No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 07/29/03 PUBLIC HEARING JULY 29,2003 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Teak 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 that the Board of County Commissioners adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing the potential acquisition of State Land Board property for the purposes of constructing a bicycle/pedestrian trail from Avon to Dowd Junction and for the purpose of determining positions relative to negotiations with Dynamac Corporation for potential wildfire mapping and assessment of incorporated Eagle County. Further for the purpose of receiving legal advice and concerning negotiations with the airlines for lease agreements at the terminal building, for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning the FBO and funding requests from the District Attorney. Finally for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning licensure of Ranch Viejo and the formation of an open space committee. The foregoing are all proper topics for executive session pursuant to C.RS. 24-6-402(4) (a) (b) and (e). Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. . Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from Excutive Session and reconvene into the regular meetmg. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unniamous. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of July 28, 2003, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of July 8, 2003 C) Contract between Colorado Office of Preparedness, security and Fire Safety (OPSFS) and Eagle County for processing Grant Award Letters to Eagle County for Homeland Security, Anti- Terrorism and Emergency Preparedness D) Hangar Lease between Eagle County and Allen Nottingham E) Agreement between Eagle County and City of Glenwood Springs Parks and Recreation F) Resolution 2003-085, designating August 2, 2003 as Colorado Cares Day G) Application to the Colorado Trust for Suicide Prevention Initiative. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated Item F, the Resolution for Colorado Cares Day should be pulled and read separately based on staff request. 1 07-29-2003 Chairman Gallagher asked Kathleen Forinash about the need for item G, Suicide Prevention Initiative. Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health & Human Services, stated that the reason Eagle County had approached the Colorado Trust to be one of their ten designated communities, is the information received over the past two years, She stated Eagle County youth often feel they have no one to turn to and larger numbers of youth have felt depressed and thought about suicide at one time. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, excluding item F as requested by staff. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion, The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2003-085, Colorado Cares Day Commissioner Menconi read the Resolution for the record as follows: "Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado (hereinafter, the Board, wishes to celebrate Colorado Cares Day on August 2, 2003, and Whereas, the Board acknowledges that this day celebrates the anniversary of Colorado's admission into the Union and, that this day will celebrate the spirit of giving and volunteerism in the State of Colorado; and, Whereas, the Board desires to encourage all citizens to give back to the state and their neighborhoods in celebration of our statehood; Now, Therefore, be it Resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: That, August 2, 2003, be designated as Colorado Cares Day in Eagle County and be celebrated by families and communities throughout Eagle County. That, the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the County of Eagle, State ofColorado. Moved, Read and Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 29th day of July, 2003. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve item F, Resolution 2003-085, designating August 2, 2003 as Colorado Cares Day. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Board of Equalization A) Resolution E-2003-03 regarding Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution E-2003-03 regarding Petitions to the Eagle County Board of Equalization. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. B) Resolution.2003-086 concerning presentation of reports of Assessor ofvaluation for Assessment for taxable real and personal property in Eagle County. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution -086 concerning reports of the Assessor of valuation for assessment for taxable real and personal property in Eagle County. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 07-29-2003 Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners, Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Chairman Gallagher stated there are no plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2003-087, Adopting a Fourth Supplementary Budget Mike Roeper, Finance Director, presented Resolution 2003-087, adopting a fourth supplementary budget and appropriation of anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2003 and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies. He explained the changes to the Board for a total amount of$7,297,140.00. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, discussed the addition of$150,000 for the District Attorney's account in an unallocated account. Mr, Roeper stated that this amount would be used for future emergency or contingency costs. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Ingstad how much money the DA had actually requested. Mr. Ingstad stated that Mr.. Hurlbert, District Attorney, asked for $105,000 and that he (Mr. Ingstad) felt that $150,000 would cover this request with some additional funds available. Chairman Gallagher stated that no funds would be spent without the Board receiving further information. Commissioner Stone stated that he would like a complete budget for these funds from the District Attorney. Mr. Roeper stated the new appropriation total is then $7,447,140.00. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-087, adopting a fourth supplementary budget and appropriation of anticipated revenues for fiscal year 2003 and authorizing the transfer of budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies with the addition of 150,000 for the District Attorney in un-allocated funds. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows: A) MRT Wines, Inc. Beaver Creek Fine Wines This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is located along Offerson Road in the St. James Building. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Big Sky Restaurant Company LLC Beaver Creek Chophouse This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located in the Lodge at Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) Daniel's Foods, Inc. Mirabelle at Beaver Creek 3 07-29-2003 This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located on Village Road, near the gate house for Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. D) Extended Family Stone LLC The French Press This is a renewal of a tavern license. This establishment is located in Riverwalk, close to Village Market. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. E) Mountain Musher, Inc. Bond Liquor This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is located along Highway 131 in Bond, There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for July 29,2003, as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Rancho Viejo Restaurante & Bar Earlene Roach presented a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license for Rancho Viejo, Inc., d/b/a Rancho Viejo Restaurante and Bar. This is the second year of operation for this owner. Ifthe Board will recall, at the first renewal there were a total of 15 complaints and disturbances. In order to try and stop these from happening, the Commissioners agreed to a stipulation by the applicant to stop serving alcohol at 10:00 p.m. Since that time, there have been complaints from area residents. These complainants are still afraid to come forward as they believe there will be repercussions. Staff reminds those that in order for the County to consider such evidence, the applicant must be afforded the opportunity to defend those complaints. The applicant will be requesting he be allowed to operate as any other hotel & restaurant license, until 2:00 a.m. Staff is concerned with allowing Mr. Parra to serve alcohol until 2:00 a.m. At the last hearing it was determined that most of the occurrences happened after 10:00 p.m. Staff believes if given back the hours, the severe problems will again commence. However, at this time there is no report of any incidents by the Sheriff s Office. The State Liquor Enforcement Officers were down and did not see any problems. Ms. Roach stated this past weekend there was an undercover officer at the establishment and he did not see any problems. The application is in order. The following applies to a renewal hearing: C.R.S. 12-47-302 provides that the 10callicense authority may conduct a hearing after proper notice to determine if an application for renewal should be granted. The legislature has given this Board wide discretion to make such a determination based on the facts and circumstances of each particular case. This Board may reject a renewal application for "good cause" which is defined as: a. licensee's violation or failure to comply with the rules and regulations set forth in the Colorado Liquor Code; b. licensee's failure to comply with special terms or conditions that were placed on it in prior disciplinary proceedings or that arose in the context of potential disciplinary proceedings; and c. evidence that the licensed premises have been operated in a manner that adversely affects the public health, welfare or safety of the immediate neighborhood in which the establishment is located, which evidence must include a continuing patter of fights, violent activity or disorderly conduct. This is a renewal hearing; therefore, the Board may approve the renewal of license, deny the renewal of the license or accept a stipulation from the applicant. At this time there has been no evidence submitted that there is a continuing pattern of fights, that the applicant did not abide by the stipulation or that this establishment affects the public health, safety or welfare of the inhabitants. Staff 4 07-29-2003 must recommend approval ofthe license but would like to see the hours remain as they are and the applicant continues to stop serving alcohol at 10:00 p.m. Dan Wolfe, Attorney, was present on behalf of the applicant. He stated that it was unusual for him to be present for a renewal. He quoted Colorado Statutes related to refusal to renew an application. This refusal must be based on just cause. Some of these causes could be disorderly conduct, patterns of fights etc. He also stated that the Board could only consider the past year's performance of the operation when making their decision about renewal or restrictions. He reminded the Board that there had been no reports from the Sheriff s department, and that undercover operations had uncovered no offenses. He stated that he didn't believe there was an issue with noise or alcohol service. He stated that the operation has a person at the door to prohibit removal of alcohol from the premises. He asked the Board to remove the conditions and renew the liquor license without stipulations. Hugo Parra, owner of Rancho Viejo, spoke to the Board. He asked the Board to reinstate his ability to operate until 2:00 AM with a normal liquor license, He committed to operating his business better. He said that he had learned a lot over the past year, and he and his staff had taken TIPS training two or three times over the past year. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Marguerite DuPen, area resident, stated she owns an establishment above Rancho Viejo and has been there for ten years, She stated that there is still very loud music coming from the establishment and she has seen people leaving after 10 PM with to go cups. She stated that there is a 10t of movement in the restaurant without any cars being in the parking lot. She also stated that there are used cars in the 10t for sale. She complained about broken glass and bottles in the parking lot and in the back area of the building. She believes that the owner has kept his nose clean for the last month because the hearing was approaching. Chairman Gallagher asked several questions of Marguerite DuPen about the nature of her business. She explained that she had a "Head Shop" and that she sold paraphernalia for smoking marijuana. She also sold sex toys and tapestries. Mr. Wolfe addressed the issue of "to go" cups. He stated that the establishment was not giving out these types of cups. Ms. Day stated that she is not being prejudiced based on Mr. Parra being Hispanic, She did not have any problems with Champions when they were operating. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was a noise ordinance in the County. Ms. Roach stated that she had received the same type of complaints from other area residents. Mr. Parra spoke about his hours of operation. Mr. Wolfe stated that the establishment is a family establishment and sometimes the family stays there after hours, which is acceptable. He agreed that Ms. Day might hear noise late at night. Mr. Parra stated that his establishment had closed at 10:00 PM. He stated that he has been the only one present after that time. He stated that he had not been there more than 30 minutes after closing during the past year. Commissioner Menconi asked the applicant how 10ng his establishment had been for sale. Mr. Parra stated it had been for sale for almost a year. Commissioner Stone asked Ms, Roach about the Board's choices. Brian Treu, Assistant County Attorney, stated that the options were to approve the renewal removing the stipulation, approve the renewal of the existing license with the stipulation in place which has a 10:00 PM cutoff, or deny the renewal... Mr. Wolfe stated that he disagreed with Mr. Treu. He believes that the stipulation was only in effect for one year. Commissioner Stone asked ifMr, Wolfe had a copy ofthe stipulation which stated there was no expiration date. 5 07-29-2003 Mike Cacioppo stated that any stipulation or agreement would only be as long as the license was issued. He also stated that if the license was issued for one year, the stipulation should expire after one year. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve the renewal of a hotel and restaurant license for Rancho Viejo, Inc., d/b/a Rancho Viejo Restaurante and Bar, leaving the prior stipulation in effect. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Hearing, Red Table Public Improvement District Diane Mauriello listed the findings that the Board will have to make and related they must be positive. She stated she had the findings for the Board and stated she has both motions available, one for approval and one for denial. Ms. Mauriello stated the applicant has posted a bond in the amount of$I,OOO.OO. Chairman Gallagher ask if the bond meets the requirements. Ms. Mauriello read from the Statutes for the Board, "a bond shall be filed for security to the governing body". She stated this bond is to cover the costs only. Bob Schultz and Brian Robertson, petition representatives, were present for the hearing. Mr. Schultz updated the Board on what had transpired since the last meeting. H stated they have a 38 year old subdivision and the existing water system is failing. The fire hydrants cannot be used as there is not enough water. They have pressure problems and repair expenses. They have a working class neighborhood. Their goals are to remove the deficient system and replace it with an upgraded system that willlast thirty to fifty years. They will create fire protection in the existing homes. They will be seeking a low interest loan. Those residents cannot write a check as they do not have readily available funds. He stated they have been researching funding options and working on legal issues with staff. He stated the option that makes the most sense is a Public Improvements District. At the last work session they spoke about exploring other options. He stated he did pursue State Grant options and most of those funds have already been used. He stated the most promising was the Colorado Rural Water Association. They had access to loans through Vectra Bank out of Salt Lake City, Utah. In order to get the low interest rate they have to be a tax exempt organization. They are not. It was the most attractive option they could find. He stated they talked it over and came back to the same conclusion this was the best deal. Since that meeting they have been working with the County Attorney, they have a property owner that was included, they submitted the requisite number of signatures and assured the Board there was not an overlapping district. The findings the Board will be asked to make is that every homeowner will benefit from this improvement, including fire protection. Costs of improvements are reasonable compared to the value of the properties. $600,000.00 is the estimated cost of improvements and the taxable value is $22,000,000.00. They have been preparing those for costs of roughly $1,000.00 to $1,200.00 per year in homeowner dues. When the tax is added they are still within the realm of other areas. The request today is for the Board to order an election and create the district and allow the district to sell bonds. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Stone stated he is looking for how they came up with the estimates that are listed on exhibit B. Mr. Schultz stated they obtained Beach Resources out of Aspen and had them come up with the preliminary design for the system Commissioner Stone asked when that was done. Mr. Schultz stated it was done in 2001.. 6 07-29-2003 Commissioner Stone asked if they should update their estimates. Mr. Schultz stated they had a 15% contingency but it may be prudent to update the same. Commissioner Stone asked in approving the petition to move forward, what the considerations where to 100k at for the system to be appropriately costed out. Ms. Mauriello stated the Board will look at the cost of improvements not being excessive as compared to the value of the property. She stated there is a provision the Board can use that allows for some delineation. If the Board chooses to approve this, her concerns are there could be a short fall and only a partial system would be in place. Mr. Schultz stated they will insure the project will be completed for the money they have at that time. Commissioner Stone asked what certainty does the Board have that these figures are accurate. Mr. Schultz stated they cannot obtain more definite figures nor provide a guarantee without construction drawings. Commissioner Stone asked when the applicant can obtain the construction drawings and asked about the maintenance costs. Mr. Schultz stated if the Board would approve this request and the homeowners have the monies to pay for the construction drawings, they would then vote on this issue in November and go out to bid in January or February. Commissioner Stone asked how the process works and should they be concerned with the total cost amount and to make sure this project is completed. Ms. Mauriello stated if the Board finds that those costs are not excessive as compared to the value of the district, they can move forward. She stated the deadline for the ballot questions is early September and it is a very tight window. Chairman Gallagher asked if they would have to have a dollar amount for the people to vote on. Are they able to get plans drawn and get estimates in that amount of time. Mr. Schultz stated they would not be able to do the construction drawings. Commissioner Stone stated ifthose amounts exceed what the amount is quoted, the Tabor law will kick in. He asked how much they expect to expend on the construction drawings. Mr. Schultz stated they have retained the best engineering firm in the valley and feel it will be better than the best guess. Chairman Gallagher asked about the reasonable requirements for them Don Deoindes, George K Baum, stated they are kind of comfortable with the amount stated. He stated they will not be selling bonds until next spring, well after construction drawings have been prepared. If the cost comes in above the $600,000, they will not be out selling bonds, That would not be appropriate spending ofthe funds. Commissioner Stone stated this Board is also the Board on the Improvement District. He stated this Board must have a comfort level. He stated he does not want to form a district and then not have it take place. Mr. Deoindes stated they are doing four other Pill's around the state and this is not an unusual circumstance. There will be no taxes will be collected. Chairman Gallagher questioned what can Mr. Schultz do in the next four weeks that makes the Board a lot more comfortable. Mr. Schultz stated they can take the current number they have and run those with what is happening at this current time. He stated if it was lower he would hesitate to use it because they are in a construction dip at the current time. Chairman Gallagher stated contingency funds are not for market and economic variances but rather for work. He asked what the Board is buying for $600,000.00. Mr. Deoindes stated they are buying 16 main line valves, 10 hydrants, and 6400 feet of six inch duct tile pipe. Chairman Gallagher asked about the valves for the hydrants. 7 07-29-2003 Mr. Deoindes stated Basalt Fire Department is in control ofthose and whatever they specified is what they will be using. Commissioner Stone asked about election costs. Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder, responded that the bond will cover those items incurred in case this district should fail. She stated it will be more attorney costs. Ms. Mauriello stated there will be some election costs and attorney costs related to review costs. Ms. Simonton stated Eagle County will be the political subdivision and the costs will be minimal. Chairman Gallagher asked if the Board can have something from Ms. Simonton and Ms. Mauriello ifthey need to raise the fees already allocated in the bond within a week. Chairman Gallagher stated he is inclined to give the applicant the time it takes to come up with better quotes and whatever it will cost and come back to the Board to see what they can come up with dealing with the finances. Ms. Mauriello stated she is concerned with the timing as the ballot questions have to be certified by September 10, 2003. She wants to make sure they are leaving enough time to come up with a ballot question, Chairman Gallagher stated he believes a ballot question could be drafted leaving the dollar amount blank. Mr. Schultz questioned acting on the resolution with conditions the applicant provide the figures that would be approved by the Board. Ms. Mauriello recommended if the Board feels comfortable in making the third finding, they can certainly move forward with the precise bond figure and then the applicant can come back with ballot language. If they do not feel there is sufficient information to make that finding, they can continue this hearing to a date certain. Chairman Gallagher asked if they can have those figures within a week Mr. Schultz stated he cannot guarantee that until they speak with the Engineer. Ms. Simonton asked if she has been notified there will be participation in the election. Commissioner Stone questioned maintenance. Mr. Schultz stated the homeowners dues would provide the on-going maintenance and also some ofthe homeowners dues will start building up a fund so this Pill will not go on forever. Commissioner Stone asked if there had been research to assure this would work. Mr. Schultz stated they have had discussions with the Engineer who has related the maintenance will be significantly less than what the homeowners are currently paying. Commissioner Stone stated the best thing the applicant can do is to update the plan, maintenance and costs and update the bond to cover all costs. He would like to continue this matter for two weeks to see if it can be accomplished. The Board concurred. Commissioner Stone moved to continue the request for approval for Red Table Public Improvements District to August 12,2003. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher recommended the attorneys work out the ballot language. ZS-OOl07, Hidden Treasures Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number ZS-00107, Hidden Treasures. She stated Hidden Treasures Adventures received its first Special Use Permit approval in January of 1996. That approval was for a Recreational Resort Facility, consisting of one, 8-person yurt, on the Thomas' approximately 36 acres on New York Mountain. The applicants are now requesting approval for a new Special Use Permit for the addition of a second, 8-person yurt, for a total of two (2) dwelling units, or 16 beds, with the ability to replace one ofthe yurts with a permanent structure (a 480 square foot cabin), sometime in 8 07-29-2003 the future. They are also requesting vehicular access to the facility in the summertime, for the purpose of unloading of gear (the past condition of approval limited vehicular access to the facility for maintenance purposes only). Parking will remain in the current location, outside ofthe Thomas' property, near the New York Mountain trailhead. Pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, a Recreational Resort Facility may have up to 12 dwelling units, or 48 beds in the Resource zone district. The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report: 1996 - Special Use Permit ZS-374-95 was approved for a Recreational Resort Facility consisting of an 8-person yurt in the Resource zone district. 2003 - The applicant is requesting to add an additional yurt to the existing Recreational Resort Facility for a total of 16 beds. The Planning Commission overall, had no issue with the proposed application. They felt the additional yurt would have no real impact and was fitting with the surrounding environment. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this proposal, modifying conditions 10 and 13. Condition 10 was amended to ensure the annual inspection by Eagle County included an evaluation of the wildfire regulations; Condition 13 was amended to specifically state number and size of fire extinguishers to be kept in the structures. The referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Environmental Health, dated June 13, 2003 The Environmental Health division has reviewed the above referenced application and finds that the existing vault privy will be sufficient to meet the needs of the expansion. The systems must be maintained to insure protection of openings against entrance of insects and rodents. Colorado Geologic Survey, dated June 19th, 2003 I did not observe any conditions that would preclude construction of the proposed yurt. The site is covered with mature trees and does not appear to be in an avalanche path. Additional Referrals were sent to the following: Eagle County Attorney, Environmental Health, Sheriff, Engineering, Eagle County Road and Bridge U.S. Forest Service Colorado State Forest Service, Division of Wildlife Greater Eagle River Fire Department Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.1 Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standardsfor building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. THE MASTER PLAN MATRIX THAT FOLLOWS ANALYZES THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental OpenSpacel Development Affordabl.e Transportation Community Quality Recreation Housing Services Conformance X X X Rural1 Non Conformance Mixed Conformance 9 07-29-2003 Not Applicable x x x FLUM - RuraP. The Future Land Use Map indicates that the Thomas' property is Rural, which supports the proposed recreational uses; the property is surrounded by large tracts of undeveloped, public lands, with smaller, privately owned parcels comprised primarily of mining claims. Rurallands rely on neighboring communities for amenities such as schools and commercial development, and are served exclusively by on-site water and sewage disposal methods. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance X X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X Applicable The Thomas' property is not located in a recognized unique landform area of the county, nor is there evidence indicating that the facility is in an avalanche path, as determined by the Colorado Geologic Survey. The Resort Recreational Facility has been in operation since 1996, and has co-existed with adjacent public and private lands harmoniously; a Forest Service trail (New York Trail) crosses the property. This site will not compromise any of the surrounding open space, through the Thomas' continued upkeep. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Water Quantitv and Qualitv -Water is not proposed as part ofthe application. The system of using snowmelt in the winter and hauled water in the summer has worked for users of the yurt, with no problems, since 1996. 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: 10 07-29-2003 Housing is a community-wide issue. Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master pIan. 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 for other infrastructure needs. 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. The Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan is not applicable to this use, as there are no employees aside from the owners. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed Special Use Permit CAN be shown to be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and Master Plan FLUM, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.2 Compatibility. The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses, The Hidden Treasures Yurt is similar to the 10th Mountain huts located throughout Eagle County. Hidden Treasures offers a backcountry experience, utilizing the both the Thomas' private, 36 acres, as well as the surrounding U.S Forest Service lands for hiking and skiing. [+] FINDING: Compatibility. The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.3 Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The existing Recreational Resort Facility is located in the Resource zone district. There is one, applicable, specific standard for this type of use found in Sections 3-310.V. [+] Resort Recreational Facility. Where a resort recreationalfacility provides accommodations, the maximum number of accommodations shall be limited as follows: 1. Resource (R) Zone District. Twelve (12) dwelling units or forty-eight (48) beds of visitor capacity may be allowed in the Resource (R) zone district. The addition ofa second yurt will bring the total number of beds to 16, well below the allowed maXImum. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is 10cated and the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. AJ!ricultural and Resource Uses STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.4 Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. As a condition of the previous Special Use Permit, the Thomas' were required to submit semi- annual operating reports to Eagle County; Eagle County was to inspect the property annually. In the time since 1996, the County has raised no complaints; the applicants have consistently supplied the 11 07-29-2003 reports as conditioned. Bear-proof trash containers were also part ofthe original conditions; the Thomas' require clients to remove trash when they leave. Due to the lack of complaints and/or violations, as well as a good faith effort to consistently submit the semi-annual reports, Staff recommends that annual reports be required in lieu of semi-annual reports. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. The design ofthe proposed Special Use WILL minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, approval of this Special Use application WILL NOT generate any undue ocular, auditory or olfactory impacts. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.5 Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The Hidden Treasures Adventures facility will not deteriorate water, air, wildlife habitat, scenic or other natural resources, through utilization of the existing sanitary sewage vault, trash removal and continued maintenance and upkeep by the owners. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. The proposed Special Use WILL fully minimize environmental impacts, and will not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic, and other natural resources STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.6 Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The resort Recreational Facility is generally un-manned, with intermittent use of the facility through bookings with the owners. There is neither electricity nor a permanent water supply, with an onsite propane tank for cooking and lighting, snowmelt and hauled water for drinking, and a rainwater catchments for putting out campfires. The existing Vault toilet has been deemed adequate to accommodate the second yurt, and the existing road, used to access the site is adequate in the summer, with the ability to hike into the site in the winter. Alternate transportation methods will be used in the winter, as Forest Service roads are only maintained for a portion of the route. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities. The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services such as roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and waste water facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.7 Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [ +] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3). [ +] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) [ +] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) A wildfire assessment and mitigation will be necessary as part of any new building permit. Fire extinguishers are also required to be onsite. [ +] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) The applicants have stated that one new wood burning devices is proposed, and shall be a "new technology device" as required by Eagle County. The device shall be part of the necessary building permit. [ +] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) [ +] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) An Environmental Impact Report was not submitted for the original Special Use, however, a condition that it may be necessary for an Impact Report, pending annual reviews by the County, was placed on the original approval. No such requirement has been necessary in the seven years of operation. [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) 12 07-29-2003 [+] Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) [+] Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates in excess of the standards are not anticipated as a result of this expansion. [ +] Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) [+] Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) [+] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) [ +] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [nla] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) The applicants have been active in maintaining erosion control devices on nearby roads, as well as ensuring that any worn soil is re- seeded with indigenous grasses, [ + ] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) [ +] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) There is no change to the proposed water supply. The current method for obtaining water is comprised of utilizing snowmelt and hauled water for drinking, and a rainwater catchments for putting out campfires. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7). Standards in this section do not apply to the use. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards. The proposed Special Use DOES fully comply with all applicable standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Section 5-250.B.8 Other Provisions. The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. [+] FINDING: The proposed Special Use WILL comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Ms. Skinner stated she received a letter form John Seipel today and gave that letter to the Board, Chairman Gallagher asked if this applicant operates in the Summer and the Winter. Ms. Skinner answered yes, Chairman Gallagher questioned the location of the trail head. Ms. Skinner stated the trail head starts close to the parking which is on the edge of the property. Terri Thomas, applicant, was present for the hearing. She stated they try to run a very quality establishment. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Chairman Gallagher stated he did not have a problem with the second yurt but did have a problem with the 480 square foot cabin, He stated the applicant should have to come back for approval ofthat. Commissioner Menconi stated with Mr, Seipel's letter he is in favor of moving forward with this applicant. He questioned fire insurance. Ms. Thomas stated Lloyd's of London is the only one that will insure them and the structure costs less than the insurance. She stated the insurance is $25,000.00 per year. Commissioner Stone asked about the process the applicant will have to go through to change out a yurt to a 480 square foot cabin. Ms. Skinner stated they would require a Special Use Permit or a limited review use with staff. Commissioner Stone asked if there is a clause that the Board can hear the file if they choose. Ms. Skinner stated it can be referred to the Board. Chairman Gallagher stated in looking at the comments there is the potential to have 12 dwelling units or 48 beds. 13 07-29-2003 Ms. Skinner stated the applicant is only asking for eight in each yurt for a total of 16. Chairman Gallagher stated what is not clear is how many beds go in the 480 foot cabin. Ms. Skinner stated the proposal is the future cabin will replace the yurt, so there would be eight beds. Chairman Gallagher withdrew his objection. Commissioner Stone stated he believes there should be a limited review, He asked about condition number five and domesticated animals. Ms. Skinner stated this is a condition carried over from 1996. Ms. Mauriello stated number five could read no domestic animals allowed on site. Chairman Gallagher asked about the fire extinguishers and asked which code they are using. He questioned the size. Chairman Gallagher voiced his concern with the fire danger in condition number 13. He suggested it be changed to read something like "fire extinguishers shall be provided on site in accordance with direction from the local fire authority having jurisdiction, Commissioner Stone moved the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approve File No, ZS-00107, Hidden Treasurers, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. This Special Use Permit is to allow a Recreational Resort Facility comprised of two (2) 8 persons yurts, with the ability to construct a cabin (for up to 8 persons), replacing one (1) of the yurts, at a future time, subject to limited review under the Land Use Regulations. Removal ofthe yurt will occur by no later than the Temporary Certificate of Occupancy of the cabin, 3. A Building Permit must be obtained for any future expansion(s) of the facility, including the additional yurt and future cabin. All structures must be placed according to submitted site plans for the duration of the structure. 4. Temporary parking for loading and unloading must occur only in a designated area, designed to minimize soil erosion. A sign must be posted that parking is for loading and unloading of guests and belongings ofthe Hidden Treasures Adventures Yurts only. Overnight/day parking shall remain offsite. 5. No domesticated animals shall be permitted on this property. 6. Any outside storage of trash or garbage shall be placed in wildlife proof containers pursuant to Section 4-410 Wildlife Protection. There shall be no dumps or underground disposal ofrefuse on the site. 7. The feeding, baiting, salting or other means of attracting wildlife to the property is prohibited. 8. All disturbed areas shall be reseeded or replanted with certified weed-free seed of native plant species originally present in the sub-alpine environment. Neither ornamental nor non-native species of plants shall be permitted on the site. 9. The applicants shall continue to submit annual reports to the Community Development Department (see attached), 10. An annual inspection will be conducted by Eagle County Staffto assure compliance with all conditions, and to evaluate the impacts of this development, pursuant to the criteria found in both Section 4-460.E.2. Environmental Conditions and Section 4-430 Development in Areas Subject to Wildfire Hazards. 11. Pursuant to a memo from the Environmental Health Department dated June 13,2003, the existing vault privy system must be maintained to insure protection of openings against entrance of insects and rodents. Any modification or expansion of this system will require a new Individual Sewage Disposal System permit. 12. Greater Eagle Fire Department shall receive and approve a copy of the Building Permit plans for construction ofthe cabin, prior to Building Department approval. 14 07-29-2003 13. Fire extinguishers shall be provided onsite in accordance with direction from the 10cal Fire Department having jurisdiction. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-OOl08, Camp K-9 Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file number ZS-OOI 08, Camp K-9. He stated the Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions. Their deliberations included the following: Ownership of the property, and length of lease of Dowd Development Company. Responsibility for inspections regarding the health of the animals. Operation of the kennel, including maximum number of dogs, number of employees. Areas designated for walking dogs. Litter pick-up procedures. Any need for dog runs. Nature of ventilation. Possible conflicts with vehicular traffic. Potential conflicts with retail uses on front side of building. Mr. Forinash stated this is a Special Use Permit application for a dog daycare and overnight boarding facility. The subject property is zoned Commercial General. Kennels are allowed by Special Use Review in the Commercial General zone district. The Chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1973 - Site leased by State Board of Land Commissioners to Dowd Development Company for commercial use. 1977 - Dowd Business Park constructed. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering No comments. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Animal Control, Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Environmental Health, Colorado Division of Wildlife. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] B The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FL UM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Development Affordable Transportation Community Quality Space! Housing Services Recreati.on Conformance X1 X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X Applicable 15 07-29-2003 X 1 B Proposed use would tend to support and encourage diversity of economic base. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Compatibility [Section 5-250,B.2] B The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The potential exists for certain adverse impacts from a dog boarding operation on adjacent uses, including noise, odors, and litter. The Applicant has indicated that these potential impacts will be addressed in several ways, including: two staff persons will present on-site from 6:30 AM to 9:00 PM; dogs will be walked 2 to 3 times per day on a leash; the facility will be subject to licensing and inspection by the Colorado Department of Agriculture; and the walls and ceiling will be insulated to reduce noise impacts on adjacent uses. The uses on the lower level ofthe Dowd Business Park (which all face north) are generally service commercial uses. The Applicant reports that the repair shop and storage rooms for Landscape Designs are 10cated immediately adjacent to the subject location to the west. To the east is office and storage space for Colorado Bike Service. Ritzy Recalls and Pier 13 Liquors are located above the subject site. Dogs will be walked to and along a narrow grass strip at the north boundary of the site, which is adjacent to the Eagle River. Litter will be picked up after each "incident" and deposited in Camp K-9 garbage cans. Dogs boarded overnight will be unsupervised from 9:00 PM to 6:30 AM, but will be kept in the sound-insulated portion ofthe facility. Given the nature of the facility, other uses in the immediate vicinity, and representations of the Applicant regarding the proposed operation, Staff finds that the dog boarding facility, if properly operated, is appropriate and compatible with surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] B The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Af!ricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. A kennel is defined in the Land Use Regulations as "any lot, premises or establishment in which four (4) or more dogs, cats or domesticated animals are housed, groomed, bred, boarded, trained or sold, all for a fee or compensation." A kennel is a use allowed by special use permit in the Commercial General (CG) zone district. There are no special requirements provided for a kennel in Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses, of the Land Use Regulations. The proposed use will comply with the applicable zone district standards and these criteria applicable to Special Uses. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] The proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards ofthe zone district in which it is 10cated, and DOES meet the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] B The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. 16 07-29-2003 The Applicant has included provisions in the application intended to minimize adverse impacts, including sealed floors to prevent odors from lingering, sound insulation, staff on-site from 6:30 AM to 9:00 PM, and picking up after dogs when they are walked outside. In order to have a more specific standard for minimizing adverse impacts on adjacent tenants and property owners, as a condition of approval, the following should apply: a. Noise generated by this use shall conform to the commercial and industrial standards set forth in the applicable Section ofthe Land Use Regulations. Noise levels shall be measured along the walls of the adjacent uses and no more than 50 feet from the front of the building. b. All animal refuse shall immediately be placed in metal or plastic trash containers, with plastic liners and air-tight lids. c. A copy of all Department of Agriculture inspection reports shall be provided to Eagle County Department of Community Development. With the recommended condition, the representations made by the Applicant appear to be adequate to minimize adverse impacts. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] The design ofthe proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact ofthe proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] B The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. The Applicant indicates that when dogs are walked outside the facility, they will be kept on a leash at all times. Dogs will be walked from the facility to a narrow grassy area along the north property line. As dogs relieve themselves, the Applicant's staff will pick up after them and the waste disposed of in the Applicant's garbage cans. With the condition recommended above, the representations made by the Applicant appear to be adequate to minimize adverse environmental impacts. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] B The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. The site is adequately served by public facilities, [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical servIces. STANDARD: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] B The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site DevelolJment Standards. Article 4: Site Development Standards, Pluses and minuses in the margin indicate where staff has found that the proposed development meets the Article 4 standard ([ +]) or does not meet the standard ([ - ]), or the standard does not apply ([ nI a]). [ +] Division 4-1. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards The site is adequate to meet the parking and loading and snow storage standards. [nla] Division 4-2. Landscaping and Illumination Standards These Standards do not apply to this Special Use Permit. 17 07-29-2003 [n/a] Division 4-3, Sign Regulations All signs advertising this business will be required to conform to the Sign Code. [ +] Division 4-4, Natural Resource Protection Standards [+] Section 4-410. Wildlife Protection The site is not located in any mapped critical wildlife areas. [+] Section 4-420. Development in Areas Sublect to Geologic Hazards No geologic hazards have been identified. [+] Section 4-430. Development in Areas Sublect to Wildfire Hazards The site is located in a developed commercial and has no significant combustible vegetation. [+] Section 4-440. Wood Burning Controls The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [n/a] Section 4-450. Ridgeline Protection This site is not located on land designated on the Eagle County Ridgeline Protection Map. [n/a] Section 4-460. Environmental Impact Report An Environmental Impact Report is required for this Special Use Permit. [+] Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. [+] Section 4-520: Noise and Vibration Standards With the condition recommended above, the representations made by the Applicant appear to be adequate to satisfy these standards. [+] Section 4-530: Smoke and Particulate Standards The holder ofthis Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [+] Section 4-540: Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [+] Section 4-550: Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [n/a] Section 4-560: Water Ouality Standards The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to these Standards. [+] Division 4-6, Improvements Standards [n/a] Section 4-620: Roadway Standards No new roadways proposed as part ofthis Special Use Permit. [n/a] Section 4-630: Sidewalk and Trail Standards No required sidewalks or trails are being recommended as part ofthis Special Use Permit. [n/a] Section 4-640: Irrigation System Standards This Section is not applicable. [+] Section 4-650: Draina~e Standards This Section is not applicable. [n/a] Section 4-660: Excavation and Grading Standards This Section is not applicable. [+] Section 4-665: Erosion Control Standards This Section is not applicable [n/a] Section 4-670: Utility and Lighting Standards This Section is not applicable. [+] Section 4-680: Water Supplv Standards This Section is not applicable. [+] Section 4-690: Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards This Section is not applicable. [+] Division 4-7, Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. [n/a] Section 4-700: School Land Dedication Standards Since this Special Use Permit application does not involve the subdivision of land, the provisions of this Section are not applicable. 18 07-29-2003 [+] Section 4-710: Road Impact Fees This Section is not applicable. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Other Provisions [Section 5-250,B.8] B The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The proposed use does comply with this standard. [+] FINDING: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Sonja Rhoder, applicant, was present for the hearing. Chairman Gallagher asked how many animals will they handle at one time. Ms, Rhoder stated she is allowed to handle 30 at anyone time. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00108, Camp K-9, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. The following requirements shall apply: a. Noise generated by this use shall conform to the commercial and industrial standards set forth in the applicable Section of the Land Use Regulations. Noise levels shall be measured along the walls of the adjacent uses and no more than 50 feet from the front ofthe building. b. All animal refuse shall immediately be placed in metal or plastic trash containers, with plastic liners and air-tight lids. c. A copy of all Department of Agriculture inspection reports shall be provided to Eagle County Department of Community Development. 2. This Special Use Permit shall run for the life of the Applicant's lease and shall not run with the land. 3. This Special Use Permit is subject to review after one year, and is subject to the provisions of the Land Use Regulations regarding termination if the conditions of approval are violated. 4. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Hearing, Bair Ranch Open Space Purchase Cliff Simonton, Planner, stated the next matter before the Board is a public hearing on the Bair Ranch open space purchase. He stated the Eagle Valley Land Trust and The Conservation Fund, a national organization which partners with landowners, government agencies and other land trusts for the purpose of conserving land and water, recently approached Eagle County seeking funds in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000) to secure a fee-simple acquisition on a portion and a conservation easement on the remainder of the Golden Bair Ranch. The ranch consists of 4830 acres that straddle the Eagle County / Garfield County line between Interstate-70 and Cottonwood Pass at the east end of the Glenwood Canyon. While no formal survey of the property has been done, approximately 3,306 acres of the property, or 68%, lie in Eagle County (this information is based on mapping from the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and differs slightly from acreage on record with the Eagle County Assessor). The total price of the purchase has been set by the owners at $5,200,000. It is represented that financial goals for the purchase will be met through the establishment of partnerships with the BLM, the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO), Eagle County, Garfield County, and through private fund 19 07-29-2003 ralSlng. The proponent's efforts have raised $1,900,000, resulting in a shortfall of $3,300,000, Garfield County has made no commitment for participation to date. The proposed acquisition involves two tracts ofland, the 'River Parcel' and the 'Mountain Parcel'. The 'River Parcel' consists of 512-acres ofland, all in Eagle County, which is intended by this proposal to be purchased fee-simple. This property contains two non-contiguous tracts that lie immediately adjacent to and south of the Colorado River between the Two Rivers Village and the mouth of Glenwood Canyon. The Union and Pacific railroad right-of-way parallels the river's southern bank though this area, and bisects both tracts. Approximately three (3) miles of south-bank river frontage are included. Excepting river-edge riparian areas, these fee-simple tracts contain mostly sage brush and native desert grasses, with scattered pinion and juniper trees found on the steeper slopes to the south. While the proposed fee-simple purchase would allow public access, no physical means of access is presently available (or practical) across the Colorado River and/or the railroad ROW. The remaining 4318 acres of the ranch, an irregularly shaped tract referred to as the Mountain Parcel, would be set aside in a conservation easement. This property includes the Golden Bair Ranch headquarters, which is located in Glenwood Canyon (Garfield County). The parcel consists of a broad variety of habitats and topography, from river-edge riparian to stream bottom meadows, to sage and oak hillsides, to upland meadows and coniferous forest. Elevations range from 6100 feet on the Colorado River in Garfield County to 8700 feet near Cottonwood Pass Road in Eagle County. A separate small parcel, known as 'Dock Flats', is located south of the main property at an elevation of8900 feet. The 'Mountain Parcel' property includes all or portions o'f five (5) separate named drainages - Ike Creek and Spruce Creek in Garfield County, and Cottonwood Creek and two of its tributaries, Spring Creek and Bob Creek in Eagle County. Approximately 8 miles of stream corridor in addition to the Colorado River frontage is identified as an amenity, although a specific analysis of riparian acreage is not available. The Bair's own considerable water rights in the streams on their land, and the ranch includes 116 acres of land irrigated for pasture and hay production. Access to the Golden Bair Ranch Headquarters in Garfield County is via an 1-70 interchange and rest stop (named for the ranch), a single lane concrete bridge across the Colorado River, and a restricted underpass beneath the railroad ROW. The Ranch Headquarters is considerably developed, with several single-family homes and a variety of ranch barns, stables, bunkhouses and outbuildings. Approximately 2,794 acres of the 'Mountain Parcel' is located in Eagle County. Surrounded entirely by BLM lands, the property is again irregularly shaped, and is located two to three miles south of the Interstate-70 corridor towards the Cottonwood Pass Road. With the exception of four (4) "rustic" structures on Cottonwood Creek, and a small cabin on Spring Creek, no improvements exist on this land, which has historically been used to graze sheep, and to support guide and outfitter operations run by the Bair Family (i.e. hunting in the fall). The property benefits from its extensive border with adjacent public lands, large portions of which the Bair's lease for grazing. Access is via an unimproved dirt road/jeep trail through "other" private lands from Cottonwood Pass Road in Eagle County, or via similar unimproved "ranch" roads that cross BLM lands from the Golden Bair Ranch headquarters in Garfield County. It is proposed that future subdivision or development ofthe Mountain Parcel would not be allowed. The land would remain as a private ranch, owned by the Bair's, and existing for-profit uses, including grazing, outfitting, hunting and 'guest ranch' operations, would continue and be allowed to expand. As proposed, said expansion in Eagle County would include the construction of a 5000 square foot lodge on Bob Creek (or no more than 5 small cabins) and the construction of a small cabin in the area referred to as Cold Spring. These improvements would likely require acquisition of an Eagle County Special Use Permit as well as building permits by the owner. Access by the public to the Mountain Parcel property is not contemplated as a part of this proposal. While no subdivision would be allowed, it is proposed that four additional single family homesites would be, all in Garfield County. The specific type or frequency of "ranch activities" that would occur within Eagle County has not been specified. 20 07-29-2003 The Bair family has owned this ranch since the early 1900's. Negotiations between the owners and the Eagle Valley Land Trust for this project began in December of2000. In January of2001, the Conservation Fund (TCF) became involved and began working with the Bair family. That same year, the BLM ranked the Golden Bair Ranch as its # 1 priority for land acquisition funds in 2003, and requested 4.5 million dollars in Land and Water Conservation Funds for the Bair Ranch purchase. In September of2002 TCF applied to Great Outdoors Colorado (GO CO) for $850,000. In January of 2003, GOCO awarded $400,000. In February of 2003, Congress approved 1.5 million for the BLM acquisition, resulting in total funds committed to date of 1.9 million. Varied criteria from five different sources: The ballot approving Eagle County's Open Space Tax; the Eagle County Open Space Plan; the Eagle County Master Plan; documents associated with the acquisition of the East and West Brush Creek properties in December of 1999, and; the Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) evaluation criteria are available to evaluate the merits of open space land acquisitions. An itemization of these criteria is attached. In review, it is readily apparent that many of the above mentioned criteria are identical or closely overlap. As such, Staffhas condensed the criteria into ten (10) points for evaluation of the proposed Golden Bair Ranch Open Space acquisition, Following each point, is a brief discussion of the proposal's merits with regard to the stated criteria, as well as an indication of whether or not the current proposal conforms to the stated criteria: The suggested criteria for discussion purposes are as follows: 1. Preserve and Protect Wildlife Habitat, Migration Corridors, Fisheries and Sensitive Ecological Regimes: Discussion with Pat Tucker and Bill Heicher with the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) has indicated that the subject property does encompass some excellent year around bear, deer and mountain lion habitat including good calving and fawning areas. The Eagle County Master Plan identifies deer winter range over the majority ofthe subject property. CD OW also stated that acquisition of those portions of the subject site adjacent to the Colorado River will help to preserve and protect the fish habitat and bald eagle and water fowl habitat and will provide unhindered access to the Colorado River for all wildlife species, Further, CD OW indicated that the upland portions ofthe subject site are identified as a possible thoroughfare route for the Lynx. [+] Based upon CDOW's feedback, the proposed acquisition would preserve valuable wildlife habitat. The fact that the subject site is completely surrounded by public lands oflike character may lend value to its conservation in this regard 2. Preserve and Protect Working Farms, Ranches and Other Pertinent Cultural and Historical Resources: By virtue of the proposed acquisition, the Bair's would be enabled to continue a viable and profitable ranching operation in perpetuity, thereby preserving an important element of Eagle County's history and culture. With the exception of grazing, the preponderance of recognizable ranching activities on the subject site actually occurs within Garfield County. The publicly visible ranch headquarters on the Colorado River is seen by people traveling on Interstate-70 prior to entering or immediately upon exiting Eagle County and, as such, contributes to the overall aesthetic of this vicinity of Eagle County. [+/-] The proposed acquisition will preserve and protect a working ranch, a portion of which is in Eagle County. However, much of the publicly witnessed ranching operations occur in Garfield County 3. Preserve the Character of Eagle County Through the Protection of Scenic Viewsheds: Those portions of the Golden Bair Ranch labeled 'River Parcel' are visible from Interstate-70 between Glenwood Canyon and Dotsero and would provide an uninterrupted Open Space view shed to the south, especially given the surrounding BLM land. 21 07-29-2003 That portion ofthe Golden Bair Ranch referred to as the 'Mountain Parcel', which constitutes the bulk of the proposed acquisition, is not visible from any location frequented by the public within Eagle County. Portions are visible from the less frequently traveled Coffee Pot Springs Road (en route to the Flattops Wilderness to the north) and Cottonwood Pass Road. [+/-] The 512 acres adjacent to the Colorado River proposed for fee-simple purchase would contribute to the protection and preservation of a scenic view shed. However, that portion of the site proposed for a conservation easement is not located within an easily accessible and/or frequently visited public view shed (i.e.: Interstate-70). 4, Preserve and Protect Natural Water Systems. Including: Wetlands, Floodplains, Riparian Areas and Water Rights Acquisition: A number of streams and tributaries, in addition to approximately three miles of Colorado River frontage, are encompassed by the Golden Bair Ranch. The value of the Colorado River frontage and its associated floodplain and riparian areas seems readily apparent. However, the degree to which historic and/or current ranching practices may impact the small streams, tributaries and associated riparian areas remains in question. No specific studies or inventories have been provided. Water rights are not proposed as part of the acquisition package. [+/-] Acquisition ofthe Colorado River frontage would benefit the public in that it would prevent any future endeavors to develop or modify the floodplain and its associated riparian areas on the south side of the Colorado River. The quality of other natural water systems on the subject property remains in question. Also, the proposed acquisition does not include any water rights 5. Preserve, Protect and Create Passive and Active Public Recreation Activities. Including: The proposed acquisition of the conservation easement (the 'Mountain Parcel') does not contemplate, and indeed would not accommodate, either active or passive public recreation activities. This property will remain privately owned, and not available to the public. The conservation easement would only provide a mechanism to control/limit future development of the Golden Bair Ranch. The 'River Parcel' is located on the south side of the Colorado River and, while it would become available to the public through fee-simple purchase, it is not accessible barring trespass along the railroad right-of-way or other privately owned lands, or by boat. [-] Neither would the public benefit with regard to increased recreational opportunities since that portion slated for fee-simple acquisition is not accessible, nor would any recreational opportunities be preserved or created because a majority of the property has always been and will continue to be privately owned 6. Preserve and Protect Buffer Zones Between Communities: Those portions ofthe Golden Bair Ranch labeled 'River Parcel' are visible from Interstate-70 between Glenwood Canyon and Dotsero and purchase of the same would preserve an uninterrupted Open Space buffer along the south side of the Colorado River only. That portion of the Golden Bair Ranch referred to as the 'Mountain Parcel', which constitutes the bulk ofthe proposed acquisition, is not visible from any location frequented by the public within Eagle County, The only exceptions are view points along Coffee Pot Springs Road and Cottonwood Pass Road. [+/-] The 512 acres adjacent to the Colorado River proposed for fee-simple purchase would contribute to the protection and preservation of an undevelopable "buffer" south of the Colorado River, between privately owned lands located just west ofDotsero and the western county line adjacent to Interstate-70. That portion of the site proposed for a conservation easement is not 10cated within or between developed or developing areas, and therefore would not contribute to the preservation of a "buffer" zone. 7. Preserve and Protect the Public's Health, Safety and Welfare Through Avoidance of Natural Hazards: A geologic evaluation or environmental analysis of the site was not provided. As such, it is difficult to say whether or not any insurmountable natural geologic conditions exist. 22 07-29-2003 Acquisition of the 512-acre parcel adjacent to the Colorado River would be beneficial in protecting the public from development within or near the affected 100 year floodplain. [+/-] The benefit ofthe public owning the land adjacent to the Colorado River and its 100 year floodplain on the south side of the river would be to preclude any future endeavor to develop said land. Additional information is necessary to adequately evaluate this criterion on the balance ofthe subject property 8. Interagency Cooperation / Partnerships: In the Project Summary provided by the proponents of this open space acquisition, it is stated that the 'Partners' to date include: Craig and Doris Bair The Bureau of Land Management Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund The Conservation Fund The Eagle Valley Land Trust The proponents are also desirous of obtaining the support and cooperation of both Eagle and Garfield Counties. [+/-] This proposal has garnered cooperative support from several key entities, including the land owners. It remains uncertain, however, whether or not the necessary revenue could be generated to complete the acquisition should Eagle County or Garfield County opt not to participate 9. Ability to Complete Acquisition: Successful completion of the proposed acquisition appears to be solely contingent upon the proponents successfully including Eagle County and Garfield County amongst the cooperative partnership and/or raising the necessary revenue through alternative means. A question remains regarding the timing for finalizing the acquisition and whether or not sufficient time remains to raise the necessary money. [+/-] Proponents of the proposed acquisition are poised to close the deal, however sufficient funds are not yet available to do so. 10. Project Urgency and Need: The proponents have conveyed a sense of urgency to close this deal in the very near future before the land owners back out of the arrangement. The stated need for urgency is that the land owners need to settle family estate issues by October 1,2003. Ifresolution does not occur and the land owners back out ofthe arrangement, the possibility remains that the subject property will be parceled off in 35+ acre pieces. This type of subdivision can occur without any type oflocallevel review or approval process and no public benefit would arise. If the property owner desired to develop their property in any other manner than 35+ acre residential and agricultural uses then, they would be subject to Eagle County's land use processes including public hearings and decisions by the appointed and elected officials. If the open space acquisition is approved then, the Golden Bair Ranch will remain as a working ranch and the public will gain control over how and to what extent future improvements may occur on the subject property. An alternative viewpoint would find that the landowners stand to profit from this 'open space' acquisition while maintaining ownership ofthe land, the ranch operation, the outfitter, the dude ranch and other profit center operations. [+/-] The ability for the public to control future use of the subject property could be beneficial and may even be viewed as a 'need' given the relatively undeveloped nature of this region of Eagle County. The public urgency of the proposed acquisition is, however, less clear. As of this writing, the Board of County Commissioners have received 15 e-mailed correspondences indicating support and urging Eagle County to participate in the Golden Bair Ranch open space acquisition. Also, one letter questioning the public benefit of an 'open space' conservation 23 07-29-2003 easement. This same letter also indicates that some public benefit would be gained from acquiring the 512-acre fee-simple 'River Parcels' adjacent to the Colorado River. Chairman Gallagher welcomed everyone to the hearing for the Bair Ranch Open Space Purchase. He stated the Board has looked at this matter closely. He related the way they are going to proceed is to first deal with the conflict of interest statements that were made. The Board will then to be advised by the County Attorney concerning the funds that the Board have available to spend. They will then hear from the applicant. The floor will then be opened to public comment. The Commissioners have the right to interrupt and ask questions at any time. He stated they will proceed with the accusation that Commissioner Stone has a conflict of interest. Brian Treu, Assistant County Attorney, read from Colorado Revised Statutes concerning a conflict of interest. Commissioner Stone stated he and Mr. Bair had spoken about a year and a half ago about acquiring the listing for the property near Dotsero. He stated that discussion did not include the rest of the ranch. He related he does not have the listing of the property. Chairman Gallagher asked ifhe stands to make any financial gain. Commissioner Stone answered no. Mr. Treu stated the sole issue is whether the County should use general fund monies for the purchase of open space. He stated they are not here to discuss whether future open space dollars should be used for this purchase. The ballot space question requires that open space funds be made only after considering recommendations from a citizens advisory committee. He stated a citizens advisory committee is yet to be formed. Chairman Gallagher stated at some date in the future they will acquire funds from the open space tax. Mr. Treu stated they will receive approximately $3 million dollars in 2004. Mr. Simonton stated they have received numerous letters concerning this open space, both in opposition and in favor of this purchase. Mike Roeper spoke about the funding sources. He stated the monies could be taken from the general fund which would reduce the general fund balance to $5.2 million, which would be substantially less than the 25% the Board likes to see on hand. Another potential funding source is from the motor pool fund, which would then become a fund balance of $600,000.00. The third potential funding source would be from the capital improvements fund, which would not immediately decrease the fund balance but would delay some of the planned projects. He stated a few other considerations are significant health insurance increases for this current year, the airport fund still have to be paid to the tune of $2.1 million per year, potential additional District Attorney costs, and continuation of the merit pool. Chairman Gallagher asked about the cost of increase in health insurance. Mr. Roeper stated the increase was $1.7 million dollars, Commissioner Menconi asked how much of that money will be refunded. Mr. Roeper stated $700,000.00 could be refunded but that will not come into play until 2004. Christine Quinlan, Conservation Fund, was present for the hearing. She presented the Board with a project summary and a copy of the map. She stated she attached an editorial from the Denver Post for the Board's review. Tom Macy, Conservation Fund, was present for the hearing. He stated this is a national non profit agency based in Arlington, Virginia. He stated they acquire land for open space and wildlife throughout the nation. He stated he drove through Glenwood Canyon today and it reminded him this was one of the most spectacular gateways to Eagle County. He stated this project was brought to them from the Eagle Valley Land Trust. He stated they were delighted when the BLM made this their priority project. GOCO, Great Outdoors Colorado, put in $400,000.00 towards this purchase. He gave examples of open space in other Counties. He stated in this case they are bringing $1.9 million to the table and are willing to go out and raise another million. The total cost ofthis property is $1,000.00 per acre. The County's cost would be $400.00 per acre with a contribution from the County of$2 million. 24 07-29-2003 There is a hang up about it being on the border of Eagle and Garfield County, He stated one way to solve this problem is to specify that the County's money will go specifically to the property in Eagle County. Commissioner Stone stated in their role as Commissioners they are the stewards of the money in Eagle County. He stated he wants to focus on the Eagle County property only. He asked about the appraised value of the fee simple purchase of the River parcel. Ms. Quinlan stated the River Parcel is appraised at just under $230,000.00. Commissioner Stone asked the Mountain Parcel, that part that is in Eagle County. Ms. Quinlan stated the conservation easement valuation of the Mountain Parcel that is in Eagle County is valued at a little over $3.35 million. Commissioner Stone asked how they arrived at that price and if that took 68% of the entire parcel. Ms. Quinlan stated the appraisal was not broken down between Counties. The property is being appraised as a whole. Commissioner Stone asked if they are paying appraised value or an agreed upon value. Mr. Macy stated it is slightly less. Ms. Quinlan stated the appraisal of the conservation easement is $5,182,000.00 and they are paying $5,000,000.00 so it is slightly less. Commissioner Stone asked what the administrative costs are. Mr. Macy stated he is a salaried employee of the Conservation Fund as is Ms. Quinlan. Commissioner Stone asked if there is a relationship between the amounts of money they put together as to how much they make. Mr. Macy stated if they did not put any money together they would not have jobs. Commissioner Stone asked if they were a direct relationship like a commission. Mr. Macy stated they make an annual salary whether they do the Bair Ranch or not. Commissioner Stone asked if this group receives a fee, Mr. Macy stated they have incurred $35,000 out of pocket expenses to date with appraisals, studies, legal costs and travel Mr. Macy stated they are in the habit of providing this information when dealing with Great Outdoors Colorado at the end ofa project with each specific amount. Some of the examples are appraisal, legal, baseline report for the easements phone, travel, endowment for the easement. Some of these costs are yet to occur. They will have quite a bit oflegal costs. There will be two closings ifthey are successful, one this fall and one a year from now when they raise the additional monies. They will also have fund raising costs. The $200,000.00 is an estimate. The Eagle Valley Land Trust and they have traveled back to Washington, D.C. more than once. They are normal transaction costs to complete a project like this. Commissioner Stone stated everyone needs to know what the money goes for. Commissioner Stone asked if the Bair's will net $5,000,000,00 from this deal. Mr. Macy answered yes. He stated they are not asking Eagle County to pay for the administrative costs. They are asking Eagle County to put $2,000,000.00 into the land transaction. That is their specific request. They will have to raise the monies for the administrative costs, Commissioner Stone asked how and where that money will be raised as the time frame is pretty short. Mr. Macy stated if they are successful with Eagle County, they will then negotiate with the Bair's. If they have $4,000,000.00, they could have a closing on the transaction prior to their October deadline, they would then have a year to raise the additional funds. Commissioner Stone asked if Eagle County would have guarantees that the balance of the monies would be raised. Does he understand that there is no certainty that the transaction will take place. 25 07-29-2003 Mr. Macy stated they are very confident that the Conservation Trust and Eagle Valley Land Trust can raise the additional monies. They believe this is a very fundable project. They are not prepared to discuss sources or a fund raising campaign here today. They are confident they can complete the project. Commissioner Stone asked about working with a condition that says the County money is condition upon the entire purchase of the fee simple and easement being successful. Mr. Macy stated he did not know how they could go to a closing with a condition like that. Ms. Quinlan stated the Eagle County funds are clearly the catalyst they need to raise the additional $1.3 million. Concerning the view shed analysis and not have anything overlooked, one of the things they are protecting are the views that are internal. If this ranch is sold and there are houses along the ridgeline, the views would be destroyed. While staffs view shed analysis does not show some ofthe views, you can see them clearly from inside the ranch. Cindy Cohagen, Eagle Valley Land Trust, stated she would like to forgo her lengthy comments. She stated this is not about the Bair's but about the land. This is about land the Bair's love and want to protect forever as open space. The Ute Indians traversed this land. Probably the prehistoric nomads crossed this land. This land is rich with natural resources and wildlife, It provides important drainage into the Colorado River. Few people have the opportunity and the responsibility to make a decision as the Board does today. The County holds 4,800 acres in their hands. She quoted a Ute Elder, "think not of yourself, think not of your children, think not of your children's children, but think seven generations since." That is an awesome responsibility that is the Board's today. Craig Bair, applicant, stated one ofthe comments he made is give it the 40 year test. He stated he has six children and he wishes he would have learned how to use this when he was younger. If doesn't really matter in 40 years, don't worry about it. If it is going to matter in 40 years we need to do something about it. When you have something you really enjoy doing in a particular place you hate to see that change. Regardless, one thing you can count on is change. Things never stay the same. He stated he has the opportunity of living there. He asked the Commissioners what they want to do with this land. The parcel next to the mountain belongs to his brother. He is twenty years older and has given up on this way of life. He has given them the opportunity to continue this type of life. He stated there are a lot of people that would like to have this property but it would be right in the middle of his ranch. His brother offered him on a handshake, the opportunity to buy his parcel of ground. The only way he can purchase this property is to either sell a part of his property or turn it into an easement. Unless he is able to protect the property that lay's right in the middle of the property it will become a development and there will be houses there in the future. He stated there has been some concern about more access to this property. Deer and Elk migrate through this property. They take better care of the property than anyone. Commissioner Stone asked about the ownership of this property and if Mr. Bair owned the property on either side of LeGrande's, Mr. Bair answered yes. Commissioner Stone asked how many acres that was. Mr. Bair stated it was approximately 1,200 acres. Commissioner Stone asked about the detail of that transaction. Mr. Bair stated when his father past away, everyone thought the boys would fight over the land. They sat down and picked out different parcels and took turns, His brothers parcel is in the middle of his property. Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant was comfortable with letting the Board know the sale price of his brother's property. Mr. Bair stated this is just part of the ranch. His brother sold some of his property and moved away. He stated he has also sold some of the property over by Cottonwood Pass. Some of the property in Garfield County was sold. He stated his brother had another buyer but he talked him into selling him the property first. 26 07-29-2003 Commissioner Menconi asked how many people would be leaving before 5:00 p.m., how many were in favor of this proposal, opposed to this purchase or are undecided. The audience raised their hands to each question. Chairman Gallagher asked about the preservation of the working ranch. In the restrictions in the draft easement, he sees two options, one of a working ranch the other a resort. He asked which way Mr. Bair wants to take. Mr. Bair stated a 10t of people call it diversifying but he leans with the working ranch. He stated he does not know as they live in a different time now and there are not too many ranchers in the country anYmore. Some people are happy to see you and some are not. Keeping this in mind he does not know how to answer that question. They are looking at several life times. This is just one of the hurdles they have to get over and then they will have to cross another hurdle with what he can and cannot do with the easement. Ifhe did not have his BLM and Forest Permits he would be done, There are several groups that are trying to take these permits away. He stated they are a working ranch. He stated he sold the sheep last year because of drought. Weather is something you cannot control. He stated they were thinking they needed to let the public in but they would want to have control. Chairman Gallagher stated one ofthe comments they have heard is what will the people of Eagle County be getting for their money. Would they be getting a working sheep ranch or a resort. Mr. Bair stated right now they are getting a working sheep ranch. That is what he is protecting. If it were later they would be getting a resort. Chairman Gallagher stated when speaking to a resort, there is language in the restrictions indicating a 5,000 square foot 10dge. They already have 30 some beds available for guests and ATV's and snowmobiles. Mr. Bair stated that is very low key and minimal. He stated if they cannot achieve this easement he will sell part of the property to a developer and let them do whatever they do. Ms. Quinlan stated the easement is written as an agriculture friendly easement. The guest ranching that is allowed is to augment the Bair's ability to be productive on the land. The overall intent is to allow livestock production to continue. The intent is to keep the basic footprint of development that is currently there on the land today. The structures that are there now with some moderate expanSIOn. Chairman Gallagher asked about the ten new structures. Mr. Quinlan stated four possible new homes. None of those could be separately sold and subdivided. It would have to be someone who is going to live on the ranch. All ofthere are on the Garfield County side. On the Eagle County side, the guest ranching as a whole, within that footprint there are seven sites that already have some sort of cabin. The easement allows moderately expanding those to allow the Bair's to build a couple more. Either one new lodge or one new cabin. There will be two new sites. One of those sites could either have a lodge or five small cabins clustered together. Chairman Gallagher stated it is the unknowns that he is trying to nail down. Ms. Quinlan stated the proceeds received by the Bair's will assure the property remains as a ranch. Realizing the cash values is what creates the sustainability of this ranch. Mr. Bair stated there was a law passed allowing legitimate ranchers to allow things such as horseback rides and such in case of a drought. This is not something new. There are ranches throughout Garfield County that are trying to do the same thing. Commissioner Stone questioned the map and that the darker colored purple on the right is not part of the conversation easement. Mr. Bair stated all of the property shown will be in the conversation easement. Commissioner Stone asked about conditions on the GOCO money and the federal money. Ms. Quinlan stated the GOCO money is intended to be used on the conservation easement parcel. In other words, when they applied for the money the subject parcel was only that portion in the proposed conservation easement. Those monies cannot go towards the fee simple piece of property. The federal money is intended to be used on the fee simple piece of property, There is a requirement 27 07-29-2003 attached to the federal money that there be public access. The way that condition will be met is through the River Parcel, which does provide public access. Commissioner Stone stated the River Parcel is valued at $230,000.00 and the federal money is $1.5 million. There is more than enough money to buy the River Parcel. Ms. Quinlan stated the remainder of the BLM money would be attributed to the conservation easement. Steve Sherwood, White River National Forest, stated he was present to offer their strong endorsement of acquiring the Bair property. Keeping the Glenwood Canyon in tact is very important to them. Too often they have seen the ranches go into residential developments. The Forest Service also supports grazing on public lands which is a renewable resource. He stated they strongly endorse this project. Chairman Gallagher asked if the Forest Service contributed any monies, Mr. Sherwood answered no. Diane Gansauer, Great Outdoors Colorado, stated they were established 11 years ago to distribute Lottery monies. She stated they have historically placed a high value on local partnerships. She referred to the Brush Creek property known as the Sylvan Lake State Park. In January GOCO awarded $400,000 to this project. Matching funds must still be raised. She stated they have never considered an applicant coming back for additional funds. She stated for a project of this kind, it is possible they would consider additional requests. They must indicate they have local support. She stated they are in support ofthis project. She stated this project may not cross the finish line without help from the Commissioners. Vaughn Hackett, Bureau of Land Management, stated millions and millions of dollars were spent to protect the land during the Glenwood Canyon project. He stated the boundaries of Bair Ranch comprise 20 to 30 miles of wild land and back country. The River Parcel does provide an element of public access. John Beck, Bureau of Land Management stated the funds were not guaranteed for this project. There have been large cuts made in the available funding. He stated that if something didn't happen soon the monies would be used for other projects, Senator Ken Chlober, Colorado State Senator, spoke to the audience and the Board. He stated he was present on a personal and professional level. He assured Mr. Bair that he was doing the right thing prior to the meeting. On a professional level he believes that the Commissioners could do no better than to preserve this ranch. He spoke to his relationship with Golden Bear and their continued friendship throughout the years. He implored the Board to help preserve this ranch. He believes the ranch is a treasure for the state of Colorado and Eagle County. He offered his help in anyway. Commissioner Stone spoke about a phone conversation that he had recently with Mr. Chlober concerning where the money would come from. He stated the Senator indicated that the general fund would not be his preference. Mr. Chlober stated that this deal could be put together contingent upon future monies that would be collected. Commissioner Stone wondered if Mr. Chlober would have taken the money out of the general fund if no other source was available. Mr. Chlober answered he would to be paid back by the open space funds. Chairman Gallagher asked John Martin, Garfield County Commissioners, to speak to the Board. Mr. Martin stated that Garfield County is the poor neighbor to the west. It is an agricultural community and does not have much money in the budget. He stated that the Garfield County Board is overwhelmingly in favor of helping to purchase this property and they are trying to come up with funds to do so. He offered the possibility of a retroactive contribution if the open space issue on this November's ballot passes in Garfield County. Chairman Gallagher asked that public comments be limited to 2 minutes each. He offered the floor to those who had to leave early. 28 07-29-2003 Bob Warner, area resident and developer, stated that in the last three weeks Eagle County had not received a lot of positive press. He believes this is a state-wide issue and based on the fact that other sources are willing to contribute up to 3 million dollars this seems like a great opportunity. He feels it is important to preserve the ranching heritage whether visible or not from 1-70. Water rights remaining on the property are extremely important. He stated the Town of Vail's open space is currently being converted to 132 units. This open space will be lost forever. Ann Esson, East Vail resident, stated she is a supporter of the open space tax. She believes that the supporters of the tax would be disappointed if the intent of the vote supporting the open space tax was not respected. She reminded the Board of the joy everyone felt when the Sylvan Lake parcel was preserved. Arlene Quenon, area resident, read a letter from Rita Skelton, area resident, in favor of the proposal. She related Ms. Skelton had to leave the meeting early. She emphasized the importance of the working ranch on the valley floor. Ms. Quenon told the Board that every single Sylvan lake campsite and cabin is filled this week and through the end of August and September. This is a tremendous economic impact to this community. That area was an open space purchase. Diane Cecala, Citizens for Open Space, also supported the allocation of these funds for the purchase of this property. She stated that the request is that 2 million dollars be allocated from County funds so that the Bair Ranch purchase could be closed. October 1 st is the date that Craig Bair needs to buyout his brother and also the date that the BLM monies can be allocated somewhere else, Once the money is allocated the Commissioners could make the determination as to when and if the advisory committee would recommend re-paYment of this funding, She imagines that many ofthe people present at this hearing could very likely be members of the advisory committee, The Commissioners have the option in any event of paying back the funding from the open space tax collections. She stated that each year the US Congress does the same thing by exercising their best judgment. She implored the Board to protect this valuable piece of Eagle County's heritage. Annie Eagan, area resident, expressed her support for the allocation of the 2 million dollars. Bob Schultz from the Roaring Fork Valley, stated that he has been involved in various functions over the year in support of open space. He feels that on a bang for the buck, this project rises to the top. He compared the project to Jerome Park Project in Garfield and Pitkin Counties. He felt that if there were an advisory committee here today they would be saying "go, go, go". He also suggested that the advisory committee could be appointed immediately and get their opinion on this funding. He also addressed the additional 1 million dollars that might need to be funded could become the responsibility of Garfield County. Sherry Dorword, 14 year resident, spoke to the Board. She stated that this property is unique based on the fact that this property is intact. She stated that the visual and esthetic qualities are important considerations. Dave Cole, area resident, stated that this type of scenic opportunity is very rare. It is also rare that a steward like Mr. Bair is willing to offer this as a possibility, Kelly Bronfman, area resident, addressed the Board from the perspective of the second homeowners, She believes that she represents the opinion of many of these people. She sent out 350 emails to other second homeowners. She had 156 overwhelmingly positive responses and not one negative response. She has also spoken to homeowner's associations. She feels it is safe to say that 50% of residents in Eagle County are second homeowners. She gave statistics about property taxes generated from this group of people. Wildlife corridors, cultural diversity and escape from the city are reasons these people own second homes here. Mary Jo Allen, area resident, concurred with all positive comments. Jay Fetcher, rancher from Routt County, stated that he founded the Colorado Cattleman's Agricultural Land Trust specifically with this type of property in mind. He related similar types of purchases in Routt County. 29 07-29-2003 Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Fetcher how many years Routt County had been preserving ranching and open space. Mr. Fetcher stated that this tax had been in place since 1996. Commissioner Menconi asked if on the first purchase ifthere was a sense of urgency then as each purchase came about it became more acceptable. Mr. Fetcher stated in truth, it was a part of an open space plan. There were a lot of processes involved. He stated the mood in Routt County was very positive. Sybill Navas, 30 year resident, spoke to the Board. She was before the Board to ask them to do the right thing and make the decision to purchase the ranch. She stated that as a citizen of Eagle county she is interested in what Eagle County is not getting. She quoted Tom Stone's comments in the Vail Daily, "it is too bad that a visionary on the western slope was not alert 100 years ago", and "unfortunately some west slope residents and legislatures have not learned from the past". She stated Commissioner Stone also quoted the words of our Governor Bill Owens, "we can shape the future by learning the lessons from the past". She implored the Board members to make the decision and in so doing be visionaries. She stated that tax dollars paid for the interchange at the Bair Ranch. She stated the fact that the Board has dragged it's feet and not appointed the Advisory Board a year after the voters mandated the creation of this Board are technicalities that cannot become excuses to let this go. She felt it would be reasonable to accept the recommendations of the Eagle Valley Land Trust and felt that the Board is c1early empowered to move forward, She asked the Board to fund this purchase because it is the right thing to do and the right thing for the people of Eagle County. Caroline Scudder Miller, area resident, spoke to the Board. She stated that her family and she has owned property in the Eagle Valley for 35 years. She implored the Board to make the funds available. Tom Steinberg, a resident of Vail, stated that if development is allowed on this property the three creeks on the property would cost the citizens dearly. He feels that this parcel is one of about six parcels ofsimilar size and the Bair family is one of the only original families that owns one of these parcels. None ofthe rest of the ranches are working ranches. Peter Runyon, area resident, spoke to the Board. He has been a resident since 1970. He believes that it would be a mistake to dismiss this issue as a left wing issue. It is an issue that will forever define the Board's stance on growth for the future. He asked if the Board if they were aware that at some point the level of development could compromise the quality of life in the valley. He feels sure that future development would be a minimum 137 homes with 35 acres ofland for each. The cost to purchase this land for Eagle County is only $400 per acre. Dick Brooks, area resident, supports this purchase. He spoke to condition #5 in that it was negative. He stated that the River Parcel alone opens up 3 miles of river access, He stated that all through July there are Elk along this river front. He stated that a lot of the negatives on this staff report should be reversed. Kelly Davis, area resident, spoke to the Board stating she is a 20 year taxpayer and asked the Board to find the money. Don Cohen, area resident, spoke to the Board. He stated that a debt of gratitude should be paid to the Bair's. He is actively involved in the Vail Valley Economic Council. He feels that there are times that government should act responsively and creatively to provide a 10ng term benefit to current and future residents. He feels that this funding is visionary. He stated that he would be surprised if the Board did the right thing. He stated that it is evident to many that ideas that are liked find swift approval and if ideas are not liked the approvals are obstructed. He stated that the Board has failed to exercise the public will. The Commissioners should represent the public's interest and not the Commissioner's personal interest. He asked the Board to make a good fresh start by funding this project today. Joe Staufer, area resident, asked Commissioner Stone what his opinion ofthe land price would be for this property on the open market. 30 07-29-2003 Commissioner Stone stated he could not respond. He would also not accept a listing on this property. Mr. Staufer stated that he had heard from sources that Commissioner Stone had solicited a listing. He urged the Commissioners to go ahead with this purchase. He stated that this family has tradition and loves their land. He stated that it is in the interest of the citizens of the county for this purchase to be funded. Jonathon Staufer, area resident, spoke to the Board. He stated that he was one ofthe first waves of kids who grew up in Vail. He stated that what all citizens have in common is the beauty of open space. He stated that the Bair Ranch is precisely what the voters had in mind when the tax was approved. This is about preserving a way of life that is disappearing. This is about all who want to keep Colorado open, wild and beautiful. Christine Quinlan asked for indulgence as a non-resident. She grew up amongst Ranch folks. She understands the desire of the Bair's to hang onto their ranch. She stated that the backbone of this concept is that those who have lived on and loved these ranches are good stewards for the future, Dan Gibbs, Congressman Mark Udall's Office, read a letter from Mark Udall and Scott McGinnis requesting funds for this ranch. This letter highlighted funding options including participation from Eagle County. This letter was in support of the funding and purchase of this property. George Wiegers, 1 0 year resident of Eagle County supports the project 100%. He stated that Trout Unlimited would be pleased to be associated with this purchase. He feels there might be legal problems with the funding but there would not be any cash problems. He offered his help to find the funding. Andy Wiessner, area resident, spoke on behalf of Rod Slifer. He strongly supports the project and would remind the Board that rarely do projects that rely on multiple funding sources gain approval in a short period of time. Ron Wolfe, Avon resident, submitted that this is a business deal using the people's money. He asked the Commissioners to remember that the open space issue barely passed. He asked for clarification on the purchase. He also asked about the 1/3 portion of the parcel that lies in Garfield County. He wondered whether the Commissioners had considered outright purchase of the property. He also suggested a right of first refusal should the family decide to sell the property in the future. Sandra Donnelly, area resident, spoke to the Board on behalf of herself and other Singletree residents to urge the Board to find a creative solution to the funding issue. She urged the Board to allocate the funds. Evelyn Pinney, member of the Eagle County Planning Commission, encouraged the Board to go back to the voters for bonding authority to leverage use of these funds. Patsy Batcheldor, area resident, spoke to the Board. She stated that she read in the paper today that the Board expressed support ofthe merits ofthe project. Lynn Emmert, area resident, thanked the Board for hearing everyone and stated she hoped and prayed that the Board would fund the request. Martha Cochran, area resident, spoke to the Board. She is the executive director of the Aspen Valley Land Trust. She told the Board they were lucky to have such interested citizens, the Bair family and the Eagle Valley Land Trust. She believes that the reason the Commissioners do their job is to capitalize on the opportunity to make a difference. Rich Rogel, resident of Avon for 7 years, stated he very much supports the purchase of the Bair ranch. Joe Macy, area resident, spoke to the Board. He endorses the request for funding. He informed the Board that Ken Salazar had identified this as one of the crown jewels of Eagle County, along with Sylvan Lake. He urged the Board to support the request. Allen Nottingham, area resident, spoke to the Board, His family has been in Eagle County for over 100 years. He told the Board that his family had originally had a ranch in Avon and they were forced to sell it because they couldn't make it financially. He admires the Bair family for their desire to 31 07-29-2003 do the right thing and for being good business people. He wishes they had had the opportunity to use this type of alternative to selling. Ceci Nottingham, area resident, spoke to the Board echoing everything positive that was said by all ofthe speakers. She asked Mr. Bair ifhe had ever been offered a listing contract by Tom Stone. Mr. Bair responded that he would rather not comment on this question. Chairman Gallagher stated he asked Mr. Stone at the beginning of the meeting whether he could make a profit if this project was approved or disapproved. He believes that there is no conflict of interest. He believes the fact that this had been discussed previously did not constitute a conflict of interest at this time. Darren Rowe, area resident, stated that he is an opponent to this project. He related the State of California's situation for spending money that they do not have. He showed the Board some pictures of the wildfire danger in Eagle County. He related that this was fiscally and legally irresponsible to do this at this time. Adam Palmer, director of the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability and member of the Eagle County Planning Commission, concurred with Sybill Navas. He compared the rapid growth of the valley to a catastrophic wildfire. He congratulated Craig Bair for doing the right thing. Clark Anderson, also a lifelong resident of the valley spoke to the Board. He spoke about the quality of the watershed. He spoke about the quality of life in the valley and what constitutes the character of this valley. Richard DeClark, area resident, spoke to the Board. He asked the Board to look at this request as any land deal with contingencies such as early closing, and that this approval be reviewed by a citizen committee and ask for their recommendation. He also suggested that a satisfactory review by County legal counsel take place. He also suggested a financing contingency. He wondered if Mr. Bair would accept payment based on knowledge of a deal pending. Peggy Curry, area resident, spoke to the Board. She is a new resident to the county. She came from a rural county in New York. She told the Board that ranchers and farmers did not choose this profession for the money, they chose it for love of the land. Ken Neubecker, Eagle resident, offered several perspectives. He strongly supports preservation of the Bair Ranch. He believes this is an unprecedented opportunity for Eagle County. He spoke about the lack of open space available in Eagle County. He also stated that this was the last working ranch in Eagle County. There are many other ranches in McCoy and Bums area that will be facing the same problems. Michael Cacciopo, area resident, spoke to the Board. He stated that what bothers him about the deal is that there would be no right of access by the general public. He questioned why the taxpayers should pay millions of dollars for a piece of property with no public access. He questioned the internal views and stated that they would not be for the public paying for it. He is also concerned about the 1/3 of the land not in Eagle County. He implored the Board not to do it ifit isn't legal. Bryan Sipes, area resident, spoke to the Board. He responded to Mr. Wolfe's comments. He highlighted the map in relation to the Cordillera parcel. No one thought Cordillera would be worth anything 30 years ago. He is an architect in private life. He stated that he is in support of preserving this land for future generations. He clarified that most of the cost to protect wildfires is to protect homes. If this were to remain a ranch the wildfires would not have to be fought. He hoped that the Board would find a way to get it done. Joan Hamed, area resident, spoke to the Board. She is the GOCO director. She related that many of the ranchers throughout the state are fearful of doing a conservation easement and would put a lot of stock in the success of the Bair's in this attempt. Tom Sera, area resident, spoke to the Board. He asked the Board to do what's right. He implored the Board to deal with the issues and move forward. 32 07-29-2003 Jim Gonzales, lifelong resident spoke to the Board about the wildlife. He reviewed some of the developmental history of the valley. He read from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation. He implored the Commissioners to say "I Can" and do what is right. Jim Bair, applicant's son, spoke to the Board. He grew up on the ranch. He stated that this isn't a real promising business deal for him or his family. He stated that they are trying to keep the ranch the way it is because they love the land. He stated his family has been diversifying to stay afloat. Public access currently goes right through ranch property. He asked the Board to support their effort to keep their ranch. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Mr. Bair thanked everyone who spoke in favor or against the project. He clarified that Tom Stone did offer a contract to list the property. He stated that he respects Tom Stone and his opinion. The contract was offered a long time ago. He did not think Mr. Stone had been totally for or against this. He believes this is the right thing for his family to do. He has been approached by a lot of people with development ideas. Mr. Hackett addressed the possibility of selling this parcel in the future. He stated there is a departmental prohibition against doing so. Chairman Gallagher asked about the two pieces of the River Parcel. He questioned the comment about floating across the river to get to this property. He asked if the bridge is not available for access. Mr. Hackett stated that the bridge is not part of the deal and is already owned by the BLM. It is not suitable for public use. Their intent for access across the river is by floating. Chairman Gallagher stated that his decision is shades of gray. He wanted to look at this from a perspective of a year from now. He imagined that the Open Space Committee is in place and were coming to the Board to recommend this purchase. Under those circumstances he would support this purchase. His reservations today are the details that need to be worked out about the conservation easement. He believes preserving working ranches and preserving interior views are important values. He stated that the Board would be purchasing development rights for the future. They are not buying public access, they are not buying the right to pick flowers or critic Mr. Bair's ranching abilities. Public money to private profit is the nature of a conservation easement. The idea of getting something for nothing because we are the public does not work. On the issue of spending tomorrow's money today he agrees is an absolutely totally unacceptable illegal and tabor really hates it. Ifthe County could find a way to afford it from the general fund today, that would be as far as the County could look. The potential reimbursement should not be part of the consideration because it is not a guarantee. He spoke about the time involved in putting together the advisory committee. He stated that the Board is working on building this advisory committee diligently. He did not feel it was reasonable to obtain a recommendation from this committee prior to the closing date. Some things that came to light were the idea of water quality as a factor ofthe easement. Someday perhaps that will be automatic thinking on his part. They also need to protect water quality. Commissioner Menconi thanked all present for their concern. He re-iterated the fact that the Board is a representative government. He visited the property on two occasions. He found that there was a story of history and ancestry of a family that raises sheep for meat and wool. He believes it is about preserving a piece of our history and the history ofthis family. He stated he is not comfortable with telling stories of childhood. He stated the one thing that strikes him with this family is the "aw shucks attitude". This is a simple "aw shucks" proposal. He hopes that the Board will make this difficult situation look easy. He believes that the legal issue has been blown out of proportion. The only legal issue is that today the Commissioners cannot say that they are going to use open space dollars to pay for this project. He stated that 3.1 million had been spent on capital projects. They have 7.7 million left un-spent on projects. He believes some ofthose moneys are to be refunded like the Cemetery Bridge. There was $1 million spent with the Town of Vail to move forward on the affordable housing project to preserve 36 units for senior housing. The Berry Creek ball fields $750,000.00. In 2002 they had 1.2 million spent on Berry Creek and 1.2 million on the Tree Farm. The capital improvements in 33 07-29-2003 2001 were 3 million dollars for the Tree Farm and Berry Creek planning at $100,000.00. He has added up over 10 million dollars in Berry Creek alone over the last 3 years. He believes this is a pretty cost effective decision in comparison made over the past three years. There are partners available who have scrutinized this project. The Commissioners have the ability to do this through the General Fund with the hope that the open space committee will choose this as a viable expenditure. There are projects the Board has not spent money on such as the Berry Creek pond. He stated he was not in favor of this but it is a $700,000.00 expenditure. There have been wildfire regulations that have cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, but were the right thing to do. He believes the Board is a blend of decisions between business, the environment and most important, the people. The big picture is simple. They find money from the general fund, partner up with GOCO and the BLM, the Conservation Fund finds the additional dollars by October 1 st and they preserve a ranch that was started in 1919. He stated that he admires the Bair's "true grit" and courage and admires their strength. He believes this is a story that has been a century long and he hopes it continues. Chairman Gallagher stated that ifthis was a year from now, the procedure would include parameters for the easement for restrictions. Since this isn't present he would insist on that coming before the Board for approval. He wondered about the successability of this project if Eagle County is only a piece of the success. Will it succeed because there is going to be full funding? He stated he would be looking for legal staff to come up with language to protect Eagle County's interest for full funding of that portion. Commissioner Stone thanked everyone present as well. He thanked the staff as well. He thanked Craig Bair as well. He will not regret giving personal advice in the future. He stated that this was not personal. He understands this is emotional for all present. He is having a difficult time figuring out where the money is going to come from. At the State level it needs to be in the budget for consideration and cannot be brought up after the fact. He stated he is having a difficult time maintaining the integrity of previous decisions, to change those decisions. He is trying to find out what they would not fund. He stated a lot of the comments today were based on the concept of almost the assumption of immediate development. He believes that is an incorrect assumption. Commissioner Stone stated the River Parcel will be a tough son of a gun to develop. It is not just building a bridge across the river, which is the only way to access it. It will also be crossing the railroad tracks. Mr. Bair knows how difficult the railroad can be to work with. There is a partial solution. The reason he asked about the conditions on the GOCO and federal money is because he was looking for how that money could be utilized. Even if Eagle County is not able to fund the project, he was searching for a solution. Commissioner Stone stated he is trying to maintain the integrity of the budgeting process. He does not believe they will be getting money back for Cemetery Bridge. The money allocated there is the money allocated and is separate from the federal grant. It was interesting to have Mr. Wolfe come to the meeting as the residents of Avon, Vail and Beaver Creek were asking the County for a $13 million dollar check. He ponders if they said no to them how could the Board could say yes in this situation. In addition to the money, he is having a difficult time with determining what projects they eliminate wonders if this would be the number one priority when the advisory board makes that determination. The Jouflas property is in question along with the Brotman Parcel. He would weigh this with other more accessible and more visible properties in the valley. The view assessment that Mr. Simonton did shows clearly that the external views for the people of Eagle County are not in danger. He is interested in riparian areas and water quality. He is still not convinced that if a portion of the property would be sold off that the land would be developed. No one can predict the future. He isn't certain that there is a compromise solution. He asked Mr. Bair if there was anything less than the full $5 million that could save this deal. Mr. Bair stated that the railroad is getting ready to give them access, which would allow for development. This access is in Garfield County. He stated ifhe is going to sell property they want access. Ifhe sells to a developer, that is what they want. He wants the people to decide what is going to happen with this piece of property. He stated he can sell part of his property to a developer and payoff 34 07-29-2003 his brother. He related he is a little put out with people saying you cannot come across that bridge and the railroad because they can. He stated there are people ready and willing to pay for a bridge, signals and a gate and they will have access. He related he is the one sacrificing in this situation. Mr. Bair asked where can you go and buy parcels ofland along the river for $300.00 per acre. This is an opportunity to do something. He guaranteed that there will be golf courses and development in the future if this deal does not go through. He stated in the future there will be access. Commissioner Stone stated that he is looking at the property in Eagle County not in Garfield County. He will not spend Eagle County money for land outside of Eagle County. In conclusion he stated that the sale of the property at this point and time today, is not Eagle County's decision it is the Bair's decision. It is the decision ofthe Board as to whether there is value in purchasing this property and putting off other projects. He does not see this property being under threat of development. He would like to explore the possibility of a partial solution. Mr. Bair responded that he has explored payment options and he said that there wasn't another option. He felt that he has given his time and has sacrificed. He wondered ifthe smart thing to do was to say to heck with it and move to Montana. He asked if there would be a way for Commissioner Stone to be in favor of this project. He wondered if Commissioner Stone had made up his mind before hearing all of the facts. Commissioner Stone stated that he had not made up his mind and would not be able to make up his mind today. He is trying to find another solution. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Roeper to bring up the funding screen. He does not believe that any money should be taken from the capital improvement fund. Everyone ofthose project are in the process and need to continue. He stated he believes the motor pool fund balance of $2.6 million sounds like a lot but try buying a D9. He stated the reserve fund would likely be the place where the money should come from and perhaps the Finance Director could take some money from the motor pool fund. It is not unprecedented that the money could be used and the reserves could be built up over the next few years by the budget process or by other means. Commissioner Menconi stated that he believes this is a straight forward decision. There will also be a profit from the sale ofthe units in Berry Creek. They saw a projection previously. Whenever those type of thing occur they do not see the dollars going back into that fund. He stated this is key. This is a deal and there are partners available. The section that is in Garfield County is easily resolved by the fact that there are partners. He stated he agrees with the statement that it can be taken out of the general fund and the motor pool fund. Commissioner Stone stated that he is resistant to this solution because of the potential liabilities. Mr. Roeper stated that the additional other considerations total could be upwards of $4 million dollars. Chairman Gallagher asked staff to find a way to come up with the money over the next couple of days. He wondered if the other members of the Board are available later in the week, possibly Friday morning. He asked for a continuance until Thursday morning, July 31,2003 at 8:00 AM in order to convince him that this could be done without harm to the County. He asked the other Commissioners if they would be available. The Board concurred. Commissioner Stone asked the other partners of this deal about their certainty of participating in the deal. Tom Macy stated if the Commissioners were to approve the $2 million dollars and the Bair's would give them a year or longer to raise the additional funds, they are very confident the funds would be there. This is what they do. He stated this is a much easier project. They would have a year to raise the remainder of the funds. Commissioner Stone stated it still does not address the question of certainty. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, asked what the Board is asking for during this meeting. 35 07-29-2003 Chairman Gallagher stated that he would like staff should to make a presentation on where the money would come from with no detrimental effect to the County. Commissioner Stone stated he wants to know what is the risk assessment. Spending monies that are planned for something else will have some sort of a risk. Mr. Ingstad asked about existing priorities and next year's staffing, and wondered what the Board is expecting. He is hearing from the majority of the Board that this money may not be repaid. If the money is not repaid do the Commissioners what to know if the County could function comfortably? Chairman Gallagher agreed with Commissioner Stone's request for a risk assessment. Commissioner Menconi asked all present to try to attend the meeting on Thursday morning. He requested the Commissioners focus on where to find the money and not on risk assessment. He did not understand how this decision differed from other decisions that were made. He stated that he takes this process very seriously. Other projects did not go through this much scrutiny. He stated this is not what the Commissioners are supposed to be doing. Mr. Ingstad stated that the other funding decisions were easier because sufficient money was available in the general fund in excess of 25%. He believes there can be a solution that would protect the integrity of the budget. He stated it is a little late in the year and this Board decided to reduce the fund balance down to the 25%. He believes that there are ways that this can be done with give and takes. Commissioner Menconi stated that there are opportunities. He requested that the Board give the Bair's a commitment. Mr. Ingstad stated that there are a number of capital projects that have not been started and these projects could be delayed for future years. He asked if the Board would like him to look at. Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Ingstad to show the Board these items. He expressed his commitment to a decision Thursday morning. Commissioner Stone stated he would not commit to making a decision on Thursday morning and will continue to look for solutions. He expects there will be a decision on Thursday. Commissioner Stone moved the hearing on the Bair Ranch Open Space be continued until 8:00 AM Thursday morning, July 31, 2003. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until August 5, 2003. Chairman 36 07-29-2003