No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/19/2021 PUBLIC HEARING January 19, 2021 Present: Matt Scherr Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner Kathy Chandler-Henry Commissioner Jeff Shroll County Manager Beth Oliver Deputy County Attorney Holly Strablizky Assistant County Attorney Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing,the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Commissioner Chandler-Henry was not present for the morning session. Commissioner Updates Commissioner McQueeney spoke about Martin Luther King Day holiday and how she spent her time contacting people and helping them through the COVID vaccine process. She expressed her excitement over the availability of the COVID-19 vaccines and believed that Colorado was doing an amazing job getting people vaccinated. Chairman Scherr mentioned the"Save Our Restaurants"program, a social media campaign to encourage people to buy take out food, dine where appropriate, and support local restaurants. County Manager Updates Jeff Shroll stated that the county received$3 million dollars in grant applications. Most of those would be wrapped up by the end of January. The county received 250 applications. County staff was working quickly to get this grant money out to local businesses. COVID-19 Update Birch Barron,Emergency Management Director,provided an update. He stated that the COVID case numbers were beginning to go down,but the numbers were still high. He spoke about the vaccine phases and reminded everyone that there were still high risk people that were not eligible to be vaccinated yet. The county was still in Phase 1B. There were 5,300 vaccine doses given so far. The next group would include some essential workers. He reviewed the eligibility requirements and spoke about the county website where people could register if they were eligible. The Governor was asking that all second doses should not be sat on but used for eligible people needing a first dose. 1 01/19/2021 Consent Agenda 1. Resolution 2021-006 to Close County Clerks Office For Non-Election Services on November 2,2021 - Coordinated Election Day Regina O'Brien, Clerk and Recorder's Office 2. On Call Architectural and Engineering Consulting Agreement with Menendez Architects Josh Miller,Project Management 3. Resolution 2021-007 Special Use Permit at 641 Green Mountain Drive Olivia Cook,Planning Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the Consent Agenda for January 19, 2021,as presented. Chairman Scherr seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,the vote was declared unanimous. Constituent Input Chairman Scherr opened and closed constituent input, as there was none. Business Items 1. The Board of County Commissioners will meet as necessary to review and take action on any issues related to the COVID-19 Local Disaster Emergency. Chairman Scherr stated that there was nothing to review or take action on related to COVID-19. Planning File 1. Edwards RiverPark-Combined Sketch/Preliminary Plan,Zone Change,and 1041 Permit- PDSP-9050/ZC-9029/1041-9030 Morgan Landers,Planning DESCRIPTION: Application for a Consolidated Sketch/Preliminary Plan for a mixed-use PUD,to include approximately 540 residential units(100 of which are currently proposed as deed restricted workforce housing)and 56,500 square feet of commercial uses. This application includes single-family and multi-family residential, deed restricted workforce housing, hotel, conference and retail uses, active and passive recreation, and open space areas. Also included is a Zone Change application to rezone the Subject Parcel from Resource to PUD and a 1041 permit application for the extension of water and sewer services. The application is subject to change throughout the review process. Morgan Landers, Staff Planning Manager,provided a brief introduction. This meeting would begin with public comment,a staff presentation, a presentation from the applicant,and a time for questions and answers. This 2 01/19/2021 was the third hearing, and a fourth hearing was scheduled for February 2nd. Additional hearings would be held as needed. Chairman Scherr thanked staff for their extraordinary work and time on the application. Morgan Beryl, Community Development Director, explained the Zoom process now being used for public comment. Chairman Scherr opened public comment. Stacey Boltz spoke. She believed the development was not well suited for the area. She believed that a hotel and large commercial area was not needed in the Edwards area. She believed that the development would create a negative impact on the community and create more traffic on Highway 6. Elizabeth Holland,Lake Creek resident, spoke. She opposed the development. She questioned the number of units near public space. She expressed concern for water use. Sara McNeill spoke. She's been an Edwards resident and business owner since 1990. She had a vested interest in the community. Her main concern was traffic. She believed the proposal was unrealistic for workforce housing and would have negative effects on wildlife. Margo Timbel spoke about the current Edwards community. She believed that the proposed development had nothing to contribute. A hotel would not add to the neighborhood. She suggested that the board ask the developer to go back to the drawing board and provide daycare, community access to the property, and a neighborhood. Malia Nobrega expressed excitement for the project and believed the project was a benefit to the community. She believed that more housing was needed in the area. The developer would be providing a continuous revenue source. She disagreed with many of the comments in opposition. Scott Cliver spoke. He supported the development. He remembered the gravel pit. He believed that Edwards was stagnant and needed road improvements. He loved Home Depot and Walmart and remembered how everyone complained when they were proposed. He believed the land needed to be developed. Kristen Sofge spoke. She and her husband were residents of Florida, and they hoped to call Colorado home in the future. The project would bring so much to the Edwards area. The wetland preservation would be an asset. She was attracted to a development that offered an amphitheatre and would allow for local events and local culture. She supported the project and believed the developer had listened and responded to the community. John Horan-Kates stated that he did not support the development. He believed the project was a mistake. He suggested that that the board deny the project and allow a non-profit to purchase the land and create a park and an amphitheater. Scott Divonas spoke. He has been a Edwards resident since 2000. He believed the town needed more attractions to create more income for the community. He supported the project. Michael Hazard spoke.He was a 44-year resident of the county. He supported the project. He believed the project was near the core,and as such,the benefits were dramatic. The project was practically self-funding. As an architect, the project was tight and dense and would contribute to the valley. Housing was essential and should be encouraged by the county. He asked the board to stay the course and do the right thing. Chris Hawkins spoke. He represented several folks in the South Fork Meadows development. He expressed concerns for the height of development. He questioned the development's compliance with the Edwards Area Community Plan. He believed the development was out of character with Edwards. The South Fork Meadows Association had concerns for wildlife. He believed there should be connectivity to the core. The density being proposed was similar to resort areas. Kimberly Schlaepfer spoke on behalf of the Climate Action Collaborative. She encouraged that the development utilize natural gas and clean renewable power. Dan Barry spoke. He believed the development was wrong for the area. He believed the proposal would over develop the property and it would be impossible for the developer to absorb the expense for the roundabout. He requested the board vote against the development. He encouraged a scaled down version. John Kelly spoke. He'd been an Edwards resident for 10 years. He expressed concerns for traffic, congestion on Highway 6, for the view corridor,and for dark sky disturbance. The plan did not support a dense island itself. Tax revenue should not outweigh the citizens of Edwards. 3 01/19/2021 Steve Stone spoke. He supported the project and looked forward to seeing it built to fruition. Seth Weinberger spoke. He'd been a resident of Eagle County for 7 years. He opposed the project as it offered nothing to the existing community. He expressed support for a neighborhood type development in the area. Kim Blackford spoke. She attended the site visit. She researched the wildlife in the area. She expressed concern for the active eagle's nest near the property. She believed that Federal law protected the nest and development near the nest was prohibited by law. Susie Cunningham spoke. She believed the gravel pit was an eyesore and the proposed development would beautify the area. The proposal would add much needed affordable housing and would benefit the community. The road improvements were needed. Hands down, she would rather the development pay for the road improvements rather than the taxpayers. Mia Glick spoke. She liked the idea of dark sky lighting, an amphitheater, and neighborhood development. She had environmental concerns for the project. Tori Franks,Eagle County Real Estate and Developer Manager,reviewed the housing plan as proposed by the developer. The housing plan had evolved over time. The initial proposal did not meet the guidelines.After negotiations the goal was to gain as many price capped rental units as possible. The plan proposed 100 deed restricted units; of those, 81 would be price capped rental units. The price capped rental building would be delivered in the first phase of development. All deed restricted units must be occupied or owned by an"eligible household"defined in the Housing Guidelines. All owners of deed restricted units must verify annually. The 1 % transfer fee on non deed restricted units(440)would be permanent and estimated to generate$450,000 annually. Short term rentals were prohibited in all deed restricted units. The 1%rental fee on all short term rentals(except condo-hotel)would be collected by the HOA. The project should provide a value of 135 deed restricted units or 25%of 540 total units. The applicant would be seeking a partnership with the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority, likely in the form of a property tax exemption. Staff supported the probable request to the ECHDA for a temporary property tax exemption for up to 15 years. The ECHDA application and decision was separate from the development permit application. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the price capped units and if they were income capped as far as AMI or just price capped. Ms. Franks stated that the housing guidelines did not require an income cap. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about revenue projections for the short term rental fee and 1% transfer fee on an annual basis and how it would compare to the lost revenue from property tax exemption. Ms. Franks stated that the applicant had some of the financial information. The short term rental had been difficult to estimate. The real estate transfer assessment(RETA)was estimated at$450,000 annually at full development. Commissioner McQueeney asked about the property tax exemption. Ms. Franks provided examples of other properties with the tax exemption. Both were low income housing tax credit projects,restricted in rents up to 60%AMI, and some up to 80%AMI. Chairman Scherr wondered how the possible funding that this project would create would be spent by the ECHDA. Ms. Franks stated that the funds could fund an entire year of down payment loans. The ECHDA could potentially leverage against the funding and engage in development opportunities. Dominic Mauriello spoke about the housing plan and the need for workforce housing. It had been a problem for many years and was currently a crisis. The project addressed the problem in different ways: deed restrictions,rent rate caps,and funding sources for housing programs. The different units would address multiple areas of availability such as free market housing, deed restricted housing,and short term rentals in the condominium hotel. Out of 540 total units proposed,roughly 50%were likely to be homes for locals. The density was reduced by the building height upon the Planning Commission's review. The applicant was requesting a 20 year exemption versus a 15 year exemption. He compared the project to other developments that provided affordable housing. The real estate transfer fee could produce $10,000 of revenue every time a unit was sold. Having access to an additional$450,000 annually was a significant boost to the county's housing program. He spoke about community housing and the sustainability component. He reviewed the fiscal analysis and explained that the report was based on project phasing. The report was net of expenditures related to the PUD and very 4 01/19/2021 conservative. Numbers assume sales prices don't increase over time. The projected revenues in the first eight years would provide Eagle County approximately$15 million. The Edwards Metro District would also benefit approximately$3.5 million in the first eight years and$500,000 annually. The Fire District's projected revenues would be$3 million in the first eight years, $2.3 million annually. The school district, $5.5 million, in the first eight years,plus the land dedication fee and about$1 million annually. Colorado Mountain College would receive about $900,000 over the first eight years and$190,000 annually. He believed the project was a net benefit to all the districts. These numbers were based on having the workforce housing exemption in place. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked about the public cost in addition to the public benefit. Mr. Mauriello stated that was included in the impact study. It was net of all of the expenditures. It came down to net benefit. Commissioner McQueeney asked if there was a standard in which physical impact fit under. Ms. Landers stated that physical impact was looked at in the 1041 permit application standards. Mr. Mauriello stated that the PUD Guide regulated the land use and related activities of the PUD. The roundabout would be paid for by the development. ,Additional tax.applied only to the owners or guests. There would be a Master Property Owners Association that would oversee and enforce activities. Individual HOA would manage the activities of each condo building or sub neighborhood. The HOA would be consistent with the Master POA and PUD. Commissioner Chandler-Henry asked for examples of where this worked well and if it was a typical structure. Mr. Mauriello stated that he believed this was fairly typical. He compared it to the Riverwalk, Cordillera Metro District, and Cordillera Valley Club POA. Ms. Landers stated that Eagle Ranch operated in a similar way. Mr. Mauriello believed Eagle Ranch was a great example of this. Commissioner McQueeney stated that she thought the development would be included in the Edwards Metro District. Mr. Mauriello stated that the Edwards Metro District's service plan was just about roads. Not every neighborhood in Edwards was in the Edwards Metro District, such as Arrowhead. The purpose of the metro district was very different from what was being proposed here. Folks living in this metro district would be paying more than those in Miller Ranch,but it wasn't significant in terms of overall impact. It would be similar to what people pay in Eagle Ranch. Chairman Scherr asked about the collection for short term rentals and wondered what the property owners association incentive was to collect those fees. Mr. Mauriello stated that the fees being collected on short term rental would go to the HOA and a portion to the county for the housing tax. There was an enforcement mechanism. Rocky Cortina stated that there was a certain amount of transparency and they were audited every two years. The HOAs and POAs operated entirely as non-profits. Ms. Landers added that the county required a copy of the draft declaration and the declarations being proposed were upholding any requirements that had been memorialized in the PUD guide. Chairman Scherr reminded everyone that the board would be taking additional public comment after all presentations. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to table file no. PDSP-9050/ZC-9029 and 1041-9030 to the February 2, 2021 meeting of the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner McQueeney believed it would be helpful to talk about traffic,traffic study,the ADUs, wildlife, and review the conditions. Chairman Scherr asked for more info on lockoff units, senior housing,density, and the traffic study. Commissioner Chandler-Henry requested more information regarding water supply,wetland,power source, and utilities. 5 01/19/2021 There being no further business ..� -F(40_ q-t dd,the meeting was adjourned until January 26, 2021. 2'Atte ' %//� -G/-- Clerk to the Board Chairma 6 01/19/2021