal breaker for Lowe. Commissioner Rossetti said the Planning and Zoning Commission wants to help the situation and if they can get as much of the concept tied down as possible then they can make an intelligent recommendation to the Town Council. If there are any hidden issues they need to be exposed. McVoy was of the opinion that there are still unknown quantities in the financial piece due to the as~yet unknown mitigation requirements. However, he thought it was fair to say that if the Town isn?t willing to buy the portion of the property designated by Resolution 19 as a potential public park1 then there probably won't be a park because Lowe won?t close on half the property without another entity stepping up. The CDC is prepared to sell half cfthe developable parcel to Lowe Enterprises as long as there is a solution for how the rest of the property is going to be paid for. Commissioner Rossetti said he would rather know sooner rather than later if they need to be having discussions about raising height limits. Commissioner Vozick noted that there could be other land available for a developer to possibly tap into (if necessary) in the Lions Park and Merino Park parcels. and maybe even in Basalt Center Circle. depending on finances. Chair Johns noted that the isn?t pushing a certain agenda even though there is a proposal on the table. The needs to Consider whether or not this makes sense overall from a planning perspective. The entities involved could change. He said that he liked the direction shown in these drawings and felt that the revised 3E option was more considerate of the traditional western vernacular. He thinks that the 75,000 sq. ft. is a placeholder number that could very well change. There will most likely be compromises made by everybody before all is said and done. Commissioner Rossetti thought this was enough direction on the CDC parcel for now. However, this is only 25% of the entire project. He wanted to be equally discerning regarding the park. Alternate Bennett sought clarification about a heading on one of the drawings that says, ?Evolution not Revolution." She asked if the architect is putting a modern spin on the typologies the approved. Cottle replied that was correct and they also wondered if the Commissioners like the look of the new library and buildings similar in style. Bennett said that she struggles with the modern interpretations of Western character because, even though she is a proponent of sustainability and efficiency, she really likes the look of the traditional Western character. Commissioner Rossetti said that it?s possible to have a little jewel that speaks to the water and park which is different from the typology seen in the streetscape. You could also have cleverly interfaced traditional Western features with strong architectural facades. Alternate Bennett said she would like to see a more Western-ish feel to the architecture. Chair Johns agreed, noting that the CDC parcel is in a transitional location between and the traditional downtown. 4 of 151 "I'own of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission .luno3l1,2015 Page 4 of8 Philp said it would be good to circle back to this topic a bit later. especially regarding how to make larger buildings retain a Western look. Chair Johns said that depending on how a building is designed. four stories can be made to appear not that much bigger than a two story building. Malloy said it would be helpful to clarify how the photos and drawings will be used. If they?re part of the Master Plan update that's different than being codified. Philp said that the typologies pertain to the Our Town Planning (2d typology designation) area while the architectural guidance principles would be more applicable for individual parcels, potentially as a zoning tool. It's not necessary to merge them. Chair Johns thought that the 2d typologies were more applicable to the open space character. Commissioner Rossetti said that he liked the boards and they are applicable to the Clerk?s Market site. too. He hoped that not all the approved uses would be allowed on each parcel because it would be ?too much.? He wanted a straw poll taken to indicate whether or not the architect?s typologies are generally in line with what the is looking for. The Commissioners were in agreement that the typologies presented by CCY are in line. Laura Kirk, DHM Landscaping, explained the park options that she and Jen Dicuollo created. During their process they referenced the conceptual park plan previously approved as well as the recently built park features, along with Cottle?s building footprint. The open space area (event lawn) in the Big is about an acre in size and limited in the amount of vegetation being depicted. The polygon area is shown with various uses and is the focus of differentiation forthat parcel. Kirk asked for feedback from the Commissioners as to what they thought would be appropriate programming for this part of the parcel. DHM also submitted imagery of different types of programming ideas.- Philp added that the purpose of this exercise is to get a better understanding of how the event lawn can relate to the buildings and what kind of structureluse would be appropriate in the polygon area. Commissioner Rossetti noted that all the fun stuff seems to be happening in the polygon area- Kirk responded that they were acknowledging the sensitivity about keeping the area within the Big open. Also, DHM is looking forfeedback as to whether or not the amount of open space shown is desirable. They are showing a transitional area with a vibrant edge between the buildings and the park. Rossetti thought some of the proposed activities could be located within the park area, itself. Alternate Bennett said the open space area could accommodate the large chessboard and some of the other activities, while allowing the area within the Big to still be used for larger events. All of the uses shown could be accommodated between the polygon area and the open space. Bennett said she wouldn?t supportjust one of the proposals. She wants all 'of them intermixed within and between the polygon and the Big V. Commissioner Voziok said that having a splash park so close to the river feels forced. artificial. and not representative of the rivers- He liked the idea of having a water play area incorporated into a larger play area. He agreed with Alternate Bennett that including various elements from each of the scenarios would be ideal. He was pleased to see that a skating rink was included as a representation that the park could be used year-round. 5 of 151 Town of Bass]! Planning and Zoning Commission June 30. 2? 5 Page 5 of 8 Alternate Bennett said that the hot tub scenario looked fun but it doesn't seem to be necessary. Chair Johns and Commissioner Vozick agreed with her. Commissioner Rossetti thought that the orientation should be more toward the river, not the street. He didn't think that a skating rink was what the community needs, but rather a free form skating pond with fire pits. He suggested integrating the seating area for the stage more with the park instead of orienting that use toward the northwest corner. We already have parks with lawns elsewhere and we need to capitalize on the fact that the river makes this park special. Chair Johns said that at one point the stage had been located in the area near the bridge abutment and the topography of the open space could be worked with to serve as the seating area. The Big concept seems to be an important symbol to the community but that doesn?t mean the edges can?t be manipulated to serve a public park function. Johns said he doesn't want to limit fun programming to just the polygon area; and it shouldn't be programmed for only one or two season?s use. He also felt it would be important to include some sort of a hang-out space for teenagers between the park and whatever structure is built. This could be a pocket of activity that is self-perpetuating simply by nature of who is going there. Commissioner Vozick supported the idea of having a youth center or facility with programming oriented toward teens in the general area that Johns had suggested. He also thought it could be located on the Lions Park parcel and linked to the park. Phin reminded those present that there is a stretch of programmed open area along the river already. She said it was helpful to have the recent high water so we know which uses are suitable for which areas. There was some discussion about how a stage could be accommodated by the bridge abutment. Commissioner Rossetti noted that Linear Park in Willits is so successful because the people who use it the most live right alongside it. Referring to this park, however, he thought that the river should be the main draw and having a big lawn in this location doesn't serve anybody. He advocated for a variety of uses throughout the open space and in the polygon. Rossetti rounded out his comments by saying that he also would like to see the park have some really cool lighting. Alternate Bennett said that she never envisioned having only a large open area of grass. This needs to be a very active area with features built into the grassy area. Kirk said this was important feedback. Commissioner Rossetti said that the Town should only pursue the idea of having a thermal pool area if it?s determined that the Town could afford to keep them in use year-round. Ensuing discussion determined that having an interactive fountain/splash area would be more acceptable than hot tubs. Kirk asked which uses would be allowed to spill over into the open space area. Some suggested uses included a game room, visitor?s centerIChamber of Commerce/public restrooms. and a brew pubfrestaurant. Also, somewhere in the park should be an event gazebo that could be rented out for occasions such as weddings, etc. Paving patterns for outdoor games could be incorporated into a plaza area that could also be used for event seating. Make sure there is an adequate sound system. Bocce courts and horse shoe pits could be in a non? or less-grassy area. Commissioner Rossetti asked if there needs to be a more distinctive intersection, perhaps with a roundabout. for Two Rivers Road and Midland Avenue. Philp said'that a good time to broach this idea will be next Monday night at the Two Rivers Road Greenway Master Plan Open House. 6 of 151 'l?own ol? Basalt Planning. and Zoning Commission Jinn: 3ll, EUIS Page (i of}? Philp then invited Cottle back up to discuss the CCY drawings focused on Lions Park and Merino Park. Cottle explained the difference between the drawings from the previous meeting and those generated for this meeting. The revised program calls for two stories graduating to three stories on Merino Park with two three-story structures on Lions Park. Touchette added that the area of Lions Park where the Wyly is now shows a structure with two stories stepping back to three stories and some of the parking tucked underneath. This proposed site arrangement keeps the structure out of the Twin Rivers Condos? view plane to the river park and the river. Philp noted that comments received from the public didn?t support having a four-story building on Lions Park. Touchette said that the same reasoning was behind reducing the number of stories on the Merino Park parcel. Another limiting factor is the amount of parking that can be accommodated in this area. The hillside is so steep and the desire is to avoid cutting into it. Commissioner Vozick asked if the Wyly could be relocated to Merino Park instead of having residential use on that parcel. It was pointed out that the kid?s programs at the Wyly tend to use the park so it?d make more sense to keep it on Lions Park. However. different non-profit uses or a business incubator could go in that building. Also, it would be great to have a CMC campus in Basalt. Commissioner Rossetti said he thought that the revised drawings feel more natural to Basalt. The details about massing and location will be refined by future developers in keeping with what the community has decided. This is a good jumping off point. In summary, the Commissioners sopported the revised 3E drawings (Options 3E1 and SEE) presented by CCY at the meeting. Chair Johns said that siting multi-story structures in these locations is a good way to take advantage of the hillside behind them. He liked the thought of accommodating a business incubator and/or affordable housing on the Merino Park parcel. in response to a question from Commissioner Rossetti, Touchette explained that the topography of Lions Park lends itself to underground parking. Discussion then turned to allowable uses on the Lions Park parcel. It was determined that the parcel should be used notjust for affordable housing but also mixed use. This could include commercial uses such as restaurant, retail, arts center, structured parking if it is integrated with a building. community housing, offices, town hall, and non?profit uses. Cottle asked if a realignment of Midland Spur as shown on Sandy Kucharzyk's Plan SB drawing (that she submitted along with a letter) could be considered as a way to create better structure siting and more seamless integration of Lions Park with the river park. The Commissioners agreed that it would be worth further consideration. Regarding the former Clark?s Market area, Philp said that DHM is working on a site plan concept. She would like to meet with the property owners before having an in-depth discussion about potential redevelopment of that property. Commissioner Rossetti thought it could be useful if the provided some direction to the property owners for Philp's meeting. He said he didn't want to see a big~box store or a large surface parking lot. He prefers a non-vehicle parcel that could house Town Hall, a combined arts and science center, a water feature linking Lions Park with the Fryingpan River, market place, incubator spaces, pharmacy, and other retail on the ground floor with some residential on upper floors. Commissioner Vozick thought the typologies would lead the discussion with the preperty owners. 7 of 151 'I?uwn ol?Ensuit Planning and Zoning Commission June 3th ZUIS Page '7 MB Chair Johns liked the idea of having a combined performing arts/artiscience center complex. underground parking. mixed uses, and a riveresque/pedestrian connection with little water elements between Lions Park and the Fryingpan River. He wondered about the possibility of diverting some of the Fryingpan River?s flow thru this parcel and then back into the river(s). Phin noted that water law is very complex and expensive to work through. However. she wouldn?t preclude this suggestion entirely. it can be taken up again at a later date. Commissioner Vozick said a direction has been established on the other parcels and it needs to be consistent for the former Clark's Market site while still retaining flexibility regarding parking, building heights, etc. He agreed with Rossetti's comments, especially that it should not be just another market space because the site lends itself to uses that can't be comfortably accommodated elsewhere. Alternate Bennett said she had no more comments regarding uses. Phin asked if the wanted to meet with the property owners instead of having Staff and the consultants meet with them. Chair Johns said that creating scenarios forthe Basalt Center Circle (BCC) parcels, similar to what?s been done for the CDC and Lions Park parcels, would be helpful. This area has always been fuzzy and now it feels like the time has come to look at some options. Commissioner Rossetti said that showing massing options without architectural details could be helpful. This would start to take it out of the bubble and it according to the charts. Philp said Staff will have the consultants provide some drawings similar to what?s been done on the other parcels. She will post these drawings online and direct the property owners to what?s been done up to this point. Rossetti noted that he donated a model to the Town that could be used for these purposes. Phin asked if the Commission would be ready to meet with the Town Council on August ?ltm. Chair Johns said he preferred to go through the sketch exercise for the BCC parcel first before meeting with Town Council. Philp said that CCY was hired to address the CDC and Lions ParkiMerino Park parcels only so she will have to check with the Town Manager about extending the work. McVoy encouraged the Town to move forward with the CDC parcel plan- He thought that trying to take on the BCC parcel could add quite a bit more time than a developer might want to wait. He suggested that Staff keep the CDC parcel moving along while exploring what could happen on the BCC parcel. Phin thought that it would be good to check-in with Town Council on the CDC parcel and other two parcels while continuing the process for the BCC parcels. She will try to get the 'decisions to date? on the Council?s agenda sooner rather than later. The Commissioners agreed it would be best to keep the process moving along for the CDC. Lions Park and Merino Park parcels. Public Comment Opened at 8:11 pm. Sandy Kucharzyk thanked the Commission for its consideration of her proposal. She lives in Twin Rivers Condos and likes the idea of not having a structure blocking their views of the river. Having the ability to shift the proposed structure a bit further to the west also opens up more of Home Park. 8 of 151 Town oI'BasaIt Planning and Zoning Commission June 30, EDI 5 Page ti of? Michael McVoy CDC encouraged clari?cation of whether or not the polygon area is to be private or public. A lot of the proposed uses appear to be public but he has been under the impression that the area will actually be private. Sharon Hall noted that a theatre in the park could have mulch instead of a flat grassy area. She liked the idea of having an interactive fountain rather than the pools. Hall agreed with Rossetti?s remark that having a kids? playground wouldn't be appropriate near the road. She advocated for having a safe area removed from traf?c where kids can play and people can bring their dogs. Tim Belinski suggested having a beach like Herron Park in Aspen above the floodplain area- This would provide an opportunity to incorporate the river?s edge into the rest of the park. He asked if there has been a study on the demand for hotel rooms. Cottle said that Lowe Enterprises has done one for its project. Belinski said he was thinking more along the lines of determining the hotel room demand overall for East Basalt. Chris Touchette, speaking as a Basalt resident, said that he hoped the would wrap up the CDC portion of the plan because he would like to come back to the as its chairman for the 800 discussions. ADJOURNMENT MIS VOZICK AND BENNETT TO ADJOURN THE MEETING. THE MOTION CARRIED BY A VOTE 0F 4-0. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 8:21 pm. TOWN OF BASALT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION By: Attest: Dylan Johns. Chair Denise Tomaskovic, Recorder 9 of 151 DRAFT TOWN OF BASALT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK SESSION AUGUST 18, 2015 CALL TO ORDER The Planning Zoning Commission was called to order at 6:02 pm. There was no quorum but Commissioners present were Gary Wheeler, Eric Vozick and Patrick McAllister. Staff present was Susan Philp, Town Planner; James Lindt, Assistant Planning Director and Denise Tomaskovic, Recorder. Philp noted that since there was no quorum the approval of minutes would be added to the next regular meeting agenda. WORK SESSION Philp noted that tonight?s work session will focus on the master plan amendment in preparation forthe PSZ's public hearing on August 315?. On July 28?? the POST and findings from earlier meetings were presented to Town Council and, as a result, the Town Council approved Resolution No. 34 directing the PS2 to continue working on the Our Town Planning process and to take more public comment on the master plan amendment. Tim Malloy. land use consultant hired for the amendment process, was present and reviewed the draft amendment. noting that there haven?t been very many changes since the Commission last saw it. The substantive changes to the text (page 3) address the ongoing nature of the Our Town Planning process. There haven't been any changes to the maps. Other changes are miner. Philp clarified that the 11x17 version of Table ?ltwhich showed the status of each item in the right column) isn't part ofthis amendment. Table 1 as included in Resolution No. 3 (without the status of each item) is included in the Appendix. The Commissioners indicated that they thought the changes were acceptable. Doug MacDonald asked if the amendment to the master plan contemplates development in accordance with Option 3E.1. Phin replied that it does and it gives the PS2 and Town Council a lot of flexibility in that many different strategies could be consistent with the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to include the DAAC Report in the current master plan. Malloy noted that the work being done by CCY (some of which has already been reviewed by the PS2 and Town Council) is n_ot part of this amendment. The amendment is very general. CCY is working on more specific ideas that are part of a different discussion. MacDonald responded that the perception of many is that the Town Council has raced ahead of the process when it approved Resolution No. 34. What is the purpose offine tuning the master plan at this time? Malloy answered that the purpose is to make the DAAC Report and other information part of the master plan, establishing the need for compliance on the part of potential developers. Royal Laybourn thanked the Commissioners for their time and the work they do. He said that some people, including him, don't want to see very much development on the CDC parcel. He encouraged the Commissioners to consider about 35:00!) sq. ft. as a more realistic level of development forthat parcel, an amount with which the community likely would be more comfortable. Developers tend to go for the maximum allowable square footage and Lowe Enterprises' initial proposal clearly shows that. 10 of 151 ?l'o'wn oi" Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission August l8, 20 5 Page 2 ut'3 Jen Rifer said that she appreciated where the Town is going and she would love to see the size of development limited on the CDC parcel. It took her breath away when she heard that 75,000 sq. ft. of development was being considered on the riverfront. She thought that a building of that size would be better suited elsewhere, eg. on the Lions Park parcel against the hillside. Jae Gregory said she wants the Commissioners to keep in mind that the flood plain comes up far enough onto the parcel that at certain times of the year there will be less parkland available for public recreation and amenities. She thought that many people would prefer a two?story building height limitation and modest square footage amounts. Also, she thought that many people would prefer if some of the buildings would be for community use. She thanked the commissioners for their "exhaustive work.? Mark KWiecienski noted that this is a very challenging decision for the entire town. The PBZ is deciding what the people want, not just making a zoning interpretation- He said that the Town Council's proposed number of 75,000 square feet is half of the original proposed number (150,000) but that number was not officially established as a basis for discussion. He understands the need for growth but he doesn?t think the CDC parcel is the right place for a large chunk of private growth. Before this spring nobody knew what a great amenity we had in the river front until the mobile homes were removed. He said that the plans [for this parcel] were put into place a long time ago and good government re-evaluates when new information becomes available. There is always a lag time with legislation. He summarized the letter he had sent regarding a reduced amount of development on this parcel. He thought that most of the conversation has been directed by the potential developer (Lowe Enterprises). There are other ways to reach the master plan's goals other than planning for 75,000 sq. ft. of development. It?s taken '12 years to get the trailers off the site and there?s no need to rush into a decision. He asked the commissioners to read his letter before making any decisions. Patty Lecht said it was very important to listen to the many voices out there that want more open space than development on the parcel. Public spaces can be very vibrant and those who are asking for more open space aren?t looking to prohibit vitality in town. She was concerned that the master plan amendment would be prohibitive in endorsing the community?s ideas and a pre-development agreement could hinder the ability to listen to the voice of the people. There are so many different options for this parcel that could be vibrant and financially bene?cial. .Jen Rifer said the reason she moved to this town was because she liked its sleepiness. She doesn?t want a lot development or employee housing. She and many others scratched and fought their way into the housing market to buy a single family home in Basalt and she likes the town just the way it is. She added that she doesn?t need to see more development or housing here; it?s going to happen in El Jebel and unincorporated areas. Phin said she wanted to make sure that those in attendance are aware that there will be a public hearing on August 31?. BASALT SUSTAINABILITY BUILDING CODE REGULATIONS Lindt said that Basalt?s current sustainable building regulations apply only to single family and duplex development. The Basalt Green Team had originally considered adopting the International Green Construction Code (IGCC) to fill the Town?s gaps regarding sustainable building regulations for commercial and multihfarnily residences. However, after checking around with other municipalities the Green Team and the Town?s Building Official, Jim Wilson, determined that Eagle County's Code was more in line with what is desired for Basalt. 11 of151 Town of Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission August lti. 2015 l-?agc 3 oil Additionally. there was concern that the was going to be difficult for a small building department like Basalt's to administer. Town Staff made some adjustments to Eagle County's regulations and then sent the revisions out for peer review. The revised regulations will be evaluated and presented at public comment sessions on August :25th and Staff will take spoken comments or comments via email. Philp added that Dylan Johns had submitted comments to the effect that he didn?t support the current sustainability regulations because they don?t go far enough if Basalt wants to be known for its environmental sustainability; they only add another layer of bureaucracy. He based this opinion on experience he had working on some Aspen projects when they used their previous scoring system. Commissioner McAllister said that having a broader set of regulations was a good start. Commissioner Vozick clarified with Staff that if an applicant ends up owing a fee. those fees would go into a HEMP fund. Regarding recycling. there should be equal amount of space required for recycling bins as there will be for regular trash bins. Commissioner McAllister said that maybe an equal amount wouldn't be necessary. Perhaps it would be better to say "an adequate amount? instead. Lindt said that the regulations provide a menu system that will be used by developers to accumulate points. Different types of development will be more amenable to some regulations than others. depending on what's being built. The RMI building is being used as a comparative project sample for the scoring system. The potential Block 7 building was also used as a scoring sample and it was a very eye-opening experience that led to some adjustments being made to the scoring system. Commissioner Wheeler said it sounds like a great system. COMMISSIONER AND STAFF UPDATES Philp said that the upcoming schedule is looking pretty busy. There will be a master plan amendment public hearing on August 31st followed by a regular PS2 meeting on September The Whitewater Park being proposed by Pitkin County. affordable housing code amendments. and zoning options for the Our Town Planning process are on the agenda for September 15?. Philp added that the weekly planner?s report on the Planning Department's page of the Town website has updates. too. One ofthe major items is that the proposed CCRC application has been withdrawn but a proposal for a multi-family. high density residential neighborhood on the Stott's Mill site is coming back in for consideration. Lindt said that the third Park Modern building in Sopris Meadows. Parcel 4D will be next in line for construction and is being reviewed for a building permit. Philp noted that construction bids are coming in at substantially higher amounts than their corresponding estimates and this phenomenon is complicating matters. It is negatively affecting the Town's ability to work out community benefits with developers. Philp said that Councilman Rick Stevens had sent an email regarding art to share with the PS2 so Staff will forward that email to all of the PS2 Commissioners. The Planning and Zoning Commission adjourned at 6:49 pm. 12 of 151 MEMORANDUM To: Chairman Johns and Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission Thru: Susan Philp, Planning Director From: James Lindt, AICP Assistant Planning Director Date: September 1, 2015 RE: . Public Hearing? Pitkin County Whitewater Park Site Plan Review and Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Floodplain Review for Development in the Reach ll of the Roaring Fork River, and an ESA Exemption l. Purpose Pitkin County ("Applicant") is requesting approval of a site plan review, Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA) Floodplain Review for Development in the Reach ll of the Roaring Fork River, and an ESA Exemption to construct a Whitewater Park on the Roaring Fork River in the vicinity of the intersection of Elk Run Drive and Two Rivers Road. ll. Background The Applicant has requested approval to install several concrete structures in the Roaring Fork River and some additional boulders at the toe of the river bank to create a Whitewater/kayak park. Pitkin County has been working on this idea for several years and now has worked a deal to clean up a land ownership issue that had delayed the. proposed project. The Applicant has an Army Corps of. Engineer's 404 Permit to construct the project that expires on December Therefore, the Applicant is working towards getting the necessary Town approvals with the intent of constructing the improvements this fall under the current 404 Permit. It has been described by the Applicant, that one of the underlying reasons for proposing to construct the Whitewater Park is so that the County can make calls for water to improve the in?stream flows on the Roaring Fork River during times of low flow. The structures are intended to function properly at particular flow rates. Water rights for these needed flows have been acquired by Pitkin County in an effort to protect flows in the Roaring Fork River from future diversions to other watersheds, but are tied to recreational use of these in-stream structures. Additionally, the Applicant proposes that in-channel work will also increase pool habitat for aquatic species, improve fish survivability, and increase stability of the Two Rivers Road embankment that washed out in the 19903. 13 of 151 Review Process The shall make a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the Site Plan Review portion of the Application pursuant to Town Code Section 16-111, Special Review: Compliance required. Additionally, the shall make a recommendation to the Town Council regarding the ESA Floodplain review for development in the Reach ll of the Roaring Fork River pursuant to Town Code Section ESA Application procedures and contents: Planning and Zoning Commission Review. Finally, Staff is requesting that the and Town Council ratify the administrative ESA Exemption pursuant to the standards for TRC review that are set forth in Town Code Section 16-468, ESA: Exempt development activities. It should be noted that the Parks, Open Space, and Trails Committee (POST) reviewed the Application and recommended approval. IV. Discussion Items Impacts on Rise: The findings that must be made for the approval of the ESA review are as follows: 1) the project will not have adverse environmental impacts, 2) the project will not increase regulatory floodplain on other properties, and 3) the project shall not interfere with the implementation of the Town's River Master Plan. The Applicant?s Engineer, River Restoration from Carbondale has provided an analysis in the Application of the Project?s anticipated impact on the ESA. River Restoration?s analysis indicates that the proposed improvements will not increase the base flood elevation on adjacent properties and explains that the improvements will improve fish habitat. The Applicant has also suggested that the proposal is consistent with the Town?s River Master Plan in that it will increase stream flows at times of low water to improve fish habitat and recreational use of the river as is consistent with the Town?s River Master Plan. Additionally, the Army Corps of Engineers has evaluated the proposed project and issued a 404 Permit. The Application was referred to the Town?s Consulting Engineer, SGM and the Roaring Fork Conservancy. Water Rights: Pitkin County applied for and received an in?stream water right for recreational purposes for the proposed Whitewater Park, which means that there will be a greater amount of water required to be maintained in the Roaring Fork River at low flows so that necessary flows to keep the Whitewater Park operational occurfor a greater portion of the year. Location of Whitewater Park: The Applicant has indicated that the proposed location. is the best place hydrologically to install the Whitewater Park. Additionally, it has been expressed that the installation of the Whitewater Park in this location is really the least impactful location for installation of the feature with regards to its impact on fishing. 2 14 of 151 There has been some thought that a Whitewater Park should be located closer to the Pan and Fork site so that it could be more visible to visitors. The Applicant has indicated that they do not have the ability to construct the Whitewater Park in such a location, but that the Town could consider installing additional features in that reach of the river separately. Parking and Trail Improvements: The Applicant has indicated that they have not proposed additional parking and trail improvements at this point as part of the Whitewater Park as the design of such amenities is a significant discussion and they need to make the in?river improvements in a timely fashion to comply with their 404 Permit requirements. The Applicant has indicated that there may be potential for future parking and trail improvements if budgeted by Pitkin County and Basalt in the future, but" . the Applicant has expressed that the appropriate points to access the prOposed Whitewater Park at this time would be Fisherman?s Park to the east of the proposed Whitewater Park and the Town?s Ponderosa Trail that runs from Ponderosa Park to the cul?de?sac at the end of Emma Road. Fisherman?s Park has parking for about eight (8) vehicles and a boat launching area that acts as a good access point for kayakers. The Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife has asked that the Applicant make some minor improvements to the boat launch area of Fisherman's Park and the Applicant is planning on making those improvements. The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District has provided verbal comments expressing that they need emergency access stairways directly down to each of the waive structures. Alternatively, the Fire District has expressed that there cOuId be one emergency access stairway with a walkable, flat surface at the riverbank level between the two (2) in?stream structures. Staff has included a draft condition requiring the Applicant to design stairways meeting the requirements of the Fire District prior to the Council?s final review ofthe Application. The Police Department has concerns about the iack of parking for users and the potential for illegal parking along Two Rivers Road to create public safety problems. Staff has tried to find interim solutions to the Police Department?s concerns as much as possible. The Town is currently in a public process to update the Two Rivers Road Master Plan to provide long?term vision for Two Rivers Road in the area of the proposed Whitewater Park. Staff has recommended that no parking signs be installed on the south side of Two Rivers Road from the Streamside Property to the Fisherman?s Park boat ramp. Additionally, Staff and the Police Department felt that there needed to be a barrier between roadway and the steep riverbank to prevent Whitewater Park users from illegally parking along Two Rivers Road. Staff has included a condition requiring the Applicant to constructa split rail fence in the south shoulder of Two Rivers Road from the Streamside Property to Fisherman?s Park to prevent peopie from parking illegally and creating a public safety problem. Given the lack of parking the Police Department and Town Staff would like the Applicant to add four additional parking spaces in Fisherman?s Park, which has been included as a draft condition. 3 15 0f151 Finally, Town Staff is concerned about the lack of a crosswalk at Fisherman?s Park as . the parking is located on the north side of Two Rivers Road and the access to the river is on the south side of Two Rivers Road. Staff has included a draft condition requiring that the Applicant be required to install a thermoplastic crosswalk across Two Rivers Road at Fisherman?s Park and install flashing, cautionary road signs on each side of Two Rivers Road alerting motorists of the pedestrian crossing. Additionally, Staff believes there is a need for an additional 'crosswalk to be installed across Two Rivers Road at the intersection with Elk Run Drive to access the stairwaydown to waive features that is required by the Fire District. Staff has also included a draft condition requiring that the Applicant be required to install a thermoplastic crosswalk across Two Rivers Road at the western corner of Elk Run Drive and install cautionary road signs on each side of Two Rivers Road alerting motorists of the pedestrian crossing. ADA Accessibility: Use of the Whitewater Park is ADA accessible in that the Whitewater Park can- be accessed by putting in at Fisherman's Park and then taking out at Old Pond Park. Old Pond Park, when completed, will be ADA accessible. A sign shall be installed designating one parking space in the Fisherman?s Park parking lot as a handicapped space.- Organization of Fisherman?s Park Boat Launch: The Roaring Fork Conservancy has suggested that signage be installed at the Fisherman?s Park boat launch area to better organize the site for kayakers and boaters putting in the river at this point. As a result, Staff has inciuded a condition requiring the Applicant to work with the Town to monitor the level of use of the boat launch area after the Whitewater Park is installed to determine the nature of the management measures needed, and to install. signage as determined necessary to mitigate and management issues. Staff also believes that there is a need for some initial signage with a map at the Fisherman's Park boat launch area that shows the location of the waive structures and pull out points downriver. A draft condition is included requiring the Applicant to install such signage. Maintenance: Staff believes that there will be a likelihood that the area upstream of the Whitewater Park will need to be dredged from time to time to prevent material build?up above the in?water structures. Town Staff has included a draft condition requiring that . Pitkin County be responsible for maintaining the structures and preventing the potential for material build-up in the river as a result of the proposed Whitewater Park. The draft condition would require the Applicant to repair the area in the event that they are damaged in some fashion and maintain the emergency access stairs down to the Whitewater Park on the north side of the river. Construction Management: The Applicant has proposed for the site to be accessed for construction activities through the informal BMX track at the end of Emma Road that is already disturbed. The Applicant install temporary above?ground culverts on the south side of the Roaring Fork River adjacent to the Whitewater Park location to carry river water around the site during installation of the waterpark features and feed it back into 4 16 of 151 the river of the Whitewater Park. The Applicant has proposed to revegetate this area of Town Property at the completion of construction. Emma Road is a private road with a public access easement. The Applicant may access the BMX track area to allow for equipment to access the river, but the day to day construction parking needs to occur on Basalt Avenue by the seed garden or at Fisherman?s Park unless the Applicant can obtain approval from the Basalt Commercial Park HOA to park on Emma Road with the location to be approved by the Town Planner. The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District reviewed the Application and have expressed that they do not want to have Emma Road used as the main public entrance to the Whitewater Park as they do not want to encourage additional traffic down Emma Road. Staff has included draft conditions requiring the Applicant to provide a construction management plan for review and approval by the Town Planner and the Town Building Official prior to the issuance of a floodplain development permit. V. Referral Comments Basalt Sanitation District Requirements: The Basalt Sanitation District has reviewed the Application and has indicated that the Application does not impact their operations or infrastructure. VI. Recommendation Staff recommends that the hear a brief presentation from Staff, consider a presentation of the Application by the Applicant, consider public comments, and provide Commission discussion. If the is inclined to approve the Application, Staff recommends doing so with the following conditions: Representations: 1. The Applicant shall all representations set forth in the Application. 2. The Applicant shall comply with'all material representations made in'hearings before the Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council. Site Plan: 3. The Applicant shall prepare a .site plan for review by the Town Planner' and the Town Attorney and execution and recording at the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder's Office prior to the issuance of a floodplain development permit to construct the improvements. The in-water improvements to be constructed shall be as depicted in the plans submitted by the Applicant in their Application dated August 18, 2015, as amended by these approvals. 17 of 151 Floodplain Development Permit: 4. The Applicant shall apply for and obtain approval of a floodplain development permit from the Town prior to commencing construction activities. Fisherman?s Park Improvements: 5. Prior to May 19?t following the installation of the Whitewater Park, the Applicant shall install the following: a. A thermoplastic crosswalk and pedestrian-activated flashing, cautionary road signs on each side of Two Rivers Road at Fisherman?s Park, alerting motorists of the pedestrian crossing. The Applicant shall coordinate any lane closures with the Town Planner and Public Works Director. b. Four additional parking spaces in the Fisherman?s Park parking lot. 0. A sign shall be installed designating one of the parking spaces in the Fisherman?s Park parking lot as a handicapped parking space. 6. The Applicant shall install the necessary signage at the Fisherman?s Park boat launch area and at the top of the emergency stairs with the Whitewater Park rules that includes a map of the Whitewater Park, and the access points and pullout areas. 7. The Applicant shall work with the Town to monitor the level of use of the Fisherman?s Park boat launch area after installation of the Whitewater Park and install any measures determined necessary to ensure orderly use of the boat launch area. Mitigation measures could include, but are not limited to, signage. 8. The Applicant shall make the improvements to the Fisherman?s Park boat launch area that were recommended by the Colorado Department of Parks and Wildlife prior to the beginning of May following the installation of the Whitewater Park using an ADA compliant surface. Two Rivers Initial Road Improvements: 9. Prior to the 15t of May following the installation of the Whitewater Park, the Applicant shall install the following:- a. No parking signs on the south side of Two Rivers Road from the Streamside Property to the Fisherman?s Park boat ramp. b. A split rail fence in the south shoulder of Two Rivers Road from the Streamside Property to Fisherman?s Park with gates for the emergency service parking spaces to be accessed in emergency circumstances that allows a Park user to walk on the river side of the fence. 18 of 151 c. A thermoplastic crosswalk and cautionary road signs on each side of Two Rivers Road at the west corner of Elk Run Drive, alerting motorists of the pedestrian crossing. The Applicant shall coordinate any lane closures with the Town Planner, Public Works Director, and Fire District. d. Improve the takeout trail shown as access point #3 in the Site Plan Review Application so that it is easily walkable from the riverbank to Two Rivers Road. Emergency Access: 10.The Applicant shall design two manageable stairways for direct emergency access down to the waive structures. Alternatively, the Applicant shall design a manageable stairway down to the waive structures with a reasonably flat riverbank surface between the two (2) waive structures. The design shall be submitted for review and approval by the Fire District and Town'Police Department prior to the Council's final review of the Application. Additionally, two (2) emergency service parking spaces shall be designed at the top of the emergency access stair structure(s) and constructed prior to the 1St of May following the installation of the waive structures. Maintenance: 11.The Applicant shall be responsible for maintaining the in?stream structures and preventing the potential for material build?up in the river as a result of the Whitewater Park installation. This maintenance shall include periodically dredging the area of the river directly upstream of the proposed Whitewater Park. Additionally, the Applicant shall maintain the emergency access stairs down to Whitewater Park on the north side of the river. The Applicant shall work with the Town to draft an agreement between the entities related to the maintenance prior to the completion of the Whitewater Park installation. If the- Applicant fails to maintain these items, the Town can perform the maintenance and invoice the Applicant for the work. Emma Road Signage: 12.The Applicant shall install a traffic sign across Emma Road from River Park Center in the Emma Road access easement in a location to be approved by the Town Planner, identifying that there is no public access to Whitewater Park from Emma Road. This sign shall be installed prior to the lat of May following the installation of the in?stream improvements. 19 of 151 Construction Management Plan: 13.The Applicant shall prepare a construction management plan for review and approval by the Town Building Official prior to the issuance of a floodplain development permit. 14.The Applicant's contractors shall not park on Emma Road during construction unless consent is first received from the Basalt Commercial Park Homeowner?s Association and the Town of Basalt. Instead, the Applicant?s contractors shall park on Basalt Avenue adjacent to Ponderosa Park or Fisherman?s Park. The Applicant?s contractors may access the installation site with the necessary equipment needed for the Whitewater Park installation through the public access easement on Emma Road and the Town?s property at the end of Emma Road. The Applicant shall revegetate areas disturbed during construction pursuant to the revegetation plan included in the Site Plan Review Application. The Applicant shall submit a planting plan for review and approval by the Town Planner prior to commencing planting activities. Minor Amendments: 15.The Town Planner may review and approve of minor amendments to the approval documents necessary to effectuate the intent of the final development approvals. The Applicant shall have the ability to appeal a Town Planner decision on a minor amendment to the Town Council at a public meeting in which (15) days written notice of the public meeting has been provided to the appellants. Vested Rights: 16.The vested rights for the approvals granted for the Whitewater Park shall be valid for three (3) years from the effective date of the approval ordinance. If the Applicant does not construct the approved improvements within three (3) years from the effective date of the ordinance, the approvals shall be null and void. Two Rivers Road Master Plan: 17. In the agreement referred to in Condition No. 11 above, language shall be included indicating that the County will work with the Town to maintain use of the Whitewater Park and implement any other improvements that might be necessary to manage the Park. 20 of 151 18. In the agreement referred to in Condition No. 11 above, language shall be included indicating that the County will work with the Town to implement the improvements included in the update of the Two Rivers Road Master Plan in this area when the public process is completed. Attachments: Application Referral Comments 21 of 151 Applic cal-low To be filled out by the Town Filed: _l Application Fee: Review Fee: Total Payment Received: Current Reimbursement Agreement: Town of Basalt Development Application The Following Must Be Provided Unless the Town Planner Gives Permission to Omit Answer: TYPE OF APPLICATION FILED: Annexation Rezoning ESA Environmental LESA Floodplain Regular Rezoning _Special Review Special Review for Off-Street Parking Variance Minor Subdivision _Minor Subdivision Condominimizalion Major Subdivision or Replat Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan Sketch Plan Preliminary Plat Master Plan Final Plat Preliminary Development Plan Final Development Plan TRC Administrative Amendment Other type of Application Brief description of project: "The main focus of this Recreational In-channel Diversion (RICD) project is the construction of two boulder and concrete grade control structures in the Roaring Fork River approximately 1.100 feet of the Highway 82 read bridge. These two structures are designed to create local hydraulic conditions that enhance whitewater recreational Opportunities. The structures are intended to function properly at particular flow rates. Water rights for these needed flows have been acquired by Pitkin County in an effort to protect flows in the Roaring Fork River from future diversions to other watersheds. The in?channel work will also increase pool habitat for aquatic species and increase stability of the Two Rivers Road embankment on river left. Additional goals of the project include: increasing passive and active recreational opportunities, inspire river stewardship in the local community, enhance visual aesthetics of this project reach and introduce and educate the public about the river environment. The project will also make minor improvements to ?Fisherman's Park" which is approximately 900 feet upstream of the main site. These improvements will add two boulder grade control structures to improve the hydraulics (Le. Eddy) at this location to make put-in and take-out of rafts and boats easier. The grade control structures will also add pool habitat to this reach of the river. Vegetation along the bank will also be enhanced to increase shade and decrease erosion potential.? Drivml? [Doeleayal-C l?arki'l?ovrn ofBaSalt Applicationldocs for development completedoc 22 of 151 Contact Information Name of Applicant(s): Pitkin County Phone number 970920-5190 Fax number 970-920-5193 mail (if available) Address 530 Main St 3'd Floor Aspen. co 81611 Name of Dwner(s): Pitkin County Phone number 970-920-5190 Fax number 970-920-5199 mail (if available) Address 530 Main 5131? Floor Asoen, CO 81611 Name of Owner?s Representative: RiverRestoration.orq Phone number 970-943-9568 Fax number mail {if available) Please attach owner?s authorization. Name of Engineer or Surveyor: Phone number Fax number mail (if available) Name of Architect or Planner: Phone number Fax number mail (if available) Information on Existing Conditions Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Total square feet or acreage in application Information on Proposd Development Total number of dwelling units: Number of bedrooms: Total floor area: Proposed gross floor area by use (non~residentia development only}: Area of open space to be provided: Revised 2 of 5 (3}.doc 23 of 151 Legal Description Legal Description of property (attach if necessary): see attached Exhibit A Reception No. of Deed: to be provided after closing (?halv- SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR REPRESENTATIVE If Owner's Representative files or will represent the application, attach an owner?s authorization to represent Attach appropriate Information requested for type of application per the Basalt Town Code and any information requested by Planning Department. Pitkin County is the owner of the property described on the attached Exhibit A Authorizes Rierestoration.org to ?le an application fora White Water Park on its behalf with respect to the property. Sincerely, 4w ReviScd lO/99Page 3 of 5 (3).doc 24 of 151 STATE OF COLORADO ss. COUNTY OF Subscribed. sworn to and acknowledged before me this 19th day of August 2015 by Steven F. Child, Chairman of the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Witness my hand and official seal. My commission expires n? . LISA NOTARY PuaLio STATE OF COLORADO NOTARY ID 19924015259 commission amass Moveunen 10.2913 Revised 10/99Page 4 of 5 (3 ).doc 25 of 151 EXHIBIT A A PARCEL OF LAND SITUATED TRACT NO. 43, SECTIONS 17 AND 18, TOWNSHIP 3 SOUTH, RANGE 86 WEST OF THE RM, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Revised 10(99Page 5 of 5 (3).doc 26 of 151 Ogbatssa 0. Box 243 Carbondale. CO 31523 9703419568 August 18. 2015 Town of Basalt Planning Department 99 Midland Ave. Basalt. CC) 3162] Subject: Application for Pitkin County Whitewater Park ESA Exemption and Site Plan review The following document is provided to the 'l?own of Basalt Planning Department for Site Plan Review and BSA Exemption for the Pitkin County Whitewater Park. This document is intended as response to various items ot?those two checklist that were not covered in other information provided in this submittal. including site plan drawings and details that further explain the proposed project. The following provides detailed descriptions of werk to be done, future plans for the project site, and speci?cs on restoration of disturbed areas. The intent of the proposed project is to claim the water decreed in a Recreational in? Channel Diversion water right earned by Pitkin County. SITE PLAN REVIEW See.16-.l 12. Site Plan Submission Ingram and egress points to rtnd?wn the public street Three river access locations are identi?ed for the whitewater park project to be developed or improved. The furthest access point will serve most commonly as an egress point. it will be located river right off of Two Rivers Rd. A small gravel lot is existing of the whitewater park location. A soft access path could be developed to connect this existing parking to the river level. An existing cul?desac and parking area is located at the end of Emma Rd. This site will be utilized as construction staging. The contractor will create two access roads from this site. (See sheet CW- 01 in the plan set for details) Once in?channcl construction is complete this construction access can be improved as soft access trails to lead river users directly to the whitewater features. This parking and access will be most liker be utiliZed by park and play boaters. They will park at the cul-de?sac, get out to play in the feature, and then return to their cars. The most upstream access point will be located across Two RiVers Rd. at Fisherman?s Park. This access point will most likely be used for ingress. Parking and river access is already available at this location. Whitewater park users could easily park at Fisherman?s park. float down to the features and use the sort access path at the extent otthe project to get back to 'I?wo Rivers Rd. Landscaping All landscape planting included as a part ot'this whitewater park project will be rcvege'tation for areas disturbed by construction activities. Trees and will be plated to restore upland areas. The riparian revegctation will consist of transplanted willow and cottonWood stakes and poles. Vegetation restoration will take place at the staging area at the end of Emma Rd. for the two construction access roads, for the bypass system footprint, and at the ingress point by Fisherman?s Park. See sheet (2?9 in the- plan set for the Planting Plan. Page 1 of 7 27 of 151 ?ancee PD. Boat 243 Carbondale. CO 31623 9709419558 See. 16413. Standards for Review Landscaping shall be provided in areas near the pttbiic rigizt-o?way and located twin consideration for energy conservation. Applicant shall describe any proposed iandscaping or regeneration areas. An acceptable plan must be provided for the maintenance oftna required landscape areas. Revegetalion efforts will focus on replacing vegetation in its proposer soil moisture zone. Upland trees/shrubs/grass will he used for the upland area river left adjacent to Emma Rd. Riparian and wetland plants will be utilized on the vegetated bar on river left that is inside the ordinary high water line and the floodplain. No regular maintenance is anticipated. Soc Sec. [2 above for a description of the revcgetation effort and sheet (3?9 of" the project plan act for planting plan. Other Written and Map In formation to be included a narrative that deseribes Firkin County 's intent with regards to other site improvements rotated to the Whitewater Park in tne?narc. Pitkin County applied for and receiVed a water right For this lit-channel dEVelopment project which will protect streamflows in the Roaring Fork River and create recreational opportunities. The in channel structures will be maintained in the future. However, at this time, additional inrchanncl structures are not contemplated. We anticipate river side improvements and park creation may occur at a later date, dependent of funding availability. Include written. and graphic explanation ofnaw users are expected to access the Whitewater Park upon completion. Same as discussed in 16-1 12 See sheet (2-1 for graphic representation of ingress and egress to the site. ESA APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS Sec. 16-463. Application Procedures and Contents (4) Inventory and photo documentation of existing vegetation mam any ESA, unless the vegetation is Hot proposed to be disturbed Vegetation will only be removed as necessary for construction activities and river access development. The following photos show areas of proposed disturbance within and adjacent to the ESA. All sites will be restored and revegetated. Excavated material will be stock piled and used in restoration. WilloWs and cottonwoods that are in the disturbed areas will be transplanted and saved for reVegctation. Page 2 of 7 28 of 151 kit . Box 248 Carbondale, CO 31823 9?0.947.9568 Page 3 of 7 29 of 151 PO. Box 248 Carbondale. CO 81623 91"03419568 l-I. Fig 4: Large woody debis to be removed and the] replaced in access road #1 corridor Page 4 of 7 30 of 151 a of? Rivsg FLO. Box 2118 Carbondale, CO 81623 9703419568 Fig. 5: Loation of bypass channel pipes, this area will be cxoavted, bypas pipe laid and back?lled with existing material. Site will be restored with existing material and riparian vegetation after bypass pipes are removed. . I (.Fig. 6: end of bypass pipe path, looking upstrea Page 5 of? 31 of 151 P.O. BOX 243 CarbondaIE. CO 81623 9?0.94?.9563 access road #2 corridor from river as Shown on sheet Fig. Shocking] Page 5 of? 32 of 151 fol t% W7 PO. Box 243 Carbondale, CO 81623 same-419553 . F1. 9: View of acces (c)(4)N0 rise letter issued by REM idem/?ying that there wil! not be an increase in rhe?oodpiain or ?oodway on other properties as a result ofthe proposal. The projects no rise letter is included with this document as an attachment Page 7 of 7 33 of 151 PITKIN COUNTY WHITEWATER PARK FACILITY BASALT, CO A, AUGUST 20 I 5 If Pilkin Gaunt)- INDEX SHEET INDEX CONI. mummy, I. Mr. Inim- Ely PLATE NU TITLE PLATE 3'0 TITLE 51 VICIHTIT DRAWING IKDEE [ll CARE OF WRITER DETAILS mm CAEEDF WATER EROSION CONTROL DETALIS BOULDER DETAILS FEE-CAST mm I. MrJasnn Carey. RE. Rim Engineer :iumag. LLC. two: SHEET PTLE (SDI-TEE DAM 03 (was BETASS SYSTEJ . Di ROAD DIth DE 3-. Ms. Kendall Bakich q4nf1n1 turns EVPASS PLPECIUTLH DETAILS SITE PLAR E3 PL.th BHITEWATEF. C3 GEQMORPEIIC DESIGN SECTIONS I C5 DESIGN SECTICIES C6 SECTIONS LU DESIGN SECTIONS C3 BEIGE CHI PLANTING PLAN VEGETATIUN D6 EROSION ELANRETS LOCATION MAP Lm?qu: Pmmuymh??ci?rw "sari-int. I20 Aquatic Binln-gisl Colorado Division ofWilu'li?: 4. Mrs. Lisa Dinadrk: Tm Adm-is! TM :3th (gm-6134034 MAP - I DP COLDRADO Ail-l OVA RENE BEILVNIQLI HM ALNHOC) Nblilcl A:de A am Ali/M9291 I LIE HEFI 35 of 151 0.5.02 20 Emu. A. 001355.31 1am UNMEE. x95 {BIA?m2th 0? Dram 1.5% Miami- _2_n_lcn_mh_ _2 ?on $522.29 him. nowman: 30:55 on Em 3H: . 3mm 23520 $53 ER ?msz mum 24.5 mm a . 8.6m BEBE. cinnamm 529.36 damn Pram. .uzumw mint. mm WINE DI: . .. {2:16.151 . ..4 . gun?amaze . Eu nmcEmm 35mm . mzm? an? .5: mumnm M. ?mam umEr mxmma 20H m. #5 mimmd .. a . a. . . .. Em. Emdzn .- mayo mm I ?mm m.me n5: .. $52sz .5 than .215 notarnanm .3 .. ?22482 Ema?amiznum ,2 BE. m. Irmt?m? m??xmm 12? a.th 54.1.2. Etjd .Pzn. ?omqln?z?mcndo: m. .3. $0223 m?uhmm EduE Bum GNOME: 5.2a Iqumuzu Ian?Emth hm mmDEmmb. 6030.er .23.. 02 ?85930: .3. Sa?r?u ammunz. . .J. miezo .. Emczn .. .. I .. .. .rrl\ll.\ . mmEnEm mamazm Exam .. . I . . .35 m. . 3mm agar 9mm . .. . -mi?zn . . . mac. 5. .3 .. I?nll . .5. .. I- mismm 32.? $35 n33 . ?mm umir mxmEma?mm . Swimming?45 ?rm?nm mIm? 0.33. 32mg :..Jflf Obmm Om Er4mm I :22 ll .- 11'; N?l?v?cl MNHOD NV'lcl JO SEND 19-h Tile 1 41:04 Ill 1qu 36 of 151 (man.? 1. 913:!ka HamiscALE 1":311' MERIECALE 13% 4? a i I I HSTES: 155' I - I: T. CWTRACTDH RESPONSIEE FOR DESIGNTHE CARE OF WATER ,1 I Iri 3 DETAILS INCLUDED IN THIS PLAN SET ARE FDR PLANNING AND ESITHATING PURPOSES OHLT: . . .E-TCIP EIF SHEET FILE I I me I - ?15:33? - II, '1 5515 ma 2. FODTPRIHT THE CARE or WATER SYSTEM. INCLUDING I I BE TO GRADE AND UNLESS AS OTHERWISE INDICATED IN THESE a? PLANS. SUPPER um AROUND BYPASS PIPES MS (SEE UEINLS. SHEET 0?1} a" 551:: I 2 I 45' m5 BYPASS SYSTEM SHEET cw: ma I SAHDEAG p" SHEET FILE BAH, FIFE TRENCH AND PIPE CIUTFALI. SHALL AT SHEET PIIJE E. m5 I I ax GROUND WATER EARRIER - VISRATE DRIVE INTO INVCI LZIEII-IG NEVA AINIIOD I I FILL r3- . as: SHEET FILE- PROFILE EMBED LARGE ?mam I - ?i EACKFILL WITH APPROX. LIHI MATERIAL OF CUTOFF DEPTH San-n EL REFUSAL EKCAVATE mu BACKFILL - A5 SHEET PILE DETAIL -ux-uST us. 1.3-5 LN: 29? (BMW ?lm's? FFICIFILE 51:13.5? - ACCESS READ #1 . SEE SHEET H35 waif PIPE OUTLET {sag SHEET clumsy I 1' lags: I 1w 101-60 BYPASS SYSTEM - PROFILE PLACE BALLAST EVERY 50' - 2 a cup um: 1.0? FIFE -. ABOVE EACKFILL mm I gLLuwuu AROUND PIPE as REQUIRED. 5"qu EXCAVATED ALLUVIUM BEDDING EAMFILL TREHCH ALLUWUM BYPASS PIPE TRE NCH - TYPICAL SECTION 1310453 I: TRLJ S: 1. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBE FOR AND MAINTENANCE OF THE CARE OF WATER SYSTEM. DETMLS IH PLAN SET ARE FOR PLANNING AND CDST PURPUISES ONLY. 1. FDOTPRIHT OF THE CARE OF WATER INCLUDING SHEET PILE DAM. PIPE TRENCH AND PIPE OUTFALL SHALL BE TO GRADE AND COHEHTICIN UNLESS A5 OTHERWISE IN THESE PLANS. .3. JILL PIPES SHALL BE BDRFEUGATED METAL MNHOQ OVA EIEILVMEILI WQLQAQ QQVJAQ KEIVEIOHWQL S'l IVLQCI I fill ?aunt u. .7. ha: ??mq-L 'i-Lm E. - 1-1- an Fl Lu Cunt?- um. Wham-a :ran mm 1? K. v=2u CW03 on (4:4 00 UI lel mnnan?a PROFILE ?2.51312 l'-2Cf . I I I I I I FIHTSHED Grimm HT ACCESS ROAD #1 I I AREA I I as: i I our-2R awnss a, EX I plpEs I a saw AT ACCESS ROAD #1 IE a I SEE SHEET cm: 90R 3 I - BYPASS SYSTEH DETAILS . I mm min mam) 31:95:: mm my: mum ms: 243m ACCESS ROAD #1 - PROFILE H1 gli?di?lf] SQEIDDV BIEl?t/cl Nl?glild mac-11.1 PROFILE 1. CONTRACTDR RWUNSIBIE FUR DETERMINING REQUIRED ACCESS Rum mupnmou AND THICKNESS TO SUPPORT EQUIPMENT AND a. mm on: ??15 MIHIHIIE TO THE 5m; 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCESS ROAD TD common FINISHED mount; . Nit-3" Ram in q; I 55?" UPON REHUWLL or ACESS Rom. mum?: DH GRADING AND PLANTING ACCESS ROAD FDOTFRINTE . EEIE BYPASS SYSTEM DETAILS I I i I "xEx GROUND . - AT amass Ram in I I - SHEET two: FUR . II- 3-50 hm PE- 2+1: ACCESS ROAD #2 - PROFILE I tdn'fi r?r. Ln! Inn-I Id PM {may an? ll. ..- 120. I LIE OIWI .4 of It? 1 ROCK MAN-ERIN. SHALL BE REUSED FOR CHMNEL CENTREX. IN THE THE EYPESS PIPE CORRIDOR AS PART OF THE SITE ENGINEER DIRECT REUSECI CIF MATEIAL THE FIELD. r-w?r TEMPORARY a RIPHAP am: a.in I ?Ln?"liL-r" a-ka-J?? i . - .aurhg ?41w e- n? FOOL 3? . BYPASS PIPE SHET ?05:11 5043\f'r mpg?m?v r' x15?, ,a'r BASIN MIN THICKNESS Fl' D100 1.75 FT 050 0.?5 FT BYPASS PIPE OUTLET PROFILE mas. JED MNHOD Ail?l OVA Bl?l?dd EQLVMEILI HM Sella 2 UNIV ants-1 man-5 '920' 31/6 I NEVA I i I: MNHOQ NbUJcl 1 a: a ,1 mum-.115 C?f In13$ DEVI 91 2 a ?ill, nill? .-.. -. El??f 111.1% awamic??mm - a . E- Hm Emma 9.8 mom. mmn?azm .3 is .. A .Famw?mquom?b?mgll GEES . i I . I. . 9&5qu . . 5/31 VMJJ BIEJVA MNFIOC) ?Mlle .1 .mLEw ?lm r. k. Hm 41 OT 1.5.1 .p 1.. . Ilh .u (?sari JII JillIIHI nu I I ll lfi I fill I?lg. .lul If?) I I I I IIJF I .. 1.: I Wanda 1% 3+6 319$ ALHDVA Eli-[Val ALNHOD ?mc?nwwu? Gaga. Mamorm A. . . .. Hommu?m?au?au J: .. a a 3.90% x. .. . a is ?gmna?ncrm?c?dwm . . Samu?mnamoim?migmimm?b?.er In?ll!? .. . A .. $1.4.. af?rm p. .1 l. ., .V ?525.35 ll TING. .r k. I Jul1531 4-;m1h1 will MNHOD ALHDVA NEVA 1:1; mummav :in mm 16? QQOED N5?!di Nbliicl OVA NEVA HM 4% Iii! LIE HEN 1" war; ?wasname 41 44of in MNHOD Nlblilcl 2W NEVA 1'16 1? 45 1?11 .nua hum-?UV I . v?uy?p .I4 .. rum ?drif?nnxlu nu?vum. 312.51 45,111.. a: .n "Vu- QWOUDJQ 55030 [km OVA EQLVMEJLIHM Nblilcl LIE io1 E5153 x1 53232332?33 D?v?zl ?>43ch nun?cal.- 4?3; :5 i'ii? EHH 5??f i?gaH ?z I Illa-M umrams F. i- rung-sa- rI I 136 muwmav WWI-Imama-21a 2 in?ch mm .q 48 OT 15Womawu?11.5% amruWn I I Judy?! In I . .I draw . . 1. . .14.. I I 9 I .. grim- xnaandE rum} @532}: . 1:33:45: .. . MW. ?332, . .. Ikllr??hm It] . Ill: ENQMZU HE 359% Egg Evin: Ewan 532.55g an?w . En?ggd?: Manama 1.: win? $853. vigww?n Anna 23mm mxm? =Tm .. mom EEHHEM nzr?pu: 3B LES Norw?mw Will-pill HE?dcl Nblild ?Nfi/V Wehits. .55. II {.32.an .1 .rr igi?um?amg?a a?gn??i?ggi?xinl?ma 7} V1367 33117714 JO NEVA EQLVMEJLIHM NIELLICI 49 of 151 Ehamml?rrmd n??umm njEnrru Emm?j. 0% 9E :?aE 13M 50 of 151 3mm BALE we HTS TEMPGRARY EQUWMENT 1 (W5, {ff/f, - . My . any; ?f??nygf/ wffiwfy HEM TUBEFILTER H15 STONE BERM MNHOD 702-UNOQ NOJQOHJ NOVA Bl?l?v'ci EELVMZILIHM SILT FENCE (TYPICAL) a a Mrs. I MWIQ En.? ?2.1.43! a. A ., 1.. Emzmu?m 553% Eqm mmEunEm JoEzcu Exaggmu HrISSI 1.5 . In: I'llia ?g n: Bra?55$? ALNHOD Nblilci 179130 ALHICJVA Evl?el?dcl 51 OT 'Ib'l 7/ Iii-37:17 N90 757 WW NEVA MNHOD NIBlild I 1 HE: Fl?! A BMW. II I l?l?MTll ?x unlmumav 1:3" mm mm rum: mm 111 wean Ml'?131. in 1: 11mm mm 0mm .um nl .m mumbliqu "l3! 03mmum-I aw mm "my "min {1.1de mm 1mmu 1mg? I mm mm an: alum 1.1m 1 . mum ?"4114 01 ?an nlu WI dim: ark 5.1m mum IIW DENIM Hum - I amn: vmuu "1m mud I :ro marl II 113nm mm: mm: mm mm 1131.5 mun-n mu HEB mun ?u bun-hum II: 1maumm ?I'll mm (In um 11: MUMTE WWII murqu aw UNI-HM minim .LH - a D: "a 0 M01: rum nulumxy aw mam-In smuvahm 33; i mm: mun aw mm :73 3791/707?7054? mu urn-i am In 01 um: firm?! ,1 mum 1 Bl HUle .l mama GIMME mm W1 ?11m nu :mm It mm Imam! man ?man Bl wmwramsmpk}? "NI-Will" TIVI I (1-. Mill-i um? ?Bil mm M911 til Wm? 13MB 33mm II IIHBI WW3 MN: 1" 5mm .qum ?l'l I?mml-?H Rl?u? JV Jm!m JIM. ?mun ED ?4 A Idl ?a??m?gs?kh? Pasqwgaggs. EE- rsnd? Email,? Hglgu?gg??a mug-Em. Emir?ab Em}. Him an inc ?aps?. E. ?min?FF. 49 Emma." u. ma?a! r?q?niu?gl?i. Id. .. ?iEiE-? gin?EH magni?ed IS :13? 155 nanmlu. .Ei. Ea gin $5.341; 5n ?unk! . Signiuirdnp?qiudn. shaman: Ma Eta; in. In?! i anal. .r 9.3.: Elna ?In? .4. Ba 5.2 El?n-?Q G: .m?n??uwg En?gpu?un?ag Hall #9333895? 932.332! rggigg?ig . Eli??i?tigkni?md ax Elna?Hm Rdr?n?t?h a Egan 35m ?g?zm a am a 5? 2.322 films.er UEZA az?dEzz. ma. .5. hagni?pg?mmg mum?mm antic: EEN Imam 009561?. Hagan Thurman.? 3 want ESE at 19.3 55 3% 95.: .9213; um? Kantian in?rm .9396. a a as 2 an Ease: ragga?? NE .3519!? an? 36:33sz Eugen: $553 .m?ran mu equnmna? 3:53.48. 55.533 @392. .mn! Eu. 5 agitai?i??ig ska. 13%: 21.3. in: um ioqiumggumn?a?u? an?. .5 a? ..E ?BEnmEnE..m?.mdi?nnEn?w 10: on. 3 ?aim E511 ?um?mm ZEN 3.3.1244. WHM .. :3 535.3 ma?a! Hm. mum um. uh. Nanci Inn. 27!. 933 m. Elma. PH. 32:? moans-dun Ugandan Han m. m?m Hula?. PH. fig?r I 5' 293' NOLZ 9W NOLZ V??g/l Bl?l?v?d MNHOQ Nbillcl ?gi?iwng . 3.15.12 . ?$33 3:52 3375 1 a A 4.an mark. ?ui?n nhmui HOD MD 5m Ewan mus. ..ni man He 135cm Swag.ti 294613.. Hogan EuPn. gang u; mum-rm 1m rmu'l Hate: . contra-Lu- m- AI Hahn-d i031 Imam Emian "Apg-rum; 21:, Tm 1. Typ- 2. In: 3. 2m Elwin 3-- 2. Emir Phunht I11 P'I-aal. tul Hun than}. Lay-11?s. Then my 11-: Planning In nu: Sn-iL Elcsin Manna Han: Em new Hm: Tn 3L Bani-untanme unnaepmu'mwmme 5am Du Nu! 16d: Elunkrl 4-. Emuth 5' man i' Dun Mung The 1a.: In The Sloan. 1110 Inner- 91-1 Alan; The Of The Insulation. 51ml: Mai Alma Bulb-n 01' Tam-m, F-II Him Can-pact? Sci. 01mm: Elm-m Tm T9: Dir Ema. Ind Sen-r; Im- Sialu Eva-r 1' Hun-mm STAKES ALL Mms- ac.) s. WILL CE '0 I'm BANK STRUCTURE Figur- Fran. Fm ?rm! ?itlitl'l ?n ?441.41. ERGSIDN BLANKET ??uuh-ndILzl?u- . 5.5' Pram In:- Fugue Gr-?dicn! Fab-Ii Securing a FISH ?ll-NT i .r db- .1351ng 705LZNOQ ALHICNA ?>173!ch MNHOC) 1 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY on. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, SACRAMENTO . g, - . coRFs_0F ENGINEERS 3' 1325 .J SACRAMENTO CA. 95814~2522 . . oi= l?lili??l?l DEPARTMENT on THE ARMY reason L. Rwumm 0mm: Permittee: County of Pitltin Arm: Mr. John Ely 530 E. Main Street, Suite 302 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Permit Number: EPIC-ED 1 0-639- Issuing Of?ce: US. Army Engineer District, Sacramento Corps of Engineers 1325 Street Sacramento, California 95814-2922 NOTE: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any ?iture transferee. The term "this o?ice? refers to the appropriate district or division of?ce oftlie Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction oVer the permitted activity or the appropriate of?cial of that office acting under the authority of the commanding officer. I You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions speci?ed below. A notice-of appeal options is enclosed. Project Description: The applicant is proposing to modify approximately a 450-foot reach of the Roaring Fork River for the purpose of creating a kayaking, tubing, rafting, and ?shing recreation area. The modi?cations to the Roaring Fork River include constructing a structural foundation for and installing two whitewater structure features incorporating some precast concrete parts, .?ve geomerphic or grade control sn'uctures, seyerai sets of habitat boulders, modi?ed point bars and times, hank stabilization, terraced hanks, enhanced take-out eddy at Fisherman?s Park, and rc-vegetated areas with nativ riparian shrubs. 'All work is to he completedin accordance with the attached plans. Project Location: The site is located on the Roaring Fork River between Tivo Rivers Road and Highway 32 ofFishertnan's Park. near the Town of Basalt, in Section 17, Toximship 8 South, Range 36 West, Latitude 39.3 623?, Longitude - 107.029?, Pitltin County, Colorado, and can be seen on the Basalt Colorado USGS Topographic Quadrangle. Permit Conditional General Conditions: 1. The time limit for completing the work authorized ends on December 7, 2015. if you ?nd that you need more time to complete the authorized activity, submit your request for a tune extension to this of?ce for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached. 2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in conformance with the teens and condition? of this permit. You are not relieved of this requirement if you abandon the permitted activity, although you 55 of 151 -2- may make a good faith transfer to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer, you must obtain a modi?cation of this permit ?'om this of?ce, which may require restoration of the area. 3.11,, If you discover any'p'r?eviously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing the activity authorized by this permit. you must irmnediately notify this of?ce of what you have found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register ct?Historic Places. 4. if you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature ofthe new owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this of?ce to validate the transfer of this authorization. 5. If a conditioned water quality certi?cation has been issued for your project, you must comply with the conditions speci?ed in the certi?cation as special conditions to this permit. For your convenience, a copy of the certi?cation is attached if it contains such conditions. 6. You must allow representatives from this of?ce to inpect the authorized activity at any time deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished in accordance with the terms and conditions of your permit. Special Conditions: To ensure that the activity has minimal individual and cumulative impacts, the following special conditions are required: 1. The permittee is responsible for all work authorized herein and shall ensure that all contractors are some of the terms and conditions of this authorization. A copy of this authorization must be present at the project site during all phases of construction. 2. The project limits shall be clearly identi?ed in the ?eld survey markers. fencing-etc.) prior to any work in wetland or other waters of the LLS. to ensure avoidance of impacts beyond project footprints. The identi?cation shall he maintained until construction is Complete. No heavy equipment or work (eg. ?lling, clearing, etc.) is permitted in wetland areas or stream areas outside of the project area. 3. Best Management Practices regarding the storage and containment of all ?uids used during construction shall be observed. Equipment and materials shall not be stored in locations where accidental spills may result in adverse e??ects oh the aquatic environment. Equipment operated below the ordinary high water elevation of the channel shall be clean of fuel residue, lubricant leaks, and invasive aquatic species prior to entry into the river. Inspection of equipment and cleaning, as needed will be accomplished prior to each day?s equipment use. 4. All dewatering and construction activities within the stream channel must occur during low flow periods and periods consistent with Colorado Division of Wildlife to minimize adverse effects to river ?shery. Permittee shall consult with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to ascertain allowable periods of river intrusion and methods to aquatic impacts from intrusion. 5. The use of great or uncured cement of any type is not allowed in contact with water. 6. You shall restore vegetative stabilization to any disturbed open soil areas in the project reach by replanting with native vegetation. You shall insure the success of such revegetation via ?tters monitoring and repairs as needed. 7. You shall provide the Corps of Engineers and the Colorado Division of Wildlife evidence of completion of the mitigation proposal for Fisherman's Park impacts (as described in pages 9 and 10 of your permit application) upon completion of project construction work. 56 of 151 -3- it. You shall submit an as-built plan of the completed activity within 90 days following the completion of work. In addition, you shall observe the permitted structures for signs of problems with the structural integrity alter all highq?ows exceeding the 2-year flow event, and provide maintenance and repair as needed to assure stability of the autistic environment in the vicinity of the work. If your Whitewater river park shows an advere change. the Corps of Engineers has the right to require you to initiate appropriate corrective measures. Any structure modi?cations or additions to the white water river parlt will require prior coordination with and approval by the Corps of Engineers. Further information: 1. Congressional Authorities: You have been authorized to undertake the activity described above pursuant to: (3 Section 10 'of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403). Section 404 thilt: Clean Water Act (33 use. 1344), Section 103 oftbc Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 141-3). 2. Limits of this audacrization. a This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local authorisations required by law. b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges. c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others. d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal projects. 3. Limits of Federal Liability. in issuing this pcnnit, the Federal Government does not assume any liability for the following: a. Damages to the pern?tted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or unpermitted activities or from natural causes. b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities undertaken by or on behalf ofthe United States inthe public interest.? i c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unperrnitted activities or structures caused by the activity audioriaed by this permit. d. Design or construction de?ciencies associated with the permitted work. e. Damage claims associated with any ?iture modi?cation. suspensionI or revocation of this-permit. 4. Reliance on Applicant's Data. The determination of this of?ce that issuance of this permit is not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the infennation you provided. 5. Reevaiuation ofl?ermit Decision. This of?ce may reevaluate its decision on this perrnit at any time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include, but are not limited to, the following: 57 of 151 a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit. b. The information provided by you in support ofyour permit application proves to have been false, incomplete, or inaccurate (see 4 above). c. Signi?cant new information. surfaces which this of?ce did not consider in reaching the original public interest decision. Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension, modi?cation, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you comply with the terms and conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will he required to pay for any corrective measures ordered by this o?'ice, and if you fail to comply with such directive, this of?ce may in certain situations (such as those speci?ed in 33 CFR 209.170) accomplish the corrective measures by contractor otherwise and bill you for the cost. I 6. Extensions. General Condition 1 establishes a time limit for the of the activity authorized by this permit. Unless there are circumstances requiring either a prompt completion of the authorized activity or a reevaluation of the public interest decision, the Corps will normally give favorable consideration to-a request for an extension of this time limit. 58 of 151 -5- Your signature below, as permittee, indicates that you accept and agree to comply with the terms and conditions of this I permit. Signature 2/3 Printed Name 13?? ?ute . Title PWN ?533 . . .Permittee This permit becomes e?eetive when the Federal of?cial, designated to act for the Secretary of the Army, has signed below. mas/k Date Susan Baehini Na} (For the District Engineer) When the structures or Work authorized by this pennit are still in existence at the time the property is transferred, the terms and conditions of this permit {will continue to be binding on the new owner(s) of the property. To validate the transfer- oi? this permit and the associated liabilities associated with compliance with its terms and conditions, have the transferee sign and date below. Signature . Printed Name Date Title Content Information_ Transferee 59 of 151 PD. Box 248, Carbondale, CO 81623 a Q, August 19, 2015 James Lindt, AICP Assistant Planning Director Town of Basalt 101 Midland Ave Basalt, C0 8162i (970) 927-470] ext. 201 RE: No-Rise Certi?cation, Pitltin County Whitewater Park Facility, Two Rivers Road Dear James: The Flood Insurance Study dated December 4, 2007 for Eagle County, Colorado and incorporated Areas is the current effective floodplain information for the proposed project site. FEMA cross-section on pro?le 144P, is in the approximate middle of the project area with cross-section being and cross section being upstream ofthc Highway 82 Bypass Bridge. We also obtained the Roaring Fork River. Floodplain Information Report, Town of Basalt, Eagle d?i Firkin Counties, Colorado (FIR) (Matrix, November 14, 2001). The 200] FIR information included a HEC-RAS model with three projects; Floodway; Main Channel; and South Side. RiverRestoratiOn.org ran the models to verify that the Matrix models were used for ?nal flood level determination at the project site; the 2001 FIR Main Channel model produced the same numbers as the 2007 FIS lOO-yr with an elevation boot of4.869 feet. The elevation boot was veri?ed as the local difference between the 29NGVD and SSNAVD Therefore, we are con?dent that the 200i FIR Main Channel model reproduces the 2007 FIS IOU-year floodplain information. The ?Floodway? model did not produce consistent numbers with the 2007 FIS. We re?ran the lOO-year 2001 FIR model with encroac-hrnents to generate approximate floodway elevations, which would be necessary in order to narrow the top width of any cross-section in a critical flow state. RiverRestorationcrg performed detailed channel survey in the fall of 2008. A HEC-RAS model of existing conditions was developed and compared with the 200] FIR. We found that the detailed reach hydraulic conditions are not accurately represented by the 2001 FIR. The channel is steep, up to 1.5 percent gradient, and all but one ofthc 2001 FIR cross section are modeled in a critical flow state during the IOU-year event. The 2001 FIR is very coarse with cross sections spaced an average of 420 feet apart and the steep channel dropping average of6 feet between cross sections. The level ofdetail in the 60 of 151 PO. Box 248. Carbondaie, CO 81623 '14. as 2001 FIR model is not sufficient enough to generate a backwater curve and model flow hydraulics accurately. The flow profile of the project reach is a short run ofthe river bounded by two riffles. 2001 FIR cross section 86.5 (corresponding to 2007 PIS cross section V) is in the middle of the river run with cross section 86.4 below the riftle crest and cross section 88.5 above the upstream rifer crest of the detailed project reach. The water surface change between these cross sections is 1.77 feet. Existing conditions as surveyed in 2008 were incorporated in the Effective model at six cross sections (86.42, 86.42l, 86.425, 86.45, 86.49 and 87) to replace the Effective cross section 86.5 and create a Corrected Effective model. Cross sections upstream 88.5 and 86.4 remain the same as the Effective model. The critical flow nature of the Effective model make it sensitive to the addition ofcross sections and additional survey detail. The Corrected Effective model was saved as a Proposed Effective model. In the Proposed effective model, cross sections 86.42, 86.49 and 87 are unchanged from the Corrected Effective model and represent the limits ofproposed Work. Cross sections 86.421, 86.425 and 86.45 were modified to represent the proposed work and the crests of the two grade control structures. Table 1 presents the changes in the 100 year water surface elevations as a result of the proposed work. Table 1. Project area Water Surface Elevations for 9400 (1929 NGVD) River Min Ch W5. Top Froude Sta Profile Plan (1 Total El Elev Width a {are} (ft) (ft) (ft) 100- Corrected 88.5 Year Effective 9400 6611.3 2 6621.23 262.42 0.7 1 100* Proposed 83.5 Year Effective 9400 6611.32 6621.23 262.42 0.71 100- Corrected 87 Yes Effective 9400 6610.4 6619.27 420.76 0.79 100- Pro posed 87 Year Effective 9400 6610.4 6619.27 420.76 0.79 100- Corrected 86.49 Year Effective 9400 6606.7 6618.37 439.3 0.53 100 Proposed 36.49 Year Effective 9400 6606.7 6617.94 437 .09 0.6 61 of 151 6. PD. Box 248. Carbondale. CD 81623 100- Corrected 96.45 Year Effective 9400 6605.79 6617.57 433.21 0.69 100? Proposed 36.45 Year Effective 9400 6607.67 6616.99 391.25 0.87 100? Corrected 86.425 Year Effective 9400 6605 6615.51 430.92 0.77 100- Proposed 86.425 Year Effective 9400 6605.83 6615.46 423.64 0.84 100- Corrected 36.421 Year Effective 9400 6605.6 6614.97 407.63 0.?9 100? Proposed 86.421 Year Effective 9400 6605 6614.38 331.43 0.29 100- Corrected 36.42 Year Effective 9400 6605.7 6614.21 460.32 0.82_ 100? Proposed 36.42 Year Effective 9400 6605.? 6614.21 460.82 0.32 100? Corrected 36.4 Year Effective 9400 6602.72 6609.46 299.57 0.39 100 Proposed 86.4 Year Effective 9400 6602.72 6609.46 299.57 0.39 Based on the analysis herein and supported by the attached models and drawings. I Jason Carey. PE certify that the proposed Pitltin County Whitewater Facility will cause NorRise in the water surface elevations of the iOO-ycar flow. Respectf lly, .141 Jason Carey. (- Principal Rivcheatoration.org PO Box 248 Carbondalc, CO 81623 970-947-9568 cc: .lohn Ely. Pitkin County Attachments: CorrectedEtTective2015 l-lecRas Model Report: Drawing Cl 62 of 151 Ramon! in? a Town of Basalt Police Departrnentcowmn?!s 1011 Elk Run Drive, Suite 115 Basalt, co 81621 (970) 927-4316 BASALT Ponce DEPARTMENT August 27, 2015 To: James Lindt Assistant Planning Director From: Gregory M. Knott Chief of Police Ref: Referral comments regarding the proposed Pitkin County Whitewater Park James, I have reviewed the development application submitted by Pitkin County for the creation of a Whitewater park along Two Rivers Road within the Town of Basalt. After review of the application, and attached documents, I would like to express the following public safety concerns regarding the proposed project. I The location of the proposed whitewater park features are below Two Rivers Ro ad. Access to the features, from Two Rivers Road, is down a very steep bank. There are no safe access routes, indicated in the application, to the park from upstream, from Two Rivers Road at the park, or from When emergency responders are needed at or below the water features there will be signi?cant delays in response due to the lack of safe access. This lack of safe access will also place emergency responders at risk of injury. I Users of the whitewater park will also need. access to the river. It is not safe for users to gain access down the steep bank that is currently exists at the proposed lecatiou. - Two Rivers Road is not suited to provide parking for individuals utilizing the whitewater park. The nearest public parking location is Fisherman's Park. Presently, Fisherman?s Park can accommodate approximately 3-10 parked vehicles. The applicant has not provided estimates regarding expected number of daily users at the park. Without this information it is dif?cult to determine actual number of parking spots that will be needed. What can be determined is that parking along Two Rivers Road is not a safe or viable option. - Without adequate vehicular parking at the whitewater park, people will possibly use private parking lots located near the water features. Areas of concern are the Streamside complex, River View Plaza, The Villas at Elk Run and The Columbiues at Elk Run. Unauthorized parking will create conflict due to lack of adequate parking for the park users. - Emergency vehicles will require parking directly above and of the whitewater park. Suitable parking for emergency vehicles will need to be created. Parking of personal vehicles, for individuals using the park, will not possible on "l'wo Rivers Road as currently designed. 63 of 151 ASSOCIATES August 24. 2015 Basalt Sanitation District Attn: Denise Diers PO Box 527 227 Midland Avenue1 Unit 02 Basalt, CO 81621 Re: Pitkin County Whitewater Park Facility ESA Exemption and Site Plan Dear Board of Directors: Olsson Associates (Disson) has reviewed the Pitkin County Whitewater Park Facility ESA Exemption and Site Plan provided by River Restoration dated August 18, 2015 (Submittai). Included with the submittai are the following: development application, legal description. application narrative, preliminary improvement plans. and a letter from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The preliminary improvement plans include a delineation of project limits. The project limits include a portion of Two Rivers Road near the intersection of Two Rivers Road and State Highway 32. Also included within the project limits'is the southern cul-de-sac of Emma Road. District facilities within the Two Rivers Road portion of the project limits appear to include manholes: 88-1, 83-2. 336,. RFC 82-1. RFC 82-2, and RFC 82-3 and the associated sanitary sewer main. District facilities within the Emma Road portion of the project limits appear to include manhole: Slu?l BB and the associated sanitary sewer main. The preliminary improvement plans do not appear to indicate any improvements that would impact the District's infrastructure within the highlighted project limits. Please feel free to contact me at 970.263.7800 if you have any questions related to the review comments. Wyatt E. Popp. PE Senior Project Engineer 760 Horizon Drive, Suite 102 TEL 970.263.?800 Grand Junction, CO 81506 FAX 970.263.7456 64 of151 Memorandum To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Susan Philp AICP, Planning Director Date: September 1, 2015 Re: Worksession: Our Town Planning - Zoning Options I. Purpose Staff asked land use attorney Don Elliot, Clarion Associates, to summarize some of the pros and cons of zoning options for the Our Town parcels. Don will discuss these in more detail during a conference call that we have scheduled with him for the P&Z’s September 1st meeting. Some of the P&Z members will remember Don as he provided assistance on the Community Priority Scoring System, some of the 2009 C-2 District Amendments, and more recent work on the amendments to the Town’s replacement housing requirements. II. Background The P&Z has been holding worksessions on the Our Town Planning Process since February 3rd. A public hearing was held at the library on June 2nd. The P&Z presented recommendations to the Council on Tuesday, July 28th. The Council at that meeting approved Resolution No. 34, Series of 2015 (attached). Section 3 of that resolution stated: Section 3. The Town Council supports the direction of the P&Z as presented for buildings within the area covered by Resolution No. 19 and asks the P&Z to: Continue its work on the remainder of the Our Town Planning Area Work on the zoning changes necessary to implement the P&Z’s recommendations. Provide for additional opportunities to listen to the public to further the future adoption of the Master Plan amendments and zoning changes that will be necessary to implement the community’s vision. The DAAC report advocated that the P&Z look at the Community Serving Commercial (CSC) Zone District for its possible use in the Our Town Planning Area. The P&Z worked on potential revisions to the CSC District to make it useful for the Our Town Planning area this last spring. Other suggestions have been using the C-2 District or a   M:\Sphilp\P&Z\2015\150901Our Town Planning.docx  65 of 151 Form Base Code. Staff also asked Don Elliot to look at the pros and cons of an overlay district and creating a new District. III. P&Z Discussion At the September 1st Worksession the P&Z will be given an opportunity to ask questions of Don Elliot and provide direction for the next steps in this discussion. Attachments: August 28, 2015 memorandum from Don Elliot, FAICP, Clarion Associates     66 of 151 Clarion Associates, LLC  621  17th Street, Suite 2250  Denver, Colorado  80293  303.830.2890    303.860.1809 fax              Community Planning  Zoning/Design Standards  Impact Fees  Growth Management  Sustainability      MEMORANDUM    TO:    Susan Philp, Town of Basalt Planning Department  FROM:  Don Elliott, FAICP, Clarion Associates  DATE:  August 28, 2015  RE:  Zoning Options for Out Town Planning Area       We understand that the Town of Basalt has been engaged in a lengthy and inclusive process to  determine future development options and patterns for several of its high visibility areas generally  located between the existing downtown and the Roaring Fork and Frying Pan Rivers. As that discussion  has progressed, the Town has also discussed what zoning tools might be best suited to achieving its  vision for the area. You have asked Clarion to very briefly summarize some of the pros and cons of four  options identified by you as background for a conference call with the Basalt Planning and Zoning  Commission on September 1, 2015. This memo sets forth our brief summary of those pros and cons,  based on our understanding of current and proposed uses and image for the area. We will be happy to  discuss these thoughts in more depth (and to correct any misunderstandings of the situation on our  part) during our conference call next week.    Option 1:  Amendments to the C‐2 District  This is a more traditional downtown zoning district designed to fit the fabric of the existing downtown  but without an overt focus on social capital goals.       Pros:    A mapped (not floating zone) – area of applicability is known  Community vitality uses required.  Well suited to the fabric of older downtown Basalt – particularly the narrow historic lots along  Midland Avenue  One step process. No pre determination of “community serving” needed      Cons:  Not a particularly good fit for the areas between Two Rivers Road and the rivers, where parcels  are larger and the proposed uses of those parcels will require significant tailoring of specific  buildings to sites over time.   Fixed depth of community vitality zone is a bit rigid – could be projects that cannot meet this  standard but still contribute to a use mix that promotes community vitality although there is a  process in the District for accommodating that mix.  District does not permit residential uses on the first floor.    Option 2:  Amendments to the CSC District  This relatively new zone district is intended to blend the economic vitality goals of the current C 2  (downtown) zoning district with new social objectives to provide substantive and procedural incentives  to new development that is “community serving”. Recent proposed amendments would improve the  usability of this district a lot.      67 of 151   Pros:    Community vitality uses required – and flexibility on depth and location of community  vitality zone  Permitted use and dimensional standard flexibility is probably better suited than C 2 to the  types of proposed development south of Two Rivers and east of Midland Avenue  Very negotiable and flexible – which may be necessary given the wide variety of uses and  facilities proposed for the area  Procedural streamlining means less time than a traditional three 3 step PUD process      Cons:  Floating zone (although the Town could change this requirement). This area will probably  need a zone that defines the fabric and doesn’t require “opt in”  Use list is somewhat open to interpretation and may require more time to evaluate  Procedural streamlining is offset by use of subjective standards at several points in the  process so  it could take more time    Option 4:  Create a New Zoning District (Perhaps based on the draft River District of 2004)  This district could apply to lands on the south side of Two Rivers (and potentially on the north side  parcels) that are currently zoned C 2/PUD, C 2 or P Public.    Pros:  A mapped (mandatory) rather than “opt in” district  Uses could be tailored to include the mix of commercial and community serving uses shown  in planning efforts to date.  Dimensions could be better matched to the flexibility needed than C 2 is today – could  require general street orientation with more flexibility as to exact building location.  Two step process would allow more review, but avoid the need for a third “determination  of community serving” step now included in amended CSC.    Cons:  Requires rezoning of current C 2, C 2 PUD and P Public parcels     NOTE:  A fourth possibility would be to draft a new overlay – rather than base –zoning district, but it is  not clear that it has any advantages over a new base zone district. If the Town needs to revise not only  permitted uses but also the dimensional/siting standards and the review process included in the C 2  District, then, leaving the base C 2 or C 2/PUD district in place may not make sense.    Option 4:  Create a New Form‐based Zoning District  Form based zoning controls focus on prescribing building forms and features in more detail than more  traditional zoning controls, and offer builders “by right” approval if they meet those prescriptive  standards.  In theory, they provide more a more flexible range of uses, but that does not always happen.       Pros:   Stronger controls on the exact form and features of new buildings  Potential for a one step development approval process.      Cons:    Irregularly shaped lots will make it difficult to identify specific building forms that could be  generally used in the area  2 68 of 151 Long term buildout of downtown Basalt makes it likely that today’s plans will change before  any “picture” of the future is competed – so “zoning to a picture” is probably not wise  The added flexibility in permitted uses may not be an advantage in this case, since both the  CSC and C 2 districts offer a wide range of appropriate uses for the area  Faster review may not be a good fit for Basalt – as the review and approval procedures for  both CSC and C 2 show a desire for significant review of individual projects    3 69 of 151 929235: Letter September 1, 2015 Sean Hanagan Eagle County Community Development Department PO Box 179 Eagle, CO 81631 RE: The Fields Subdivision Application Referral Comments Dear Sean, Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your referral on the Fields Subdivision Application. The following comments reflect the opinions of the Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission. Comments: 1. The site is located outside of the Town's Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), and the Basalt Future Land Use Map in the 2007 Basalt Master Plan designates the site as existing land use. The Town Planning and Zoning Commission cannot support the proposed application and recommends that Eagle County deny the Application because it is not consistent with the Town?s Master Plan or the adopted Highway 82 Access Control Plan. 2. During the Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission Meeting on November 1, 2012 regarding the Mid-Valley Area Community Plan, the considered whether the property subject to this Application should be changed on the future land use map from Large Lot Residential to UrbanfSuburban Residential. Town Staff provided testimony at the November 1, 2012 meeting identifying that the Property was well outside the Town's UGB and encouraging the to maintain the property as Large Lot Residential- The disagreed with the Town?s Staff?s testimony and decided to change the property to Urban/Suburban Residential. 3. Consistent with the Town?s comments to the when they were evaluating the future land use designation of the Property as part of the Mid?Valley Area Community Plan, the Town believes that the proposed density of 98 dwelling units is an urbanfsuburban level of development that belongs within the Town's UGB and not in the rural fringe as proposed. As such, the Town Planning and Zoning Commission does not feel that this is an appropriate location for 98 additional dwelling units at this time. 70 of 151 . The proposed level of development in this location was not envisioned by the State Highway 82 Access Control Plan that was adopted by Eagle County, the Town of Basalt, and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT). The traffic from the proposed subdivision will be funneled to the West Valley Road/Highway BZIJW Drive intersection that is already dangerous. Additionally, the Town anticipates that primary vehicular access to the site from up-valley will be from the El Jebel Road/Highway 82 intersection which does not currently operate well and is not funded for improvement. The site is also not located close to a transit stop in that it is of a mile from the El Jebel transit stops and requires a surface crossing of Highway 82 for pedestrians to get to the bus stops on JW Drive within the Blue Lake Subdivision. . The Town is concerned about the safety of the intersection of West Valley Road and Highway 82. A traffic signal needs to be installed at the West Valley Road/Highway 82 intersection prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in the subdivision, regardless of how the funding for such an intersection improvement is established. That said, the State Highway 82 Access Control Plan referenced in Item No. 3 above, does not include a traffic signal at the West Valley RoadiHighway 82 intersection. An amendment to the Access Control Plan would be needed prior to the installation of a traffic signal and the amendment would need to be adopted by Eagle County, the Town of Basalt, and CDOT. In the event that Eagle County is inclined to approve the Application, the Town recommends that there be a floor area limitation provided on each of the dwelling units. The Application suggests that the target floor area is 2,100 square foot for the single-family dwellings and for the duplex dwellings, but it indicates that the lot purchasers will decide what size of dwelling will be constructed on the lots. The Town feels that there needs to be limits on the size of the residences in the subdivision. . In the event that Eagle County is inclined to approve of this Application, the Town recommends that the deed?restricted community housing be required to be provided proportionally to that of the free-market housing in the development. Additionally, the Town?s Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with Eagle County expresses that the County is to consider using the higher of the Town's and the County's Community Housing requirements, which in this case would be the Town?s current requirement that 35% of the residential square footage be provided in price/rent capped units. It should be noted that the Town is considering a reduction in the Town?s inclusionary housing requirements to 25%. . The Town is also concerned about the ability of the mid?valley to absorb the services needed to accommodate a development of this nature in addition to all of the development proposed elsewhere in El Jebel area. Specifically, the Town is concerned about the proposed development?s impact on the School District and the critical daycare situation in the mid-valley. Additionally, the Town believes that the proposed development will have a significant impact on the 71 of 151 Town?s Police Services. Due to the Town?s central location in the mid-valley, the Town is often the first responder to traffic accidents and calls to residences businesses in unincorporated Eagle County. In the event that Eagle County is inclined to approved of this Application. the Town requests that a mechanism be formulated that would ensure that the Town is reimbursed for Town services to make up for existing law enforcement deficiencies in Eagle County?s service of the Roaring Fork Valley and to cover the proposed development. The Town recommends that $55,004.52 (calculation methodology attached) be provided to the Town on an annual basis to reimburse the Town for expected Town Police services to help Eagle County provide law enforcement services to the proposed development. The Town believes that this annual reimbursement should be paid beginning upon the issuance of the first certi?cates of occupancy within the development and should include an annual escalator to account for inflation. This letter constitutes referral comments of the Planning Staff under the provisions of the Intergovernmental Agreement signed by the Town and Eagle County on September 23, 2008. If you have questions about the above comments or need clarification, please contact Susan Philp or James Lindt at the Basalt Planning Office at 970?927?4701. Sincerely, Dylan Johns Chair, Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission CC: Susan Philp. Town Planning Director James Lindt. Assistant Planning Director Basalt Town Council 72 of 151 Fields Law Enforcement Costs- Town of Basalt Basalt Police Anticipate to Handle Approximately 8,073 Calls for Service in 2014 2,236 dwelling units outside Town limits. but in 3-mile planning area in 2004 2.54 residents per unit: 5,579 people 8,073 calls for service divided by 5,679 people: 1.42 calls per resident outside the Town limits 98 New Units in Fields Development 32.54 residents per unit: 249 New People 249 New People 1.42 calls per resident: 354 New Calls 354 New Calls for Service $155.38 Cost to Provide Service Per Call?= 55,004.52 per Year at Buildout 73 of 151 Qu?m/ The Fields Development Group, LLC Benjamin D. Bailey Partner 673.6511383 May 26, 2015 Keith Ehlers via Email Three Sail Enterprise, LLC Grand Junction, CD Re: Grant of Power of Attorney for The Fields Development in El Jebel Dear Keith: I, Benjamin D. Bailey, on behalf of The Fields Development Group, LLC (the "Company?), do hereby appoint you as the Company's true and lawful attorney-inefact (?Agent?) to act in the Company?s name and place during the application process for the proposed residential housing development to be known as The Fields, located at 554 Valley Road in El Jebel, Colorado (parcel no. taking all actions the Company would take if personally present, including but not limited to, execution and submission of- any forms, notices, reports, and all other documents required during the development application process. The rights, powers, and authority to exercise any and all of the rights and powers herein granted shall commence and be in full effect today, May 26, 2015, and shall remain in full force and effect until May 25, 2016, unless specifically extended or rescinded earlier by either you or the Company. Sincerely, The Fields Development Group, LLC By: Benjamin D. Bailey Partner The Fields Development Group, LLC 1155 Mt. Vernon Hwy. Suite 300 Atlanta, GA 30338 74 of 151 The Fields Subdivision SKETCH PLAN Ownership Disclosure and Consent to Submit: 1. [hereby attest the 19.39 acres ofland located at; 554 Valva Rood. Carbondale CO 83623 More speci?cally described as: L015, Arline Ranch, according to the recorded September 1932 in Book 309 or Page :3 am! Corrected Plat remrdedJar-man) 1'0, in Book 3} 7 or Page 7'29, County ofEagis, State ofColomde is owned by: Steven W. Rieser Revocable Trust and the Sandra S. Rieser Revocable Trust 2. As an authorized signer on behalf of the Steven W. Rieser Revocable Trust and the Sandra 5. Rieser Revocable Trust, I hereby consent to the submission of Sketch Plan, Preliminary Flam Final Plan, and all other necessary applications for the pilpr?SE of residential development of the property as required by Eagle County. if {l C'E?ii?sr? 7 3' 7" 3 Printed 1W gab. Jr?s-c Authorized Signor: Steven W. Riescr Revocable Trust and the Sandra 3. Rieser Revomble Trust Signature: 75 of 151 The Fields Subdivision SKETCH PLAN Vicinity Map: wardl. 6am13' 1.1. 5' II l?l? I I: Sr hI'l . I- - u.151 The Fields Subdivision SKETCH PLAN Legal Description: Lot 5, Arlian Ranch, according to the Plat recorded September 10, 1982 in Book 309 at Page 5 and Corrected F'Iat recorded January 10, 1981 in Book 317 at Page 729. County of Eagle. State of Colorado 77 of 151 The Fields Subdivision Sketch Plan Proposal Project Report [Revised] August 14, 2015 1.0 Introduction A residential housing development to be known as The Fields is proposed by The Fields Development Group, LLC (the Applicant) and represented by Keith Ehlers of SSE, LLC (the representative). Members of the Applicant?s development team and the representative live and work in the Roaring Fork Valley and are keenly aware of the community need for housing and economic development, while maintaining the lifestyle and cultural amenities the TValley has altvays offered. The Fields subdivision is located at 554 Valley Road in El Jebel, having a parcel number of2391-334-01-003. The site is 19.39 Acres on the north side of Valley Road and adjacent to the south right ofway for Hwy 32 near the intersection of Valley Road and Hwy 82 west of El Jebel. an gittillThe Applicant proposes that the property be rezoned to Residential Multi-Family (EMF) to provide ninety eight (98) residential homes at four (4) different price points by utilizing three (3) housing sizes and two (2.) housing types at a density of 5 units per acre in compliance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations and the recently approved Mid Valley Area Community Plan. The residential opportunities are accompanied by the proposal of community gardens, a pocket park with a playground, recyclable materials station, and over 2,000 linear feet of Public Trail connecting to existing trail corridors and river access points. 2.0 Sketch Plan Process and Criteria APPLICATION AND REVIEW PROCESS Upon meeting with Staff at the Eagle County Planning Department it was indicated that the Applicant?s proposal for residential development using the ?Subdivision? approval process is different than the process sometimes purSued by others and presented fer review. With that in mind this Section is intended to brie?y explain why the Subdivision approval process is the most appropriate process for the proposed development. The difference between a PUD and a Subdivision is primarily about the zoning applied to the development. Standard Subdivisions implement conventional zone districts as established by the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. By using the existing standards, restrictions, and allowed uses of conventional zone standards a welcomed increase of predictability will be enjoyed; and will ef?ciently establish land use within a designated zone that has already been vetted, approved. and deemed appropriate by the community at large, and its policy makers. AlternatiVely, a PUD permits variations ?'om the strict application of standards of the conventional zone districts and essentially creates a custom zone district in the form of a PUD Guide. This project is located within the El Jobs] Community Center (aka Town Center) which has been. through a major public process that ultimately led to the adoption of the Mid Valley Area Community Plan as part of the Eagle County Master Plan. The goals and intentions for land use standards within the Mid Valley Area Community Plan is thorough and has been accepted by the community at large so it does seem appropriate to propose custom variations or deviations in the form of a PUD proposal. Therefore, "the Fields Subdivision is proposed as a standard Subdivision. for review. This proposal is the ?Sketch Plan? step of the Subdivision process (sce?ow chart below). Eagle County Planning Department Staff indicated that they sometimes receive Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan at the same time. but the Applicant does not wish to combine the two steps. The Sketch Plan brochure provided by the Planning Department states: ?The outcome plan review should be on identi?cation ofissuas' and concerns the applicant must address the project is ultimately to receive?nal subdivision approval ?oor the County. Therefore, the applicant wishes to address the known considerations of off-site traf?c mitigation as well as rece'wc feedback on the proppeed development to reach an agreement on the general concepts for development - and mitigation proposals prior to making the next phase of investment 'for the project in the form of the finalizing the traf?c study and detailed engineering. The initial investment to date has already included signi?cant engineering assessment and traf?c study as part of the project feasibility assessment. Eagle County Planning Department provided the flow chart below and the Applicant intends to pursue the process indicated by the steps shown in blue: [Additional steps such as a 104] permit application and an revising the Access Control Hwy 82 will also be necessary but are not slim-1w below. 1 E3 arm: Hon Plnl? . MlnarTyp-I a Amend Id iv?! A lamina-an Emmi: FurrnII? cf lunlnl Spoclal Use Permit Cu mm Urnllud ?nvluw mentions! Emu! 2 Page 79 of 151 2.2 THE PURPOSE OF PLAN [per Eagle County Land Use. Regulations Section "The purpose of stretch plan review is for the applicant. the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed subdivision. and to consider whether there are any alternative concepts the applicant should explore. It is the time when determinations shot-rid be made as to whether the proposed subdivision substantially cornplies r-vith these Land Use Regulations and is in substantial conformance with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Conrmunity Plans, and any applicable ancillary County adopted docsonents pertaining to natural resource protection, a?ordahle housing. or infrastructure management, and is generally compatible with the existing and eso?rently permissible ?tture uses of adiacent and and other substantially impacted land. services. or in?'astrucntre improvements. it is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range clients and commercial space for development; the general locations intended for developmei-tt and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; the general assess; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via arr?sire systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome ofslcetch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address the project is ultimately to receive moi subdivision approval?'om the County. (om 11/08/05) (am 05/08/12) The Applicant's feasibility study for this project was prompted by the overwhelming expression of need by the local community of individuals, the public sector, and private enterprise for the provision of reasonable housing opportunities in the area, as well as economic considerations. Once a market call was verified, the design team focused heavily on the development and review of varioUs concept plans that considered the following directive from page 7 of the Mid Valley Area Community Plan that led to the proposed plan of the he Fields subdivision as the most appropriate development of the site: "The Mid Valley Area Community Plan is a guiding document, as master plans are not regulatory in Eagle County. However. Eagle County Land Use Regulations do require conformance to the plan, and as such its goals and policies should be viewed as both relevant and signi?cant. [Page 7 of wane] Based on the above directive from the MVACP. the proposal was developed and designed with a focus on the recently approved Mid Valley Area Community Plan (2013) and the Eagle County Land Use. Regulations to be compatible with the existing surrounding uses and provide appropriate density for current and future. community planning. The proposal conforms with applicable ancillary County adopted documents including ?Sustainable Communitics'. ?Public Trails Plan?, and ?Affordablc Housing?. The proposal also considers its location within the existing Mid Valley Metropolitan Utility District, which has indicated it can service this development, although a 104] permit will be required and will be submitted simultaneously with Preliminary Plan and Rezono submittal. 2.3 LAND USE ALTERNATIVES SUMMARY [Also see ?Section 5.0Alternative Considerations herein]. Consideration and alternatives were reviewed for various housing types before.- selecting the proposed mix of duplex and medium single family lots. However. a recently porfonnod market analysis shows an abundance of high density apartments and townhomcs have been approved or are ?in?proccss' to be approved. and revealed the need and desire for medium density development of duplexes and detached single family units to be high, yet woefully unavailable. [Soc ?Section 5.0 Alternative Considerations' of this report] Once the density and housing types were guided by the MVACP and a market analysis, the Applicant?s design team generated several alternative conceptual layouts to be considered for development of the Site. Of the options considered. the proposed plan best services the community?s current and future residential needs, while providing the most favorable combination of: mixed residential use, traf?c mitigation. compliance with the plans and policies of Eagle County. and compatible incorporation with the public amenities and logistical master planning ofthc E1 John] ?Community Center". At one of the early meetings, County Planning Staff raised consideration of an alternative concept, which would cluster the housing units on a limited portion ofthc site. The Applicant?s subsequent analysis found that to maintain the targeted density of the near a ?Community Center? with public services and infrastructure as stated in Goal ll of the MVACP, clustering would ?force the development to provide small townhouse or apartment units. These types of units are becoming abundant in this market and would inhibit the development of a diversity of unit types, sizes, and price points in the El .lebel ?Community Center?. Approprite development that helps meet the goals and intentions of the MVA CF density designation is particularly important when considering this property is one ofthe last remaining sites suitable for development of density near existing in the area 3.0 Land Use The Fields subdivision is an. appropriate development in the El .lebel ?Community Center" that can be reviewed: approved, and built ef?ciently and predictably using the tools and parameters set forth in the existing land use regulation docmnents with no deviation or variances necessary. Therefore, The Fields is proposed as a Sketch Plan application for Subdivision, not a Plain-red Unit Development (PUD). The Fields subdivision is compatible with the surrounding community becauSe it will incorporate design elements in consideration of the adjacent neighborhoods and enhance and preserve the broader El .lebel ?Community Center?. Additionally, the future vision of planning for the area?s forecastcd growth is addressed by The Fields? adherence to the stated speci?cations, goals, and intentions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR) and Eagle County's adopted policies such as the recently approved Mid Valley Area Community Plan (MVACP), Affordable Housing Guidelines, and Sustainable Community considerations. The 19-39 acre site is currently zoned Rural Residential (RR), but the Mid Valley Area Community Plan (MVACP) and its Future Land Use Map (PLUM) apprOVed in 2013 designates the site to be developed as Urban Suburban Residential (U SR) with a density range of 3-7 units per acre in consideration of its proximity to the E1 Jebel ?Community Center". The Fields subdivision is proposed in the middle of the USE density range at 5 units per acre and requests a rezone to Residential Mold-Family (RMF). The RMF zone is compatible with the MVACP designation and the proposed development meets its land use requirements and the overall purpose of the zone as defined in the following excerpt from Article 3 ofthe ECLUR: ?The purpose oftlre Residential (WE) zone district is to providcfor higher densinr residential development within the County?s community carriers, where transportation facilities, necessary and employ-hem opportunities are already available. This is accomplished by permitting development duplex and sushi-family residences on lo ts ofsr'x r?lroroorrd 000) squerefeet or larger and by setting moximmrr lot coverage and nraxr'mmn ?oor area standards approprr'orefor such uses and lots. The zone district also permits the development convenience- type commercial uses to serve the neighborhood. The Fields subdivision is proposed as 98 single family residential homes. The two general housing types that will make up the residential housing offerings include detached single family homes on lots ranging from 6,000?8,000 and duplex units also known as ?attached single family homes'. The detached single family home lots are designed to target a floor plan of around 2,100 sf. of living space; however, the homes may be built by individual lot owners who will determine the exact size of the home built within the constraints of each let?s size and the HOA in response to feedback from Flaming Staff, each duplex lot is proposed as a single large lot that will accommodate the construction of two attached duplex units and will be administratively subdivided into two fee simple lots for individual ownership once the common wall is constructed and can be defined precisely on the plat. The duplex lots are designed to accommodate two different unit sizes. Lots identified on the Sketch Plan as Duplex are designed to accommodate two units having a footprint no wider than thirty feet each, thus creating a duplex building structure of sixty feet wide or less. Duplex units have a targeted floor area of 1,100 sf. per unit and include a garage. Lots identi?ed on the Sketch Plan as Duplex are designed to aeoommodate two units having a footprint no wider than forty feet eachI thus creating a duplex building structure of eighty feet wide or less. Duplex units have a targeted floor area of 1,800 sf. per unit and include a garage. leage 81 of 151 The three different sizes of proposed homes ecupled with the designation of some of those homes to be ?affordable housing?, as de?ned by the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines provides housing opportunities at four (4) different price points. The housing opportunities in the Fields subdivision are accompanied by community gardens, a pocket park with a playground, recyclable materials station, and over 2,000 linear feet of Public Trail connecting to existing trail corridors and river access points. The mix of residential home size and type is broken down as follows: Type Size 38: Duplex I DO 5.f. 34 Duplex 1 5t. 29 Single Family :32, 00 at. 98 TOTAL UNITE) 4.0 Compatibility When considering the development's compatibility with surrounding uses the Applicant?s design team looked into multiple alternatives to determine the best solution for compatibility with both, the neighbors who are directly adjacent to the site, and the bigger picture of the El iebel ?Community Center?. ?Community Centers? are referred to oiten, and with significance, throughout the ECLUR, the MVACP, and the other adopted policies. As shown in the graphic below, El ebel is a nearly perfect example of a ?Community Center? that is identi?ed as a location where development should occur at higher density to fully utilize its favorable proximity to infrastructure, mass transit, public services, public parks, trails, recreation centers, retail, groceries, and entertainment.11The Fields d? . INF-it'd HE up Tull: - - - - met-cote community compaublmy Graphic economy A ., I FUELIC Smarties Future growth in the Valley is expected and providing density in and around these ?Community Centers? will mitigate urban sprawl and protect the surrounding valley hillsides, features, outdoor lifestyles, and culture. The significance and value of ?Community Centers? is one of many reasons why development of the proposed site is best considered as part of the ?big picture? and not just as an ?island? of development. The Fields? compatibility with the broader vision ot?the El Jehel cConununity Center? is best revealed by the The Fields compliance with the MVACP and other adopted plans and policies to provide a reasonable range of housing types and price points near existing infrastructure so locals can live in close proximity to urban amenities, and expansive open spaces with great views while enjoying their lifestyle of choice in the Roaring Fork Valley. When considering the appropriate combination 0f the broader goals of tlte El .lebel ?Community Center? and the focused visions of the neighborhoods adjacent to the site, some assumption is made that adjaCent neighbors chose to participate in the recent public process to develop the MVACP which designates development for this site at a higher density than that of their owo. With that said, a deliberate and successful effort was made to accommodate transitions between the adjacent neighborhoods by designing the proposed housing, and the location within the site, to reSpect the visual perception of continuity and compatibility with surrounding neighborhoods. The visual perception of the size and mass of the proposed duplex building structures is comparable to the size and mass of detached single family homes found in surrounding residential neighborhoods. The homes in surrounding neighborhoods have building structure widths ranging from 50?~30? wide, and the proposed duplex lots will allow widths of the structure to be no greater than 60' or 80? depending on the lot designation. Duplexes have proven to be an effective way of accomplishing this feat by using architectural controls enforced by the Home Owners Association that require them to be built in a manner attempting to visually project it as a single larger home and disguises its nature of being two smaller homes by discouraging floorplans that mirror each unit; and encourage design integration. of thoughtful roof lines, window and access locations, appropriate exterior materials, and drivewayfgarage separation. The duplexes built in this manner will appear as a single large home of equal or larger size than the adjacent neighbors. This intent is particularly effective when viewing the rear of the homes born the adjacent neighborhoods and travel corridors like Hwy 32 and Valley Road because the driveways and garages are not visible. The provision of garages and appropriate driveway dimensions, as required by the ECLUR, will provide ample parking for each attached single family dwelling unit making up the duplex. Further detail and a completed l-lClA and Architectural Controls documents that de?ne how this intent shall be implemented will be provided at Preliminary or Final Plan submittal. 5.0 Alternative Considerations The Applicant considered multiple alternatives in the process of designing, assessing, and selecting the most appropriate layout and con?guration for The Fields subdivision proposal. Tire criteria considered when assessing the alternative plans included: a. Economic 'l?easibility b. Conformance with ECLUR, MVACP, and other adopted policies. c. Compatibility with surrounding uses and the ?Community Center" vision for anticipated growth. in light of these criteria the Applicant considered alternative plans that included: It Maximize density range recommended by the MVACP (of 7 units per acre) resulting in variations that yielded either ef?cient grid patterned roads with reasonably sized lots, or less efficient road patterns that required small lots to still achieve density. Reaching the upper limit of the recommended density range would inhibit the ability to provide mixed housing sizeftype/price points. Additionally the Applicant determined the housing options necessary to meet the higher density would be less compatible with surrounding uses and would be in direct competition with the large number of high density units currently available or in the process of approval at Shadow Rock and The Tree Farm developments. I Minimize density range recommended by the MVACP (of 3 units per acre) resulting in variations that yielded large lots that were ?more of the same? as what is found in adjacent and surrounding neighborhoods and provided no diversity on one of the few remaining developable properties in the El Jobs] ?Community Center?. Additionally the lower unit count was found to be economically infeasible considering today?s development costs for project in this location. 6 a 83 of 151 I Middle of the density range recommended by the VACP (of 5 units per acre) resulting in variations such as the proposed plan of mixed units and amenities, and alternatives of static'housing types throughout the site or utilization of the concept of clustering which would force the density into a reduced area that required smaller units and limited the ability to provide diversity as well has being in direct competition of the large number of smaller units currently available, or in the process of approval at Shadow Rock and The Tree Farm developments. - Varying Housing types to meet the goals and intentions of the Land Use Regulations and the MVACP, as well as the needs of the market considering existing, recently approved, and proposed development in the area. The chart below shows the market levels of various housing types to show what housing types are prevalent versus those that are unavailable. Lots Lots Duplex Townhouse Condo I Mobile Bic-10k sf Bis-Bk sf Homes Blue Lat-re 120 105 n/a Info are n/a Adjece nt to east of Summit Vlste 36 2 10 aft: n/a an: South of City Market n/o rain Tree Farm (Proposed) n/a n/o M: 64 336 n/?n Shadowrock TownhomES n/?a n/o Mo 97 n/a n/n Clair Grove Townhmes are are n/a 50 Ma Ma Wlliits Townhomes old are an: old are Lakeside Townhomes at Wli ilts an: die info 56 old are Sagewoody?Plne Ridge Townhoms n/o mo n/o' 48 n/a 0st silver-ado Tow nhomes as: are nfo ZD We Willits Bend are are we Mo we Valley Pines are me me are info lakeside Condos at WI Hits of n/o n/cl we an: Sopris View or Ma Ma n/a n/a nfo Dakota Duplexes on: me 52 m?c we we Crawford Mobile Home Park an: am PM: all: oil: 3? SouthEast Mobile Home Park o/o n/o rue info info Total of Units in Jehel Area w, 273 an one see In addition to the housing type availability evidence shown above, further assessment of price points, affordability, and ?nancing options for residents of the area added support to the provision of duplexes and medium sized detached single family homes. 6.0 Conformance with Eagle County Regulations and Adopted Policies: Portions of Section 6 below include text extracted directly from Eagle County Land Use Regs and adopted policies. The Applicant has responded to the items regarding how the proposed development addresses each item. The original document text remains in black text color and the Applicant?s responses are in blue text. 6.1 EAGLE LAND USE REGULATIONS Article 5, Section - Sketch Plan for Subdivision Standards: (1) Conform once with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision shall be in substantial conformance with the purposes, intents, goals, and policies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, Area Community Plans, and any applicable ancillary County adopted documents pertaining to natural resource protection, affordable housing, or infrastruoture management. (om mas/05) (am cams/r2) The Fields proposal conforms with the intent, goals, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. The Mid Valley Area Community Plan was the guiding document for consideration of land use, density. and integration with existing infrastructure and public amenities auch as trails, parks, and open spaces associated with the El Jobs] Community Center. one (2.) Consistent with Land Use Regulatios. 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. The Fields proposal. is submitted as a standard Subdivision proposal primarily due to its consistency with Land Lise Regulations and its existing development standards without the need for variations or deviations. (3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Ef?cient. 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. The Fields proposal fills in one of the last remaining properties designated for medium to high density residential use near the existing infrastructure of the El Jobs] Community Center. See section 4.0 and 6.2 ofthis report for further discussion. 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 Coonty Road Capital Improvements Plan. The Fields proposal meets this criteria. 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. The Fields proposal will provide appropriately sized lines to meet this criteria with input from the Mid Valley Metro District, although the primary infrastructure already exists adjacent to the property and is sized appropriately as it exists. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. No utility extensions are proposed because the site is adjacent to existing infrastructure capable of servicing the deVelopment by Mid Valley Metro District. (4) Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. The proposed site has been deemed suitable for residential development at a density of between 3~7 units per acre by the Mid Valley Area Community Plan (Note: The Fields is proposed as 5 units per acre). The site is on the valley floor with topographical challenges and is not in a flood plain. Existing irrigation and drainage ditches will be addressed so as to negatively affect users upstream or (5) Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision shall be generally compatible with the existing and currently permissible future uses of adjacent land, and other substantially impacted land, services, or infrastructure improvements. (am lid/tid?z?) The Fields proposal is compatible with both the existing adjacent uses as well as the broader scope of the El Jebel Community Center. See section 4.0 of this report for further detail. (6) Adequate Facilities. The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Sketch or Preliminary Plan will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, ?re protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services (orig. {ls/28106) The Fields proposal is within the Mid Valley Metro District and has received an ?Ability to Serve" letter. The site is in an existing residential neighborhood and the El Jebel Community Center with available emergency services. Roaring Fork School District is currently considering locating a school within a 2 mile radius of the proposed site within the next 5-10 years. See the reaponse to Policy .a within Section 6.2.C of this report for further detail. BIPage 85 of 151 6.2 MID VALLEY AREA PLAN The MVACP was updated in 2013. The Applicant highly prioritized conforming with MVACP because of the language on page 7 of the MVACP that reads: ?The Mid Valley Area Conrmunity Plan is a guiding document, as master plans are not regulatory in Eagle County. Hor-vever, Eagle County Land Use Regulations do require conformance to the plan, and as such its goals and policies should be viewed as both relevant and signi?cant. The adoption of the MVACP came after months of recommendations from multiple public meeting, over 45 contacted entities and stakeholders in the area, and then onto Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) before finally being approved and adopted by the Planning Commission. The applicable key components, objectives, and considerations for development per the MVACP and how The Fields subdivision meets or exceeds these goals are as follows: A. Planning Objectives [per ?Introduction? Page 6 l. Provide a master plan that would e?ectively guide land use over the next ten to ?fteen years, consistent with the values and needs of the Mid Valley Community. The Fields subdivision matches the density range, infrastructure, and ?Community Center" considerations associated with the study and discussions of housing needs reflected by the approved MVACP. Provide opportunities for urban and suburban growth within and laser ?Community Center along Highway 82. The Future Land Use Map (PLUM) provides a guide for development in and around the ?Community Center' of E1 Jebel that meets the goals and intentions of the approved The FLUM designation for development on the proposed site is Urban/Suburban Residential (USSR) and calls for a density range of 3-7 dwelling units per acre. The Fields subdivision is in the middle of the USSR density range by proposing 5 dwelling units per acre. Encourage compact development, multi modal connectivity and walkabilirj: within developed areas along Highway 82. The location and proximity of the proposed site within the El Jebel ?Community Center? requires the development to be viewed as an integral part of the larger ?Community Center? rather thanjust an independent ?island? of development. if the project was located in a more rural area and was developed as its own ?community neighborhood? an independent study of clustering and consideration of its isolation may be warranted, but such is not the case for this proposal. The Fields subdivision proposed density and mixed residential unit price points adheres to the MVACP vision and encouragement of compact development for the community. Furthermore, The Fields proposes over 2,000 linear feet of Public Trail with connections to existing public trail links as well as access to the Roaring Fork River section maintained by the US. Forest Service. The internal roads and adjacent sidewalks within the proposed subdivision are designed in a non-linear fashion to avoid an undesirable ?grid pattern? and provide access to a pocket park with playground and over 5,400 sf. of Community Gardens. Work to enhance a sense of place and identity for development along Highway 8.2. The proposed developments adherence to the stated goals, intentions, and regulations for the El Jebel ?Community Center? as laid out in the and associated Affordable Housing and Sustainable Communities guidelines effectiver enhances the sense of identity for the El Jebel ?Community enter' along Hwy 32. Support a?ordahle housing within existing Community Centers. The Fields will provide 25% of its units as called for in the Affordable Housing Guidelines within the existing El Jebel ?Community Center?. Provide an appropriate range of recreational, cultural, economic and social opportunities. The multi-modal travel connections for vehicles, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. increases trail in the community and completes safe new access to the Roaring Forlt River for existing community members, while also providing new homes within 3/4 of a mile to a range of opportunities such as jobs, mass transit, sewer/water, groceries, restaurants, retail, entertainment, parks, river access, etc. itt?sar M. ii. l2. Preserve air quality, water quality, wildlife habitat, and high quality views. The proposed residential development will not adversely affect the quality of air, water, wildlife, or views. in fact, studies support that providing homes closer to jobs, recreation, groceries, and recreation such as a ?Community Center' like El reduces the impacts of vehicular travel on all of the aforementioned aspects throughout the Valley. An additional public bene?t of provision of homes in the location and density proposed by The Fields is that it will accommodate growth of the region within an existing ?CommUnity Center? and alleviate the quality views from being diminished by urban sprawl if growth is forced to build outward from the ?Community Center? when only low density development is approved. The Home Owners Association Covenants will encourage renewable and passive energy features. Protect rivers, streams, lakes, historic irrigation delivery systems and associated aquatic and riparian ecosystems. There are no waterways located on the proposed site and all irrigation and drainage will be engineered to maintain the delivery system?s integrity. Preserve historic structures and other elements of local history, including mature trees. A large portion of the stand of trees near the proposed entry will be undisturbed, although some less distinctive foliage must be removed for intersection safety and fall hazards. There are no historical structures on the site, although the semi-buried cellar in the northeast corner of the site is being considered to remain for use associated with the proposed community gardens if deemed safe upon further inSpection. Preserve agricultural land uses and rural character. and encourage local crap and food production. 14.6% of the site is proposed as Open Space, Pocket Park, or Community Gardens. Over 5,400 sf. of Community Garden beds are proposed within a pocket park and an additional 2,400 s.f of semi-buried cellar shall be provided to encourage local food production. The Mid Valley Area Community Plan gave great consideration to the preservation of agricultural land use in the area and deemed this property to be best suited for residential development at a density of3-7 units per acre to capture density growth near the ?Community Centers" and preserve agricultural land elsewhere. The Fields is consistent with the development designation of the MVACP. Furthermore, the alternatives that were considered which might allow some of the existing open area to remain, were found to come at the cost of conflicting with other important MVACP planning objectives, including the provision of diverse housing types and price points in the overall El Jebel ?Commtmity Center?, and the encouragement of development density near the infrastructure of existing ?Community Centers'. Support alternative energy production where appropriate, and encourage energy and resource ef?cient designs and building materials. The Fields Home Owners Association Covenants will encourage the renewable and passive energy features of all new homes and require them to adhere with the strict regulations of the Eagle County building code which requires or incentivizes efficient designs and materials. Promote public safety, health and welfare, consistent will: Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The prosed development promotes public safety, health, and welfare throughout its design by providing safe road systems built in a curvilinear manner to reduce speed, multi-modal transportation options, community garden opportunities, proximity to infrastructure, mass transit, and logistical needs, and ?nally, by adhering to the land use and engineering standards required by Eagle County and the State of Colorado. B. Vision Statement - Chapter 3 Highway 82 Corridor Character Area: 1. reasonable range of housing pipes and price points is available. and locals live in close proximity to both urban arnenities and expansive open spaces with great uterus. The Fields proposes (4) different price points, (3) different housing sizes, and (2) different housing types and is targeted at meeting the housing needs of the full-time resident population of the Valley ?Road intersections along Higlnvay 32 are appropriately spaced and well designed, serving "hubs of coonnercial and retail serviCes as well as clusters ofurbon and suburban type residential neighborhoods. The proposed addition of a signal at the intersection at Valley Road and Hwy 82 meets this vision 10 a 87 of 151 using updated traf?c assessment data and will relieve a portion of the existing issue at the El Jebel Road intersection with Hwy 82. "Crown Mountain Park provides Sport?elrls and other active recreational facilities, as well as a direct connection to the Roaring orlc River corridor, which borders the character area to the southwest. The Fields proposal will be a public bene?t regarding the overall planning and vision for the El Jobs] ?Community Center" by providing housing opportunity at recommended densities within 1/4 mile of the Crown Mountain Park and the Roaring Fork River access point. C. Goals Sr Policies: i. Land Use: "Goal 1.1 The type and distribution of land uses in the Highway 32 Character Area rneet community needs, reflect community desires, and demonstrate effective inulti agency coliaboration. "Poiicy 1.1.1 Work collaboratively with affected agencies and stakeholders to provide an appropriate overall mix of land uses in the area. The Applicant has reached out to numerous entities including. but not limited to. emergency services, school districts, and public land management entities to discuss what need they may have regarding housing in the area. Although not all of the entities chose to comment on the matter. those who did overwhelmingly agreed that our mix of duplex and single-family homes ranging in sizes from 1,100- 2,400 s.f. covered the spectrum of housing needed by their employees and associates. These public sector entities also expressed great enthusiasm for for the roughly 24 homes provided by The Fields that would be affordable housing. Further community outreach recognized an overali demand for market driven housing opportunities for ?every day? citizens who work in, or otherwise enjoy the Valley. The desire and need expressed during our community outreach was further continued by the many letters to the editor and social media forums in which citizens express the need for housing opportunities like those proposed by The Fields. ?Policy Provide opportunities for higher density residential uses in close proximity to commercial service areas and transit hubs. The proposed subdivision has a density of 5 units per acre which ?ts within the MVACP designation of 3-7 units per acre. The site is located within the El Jebel ?Community Center? and has multiamodal access to mass transit, groceries, entertainment, restaurant, retail, jobs, and recreation. "Policy 1.1.2.c Ensure an adequate number of a?ordabie workforce units in the area. The Fields subdivision proposes to meet the affordable housing guidelines by dedicating 24 units (or 25%) as affordable workforce housing units. The Applicant?s potential development of these units has generated great anticipation from the local school districts, emergency service entities, public land management authorities, and more. "Policy Ensure an appropriate range ofhottsing types and price points in any new Planned Unit Development. Although the proposed subdivision is not a Planned Unit Development, The Fields furthers the intent of this policy by proposing (4) different price points {including affordable housing), (3) different housing sizes, and (2) different housing types. The proposal consists of (38) Duplex units targeting roughly 1,100 (34) Duplex units targeting 1,800 and (26) detached Single? Family homes targeting >2,100 s.f. Price points are relative to the change in home size. "Policy l. 1.5 Provide appropriate recreational opportunities and facilities The proposed subdivision?s unique location within the El .Iebel ?Community Center? is its primary source for recreational opportunities due to its immediate proximity to Crown Mountain Park and the Roaring Fork River access, but the proposal also includes more than 2,000 linear feet of public trail built to Mid Valley Trails Committee standards, over 5,400 s.f. of Community Gardens, and a pocket park with a neighborhood playground. ?Policy 1.1.9 Adhere to the purposes and intents ofthe Mid Vailey Area Community Plan Future Land Use Map. The Future Land Use Map designation for development on the proposed site is Urban/Suburban Residential (USSR) and calls for a density range of 3-7 dwelling units per acre. The Fields ?ties? s?adivision is in the middle of the USSR densiLy range by proposipg units per acre. ?Policy Encourage compact development, and promote higher densities in community centers where adequate in??asiructure already exists, and where services can be most e?iCientiyprovided. The Fields subdivision provides appropriate density that is compatible with existing surrounding subdivisions yet still adheres to the intent of the MVACP to promote higher densities within ?Community Centers? such as El .Iebel. Existing utility in?'astructure exists with capacities capable of receiving the the proposed development: i. Water and Sewer: The Mid Valley Metro District has issued an "Ability to Serve? letter for both water and sewer at the proposed density and the Applicant is prepared to submit a 1041 Permit application with Preliminary plan. ii. Fire Protection: Fire protection will be provided by the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. The method of Fire Protection will be an on-site water system with new Fire Hydrants with a looped connection to the existing Water Supply of the Mid Valley Metro District. As the design progresses. there will be coordination with Fire Marshall Bill Harding to ensure any Specific concerns are met. In general, the design will follow guidelines-in termis of the following aspects: II Access Road Design I Firc low Adequate width and surfacing Volume. pressure, and storage 0 BTwo-way access [Main and EmergJ a Fire Hydrants Max cul-de-sac length i turnaround Location spacing I accessibility I Wild?re Requirements Building Requirements 6.3 AFFORDABLE HOUSING: The Applicant recognizes the community need for affordable housing and proposes adherence to the Eagle County Affordable Housing Guidelines amended in 2013 in response to the Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update in 2012. Section 3.01 of the Affordable Housing Guidelines currently states that a mitigation rate of 25% shall be imposed on any new residential development. The Fields development proposes to employ the acceptable methods described at the intro to Chapter 4 of the Affordable Housing Guidelines as prcSented below. The Applicant?s intent is to propose a Housing Plan that primarily utilizes Price Capped and Resident Occupied Housing. The Housing Plans Considered include satisfying mitigation by simply providing 25% of the propOSed housing as Price Capped For Sale Housing; or, a combination of Price Capped For Sale Housing and Resident Occupied Housing. The Applicant understands that Resident Owned housing is only given credit toward the 25% Affordable Housing mandate so an example of a combination for consideration is providing 13 Price Capped units, and 24 Resident Owned units. Development in the Mid Valley Area is complicated and requires open discussion with Eagle County regarding the feasible provision of Affordable Housing once a level of predictability is obtained in regards to approved zoning, density, and off-site improvements. Therefore, once Sketch Plan approval has provided the predictability necessary to know what zoning, density, and off-site improvements are deemed appropriate for development at this site we can then present a detailed Housing Plan at Preliminary or inal Plan depicting which methods shall be used and identifying units designated to be deed restricted for mitigation of affordable housing. CHAPTER 4 ACCEPTABLE METHODS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING TIUN In an e?brt to provide necessary for the development industry, an applicant may comply with the Guidelines in thefoiiowing trays, oft-which are subject to approvai by the in its sole discretion: i. Price Capped For Sale Housing with a maximum Sales Price set or or beioi-v 100% ievei wit! be given ?rii credit. 2. A?ordable Rented Housing with a deed restriction requiring rents to be set at or below the 30% level may be given increased credit {in recent market shot-rs the need for additions! A?ordabie Rania! Housing in the rentai project ?5 location. 3. Resident Occupied or Sale using, which ir-rcirrdes a 2.0% dander-fee on safes to non? Eiigible Househoids, t-riihotri regard to AMI, wilt be given 0.50.7: credit. 4. A donation offal-rd to ECHDA tiliihin a reasonable vicinity ofrhe applied?! 15* Project be given 0.50.1: credit. l2 a 89 of 151 5. O?'Site Development wilt be given 0.50): credit. In cases where the of site iocaiion has a higher A?ordobitity Gap than the devetopment site. fut! credit may be A Payment in Lieu maybe made to ECHDA. An appiicont may use A?cra?obie Housing Credits. Other Pubiic Benefits may be provided to o?fret some portion ofA?ordabIe Homing. Forum 6.4 SUSTAINABLE COMIWUNITY INDEX: The Fields Subdivision meets and exceeds the intent1 goals, and criteria set forth. by the Sustainable Community Index. The purpose of the Sustainable Community Index is described in the Land Ilse Regulations as follows: DIVISION 4-10: SUSMINA BLE COMMUNITY INDEX (org. 7/08) SECTION 000: PURPOSE The Sustainabte Community index (SCI) is a devetopnient review tool to comprehensiver anaiyze how new ole veiopments contribute tot-rant sustainabie community development. The intent of the SCI is to give sta?? devetopers. and decision matters an indicator as to the Ievei of sustainabi/ity a project inciudes within it, as welt as its contribution to the broader community. Sustainabte Community shat! be de?ned as: contain-entry which ?rsters economic opportunity and soc-tat capitot white protecting and restoring the nature! environment ?pm? which peopte and economies depend The proposed residential development meets and exceeds the intent of the SCI by way of adhering to the Land Use Regulations and MVACP which have given great consideration to the enhancement and preservation of the El chel ?Community Center?. While many of the considerations within. the SCI Checklist (or Points List) can be addressed on a site by site basis they must also be applied to the surrounding community center, which has effectively been promoted within the Eagle County development regulations applicable to the proposed site. The SCI Checklist (or Points List) below, as provided by Eagle County, was used to assess what Sustainability considerations are being met by The Fields subdivision. The Applicant?s meetings with Eagle County Planning Staff identi?ed several items and points availability that were deemed ?non applicable? as described in Section 4- 1020 ofArticlc 4: Site Development Standards: Section 44020 ?gint Sadie.? td0+ MINIMUM STANDARDS 70439 MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 0-69 DOES NOTMEETMINIMUM STANDARDS The point scale above assumes a meaimum point score ofEItl. with 7'0 (meets nn?nimum standards) and I40 (exceeds minimum standards) representing 3 3 925 and 66% threshold: ofthis n-iarimttm number. respective/y. or proposals where certain fine items ?oor the SCI t-l?i?ticb? are not oppiicabie to the project. the total maximum points endpoint thresholds shalt be adjusted anapro-ratea? accordingty. A non-applicabie point or iine item is one orbit-b is impossibte to include in the project because of its Iocation or existing condition. rl point or line item cannot become non-applicable due to a proposed design or recent actions taken by the applicant. Within the SCI Checklist below, the black text in the table below is the standard language in the SCI Checklist. The Maroon text indicates revision to the points availability per agreement with Eagle County Planning Staff regarding applicability: The blue text is comment from the Applicant regarding satisfaction ofthe line item within the Fields subdivision proposal: pts. LOCATION Infill adjacent (2), andfor previously developed (1) 5 2-5 The site is located within the El .chel ?Ccmmu'nity Center' and adjacent to previously developed residential neighborhood. TRANSIT: Over 50% of the development is within walking distance (1/4 mile) of transit stop The site is located less than a 5/4 mile from RFTA stop that exists north of Hwy 82 at the Blue Lake 3 5 Subdivision and within 312 mile of the RFTA stop on the south side ofI-Iwy 82 at the El Jcbel Road intersection. The proposed signal ization of' the intersection at Valley Road and Hivy 82 and the trail connection leading to El Jcbel Road will provide safe access to RFTA. Wits er 2-4 PROXIMITY 'l?O WATERJWASTEWATER: ties into existing public extension (2) Located within the Mid Valley Metro district with access to both sewer and water adjacent to the property. COMMUNITIES: biological study with DOW compliance DOW has indicated no major impacts to wildlife. See attached memo from DOW. PRESERVATION: 100? setback and Water quality testing [Originally points available, but deemed AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION: Doesn't remove historiofpotential agricultural land In order to comply with the Mid Valley Area Community Plan and the preservation and enhancement of the EL ebel ?Community .Center' while maintaining diversity of homes in the area. it is not feasible to preserve the portions of the site sometimes used as pasture. 1-2 EXISTING VEGETATION PRESERVATION: {10% existing treefshrubs impacted The Only source of trees and shrubs on the property occur along Valley Road and the existing driveway. Home sites were pushed away from the trees so roughly 80% of the trees are expected to be preserved. It is possible that engineering site lines for the access intersection may require some trees to be removed for safety. NM . [Ori?ally 2-3 points available, but all points deemed BROWNFIELDXELIGHT REDEVELOPMENT: Improves blighted lot (2), contamination cleanup (3) STEEP on slopes less than 20% I CONNECTIONS AND USES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: 100% of surface drainage through bioswale/vegetated system. Drainage engineering has not been fully investigated, but water quality control and low impact develo merit BMP's will be im - lamented. OPEN COMMUNITY: no gates, amenities are open to the public PUBLIC ACCESS: provides appropriate public access to public lands/rivers (with agency approval) Over 2,000 linear feet of public trail proposed alO?g with a new connection to existing river acCess. COMPACT DEVELOPMENT: 7 or more units/acre; commercial .5 .50 FAR All feedback from County Planning and community input has recommended not to develop at the maximum range of 7 units per acre. The proposad 5 units per acre density complies with the MVACP and is compatible with existing neighborhoods and future vision of the El Iebel Community Center. 1-2 REDUCED on previously disturbed area all structures and parking sf .50 lot (I) CLUSTERING: ef?cient infrastructure, development concentrated in code(5), allowing for open areas. Although clustering does not apply to the proposal when looking at the site as an island of development. the Applicant proposes I point be awarded for clustering when considering the clustering of density near infrastructure and open spaces as designated by the vision of the El Jebel ?Community Center' and the MVACP. OPEN SPACE: conservation easement meets components of open space criteria. See regulations. REDUCED PARKING less surface parking (2-3), carpool (I), covered bike storage [Originally 2-7 points available, but deemed PARKING LOCATION: surface parking to rear of structures only to side and screened (2). [Originally 3-4 points availablel REDUCED PARKING: Does not exceed LURs: 1 pt. Study shows reduced on?site demand (2-3 pts.) RATIO onsite housing for mixed-use non-residential (see regulations) [Originally 4 points available] SCHOOL PROXIMITY: within a mile ofa public school Roaring Fork School District planning a school within the El Jebel ?Community Center? [long term planning]. DIVERSITY OF USES: 1 point each use category listed in regulations [Originally l-20 points available, but 19pts deemed NIA because ofzcning and DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES 1 point each housing type listed in regulations abch 2. Although technically only two housing types are proposed (Duplex and Detached Single Family). there are 3 sizes and price points that warrant points consideration. AFFORDABLE HOUSING 1 point each affordable housing Unit provided above housing guidelines. 25% of preposed housing units will meet affordable housing designation as required. AFFORDABLE RENTAL HOUSING: Onsite rental housin, see reulations. TRANSPORTATION WALKABLE STREETS: see commentary [Originally 1-28 points available, but l3pts deemed d4[Page 91 of 151 STREET NETWORK: grid small block pattern, 2 pts, pedestrian connection at cu] de sacs (1) Eagle County Planning Staff discouraged grid-like city patterns in favor of curvilinear roads. 0 2'3 FACILITIES: transit stop provided by development (2 pts.), covered bike storage add?l pt.) WALKABLE VICINITY: score 10-25=lpt, 26-SD=2pts, 5 l?75=3pts, 76-100=4pts. gives a score of 12 for the site address and comments that most errands would require a 1 1'4 car even though groceries, entertainment, restaurants, and services are all found within one mile of the site and connected by public trails. 3 3 BICYCLE NETWORK: Connection to community center via bicycle paths/routes. 2 2 ACCESS TO PUBLIC SPACES: 90% of units within 1/4 mile of public green space Access to Roaring Fork Rchr. 2 1.3 ACCESS TO ACTIVE SPACE: within 1/2 mile of ball ?eld, 3-miie recreation trail, andJor dog park Access to Crown Mountain Park. 2 1_3 LOCAL FOOD PRODUCTION: private garden areas community garden(s) local market (I) Proosal includes over 5,400 sf of Communi Gardens within a ocket ark. RESOURCE EFFICIENCY 2 1-2 LIMITED measures: eases landscaped areas term). Turf uses 25% less water than KBG r1). 1 DIVERSE NATIVE LANDSCAPE: Landscape plan utilizes 10 or more local native low-water species. 2 3 XERIS CAPE: Landscape plan incorporates seven xeric design principles {see regulations) SOLAR ORIENTATION: 75% of all buildings have solar orientation (see regulations) The road system that overwhelmingly incorporates roads on a bearing provides nearly every home with an 4 5 opportunity to incorporate passive solar orientation and the HOA will encourage the use of both passive and active solar energy features. 10 3.30 RENEWABLE ENERGY 3 points for every 5% total energy offset by onsite renewable system(s]. The HOA will encourage the use of renewable energy systems. MFRASTRUCTURE RECYCLED CONTENT: Concrete/asphalt 75% or more recycled content. This 0 1 . . . . item is unpredictable at this stage of Sketch Plan. REQUIRED RECYCLING: Design includes areas for recycling eo-mingled, paper, and cardboard. An area for a recycled materials collection bin has been proposed near the mailbox pullout across from the park. REQUIRED LIGHT POLLUTION: Exterior lighting minimized, shielded, night sky compliant. MOVATION 1N DESIGN: Items meeting intent not listed, case by case review TOTAL The Categories of ?Renewablc Energy? and? Affordable Housing [beyond the 35% required)? account for 30 and 20 points possible. or 38%- The economics of being required to provide 25% of units as affordable housing before being able to earn any points for affordable housing within 78 179 this index make obtaining any points in this heavily weighted category very challenging. Renewable Energy is also heavily weighted in this index. but at this early stage of Sketch Plan we cannot accurately depict how many individual home buyers may choose to use reneWable energy systems other than the passive solar opportunity provided by the developer. Upon approval of the proposed Sketch Plan for the Fields subdivision and the ensuing finalization of design engineering, landscape plan, and the HOA it is believed the projects score on the SCI may exceed 50%. However, the heavy points Weighting of affordable housing that is eligible by affordable housing beyond the 25% required by the Affordable Housing Guidelines malces it very challenging from an economically feasible standpoint, as does the heavy points weighting of the use of renewable energy which is very dif?cult to predict what an individual property owner may choose for their energy needs upon building a home in the Fields subdivision. The Applicant understands that the heavy Weighting of the points in these categories may be intentional to promote a vision for development in the area, but at this early stage of Sketch Plan the Applicant is uncertain of its level of participation in the ?nal construction of each home on the project vs. private owners of purchased lots who will then build their own homes, so points assignment for SCI proved to be challenging in some categories. Ln ca? ??13 9am Are 7.0 Traf?c Impact Mitigation: The consideration of feasibility for any development in the El .iebcl ?Community Center? area must address the issue of traf?c impact, and more speci?cally, the traf tic impact on the intersections of access to State Highway 82 (Hwy 82). The Applicant is very aware of the long standing logistical and fiscal issues surrounding primarily the intersection of El Jebol Rd 1 Hwy 82, and its culmination to this point that the next development in the area will be burdened with addressing the issue. The Applicant?s engineers and planners have had thorough discussion on the matter with Eagle County Engineering, Eagle County Planning, CDOT, local stakeholders, and interested parties. We understand the level of involvement various parties choose (or choose not) to participate in resolving the matter as well as the budgeting time frames for such participation. The Fields Development Group proposes a fair, safe, and ?nancially: eguitable solution that can be implemented in a timely manner providing relief to the current traf?c issue at El label: and we believe the proposed solution can be implemented without the need for immediate out?otipocket cost sharing from the County or other entities. However, as explained below, the process to implement the proposed solution will require the support and cooperation of Eagle County. in addition to meeting with governing entities, the Applicant and its engineering team at SGM, Inc. studied Access Control Plan (ACP) from 2002 for the Hwy 32. corridor, reviewed several traf?c studies performed in recent years (on behalf of CDOT, Eagle County, or other interested parties), and submitted a Level 3 Traf?c Analysis Methodology Proposal to CDOT in. April of this year (2015) that included new traf?c counts. Review of recent traffic studies in addition to traf?c counts performed this year by quali?ed traf?c engineers on behalf of the Applicant have provided insight on the differences between the traf?c levels 'forecasted by the ACP back in 2002 and the actual traf?c {and their sources) impacting the intersections today. Upon completing the preliminary study it became evident that the intersection at E1 .lebel Rd I Hwy 82'. was not the only intersection in the area whose actual traf?c impact was different from the 2002 ACP forecasts, and ?lrtherrnOre, there were identifiable relationships between the effectiveness of one intersection on another. The primary example of such relationships is between the intersection of El Jebel Rd I Hwy 82 and the intersection to the west of Valley Rd. (andror JW Rd) l-lwy 82. With this updated data set and fresh perspective on how to approach the traf?c issues that are sti?ing economic development and hindering the availability of housing opportunities for residents in the area, the Applicant presented two mitigation measures: 1. Limit the access movements of vehicles exiting the Fields subdivision so that a ?right turn only? is available, thereby directing all traf?c exiting the subdivision to the intersection of Valley Rd. (and/or JW Rd) Hwy 32. 2. install a new signal at the intersection of Valley Rd. (and/or JW Rd) Hwy 82. Upon presenting the concept of installing a signal at JW Drive and Hwy 82 to oquitabl relieve the Jebel intersection and improve existing traf?c conditions in the area now and into the future, the Eagle County Engineering of?ce requested the applicant perform a complete Traffic impact Analysis to assess its feasibility. The traffic study was completed in August 2015 and documents the existing and 20-year projections as well as the operational conditions that the Hwy 32 corridor is anticipated to experience. In an effort to reduce the volume of site-generated traf?c using the El .iebei signal, this study considers a new traf?c signal at i-Iwy SZIJW Drive that is intended to serve as the developments primary access point to the regional highway system. The study demonstrates that a traffic signal here will improve operations at this intersection, while also providing relief to the operations at. the highly congested intersection of Hwy .lebel Road during certain times of the day. Support for the proposed signal beyond capacity and operations considerations include a known history of requests for a signal from neighbors and other users (Lo. school district, surrounding property comers and stakeholders), existing infrastructure of conduit and pull boxes to facilitate signaliaation that was previously installed by at the request or approval of Eagle County Engineering, and several warrants being satis?ed. It should be noted that the study was conducted in a ?worst case scenario" approach with no reductions taken for trips made by transit, bicycle or other modal choices available to the residents ,which if considered, would yield added favorable support for the proposed signalization. In summary, the extensive professional data assessment and resultingjusti?cation for a signal at JW Drive shows that it will provide relief to existing congestion at the El .lcbel intersection, accommodates future growth, and create another local access route from surrounding neighborhoods which allows redundancy and accessible alternative routes in the event of excessive mainline delays without hindering the travel corridor functionality. ltS Page 930f151 7.1 BENEEITS OF MITIGATION The primary bene?ts to the proposed traf?c mitigation of the installation of a signal at Valley Rd. (andior JW Rd) Hwy 82 and the three?quarter movement intersection at the subdivision entrance to Valley Rd, include but are not limited to: Bene?t A: A. three-quarter moVement intersection will prevent additional traffic from the proposed development to the south side of the intersection at EL ehel Rd 1? Hwy 82, while still providing housing opportunities and amenities that enhance and preserve the El Jebel ?Community Center". Incorporated into the design of The Fields subdivision where it accesses Valley Road is a limited movement intersection to restrict the ability of a vehicle leaving the subdivision from turning left (east) and traveling toward the El Jebel Rd Hwy 82 intersection, and instead, allows only a right turn (west) onto Valley Road to the nearby Valley Rd /Hwy 82 intersection. The proposed three-quarter movement intersection will not affect through traf?c or the existing use of Valley Rd. The improvements will allow drivers to enter the subdivision from both eastbound and westbound Valley Rd and will only restrict the exit ?om the subdivision to be right turn only. The three-quarter movement intersection simultaneously acts as a grand entry feature that will be landscaped with vegetation, boulders, and grading designed to physically prohibit traf?c from illegally forcing a left turn by jumping curbs or cutting across the entry feature area. See below fora conceptual layout of the restricted intersection. "is in 5 races to same -QUT ONLY - . p- ulp" r31:- Residents and visitors to The Fields subdivision will not suffer hindered access or longer routes of travel to the El Jebel ?Community Center? or it's amenities as a result of the proposed dime-quarter movement intersection at the entrance of the subdivision. Travel times were studied for driving both routes from the- proposed location of the subdivision entrance to the intersectinn of BL Jebel Rd Hwy 82. The studies showed that when driving within the legal speed limit of each road and incurring average delay at the intersection, travel time was as follows: - 130 seconds to exit right (west) out of the proposed subdivision along Valley Road and then turn right (east) onto Hwy 82 at the intersection and remain on Hwy 82 until reaching the signal at El Jebel Road. a 125 seconds to travel left (east) out of the proposed subdivision onto Valley Road until reaching the stop sign at the intersection with El Jebcl Rdjust south of the intersection with Hwy 82. The study shows it is virtually the same travel time (within 5 seconds) for either route. 179'4E'Jlii1g-13- Bene?t B: The Fields subdivision will provide relief of the existing pre?development traffic impacting both the north and south sides of the intersection at El Jebel Rd/ Hwy 82, thus prolonging the life of acceptable intersection operations. Traffic using the north side of SH 32 at El Jebel is generated by four primary areas: Missouri Heights subdivisions, Blue Lakes subdivisions, the Crawford property subdivisions, and the businesses along SH 82 and El Jebei Road. Blue Lake has approximately 400 units and our peak hour counts at .Tebel Road will show how many right turns are made in the morning peak (and left turns in the afternoon peak) at this intersection to better isolate Blue Lakes traf?c currently using the E1 Jebel signal. Removing the majority of traf?c from one of these four generators from the intersection will indeed help relieve the traf?c issue. Additionally, there are several small subdivisions along Valley Road across from Crown Mountain Park that would bene?t from a signal at JW drive Many of these residents now use the signal at E1 Jebel to drive toward Carbondale and would likely use a signal at JW if it were available. Existing Traffic Scenario: I. .- mam:- cm-, I, ?d . - Bene?t C: An immediate ?way of life1 bene?t will be felt by the community as a result of timely construction of an equitable solution to simultaneously relieve existing traf?c concerns and provide future capacity. The improvements will relieve the El Jcbel intersection from portions of the traf?c generated by existing sources. Additionally, the approval of the proposed traffic mitigation plan will relieve the ?choice point" that is currently stifling appropriate development in the area and provide opportunities including the provision of reasonable housing for new valley residents, or existing workers who may currently reside clown valley, to live in the same area they work and play in. The positive economic impact of appropriate development on the area?s businesses is invaluable. Bene?t D: The local governing bodies will see benefits to both ?nancial and community planning considerations such as: - Prolonging the life of acceptable intersection operations at an intersection already in great demand for relief but without funding to do so, - Accommodation of anticipated growth of the region into the future that addresses the shortcomings of the ACP forecasts from nearly 15 years ago. - The Fields subdivision proposal will generate $3 $4,344 in Traf?c Impact Fees to be used in the Roaring Fork Bene?t District identi?ed on Exhibit of Article 4, Section. 7 in the ECLUR. The Applicant is willing to engage in discussions concerning options to fund the improvements for construction at the early stages ofthe project rather than waiting until the Traf?c Impact Fees are collected at Building Permit of each unit overtime. in Limited traf?c on eastbound Valley Road will increase considerations of health, safety, and welfare for the Crown Mountain Park visitors and the high level of pedestrians in the area along Valley Road utilizing the concentration of trails, open space, and river access in the area. Traffic data collected thus far shows the magnitude of relief to the lil Jebel Hwy 82 intersection upon the installation of the proposed signal may be signi?cant enough to not warrant the proposed three-quarter movement intersection at the entrance-Jean of the subdivision. Should ongoing assessment and engineering show the three quarter movement intersection is not appropriate, the Applicant will provide an appropriate alternative intersection for review by Eagle County during Preliminary Plan using accepted engineering design standards based on health, safety, and welfare. The Applicant acknowledges this proposal does not, by itself, resolve all the issues at the intersection of El .lebcl Hwy 82, but it does provide a fair and equitable contribution en behalf of the development relative to the small proportion of traf?c impact the proposed development produces on surrounding intersections, and will provide nearly $390,000 .in Road Impact Fees to the County. This proposal represents an equitable solution based on a fresh look at updated traf?c data to simultaneously relieve existing conditions and plan for the future. The implementation of these improvements would satisfy future needs and is a signi?cant advancement to address the traf?c woes in El label and the effects it has on economic development of the region. The traf?c data supports the engineer?s report that the actual traffic experienced today is different than the forecasts made by the Access Control Plan (ACP) nearly 15 years ago, resulting in a signal being warranted at the intersection Valley Rd. (and Rd) Hwy 82. if it is deemed to be agreeable by community planners and area stakeholders the process of approval will include an amendment to the Access Control Plan that was done in 2002. The Applicant intends to facilitate the amendment process. Dan Roussin (CDOT Region 3 - Access/Utility Engineer/Permits Coordinator) has indicated neither support not opposition to an amendment process if warranted by traf?c data, but advised that support from Eagle County and the local community is paramount to the process. Upon Sketch. Plan approval of the basic concept for the proposed traf?c mitigation the Applicant will begin amending the ACP using the appropriate County and CDDT processes. liaisons 8.0 Public Bene?t Summary?: The Public Bene?ts of The Fields subdivision primarily fall into the following categories: EL Satisiv existina and Droiected communitv housina needs. By all accounts from individuals, business, and public Sector entities there is great demand for reasonable housing opportunities in the area. Market studies have been performed supporting this claim, and local media is inundated with letters from the public discussing the topic. During the community outreach phase of this project there were several public entities and private land owners who chose to provide letters on the subject of their housing needs or the hurdles they have encountered to provide solutions in the past. These letters of support for reasonable housing opportunities can be provided upon request. Enhancing and preserving the E1 Jebel ?Communitv Center?. Community Centers are promoted and . urban sprawl is prevented when appropriate development like The Fields subdivision addresses inevitable growth and workforce housing needs near existing infrastructure, lifestyle logistics liltc groceries and jobs, and amenities such. as trails and public spaces. Compliance with the MVACP. ECLUR. and other adopted plans and policies. The Fields follows the goals and intention of all adopted policies and complies with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Traf?c Mitigation. The proposal of off?site traffic improvements and on?site traf?c control measures provide relief to traf?c issues that are otherwise stalled from being ?tted for ?scal reasons, while also providing new capacity to accommodate future appropriate dchloptnent as envisioned in the Mid Valley Area Community Plan. Economic Development. impact fees, permit fees, and taxes will add to the government revenues. Increased business generation during construction and afterwards when homes are occupied are a direct renult of approval of The Fields development proposal. Collateral benefits ofapproVal would also include new jobs to construct the infrastructure and homes, as well as a reduced impact of travel throughout the Valley by those who work up valley but are forced to live down valley due to the lack of reasonable housing opportunities. The Fields subdivision is an appropriate development of a site near existing infrastructure and amenities which is compatible with the surrounding land uses and complies with all Eagle County development regulations and policies. The traffic mitigations proposed herein help enhance the El .lebel Community Center by relieving existing issues that are not otherwise being addressed, and provide additional capacity to accept forecastcd growth into the future. Thank you for your consideration of this Sketch Plan application of the Fields Subdivision. Respectfully, The Fields Development Group, LLC was/.? Represented by Keith Ehlers, 38E LLC 20 Page 97of151 . .- .Il. OUUBEU 3:200 m?nm cUcDm .m :5 moi 22:38 9&5 .n Elld?hsp?w?dha .2:30 19? ?s??ahv? 3.3 3% 20mm. $5va .I in I I I I?ll I i [in I I'rllr 4 .- I In.? 4 .-. ill" Ina??ii I 'll I I- .- .?Hllm 98 of 151 LSL "gm; mug-1i i i? 5m "u 11": I - El 5 1H1 Hi!i "g - .- Int- -- tillwill 9-.- 1 ?mu-unnu- nu ?11- I- ll I- I1- I-I: -I InnaWm: al?na qauua unhuw? opmomj humus. El?n; uauna unuw '9 401 draw suompuog ?uusmg Ii}! lilli? . Eg??gwm I I an suompuog Emmy-:3 31.1 HM ml and ]'mm 451m- 1a? Jul: nu: I: TRAIL 5mm FUTURE .h DLTENTICJN AREA 1. 'E-x?lhh v* DPEN SPACE BUFFENIIG Ad) ?Hand! PUBLIC. TRAIL 67:68 ALLWEATHER EURMCE NF w, - CELLAR ?atii we GARDENING STORAGE CONNECTION r0 . ?333}. BIISTING TRAIL 55:55 I ?gs .Irhna.? . uqunI Id? *?1y - HRH 735550 Rainy I v'h?l?iu- I IE mm? 575EBIG4 m, ?Hahn .., ?25? nule . A 5354 a ?52 ?~le I, Hum a Innu- tail-""- m" El I I ""th DUPLEX I in E. Elyse I. 59?59 .I W43. ?5 4330a GARDENS: IE I e- 43!? 44? I v) my ??ig?h -- mum: . . 43,135 ?at If 63354with i PLAYGROUND i ii Hf}, 4 Emma; AND I I, ?1 . MAILIRE CLE ?15 RM: aft: I u. a EIDEWALK {Typ} EHI mu must bun i 5mg saga? DEVELOPMENT . (53.57% .9. 0.42 M. {2.251 2.40 As. ?2.495) Open ?mef?u?cr I 4.15 Ac. Raid nmw; - .I -- .- I935 .Ilomm m: atal I- UNIT 1 a Ingla'r'a'm'uy Leta 92.1100 TO REMAIN RIGHT-GUT UPON EXIT GRAND ENTRY FEM DRE DVERJ DEFERRENT 34 Duplsx Urube- Haw: El .600 mu: 35 Dugl? Umta giJ IIOO 95 Total Umta zdPr-Iccj T- TD RIVER ACCESS LEFT-IN ENTRANCE .- u?l I - .r I. [3%ng 4W SKETCH PLAN ,5 3 THE FIELDS SUBDIVISION I .1 IE . TRAIL sTuu .. FUTURE CONNECTION DETENTION AREA . 59m: BUFFER. I . ?a?Fuauc TRAIL I 10' IMDII 5mm: . EXISTING- SEMI-BURIED CELLAR GARDENING STORAGE TD EXISITING TRAIL _Iy - 5579GARDENE - .TRAN. CONNECTION .. - - AND . x, - . awmismmz -MNL Puma TRAIL I I 0?pr i?I I: 35' mag-ran OPEN SPACE BUFFER Emma TREE To REMAIN 24C TRAIL CONNECTION RIGHT-OUT arm um?. um To RIVER. ACCESS GRAND ENTRY FEATURE I- OVER: DETEERENT RIGHT-IN 4? DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY: - UNIT 1133 Lat: 26 Small: Firmly Lat: I DO aim} 0.4-2 As. [2.25) Park Mama Iii-maul 311 Duplex UnIta .500 s?du] 2.40 M. Open Sana; EB Dalia: Umt: (30W(21.93.) Rand anny Tan! hardenml Umu [Mud SI:an rank. Hm: ante Tom THE FIELDS SUBDIVISION ?an: "Du-um 51 MEMORANDUM To: Chairman Johns and Basalt Planning and Zoning Commission Thru: Susan Philp, Planning Director From: James Lindt, AICP Assistant Planning Director Date: September 1, 2015 RE: Introduction to CommunityfAffordable Housing Code Amendments. Amendments to Town's Community Housing Guidelines I. Purpose Town Staff has been working with the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Commission (BACH) to formulate amendments to the Town?s affordable housing requirements and the Town's Community Housing Guidelines. Staff would like to use this meeting as a brief introduction to the housing code and guideline amendments that have been formulated and to understand if the needs additional information to consider the proposed amendments for formal recommendation to the Town Council at a future meeting. II. Background The Town's Housing Consultant, Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) recommended that the Town reduce the Town?s inclusionary housing and commercial mitigation percentages (EPS Housing Conditions Report is on the Planning Department page of the Town?s website) to make it more feasible for the development to occur under the new economic conditions that have been established coming out of the recession. Additional amendments were proposed by Staff to address issues that Staff has experienced with the Town?s current housing requirements. As a result, BACH and Staff have formulated the attached draft code and housing guideline amendments that include the following changes: a. Reduce lnclusionary Housing Requirements (percentage of residential project required to be AH) from 35% of a project's residential floor area being required to be deed restricted AH to 25%; and, b. Reduce the Employee Mitigation Requirement (percentage of employees generated by new commercial development to be housed in AH units) from 25% to 15%; and, c. Lower the target income range and associated sale prices and rents for new AH units from 120% of the Area Median Income (AMI) to 100% of and 102 of 151 d. Eliminate the encouragement for developers to provide R0 housing (as a result of the fact that the Town has had to accept the removal of RO deed restrictions in Willits Town Center for various reasons); and. e. Reduce in the cash?in-lieu fee amount by 40%; and, Establish minimum guidelines forAH units in terms of amenities. Ill. Staff Comments Staff presented the concept of the preposed amendments to the Town Council in worksessions in May and then again in August. The Council identified that they felt Staff was headed in the right direction with the proposed amendments. BACH has also been active in formulating the proposed amendments and have indicated support for the proposed amendments. IV. Recommendation Staff recommends that the hear an introductory presentation from Staff of the proposed amendments and then provide initial feedback on the proposed amendments and identify whether additional information is needed to consider the amendments for adoption at a future meeting. Attachments: Proposed Code Amendment Language Proposed Community Housing Guideline Amendments Ix.) 103 of 151 ?1 ARTICLE Xix Housing Mitigation I Basalt is located in a unique and highly desirable valley. The Town recognizes that having a supply of community housing attainable by households earning lower and median incomes in the Town is critical to retaining a diversified and sustainable Town having the character and sense of community of a Town where people can live and work in the same area. The citizens of the Town do not want Basalt to become an exclusive community. Historically, persons earning lower and median incomes have been able to attain housing in the Basalt area, and the Town currently reflects a mix of socioeconomic backgrounds. The Town further recognizes that there is a growing gap between housing costs and wages in Basalt. Therefore, the Town Council has determined that it needs to develop and maintain a community housing program. Sec. 16-411. Pu rpose. The intent of this community housing program is to require new development to mitigate for a portion of the employees generated by suoh development and to reflect and maintain the Town's small town character and enhance the livability of the Town. The goal of these regulations is to require new development to provide community housing attainable by persons having lower and median incomes paying not more than approximately thirty percent of their household income for total housing expense. (1) All new residential developments will integrate community housing into the development or, if integration is impractical or not desired given the specific circumstance as determined at the sole discretion of the Town of Basalt. provide meaningful community housing in or near Basalt; methods will be developed to maintain the affordability of existing housing in Basalt; nonresidential projects will mitigate for impacts they create by providing community housing; and existing community housing will not be lost through displacement or demolition. (2) Community housing should be dispersed throughout the community and, where possible, integrated into the existing community fabric. (3) The Town encourages community participation in solving and benefitting from solutions to the community housing concerns. The Town intends to supplement the provisions of this Article by developing a program that looks at the total benefits to a neighborhood and to the community while relying less on numerical standards and limitations. (4) The Town will emphasize programs that will result in the creation of community housing units by units being constructed or by existing units being permanently restricted for community housing, either through deed restrictions or other methods. As an example, the Town has identified as a priority an Accessory DwellinglEmployee Dwelling Unit Program. This will include an educational program on the benefits and workings of the Accessory Dwelling/Employee Dwelling Unit Program. (5) Community housing will be transit friendly, integrate with intermodal transportation connections and perpetuate the Town's history of pedestrian walkability and ease of mass transit use. Parge?l 1040 151 Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Sirikethreogn language is language proposed to be deleted. (E3) The Town will look at the total costs for all housing, including life cycle costs such as painting. building materials and energy costs. The Town will work toward a zero energy footprint for all housing. (7) The Town's housing program should acknowledge regional issues and encourage coordination among jurisdictions including community housing standards and requirements. The Town will seek out partnerships with other entities supporting community housing and develop reciprocal agreements. The Town will discourage jurisdiction shopping for development proposals. (8) The Town will support creative housing solutions. including projects that include sweat equity by those benefiting from the housing subsidy. (Ciro. 9 1999; 0rd. 26 2001.; Crd. 33 {3,31, 2003) See. 16-41 2. Definitions. The following definitions shall apply to the following terms and phrases: Accessory dwelling unit or ADU shall mean a deed restricted community_housing unit typically required to be developed to mitigate for single-family residential development which is a separate dwelling unit that contains not less than four hundred and fifteen (415) square feet and not more than one thousand (1,000) total square feet, and comprises not more than thirty?three percent of the total floor area on the lot and is located within or attached to a principal dwelling unit, but has a separate entrance from such principal dwelling unit; or is detached from the principal dwelling unit but located on the same lot. ADUs shall be subject to a deed restriction requiring occupancy in accordance with the Community Housing Guidelines then in effect. Community housing shall mean dwelling units deed restricted with initial sales price and appreciation caps corresponding to the housing sizes and types set forth in the Community Housing Guidelines. Community housing units shall be owned or rented and (2) occupied by individuals and households meeting income, employment and occupancy requirements set forth in the Town?s Community Housing Guidelines. Community Housing Guidelines shall mean guidelines adopted by resolution of the Town Council which may include, but shall not be limited to, standards concerning the procedure for qualifying to obtain community housing; the limitations income and asset) and requirements (eg, residency) for qualifying to obtain community housing; forms of approved deed restrictions; limitations on appreciation of sale prices of community housing; procedures for sale and rental of community housing; priorities for persons bidding to purchase community housing; occupancy requirements; size, and price limitations; maximum price increases; employee generation standards for commercial land uses; standards for numbers of residents per dwelling unit; land dedication standards; quality of construction requirements for new community housing; and formula for calculating any payment of a fee- in?Iieu of provision of community housing. The Community Housing Guidelines and any subsequent amendments thereto shall be adopted only after a duly noticed public hearing at which such guidelines are considered. Other terms used in this section but not defined in the Town Code are defined in the Community Housing Guidelines. 105 of 15% Underlined language shows language to be added to the Cede. Strikeahmugh language is language proposed to be deleted. Employee dwelling unit or EDU shall mean a deed restricted community housing unit typically required to mitigate for multi-family, mixed?use, and commercial development. which separate dwelling unit contains not less than four hundred and fifteen (415) square feet and not more than one thousand five hundred eighty~five (1,585) total square feet and is located within or attached to a commercial development, but has a separate entrance from such commercial development, or is detached from the commercial development but located on the same lot. EDUs shall be subject to a deed restriction requiring occupancy in accordance with the Community Housing Guidelines then in effect. Net Commercial Square Footage shall mean those areas within a commercial, industrial, or office building, which are or which are designed to be operated by the owner or leased to a tenant and occUpied for commercial, industrial, or office purposes. Net Commercial Square Footage shall not include of areas dedicated to bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors, mechanical areas and storage areas so long as these areas are used solely by the commercial owner or tenants on the site. Net Square Footage (Feet) shall mean a calculation based on interior area that is measured from the interior walls, including all interior partitions, habitable basements (including unfinished basements that have the potential to meet habitability standards once finished), interior storage areas, and closets and laundry area. Such calculations shall not include mechanical areas, exterior storage, stairwells, garages (either attached or detached), patios, decks, and porches. Exterior storage exclusions may not exceed 10 percent (20 percent of the Net Square Footage) of the total Net Square Footage of the Community Housing or Housing. New residential development or new commercial development shall mean any development for which a building permit has not been issued prior to the effective date of this ordinance, except the following: development which has a vested property right pursuant to Section 17?125 of this Code; or, Application for site specific development plan approval which have been determined by the Town prior to the effective date of this ordinance to be complete; and, The following applications (which were exempt from the development moratorium preceding adoption of this regulation). If any of these applications are withdrawn or denied, then any new application is subject to these regulations. If the application fails to comply with any subsequent submittal deadline, the Town Council may require the application to be subject to the new community housing regulations: 2. Basalt Design District ear?dadWia 5.?Basalt?Bluffs T. Arbaneleittle 8.?264?Sepris 9.??Welfgang 106 of 1513' Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. smsetamagn language is language proposed to be deleted. New commercial development shall include the development of new public and non- pro?t facilities that include the uses listed in Section 16-28(3) of this Chapter. Upon a recommendation from the Town Planner. the Town Council may assess, waive or partially waive community housing mitigation requirements on new public facilities by governmental and quasi-governmental agencies as is deemed appropriate and warranted for the purpose of promoting civic uses and in consideration of broader community goals. The employee generation rates may be used as a guideline. but each operation shall be analyzed for its unique employee needs. Sec. 16-413. Employee Impact and Housing Mitigation Report. Unless waived in part or whole by the Town Planner. in order for the Town to be able to assess the need for housing mitigation generated by new nonresidential development, any application for site plan review (Sections 16-111 through 16-113). planned unit development (Section 18-65). subdivision (Sections 17-83 and 17-84). rezoning (Section 16-267). Community Priorities Scoring System (Section or special review (Section 16-43) containing nonresidential development shall include an Employee impact and Housing Mitigation Report prepared by a professional quali?ed to prepare such report and approved by the Town using recognized standards which provide. at a minimum. the following items: (1) An analysis of the number of full-time equivalent employees which will be added to the Town as a result of the applicant's proposed nonresidential development. including employees during and necessary for construction of the project as well as employees necessary after complete build out of the project; (2) An analysis of the number. size. type and configuration of all housing on the property as of January 1. 1999. which was generally attainable by households having low and median incomes (household income less than fifty thousand dollars in 1999) paying not more than twenty-eight percent to thirty-six percent of their household income for total housing expense. including debt service or rental payments. homeowner?s or renter's insurance, real estate taxes and utilities; (3) A description of the manner in which the applicant proposes that employees will be housed. including any on-site or offvsite housing the applicant will provide; (4) A description of the methodology by which the applicant will ensure that the housing to be provided by the applicant will be maintained as housing available for employees of the Town; and A written statement verifying that the proposed development is in compliance with the then-existing Master Plan. (0rd. 2? 1998; 0rd. {50. 1999; 0rd. 26 2001) (6) A written statement describing how the proposed development is consistent with the adopted Community Housing Guidelines and Community Housing requirements established in this Article. 107 of 1511 Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. airmail-trough language is language proposed to be deleted. Sec. 16-414. Waiver or additional information. The Town Planner may waive the requirement of preparing and submitting the Employee Impact and Housing Mitigation Report in instances when the Town Planner finds that the preparation and filing of the report for a particular application is unduly burdensome, duplicative or unnecessary because the applicant conclusively demonstrates there will be no impacts on the employees of the community or the availability of housing in the Town generated by the proposed development; or the Town Planner conclusively finds that the applicant has proposed a plan for community housing that satisfies all of the requirements of Sections 19-416, 16-41? and 16-418 below. The Technical Review Committee, Planning and Zoning Commission and Town Council may require the applicant to provide additional or supplemental information not provided in such report prior to granting any approval, denial or approval with conditions for the application. (0rd. 27 1998; 0rd. 6 1999; 0rd. 26 2091; 0rd. 33 ?El1, 2093) Sec. 16-415. Mitigation methods. Except as otherwise provided in this Article, a requirement to provide community housing shall require construction of newly deed-restricted community housing or recording a deed restriction against title to existing housing not previously deed restricted. The applicant shall in its development application propose the location and the mixture of type, size and configuration of the community housing which shall be subject to the review and approval, approval with conditions or denial by the Town in accordance with this article. The Town, with information provided by the Town staff and the applicant, shall require community housing in a location and a mixture of unit types, sizes and configurations which based on the location and nature of the development is most likely to offset the impacts of the specific development on a case-by-case basis. The proposed community housing shall meet the minimum average size. sale/rent price, and tenant/owner qualification requirements established in the Community Housing Guidelines and the average pricing requirements set forth in this Article and the Community Housing Guidelines. Additionally, in determining the location and mix of unit types, sizes and configurations, the Town shall consider the then?perceived needs of the community for housing. Applicants are encouraged to be creative with community housing proposals. In accordance with CR8 38- 12-301, rental housing subject to rent controls will only be approved by the Town if it is provided (1) pursuant to a voluntary agreement between the Town and a permit applicant or property owner, and or (2) it includes the placement on the title to such housing units of a deed restriction that limits rent on the property or unit or that is otherwise designed to provide affordable housing stock pursuant to a voluntary agreement between the Town and a permit applicant or property owner. The requirement to provide community housing pursuant to the following residential, commercial and replacement housing sections may be satisfied in full or in part through the creation of ADUs or EDUs. This may include the construction of new ADUs or EDUs at off-site properties properties other than the property which is the subject of the new development), the construction of new ADUs or EDUs on-site, the recording of new deed restrictions on existing accessory units, or other mechanisms subject to approval of the Town Cooncil that will create dwelling units that are assured to meet the Town's affordability criteria on a permanent basis. 108 of 15?s Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Striketnreege language is language proposed to be deieled. In the sole and absolute discretion of the Town Council, a requirement to provide community housing may be satisfied in whole or in part by the dedication of land to the Town or an entity designated by the Town for community housing. Developers may dedicate land to the Town ind lieu of providing community housing at the Town Council?s sole discretion, as long as the land to be dedicated meets the following criteria: 1) Located within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary as defined in the ToWn of Basalt?s Master Plan; and, 2) Located in an area determined to be more appropriate for community housing than the property proposed for development that generates the need for community housing mitigation; and, 3) The land to be dedicated in-lieu of providing community housing units shall be equal to or more than the value of the Community Housing Units required for mitigation. including total development costs such as the land, structures, and utilities. The development costs of the community housing units that the land is being dedicated in-lieu of and the value of the land being dedicated shall be determined by an appraisal from a real estate appraiser licensed in the State of Colorado. An Applicant proposing to dedicate land shall pay the cost of the appraisal. All community housing required for a particular development approval shall be available for occupancy prior to or simultaneous with issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any of the non-community housing components of the development, except upon approval of the Town Council of a specific phasing schedule for the development. All community housing shall be located within the urban growth boundaries as defined in the then-current Master Plan, and shall otherwise be consistent with the goals and objectives of the then-current Master Plan. (0rd. 6 1999; 0rd. 33 ?Bi, 2003) At the discretion of the Town, Development projects may use affordable housing credits pursuant to Town Code Section 16-420td), Certificates of Community Housing Credits or pay fees-in-lieu of providing Community Housing pursuant to the payment-in-Iieu schedule set forth in the Town's Community Housing Guidelines, for a portion or all of their community housing mitigation, inclusionary housing requirements, or replacement housing requirements as follows: A) Commercial Development. 1) Commercial development projects required by the Town Code to provide 7,000 square feet or less of community housing, and that are not proposing to include a free-market residential component, may satisfy all or a portion of their community housing mitigation through use of Certificates of Community Housing Credits or by paying fees-in-lieu, or through a combination thereof. 2) Commercial development projects required by the Town Code to provide greater than 7,000 square feet of community housing and that are not proposing to include a free?market residential component, may satisfy all or a portion of their first T000 square feet of community housing mitigation, and up to 75% of the additional community housing mitigation required through the use of Certificates of Community Housing Credits or by paying fees~in?Iieu, or through a combination thereof. 109 of Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Striketnseagh language is language proposed to be deleted. Additionally, up to 100% of the community housing mitigation for a commercial development project requiring more than 7,000 square feet of community housing may be satisfied through the use of Certificates of Community Housing Credits or through payment of fees-in-Iieu, if authorized through Special Review pursuant to the review process established in Town Code Section 16-44, Special review application procedures. B) Mixed Use or Residential Development. 1) Mixed use or residential development projects that are required by the Town Code to provide i?,000 square feet or less of community housing, may satisfy all or a portion of their community housing mitigation or inclusionary housing square footage through use of affordable housing credits or by paying fees-inriieu, or through a combination thereof. 2) Mixed use or residential development projects that are required by the Town Code to provide greater than 7,000 square feet of community housing, may satisfy all or a portion of their first 7,000 square feet of community housing mitigation. and up to 50% of the additional community housing mitigation through the use of affordable housing credits or by paying fees-in-Iieu, or through a combination thereof. In the event that an application to mitigate for community housing by the use of housing credits or cash-in-Iieu where development of a property is being considered in conjunction with other development review applications which require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Town Council, the final decision maker shall make the final determination on a project?s ability to use housing credits or pay cash?in?Iieu after a recommendation from the Town?s housing advisory board, if one exists. If an application to use housing credits or cash-in-Iieu for development of a property does not have any associated development review actions that require review by the Planning and Zoning Commission or the Town Council, the Town Planner will issue the Certificate of Community Housing Credit if it meets the technical and legal requirements set forth in Town Code Section ?16420. Certificates of Community Housing Credits, after a recommendation from the Town?s housing advisory board, if one exists. Sec. 16-416. Residential Inclusionary Requirements. All new residential development comprised of two or more units or lots unless exempted by the provisions below, including the residential component of a mixed use development shall satisfy residential inolusionary requirements by providing deed-restricted. category-level housing in the form and amoUnt described in one of the following options: (1) Community Housing equal to at leasts35 twent -five 25% percent of total Net Square Footage of the Residential Development and twentv (26? percent of the total residential units; or, 110 of 1517 Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. seemsnreegn language is language proposed to be deleted. (3) Community Housing equal to at least?30 1; percent of total Net Square Footage of the Residential Development and 75 percent of the total residential units._and voluntary adoption of a 1.5 percent transfer assessment placed on the second and all subsequent sales of all market-rate units {excluding units resold to Eligible Households). The assessment shall remain in place in perpetuity. The proceeds from the assessment shall be paid to a non-profit entity specified by the Town Council for the purpose of creating Community Housing within the Town?s or. Residential or mixed use developments creating three (3) or fewer new residential units are exempt from the residential inclusionary housing requirements set forth above if they consist of detached residential dwelling units not exceeding 3,000 total square feet each or attached residential dwelling units not exceeding 1.400 total square feet each. Category-level Community Housing Units constructed within a development to satisfy inclusionary zoning requirements shall have an average initial sales price not to exceed a sales price that is affordable to those individuals or households making one hundred fifteen percent (445 mills) of Basalt?s Area Median Income (AMI) as is updated periodically pursuant to the method established in the Community Housing Guidelines. By way of example, if there are three (3) community housing units constructed in a development to satisfy inclusionary zoning requirements, one community housing unit could be priced to be affordable to those individuals or households making 100% of AMI, the second community housing unit could be priced to be affordable to those individUaIs or households making 130 legs of AMI. and the third community housing unit could be priced to be affordable to those individuals or households making 44% of AMI so that they do not average an initial sales price greater than would be affordable for those individuals or households making 4?145 of AMI. The bedroom mix of units used to meet the inclusionary zoning requirements shall be at thediscretion of the Town Council as is set forth in Section 16-415. Mitigation Methods. When an applicant seeks to create only residential lots. the Inclusionary Housing requirement shall be based on the applicant's estimate at the time of the land use application of the Net Square Footage of residential development that will be constructed on such lots- The Inclusionary Housing requirement from lot creation shall generally be imposed at the time of subdivision, except upon showing of good cause to the Town Council. If additional Net Square Footage is later requested and approved, an additional housing or in?lieu payment shall be required at that time. If purchasers build smaller Llni?ts than the estimate. they may sell their unused housing allocation as Community Housing Credits. Sec. 16-417. Commercial linkage requirements. Except as provided elsewhere in this chapter, all new commercial development, except for remodeling of existing structures which results in no more additional countable floor area. shall satisfy commercial mitigation requirements by providing deed-restricted, category-level 111of1518 Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Strikethreegh language is language proposed to be deleted. housing for twenty-?ve fifteen 15% (25? percent of the new employees generated. If a development provides one~hundred (100%) percent of its Net Commercial Square Footage as being deed restricted such that it is to be sold in commercial unite of 1,000 square feet or less that cannot be combined, then the mitigation rate will be reduced by half to Melveand?a?half ng (42:5 percent. If a development provides one-hundred (100%) percent of its Net Commercial Square Footage as being deed restricted such that it is to be sold in commercial units of 1,000 square feet or less that cannot be combined, and restricts the occupancy to uses identified as retail uses then the mitigation rate will be reduced to zero. For mixed-use projects. only the higher of the (1) lnclusionary Housing Requirement established in Town Code Section Residential inclusionary Requirements, or (2) the Commercial Linkage requirements established in Town Code Section Commercial Linkage shall apply at the lowest applicable AMI-affordability levels. By way of example. if a mixed-use project of 100,000 Net Square Feet of total Residential Development and 50.000 Net Square Feet of Commercial Development were proposed, the community housing obligation would be 35,000 square feet at an average price point affordable to a household earning 409 ?Q?fa AMI. This represents the higher Net Square Footage requirement of Inclusionary Housing (35.000) or Commercial Mitigation (21,935). at the 400 Elli: AMI level required by Commercial Mitigation. Community Housing Units within a development constructed to satisfy commercial linkage requirements shall have an average initial sales price not to exceed a sales price that is affordable to individuals or households making one?handsets eighty percent (?190 ?irt} of Basalt's AMI as is updated periodically pursuant to the method established in the Community Housing Guidelines. By way of example, if there are three (3) community housing units constructed in a development to satisfy commercial linkage requirements. one community housing unit could be priced to be affordable to individuals or households making 80% of AMI, the second community housing unit could be priced to be affordable to individuals or households making 420 ?ue of AMI, and the third community housing unit could be priced to be affordable for those individuals or households making see $94: of AMI so that they do not average an initial sales price greater than would be affordable to those individuals or households making 4-99 $95 of AMI. The bedroom mix of units used to meet the commercial linkage requirements shall be at the discretion of the Town Council as is set forth in Section 16- 415, Mitigation Methods. The Community Housing demand generated by a Commercial Development shall be determined by utilizing an average job generation rate of 4 employees per 1.000 net square feet of commercial space with adjustments for multiple job holding and multiple employees per Household. Job generation rates and mitigation rates are based on the 2009 2014-2015 Town of Basalt Heasiag?SapeeFt?Stedy Housing Needs Assessment. The mitigation requirements shall be discounted by taking into account multiple job holdings of per employee and multiple employees per household of 443 employees per household as is demonstrated in the example below. By way of example: below is the housing demand requirement for a new 3,000 net square foot of commercial space: 112 of 15?9 Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Strikethreugh language is language proposed to be deleted. 3,000 of net leasable square feet divided by 1.000; multiplied by a job generation rate of 4 fullutime employees per 1,000 net square feet of commercial space; divided by 4.45 La Jobs per Employees, divided by 143 ?Employees per Household; multiplied by 725 (25 1gb: of employees generated) mitigation requirement equals community housing units required, multiplied by 950 net square feet per community housing unit equals 9% net square feet of community housing required If the applicant can document, to the TRC's reasonable satisfaction, that the proposed commercial development will generate fewer jobs per 1,000 net square feet than the rate of jobs identified above for the life of the project. then the Town may allow the Applicant to use the anticipated Iowerjob-generation rate in calculating Commercial Mitigation obligations. The TRC may require a request to use a lowerjob generation rate to be reviewed by the Town Council or an Applicant may appeal the TRC's determination to the Town Council. The bedroom mix of units used to meet the commercial linkage requirements shall be at the discretion of the Town Council as set forth in Section 16.415, Mitigation Methods. Sec. 16-410. Replacement housing requirements. General Requirement. The development andtor redevelopment of any property within the Town or to be annexed thereto, on which, as of January 1. 1099. there were located four (4) or more residential housing units. the occupancy of which was financially attainable by persons with household incomes of fifty thousand dollars on January 1, 1990. hereinafter referred to as ?lower?income housing." must comply with the requirements of this Section. Compliance Alternatives. The applicant shall be required to provide relocation assistance as described in Subsection (1) below or replacement housing as described in Subsection (2) below, or some combination of relocation assistance and replacement housing. as approved by the Town Council. Relocation assistance shall be due from the applicant to tenants of mobile homes and other lower-income housing units and to owners of mobile homes. Replacement housing may also be required of the applicant1 as described below. (1) Relocation Assistance. For each lower-income housing unit that is occupied on the date the application is submitted. whether by tenants or by mobile home owners. the applicant shall make a payment for relocation assistance to each such tenant or the owner of a mobile home in amounts to be determined below. (A) In determining the amount of the relocation assistance to be provided by the applicant to a tenant (leasing any stick built unit or a mobile home unit), the Town shall consider the following factors: Duration of tenant's occupancy ($100.00 per year up to (ii) Annual rental rates paid by tenant (One year?s rent at average of prior two (2) years); 113 of1t'1b Undedined language shows language to be added to the Code. Stakeaereegh language is language proposed to be deleted. (Bi Number of persons occUpying the premises in accordance with the applicable lease and based on proof of residency ($500.00 per person up to and (iv) Responsibility for, and amount of. costs associated with relocating to a new location of $5.000. The sum of the amount of compensation referred to in subparagraphs A(i) through Adv) above will be the maximum required by the Town unless the Town Council determines that unusual circumstances justify additional compensation. In the event that an Owner occupies mobile home unit the Owner shall receive the compensation outlined in subsection (A) above for the tenant plus an additional amount for the mobile home. In determining the amount of additional relocation assistance to be provided by the applicant, to the owner of a mobile home who occupies the home, the Town will consider the following factors: Value of the home; (ii) Whether the home can be relocated for future use; and Responsibility for. and amount of, costs associated with the relocating or removing the home from the Property. (iv) However. unless the Town Council determines that unusual circumstances justify additional compensation, the Town shall not require an applicant to pay more than $7,500 to a Owner where the Owner moves the mobile home off the site, and $2,500 to a Owner where the applicant is required to move the mobile home off the site in addition to the amount of compensation required by the Town to be paid pursuant to this subsection (A) above. In determining the amount of relocation assistance to be provided by the applicant. to the owner of a mobile home who does not occupy the home, the Town shall consider the following factors: Value of the home; 114 of 15'11 Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Steieethreugh language is language proposed to be deleted. (ii) Whether the home can be relocated for future use; and Responsibility for, and amount of, costs associated with the relocating or removing the home from the Property. (IV) However, unless the Town Council determines that unusual circumstances justify additional compensation, the Town shall not require an applicant to pay more than $7,500 to an Owner where the Owner moves the mobile home off the site, and $2,500 to a Owner where the applicant is required to move the mobile home off the site. For clarification, the applicant will also be required to provide relocation assistance to the tenant as provided in subsection (A) above. (D) In determining the amount of relocation assistance to be paid as provided above, the Town may require that tenants and mobile home owners provide to the Town the information reasonably necessary to document an entitlement to the type and amount of relocation assistance to be required. (E) The Applicant may offer non-cash assistance to tenants of occupied lower-income housing units or the owner of a mobile home, and if accepted by the tenant or owner, such non-cash assistance shall reduce the amount of payment. Non-cash assistance may include, for example, locating housing, loans, and professional housing and financial counse?ng. (F) Payments shall be made to the tenant listed on the ground lease for the mobile home site and to the mobile home owner listed on the title to the mobile home. The tenant or mobile home owner-occupant shall be responsible for relocation of all individuals residing in the lower- lnoome housing unit. Final payment may be withheld by the applicant until inspection has been made to ensure that all property is removed pursuant to the final payment agreement between the applicant and the tenant or mobile home owner. (2) Replacement Housing. (A) For each lowervincome housing unit that is vacant or has been removed from the property on the date of the application, the applicant shall provide as specified in this section unless the applicant demonstrates that the last tenant of the lower-income housing unit (or the 115 of 15h Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Mammalian language is language proposed to be deleted. owner of a mobile home occupied by the owner) was provided relocation assistance consistent with the provisions of Section 16-418 Relocation Assistance above. (B) If replacement housing is required, the applicant shall provide replacement housing equal to forty-five percent of the lower?income housing units that were vacant or removed on the date of the application and which do not qualify for one of the two exceptions listed in subsection (A) above- In the event that this calculation includes a fraction, the applicant shall pay a fee-invlieu for the fractional amount as determined in accordance with the Basalt Community Housing Guidelines. (C) Replacement Housing Defined Each required replacement housing unit must meet the following requirements: (1) The new unit must be of a type, size, configuration, and quality that are comparable to the unit being replaced; (2) The new unit must be subject to a sale price or rental rate that is lowerrincome, affordable to individuals or households earning no more than seventy percent of Area Median Income; (3) The replacement unit must be subject to a deed restriction to ensure that the sale and resale price will remain affordable, pursuant to the Community Housing Guidelines, unless the replacement unit is a mobile home and the Town Council determines that there is a reasonable expectation that the mobile home will remain affordable to households earning no more than seventy percent 00%) of the Area Median Income for at least that period stated in the Community Housing Guidelines. (4) The replacement units must be in one of the following locations; subject to approval by the Town Council: (A) The property being redeveloped; or (B) The urban growth boundaries as identified in the then?current Master Plan; or (C) The urban growth boundary or urban service boundary of the 1999 Basalt Master Plan and identified with a future land use designation on the Future Land Use Plan Map in the then~current Master Plan; or 116 of 15113 Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Strikethroagh language is ianguage proposed to be deleted. (D) An existing dwelling unit within the Town?s three mile planning area included in its then-current Master Plan that is within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet from the nearest bus stop (as measured to the upvalley or downvalley stop that is closest to the dwelling unit); or (E) A mobile home pad with an existing mobile home park that is located within the Town's three mile planning area included in its then-current Master Plan provided that the pad is Within one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet from the nearest bus stop (as measured to the upvalley or downvalley stop that is closest to the dwelling unit). (F) In the case of Subsections (D) and (E) above. the Town Council is permitted to approve a distance greater than one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet from the eXisting unit to the nearest bus stop if the Town Council finds there are compelling circumstances that justify the greater distance. (5) If the replacement unit is a mobile home, it must be located in accordance with applicable land use and building code requirements; Variances. The Town Council may approve variances from the strict application of the requirements of this Section where it is found to be apprOpriate to achieve the purposes of this Section. Relationship to Housing Mitigation Requirements. The relocation assistance and replacement housing provided by an applicant in accordance with this Section shall reduce the requirements of Section 16?416 and 16-417 on a proportional basis, as determined by the Town Council. Sec. 16?419. Fee exemptions. Community housing, including deed?restricted ADUs and EDUs, may be exempted by the Town Council from the payment of certain fees required by this Code, such as fees or land dedications required for park land dedication. school land dedication. special improvement fees and water tap fees in special circumstances. (0rd. 6 1999; 0rd. 33 ?Bt, 2003) 117 of 15114 Undenined language shows ianguage to be added to the Code. Watercraft language is language proposed to be deleted. Section 16?420. Certificates of Community Housing Credits. This section describes the process for establishing. transferring and extinguishing a Certificate of Community Housing Credit. Applicability and lssuance- The Town Planner, in accordance with the procedures, standards, and limitations of this section. shall issue a Certificate of Community Housing Credit to the developer of deed restricted, community housing units that are not required for commercial mitigation or incIUsionary housing, upon the issuance of a certificate of occupancy on such units. At the time of issuance of a CCHC by the Town, a letter acknowledging the receipt and acceptance of the certificate shall be submitted by the owner to the Town Planning Department. CCHC's are issued to reflect credits based upon net square footage and are not to be based upon unit count. CCHC's may only be issued for the net square footage in the Units developed in excess of any applicable housing mitigation requirements. The term not square footage as used herein means the interior calculation of the actual square footage of a project and shall not include common circulation space or floor area located outside of the actual applicable dwelling unit(s). The CCHC shall contain the following information: i. A number of the Certificate in chronological order of their issuance. ii. Parcel identi?cation number, legal address and the street address of the affordable housing. The Category Designation and the net square footage of the Community Housing Credit. Transferability- A CCHC may be sold, assigned, transferred, or conveyed. Transfer shall be evidenced by an assignment of ownership on the actual certificate document. Upon transfer, the new owner may request that the Town Planner re- issue the CCHC acknowledging the new owner. Market for Certificates- The market for is unrestricted and the Town shall not prescribe or guarantee the monetary value of a CCHC. Using CCHC Credits? Pursuant to the review procedures established in Section 16? 415, Mitigation Methods, the Town may permit the use of a CCHC to serve as Community Housing mitigation for a development project. A Certificate that is being used within the Town of Basalt to satisfy Community Housing requirements in-Iieu of developing Community Housing shall provide community housing credit in the amount of the net square footage and for the Category Designation listed on the Certificate. The Town Planner may allow the conversion of a Certificate of a certain Category Designation for a Certificate of another Category Designation pursuant to the payment of a fee to the Town based on the following calculation methodology: Step 1. Calculate the difference between the per square foot cashsinvlieu amount for the Category Designation listed on the Certi?cate and for the desired Category Designation as the per square foot cash-in-Iieu amounts are listed in the Town's Community Housing Guidelines. 118 of 15115 Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Strilrathreagh language is language proposed to be deleted. Step 2. Multiply the net square footage listed on the CCHC by the difference in cash?inalieu amounts yielded in Step 1. The developer wishing to exchange the CCHC for another lower Category shall pay the amount yielded from this calculation. Example: An owner of a Category 3 Certificate wishes to exchange the Certificate for a Category 2 Certificate. The existing Certificate is for 1,000 square feet of Community Housing. Step 1. Category 2 Cash-in-lieu per square $139- 53 Category 3 Cash-ln-lieu per square 12 Per Square Foot Difference: Step 2. $55761 $33.41 Per Square Foot Difference 1,000 square feet: $5e??0 ?33,410 to convert from a Category 3 Certificate to a Category 2 Certificate for 1.000 square feet. Upon approval of a Category Designation conversion and the associated payment of any required amount to the Town, the Town Planner shall reissue the Certificate with the new Category Designation. A developer or credit Certificate holder wishing to exchange a Certificate of Community Housing Credit in place of a higher Category requirement may do so without paying an additional fee- By way of example, if a developer is required to build a 1,000 square feet of Category 3 housing and they use a Category 2 CCHC for 1,000 square feet, the developer would not be required to pay an additional fee. to) Appeals? An individual aggrieved by a determination made by the Town Planner. may appeal the decision to the Town Council pursuant to the procedures and standards of Chapter 16-11, General Appeal Procedures. Secs. 16-421?16-430. Reserved. 119 of 155 Underlined language shows language to be added to the Code. Sifikethmugn language is language proposed to be deleted. Section 16-394 Historic Preservation incentives Community Housing. (1) Community housing for commercial development. The remodel of a landmark with new commercial square footage which results in no more than three thousand (3,000) square feet of additional countable floor area subsequent to August 14, 2001. shall be exempt from the commercial housing mitigation requirements including the Meaty-?ve fifteen percent (25134.) of the full-time equivalent employees generated by such development. The portion of new commercial countable floor area in excess of three thousand (3,000) square feet shall be subject to the community housing mitigation requirements (2) Community housing for inclusionary zoning. lf none of the individual free-market residential units in a development on a landmark parcel exceed the minimum square footage for Category 2 community housing units established in the Community Housing Guidelines, the residential portion of the development shall be exempt from the inclusionary housing requirements. A property owner is permitted to seek relief in addition to that outlined above for commercial and residential development through the zoning incentive procedures. 120 of 15W AH Code Amendments- incentives Section 16-419 - Fee exemptions. Community housing, including deed-restricted ADle and EDUs, may be reduced or exempted by the Town Council from the payment of certain fees required by this Code, such as fees or land dedications required for park land dedication, school land dedication. building perm it fees; the Water Tank Surcharge. special improvement fees and water tap fees in special circumstances. The Town Council shall consider the ?nancial impacts of any waiver or reduction on the Town ?s operations in evaluating a request for a reduction or a waiver. Town of Basalt Fee Schedule- Planning Department Section Town of Basalt Planning Department Fees Deposits Below are listed a summary of Application Fees, required deposits, and development review costs and charges. The Town Manager may waive or reduce Planning Department Review Fees for protects that are proposed to considerably exceed the Town ?s housino mitigation requirements. Applicants are subject to the following Application fees to be paid at the time of Application submittal to the Town:._ . .. .. Section 17-102 Subdivision: Improvement Guarantees The Town Council shall require that the cost of providing all public improvements applicable to the subdivision shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the subdivision. The costs shall include all improvements described in the subdivision agreement. The improvement guaranty may be provided with a surety bond, cash or acceptable collateral. an acceptable letter of credit, or other security acceptable to the Town Council. Upon final plat, the property owner shall provide either an improvement guaranty as provided for in this Section or, to ensure that lots are not sold until such time as an acceptable guaranty has been provided by the property owner, the property owner shall provide the Town with security acceptable to the Town, such as a deed of trust on the property for the benefit of the Town, until substituted with an 121 of 151 improvement guaranty pursuant to this Section. The Town Mane-oer may waive or padiaiiv waive the pubiio improvement security requirements for buiidinos or development projects proposino considerabiv more affordable housing than is reouired bv the Town Code. 122 of 151 PVOPOSOJ New? TOWN OF BASALT COMMUNITY HOUSING GUIDELINES Revised 5 'l?hese Communin Housing Guidelines shall remain in effect until such time as new or amended Guidelines are. approved by the 'l?own Council oftho Town of Basalt- of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 1 123 of 151 PURPOSE Basalt is located in a unique and highly desirable valley. The Town of Basalt recognizes that having a supply of Community Housing attainable by households earning lower and median incomes in the Town of Basalt is critical to retaining a diversified and sustainable town, having the character and sense of community ofa town where people can live and work in the same area. The citizens of the Town of Basalt do not want Basalt to become an exclusive community. Historically, persons earning lower and median incomes have been able to attain housing in the Basalt area; and the Town of Basalt currently reflects a mix of socioeconomic backgrounds. The Town ?irther recognises that there is a growing gap between housing costs and wages in Basalt. Therefore, the "l?own Council has determined that it needs to chelop and maintain a community housing program. The intent of this community housing program. is to require new development to mitigate for a portion of the employees generated by such development and to re?ect and maintain the 'l?own's small town character and to enhance the livability ot? the town. The goal of these regulations is to require new development. to provide community housing attainable by persons working in the Mid valley and having lower and median incomes paying not more than 28?36 percent of their household income for total housing expense, including debt service, homeowner?s insurance, real estate taxes, association dues, land lease if any, and utilities. The Town of Basalt should not lose ground on the existing level. of community housing available in and around Basalt. This means: All new residential developments will integrate community housing into the development or, ii' integration is impractical, provide meaningful community housing in or near Basalt; methods will be developed to maintain the affordability of existing housing in Basalt; non-residential projects will mitigate for impacts they create for community housing; and existing community housing will not be lost through displacement or demolition. Community housing should be disbursed throughout. the community and, where possible, integrated into the existing community fabric. The Town encourages community participation in solving and benefiting from solutions to the community housing concerns. The Town will emphasize programs that will result in the creation of community housing units -- by units being constructed or by existing units being permanently restricted for community housing, either through deed restrictions or other methods. As an example, the 'l"own has identi?ed as a priority an Accessory/Employee Dwelling Unit Program. Community Housing will be transit Friendly, integrate with intermodal transportation connections, and perpetuate the Town's history of pedestrian walltability and ease of mass transit use. of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 124 of 151 The ToWn will look at the total costs for all. housing, including life cycle costs such as painting, building materials and energy costs. The Town will work toward a zero energy footprint for all housing. The Town?s housing program should acknowledge regional issues and encourage coordination amongjurisdictions including community heusing standards and requirements. The Town will seek out partnerships with other entities supporting community housing and develop reciprocal agreements. The Town will discourage jurisdiction shopping for development proposals. The Town will support creative housing solutions, including projects that include sweat equity by those benefiting from. the community housing. The Town Council ?nds that an adequate supply of community housing in the Town is essential and necessary to preserve and maintain the health, welfare. safety, and quality 01? life for residents of the Town. 1. Stability of Economy. An adequate supply of housing that is affordable to the local labor force is necessary for the local economy to remain stable and to grow in a healthy manner. 2. Increased Demand for Community Housing. New development creates demand for workers in construction, maintenance, services and retail sales, increasing the demand for community housing. 3. Mitigation of Impact by New Development. New development shall be required to provide community housing which mitigates the impacts that are attributable to such development in areas designated by the Town, where community housing has become limited and problematic for adequate workforce housing. The purpose of these Community Housing Guidelines is to ensure that the housing needs of all economic segments of the community will be met. 1. Implementation of Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives. The Housing Goals, Objectives, Policies and Programs of the Town?s Master Plan shall be implemented through the comm unity housing unit requirements set forth herein. 2. Mitigation of Housing impacts by New Development. New development shall be required to contribute to the community housing supply in the Town, as reasonable and appropriate with consideration to the dcvelopment?s impact on the supply of community housing available to the local labor force. of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 3 125 of 151 POLICY The purpose of this section is to assist the staff, the development community and the public in understanding the Town's philosophy regarding various aspects of the program. These policy statements will be reviewed and revised by the Town Council on an annual basis. A. Mitigating Community Housing impacts: The following list establishes the Town's options in order of preference depending on the site location. 1. Oil-site housing or otllsite housing in the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) in circumstances where the 'l?own Council determines that off?site housing is more appropriate; 2. Off-Site housing in the U03, including buydown units; and 3. Purchasing Housing Credits. 4. Cash-in-lieu for required commercial mitigation or inclusionary housing. 13. Unit types: In areas where developers wish direction regarding the types of unit to construct, the Town would like to see the following: i. sanity-oriented units; and 2. Entry level units; and C. Community housing offered as mitigation shall provide for a balanced range of categories and, where possible, a diversity of unit types. D. Minimum Requirements. Ail Corrine-i.an Housing Units developed shaft. or a minimum. have the following: 1. Kitchen containing the fin/[owing at Four-burner stove b. Oven e. Hood that vents to the outside ii, Re?igemtor ofat [east 1 0 cubic feet Dishwasher if'uni! has 2 or more bedrooms Ar least 10 square feet? ofcounier space 2009Town of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines '1 126 of 151 g. 80 square feet oi'kitehen ?oor area for studio and 1 -Bedroom Units it. 1.20 square feet ot'kitchen ?oor area for Z-Bedroont Units or Lerner Adequate dinin oce er the size a the units as determined it the Town One full bathroom that incindes a lid) for Sittde and 1 -Bedroom Units One and V3 bathrooms that include at ienst one nib for 2?bedroom Units Two ?rli bathrooms with at least one tab for 3?Bedroom Units (Jr Larger At ieost one of?streeiporking space for each unit Adequate storage .S'noee as determined by the Town- The Special Housing Evaluation Committee (SHEC) may approve variations from the above requiren.1ents on a case by case basis after considering a recommendation from the Basalt Affordable Community Housing Committee. PART 1. COMMUNITY HOUSING CATEGORIES A. Area Median Income (AMI) Categories Required. The average price for all community housing sale units to be provided shall be dispersed over a range of unit prices affordable to individuals and households making below Hit} of Basalt?s AMI. Community Housing rental units also may be developed to satisfy commercial mitigation or inclusionary housing requirements as established in Article XIX of the Town Code. Applicants shall provide housing in the following three categories, in accordance with the distribution described below: Category 1- Only those households earning between 60% to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Basalt (as de?ned in the de?nitions section of these guit?ielines)a may qualify to purchase or rent a community housing unit which has been priced based on Category I AMI levels. Units developed and deed restricted as Category 1 units shall meet the following requirements: 1. For-sale units shall not have a maximum initial sales price greater than would be affordable for individuals or households making 70% of Basalt?s AMI using the pricing methodology established in Section 1(3) and and, 2. Rental units shall meet the maximum rent requirements set forth in Table 11, Section 8(8) of these guidelines; and, 3. When built in combination with other community housing in a development, all of the conununity housing units shall meet the maximum average pricing requirements established in Town Code Section Residential Inetnsionary of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 5 127 of 151 Requirements and ?l?own Code Section Commercial Linkage Requirements. Category 2- Only those households earning between 81% to Mai: of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Basalt (as de?ned in the de?nitions section of these guidelines), may qualify to purchase or rent a community housing unit which has been priced based on Category 2 AMI levels. Units developed and deed restricted as Category 2 units shall meet the following requirements: 1. For-sale units shall not have a maximum initial sales price greater than would be affordable for individuals or households making 100% of Basalt?s AMI using the pricing methodology established in Section l(B) and and, 2. Rental units shall meet the maximum rent requirements set forth in Table II, Section 8(8) ofthese guidelines; and, 3. When built in combination with other community housing in a development, all of the community housing units shall meet the maximum average pricing requirements established in Town Code Section Residential Requirements and Town Code Section Conw-zereiel Lit-range Requirements. Category 3- Only those households earning between to 1:59 @941 of the Area Median income for Basalt (as defined in the definitions section ot?these guidelines), may qualify to purchase or rent a community housing unit which has been priced based on Category 3 AMI levels. Units developed and deed restricted as Category 3 units shall meet the following requirements: I. or~sale units shall not have a maximum initial sales price greater than would be ali'ordable for individuals or households making oF Basalt?s AMI using the pricing methodology established in Section 1(3) and and, 2. Rental units shall meet the maximum rent requirements set forth in Table II, Section 8(3) ot?thesc guidelines; and, 3. When built in combination with other community housing in a development, all ol? the community housing units shall meet the maximum average pricing requirements established in Town Code Section 1641603), Residentio/ [missionary Requirements and 'l?own Code Section Commercial Linkage Requirements. Households or individuals may rent or purchase a category level unit priced to be affordable for an individual or household in a higher income category, as follows: cf Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 6 128 of 151 If a foresale, category-level unit has been advertised for sale for more than six (6) months after the issuance of a Certi?cate of Occupancy and the unit has been offered for sale during said six (6) month period, the owner may request that the Special Housing Evaluation Committee allow for the unit to be purchased by an individual or household in the next highest income category than that to which the unit is deed restricted. However, a Category 3 unit may not be purchased by an individual or household whose income and assets exceeds the income and assets permitted For ownership of a Category 3 unit. The Special Housing Evaluation Committee may approve or deny a request by the owner to allow the unit to be purchased by an individual of household in a higher income category than the unit is deed restricted upon considering the number of showings, the overall market trends; and the amount of other available inventory in the price range which the unit is deed restricted. B. Calculation of Initial Sales Prices. In addition to the price thresholds established in Section A above, the initial sales price of a community housing unit shall be calculated by the Town based on a ninety-?ve (95) percent loan to value, 30-year mortgage based on a 6% ?xed interest rate, with 20% of the housing payment for property insurance taxes, and HOA dues. The price shall include a landscaped lot and the unit shall be of comparable quality with similar ?xtures (cg. dishwashers, disposals, and energy efficient windows) to market rate units. The initial. sales price will be calculated by the Town lZO-clays prior to the anticipated date of a Final Certificate of Occupancy for the unit. C. Number of persons by bedroom con?guration used to establish sales price: Number of bedrooms, AMI Household Size i?or Nomdetaehed structure Initial Sales Price Determination Studio 1 person household 1 2 persons per household 2 2.5 persons per household 3 3 persons per household 4 3.5 persons per household anagram of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 129 of 151 Number of bedrooms, AMI Household Size for Detached Single?Family Structure Initial Sales Price Determination_ 2 2.5 persons per household 3 3 persons per household 4 3.5 persons per household Community Housing Units that are ownership units shall have a minimum occupancy of one individual per bedroom for studios, l-bedroom, and 2-bedroom units or three (3) individuals if the unit is three (3) bedrooms or larger. There shot! be no more than three [.32 adults over the age 0: 24 in a unit unless approved by the Special Houston Evaluation Committee in Special circumstances. 1). Rental Community Housing Rental Community Housing Units may be developed to mitigate for new commercial development or to satisfy inclusionaty housing requirements as set forth in Article XIX, Chapter 16 of the Town Code. To qualify to rent a rental community housing unit, an individual must meet the qualifications established in Part ll, Section 1 of these Guidelines and furnish the Town with the documents required in Part II, Section 2 of these guidelines. Generally, developers of rental community housing shall have the ability to select the renter of the units as long as the prospective renters are employed full-time in Basalt or the Basalt Employment Area and meet all of the occupancy, income, and asset requirements established in Part I of these guidelines. All prospective renters must be quali?ed by the Town prior to occupying a rental unit. Only one person of a family must meet the employment requirements established herein to qualify to rent a community housing unit, but all of the family members? income and assets that are going to occupy the community housing unit shall be used to determine if the family qualities based on the income and asset restrictions set forth herein. In rental community housing units, a minimum occupancy of one quali?ed individual per bedroom must be met; however, if the owner or property manager of a rental unit has advertised a vacant unit forever one month and made a good faith effort to lease the unit during this period, minimum occupancy requirements may be waived at the discretion of the Town. At such time as the rental unit again becomes vacant without successfully leasing it, the owner is again subject the minimum occupancy requirements. The Town may conduct random audits and investigate complaints or reports of non?compliance on an ongoing basis. The maximum occupancy in a rental unit shall be as set forth in Town Code Section 16?203, Renting of'Rooms. in the ease of an audit, owners of rental units must provide all reasonably requested information to the Town. Minimum lease terms for renting a unit shall be six (6) months. Maximum lease terms for renting a community housing unit shall be one year. After the lease expires, occupants must re? qualify with the Town based on the employment, income, assets, occupancy, and other 2009Town of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines El 130 of 151 restrictions ot'thesc guidelines in order to continue to occupy the unit. individuals or [amilies occupvina rental units may no! sublet a unit. All adults (meantime a deed-restricted rental unit shall be listed on (its lease onjiie with the 'l'own of'Basalt. To ensure that the 'l'own may administer rental units, in addition to the standard deed restriction described in these guidelines, developers constructing rental community housing units must file all necessary documents For Conveyance of an interest in the rental property, or other transaction[s) deemed necessary by the ileum, to ensure that the rental units do not violate the prohibition of C.R.S. 38-12-301. Table 1 below sets forth the maximum rents that can be charged for newly deed restricted community honsing units on the effective date of these guidelines. The maximum rent of a unit shall be modelled by the Deed Restriction covering the unit executed by the initial developer. TABLE 1 Maximum Rents-Using the Persons gar Household Identified in Part 1 (C) Above Unit Studio laBedroom 2-Bedroom 3-Bedroom Type Category $9168 A?ordable to $844 A?ordable to $932 A?ordable to $936 A?ordable to 1 Individual or Individual or Individual or Individual or Family Family making Family making lv'amilv making 80% making 80% ofAMl 80% ofAMl 80% afAMl AMI Category 9923 A?ordable to $47969 AZZordaiJle $4714.16 A?brdable $lTl?9Q Aft ordabie to 2 Individual or to individual or to Individual or Individual or Family Family making Family making Family making making 100% of 100% air-AMI @096 100% A Mi Category $41988 Affordable $47243 Affordable $473719 A ?ordable 55-1-7398 A {Zordable to 3 to individual or to individual or in Individual or Individual or Family Family making Family making Family making making 120% at 120% l20% oMMl 120% ofAMl 1. Units will be offered for rent to all qualified persons under the procedures established by the guidelines. The maximum rents do not include utilities, trash, telephone, cable television charges, or snow removal. 2009Town of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 9 131 of 151 2. All newly deed restricted community housing rental units must be in a marketable condition and comply with the Uniform Building Code and with all rules, regulations. and codes of all governmental utilities and agencies having jurisdiction at the commencement of the lease term. Prior to rental at the beginning of each lease, the unit must be inspected and approved by a certi?ed building inspector, architect or engineer approved by the Tovvn for compliance with the Guidelines. Cost of such inspections shall be the responsibility of the applicant, and the results ol?such inspection must be approved by the Town. 3. Rental community housing units developed to mitigate for commercial development shall have an aggregate ayerage rent that does not exceed the average between the maximum l-bedroom and the maximum 2?bedroom rents, while still complying with the maximum rents For the individual units by unit type NOTE: A household may qualify to purchase a unit in a higher category. E. Maximum Asset Limitations. To qualify to purchase a commum'ty housing unit, an individual or household shall have a cumulative net worth, minus quali?ed retirement assets (as determined by the IRS), not in excess of 150% of the purchase price of the unit they are applying to purchase in addition to satisfying the income criteria set forth herein. Individuals or households applying to rent a community housing rental unit shall be subject to asset limitations, and shall be required to be within the income ranges set forth herein. F. Homeowner?s Association (HDA) Dues and General Assessments dues and general assessments for deed restricted units located in a condominium or subdivision which also includes free market units shall, at a maximum, be proportional to the dues and general assessments paid by the most similar type of market rate units in the same development based on assessed value per square that, provided, however, that in no case shall the dues or assessments of a community housing unit be less than 40% or more than 80% of the dues and general assessments paid by the same or similar types of market rate units in the same development. The assessed value per square foot to be used in the determination of such dues and assessments shall be the lowest assessed value per square foot of any Free-market residence in a deveIOpment and the lowest assessed value per square of any community housing unit within the same development. The dues and general assessments shall be calculated based on the following equation: 2009Town of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 1 132 of 151 Lowest assessed value per square foot of any community housing unit of the most similar type of unit in a development divided by the lowest assessed value per square foot of any market rate dwelling unit in the same development Community Housing Unit Percentage of Assessed Value per Square foot of Market Rate Units If the Community Housing Unit Percentage of Assessed Value per Square Foot of Market Rate Units is between 40% and 80%, then Community Housing Units shall pay dues and general assessments equal to the percentage of assessed value per square foot of the market rate units. By way of example, if a development has a Community Housing Unite Percentage of Assessed Value per Square Foot of Market Rate Units of 35%, the Community Housing Units in the development shall be required to pay 40% of the HOA dues and general assessments of the market rate units in the same development. A deed restricted community housing unit shall also have equal voting rights to a similarly sized market rate unit within the same association and there shall be at least one Community Housing Unit owner on the Board for projects containing both free-market and Community Housing Units. The Town Council, at its sole discretion, may impose more restrictive provisions or different HOA approval provisions regulating assessments as necessary to maintain the continuous of community housing units. In buy-down situations where a developer is buying down a free-market unit to a Community Housing Unit to satisfy mitigation or inclusionary housing requirements, the Town will review HOA dues and assessments and may require the developer to place money in an escrow account or require the developer to provide some other mechanism to help subsidize the HOA dues and assessments for the buy-down Community Housing Unit to affordable levels. G. Special Assessments Special assessments for deed restricted units located in a condominium or Subdivision which also includes free market units shall, at a maximum, be proportional to the special assessments paid by the market rate units in the same development based on Community Housing Unit Percentage of Assessed Value per Square Foot of Market Rate Units as defined in Section above. The maximum and minimum percentages de?ned in. Section above shall also apply to special assessments. A deed restricted community housing unit shall have equal voting lights to a similarly sized market rate unit within the same association with regard to matters related to general and special assessments. The 'l?own, through land use reviews on a case by case basis, may at its sole discretion require more restrictive provisions or different approval provisions that meet the objectives of the limits outlined above be included in a developinent?s approval documents to limit HOA dues and assessments with the intent of maintaining the affordability of the deed 2009Town of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 1 133 of 151 restricted community housing units. The 'I'own must also review and approve covenants to ensure that. there are provisions in the covenants exempting community housing units from the payment of assessments for luxury items such as common pools, spas, and athletic facilities and exempting community housing units ??om payment of HOA dues and assessments related the commercial uses in a mixed use development. H. Capital Improvement Funds In order to avoid high special assessments for Community Housing Units, the Town through the development review process will require provisions as deemed necessary in initial covenants to ensure that a suf?cient capital improvement Fund is established for developments containing community housing units. PART II. PURCHASING OR SELLING COMMUNITY HOUSING SECTION I QUALIFICATIONS TO OCCUPY COMMUNITY HOUSING In some circumstances, the deed restriction for an community housing unit requires owner occupancy, in which case, these quali?cations are for such owner/occupier. In other circumstances, the deed restriction For a community housing unit allows employer ownership for occupancy by an employee, in which case, these quali?cations apply to such employee/occupier. To initially qualify for and be eligible to occupy a community housing unit, a person must meet all of the following criteria: A. A quali?ed person must be a litll~time employee working in the Roaring Forlt Valley employed at a location or her a business with its principal of?ce located in the employment area as defined in Part II, Section 409(5) of these Guidelines, a retired person, who has been a full-time employee in the Employment Area a minimum of ten years immediately prior to his or her retirement, or a disabled person who has been a full-time employee in the Employment Area a minimum of two years immediately prior to their disability (as de?ned in the De?nitions); or the spouse or dependent of any such quali?ed employee, retired person, or disabled person. Three (3) years of the ten year employment period for a retiree to obtain a unit may consist of Volunteering for a non-pro?t entity at least 1,000 heurs per year. Also a retiree must not retire before the age of 65 to obtain a community housing unit. Individuals and households that retire while they own a community housing unit shall be required to have been occupying a Basalt Community Housing unit for at least 10 years prior to retiring at age 65 or older to maintain occupancy of the unit upon retirement. Retiring individuals or households not meeting the above requirements will be required to sell their community housing unit upon retiring. Newly retiring individuals or households that were not living in a zoosTown of Basalt Community Housing Guldellnes 12 134 of 151 Basalt Community Housing Unit upon retiring are not eligible for a community housing unit even if they meet the requirements set forth in this paragraph. B. A quali?ed person, upon purchase of the unit, shall occupy the unit as their primary residence. The owner shall be deemed to have ceased to use the unit as his or her sole and exclusive place of residence by accepting permanent employment outside of the Employment Area, or residing in the unit fewer than nine (9) months out of any twelve 12) months. C. A quali?ed person must not own developed residential real estate or a mobile home in those portions of Eagle, Garfield, Gunnison or Pitkin Counties which are part of the Roaring Fork River drainage, or must list for sale, at competitive market prices, the residential real estate or mobile home prior to or simultaneously with closing on the community housing unit. If the property is not sold by the time of closing on purchase of the community housing unit, it must remain listed until sold. It the owner of the other residential. property desires to rent that property prior to sale, the owner shall be required to rent such property as community housing in accordance with the Guidelines at the income category determined by the Team to be appropriate under the circumstances. If an individual owns vacant land in. those portions of Eagle, Gar?eld, Gunnison or Pitlo'n Counties, winch are part of the Roaring Fork River drainage, while owning a community housing unit, as soon as the land is improved with a residence the individual must relinquish the conununity housing unit by listing and selling the ownership interest in that unit. D. A quali?ed person must have total current household income no greater than the maximum amount specified in Part 1 above for the particular category housing. 13. Any individual or household who is under review for a possible non-compliance issue may not be quali?ed to purchase or rent conununity housing units, until the non-compliance issue has been satis?ed. The owner also he in good standing with their .homeowners? association and a notarized document from the HOA will be required at the time of application. of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 1 3 135 of 151 SECTION 2 HOW TO QUALIFY FOR COMMUNITY HOUSING A. INITIAL QUALIFICATION: In order to determine that a person or household desiring to purchase an community housing unit meets all of the criteria set Forth in Section 1 abovc, the Town or its administrative assignee shall request any combination, or all, of the following documentation as proof of residency, income, and employment (at! in?rm-ration and documentation is con?dential) 1. Federal income tax returns for the last two years. Prospective purchasers must also furnish a current income statement and a current ?nancial statement, in a form acceptable to the Town, verified by applicant to be true and correct; or other documentation acceptable to the Town. When current income is twenty percent more or less than income reported on tax returns, the applicant's income will be averaged based upon current income and the previous year's tax returns to establish an income category for the purpose of purchasing a unit. Veri?cation of employment in the Employment Area wage stubs, employer name, address, and phone number, plus evidence of legal residency [or LNS. Form I-9, [Employment Eligibility Veri?cation] or other appropriate documentation as requested by the Town). Veri?cation of residency and physical address. Copy of valid Colorado Driver?s License. Veri?cation of telephone service (date o.finstallation, person listed to). Vehicle registration andfor voter registration. Any other documentation which the Town deems necessary to make a determination. The applicant desiring to purchase a unit will be required to sign a release so that the Town can obtain a copy of the completed loan application submitted to any prospective lender. An applicant shall prequalily for ?nancing which shall not exceed the price of the community housing unit they are applying to purchase. A prequali?cation for financing letter shall be submitted to the Town to qualify to purchase a community housing unit. if an owner of a Community Housing Unit is re?nancing, the owner shall also notin the Town and provide proof that the amount of the re?nance loan does not exceed the allowable resell price of the unit. of Basalt Comm unity Housing Guidelines 1 4 136 of 151 9. If you have been divorced and you receive any sort of alimony or child support, a copy of the divorce Decree must indicate that it has been entered of record and all exhibits and supplements must be attached. SECTION 3 QUALIFICATIONS TO RESIDE IN COWUNITY HOUSING A. To REMAIN ELIGIBLE to reside in an community housing unit, a person. must meet the requirements of Part II, Section 1, A, and C. The status of Renters/Tenants of Community Housing Units will be reviewed and veri?ed by the Town every two years or more otten at the sole discretion of the Town to ensure that they continue to meet the requirements of the Guidelines, including but not limited to: Minimum Occupancy, Income and Asset Limitatioo, Property Ownership, and Employment. The Town or the Town?s designee will notify the landlord to provide the tenant written notice of the requali?cation at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the two years. The landlord shall disclose in the lease that the tenants must requalii?y every two years. Individuals that rent a Community Housing Unit must requality and meet the employment, occupancy, income, asset, and other requirements speci?ed herein upon expiration of their lease. Individuals that own Community Housing Units must 1) remain a qualified employee or retiree, 2) continue to occupy the unit as their primary residence as de?ned in these Guidelines, and 3) not own any other residential property within the Roaring Fork Valley as defined in these Guidelines. The Town or the Town?s housing designee will require all owners to complete and sign a Requali?cation Af?davit on a bi?yearly basis. The Town Manager may waive the employment requirement on a temporary basis for an owner or renter who fails to satisfy the employment requirement upon requalification, subject to the satisfying the following criteria: 1. The individual demonstrates that they are actively pursuing employment in the empl0yme11t area established in Part II, Section and, The duration of the exemption from the employment requirement shall not exceed six (6) months. SECTION 4 PROCEDURES FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF AN COMMUNITY HOUSING UNIT A. LISTING UNIT FOR SALE 1. An owner of an community housing unit desiring to Sell should consult with the Town and review the Deed Restriction covering the unit to determine the maximum sales price permitted and other applicable provisions concerning a sale. Unless otherwise provided of Basalt GomMuntty Housing Guidellnes ?1 5 137 of 151 in the Deed Restriction, the unit may be listed For sale with a local real estate sales of?ce or may be sold by the owner. The Town may keep a list of persons who have qualified for ownership; however, if the Town provides any such names: the Town shall only do so as an accommodation and shall not act as a real estate broker. 2. Units that are developed to satisfy inclusionaiy housing requirements shall be sold through the Town lottery process established in Part Section below. Units developed to satisfy commercial mitigation requirements will be marketed and initially sold by the developer to individuals and families that qualify under the provisions established in these Guidelines. The developer of commercial mitigation units may elect to sell commercial mitigation units through the Town lottery process. All potential occupants of Community Housing Units shall be quali?ed in advance of occupancy by the Town subject to the provisions of these Guidelines. Community Housing Units developed in excess of commercial mitigation and inclusionary housing requirements may be sold by the developer without using a lottery unless the developer chooses for the units to be sold by the Town through. the lottery process. 3. In pursuit of the above, the Tovm staff will be acting on behalf of the Town. It should be clearly understood by and among all parties to a sales transaction that the Town staff members are not acting as representatives or agents to the transaction. but as representatives of the Town and its interest in community housing. 4. ?ll purchasers and sellers are advised to consult legal counsel regarding examination of title and all contracts, agreements and title documents. The retention of such counsel, licensed real estate brokers. or such related services, shall be at purchaser's or seller?s own expense. Any fees paid to the Town are to be paid regardless of any actions or services that the purchaser or seller may undertake or acquire. 5. The Town will conduct a lottery for each applicable community housing unit or group of units pursuant to Part l1, Section of these guidelines and resales of all community housing units. No waiting list will be maintained and a new and separate application must be submitted for each newly available unit or group ot'units. To assure the Occupancy Priorities designated in Section 5, Ptut II are used, the Town shall conduct the Lottery for available community housing units as follows: i. The Lottery shall. include all applications, which are submitted and complete as of the date designated by the Town. ii. All complete applications. which fall. into Occupancy Priority One, shall be included in Lottery Round One. Lottery applicants in Round One that. have lived continuously in the Roaring Fort: Valley between ASpen and Glenwood Springs (inclusive of the "town limits of Aspen and Glenwood Springs) for more than ?ve (5) of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 1 6 138 of 151 years directly prior to applying for the lottery shall get two (2) opportunities in the random drawing; lottery applicants that have lived in the Roaring Fork Valley between Aspen and Glenwood Springs (inclusive of the Town limits) for five (5) years or less shall get one opportunity in the random drawing, Each application, upon being drawn by random selection, shall be assigned a numerical position based upon the order drawn. Following the random drawing and assignment of a numerical position. for the applications in Occupancy Priority One in the Lottery Round One, a separate Lottery Round Two, shall be conducted in a similar manner for applications in Occupancy Priority Two. The same lottery process will be conducted For Occupancy Priorities Three and Four. A numerical position shall be assigned to each application based upon order drawn in each Lottery Round. iv. Available community housing units and the ?rst choice of an available unit will be offered to the quali?ed applicant first drawn in Lottery Round One. Subsequent offers will be made to other qualified applicants in the order drawn in Lottery Round One. y. Remaining community housing units, if any, will be offered to Applicants in the order drawn in Lottery Rounds Two, Three, and Four in sequence following these in Lottery Round One. vi. The Town shall determine the length of time an offer of a community housing unit shall be available to an Applicant before the offer is considered withdrawn or void. If an offer is not accepted by a ready and willing Applicant within a designated time, the offer shall be considered withdrawn and an offer to the next sequential qualified Applicant, based upon the Lottery, shall be made. 13. DEED RESTRICTION: The purchaser must execute, in a form satisfactory to the Town and for recording with the County Clerk and Recorder concurrent with the closing of the sale, a document aeloiowledging the purchaser's agreement to be bound by the recorded Deed Restriction coVering the sale tuiit. C. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: 1. Any co-ownership interest other than joint tenancy or tenancy-in-common must be approved by the Town. 2. Co-signers oi" debt recorded against a unit may be approved for ownership of the unit but shall not occupy the unit unless quali?ed by the Town for occupancy. 3. If a unit is listed for sale and the owner must relocate to another area, the unit may, upon approval of the Town, be rented to a qualified individual, at the owner?s cost as defined of Basalt community Housing Guidelines 1 7 139 of 151 in Section 5 below for a maximum period of two (2) years. A letter must be sent to the "lawn requesting permission to rent the unit until sold. A minimum six (6) month written lease must be provided to the tenant with a sixty (60) day move Out clause upon noti?cation when the unit is sold. All tenants must be quali?ed by the Town and the unit must be leased for the terms set forth in the Deed Restriction on the unit or, if there are no such provisions in the Deed Restriction, upon terms approved by the Town. Prior to the Town's quali?cation of a tenant, said tenant shall acknowledge as part of the lease that said tenant has received, read and understands any existing homeowners association. covenants, rules and regulations for the unit and shall abide by them. Enforcement of said covenants, rules and regulations shall be the responsibility of the htmteownersl association. A copy of the executed lease shall be furnished by the owner or tenant to the Town. of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 1 8 140 of 151 SECTION 5 OCCUPANCY PRIORITIES All complete applications will be assigned by the Town to one oi" following four Occupancy Priorities: 1. Occupancy Priority One: A prospective occupant that is an essential employee as de?ned herein, working full-time in the Town of Basalt; 2. Occupancy Priority Two: A prospective occupant That is a non-essential employee working full-time in the Town of Basalt or mobile home park resident living in the ?oodplain. A mobile home park resident living in the ?oodplain shall mean an employee with a job or principal of?ce from Aspen to GlenWood Springs that as of December 1, 2007 lived in one of the mobile homes to be removed because of floodplain concerns identi?ed in the 2002 River Stewardship Plan. ln order to qualify under the mobile home park. provision in Priority Two, the prospective occupant must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Town that the mobile home they lived in has been permanently removed from the ?oodplain and not replaced with another unit in the floodplain; 3. Occupancy Priority Three: A prospective occupant that is an essential employee as de?ned herein, working fullttime in Eagle or Pitltin Counties in the Roaring Fork River Valley; 4. Occupancy Priority Four: A prospective occupant that is an employee in the employee working full?time in Eagle or Pitkin Counties in the Roaring Fork River Valley. The occupancy priorities and requirements may be waived by the Town Council through a one? step Special Housing Review for replacement housing or projects consisting oi" 100% community housing. Also, consideration may be given by the Town for other ?Jnding entities such as Eagle and Pitkin Counties or private employers that are funding community housing projects that include units beyond the number of units necessary to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements or units being developed for dedication to the Town. All completed and veri?ed eligible applications shall be placed in the Lottery for community housing. of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 9 141 of 151 SECTION 6 LEAVE OF ABSENCE FOR OWNERS OF COMMUNITY HOUSING UNITS If an owner of an community housing unit must leave the Employment Area for a limited period of time and desires to rent the unit during their absence, a lease of absence may be granted by the Town for one year upon clear and convincing evidence which shows a bona tide reason for leaving and a commitment to return to the area. A letter must be sent to the Town, at least 30 days prior to leaving, requesting permission to rent the unit during the leave of absence. Notice of such intent to rent and the ability to comment shall be provided to any applicable homeowners' association at the time of request to the Town. The leave of absence shall be for one year and may, at the discretion of the Town, be extended for one year, but in no event shall the leave exceed two years. The rent shall be the owner?s cost. Owner's cost as used herein includes the mortgage principal and interest payment, plus owners? association fees, plus utilities remaining in owner's name, plus taxes and insurance prorated on a basis, plus land lease costs if any, plus $20 per month. The owner shall rent to an employee/qualified resident that meets the provisions of Part II, Section I, A, and C. Prior to the Town's quali?cation of tenant, said tenant shall acknowledge as part of the lease that said tenant has received, read and understands the homeowners association covenants, rules and regulations for the unit and shall abide by them. Enforcement of said covenants, rules and regulations shall be the responsibility of the homeowners association. A copy of the executed lease shall be furnished by the owner or tenant to the 'l?own. Additionally, an owner may request a one? time leave of absence for one (1) year by Special Review with all the above conditions applying. SECTION 7 SPECIAL REVIEW A Special Review For a variance from the strict application of these Guidelines may be requested if an unuSual hardship can be shown, and the variance from the strict application of the Guidelines is consistent with the Community Housing goals, purpose and policy. in order to request a Special. Review, a letter must be submitted to the Town stating the request, with documentation regarding the unusual hardship. The applicant shall submit any additional information reasonably requested by the Town. A Special Review meeting will then be scheduled in a timely manner. The Special Housing Evaluation Committee may grant the request, with or without conditions, if? the approval will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the goals and purpose of the Guidelines, and if an unusual hardship is shown. 2009Town of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 2 0 142 of 151 PART INFORMATION FOR DEVELOPMENT OF COMMUNITY HOUSING Part ill of the Guidelines contains information to be used by developers of community housing units in the Town of Basalt whether required in connection with an application tier free-market development or otherwise. SECTION 1 WNIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR NEWLY DEED RESTRICTED COMMUNITY HOUSING UNITS Table II below sets forth the allowable size range for each unit type and category. The minimum and maximum square footage requirements may be reduced or increased upon approval by the Term Council based on a finding that the development satis?es, or is required to adjust to, other physical factors or considerations including, but not limited to, design for livability, common storage, other amenities, location or site designs. TABLE II UNIT SIZE RANGEFOR EACH UNIT TYPE AND INCOME CATEGORY Categories 1 Category 3 Unit Type Square Feet Square Feet Studio 415*800 500-335 1 Bedroom 580-965 690-995 2 Bedroom 900-1285 3 Bedroom 1,000-1 .385 1,200-1 ,585 Single-Family Detached 1,100- .700 Note: The unit sizes above shall not include storage exterior to the units up to a maximum of 10% of the _u_nit size. The average size of all Community Housing Units developed in any one development project shall be a minimum of 950 square feet. Square footage calculations shall be required for the community [lensing component oi" a project and must be verified by the Building Department prior to issuance of any building permits for either the free market or community housing component of the project. The Building Department shall retain a set of approved building permit drawings for the project and the Building l.)epartment or Town may check the actual 2009Town of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 2 1 143 of 151 construction of the community housing units for compliance with the approved building permit plans. SECTION 2 MAXIMUM SALES PRICES OR NEWLY DEED RESTRICTED COMMUNITY HOUSING UNITS AND FOR COMMUNITY LOTS The maximum initial sales price For newly deed restricted community housing units shall be as established in Part I. Subsections A, B, and of these guidelines. The maximum allowable annual appreciation for a community housing unit shall be the lesser of CPI or Resident occupied (RC) units may not be used to satisfy inelusionary housing or commercial mitigation requirements but may be ?used to reduce the inelusionary housing requirements as described in Town Code Section 16-416, Residential Inelusionary Requirements. For units developed as R0 to reduce inclusionary housing requirements, newly developed mold?family RC) units shall have an initial sales price not to exceed $500,000 and newly developed single-family RC units shall have an initial sales cap not to exceed a sales price not to exceed $900,000. The initial sales price cap on these RC) units shall increase annually by 3% simple annual increase or the percent of increase in Consumer Price Index (CPI) over the previous 12-month period, whichever is less. R0 unit owners shall be required to live in their unit 9 months out of the calendar year and shall have a simple annual appreciation cap of NOTES: 1. Units will be offered for sale to all quali?ed persons under the procedures established by the Guidelines. 2. All newly deed restricted community housing sales units must be in a marketable condition and comply with the International Building Code and with all rules, regulations, and codes of all govermnental utilities and agencies having jurisdiction. Flier to sale the unit must be inspected and approved by a certified building inspector, architect or engineer approved by the Tovm for compliance with the Guidelines. Cost of such inspections shall be the responsibility of the applicant, and the results of such inspection must be approved by the 'l?own. SECTION 3 COMMUNITY HOUSING DEDICATION FEE (Payment-[n-Lieu Fee) Payment-I n-Lieu Schedule A. Pursuant to the applicable Town Code. an applicant for a development may, under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements. satisfy an community housing requirement by 2009Town of Basalt Community Housing Guideiines 22 144 of 151 payment of an community housing dedication fee (payment?in-lieu fee). The number of employees (community housing residents) required to be housed is determined by the Town Code. The time of payment of the fee is prior to the issuance of a building permit for any aspect of the deVelopment. B. All fees shall he paid to the Town Finance Director. A receipt shall be issued by the Finance Director to the applicant for submission to the Building Department as verification of payment. Table Payment-in-lieu Schedule Category] $329792 197.41 per square foot of Community Housing, Requirements Categoryl $232755 139.53 per square foot of Community Housing Requirements Category3 106.12 per square foot of Community Housing Requirements Methodology Payment-in-lieu Ischedule The payment-in-lieu schedule is based on the methodology established in the 2009 Town of Basalt Community Housing-Strategy Support Study. In coloulating the Fee~in~lieu of community housing that is required by the requirements established in the Town Code, an Applicant shall use the payment-in?lieu schedule per Category included in Table above. As is described in Town Code Section 16-416, Residential Molestation]; Requirements, to pay cash-in-lieu to satisfy inclusionary housing requirements, the Category 2 and-the?Gatege?J?Zi payment in Table shall be used in calculating the paymenbin-lieu. As is described in Section 16-417, Commercial Linkage Requirements, to pay cash-in-lieu to satisfy commercial linkage requirements, the Catcgtiry 2 1 payment in Table II shall be used in calculating the paynnent-inwlieu. SECTION 4 CONVEYANCE 0F VACANT LOTS Pursuant, to the Town Code, an applicant for a development. under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, may satisfy the community housing requirement by the conveyance of vacant lots. Acceptance of the lots shall be at the sole diseretioo of the Town Council. of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 2 3 145 of 151 All lots must be fully developed and ready for construction, improved lots with water, sewer, roads, telephone, electricity and gas (it available) in place to the property line. A soils report, prepared by a qualified engineer and based upon test holes within the building envelope of each lot, stipulating that the lot is suitable for construction of the intended dwelling type without requiring unusual excavation, foundation work or accommodation of other unusual conditions such as hydro-compactive soils or sink holes shall accompany the conveyance. All lots shall be conveyed to the Town concurrent with reeordation of final plat for the project. At the time of conveyance, the developer shall establish an escrow account in an amount sufficient to cover l25% of the estimated costs required to complete the improvement of the lots in accordance with Item A above. Improvements as noted in Item A above, shall be completed within one year from the date of conveyance of the property to the Town. The Subdivision improvements Agreement and the Protective Covenants shall incorporate the conditions stated in subsections A, and above. SECTION 5 DEED RESTRICTING EXISTING DWELLING UNITS Pursuant to the Town Code, an applicant for a development, under certain conditions and subject to certain requirements, may satisfy the community housing requirement by deed restricting existing unrestricted housing to comply with the Guidelines. Acceptance of existing units shall be at the sole discretion of the Town Council. I If accepted by the Town, existing units must be upgraded in accordance with the following criteria, unless a variance from these requirements is approved by the "Town Council: all units must be freshly painted; all appliances must be purchased within the last ?ve years and be in good condition and working order; new carpet shall be provided (unless carpet has been purchased in last five years and is in good condition and repair); the exterior walls shall be freshly painted within one year of dedication; a general level of upgrade to yards and landscaping shall be provided; and windows, heating, plumbing and electrical systems, fixtures and equipment shall be in good condition and working order. The roof must have a remaining useful life of at least ten (10) years. All units shall meet Uniform Building Code minimum standtu'ds and the condition of all units shall be veri?ed by the Town Building Inspector. Applicant shall provide a Building Inspection Report by a quali?ed building inspector approved by the 'l?own describing the condition, at a minimum, of all of the above items. Applicant shall bear the costs and expenses of any required upgrades to meet the above standards as well as any structural/engineering reports required by the Town to assess the suitability for occupancy and compliance with the Town standards of the proposed units. 2009Tcwn of Basalt Community Houslng Guidelines 2 4 146 of 151 SECTION 6 EXECUTION OF DEED RESTRICTIONS BY APPLICANTS Deed Restrictions must be submitted by the applicant to the Town, which shall have an approved, executed and recorded Deed Restriction for the required commitment by the applicant prior to issuance of any building permit for the project. Prior to issuance of any Certi?cate of Occupancy, the Deed Restriction shall be amended, if necessary, to reflect changes approved by the Town. which may hat/e occurred during construction or conversion of the unit(s) net livable square footage), executed and recorded. PART IV. GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES A grievance is any dispute that a unit owner or purchaser may have with the ?l.?own with respect to action or failure to act in accordance with the individual?s rights, duties, welfare or status. A grievance may be presented to the Town?s Special Housing Evaluation Committee under the following procedures. SECTION 1 FILING A A. Any grievance must be presented in writing to the Town. It may be simply stated, but shall specify: (1) the particular ground(s) upon which it is based; (2) the action requested; and (3) the name, address, telephone number of the complainant and similar information about his or her representative, if any. B. Upon presentation of a written grievance, a hearing before the Special Review Committee shall be scheduled as soon as reasonably practicable. The matter may be continued at the discretion of the Committee. The complainant shall. be afforded a fair hearing providing the basic safeguard of due process, including notice and an opportunity to be heard in a timely, reasonable manner. C. The complainant and the 'lbwn shall have the opportunity to examine and, before the hearing at the expense of the complainant, to copy all documents, records and regulations of the Town that are relevant to the hearing. Any document not made available after written request may not be relied upon at the hearing. D. The complainant has the right to be represented by counsel. 2009?1?cwn of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 2 5 147 of 151 SECTION 2 CONDUCT OF THE HEARING A. If the complainant fails to appear at the scheduled hearing, the Conunittce may make a determination to postpone the hearing make a determination based upon the written documentation and the evidence submitted. 13. The hearing shall be conducted by the Committee as follows: Oral or documentary evidence may be received without strict compliance with the rules of evidence applicable to judicial proceedings. C. The right to cross-examine shall be at the discretion of the Committee and may be regulated by the Cetnmittee- as it deems necessary for a fair hearing. D. Based on the records of proceedings. the Committee will provide a written decision and include therein the reasons for its determination. PART V. DEFINITIONS Accessory DwellinLUnit See Town Code. Community Housing - Dwelling units deed restricted to the housing sine and type for individuals meeting income and minimum occupancy guidelines approved by the Town. Buydown Unit - rec-market unit which the Town or a developer acquired and deed restricted to community housing. Capital Improvements - Unless otherwise defined in the Deed Restriction covering the community housing unit, any fixture erected as a permanent improvement to real property excluding repair, replacement, and maintenance costs. Consumer Price Index (CPI) - The ConSurner Price index that is used for purposes of the Guidelines and for purposes of the Deed Restriction is the Consumer Price Index - US. City Average and Regions, [from Wage Burners and Cle?errl Workers All Items, Updated information is received en a basis from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Cosigner - A joint signatory ofa promissory note who shall not occupy the unit unless quali?ed by the Town for occupancy. Dced Restriction - A contract entered into between the Town and the owner or purchaser of real property identifying the conditions ofoccupancy and resale. of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 2 6 148 of 151 Dependent A minor child (21 years or younger) or other relative of the owner of an community housing unit, which child or relative is talten and listed as a dependent for federal income tax purposes by such owner or his or her present or former spouse (said dependent must also be related by blood or adoption and residing with the individual at least six months and one day [133 daysl out of every 12-month period ot'time). Disabled Person - A person who meets the de?nition of "individual with a disability" contained in 29 U.S.C. Section 706(8), and/or as defined in the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990; and/or a person who has a "handicap," as de?ned in. C.R.S. the Colorado Anti- discrimination Act. Employeeigualified Residenti?Buyer - A person who is employed on the basis ofa minimum of 1,500 hours worked per calendar year in the Employment Area, which averages 35 hours a week, 10 months a year; or 32 hours a Week, 1 1 months a year, physically working in the Employment Area and who resides in the unit a minimum of nine months out oi'the year. Volunteering for a non-pro?t entity within the Employment Area for at least 1,000 hours per year also quali?es to satisfy the employment requirements. A quali?ed employee, resident, buyer shall meet the employment, income and asset, and occupancy requirements established herein for the category of unit that they are purchasing or occupying. Employer - A person who works or performs service for a business Employee [Non-Prof: A person who works or performs service for a non-pro?t organization. Employees include artists, pcrfonners, musicians, organizers, bookkeepers, etc, but excluding construction workers. Non-pro?t organisations include any certi?ed non-pro?t organization providing services to and located in the Employment Area. Em n'loyce Dwelling Unit - See Town Code. Employee Housingr See de?nition for Community Housing. Employment Area Employment Area shall mean that portion of the Roaring Fork River Drainage Basin located from and including the Town oi.? Carbondale to Old Snowmass. Exception: Riverside Plaza B-C employment area is entire Roaring Fork Valley. Essential Emploice- Full-time employees working For organizations that provide services or essential utilities (water, sewer, electric, gas) needed for the health, safety, and welfare oi? the community. Examples of essential employees include, but are not limited to the Town utility and public Works staff, police, ?re?ghters, and teachers. Determinations about whether a certain occupation quali?es as an essential employee shall be made by the Special Housing Evaluation Committee. of Basalt Community Housing Guldellnes 2 7 149 of 151 Family-Oriented Unit - A dwelling unit attached or detached, 3 bedrooms or more, with direct ground floor access to a useablc yard area. Fee Simple Estate - 'l?he matimum possible estate that one can possess in real property; complete and absolute ownership of indefinite duration, freely transferable, and inheritable. Gross Income - The total income, including alimony and child support, derived from a business, trust, employment and from income-producing property, before deductions for expenses, depreciation, taxes, and similar allowances. Household - All individuals who will be occupying the unit regardless of legal status. Househoidr Income - Combined gross months of all individuals who will be occupying the unit regardless of legal status. Adjustments to the gross for business expenses can be made for persons who are self?employed. Income Categogy Income categories are measured by maximum gross household income and household net assets. Housing units are categorized to re?ect which income levels they are to service. A person or household can purchase a unit in a higher income category, but not in a lower income category than is reflected by their household gross annual income and net assets. Minimum Occupancy - One person per bedroom. A mi nor child or dependent shall be granted equal status as a person with ownership interest. Present Value - For the purposes of these Guidelines and any Deed Restrictions containing, such terms, the present value shall be the cost or price of any capital improvements as established at the time of such improvement and shall be neither appreciated nor depreciated from such time. Primagy Residence - The sole and exclusive place of residence. The owner shall he deemed to have ceased to use the unit as her solo and exclusive place of residence by accepting permanent employment outside of the Employment Area, or residing in the unit fewer than nine (9) months out of any twelve (12) months. Purchaser A person who is buying or has purchased a deed restricted unit which is subject to these Guidelines, and any qualifying potential purchaser or past owner of any such deed restricted unit, but only with respect to any issue arising under these Guidelines. Quali?ed Person. - A person meeting the income limitations who meets the pro?le requirements (part of which requirements include being a quali?ed employee, a retired person, a disabled person, or dependent(s) of any of these as such terms are defined herein.) established by the 'l?own from time to time and in effect at any time. of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 2 8 150 of 151 Retirement Age Should an owner of a deed restricted unit retire before the age of 65, that individual must sell the unit. Such individual may go through Special Review to ask for a waiver to maintain ownership of his/her unit. R.O. (resident occupied) The RI). categon has no income or asset limits For the buyer or employee who rents from an employer. Unit must be occupied by the owner or an employee of the employer-ouster. R0 units may or may not include some type of appreciation cap depending on the type of R0 unit. Special Housing Evaluation Committee ?Town Manager, Town Planning Director, Public Works Director, and Police Chiefor their designees. Sguare Footage See 'I?own Code. of Basalt Community Housing Guidelines 2 9 151 of 151