HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/09/2021 PUBLIC HEARING March 9, 2021 Present: Matt Scherr Chairman Jeanne McQueeney Commissioner 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 Updates Commissioner Chandler-Henry gave a shout out to the Eagle County Motor Vehicle Department for their amazing work. It had been especially difficult when business had to be conducted remotely and some of the transactions were quite complicated. Since the meeting last week a couple community members took the time to write a letter and detail their interaction with the motor vehicle staff and the amazing customer service that they received. Commissioner McQueeney acknowledged that a good part of the board's time was spent talking about the legislative session. Everything was in full swing at this time and more than 300 bills had been proposed already. They expect about 600 bills by the time the legislative session was closed. This was the time for the public to weigh in on any issues of importance. Chairman Scherr mentioned that the Vail Symposium had been struggling but continued to hold events virtually. All the events were free, and he encouraged folks to visit their website for the schedule of events. County Manager Updates Jeff Shroll thanked everyone who had helped high school sports stay in session this school year. Until the county got through vaccinations,he encouraged everyone to stay diligent to keep kids in sports. COVID-19 Update Birch Barron, Emergency Management Director, stated that the disease incidence rate had increased over the last week and the county had moved back into the"orange"level. Hospital levels were still okay. There had been 25,200 vaccine doses distributed in the community. The implementation of the vaccines had been incredibly successful. Currently the eligible categories included anyone over 60 and front line workers in Phase 1B. He anticipated that by the end of the month the county would be moving into 1B.4 and would include anyone 50 and older. 1 03/09/2021 Consent Agenda 1. Resolution 2021-014 Annual Write Off for Uncollectible Property Taxes Anissa Berg,Treasurer's Office 2. Resolution 2021-015 for the Approval of the Special Use Permit for Tree Farm Solar Array Olivia Cook,Planning Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the Consent Agenda for March 9,2021, as presented. Commissioner McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Constituent Input Chairman Scherr opened and closed constituent input, as there was none. Business Items 1. Resolution 2021-016 Concerning the Appointment of Carolyn Schneider as Eagle County's Assistant Veterans Service Officer Kathleen Lyons,Human Services Executive Summary: Over 2,300 Veterans call Eagle County home. Our Veterans Service Officer and Assistant Veterans Service Officer's role is to help link these Veterans and their families to critical medical and financial support services. In 2019, Eagle County Veterans received nearly $6.5M in compensation,pension, education and other benefits. These dollars not only help support our vulnerable Veteran population, but also our entire community's economy. Carolyn Schneider served in the U.S. Navy as an Air Traffic Controller 3rd Class. She completed ATC school in Georgia and was then stationed at Chambers Airfield in Norfolk, Virginia. Carolyn considers herself very fortunate to have served in this role at a time when only a few women were allowed to do so. She had been working with our Veterans Service Office program for four years. Carolyn supported veterans by assisting them in obtaining the needed paperwork for benefit applications, submitting and managing veteran benefit applications through the benefits computer system, obtaining headstone medallions for veterans,and managing the monthly veteran newsletter. In 2018, Carolyn obtained her Colorado Veterans Service Officer certification. By re-appointing Carolyn Schneider as our Assistant Veterans Service Officer, the county can continue to meet the needs of its growing veteran population. In Carolyn's own words, she felt privileged and humbled to be the catalyst for finding help for Eagle County's veterans. Colorado Revised Statute § 28-5-801 mandates that the board of county commissioners of each county in the state establish a Veterans Service Office and appoint a veterans service officer for such county, and any assistant as may be deemed necessary. Colorado Revised Statute § 28-5-802 mandates a two-year term for any Veterans Service Officer or Assistant. 2 03/09/2021 Megan Birch, Director of Human Services stated that she was happy to re-appoint Carolyn Schneider as the Eagle County Assistant Veterans Service Officer. The county was statutorily required to have a Veterans Service Officer appointed to assist veterans in the community. Commissioner Chandler-Henry moved to approve the resolution concerning the appointment of Carolyn Schneider as Eagle County's Assistant Veterans Service Officer. Commission McQueeney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2. 2021 Annual Wildfire Operating Plan Birch Barron, Emergency Management Executive Summary: The Eagle County Wildfire Annual Operating Plan outlines roles and responsibilities, standard operating procedures, and agreed upon policies between fire districts, county government, the State of Colorado, and federal partners during a wildfire response. This plan is developed and approved collaboratively on a yearly basis to help guide wildfire response in Eagle County. This plan is intended to be used as a non-binding tool to aid in the cooperative response. Mr Barron reviewed the Wildfire Annual Operating Plan. The 2021 plan would be adopted and signed by the Board, Sheriffs Office, Colorado Division of Fire Prevention&Control, and Federal Land Management Agency. Wildfire remained a critical concern. The changes from this plan compared to last year's plan were very minimal. He also mentioned that there was a wildfire mitigation program offered by the county. Commissioner McQueeney moved to approve the 2021 Annual Wildfire Operation Plan. Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. 3. 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 were no issues related to COVID-19 to review. Work Session - Eagle County Room 1. Climate Action Plan Update John Gitchell, Sustainable Communities Executive Summary:The Climate Action Plan for the Eagle County Community was adopted in 2016 by Eagle County and other local governments and organizations. In 2017 the Climate Action Collaborative was established to engage local governments and other community partners,and to provide structure and resources to achieve emission reduction targets. The Climate Action Plan was updated in 2020 with an accelerated timeline to reduce county-wide emissions, and to better align with local, state and federal policies, goals and initiatives. This work session will provide an update on the Climate Action Plan, current priorities, and strategies for implementation through the Climate Action Collaborative. 3 03/09/2021 2. Eagle Valley Community Foundation Update Rhea Silverkorn,Administration The Eagle Valley Community Foundation would like to meet with the Eagle County Commissioners to provide and update on the following items: • New Executive Leadership • Use of County grant funding for COVID-19 Relief • Program Updates-The Community Market,MIRA • EVCF Strategic Planning Process and Vision Attendees: Melina Valsecia, Executive Director Laura Hartman, Director of Operations Susie Davis, Director of Community Impact 3. Review of the 1st Supplemental Budget 2021 Jill Klosterman,Finance Executive Summary: BoCC will be reviewing the 1st Supplemental request on March 9th. Public notice will be completed on March l lth and the request for these additional appropriations will be made in the March 16th public meeting. Planning File 1. Edwards RiverPark PUD -Combined Sketch/Preliminary Plan, Zone Change and 1041 Permit Application- 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, Eagle County Staff Planner stated that she would be providing a quick overview for those people who hadn't been paying attention at the last seven hearings. This was the eighth hearing on the file. Today the applicant would be providing a few remarks and there would be time for public comment. The file would be tabled until March 23, 2021 because there were more people who wished to provide public comment on this application. Dominic Mauriello stated that he would be reviewing a memorandum dated March 3, 2021. There were several members of the team with him today. Before he began he wanted to follow up on the question of the square footage for the commercial area. It was asked at the last meeting if the hotel square footage was included in the 55,300 sq. ft. of the total core commercial area, and the answer was yes, it was included. The Inn at the Riverwalk 4 03/09/2021 had 59 hotel rooms,versus the proposed condominium hotel they had where the average unit size was 900 sq. ft. The memorandum outlined the details of the proposed public benefits. These benefits included affordable resident housing, childcare facilities,transportation,public recreational opportunities, infrastructure improvements, and preservation of lands. On-site,workforce housing included 100 deed restricted rental units. A traffic impact fee, expected to generate $2 million,would be contributed for road improvements. A Highway 6 roundabout was to be built in the first phase and a new ECO transit stop at Lake Creek Road, including bike parking and bus shelters. The applicant was also proposing to provide 2,500 sq. ft. of childcare facilities within the project with a lease rate of$1 per year. A 0.2 percent real estate transfer fee on all residential units sales would fund improvements to wildlife habitat, both on and off-site,wetlands and riparian improvements, and environmental education. Off-site improvements included$250,000 of landscaping added to the Eagle River Preserve and along Highway 6 to help further mitigate the views of the development. Commissioner Scherr stated that the board's decision would be based on the standards. Public comments were most useful when they focused on how the development did or did not meet the standards. Personal opinions were irrelevant, and he asked that comments be polite and respectful. Commissioner McQueeney stated that it was helpful to understand what the community felt about the project but the board had to consider the standards when making a decision on the application. Commissioner Chandler-Henry stated that the board had received a lot of comments in writing, and she sensed a nervousness that maybe the board wasn't paying attention to all the comments. She assured folks that the board reviewed every comment, and she thanked everyone for their input. Chairman Scher-opened public comment. Don Welch,residing at 55 Spring Place in Edwards, spoke. He'd been a resident of the county for over 53 years. He thanked the board for their consideration and focus on the application. He believed the number one question was whether the application met the intent of the Edwards Area Community Plan. Did it compliment the small town feel, did it have the pedestrian size and scope, did it meet the quality of life issues or do anything to protect wildlife? Locals were the ones affected by these decisions, and the Edwards Community Plan was that local voice. He asked that the board hold true to their comments and deny the Edwards RiverPark. Sarah Millett, Lake Creek Road resident, spoke. She opposed the Edwards RiverPark development proposal in its current state and asked that the board listen to the Edwards constituents who were overwhelmingly against the project. She believed that all future planning and development should align with the vision set forth in the Edwards Area Community plan. She expressed concern for traffic and believed the increased traffic would create more congestion and bottle-necking and make it impossible for some folks without traffic lights to turn onto Highway 6. The project would inflict irreversible harm on the wildlife in Edwards. Evan DeMuth spoke. He asked the board to stick with their plan to stand by the community and follow through on their promise of backing up their constituents' views. He believed there had been an initial failure to hold public meetings back in December of last year. The project was out of compliance with the Edwards Community Plan, and if the file was voted for, it would be out of compliance with the election promises made by the commissioners to vote on their behalf. He understood that private landowners had the right to develop their properties but to what extent. He believed the proposal was way outside of the developable rights. Dwight Merriman spoke. He stated that he had lived in the area since 2010. He believed that the development would impact Edwards quality of life. He enjoyed wildlife and believed the property was vital for elk and other wildlife. The traffic was already bad in the area. This level of traffic was dangerous to those who walked or rode their bikes. He stated that the area was a high fire shed area as indicated on the county website. The noise and pollution in the valley would be disturbing and unwelcome. He cared deeply about the area and asked that the board deny the application. Chris Neuswanger believed the proposed public benefits were self-serving to the development. The community did not need these types of benefits. The employee housing was going to be outpaced by the number of jobs created by the development and the resulting spending from the people who visit. The price for all these benefits was the monetary price paid by the taxpayers and loss of ambiance. This development would change Edwards forever. He asked the board to listen to its constituents as they promised to do when they were elected. 5 03/09/2021 Matt Szmyd spoke. He thanked the Eagle planning staff and commissioners. He'd been impressed how staff had handled the process. He elaborated on the applicants proposed public benefits and the negative impacts. He was hopeful the information would provide support for the commissioners to make the decision to deny the application that would have a negative impact on their community. The proposal would destroy a critical wildlife corridor, destroy the Lake Creek rural character area,and destroy the small town feel of Edwards. He asked the board to deny the application because it was not inline with the Edwards Community Plan. Joanna Kerwin, Edwards resident, spoke. She did not believe that the benefits outweighed the cost to the community. She spoke about the lack of public comment on the initial 2017 application. Malia Cox-Nobrega spoke. She stated that she was asked to read something on behalf of Doug DeChant, a local architect who lived in Singletree for many years and now lived in Cordillera. Mr. DeChant's comments indicated that he supported the project and disagreed with the comments regarding density. Ms. Cox-Nobreg stated that she was personally excited about the project and the community benefits. Jay Nobrega spoke in favor of the plan. The applicant had gone to great lengths to comply with the county's requirements. The public benefits were amazing. The community benefits far outweighed anything else. Ron Mastriana, Lake Creek Road resident, spoke. He believed the development was too excessive for the parcel of land. The vision of Edwards was to be a small town. All of the benefits don't benefit anyone outside of the developer. He expressed concern for emergency vehicles. The proposed housing did not serve the development. He asked that the board reduce the proposal to 250 units. Kristen Sofgen spoke. She was a part time Edwards resident, living in Florida. She supported the project. She believed it provided an opportunity for her and her husband to live in Edwards. Keegan Stinnett spoke. He was a new community member. The affordable housing component was attractive and would have a positive impact. He disagreed with the comments made regarding wildlife. The road improvements were needed and the developer was going above and beyond. He hoped that the board would approve the project. Martin Stein spoke in opposition. He didn't believe the project was compatible with the Master Plan. There would be a substantial impact to wildlife. Kerry Wallace spoke. She echoed and underscored the comments made by the previous speakers. She spoke about the increase in traffic, and in the event of a wildfire,there were only single exits from many of the developments on Highway 6. She requested denial of the application. Stacey Boltz spoke. She spoke in opposition to the application. She lived in Creamery Ranch. She worked in land development for several years and understood the mistakes. She spoke about Highway 6 traffic during certain hours of the day. A new roundabout would be nice,but the added traffic from the development would make the traffic worse. The fire evacuation plan and the high fire shed area was a concern. The proposed amphitheater would create noise pollution. She encouraged the board to do the right thing. Donald Gogel spoke. He spoke in opposition to the development. He lived on Lake Creek Road. The area was quiet with low density,a respect for nature, and a small town vibe. He was not opposed to development on the parcel,but the current proposal would create a large amount of transient traffic and significantly increase travel time. It would disrupt wildlife, and the effects would last forever. The voice of the community had been clear, and he asked that the board vote against the proposal. Michael Hazard,44 year resident of the community, spoke. He asked that the board consider the benefits and facts. The important thing was this was the first step. He suggested that the board listen to and stick to the facts. He supported the project. Anni Davis spoke. She thanked everyone for their work on the project. The biggest problem for her was the massiveness of the project. It didn't make sense to put retail development down by the river. Paul Gotheff spoke. He believed that the proposed commercial space was too large. He was opposed to the overall project. Jeanne Hauff,Lake Creek resident, spoke. She expressed concern for the impacts to water supply,wildlife and traffic. Mr. Mauriello stated that the project was 10.14 units per acre and the density was clustered into one section of the property. The applicant was not proposing a significant retail operation The majority of the square footage 6 03/09/2021 was in conference rooms and restaurant floor area. He believed the project was very much in conformance with the Edwards Community Plan. If people reviewed the PUD Guidelines approved at Sketch Plan,they would see that this proposal was consistent with the plan. The percentage of rental versus the percentage of home ownership being proposed was the most significant difference. Chairman Scherr closed public comment. Commissioner McQueeney asked for clarification about the criticism made regarding lack of public comment . Beth Oliver,Eagle County Attorney, stated that she disagreed with the gentleman who stated that there were no public hearings held in December. She stated that there had been public hearings held on a Planning Commissioner level and on a BoCC level on this file. Public comment was not taken at every meeting but the hearing was viewed as a continuation of one hearing, so even though the hearing was spread out over a number of days, it was still one public hearing open for public comment at specific, appropriate times. Commissioner McQueeney moved to table the file until March 23,2021 Commissioner Chandler-Henry seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous. OF f4Q There being no further business b • �"""'�: 0 ,the meeting was adjourned until March 16,2021. Attest: . DO lerk to the Board Chairman 7 03/09/2021