HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/03/95
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EAGLE, COLORADO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869
PUBLIC HEARING
OCTOBER 3, 1995
Present: James Johnson, Jr.
Johnnette Phillips
Sara J. Fisher
Chairman
corrmissioner
Clerk to the Board
Absent: George "Bud" Gates
Corrmissioner
This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented
to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration:
PD-141-95-AF3-HOMESTEAD, FILING 3
Kathy Eastley, Planning Technician, presented file number PD-141-95-AF3,
Homestead, Filing 3, Lots 8,9 & 10. She stated the purpose of this
application is to vacate lots 8, 9 and 10 of the Homestead, Filing 3 to
create a single lot, Lot 8, from the area of the three lots. The PUD Guide
for Filing 3 of the Homestead lists the specific zoning criteria for each lot
which includes not only the use allowed, Multi-family and Four-plex, but also
the maximum number of units and the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio. She
stated a PUD Amendment is a companion file to this application, and upon
approval will allow for the sum of the currently approved zoning designations
for lots 8, 9 and 10 to be applied to revised Lot 8.
Staff did receive one response to their requests stating he does not
want to see the density increased. Ms. Eastley stated this would not happen.
Staff also received comments from the Eagle Valley Planning Commission who
approved the rezonins.
Commissioner Phlllips moved to approve file PD-141-95-AF3, Homestead,
Filing 3, Lots 8, 9, and 10 including Staff findings.
Chairman Johnson seconded the motion. Of the two voting Corrmissioners,
the vote was declared unanimous. corrmissioner Gates was not present at this
hearing.
PD-141-95-A4-HOMESTEAD, FILING 3, LOTS 8, 9 & 10
Kathy Eastley presented file number PD-141-95-A4, Homestead, Filing 3,
Lots 8,9 & 10. She stated this file is the companion to the above
presentation.
corrmissioner Phillips moved to approve file PD-141-95-A4, Homestead,
Filing 3, Lots 8, 9, and 10.
Chairman Johnson seconded the motion. Of the two voting corrmissioners,
the vote was declared unanimous.
ARROWHEAD @ VAIL, FILING 13
Kathy Eastley presented Arrowhead at Vail, Filing 13, Lots 9 and 12,
Tract C. She stated this is a two part aPI?lication. Ms. Eastley stated the
first part is a development area plan appllcation. Prior to the issuance of
a building permit in this area or approval of the Final Plat for all or part
of the Development area, the Eagle County Planning Corrmission and County
Corrmissioners must approve that development area plan.
Staff identified issues and concerns being flood plane and treatment of
the creek and the riparian area. Staff questioned ownership of the tract and
recorrmended ownership be consistent throughout the development with either
the homeowner's association or the metropolitan district maintaining
ownership. She stated the applicant has requested the ownership remain with
the homeowner's and an easement be provided to the metropolitan district.
Ms. Eastley spoke to zoning and lack of a comprehensive site plan
review. The Eagle and Colorado Valley Planning Corrmission heard this file at
their public meeting on September 20, 1995 and recommended approval of this
1
development area plan incorporating staffs findings and conditions 1 through
3.
Chris Cares, representing the applicant, believes they are in
conformance on three of the four issues. Mr. Cares believes the ownership
issue still remains and they are prepared to put the entire stream track
under a maintenance contract.
Mary Jo Berenato, Deputy County Attorney, asked if the Service Plan
allows them to maintain the flood plain area.
Mr. Cares responded yes.
Ms. Eastley stated the ownership was to be conveyed to the homeowner's
association.
Mr. Cares responded the association is a sinsle ownership and will be
treated consistently and public areas surround thlS track of stream. Mr.
Cares showed the stream corridor and the parcel on the map. He stated they
have desisnated the corridor and flood plain on the map and the development
corridor lS restricted.
Mrs. Berenato asked then if the local homeowner's own it and srant an
easement. She questioned the difference in the metropolitan distrlct owning
it.
Pat Mayre, representing the applicant, stated the metropolitan district
will not maintain outside of the 100 year drainage area.
Mr. Cares stated there is a similar issue in the village and they are
proposing the same concept as is there. It would not be fragmented ownership
as there are two separate associations.
Tom Ragonetti, representing the applicant, stated the issue is not
fragmented ownership but maintenance of the corridor and they believe care lS
the issue.
Mrs. Berenato asked what happens if the homeowner's association
dissolves. What happens if the smaller associations dissolve, would it
convert to the larger homeowners association.
Mr Ragonetti stated the consistency of management is there and will thus
achieve the County's objectives.
Pat Mayre stated there are water rights associated within the ditch.
Discussion continued on ownershiI? of the flood plain.
Chairman Johnson asked if the malntenance is merely to maintain flows or
if an effort will be made to reI?air and protect the area.
Mr. Cares responded the prlmary concern is to provide free flow of the
stream.
Chairman Johnson stated he is concerned about the issue of the
homeowners association no lonser being able to take care of the maintenance.
Mr. Ragonetti responded lf the association dissolves they can assign the
responsibilities over to the master homeowners association.
Corrmissioner Phillips asked staff if this was an acceI?table alternative.
Sid Fox responded it may be acceptable but staffs posltion is to achieve
maintenance of the corridor. Mr. Fox stated they do expect development both
downstream and upstream and rather than havins fragmented ownership, they
would like to see overall control and ownershlp of the property. Mr. Fox
stated what the applicant is proposing may be acceptable.
Mrs. Berenato questioned the issue of public traffic.
Mr. Fox responded this is where the mountain funnels into a narrow point
into the village. The plan has been clarified with the road going to the
west and the trail to the east. Mr. Fox stated there will be some demand for
recreation use and it will have to be managed carefully.
Mrs. Berenato questioned then if the public would be able to use that
easement.
Mr. Ragonetti responded there are two public areas and this narrow
stretch could be jeopardized with public use. One way to prohibit public use
is to restrict the use to the owners within the development. McCoy Creek, he
reminded the Board, is not a free flowing stream year round and requires
considerable maintenance.
Mrs. Berenato questioned the position of the applicant and the use open
to the public.
Mr. Cares resI?onded the logical public use areas are at each end. This
one section, he malntains is very fragile.oCommissioner Phillips questloned condition number 4.
Sid Fox responded the issue has been addressed to Staff's request and
will be done as a plat note.
2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EAGLE, COLORADO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869
corrmissioner Phillips moved to aPI?rove Arrowhead at Vail,
Lots 9 and 12, Tract C with the conditlons agreed to by staff.
of tract H will be conveyed to the homeowners associatlon that
those particular lots.
Chairman Johnson seconded the motion.
In discussion, Chairman Johnson stated their responsibility to protect
areas that need protection is as much their responsibility as making sure
public areas are available to all.
Chairman Johnson called for the question on the motion. Of the two
voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous.
Filing 13,
The ownership
pertains to
PD-139-95-AF1-ARROWHEAD @ VAIL, FILING 13, 6TH AMENDMENT
Kathy Eastley presented file number PD-139-95-AFl, Arrowhead at Vail,
Filing 13, 6th Amendment. She stated the purpose of this application is to
amend lots 9, 12, Tract C and tract 2, of Arrowhead at Vail, Filing 13 to
create Arrowhead at Vail, Sixth Amendment to Filing 13, Lots 26, 27, 28 and
Tracts G, H, and 2 as well as to create certain easements. Staff recorrmended
this matter be tabled until October 18, 1995 as they are waiting for a
subdivision improvements agreement.
corrmissioner Phillips moved to table file PD-139-95-AFl, Arrowhead at
Vail, Filing 13, 6th Amendment to October 18, 1995.
Chairman Johnson seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners
the vote was declared unanimous.
G-80-95-FULFORD ROAD VACATION
George Roussos, County Engineer, presented file number G-80-95, Fulford
Road Vacation. He read Staff findings for the Board. He stated there must
be legal acceptance of the roadways to County standards. Mr. Roussos stated
the County has never assessed anyone for the repairs of the road. Public
access is a major item of concern. He stated the townsite is a historic area
and the there is a potential court case. The Fulford homeowners' association
opposes this road vacation. Referrals were made to the adjacent homeowners
and one property owner responded they objected as it would set a president
and restrict access to other property and homeowners within the community.
Staff recommended denial of the petition as Fulford is a historical site
and should not have its plat altered and because the roads are public and
provide for access to most lots.
Floyd Demos, speaking on behalf of his parents who were present,
introduced his parents. He stated they are here to terminate a law suit
currently in process. There is a 12 inch hydroelectric waterline in their
backyard. He referred to a map he provided to the Board and the depiction of
the lots marked on the map. He showed the public road and the roadway as it
comes into Fulford. He stated his parents own land on both sides of the
creek. In June of 1988, they arrived in Fulford to find that Mr. Turgeon was
installing the pipeline.
Frank Turgeon, area resident, responded he had obtained approval.
Mr. Demos stated he contacted all owners possible to find out if
permission had been given. Two months later, Mr. Demos stated, Mr. Turgeon
received approval for the pipeline.
Mr. Demos referred to photographs of the house and the outhouse and
related the outhouse had a glass door as it is a very private place. He also
presented photos showing the destruction of the land where the pipeline lies.
In considerins a vacation, Mr. Demos stated they wrote a test with two
questions. Wlll this area be used for access to public areas in the future.
The second question is whether the land will be used for public utilities or
will it be detrimental to the public in the future. The portion they are
asking be vacated dead ends at their barn. Mr. Demos discussed the lssue of
fire fighting and suggested this would not be a concern. Mr. Demos suggested
the people of Fulford develop a plan.
Mr. Demos believes the vacation will not change the nature of their
property nor will it increase commercial use of Fulford. He believes it
would not be detrimental to the historic sites of Fulford or their buildings.
3
Mr. Demos stated they have left their property in a very natural state and
the greatest concern to habitat is that the creek runs through the property.
Vacating first street, he believes, will not be the cause of any damage. Mr.
Demos believes they can preserve history while using their property to their
desire.
Mr. Demos returned to the discussion of the law suit. He stated they
would agree to no more than three cabins on the areas they have. On the
existing lot on which they have built, they will not build ~ything
additionally. In talking about the settlement they would llke to have some
of the property given to the grandchildren. Mr. Demos stated as well they
are not developers.
Bob Loeffler, Ass't. County Attorney, referred to the la~ suit issue
stating they have received a copy of the same map of the sectlon of Fulford
and has color coded the map. He explained the property on the map and the
areas claimed to be owned by the Demos. He explained the cross hatch is the
part being proposed to vacate, which is less than what they are claiming in
the law suit. He stated they are claiming they have rights by prescription
of ownership. Mr. Loeffler spoke to the potential asreement posed between
Mr. Diemoz and Mr. Turgeon and stated the deed restrlction must be recorded
as to what is agreed upon if a vacation is allowed. Mr. Loeffler stated if
the road is not vacated, the Diemoz, Turgeons and the County will go back to
litigation.
WaYne Suffman, property owner in Fulford, discussed the concerns of
utilities not knowing what the future will be. Utilities someday may need to
go down those streets. Public access is essential and especially along the
creek. They have a purrp they float along the creek. They have enjoyed the
open streets, beins able to go anywhere they want to go. The president set
by this will make lt impossible to get around and there is potential for
additional law suits. The historic character goes along with the 1985 plat.
As far as the pipeline goes, it has no business in this. Where else would
you put a pipeline if not in a street. The question here today is the
streets.
Mr. Loeffler spoke to Mr. Turgeon's water rights and to the water he is
taking out of the creek for his pipeline. Secondly, the hydroelectric water
line may have prompted the law suit but the vacation would have no effect on
the water line.
Alisha Holder, property owner in Fulford, stated the area being asked
for vacation is a matter of dollar and cents. She believes this is more than
a family concern as they are not really there that often. Ms. Holder stated
this did go to court previously but was dismissed at that time. Ms. Holder
referred to a meeting earlier with a previous Board of Corrmissioners and that
the County stated they did not want the roads. She again questioned the true
reason behind this vacation and believes the desire is to obtain additional
property for building.
Ed Grange, property owner in Fulford since the mid 1960s, stated he has
known the Diemoz for a Ions time. He believes Fulford to be a very special
place for those who have sltes there. It was plated in the 1890's and they
desire to leave it much as it has always been. He believes this proposal
would set some very dangerous precedents for the future and the checkerboard
effect would be detrimental. Mr. Grange referred to the conveyance of land
to the Fulford Homeowner's Association and they are the best organization to
maintain the streets of the community.
Linda Pankuch, property owner in Fulford, stated they spend nine months
of tl:1e yea~ there. She ~inds it very turmoiling to go there now. At a town
meetlng thlS year Mr. Delmoz and famlly were there but for the first time in
five years. She said there are plenty of streets that would enhance the
property of the various owners. Fulford is a special place and the Turgeons
have onlY,eru:anced tl:1e c;trea for tl:1e people who live there.
COmmlSS10ner PhllllpS asked lf the roads have been determined to be
private roads.
l':'tr. Loef~le~ responded there has been no bindins decision. When the
~awslflt was dlsffilssed there had been no public or prlvate dedication. There
lS,llterally no ruling at all. Eagle County does some maintenance on the
maln roa<;l and the County has taken the position they are public roads.
Chalrman Johnson questioned the law and his interpretation in 1895 if
the,roa<;ls were <;leclared public. Since then, the law now requires a public
dedlcatlon of rlghts-of-way and these roads have not been built to county
4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EAGLE, COLORADO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869
standards.
Mr. Loeffler voiced perhaps in 1895 the roads did meet the standards.
He reiterated being a public road does not require the County to maintain it.
In this particular law suit there are two very different opinions as to what
the laws were in 1895. Mr. Loeffler stated the cases they have reviewed have
been inaI?plicable in this case.
Chalrman Johnson believes that what is in the best interest of the
public is what is important here. Reducing the density is a desire as well
but doing so within individual law suits is not appropriate. If the mapping
needs to be corrected it should be done as a whole. Zoning also needs to be
done by appropriately going through the land use process.
Commissioner Phlllips asked about ownership of some adjacent property.
She asked if they have a problem with the vacation.
Mr. Diemoz responded they are in support of it.
Mr. Loeffler clarified the portion being requested would include the
property owned by the Hickies and they are probably happy with that.
Corrmissioner Phillips exclaimed she would like to have a determination
of whether the roads are public or private.
Mr. Mienoz stated theoretically they could put eleven lots on there but
that it would never happen.
Mr. Grange called the attention of the Board to a copy of the plat.
They know where the streets are.
Bill Holder, area property owner, stated there are not many streets in
Fulford but the main road is within the road right of way for the most part.
There is a drinking water pipeline which does follow a number of the streets
and is within the right of way in most cases. The lots and blocks were
redefined around 20 years ago. He has walked on many road right of ways that
do not have roads on them and he would ve:::y much oppose this vacation which
would deny people access to the creek. ThlS would set a president that would
change the flavor of Fulford. Access is very important in Fulford and the
road right of ways provide access allover town. Mr. Holder stated he has
not seen the deed to their property and questions Jim's inclusion of the
roads in their property. He referred to the property tax notices and the
reference to the properties by lot and block. The pipeline, according to Mr.
Holder, is a completely different matter. The people of Fulford want to
maintain the access into town. Mr. Holder stated there are two issues, one
being the ownership of the roads and the second being the vacation of the
roads. Its to the best interest to most of the people of Fulford to keep the
roads open.
Mr. Roussos brousht out a map showing the four lots in question and the
location of the drinklng water pipeline and the Turgeons pipeline.
Mr. Loeffler responded there are not alot of standards, and that is
noted. There is only one standard in the state statutes and it is that no
road can be vacated lf it leaves any adjoining land without public access.
Secondly, this petition is only for the vacation. The County has taken the
position that these are public roads.
Mr. Mienoz responded to the statement the creek has never been dried up.
It has. The pipeline has nothing to do with this. Mr. Mienoz questioned
Scandias transfer of the streets.
Mr. Loeffler responded Scandia quick claimed their rights to the
streets, if indeed they have rights.
Commissioner Phillips moved to deny file number G-80-95, Fulford Road
Vacation.
Chairman Johnson seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners,
the vote was declared unanimous.
LEVEL OF SERVICE ON EAGLE COUNTY ROADWAYS
George Roussos, County Engineer and Keith Montag, Community Development
Director, presented the next item on the agenda, the level of service on
Eagle County Roadways.
Mr. Montag stated they are here today as they are in the process of
redrafting the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Hand in hand they are
developing a CIP, Capital Improvements Plan to assess the needs of the
5
roadways and the levels of service throughout the County. There are six
levels of service A - F. Mr. Montag referred to a memo which was discussed
with the Board on April 18, 1995. Mr. Montag stated the recommendation of
the memo was the level C for the roadway system and level D for
intersections. Lee, Scott and Cleary have responded to the questions posed
to them in April. Having received that information, they are now preI?ared
to have the Board concur with the recorrmendation so they can proceed wlth the
plan.
George Roussos stated they are currently operating at levels A and B
throughout most of the County. The standard used for design in most of the
County is a level of service C. Lee, Scott and Cleary have set standards in
rural Colorado and Easle County believes that to be an appropriate level.
Jim Kunkel, presldent of Johnson and Kunkel Inc. and County Surveyor,
stated he agrees with developing a standard for the County and the proposal
is close to what he would proI?ose. What he is concerned about is the
standards would be enforced wlthout any consideration of the particular
areas. This standard says when the road reaches a 38 - 40~ traffic pattern,
the road must go to four lanes. There are various considerations that make
up the different standards and on two lane roads these must include but not
be limited to traffic and access. Mr. Kunkel further discussed the different
levels of service and the conditions of those. In many cases, he thinks,
this is restricting to traffic and doesn't believe the County would want to
build additional lanes to meet the level of service determined. Judgement
must be used as well. He proposed the roadways be level of service C except
during peak hours where level of service D would be acceptable. He is
concerned with the difference of level of service C for roads and levels of
service D for intersections. Maintaining roads would be questionable. He
states he is in support of the general thrust of this proposal.
Chairman Johnson asked for an example of a County controlled access road
in Eagle County.
Mr. Kunkel responded Squaw Creek Road would be an example with only a
few accesses along the way. Instead of having all the access right on the
street there is controlled access. He is not sure of any real examples right
now but there may be some in the future. Access points should be one every
half mile or so.
Chairman Johnson asked about continuing to build additional width or
lanes in lieu of mass transit and other means.
Mr. Kunkel responded that is true but even with buss traffic and mass
transI?ortation there is still a concern and the Engineer staff must use
additlonal judgements in addition to the level of service selected.
Mr. Loeffler questioned Mr. Kunkel's point of setting a different level
between roadways and intersections. Mr. Kunkel responded the intersections
is where the delays are during a peak hour period. Traffic engineers focus
their attention to those areas. The only way to improve the traffic on a
large stretch of road is additional lanes. Mr. Kunkel stated the State
Highway will not upgrade roads to level C as they are dealing with levels E
and F. Mr. Kunkel said they are shooting for two levels above, which is a
good goal, but they must take into account judgement for the particular area.
Charlie Wick, representing Adam's Rib, attempted to explain a situation
which would involve that proj ect . Mr. Wick stated there is alot of
difference between the El Paso standard and the Colorado Springs standard.
He doesn't believe they should be portrayed as the same type of standard. He
questioned if the thirtieth hour condition should be one on which a large
amount of money is expended. Mr. Wick showed a chart which depicted the
difference between a two lane and four lane road and the capacities of
traffic. He expressed a situation at ultimate build out and peak hour
conditions which would drop the roadway to a level D. If the same road is
four lane, the level will move to A. He again stressed during peak hour
conditions, you do not necessarily meet the standard set or spend the dollars
to accomplish that standard. He requested the Board have some flexibility in
the standards and not to make them absolute.
Chairman Johnson stated he is confused. He referred to the memo from
Lee, Scott and Cleary and their recommendation.
Mr. Wick stated he had seen those and they had perhaps changed from 1994
to 1995.
Chairman Johnson indicated that a level of service "C" would still
accommodate the traffic in a peak hour condition.
6
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EAGLE, COLORADO
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869
Jim Kunkel stated the numbers they are using are under perfect
condi tions which you just never get.
George Roussos referred to Mr. Wick's and Mr. Kunkel's requested need
for flexibility. He stated the County functions with flexibility in mind.
This is to serve as a guide allowing the opportunity to use Engineering
judgement. Adding lanes is not the only means of improving traffic systems.
Management of the roadways takes into account many different items.
Establishing a level of service does or should provide the guidelines needed
for good construction and service.
Mr. Loeffler asked if the County now has an adopted level of service.
Mr. Roussos responded the only place he has seen it formally established
is in the Adam's Rib sketch plan.
Mr. Loeffler asked if setting this standard would apply to future
development or to those now in existence. Mr. Roussos responded currently
all County roads now are either level of service C or D.
Robert Warner, Warner Construction, stated in working with George
Roussos he has found him to be reasonable and understanding. He does not
want his hands to be tied by the requirements of level service sI?ecification.
He wonders if addressing the intersections specifically and staYlng out of
the roads may be a better consideration. The thirtieth hour mayor may not
make sense. He questions if there are other standards or perhaps being upper
class and meeting it only a portion of the time. He also questioned adding
units on a road that kicks in the traffic increase and thus changes the level
of service.
Rick Plyman, area resident, stated it seems that some peak hour delays
are understood and corrmon for people to deal with. A peak hour standard
makes sense to him giving the Engineers the tools. He believes there are
improvements that can be made to keep up the level of service without a great
deal of construction or cost. He questions the stopping of development when
roadways may be impacted by small developments. How do those costs get
shared?
Dan Cockley, area resident, agrees with the development of a different
standard for peak hour volume rather than the 99~ of the time and believes
there should be the flexibility.
Mr. Loeffler stated he had been with George when he had relaxed the
standards for an occasion. He asked if there were any specific examples
where a waiver of leeway or criteria the Engineering office might look at for
making exceptions.
Mr. Roussos responded instances of relaxed standards reflect the
sI?ecific roadway and the conditions present. He believes it would be
dlfficult to create a list that would take those all into consideration.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the establishment of a Level of
Service C for the Eagle County Roadway System and Level of Service D for
intersections.
Chairman Johnson seconded the motion. Of the two voting Corrmissioners
the vote was declared unanimous.
There being no further business to come before this Board, the meeting
was adjourned until October 10, 1995.
6?~
7
