Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout30.02 BOCC Staff Report 04.18.2016 Staff of RecommendationBOCC April 18, 2016 DP (EXHIBIT 21). Ms. Gazunis notes in her letter that there is no record of response from the 2011 comments. As a part of Resolution 11-85, the Applicant acknowledges that an Affordable Housing Agreement will be required by the BOCC. As a result, the details of this agreement are to be determined prior to the first final plat. At this time, it will be necessary for the Applicant to respond to the GCHA comments on the REC affordable housing proposal: • The Affordable Housing Plan and Agreement (AHPA) requires presales before building affordable housing unit (AHU). • AHPA provides 3 categories of pricing all of which differ from the GCHA standards (related to percentage of average medium income). GCHA stipulates maximum 120% AMI which Applicant proposed to allow buyers earning up to 150% of AMI — this allows a larger pool of potential buyers. • Applicant proposes an option of renting the AHU if not sold within 120 days. This is not addressed in the County's guidelines. • Questions and comments regarding the proposed agreement includes number of units provided in each phase, amendment of the agreement by phase, etc. IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Generally, the Board has the following options on these applications: Approval with Conditions Denial Continuance Due to a number of substantial issues with the proposed Amended Preliminary Plan and PUD, Staff recommended Denial of both applications to the Planning Commission at their hearing on January 13, 2016. Should these applications be denied, it is worth noting that since the Preliminary Plan technically expired in 2014, this Plan would become null and void. In addition, the Development Agreement and vested rights will expire December 22, 2016 unless a building permit is pulled before that date. In Staff's review of this amended Preliminary Plan and PUD application for REC, Several items are of notable concern due to their ability to potentially alter the Preliminary Plan from what is currently proposed or if certain approvals, permits or licenses are unable to be obtained. Such alteration would likely require the Applicant to submit a new amended preliminary plan application for a substantial modification in order to correct these deficiencies. Notably, these issues are: 2009 International Fire Code, Section D107 - Staff understands that it is unlikely that CDOT will issue an Access Permit for the South EVA. Should CDOT not issue an Access Permit for this location, an alternative location will likely need to be evaluated in order to meet the requirements of the International Fire Code. Such a change would require additional County review and could require another amended application for the new alignment. 59 BOCC April 18, 2016 DP Standard Section 7-108(A) - The Applicant has proposed an at -grade crossing of the RFTA corridor and trail, however, staff understands that the RFTA Board of Directors has not approved this alignment. As a result, the Applicant currently does not have legal vehicular access to the development utilizing the proposed at -grade alignment and as a result, has not met Standards Section 7-108(A), requiring "All Tots and parcels shall have access to a public right-of-way". Should the RFTA Board of Directors not approve an at -grade crossing, additional County review would likely be necessary which would result in another application for an amended Preliminary Plan as a substantial modification. In addition, the Applicant has not demonstrated that the application meets the following Standards, among others: Section 7-108(B), Safe Access and Section 7-308(F), Maintenance — These Sections requires that "Access to and from the use shall be safe and in conformance with applicable county, state and federal access regulations" and that "Suitable provisions for maintenance of trail and walkway systems shall be established through a perpetual association, corporation or other means acceptable to the County." The proposed design for the required bicycle and pedestrian underpass under Highway 82 at Cattle Creek has been reviewed by CDOT, SGM, Inc. and Mountain Cross Engineering. As a result of these reviews, it is clear that the proposed design does not meet State (CDOT) or Nationally (AASHTO) recognized standards for this kind of facility and therefore, cannot be considered safe or adequate as proposed. In addition, The Applicant has not represented who may own or maintain the underpass. As a result, demonstration that the underpass will be safe and meets state and national standards or maintained in perpetuity has not been provided. - Section 7-104, Sufficient Legal and Physical Source of Water — The southernmost parcel, labelled as the "Executive Lot", has not been shown to have a legal or physical water source. According to the preliminary engineering plans, this parcel is not provided water or wastewater service through the internal utility lines connected to the RFWSD system. In addition, the Division of Water Resources has provided comments stating that there are no permitted water wells on or near the Executive Lot. As a result, a demonstration of legal and physical water in accordance with this Section via an individual well has also not been shown. To this end, a sufficient legal and physical water source for all parcels has not been demonstrated. X. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL 1. That proper public notice was provided as required for the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners. 2. That the hearing before the Board of County Commissioners was extensive and complete, that all pertinent facts, matters and issues were submitted or could be submitted and that all interested parties were heard at that meeting. 3. That for the above stated and other reasons, the request for a Planned Unit Development (PUD) and Subdivision Preliminary Plan is NOT in the best interest of the health, safety, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the citizens of Garfield County. 60