No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/28/03 PUBLIC HEARING JANUARY 28, 2003 Present: Michael Gallagher Tom Stone Am Menconi Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Teak J. Simonton Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn into an Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on pending litigation pertaining to potential zoning violation of Get Hi Gallery and Paul Dike and the Local Government Interveners, which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402 (4)(b). Also, for the purpose of providing direction and receiving legal advice on negotiations with the River District for the purchase of water which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 26-4-402 (4)(a) and (e) and concerning negotiations with the water authority and School District concerning Berry Creek water. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9: 18 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of January 27,2003, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of January 7, 2003 C) Resolution 2003-010, Concerning the ratification of an appointment by the Pitkin County Commissioners to the Basalt Library District Board of Trustees D) Resolution 2003-012, concerning appointments to the Emergency Telephone Service Authority Board E) Resolution 2003-013, concerning appointments to the Eagle Valley Library District Board of Trustees F) Resolution 2003-011, authorizing the issuance by Eagle County, Colorado, of the 1 01-28-2003 Eagle Library Districts Limited Tax General Obligation Refunding Bonds G) Eagle County Head Start Policies H) Agreement between the County of Eagle and John Collins, for services as Special County Attorney to Health and Human Services. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorneys Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated .there are no additions or revisions on the Agenda. Chairman Gallagher asked about the issuance of County Bonds to pay back Library Bonds John Dunn, Eagle County Library District; stated the Board authorized the issuance of bonds because the Library District is subordinate to the County, the Library District functions only through this Board. The best bid was submitted by Zions First National Banle The interest rate is 3.035636. The savings to the Library District and the taxpayers as a result will be $527,212.50. Because there is a savings there is no election required. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Boards consideration: Resolution 2003-014, in the Matter of Amending Chapter II, Article 3, Table 3-320 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, November 1998 (Eagle County File No. LUR-00044). The Board considered the Applicants request on October 29,2002. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-014, in the matter of amending Chapter IT, Article 3, Table 3-320 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, November 1998, file number LUR-00044. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2003-015, To Approve The Special Use Permit for American Gypsum (Eagle County File No. ZS-00071). The Board considered the Applicants request on January 7,2003 Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2003-015, to approve the Special Use Permit for American Gypsum, file number ZS-00071. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2003-017, Granting Extension of the Approval of the Sketch Plan for the Star Route Planned Unit Development (Eagle County File No. PDS-00025). The Board considered the Applicants request on January 14th, 2003. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-017, granting extension of the approval of the sketch plan for the Star Route PUD, file number PDS-00025. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2003-016, Supplementary Budget Mike Roeper, Finance Director, presented Resolution 2003-016, adopting a second supplementary budget and appropriation of anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2003, and authorizing the 2 01-28-2003 transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending accounts. Mr. Roeper stated the budget was to cover carryover items that did not get taken care of in 2002. The budget also included the addition of 50 acre feet of water rights. The amount of this appropriation is $4,924,841.00. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated most ofthis is carry over's from projects not able to be completed last year and are continuing into this year. There is also $275,000.00 for Cooley Mesa Road Design Services and a $41,016.00 settlement with the Town of Avon. Commissioner Menconi asked for clarification on the Berry Creek line item on the budget. Mr. Ingstad believed that it was finishing the recreation fields. Rich Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, stated it includes those items not able to be finished in the winter, which includes the tot lot, shelter, equipment for tot lot, trees, sod and seed for the sight. Commissioner Menconi inquired as to whether or not this amount would stay within the 1.6 million set aside in last years budget. He asked the Finance Department to provide a total amount that has been spent on recreation regarding the Berry Creek Fifth filing. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2003-016, adopting a second supplementary budget and appropriation of anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2003, and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending accounts. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Selection and Ranking of Airport Tower Construction Contractors Rich Cunningham stated the next item on the agenda was selection and ranking of Airport Tower Construction Contractors and authorization to staff to begin contract negotiations. Mr. Cunningham asked that the Board choose between the three top firms. He stated they were Shaw Construction, GE Johnson and Hyder Construction. He also asked if the building permit fees could be waved of approximately $13,000. Commissioner Stone suggested a ranking as follows: GE Johnson first, Shaw Construction second and Hyder Construction third. This ranking is based on total fees, change orders and general conditions. These numbers were a bit misleading. It is prudent to compare the three columns. He stated that Shaw has done a good job for the County in the past with the terminal construction. It made sense for Shaw to do the extension to the terminal because they had experience with this project, and the County was in a hurry to finish the work. However when Shaw presented a proposal for the tower they emphasized fast tracking the project. He stated he did not believe that fast tracking was the most important consideration. He stated that GE Johnson had experience building towers and Shaw did not. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Cunningham about the column labeled as fees and general conditions cost. Mr. Cunningham explained that he added together the cost plus fees and plus the costs of general conditions; such as the cost of on site supervisors and engineers. He then averaged them to come up with the ranking. In the fees column, that is the total number based on the total construction costs ofthe project. If the costs came out to 1.65 million then the County would pay the remaining fees. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was any other basing to the ranking. 3 01-28-2003 Mr. Cunningham stated that there were not. Everyone that submitted bids was ranked based on their qualifications not the cost. In that ranking Shaw was number 1, GE Johnson was second and Hyder was third. They were also looked at on a cost basis. Chairman Gallagher was not available for the initial presentations by the contractors. But based on the ranking done by staff, and if Commissioner Stones requirements would be met, he recommends that the County go with Shaw. Commissioner Menconi ranked Shaw first, GE second and Hyder third. The fact that Shaw was a local company was a strong consideration. Commissioner Stone expressed the need for Shaw to be given very clear direction and he hoped that Mr. Cunningham would be very clear with them about this. He felt there should be more consideration for project costs than fast track. Commissioner Menconi moved to rank Shaw Construction first, GE Johnson second, and Hyder Construction third, with the condition that Mr. Cunningham be involved with negotiations with sub- contractors. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved the building permit fees be waved for this project. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present at this time. Presentation of Donation, Down Payment Assistance Program Chairman Gallagher stated the next item was presentation of a $40,000 donation to the County for the Down Payment Assistance Program, from First Bank. Beverly Trout; Advisory Board Member, informed the Board that she has served on the committee for three years. Leslie Isom could not attend. Ms. Trout thanked the Board on her behalf. The committee has helped 110 households become homeowners and this would not have been possible without the Commissioners support. In all, over $1,000,000 has been lent related to this program. Kevin Armitage, First Bank of Vail, presented a check to Earl Weinright in the amount of $40,000. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Road Impact Fee Board. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 4 01-28-2003 Road Impact Fee Board Meeting Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, stated this is the third hearing for this request. The other hearing dates were December 10, 2002 and January 14, 2003. He stated there was a rezoning of Lot C-1 from Commercial Limited to Commercial General. Parcel 12 was already zoned Commercial General. This zoning brought consistency to these two lots. Eagle County Land Use Regulations require that a Special Use Permit be required for any commercial use exceeding 22,000 square feet of floor area. Since the proposed development was in excess of 50,000 square feet, it exceeded the maximum floor area allowed. Subsequent to that, earlier this month, there was an amended final plat approved that vacated the common property line between Lot C-1 and Parcel 12. The impact fees were assessed of $200,448.00. A credit was given back to the developer of$105,780, so the actual fee owed was about $94,667.00. This fee has been paid in protest. The building permit was issued, but the property owner is appealing the impact fee assessment. He stated the applicant feels that the Edwards Comer does not constitute new development and therefore should not be subject to Road Impact Fees. Staff believes this development does constitute new development, an increase in development hast been acknowledged. The total square footage allowed with the two separate lots would be 44,000 square feet, but is not a total 50,382 square feet on the combined lots. Commissioner Menconi inquired what might have occurred if the applicant had submitted a plan for 43,000 square feet. Mr. Montag stated that it would not have mattered. It still would have required a Special Use Permit. The re-plat, which allowed for a greater amount of square footage, does not qualify for exemption. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, commented that if there had not been a re-plat there would be no impact fee. Because the lots were re-platted with increased square footage the fee does apply. Commissioner Menconi asked ifthe additional 6,000 square feet constituted a traffic increase? Ms. Migchelbrink answered yes. Rick Mueller; applicant, stated that there was a new twist thrown in. He agrees that there was a previous subdivision and that there had been a re-plat. In 1997 the Fellsburg Study showed that there was a daily impact of 2,400 cars anticipated. A subsequent study indicated less traffic. The applicant was told by Paul Clarkson, former County Planner, that he wanted them to go from Commercial Limited to Commercial General. Based on the Fellsburg Study they are actually reducing the traffic impact. The zoning states that the developer would be exempt if there was no increase in traffic associated with the development. Ms. Migchelbrink stated that Mr. Mueller was comparing apples to oranges based on a study that guesstimated the traffic impact. He is comparing a theoretical report with and actual project. The only way to determine whether something requires an increase in traffic is to use the Land Use Regulations. With the increase in square footage it would indicate, according to the Land Use Regulations, it would result in an increase in traffic. The applicant cannot take a theoretical study and compare it to an actual building. Commissioner Menconi inquired as to whether the Board was to determine whether or not there would be a traffic impact. He asked if the applicant had not in fact re-platted, and used the two lots the way they were, he would be exempt. 5 01-28-2003 Ms. Migchelbrink stated she would agree. Commissioner Menconi asked if they are using the square footage or what the use will be, or is staff using both. Mr. Montag stated these numbers that are being presented are actual floor area. Mr. Mueller asked that ifthe fee runs with the land, why doesn't the 44,000 square footage also run with the land? Ifthe fee is imposed for a traffic increase based on a change in use the fee should be calculated based on the difference between the existing traffic generated and the new traffic generated. Chairman Gallagher asked if any fees had been paid on this piece of land? Mr. Mueller stated that there were a variety of fees that had been paid. The previous developer built the intersection and put the lights in. Ms. Migchelbrink stated that the applicant was referring to a section that allows for a coffee shop, restaurant and the associated traffic numbers according to the use. If this was to be a warehouse and then turned into a disco, the County could go back and reassess the impact fees with the change of use. In this instance he would have changed the use of the project and he would need to pay the difference. The applicant is talking about existing zoning. She stated the Regulations do not allow for a grey area. It is an all or nothing situation. When properties are re-platted they are subject to the road impact fees. Chairman Gallagher asked if fees had been paid before the imposition ofthe fees, there would be no credit? Ms. Migchelbrink confirmed this. She stated that she did not know exactly what had been paid for the intersection. She does not have the documents. This is irrelevant with relation to this parcel in terms of new development. He may have paid something but these fees would never have been called road impact fees. Mr. Mueller summarized they did not do a change in use on the property. They went from commercial to commercial. They did not ask for a special use. They did increase from commercial general to commercial limited. They did increase the allowable square footage. Chairman Gallagher asked ifthese Regulations were in place prior to final approval for the project, or preliminary or sketch plan approval. Mr. Montag stated that they were in place. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was proper notice given Mr. Montag confirmed that there was. John Goodman, Attorney representing the applicant, stated these subdivisions were previously approved. When the issue of whether or not this development would be subject to the employee housing requirements, there was no evidence presented related to direct impact on employee housing. The impact fees need to be fair and rationally differentiate between impacts. Commissioner Stone clarified that he was not referencing housing, he was referencing the fact that the road impact fees would be required at the time of application for a building permit. This application was for a zone change with greater floor area, which voids this application from previous applications. The Commissioners are not talking about guidelines but are talking about codified Regulations. Mr. Goodman stated he believed the opportunity is available to help them out. Commissioner Stone believed that this had been done and was the cause of his annoyance. He felt that this had already been discussed. He felt that they had reviewed the development in its entirety 6 01-28-2003 and had come to an agreement. Mr. Goodman believes that there have not been any new direct impacts with relation to this project. He referred to the Duncan study. The impact fee cannot be used to remedy an existing deficiency. He suggested that the Board look at other ways to remedy things and find a solution that makes sense for the applicant and the taxpayers. He suggested the potential cost of a legal remedy and the benefit of coming to consensus instead. Mr. Goodman walked the Board through some of the issues in the Regulations that related to their protest. He referred to some exemptions on page 4-102. He suggested a variance with acceptance of some of what they are requesting. Chairman Gallagher asked what the nature of the variance would be. Mr. Goodman thought it could be discussed on remand, a consideration on the total amount due. Ms. Migchelbrink responded to the original statement about road impact fees. The road impact fee is based on the rational nexus. She stated it is not incumbent on Eagle County to make a case by case exception. The Regulations have already looked into this nexus, the case has been made and the Regulation has been made. Mr. Montag stated in reviewing the Land Use Regulations in the contiguous parcel, it indicates that a platted subdivision does not constitute contiguous parcels. These parcels would not merge without re- platting. Mr. Goodman clarified some of the Chairmans questions about subdivisions and exemption. Mr. Montag stated he believes the re-plat that occurred is a subdivision. Mr. Goodman stated he believes that the combination of lots does not constitute a subdivision. He requested that the Board consider some discretion. Chairman Gallagher asked with that definition, is this a subdivision? Commissioner Menconi asked for an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone read a statement from Diane Mauriello regarding restrictions about the Land Use Regulations. Ms. Mauriello clarified the duties of the Board with regards to this issue and request. She responded the applicant has made certain arguments related to their positions. This is an appeal of a decision made by the Road Impact Committee. She related the questions for the Board are 1) is the Edwards Comer development a new subdivision or not? She reminded the Board that the impact fees that have been enacted were enacted with the authority of State Statutes. State Statutes have a different focus - more focus on is it new development. It is up to the Board to decide whether or not it is new development. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn into Executive Session to receive legal advice from County Attorney, pursuant to c.R.S. 24-6-402 (e). Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The Board returned from Executive Session. Chairman Gallagher asked the applicant to conclude the presentation. Mr. Mueller said he could not imagine that anyone could drive past the comer in question without understanding that the property would be developed as a commercial property. He would like to have consideration ofthe difference between the 44,000 and the 50,000 square feet. Commissioner Stone stated some findings would need to be made. The Board does not have authority to negotiate or waive a fee. There are a number of things that are not clear. His conclusions 7 01-28-2003 are based on the weight of the evidence on both sides. Commissioner Menconi asked staff if they believed that there has been an increase to traffic? Ms. Migchelbrink confirmed this based on the increase of square feet by 6000 square feet. Commissioner Menconi asked if this was a 10% increase. How many more cars would be coming in and out based on this 6000 square feet. Ms. Migchelbrink stated that it is merely a question of is it more or is it the same. This is based solely on the square feet. The increase in a commercial building is based on the use of the building. Commissioner Menconi asked about traffic numbers for different businesses. Ms. Migchelbrink stated the project grew in what it was allowed to do. Those are the only considerations based on the Regulations. Commissioner Menconi asked if the Regulations would allow an attachment of a fee based only on the increase of 6000 square feet? Ms. Migchelbrink stated she did not believe the Regulations would allow incremental fees to be imposed. Chairman Gallagher spoke about his understanding of the Regulations. A new development requires full compliance of road impact fees. Commissioner Stone moved as follows: 1. The Edwards Comer development is not exempt from the terms ofthe Road Impact Fee Regulations. Commissioner Menconi asked for an understanding of the findings concerning exemptions and impact fees in excess of 22,000 square feet. He stated he had heard evidence to determine this is a new development, however based on certain Land Use Regulations, it is his opinion that he had not received evidence from staff that there would be an increase in traffic. Ms. Mauriello stated that new development put them into the road impact fees. Commissioner Menconi stated ifthere is not enough evidence of new traffic flow that the project would be exempt from the fees. Ms. Mauriello stated there are two considerations; 1) is it new development, 2) does it increase traffic. Commissioner Menconi stated it was his understanding that it was up for interpretation Ms. Mauriello stated that was correct. Chairman Gallagher stated he believed that this was a new development and did it constitute an increase in traffic. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Commissioners Stone and Gallagher voting aye and Commissioner Menconi voting no. Commissioner Stone moved that credits sought by the applicant to offset the road impact fee should not be re-considered by the Road Impact Fee Committee to allow further credits resulting in a newly calculated road impact fee. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved that any credits for road impact fees in excess of the $200,448.00 assessment should not be allowed towards future impact fees related to this development Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Ms. Mauriello stated she will be preparing written findings of this hearing to be considered by the Board at a later date. 8 01-28-2003 Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Road Impact Fee Board and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00039, Arrowhead at Vail Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDDA-00039, Arrowhead at VaiL He stated the Planning Commission deliberations included the following: Reasons for making any of the parcels in Arrowhead portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD exempt from the restrictive portions of this proposed PUD amendment. Distinctions between the types of timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses that would be restricted by this PUD amendment and other types of ownership arrangements (e.g., rental pools) that would not be affected. Desirability of addressing the issue through a PUD amendment as opposed to a revision to the applicable covenants. Mr. Forinash stated this was an amendment to the PUD Guide which would place restrictions on the permitted location of timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. More specifically, the proposed amendment to the PUD Guide would [1] restrict timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in certain portions of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD platted as Arrowhead, [2] permit timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in other portions of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD platted as Arrowhead and [3] not affect permitted or restricted land uses in that part of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD platted as ABachelor Gulch Village. As it currently stands, the PUD Guide explicitly permits interval ownership uses in certain areas of the Bachelor Gulch Village portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, and is silent with respect to interval ownership as a permitted use in the balance ofthe Arrowhead at Vail PUD, including Arrowhead. At least in part because Ainterval ownership has elements of being both a land use and an ownership arrangement, it has been the position the County Attorneys Office that interval ownership is permitted throughout the PUD. In recent years, two single family dwellings in Arrowhead have been owned and operated at interval ownership uses and have resulted, in the perception of other property owners in Arrowhead, in adverse impacts on the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. Given the opinion ofthe County Attorneys Office regarding the nature of interval ownership as a permitted use throughout the PUD, options available to the Applicant include seeking a PUD amendment or a revision to the applicable covenants. The Applicant is pursuing a PUD amendment as the more practical ofthe two. The proposed amendment, as originally submitted, would have restricted timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in both the Arrowhead and the Bachelor Gulch Village portions of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. The response to this proposal (see attached letters dated prior to 17 September 2002) included 23 letters from property owners, 22 of which expressed opposition to the PUD amendment. A common theme in the responses has been opposition to timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses anywhere within the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. The Applicant subsequently revised the proposed PUD amendment to [1] restrict timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in most areas of the Arrowhead portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, and [2] not change the provisions of the PUD Guide for the Bachelor Gulch Village portion 9 01-28-2003 of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. Second notices, which were mailed to owners of property in the Arrowhead at Vail PUD on 17 September 2002, included additional information regarding the proposed PUD amendment and the revised text ofthe amendment. The Applicant has also mailed a letter to property owners providing an additional explanation of the proposed amendment. Copies of each are enclosed. The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report: 1983 Initial PUD Preliminary Plan for Arrowhead at Vail approved. 1993 Certain amendments to the Arrowhead at Vail PUD Preliminary Plan approved, which now authorizes a total of 2,025 dwelling units and 197,000 square feet of commercial space. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Attorney - Has indicated that he has reviewed the proposed language ofthe amendment and has no problem with it, but suggests a minor wording change to proposed amendment for greater clarity. (See discussion below under the Standard for an Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.]) Other Referrals have been made to Eagle County Assessor, and the Arrowhead Metropolitan District. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] B The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. Due to the fact that the Arrowhead at Vail Planned Unit Development is largely built-out, all of the land that is the subject of this PUD Amendment is not owned or controlled by one person. However, the application has been filed by Vail/Arrowhead, Inc., on behalf of the PUD as a whole. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part ofthis PUD IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person. HOWEVER, the Applicant is Vail/Arrowhead, Inc., on behalf ofthe PUD as a whole. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] B The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. The proposed amendment would restrict certain permitted uses, specifically, timeshare, interval ownership and fraction sharing uses, in certain areas within the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] All of the proposed additional uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. 10 01-28-2003 STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] B The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. No changes in dimensional limitations are proposed as part ofthis PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time ofthe application for the PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] B Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkinfl and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the adequacy of off-street parking and loading. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found at the time that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved that adequate, safe and convenient parking and loading was being provided. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the adequacy ofthe existing off-street parking and loading. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] B Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the landscaping within the PUD. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the approved PUD Preliminary Plan HAS been determined to have complied with the standards in effect at the time the Preliminary Plan was approved. With the recommended condition, the proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT impact existing landscaping nor require additional landscaping. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] B The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Reflulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., 11 01-28-2003 Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing signs nor require additional restrictions on sign other than those already provided in the Amended and Restated Guide to the Planned Unit Development Plan, currently in effect for Arrowhead at Vail. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in the Amended and Restated Guide to the Planned Unit Development Plan, currently in effect for Arrowhead at Vail. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] B The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate facilities were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, nor will it affect the location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate facilities were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the provision of adequate facilities with respect to potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, or location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] B The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-ol-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as 12 01-28-2003 applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removedfrom the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate improvements were to be made. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely effect the adequacy of these improvements nor warrant additional improvements. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate improvements were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect improvements regarding: (a) safe, efficient access (b) internal pathways (c) emergency vehicles (d) principal access points ( e) snow storage. STANDARD Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] B The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed amended PUD will continue to be compatible with the surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD HAS been determined to be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect this compatibility. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] B The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The following analysis with respect to the Master Plan and the FLUM applies only to the changes proposed in the PUD Amendment, as submitted by the Applicant. Conformance x 13 01-28-2003 x x x x x x EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x x x x x x x EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quanity Water Quality Wildlife x x x x x EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: Housing is a community-wide issue 14 01-28-2003 Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County Master Plan . . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success It is important to preserve existing local residents housing Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the County Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM YES NO N/A 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County x 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . x 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle Countys housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as x 15 01-28-2003 ITEM YES NO N/A residency requirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue It has previously been found that the PUD is in conformance with the Master Plan. The proposed PUD Amendment is not sufficiently different in character or magnitude to alter conformance with the Master Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed PUD Amendment is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map, and makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Master Plan. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] B The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Phasing is not required for this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT required for this PUD Amendment. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] B The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. i. Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. ii. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. 16 01-28-2003 (c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate common recreation and open space were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of these amenities. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It has previously been determined that the development DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect common recreation and open space within the PUD with respect to (a) minimum area; (b) improvements required; (c) continuing use and maintenance; (d) organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] B The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate protection of natural resources were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on natural resources. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS previously been determined that applicable analysis documents were adequately considered prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. With the recommended condition of approval, adequate protection of natural resources HAS been provided for. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, A Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use 17 01-28-2003 Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Master Plan. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B 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. Article 3, Zone Districts When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, findings were made to warrant the zone district change to PUD based on the applicable Land Use Regulations. The proposed PUD Amendment is also consistent with the provisions of Article 3, Zone Districts, ofthe current Land Use Regulations. Article 4, Site Development Standards When the Preliminary Plan was approved, it had been demonstrated that applicable site development standards had been satisfied. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the earlier finding. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS previously been found that the development complied with the regulations, policies and guidelines of the Land Use Regulations applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect compliance with these standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] B 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. (a) 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 Countv Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) 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. (c) 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development would have an efficient spatial pattern The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the spatial pattern in any way that causes inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS previously been found that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD satisfied the requirements of the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time with respect to efficient spatial patterns. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT adversely affect the spatial patterns in the area. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B 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. 18 01-28-2003 When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the area was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment does not alter the suitability of the property. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been determined that the site was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT alter the suitability of the property. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that the development is compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely affect the compatibility of the PUD with surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS previously been determined that the development is compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the compatibility of the resulting development with surrounding uses. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: AProposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions. A draft amended Planned Unit Development Guide is provided which incorporates the necessary revisions to effect the proposed PUD Amendment. Tom Moorhead, the County Attorney at the time this application was initially under consideration, has noted that he has met with representatives of the Applicant regarding this proposed PUD Amendment, has reviewed the proposed language, and has no problem with it. He has provided an additional suggestion, for purposes of greater clarity, that the phrase in effect or existing be inserted in the first portion of the sentence in the text of the proposed amendment beginning on the fifth line from the bottom so as to read as follows: Any use of a Unit for Interval Ownership purposes in effect (or existing) at the time that this Section XIV is adopted. . . . This suggestion has been provided to the Applicant, who has agreed to insert the suggested phrasing into the text of the proposed amendment. A revised amendment is attached to this staffreport. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide which incorporates the necessary revisions to effect the proposed PUD Amendment The requirements of this Section are fully met. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m., Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] B No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon afinding by the County. . . that (1) the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The proposed PUD Amendment satisfies the requirements of this Standard. [+] FINDING: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F. 3.m . ] 19 01-28-2003 The proposed PUD Amendment (1) IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment ofland abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Rick Pylman and Greg Perkins, Jamar and Associates, were present for the hearing. Mr. Pylman stated that a legal description would be added to cover the Broken Arrow Cafe rather than just the vacant land. Commissioner Stone asked about a change to make the proposal available on a building to building basis so that individual decisions could be made. Mr. Pylman stated that they were exempting the vacant Vail Resorts building. They are also exempting the core area of Arrowhead village. Commissioner Stone asked if there was anything else to codify that this decision had to be made on a building to building basis. Rick Pylman stated that the only areas that would be restricted are those shown in yellow (core area of Arrowhead). So other buildings could allow timeshare. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Tom Lienhart, former president ofthe Homeowners Association for Arrowhead, stated that based on a meeting of December 10, 2003 they have taken the high density units out ofthe PUD. The medium and low density units in Arrowhead would be part of the PUD. The Homeowners Association supports this change. Jim Mitchell, area resident, stated he is happy with the way the HOA handled the objections of several owners. Commissioner Stone asked if this change included Broken Arrow Cafe. Mr. Pylman stated the change being applied for does but it is not yet in the Board's packets. He stated they do not have the legal yet as it is a portion of a larger tract. He suggested when making a motion, the Board refer to it as part of Tract G. Chairman Gallagher referred to a letter from the Crescent Club who was objecting to the proposal. He asked if they were now satisfied or if they were still objecting. Mr. Plyman stated they still object. Mr. Lienhart stated the Crescent Club would be grandfathered in. In general he felt that the HOA had addressed the concerns. Renting of residential units is not part of the PUD Amendment. In general, he believes they have satisfied their concerns. Greg Perkins, counsel for the HOA, stated the PUD Amendment provides for a condition for non-conforming uses, and would be permitted to continue. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. PDA-00039, Arrowhead at Vail, incorporating the staff findings and conditions; specific reference to comments made to properties in the Village Core that are covered. Properties A - M and add a propertyN a portion of Tract G, the legal description to be provided to staff by the applicant. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0043, 1041 Revisions 20 01-28-2003 Ray Merry, Environmental Health Director, presented file number LUR-0043, 1041 Revisions. He stated the Eagle County Land Use Regulation (LUR) consists of a series of Articles which combine to create a document to implement the Eagle County Master Plan and to promote the health, safety and general welfare of the present and future residents of and visitors to Eagle County. The LURs provide, in a single location, those standards and procedures applicable to development and the use of land in the unincorporated areas of the County, including the 1041 Permit Regulation which was originally adopted on April 14, 1980. Although a prodigious amount of thought and detail went into its original adoption, it is necessary from time to time to amend the regulatory language in order to better reflect the original intent; to make the regulation more user friendly; to reconcile unintended discrepancies between sections of the regulation and; to add or subtract regulatory language in order to keep pace with Eagle County's growth. All proposed amendments are presented to the Board with the intent of furthering health, safety and general welfare of Eagle County. The proposed is a significant modification and reorganization of Chapter 6, Areas and Activities of State Interest AND a reformatting of the Floodplain Regulations. These proposed amendments are designed to clarify and simplify the intent of the Land Use Regulations with regard to water and sewer projects. Please note that the existing regulations pertaining to Floodplain Regulations has not been substantively altered but rather, has been reorganized to accommodate the proposed amendments to Areas and Activities of State Interest. The proposed alterations to Chapter 6, also necessitate revisions to Articles 2 (Definitions) and 3 (Zone Districts - Eagle County) of Chapter 2, for the purpose of consistency throughout the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Chapter 6 has been re-written in its entirety. The intent of the revised regulation is to provide clarity, simplification and efficiency to the review process and standards. Please refer to the attached proposed, newly titled, Chapter 6, Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest (Section 6.01 through Section 6.05.05) AND Floodplain Regulations (Section 6.06 through 6.06.42) Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: The proposed amendment package was referred out to the following agencies: County Engineering Department, County Attorneys Office, County Department of Environmental Health, County Airport, County Assessors Office, Board of County Commissioners, Eagle County Planning Commission, Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission, Colorado State Division of Local Affairs, Board of Land Commissioners, Division of Water Resources, Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Department of Health - Water Quality Control, Colorado Department of Health - Air Quality Control, Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado State Forest Service, Colorado Division of Wildlife - Eagle, Minturn and Glenwood Offices, Colorado Water Conservation, Bureau of Land Management, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Forest Service - Glenwood and Minturn Offices, Knight Planning Services, Isom and Associates, Braun and Associates, Inc., The Land Studio, Fox and Company, PIA Land Planning, Vail Resorts, Inc., Cordillera, Natural Resource Conservation, Basalt and Rural FPD, Gypsum FPD, Greater Eagle FPD, Eagle River FPD, Mid Valley Metro District, Two Rivers Metro District, Bachelor Gulch Metro District, Beaver Creek Metro District, Bellyache Ridge Metro District, Berry Creek Metro District, Eagle-Vail Metro District, Edwards Metro District, Holland Creek/Red Sky Ranch Metro, Arrowhead Metro District, Squaw Creek Metro District, Eagle River Water & Sanitation, ReudiIBasalt Conservancy, Basalt Sanitation District, Basalt Water Conservation, Colorado River Water Conservancy, Mt. Sopris Soils Conservation, NWCCOG, Colorado 21 01-28-2003 Historical Society, Eagle County Historical Society, Denver Water Board, Climax Mine, Town of Avon, Town of Basalt, Town of Eagle, Town of Gypsum, Town of Minturn, Town of Red cliff, Town of Vail, Colorado Springs Utilities, City of Aurora Utilities, Denver Water, Board of W ater Works (Pueblo), Johnson and Kunkel, Alpine Engineering, Peak Land Surveying, High Country Engineering, Lines in Space, White Surveying, Starbuck Surveying, Benchmark Engineering, Sopris Engineering, Intermountain Engineering, Marcin Engineering, Eagle Valley Surveying, Meyer Land Systems. The following responses have been received: Town of Avon - Please see the attached letter of response dated August 28,2002; Town of Basalt - Please see the attached letter of response dated September 13, 2002; Leavenworth & Karp, P.C., on behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District - Please see the attached letter of response dated September 6,2002. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District - Please see the attached letter dated November 6, 2002. This letter represents additional testimony received at the November 6. 2002 meeting of the Eagle County Planning Commission. Porzak Browning & Bushong, LLP - Please see the attached letter dated December 4, 2002. Porzak Browning & Bushong, LLP - Please see the attached letter dated January 6,2003. Leavenworth & Karp, P.C., on behalf of the Mid Valley Metropolitan District - Please see the attached supplement letter dated January 7,2003. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: FILE LUR-0043 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including the applicable towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Notice of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (a) The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. (b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as applicable: (a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use Map ofthe Eagle County Master Plan. (b) The proposed amendments DO address a demonstrated community need. (c) The proposed amendments ARE in the public interest. The Eagle County Planning Commission heard these proposed regulatory amendments during three separate hearings: September 18, 2002, October 2, 2002, November 6, 2002, respectively. Their recommended alterations of the proposed regulations are identified in BLUE TYPE within the body of said proposed regulations. Alterations proposed by both planning commissions are identified in GREEN TYPE within the body of said proposed regulations. Following is an itemization of their comments: 22 01-28-2003 Under Definitions (Page 6 of Draft), the ECPC included a definition for Material Change to draw a correlation between 1041 Projects, as approved, and post-approval alterations which may constitute a significant change that will alter the nature of the impacts considered by the Permit Authority in its original approval; Under Exempt Water and Sewer Projects (Page 13 of Draft), the ECPC questions those instances where replacement of any portion of an existing Water and Sewer Projects is proposed. The ECPC feels that, in certain cases, it is possible that the original Project may have had negative impacts and that replacement of any portion of said Project which has the effect of perpetuating the negative impacts should not be exempt. Rather, the Exemption clause should be applicable only to existing Projects where there are no identifiable negative impacts; Under Notice of Directors Determination as it pertains to public notice of Findings of No Significant Impact (Page 16 of Draft), both Planning Commissions recommended that Notice ofthe Directors Determination should include Adjacent Property Owner Notification; Under Reconsideration of Directors Determination (Page 16 of Draft), both Planning Commissions desire to allow affected parties fourteen (14) days to file a written request to the Board versus the seven (7) days originally proposed; Under Permit Application Procedure (Pages 17 and 18 of Draft), the ECPC word smithed language pertaining to several sections, including: Subsection (2) regarding the Directors notation ofthe date when an application is deemed complete; Subsection (4) change the word may to shall as it relates to the requirement for the Director to send a copy of the complete application to the Planning Commission; Subsection (5) inclusion of Adjacent Property Owners with regard to notification of the established public hearing dates; Subsection (6) Staff Reports must be prepared seven (7) days prior to the hearing as opposed to five (5) days prior as originally proposed; Under Local Government Services, Subsections (i) and (ii) (Page 21 of Draft), the ECPC wanted to make sure that it is clear that the evaluation was specific to development in Eagle County; Under Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest, (Pages 32 and 33 of Draft), the ECPC suggests changing the word may to shall with regard to approval of the Project ifit complies with all applicable criteria; Subsection (1) change the language can and will obtain to will have obtained with regard to all necessary property rights, permits and approvals prior to site disturbance; Subsection (3) the ECPC questions whether the term regional should be defined; Subsection (10) suggests embellishing the proposed language to read as follows. The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector ofthe local economy.; Subsection (24) both planning commissions recommend that commercial resources be included in the evaluation of benefits ofthe project versus loss of resources; Under Additional Criteria Applicable to Major New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems and Major Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems, (Page35 of Draft), the ECPC desired to substitute the word feasible for practicable. Also, the ECPC stressed that the evaluation for feasibility of consolidating existing systems should be based upon geographical reasons not cost reasons; Under Estimate (Page 36 of Draft), the ECPC wanted to make sure that the estimate of the performance guarantee be adequate to cover the County's costs should the county have to complete the 23 01-28-2003 project or correct any errors. As such, the ECPC recommended that the County shall require a guarantee equal to 150% of the applicants submitted cost estimate; Under Form of Guarantee (Page 36 of Draft), the ECPC struck surety bonds as a valid form of performance guarantee; Under Cancellation of the Guarantee (Page 37 of Draft), the ECPC again struck surety; Under Appendix AA, Subsections (3) (a) and (3) (c) (Page i ofthe Draft Appendix), the ECPC substituted Compliance and consistency, with Project complies with and is consistent. Also, the ECPC added the word Significant as it applies to the amount of change in impervious area; Under Appendix AA, Subsections (6) AND (6) (c) (Page iii ofthe Draft Appendix), the ECPC recommends that the finding which pertains to significant degradation of the local economy be embellished to read as follows, The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. With regard to economic diversification, the ECPC suggests economic growth and diversification; Under Appendix AA, Subsections (13) (a) and (13) (c) (Page v of the Draft Appendix), with regard to alterations of wetlands, the ECPC added and riparian areas; Under Appendix AA, Subsection (17) (h) and (17) (i) (Page vii of the Draft Appendix), the ECPC added Increase in artificial light and Increase in traffic patterns to the list of nuisance effects which may result due to a proj ect; Under Appendix AA, Subsection (20) (Page vii of the Draft Appendix), the ECPC again substituted the word practicable with feasible. In summation, the Eagle County Planning Commission believes that the current DRAFT regulations accomplish the Board of County Commissioners goal of improving the 1041 regulations, however, the Board must consider a few policy issues: The definitions of what it is Eagle County should be regulating and to what degree. Especially with regard to Municipal and Industrial Water Projects relative to snow making; Process associated with determining and/or appealing a Finding of No Significant Impact and when an application is deemed complete; Whether specific criteria for the Permit Authoritys consideration should be identified within Appendix A, as in the current DRAFT or rather, included in the text of the regulations. (Regulatory vs. Items for Consideration) The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission heard these proposed regulatory amendments during one hearing on September 19, 2002. Their recommended alterations of the proposed regulations are identified in GOLD TYPE within the body of said proposed regulations. Alterations proposed by both planning commissions are identified in GREEN TYPE within the body of said proposed regulations. Following is an itemization of their comments: Under Notice of Directors Determination as it pertains to public notice of Findings of No Significant Impact (Page 16 of Draft), both Planning Commissions recommended that Notice of the Directors Determination should include Adjacent Property Owner Notification; Under Reconsideration of Directors Determination (Page 16 of Draft), both Planning Commissions desire to allow affected parties fourteen (14) days to file a written request to the Board versus the seven (7) days originally proposed; 24 01-28-2003 Under Permit Application Procedure (Pages 17 and 18 of Draft), Subsection (4) change the word may to shall as it relates to the requirement for the Director to send a copy of the complete application to the Planning Commission; Subsection (5) inclusion of Adjacent Property Owners with regard to notification of the established public hearing dates; Subsection (6) Staff Reports must be prepared seven (7) days prior to the hearing as opposed to five (5) days prior as originally proposed; Under Permit Application Approval Criteriafor Matters of State Interest, (Page 33 of Draft), Subsection (24) both planning commissions recommend that commercial resources be included in the evaluation of benefits ofthe project versus loss of resources, however, the RFVRPC feels that this particular finding, regarding benefits versus losses is too subjective; Under Use Regulationsfor Flood Fringe District (Pages 21 and 22 of Draft Floodplain Regualtions), the RFVRPC added language to clarify how residential structures should be constructed in the Flood Fringe District. Mr. Merry stated they have removed some redundancy and built in flexability when considering fees. Barbara Green, Consultant with Sullivan, Green & Seavy, stated this process was to improve the section of the regulations that are referred to as the standards. Those things that an applicant must satisfy before they can gain approval. They tried to improve those by pulling apart giant paragraphs, which help the applicant and staff. They also tried to streamline the regulations. Number three, was to create a better fit between the scope of the regulations and the impacts the County is trying to address. She stated they tried to limit the submittal requirements to only those necessary items. They included a provision for staff to determine if a particular requirement is necessary or not. They have come up with precise definitions of exemptions. Ms. Green reviewed the definitions sections. She stated they had a problem with the definition of municipal and water project. Commissioner Stone stated the Planning Commission made several suggestions for change and asked if they agreed with those changes. Ms. Green stated there was another layer of staff review. Ms. Mauriello stated there was additional tweaking as this has gone through the process. Mr. Merry stated those comments will show up in blue ink. Chairman Gallagher asked if the wording at the bottom of page 6 is the proposed definition. Ms. Green stated in the existing definition is limited to the system and related components that constitute the source of supply. With the change, they would be looking at the raw water piece to the plant or storage. They would also be looking at the next step which is how it gets to their applications. She stated the reason this is critical is as it relates to snow making. She stated there are people in the room that could address this issue much better. Chairman Gallagher referred to a letter from Porzac, Browing and Bushzong, related to this Issue. Glen Porzac, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority and Vail Resorts, complimented staff on their willingness to discuss options. He stated that at the Planning Commission meeting they felt in section 6.01.09, item 34, the definition of an FSE, it would be defined by an in-house use, on an average of 300 gallons per day or the generation of 300 gallons of sewer per day. It did not make sense related to item 34. There needs to be consistency. He stated one home, irrigating a modest lawn could be 10 SFE's which could trigger a 1041 permit. 25 01-28-2003 Chairman Gallagher asked about the purpose of having an FSE identified, was to understand the size and scope ofthe project. If300 is low, are they dealing with reality. Should they set an SFE to include lawn watering. Ms. Green stated it is used to clarify the definition of a major extension of a domestic water treatment system is defined as the expansion of water treatment plants or an extension of any water supply system to serve an additional ten single family dwelling units. The regulations would not apply unless they met the 10 FSE trigger. Mr. Porzac stated that the average home would comprise 10 FSEs. Chairman Gallagher inquired as to the phrase "whichever is greater". Mr. Merry stated that he believed 1041's were to evaluate environmental impacts based on certain projects, whether it is new subdivisions or water plants. He believes they should regulate systems that the state permits. He spoke about several examples of which types of systems should be regulated and asked what the Commissioners would like to regulate. Mr. Porzac stated that existing regulations apply to 10 FSE's. On page 36, numbers 3 and 6, the word only should be stricken. Appendix A is not the criteria that should be gone through, not part of Statute. They are nervous about how this appendix might be mis-applied in the future. He stated that the biggest issue is related to the municipal and industrial water supply projects. Currently it would include agricultural, laterals and pipelines. It would cover a golf course sprinkler system, not the diversion from the river. It would regulate the snow making distribution systems. Currently the source is regulated. The distribution systems are regulated by a number of different systems. The new definition brings in a whole new area, and covers the distribution system. They made some suggestions to split the definition. Commissioner Stone asked how Mr. Porzac defines the word new? Mr. Porzac responded if you are coming from a new point of diversion, something that is not already permitted. Something that does not currently exist. Commissioner Stone stated that someone could use this to their advantage based on the definition of the word new. Mr. Porzac stated the word new could be removed. Chairman Gallagher stated the kind of influence he'd like to have is as they always have done with relation to expansion. He stated he wanted a little more control than just diversion control. Ifthe parameters expand it would warrant further review. Tom Allender; Vail Resorts, stated 1041's represent the supply side. Vail Resorts has more acres approved than they use or might ever use. The issue is the annual regulation and review of the distribution system. The current system covers the impact to the stream. The concern is that the new system will be very cumbersome without any environmental benefit. He gave some examples of some potential negative impacts if the distribution system was regulated more. He referred to the summer construction plan and the many other regulations that the plan needed to comply with anyway. Snow making is typically added to existing ski trails and the surface has already been disturbed. All the environmental impacts are already regulated by a variety of other agencies. Ms. Green believes the real question before the Board is do you want to regulate where those pipes and guns are located on the slope. Mr. Merry stated they were hoping the regulations would push the applicants towards more environmental consideration. This would accomplish a reduction of environmental impacts. 26 01-28-2003 Chairman Gallagher asked for clarification on the 1041 available to ski areas and whether or not, based on no new ski areas in Eagle county, did this issue matter? Mr. Merry stated that no it would not matter. Chairman Gallagher suggested looking at a mechanism to regulate parameters.. Ms. Green suggested that the definition of municipal and industrial be redefined to include those items needed and not needed. Chairman Gallagher suggested separating the snow making or the ski industry from the definition. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Allender ifhe understood that Vail Resorts had all the water they would ever need. Mr. Allender responded not exactly. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Allender how the Board would control the water use based on recreational needs. What kind of policies could be set with relation to snow making. Ms. Green believed the amount of water removed from the stream is subject to Board approval and control. Mr. Merry stated he did not believe the Board should regulate the equipment. They would still have the opportunity to do appeals. He stated the Board needs to decide to what degree they want to regulate. Commissioner Stone asked for Mr. Merry's recommendation. Mr. Merry stated ifhe was on the right track, he believed they could work out the language for the regulations. Commissioner Stone asked for an example of a policy decision. Ms. Green stated "do you want to regulate a permanent snow making operation that is not now currently regulated"? Other agencies would be looking at this situation and did the Board want to look at it also. Commissioner Stone suggested the language include situations that were not reviewed by another agency. Bob Weaver, Eagle River Water & Sanitation and Vail Resorts, stated he prepared the permit applications for the snow making systems on Vail and Beaver Creek mountains. He wants to scope the regulations so that they properly address the state issues. They addressed impacts on fisheries, wetland and riparian areas. The question now is whether or not the scope of 1041 jurisdiction be expanded to cover distribution and storage facilities. The placement of pipelines occur in previously disturbed areas. Ski areas are pretty careful about where they make snow and no changes in land use are associated with snow making. The Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency have jurisdiction over both private and federal lands on which snow making occurs. Ski areas must already do everything they can to avoid wetlands. Chairman Gallagher stated that he understood that the request was to look at regulating what they already are regulating. He did not see expanding the current function of the Board related to the 1041 process. Mr. Weaver discussed the fact that when Vail Resorts presents a request for a new 1041 permit they may not know where all of the snow making equipment will be located. 27 01-28-2003 Mr. Porzac confirmed this fact. He offered a suggestion that the definition of municipal and industrial water projects would have a "provided however" clause to limit snow making applications in this definition. Mr. Allender commented that under the current 1041 regulations Vail Resorts could add snow making up to 10,000 acres. He did not believe they would have to come to the County for this type of addition, unless they wanted to add a reservoir. If the systems were regulated they probably would not consider a reservoir. "With a reservoir you can be more efficient with the water and power. Everything would have to be engineered in advance". Chairman Gallagher expressed the Board is not interested in regulating systems, hoses etc. They will continue to work on wording and definitions related to this situation. Ms. Green referred the Board to the appendix at the end of the regulations. The point is to give the applicant, decision makers and staff ideas, but in the end the applicant needs to satisfy the standards. The appendix does not constitute requirements. The standard that relates to water quality has a list of those types of effects. A project might have positive or negative changes. Some or none might be relevant. Chairman Gallagher wanted to make sure that no one coming forward with a 1041 permit could construe these regulations as loopholes. Lee Levinworth, Basalt Sanitation District, stated because of a glitch some areas were excluded from the 1041 permit boundary. He stated that it is important to understand the impact of the regulations on the people who are required to do a 1041 review. The District enacted an impact fee that even Eagle County is paying at the tree farm. He supports the changes that staff made and the comments by Glen Porzac. He believes that the Regulations needs to say over 300 gallons a day for in house use. To get the 1041 permit there had to be a determination of financial feasibility. He believes that Mid-Valley would be required to post at least a 6 million dollar Letter of Credit. He suggested that language be added that existing subdivisions may be exempted from the requirement at the discretion of the Board. Ms. Mauriello responded Mr. Levinworth's comments are well taken. She related it was staffs intent was to file a guarantee of financial worth deemed adequate by the permitting authority. Commissioner Stone suggested an example be included in this section. Mr. Merry asked about the requirement for 150%. It was determined that there was not a requirement previously and the Planning Commission requested this addition. Ms. Green stated that the financial security is for all the conditions that might be imposed. Mr. Merry clarified a potential use for the security. Ms. Mauriello asked for time to look at the section. Commissioner Stone requested wording more similar to the prior 1041 regulations. Mr. Levinworth made a suggestion for the definition about material change. The definition would be better served if the material change clause was at the end. There are several places where that clause should be used. There was a lot of discussion about the language used in the document related to material changes. Commissioner Stone asked about another 1041 application presented by the Basalt Group. Mr. Merry suggested that on a philosophical side, Districts probably would not like to come to the County for 1041's at all. Ms. Mauriello related that staff spent a lot of time on the language and she reminded the Board that there is a "fonzi" process. 28 01-28-2003 Commissioner Stone was not in favor of making the wording changes that Mr. Levinworth suggested. There was additional discussion about the wording material change Mr. Levinworth referred to the situation when a director has determined that a fonzi is not appropriate, the Board has the option of simply not reviewing it. It seems to him that there ought to be some kind of guarantee of a review process. Ms. Green stated that when we are in the universe ofFonzi, it is already a review process and as such is an off ramp. Commissioner Stone stated that there may be some staff members who do not want to allow an appeal. Ms. Green stated that the Board could hear an appeal but would not have to if the staff did not allow the appeal. This means the Board would basically follow staff recommendations. Chairman Gallagher stated he believes that staff should not be able to act on the Boards behalf. As such, he would like the provision for the Board to get out of an appeal to be changed. Commissioner Stone stated he also liked the idea of a streamlined process but would like to include a guarantee that the information would come before the Board. Chairman Gallagher referred to a recent appeal from one ofthe County's Board. There was considerable discussion about the ability of the Board to make the decision at its discretion whenever an applicant requested an appeal. Mr. Levinworth related the State does not regulate down to 10 lots. This type of subdivision is not required to do testing according to the State Department of Health. Commissioner Stone referred to Mr. Levinworth's letter asking for an extension to 30 days for a Board to get together, and informed Mr. Levinworth that this seemed reasonable. Chairman Gallagher made several comments, referring to page 35; additional criteria for municipal water projects. He asked for legal clarification on this section. Ms. Green stated the Board can ask for additional criteria but there may be a huge fight from a home rule city. It is a statutory criteria. Chairman Gallagher asked that sections 1,2,3 and 4 be elaborated on and set forth on appendix A. Ms. Green clarified these sections were criteria as opposed to ideas. Chairman Gallagher referred to page 36 and the words only in paragraphs 3 and 4. Ms. Green stated they are gone. Commissioner Stone asked for direction. Should the Board consider adoption with changes. He stated he would rather make a motion to adopt the new regulations as opposed to opening it up to more public input. Mr. Porzac again expressed concern over the definition of municipal and industrial water projects. Commissioner Stone moved to table the 1041 Regulations to February 11, 2003, at the applicants request. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present for the remainder of this hearing. L UR-0038, Local Resident Housing Requirements 29 01-28-2003 LUR-0039, Inclusionary Housing LUR-0040, Residential Employee Housing Linkage LUR-0041, Commercial Employee Housing Linkage Rebecca Leonard, Senior Planner, presented file numbers LUR-0038, Local Resident Housing Requirements, LUR-0039, Inclusionary Housing, LUR-0040, Residential Employee Housing Linkage and LUR-004l, Commercial Employee Housing Linkage. Staff comments are as shown on staff report and as follows: What is a reasonable Local Resident Housing Goal for Eagle County? What percentage of the total housing units should be affordable? (See Exhibit I) 10% (example: Boulder) 20% (example: Whistler) 30% (example: Basalt) 60% (example: Aspen) Is this percentage related to permanently deed restricted or Affordable units? (See Exhibit I and Exhibit F) LUR 0039 Is Inclusionary Housing an appropriate tool to help reach the goal? (See Proposed LURs Section 4-720 and Exhibit AA) What percentage? 30% (example: Routt County uses 33% in areas around Steamboat Springs) 25% 20% (example: Basalt and Boulder) Other (Town of Eagle recently adopted 10%, Garfield County uses 10%, Carbondale uses 15%) What Incentives? (See Exhibit H) Reduced, waived or deferred fees Expedited review and permitting process Allowance for increased density (was included in proposed amendment, but stricken by both Planning Commissions) Modified development requirements Tax exemptions Access to financial resources Transfer of Development Credits (currently included in proposed amendment) Banking of Development Credits (discussed with local developers and found favorable) Donation of land for Local Resident Housing purposes LUR B 0040 Is Residential Linkage an appropriate tool to help reach the goal? (See Proposed LURs Section 4-740) What Percentage? 30% 25% 20% 30 01-28-2003 What Incentives? (See Exhibit H) Reduced, waived or deferred fees Expedited review and permitting process Allowance for increased density (was included in proposed amendment, but stricken by both Planning Commissions) Modified development requirements Tax exemptions Access to financial resources Transfer of Development Credits (currently included in proposed amendment) Banking of Development Credits (discussed with local developers and found favorable) Donation of land for Local Resident Housing purposes LUR 0041 Is Non-Residential Linkage an appropriate tool to help reach the goal? (See Proposed LURs Section 4-730) What Percentage? 30% (Vail currently discussing this rate) 25% 20% (Basalt uses this rate) Other (Pitkin uses 60%, Telluride uses 40%, San Miguel County uses 15%) What Incentives? (See Exhibit H) Reduced, waived or deferred fees Expedited review and permitting process Allowance for increased density (was included in proposed amendment, but stricken by both Planning Commissions) Modified development requirements Tax exemptions Access to financial resources Transfer of Development Credits (currently included in proposed amendment) Banking of Development Credits (discussed with local developers and found favorable) Donation of land for Local Resident Housing purposes Ifboth Residential Linkage and Non-Residential Linkage are approved, shall we combine them into one section ofthe LUR? (See Proposed LURs Section 4-730 and Section 4-740) LUR B 0038 Should the units be deed restricted? (See Exhibit T) To only local residents? To specific Income groups? (See Exhibit J) Price Capped? Appreciation Capped? (See Exhibit U) 3%? Area Median Income? CPI (Denver/Boulder/Greeley)? CPI (Locally Calculated)? 31 01-28-2003 Housing Opportunity Index? For Perpetuity? (See Exhibit T) Should the County be the broker? (See Exhibit X) County Only Two percent fee for listing? Choice of County or Outside Broker Two percent fee for listing? Outside Broker Only Should the County allow a buy down (they can purchase and deed restrict existing units) option to developers? (See Exhibit N) Should the County require the replacement of existing affordable housing in the case of redevelopment? (See Exhibit S) Should we be encouraging mixed use development with these regulations? (See Exhibit V) Are the targeted income groups appropriate for these programs (See Exhibit J) Low Income (less than or equal to 80% of AMI) for Linkage Are the maximum sales prices appropriate? Moderate Income (less than or equal to 120% of AMI) for Inclusionary Are the maximum sales prices appropriate? Should we include or exempt Accessory Dwelling Units? (See Proposed L URs Section 4-720, B., 2., f. and Section 4-740, B., 2., e.) If so, will we monitor their use to ensure that they are being used for affordable housing? The Housing Need Continuum As Compared to The Housing Unit Type Continuum Apartments with Apartments Unsubsidized Deep Subsidy! with Small Renta!s! Subsidy! 228 425 481 1.51 % 2.81% 3.18% 32 01-28-2003 Household Greater than High Moderate $89,850 7,301 48.2% 120% AMI Income Income Groups 101% to Moderate $71,880 2,000 13.2% 120% AMI Income Less Than Very Low 50% AMI Income $29,950 1,333 8.8% 81%to 100% AMI $59,900 2,802 18.5% 51 % to 80% Low Income AMI $43,500 1,712 11.3% Maximum 2 Person Household Income (HUD) # of Households2 Tota1=15,148 % of Eagle County Househo1ds5 Commissioner Stone moved to table file numbers LUR-0038, Local Resident Housing Requirements, LUR-0039, Inc1usionary Housing, LUR-0040, Residential Employee Housing Linkage and LUR-004l, Commercial Employee Housing Linkage to February 11, 2003. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Affordable Housing, Berry Creek The Board reconvened at 6:17 PM to consider unfinished business from earlier in the day. They would like to consider criteria for the affordable housing at Berry Creek and in addition the cap on value increase per year. Ms. Mauriello asked about whether or not there should be another category related to Eagle County employees. Commissioner Stone stated that he had the same concern and wanted to insert the statement that if you were a County employee you would be entitled to additional points. Chairman Gallagher agreed to the concept of adding one point for being an Eagle County employee. Commissioner Stone asked about adding the Eagle County employees automatically into the first category. Chairman Gallagher said he didn't think very much of it. He believes the categories are for overall ranking of jurisdictions and people with the broad spectrum of applicants. He felt that one point for Eagle County employees gave them an advantage over other employees. 33 01-28-2003 Chairman Gallagher stated that they were looking for the structure ofthe point system. He referred to page 3, years employed and residency, employment, etc. He thought the critical aspect of employees was already considered. Commissioner Stone believes that options number 1, 2 or 3 should be picked. Chairman Gallagher stated they were looking for the structure of the point system and believes that has been addressed. Commissioner Stone likes option #1 Chairman Gallagher stated he would consider one part of #1 excessive. Category bonus of 5 points and category bonus of employment. It would make sense to him that they use the category bonus, and the sixth column would be modified, with the addition of points for being an Eagle County employee. Chairman Gallagher asked about the secondary employees rating. In this category two employees should be given a 4 instead of a three. Commissioner Stone concurred. Chairman Gallagher commented that "emergency" personnel should be changed to "hospital employed medical professionals". Commissioner Stone referred to the price appreciation cap. He suggested an X amount, maybe 6% or a wage increase whichever is more. Chairman Gallagher said that 6% seemed high to him and he wanted the housing to be closer to wage increases. This affects the person's ability to buy. Commissioner Stone inquired as to what guidelines to use to determine the increases. Commissioner Stone suggested using average wage. He wondered about whether or not it would change from one year to the next, or take the last IO-year average. Chairman Gallagher suggested that it be adjusted yearly based on the previous year's data. Commissioner Stone suggested using the most recent year's statistics from the US Bureau of Economic Statistics, using Eagle County Statistics or 5% whichever is more. He asked what would happen if a home was sold during different times of the year. Chairman Gallagher stated that the year needed to be defined. Commissioner Stone stated that people would either be lucky or unlucky. He suggested prorating the percentages by the quarter. He stated that he'd like to reference a specific analysis. Should this information no longer be public, a similar economic analysis should be used. Chairman Gallagher agreed, but did not like the 5% alternative. Commissioner Stone wanted a standard that is published and cannot be argued. Discussion followed on the US Bureau of Economic Statistics. Mr. Ingstad asked if there should be a 3% in case the statistics reflected a 1 % increase in salaries. Chairman Gallagher wanted to keep the percentage constant and tied to the wage trends in Eagle County. Ms. Mauriello asked for clarification on the calculation by year. Commissioner Stone explained the calculation and confirmed the cumulative compounded yearly mcreases. Ms. Mauriello raised the concern that the purchaser understands where they are going to come out. 34 01-28-2003 Commissioner Stone suggested an attachment that gives an example to the potential homeowners. He suggested that the actual trend be detailed in this example. Mr. Ingstad asked about what would happen ifthe market didn't support these levels. The purchase price would serve as the basis for the increases over the years. Ms. Mauriello asked about determination of maximum sale price. Chairman Gallagher stated there would also be a cap of 2% for now but they do have the option of going to a realtor but only with a 2% cap. He recommended that the Town of Vail be approached to discuss their participation. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until February 4,2003. Attes . Clerk to the 35 01-28-2003