No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/11/04 PUBLIC HEARING MAY 11,2004 Present: Tom Stone Am Menconi Jack Ingstad Diane Mauriello Teak Simonton Chairman Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Clerk to the Board Absent: Michael Gallagher Commissioner This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the fIrst matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning whether to enter into pending litigation in Case No. 95 CW 272 concerning the Homestake project, for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning the soccer club Lease Agreement and for the purpose of receiving legal advice concerning the application of Cable Franchise Agreements to Metro Districts all of which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to G.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e). Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher would not be present at the meeting as he is still out of town. At the close of the discussion Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanunous. Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the weeks of May 10 and May 17,2004, subject to review by the County Administrator B. Approval of payroll for May 13,2004, subject to review by the County Administrator C. Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for April 27, 2004 D. Bid Award 2004 Agreement for Chip-Seal Project, GMCO LLC of Colorado, PO Box 1480, Rifle, CO 81650 E. Agreement for Household Hazardous Waste Collection Event Services between Eagle County and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. F. Agreement between Eagle County and Alpine Activities G. Resolution 2004-053, Conferring Power of Attorney upon Diane H. Mauriello, County Attorney, Walter Mathews IV, Deputy County Attorney, Bryan R. Treu, Assistant County Attorney and Debbie Faber, Assistant County Attorney, to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado with respect to Letter of Credit No. 65 in the amount of $1 ,442,384.90 for the account of Arrowhead Valley Development, LLC Drawn on Mesa National Bank and Expiring on May 19,2004 1 05-11-04 H. Waiver of Direct Subgrant Juvenile Accountability Block Grant (JABG) for the Federal Fiscal Year 2003 Award I. Resolution J. Consent to Assignment and Assumption of Subdivision Improvements Agreement - Willow Creek PUD K. Intergovernmental Agreement between the Town of Gypsum and County of Eagle L. Resolution 2004-056, approving the ftling of a Grant Application and proposal under the Small Community Air Service Development Program and authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute an documents associated therewith. Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's OffIce if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated that there should be an amendment to Item L. This item should be amended to read "Resolution authorizing the Chairman of the Board to sign the application for the Eagle County Airport." Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, asked that item I and L be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented excluding items I andL. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Item I, Resolution 2004-054, Federal Assistance Mr. Ingstad spoke about Item I, a Resolution approving the fIling of application for Federal Assistance and Environmental Checklist in connection with the Eagle County Regional Airport. He wanted to revise some of the capital requests to allow moving forward with re-alignment of Cooley Mesa Road. The AlP money would be used for purchases going forward. Rich Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, stated that this resolution was consistent with the AlP plan. The land acquisition was taken out of the Resolution. He clarifIed that all entitlement dollars would not be spent, and that there would be approximately $300,000 remaining. These funds could be carried forward. The Board also authorized continuing with schedule 3 of the current program. He stated that if there were no changes to the taxiway approximately $60,000 of the $200,000 would be needed. Chairman Stone asked if there were projects that would need funds above and beyond the entitlement monies. Mr. Cunningham stated that there currently are not projects planned but they could conceivably come up with some to use surplus funds if they were available. He gave examples of projects for which planning could begin if they were so directed. Mr. Ingstad stated that negotiations related to the Cooley Mesa Road had not been going well. He wanted the Board to know that based on this lack of success with the developer that they are moving forward with the capital improvement plan as presented. He informed the Board that the County should hear this week on the funding for the radar system for the airport. The runway extension will cost $20,000,000 and these funds will come from the FAA, not the entitlement money. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2004-054, approving the fIling of application for Federal Assistance and Environmental Checklist in connection with the Eagle County Regional Airport. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. 2 05-11-04 Item L, Resolution 2004-056, Grant Application Mr. Ingstad spoke about Item L, Resolution 2004-056, approving the ftling of a Grant Application and proposal under the Small Community Air Service Development Program and authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute an documents associated therewith. Mr. Ingstad explained that he asked for this to be removed because he does not believe staffhas spoken with the Board about the details of the proposed grant. He told the Board that there had been meetings with Vail Resorts and the Towns to complete a grant application. He stated they have discovered that Eagle County can apply for these grants. Mr. Cunningham stated that Vail Resorts, the Chamber and the County had put together a funding partnership for marketing and ftnancial incentives to the airlines. This comes to about $4 million dollars over a two year period. They are requesting half of these funds in the form of the grant. The application should be available to the Board shortly. Mr. Ingstad stated that the County would be responsible for about $375,000 annually, and Vail Resorts share would be approximately the same. Mr. Cunningham concurred that the marketing amount would be $300,000, but the flight guarantees would be additional. Mr. Ingstad asked about the other entity's participation in this cost. Mr. Cunningham stated that Vail Resorts share would be $495,000.00 per year, the Chamber of Commerce will be putting in $300,000 per year and the County will put in $300,000 per year. Chairman Stone clarifted that this was a grant application and there is no guarantee that the County would get the grant. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2004-056, approving the ftling of a Grant Application and proposal under the small Community Air Service Development Program and authorizing the Chairman of the Board of county Commissioners to execute any documents associated therewith. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unarnmous. Plat and Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2004-055, in the Matter of Amending Chapter II, Article 3, Table 3-320, Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Allowing 'Churches' via Special Use Review in the Commercial (ieneral Zone District. The Board considered the Applicant's request on April 19th, 2004. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2004-055, in the Matter of Amending Chapter II, Article 3, Table 3-320, Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Allowing 'Churches' via Special Use Review in the Commercial General Zone District. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 5MB-00335 Miller Ranch Parcel 10 5MB-00336 Miller Ranch, Parcel lOA Diane Mauriello presented ftle numbers 5MB-00335, and 5MB-00336 Miller Ranch Parcel 10 and lOA. She provided some clariftcation on these ftles. The ftrst ftle is to subdivide Parcel 10, which 3 05-11-04 is a protective measure under the development agreement with Berry Creek LLC. The second ftle is a condominium map. She stated that both of these items were necessary to affect closings on the ftrst of June, 2004. Back in November 2003 the Board approved a Resolution authorizing any Commissioner to execute these agreements. The Board signed the documents. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Earlene Roach, License Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda for May 11, 2004, as follows: A) Gloria J. Deschamp EI Jebel Liquors This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is located along EI Jebel Road and Highway 82. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Conway's State Bridge, Inc. State Bridge Lodge This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located along Trough Road and Highway 131. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) DKM Associates, LLC Juniper Restaurant This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located at 97 Main Street, Edwards, in Riverwalk. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. D) Daniel's Foods, Inc. Mirabelle at Beaver Creek This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located along Village Road in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. E) Gore Range Brewery LLC Gore Range Brew Pub This is a renewal of a brew pub license. This establishment is located along Edwards Village Blvd in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. F) Summit Food & Beverage LLC The Summit This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located in Cordillera along Gore Trail. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. G) Hyatt Corporation Park Hyatt Beaver Creek This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located along East Thomas Place in the Plaza at Beaver Creek. 4 05-11-04 There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. H) Hyatt Corporation Park Hyatt Beaver Creek This is a change in corporate structure. The new individuals are Douglas G. Geoga, Thomas F. O'Toole, Randa M. Saleh and Steven R. Goldman, all of whom are Illinois residents and are reported to be of good moral character. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda as presented. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. Cordillera Lodge & Spa Earlene Roach presented a modiftcation of premises for Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. and Fandango Cordillera LLC, d/b/a the Lodge & Spa at Cordillera. She stated the applicant proposes to enlarge and remodel the kitchen and dining areas, the check-in and office area will be different, and there are some changes to the outside. However the footprint of the building remains mostly the same with the addition of the office and check in area. Also included in this application is a managers registration for Robert Nelson. Both applications are in order. Staff has no concerns with these applications. Mr. Nelson is reported to be of good moral character. Chairman Stone asked several questions of the applicant. Robert Nelson, Vice president and managing director and Harry Rosenthal were present for the hearing. Chairman Stone asked about the modiftcation of the premises. He wondered what was going to added. Mr. Rosenthal stated that the interior conftguration would not be changed with the exception of the new office and reception area. The Port Couchere would be closed with the expansion. Chairman Stone asked about how the applicant would control the removal of alcohol from the premIses. Mr. Nelson explained that all staff in the area would be aware of the single point of exit. He believes that the future staffing will be improved. Chairman Stone wondered about the traffic patterns. Mr. Nelson clarifted that it would be a turn-around area only. He stated that eventually the entire area would be covered. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve the modiftcation of premises for Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. and Fandango Cordillera LLC, d/b/a The Lodge and Spa at Cordillera. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unarnmous. Chairman Stone asked for some information about Mr. Nelson's background in the liquor fteld. Mr. Nelson stated that he had been in the business for more than 20 years. Most recently he had been at the Woodlands in Texas, in charge of 5 golf courses and 2 hotels. He has read the Colorado Department of Revenue liquor requirements entirely and he has completed his server training. He takes his role very seriously and makes sure that his staff understands their role and requirements in the enforcement of the law. Chairman Stone stated that in the past when there had been problems the Board had looked to the manager to be responsible. He told the applicant that the Commissioners take these registrations very seriously. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve a manager's registration for Robert Nelson, Colorado Hotel Operator, Inc. and Fandango Cordillera LLC, d/b/a The Lodge and Spa at Cordillera. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unammous. 5 05-11-04 V ail Valley Charitable Fund Bryan Treu, Assistant County Attorney, asked the Board if he could speak about the Vail Valley Charitable Fund special events permit. This event will take place on May 29,2004. Based on the publication requirements and State submittal requirements, this hearing must take place on May 18, 2004. It is his understanding that the Commissioners meeting on May 18th might be cancelled. He requested that Earlene Roach be designated as its administrative officer to perform all functions associated with the special events hearing of the Vail Valley Charitable Fund set for May 18,2004. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Eagle County Liquor Authority designated Earlene Roach as its administrative officer to perform all functions associated with the special events hearing of the Vail Valley Charitable Fund set for May 18, 2004. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote passed unanimously. The Shortstop Earlene Roach presented a renewal of a tavern license for Stasmore, Inc., d/b/a The Shortstop. This is an advertised hearing on the renewal of a tavern license for this applicant, due to the freezing death of Monijibel Monjaras.(all Sheriffs and Coroners reports are attached). Section 12-47-302 (1), C.R.S. reads as follows: "the local licensing authority may cause a hearing on the application for renewal to be held. No renewal hearing provided for by this subsection shall be held by the local licensing authority until a notice of hearing has been conspicuously posted on the licensed premises for a period of ten days prior to the hearing. The licensing authority may refuse to renew any license for good cause, subject to judicial review". The only decision before the Liquor Authority today is to renew or deny the renewal of this license. However, if the applicant would offer a stipulation, the Liquor Authority may accept that stipulation. Staff is concerned with the possibility of over service. According to statements, Mr. Monjaras (deceased) drank between 15 and 21 beers before arriving at the Shortstop. This occurred between 11 :00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. While at the Shortstop, he had at least a couple more beers. Mr. Monjaras, (cousin), relates that on February 3, 2005, Mr. Mohl (bartender) spoke to him expressing his sympathy and related that Mr. Monjara was very drunk and sitting on a chair by the pool tables. In Mr. Mohl's statement, he reports that Mr. Monjara did not seem intoxicated and he did not cut him off. Jorge Noriega (witness), stated he did not believe Mr. Monjara was falling over drunk but related he was too intoxicated to drive. The Shortstop does have a security video camera and has had for several years. Staff ftnds it unfortunate that whenever there has been a problem at this establishment the camera is either not turned on, tapes are recorded over, or the security system is not working. Staff has heard all of the above on different occasions. If there is not service to a visibly intoxicated individual the tape would be perfect evidence of that. Staff believes the owner should make it his priority to assure that the video is working properly, it is turned on every night and no tapes are recorded over for a period of time. Ms. Roach stated despite the concerns noted above, Staff does not believe there is enough evidence at this time to warrant the denial of this renewal application. Chairman Stone asked for a representative from the business. Michael Stascavage, owner, and Gerald Mohl, bartender, were present for the hearing. Mr. Stascavage expressed his sorrow over the situation. He informed the Board that the police had done a thorough investigation and did not ftnd any fault with the Short Stop. Chairman Stone asked Ms. Roach to review the past problems with this establishment. Ms. Roach stated that they had previously had a suspension for over-service, and that this had occurred some time ago. 6 05-11-04 Chairman Stone stated that this suspension had happened during his term of office. He stated he believes there is a part of the liquor code that allows denial of a liquor license if there is a trend, or repeated offenses. He asked Mr. Treu to ftnd the statute. Mr. Treu stated that a denial could occur for good cause and he listed some of these possible causes. a. Chairman Stone stated that since he had been on the Board there was one other occasion to deal with another situation such as this. In that case a woman had died. The license of the establishment that had served her was revoked in this case. The Board determined that enough evidence was available in this case to remove the license. He asked Mr. Stascavage what he could do to change his pattern of over service. Mr. Stascavage assured the Board that he has a daily log which usually shows no problems. He also has a bid from a security fIrm to replace his 15 year old camera system. The new system would allow better monitoring of what occurred in the establishment. All of his bartenders had attended the TIPS program, there is sufficient security on staff; 2-3 people per evening. He has called the police for walk-throughs on busy nights. Chairman Stone stated that when someone loses their life it is a very serious matter. He believes that there is an added responsibility as a license holder to not serve someone who is intoxicated. He reminded the applicant that the license was suspended once before for over service. He stated that the Board could decide not to renew the license and the only recourse for the owner in that case would be the courts. He stated that he is tempted to do so at this time. The surveillance camera would not prohibit over service. It would only prove the fact that an individual had been over served. He had not heard from the applicant about his ideas for ramping up his action plan. Mr. Stascavage stated that they have a very good staffwho are very conscientious and that they work with the police to avoid over service. They try their hardest but they are not perfect. They turn people away if they are intoxicated. He added that he is there as frequently as he can be. He offered the possibility to hire an off-duty police offIcer to make sure things are handled properly. Reviewing the tapes every morning so that bartenders could be instructed if they over served would be another possibility. He told the Board that he and his staffhad given people rides home when they are too intoxicated to drive. His bartenders do not drink behind the bar. He is open to suggestions from the Board. Chairman Stone asked about the State Bridge Lodge and how that situation had been handled. Ms. Roach stated that they required that one off-duty officer must be on duty for each 100 people, addressed parking issues and have a certain number of service staff and security personnel. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Treu for suggestions Mr. Treu stated that perhaps handling the situation similar to the requirements for State Bridge would be appropriate and that the applicant, Ms. Roach and he would sit down and come up with a plan for the short run to address the problems. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve the renewal of a tavern license for Stasmore, Inc., d/b/a The Shortstop on the conditions agreed to by the applicant that a new security system be installed allowing for approximately a two week retention, and that the applicant work with County staff to address potential increases in security at the establishment. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and re- convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unarnmous. 7 05-11-04 ZS-001l6 Edwards Kingdom Hall Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented ftle number ZS-00116, Edwards Kingdom Hall. He stated this was a Special Use Permit application to allow moderate expansion of the parking lot and widening of the access driveway. Handicap accessibility will also be enhanced, as well as the existing building's aesthetics. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1984 ZS-2l6-84 Original Special Use approval granted by the BoCC for a church facility. 1985 ZS-2l6-85 Amendment to Special Use with regard to a requirement to connect the subject site to the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation District. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineering Please reference attached Memorandum dated February 23, 2004. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation Service, Eagle River Fire Protection District, Eagle County Ambulance District, Cordillera Valley Club HOA, Singletree HOA. 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.1] 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 FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Conformance x x x x x x x [+] 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 existing structure on the site is a 3,504 square foot church. This proposal to enlarge the ancillary parking lot and access drive will not affect the church facility. It is the applicant's intent however to enhance handicap access, as well as, the overall aesthetics of the existing building as part of the overall site improvements. [+] 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. 8 05-11-04 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 3-3iO, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. AJ!ricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards A'JTJlicable to Particular Commercial and industrial Uses. The existing church and proposed improvements satisftes all applicable zone district standards with the exception of lot size. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] With the recommended condition, the proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards of the zone district in which it is located, and DOES meet the standards applicable to the particular use, as identifted 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. No signiftcant adverse impacts are likely to occur as a result of this proposal. Grading modiftcations to the site will be promptly revegetated and landscaped pursuant to the submitted landscape plan. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] The design of the proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid signiftcant 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 Engineering Department requests that on-site storm water detention be provided. Any additional storm water drainage off of this site could further aggravate existing downstream erosion problems. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use must minimize environmental impacts that MAY cause signiftcant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. As conditioned, any potential environmental impacts associated with the proposed site modiftcations WILL BE mitigated. 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 ftre 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 Development Standards. 9 05-11-04 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 ([ + D or does not meet the standard ([-D, or the standard does not apply ([n/aD. [+] Division 4-1. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards The proposed parking lot improvements will increase the total parking beyond the minimum required number of off-street parking spaces. [+] Division 4-2. Landscaping and Illumination Standards Landscaping has previously been provided on this site. Additional landscaping will be installed pursuant to the submitted landscape plan. [+] Division 4-3. Sign Regulations All signs identifying the church 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 Subiect to Geologic Hazards Potential geologic hazards were evaluated prior to the time the building permit was issued for the existing facility. No geologic hazards have subsequently been identifted. [+] Section 4-430. Develooment in Areas Subiect to Wildftre Hazards The County Wildftre Mitigation Specialist notes that the site is located in a Moderate Wildftre Hazard area. He further notes that the site is in compliance with the Eagle county defensible space requirements. [+] 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 as having possible ridgeline impacts. [n/a] Section 4-460. Environmental Impact Reoort An Environmental Impact Report is not required for this Special Use Permit. [n/a] Division 4-5. Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. This Division is not applicable. [n/a] Division 4-6. Imorovements Standards The site is already improved with established infrastructure. No additional infrastructure improvements are required. [+] Division 4-7. Imoact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. [n/a] Section 4-700: School Land Dedication Standards Since this Special Use Permit application does not result in a net increase in dwelling units, the provisions of this Section are not apolicable. [n/a] Section 4-710: Road Imoact Fees No additional road impacts will result from the proposed use. Consequently, road impact fees are not aoplicable. [+] 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 complies 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. 10 05-11-04 Doug Gayenne and Fred Tobias, professional engineers were present for the applicant. He stated this was being requested so that improvements could be made to accommodate their growth and aesthetics. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve ftle number ZS-OO 116, Edwards Kingdom Hall, incorporating the staff ftndings with the following conditions: 1. Resolution, to the County Engineer's satisfaction, of those technical issues as delineated in the Eagle County Engineering Department Memorandum dated February 23, 2004. The applicant must satisfy this condition prior to the commencement of any site grading work. 2. Except as otherwise modifted 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 Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. AFP-0019l, Slater Minor Type A Sub Lot 3 Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planner, presented ftle number AFP-00191, Slater Minor Type A Sub Lot 3. She stated the intent of this project is to modify the platted building envelope on Lot 3 of the Slater Minor Type A Subdivision. A surveying error platted the building envelope incorrectly. As a result, an Amended Final Plat is necessary to correct the size and shape of the building envelope, to what was originally contemplated by the owner. The applicants have worked closely with the Eagle County Wildftre Mitigation Specialist to ensure that the building envelope's expanded shape avoids a potentially dangerous wildftre hazard area (a ridge with steep slopes; please see attached plat and letter). Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. All adjacent property owners were notified for this file. No responses were received from the following adjacent property owners, as supplied by the applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Mark Hinchliffe, Mr. and Mrs. Andrew Stone, Mr. and Mrs. Brian Lowe, James Lewis, the Blue Lake HOA and Anne Cooke. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS NOT inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. With both the adjacent property owner approvals and the consideration from the Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, the intent of this plat appears consistent. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. Chairman Stone asked if the applicant was present. Joe Colore, Attorney representing the applicant, was present for the hearing. He clarifted that the envelope was being extended to the East. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board of County Commissioners approve file number AFP- 00191, Slater Minor Type A Sub Lot 3, incorporating the ftndings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 11 05-11-04 Report of Open Space Advisory Committee Bair Ranch Chairman Stone stated the next matter before the Board was the report from the Open Space Committee. He stated a sign in sheet is going around for those wishing to speak. Chairman Stone asked how many people were present to speak to the Berry Creek Open Space. There were two. He stated the rest of those present were here to speak on the Bair Ranch open space. Bair Ranch Conservation Project and the Berry Creek Open Space Parcel Chairman Stone clarifted that this is not a planning ftle and as such there are similarities to planning ftles, but there are also differences. He clarifted that he would like staff to present the request and then open the floor to public comment. He asked that comments be limited to 3 minutes per speaker. Cliff Simonton, planner presented the recommendations. Request for Funding The Eagle Valley Land Trust and The Conservation Fund, representing James Craig and Doris Bair, are requesting Eagle County Open Space funds in the amount of $2,000,000 to secure an open space conservation easement on that portion of the Bair Ranch that exists in Eagle County. The purchase price for that p~rtion of the easement in Eagle County is $3,151,632. If approved, Eagle County's $2 million would cover 63.5%, with the balance of funds coming from two Great Outdoors Colorado (GOCO) grants, and funds raised by the Eagle Valley Land Trust. Project Description The 4,830 acre ranch straddles the Eagle County / Garfteld County line south of the east entrance to Glenwood Canyon. 3,306 acres of the ranch, or 68%, are in Eagle County and 1,524 acres are in Garfteld. The total purchase price for the entire conservation project has been set at $5,100,000. Vicinity 1,524 acres in Garfteld County 3,306 acres, or 68%, in Eagle County Project Description The subject property is split into two parts. The smaller of the two is referred to as the River Parcel. This 512 acre parcel borders the Colorado River from Dotsero to the mouth of the Glenwood Canyon, and is entirely within Eagle County. It is proposed that the BLM will purchase this property for $228,900. The larger portion of the ranch, referred to as the "Mountain Parcel", extends from the ranch headquarters at 6100 feet in Glenwood Canyon to near 8900 feet at its southern extent in Eagle County. That portion of the Mountain Parcel in Eagle County consists of approximately 2800 acres that is surrounded entirely by BLM land. Two separate conservation easements are proposed for the Mountain Parcel, one for the Eagle County portion and one for that portion in Garfteld. The Fee Simple Purchase by the BLM Would place the River Parcel under federal ownership Would allow use of the River Parcel by the public The Conservation Easement The Easement on the Mountain Parcel: Would allow ranching and agriculture Would allow speciftc "Guest Ranching" activities Would limit guest ranching support facilities. Two of these facilities are located in Eagle County. Would not allow public access to the property The easement in Eagle County would be held jointly by the Eagle Valley Land Trust and Eagle County. Funding Partnerships 12 05-11-04 Total Purchase Price: $5,100,000 Total Fair Market Value: $5,411,400 Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund, $915,000 (18%) Eagle County Open Space Fund, (Applied for) $2,000,000 (39%) Raised by: Eagle Valley Land Trust & The Conservation Fund $685,000 (14%) Garfteld County, $ 25,000 Colorado Conservation Trust Gate's Family Foundation Private Donations to date, $ 179,515 Balance to be raised for closing. 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 280,485 Bureau of Land Management, $1,500,000 (29%) To date, the purchase price is $5,400,000.00. The owner contribution will be somewhere in the neighborhood of$300,000.00. Mr. Simonton reviewed the details of the potential purchase. He showed all present a map of the property with surrounding identiftable geographical features and ownership boundaries. Several photographs and aerial photographs of the area were shown as well. He highlighted the areas on the photograph where the land crosses the Eagle and Garfteld County borders. He showed photographs of Gobbler Knob, the old Mayne Homestead and Cottonwood Pass. He informed the board that currently there is no pedestrian or vehicular access to the property with the exception of the stretch of the Colorado River that could be accessed for recreational activity. He highlighted several sights that would be allowed to be developed. The easement allows for three additional home sites, one of which would be visible from the Interstate. Chairman Stone asked about the $311,000 contribution from the owner. Mr. Simonton stated that it was a function of the total of all of the current and requested funding available. The fair market assessed value was 5.4 million but is only asking for 5.1 million, which reflects a difference of approximately $300,000. Mr. Simonton reviewed each of the criteria that were used to evaluate this property. That criteria is as follows: Evaluation Criteria I Scenic Landscapes and Vistas are to preserve and protect Eagle County's outstanding natural beauty and visual quality. Evaluation Criteria I Scenic Landscapes and Vistas Preserve and Protect Eagle County's outstanding natural beauty and visual quality. OSAC Recommendation of HIGH Staff had suggested a rating of MEDIUM Evaluation Criteria II Regional Heritage Agriculture and Ranching Retain Eagle County's history, Culture and agricultural land values OSAC Recommendation HIGH Staffhad suggested a rating of HIGH Evaluation Criteria III Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat and Migration Routes Set aside areas critical to the long term health and vitality of indigenous wildlife. OSAC Recommendation HIGH Staffhad suggested a rating of HIGH Evaluation Criteria IV 13 05-11-04 Sensitive Lands and Environments Protect riparian areas, flood plains, and other sensitive, unique or endangered ecosystems or environments OSAC Recommendation HIGH Staffhad suggested a rating of HIGH Evaluation Criteria V Physical and Visual Buffers Promote Community Separation and distinction, and provide separation between developed areas and sensitive lands OSAC Recommendation MEDIUM Staff had suggested that this criteria did not apply to this project Evaluation Criteria VI Access to Streams, Rivers, Public Lands and Dispersed Recreation Opportunities Provide access to public lands, and improve opportunities for high quality dispersed recreation OSAC Recommendation LOW Staffhad suggested that this criteria did not apply to this project Other Factors Economy Master Plan conformance Urgency Uniqueness Precedent setting Educational opportunities Support Big Picture, regional signiftcance Property encumbrance Environmental hazards Maintenance, monitoring OSAC Recommendation Approval with the condition that Annual Monitoring Reports required for both conservation easements be submitted to Eagle County Staff, and that a recap of these reports be provided to OSAC and the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Simonton showed the view shed analysis from 1-70 and informed the Board that approximately 30 points were awarded for this criteria. The committee asked Mr. Simonton to mention that the property could be seen quite well from Coffee Pot Springs road, which is used heavily by Eagle County citizens for recreation. The OSAC committee placed a high on the Scenic Landscapes and Vistas criteria # 1. They placed a high value on the vistas that were available from other points than the Interstate. Regional heritage Agriculture and ranching was the second criteria and the committee rated it as "high". The third criteria had to do with wildlife habitat and migration routes. This was also rated as "high". The fourth criteria had to do with sensitive lands and environments. This was rated as "high". Physical and visual buffers were the ftfth criteria. The OSAC committee rated this as "Medium". The last criteria was access to streams, rivers, public lands and dispersed recreation opportunities. The committee rated this as "low". Other factors included economy, master plan conformance, urgency, uniqueness, precedent setting, educational opportunities, and support. In terms of precedent setting, the combination of funding partners sets a precedent for future projects. There might be an opportunity to add a sign indicating Eagle County's contribution to the purchase of the property at the rest area. The project has potential signiftcant regional beneftt. The committee asked him to pass on that at the end of the deliberation it was difftcult to separate the property in terms of Eagle and Garfteld County, but that it was important to the region. Maintenance would remain the responsibility of the property owner. The vote was 9 in favor and I opposed to recommending this purchase using Eagle County Open Space funds. He stated the staff report is as follows and as shown in the Board's packets: 14 05-11-04 OSAC RECOMMENDATION: At its public hearing of April 26th, 2004, the Eagle County Citizen's Open Space Advisory Committee voted 9 to 1 to recommend approval of this request for funding, with one condition: "That Annual Monitoring Reports required for both the conservation easement in Garfteld County and the conservation easement in Eagle County be submitted to Eagle County Staff for review, and that a recap of these reports be provided to the Open Space Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissioners". During deliberation, the Committee recognized as generally signiftcant: The size, diversity, and extent of the ranch, and its current and potential influence toward preserving the quality of surrounding public lands The wildlife habitat represented by the diversity of vegetative plant communities on the ranch. The array and signiftcance of partnerships and fund raising efforts associated with this project, and the example and precedent set by years of hard work and cooperation towards a common goal. The willingness of the owner to sell his development rights, and the owner's contribution of $311,000 to the cause. Recent negotiated changes to the proposal that reduce the amount of Guest Ranching improvements that would be allowed, especially in Eagle County. The signiftcance of the River Parcel to the scenic quality of the Dotsero area, the importance of the riparian environment along the Colorado River that would be preserved, and the access its purchase would provide to adjacent public lands. The signiftcance of the Bair Ranch on a regional scale, and the beneftt its preservation would provide to all who live in this area and all who visit this part of Colorado. The preponderance of public comment received at the hearing favored the project. The committee also noted that the project was not perfect, that some access to the Mountain Parcel would have been preferred, that there was some question as to the long term viability of sheep ranching, and that the ranch, with its diversifted uses, might not ftt the deftnition of a true ''working ranch" . Regarding the conformance of the proposal to specific open space evaluation criteria, the Committee agreed with Staff's analysis on most points, but differed on several, notably "Scenic Quality", "Access" and "Buffers". Those differences, as well as other observations andjustiftcations presented by the Committee with regards to this staff report, are indicated in bold italic in the text that follows. PROPOSAL The Eagle Valley Land Trust and The Conservation Fund, representing the Bair Family, are requesting Eagle County Open Space Tax funds in the amount of two million dollars ($2,000,000) to secure a conservation easement on that portion of the Bair Ranch that exists in Eagle County. The total price ofthe conservation easement purchase in both counties has been set at $5,100,000. The remaining ftnancial goals for the purchase will be met through funding partnerships with the BLM, the Great Outdoors Colorado Trust Fund (GOCO), Garfteld County, private corporations and private fund raising. Two separate conservation easements would control future land use on the property, one for lands in Eagle County, to be held jointly by Eagle County and the Eagle Valley Land Trust, and a second for lands in Garfteld County, to be held by the Bureau of Land Management. Through provision of the two separate easements, future subdivision of the ranch would not be allowed, and the land in its entirety (excepting the River Parcel, explained below) would remain a single private ranch, with uses and expansions controlled by provision of the conservation easement. Three additional single family homes would be allowed to be built on sites near the present day ranch headquarters in Garfteld County, but these homes would not be allowed to be separated from the ranch property. An eleven acre parcel encompassing the main ranch house would be allowed to be separated from the rest of the property, for the purpose of securing future loans. Uses on this 11 acre parcel, 15 05-11-04 however, would still be controlled by provision of the easement. Maintenance and upkeep of all ranch facilities would remain the responsibility of the property owner. Ancillary and subordinate to agricultural uses, "guest ranch" operations, which the Bair family has engaged in over the past several years to supplement their income, would also be allowed. These uses include horseback riding, guiding, hunting, hiking, fishing, snowmobiling (on roads only) and camping. Public access is generally not compatible with ranching activities, however, and the general public will not be allowed to enter that portion of the project placed under the conservation easement, unless paying as "ranch guests". PROJECT DESCRIPTION The total ranch consists of 4830 acres that straddle the Eagle County / Garfteld County line between Interstate-70 and Cottonwood Pass, essentially at the east entrance to 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, with 1,524 acres in Garfteld. The property exists as two separate tracts of land, the "River Parcel" and the "Mountain Parcel". The River Parcel totals 512-acres ofland located immediately adjacent to and south of the Colorado River between the Two Rivers Planned Unit Development (at Dotsero) and the mouth of Glenwood Canyon (all in Eagle County). It is intended to be purchased fee-simple by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). The Union Paciftc railroad right-of-way parallels the river's southern bank though this area, bisecting the acreage. Approximately three (3) miles of south and north-bank river frontage is included. Excepting river-edge riparian areas, the River Parcel contains 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 result in public ownership of the land, physical access is presently restricted to individuals with a boat, or to those willing to wade the river at times of low flows. No speciftc access improvements are proposed by this project. The remaining 4318 acres of the ranch, an irregularly shaped tract referred to as the "Mountain Parcel", is proposed to be set aside in a conservation easement. This property includes the Bair Ranch headquarters, which is located in Garfteld County a short distance into the Glenwood Canyon. The parcel consists of a broad variety of habitats and topography. River and stream-edge riparian, open meadows, mixed shrub, sagebrush, and aspen and coniferous forests are found on gentle to steep sided valleys and benches on the south side of the Colorado River. Elevations range from 6100 feet at the ranch headquarters in the canyon to 8700 feet near Cottonwood Pass Road in Eagle County. A separate small parcel, known as "Dock Flats", is located further south of the main property at an elevation of 8900 feet. Approximately 2,794 acres of the Mountain Parcel is located in Eagle County. It is surrounded entirely by BLM lands, and is located two to three miles south of the Interstate-70 corridor towards Cottonwood Pass Road. With the exception of four very old structures on Cottonwood Creek (the Mayne Homestead), and a small, more recently constructed cabin higher up on Spring Creek, no improvements exist on the Eagle County parcel. The Eagle County lands have historically been used to graze sheep and, more recently, to support guide and outfttter operations run by the Bair Family (Le. hunting in the fall). The Bair's also hold leases for grazing on large portions of the adjoining public land. Access to the land in Eagle County is via an unimproved dirt road/jeep trail through private property owned by Dean and Lois Walker (prescriptive easement for ranching assumed) from the summit of Cottonwood Pass, or via similar unimproved "ranch" roads that cross in and out of BLM lands (again, prescriptive easement assumed) as wind to Eagle County from the Bair Ranch headquarters in Garfteld County. One thousand ftve hundred and twenty-four (1524) acres of the Mountain Parcel is located in Garfteld County. It is accessed via the Bair Ranch Headquarters at the Bair Ranch 1-70 interchange and rest stop. A single lane private concrete bridge crosses the Colorado River, and a restricted underpass allows passage under the railroad. The Headquarters area displays improvements typical to a large 16 05-11-04 operating ranch in this part of Colorado, with several single family homes and a variety of ranch barns, outbuildings and corrals. The 'Mountain Parcel' property includes all or portions offtve (5) separate named drainages- Ike Creek and Spruce Creek in Garfteld County, and Cottonwood Creek and two of its tributaries, Spring Creek and Bob Creek in Eagle County. Eight miles of stream corridor in addition to the Colorado River frontage is within the boundaries of the ranch, and one can assume a considerable quantity of riparian habitat exists. Speciftc mapping of this amenity, however, has not been provided. The Bair's own all water rights in the above streams, and the ranch utilizes water to flood irrigate approximately 300 acres of land for pasture and hay production. CHRONOLOGY The Bair family has owned this ranch since 1919. Negotiations between the owners and the Eagle Valley Land Trust for the conservation project began in December of2000, and in January of 2001, the Conservation Fund (TCF) became involved. In 2001, the BLM ranked the 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. Congress later approved $1.5 million for the acquisition. In September of 2002, TCF applied to Great Outdoors Colorado (GO CO) for $850,000, and in January of2003, GOCO awarded $400,000. Later that same year, the Eagle Valley Land Trust applied for additional funding from GOCO, resulting in a second allocation of $600,000 to the project (GOCO's total commitment is now $1,000,000). In July of2003, the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners voted 2 -1 to contribute $2,000,000 to this project. The land transaction failed to close last fall, however, and the Board of Commissioners withdrew their offer pending a new application by the proponent, this time for funding through the County's new Open Space Program. SITE / TRANSACTION INFORMATION Total land area of 4,830 acres, divided as follows: 512 acres in Eagle County to be purchased fee simple by BLM 2,794 acres in Eagle County to be placed under Conservation Easement 1,524 acres in Garfteld County to be placed under Conservation Easement Current land Uses Agricultural and Guest Ranching I outfttting Surrounding Land Uses I Zoning: East: BLM public lands I Eagle County Resource West: Forest Service public lands / Agricultural, Residential Rural in Garfteld County North: BLM public lands / Eagle County, Resource and Garfteld County, Agricultural, Residential Rural South: BLM public lands / Eagle County Resource and Garfteld County, Agricultural, Residential Rural Water Rights All rights on 5 different creeks, all to remain with the land for agricultural use Mineral Rights Owner controlled on 1,443 acres, federal government control on 1,351 acres, easement would preclude mining Other rights (easements, etc) Large grazing leases on adjoining public lands Access: Per agreement with CDOT, via Bair Ranch rest stop on 1-70, a single lane concrete bridge across the Colorado River, and an underpass beneath the railroad tracks. No open public access to the property is contemplated Infrastructure: Typical to remote ranching facilities, limited to on-site distribution system Type of acquisition: Eagle County's contribution would be combined with GOCO $ to secure a conservation easement in Eagle County Proposed Ownership: Ownership of the ranch will remain with the Bair family. The BLM will own the River Parcel and the Conservation Easement in Garfteld County. The Eagle Valley Land Trust and Eagle County will jointly own the Conservation Easement in Eagle County. Appraised value of ranch $17,275,000 (Peterson Appraisal Company) 17 05-11-04 Appraised value fee simple purchase $228,900 (River Parcel to be purchased by BLM) Appraised total value of easement + fee simple purchase $5,411,400 Total price requested by owner $5,100,000 Owner contribution $ 311,400 Value of Easement in Eagle County $3,151,632 Value of Easement in GarfIeld County $1,719,468 Requested funding amount $2,000,000 Partners, Partner contributions $1,500,000 Bureau of Land Management $ 915,000 from Great Outdoors Colorado ($85,000 of GOCO's $ 1 million covers direct expenses of the proponent) $ 25,000 from Garfteld County $ 200,000 from private foundations $ 460.000 from additional EVL T fundraising* Total Project $5,100,000 * The Eagle Valley Land Trust has played a significant role in fundraising for the Bair Ranch Conservation Project, applying for and securing grants from GOCO, from private foundations and from Garfield County. The Trust remains committed to raising $1.3 million dollars for the project. % of Total(s), Leveraging - Eagle County's contribution would pay for 63.5% of the Conservation Easement in Eagle County, leveraging $.69 from other sources for every dollar spent by the County for County land - Eagle County's contribution would pay for 39% of the total project amount (conservation easement and fee simple purchase), leveraging $1.50 from other sources Proposed closing date July 2004 REFERRAL RESPONSES I LETTERS: The applicant has provided letters from the Division of Wildlife and GarfIeld County (attached), and a copy of the agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation was included in the Appraisal for the land. As such, referrals were not sent to outside agencies. Letters of support (some dated from 2003), are attached to this report. CRITERIA I DISCUSSION I FINDINGS Pursuant to Eagle County Resolution 2004-021, Approving and Adopting Open Space Criteria to Prioritize the Selection of Eligible Lands for Open Space: 1. Open Space Criteria On November 5, 2002, the voters of Eagle County approved Referendum 1 H, which provided for an increase in taxes to fund an open space acquisition and maintenance program for the County. Resolution 2003-97, signed by the Board of County Commissioners on August 19, 2003(and subsequently amended by Resolution 2004-015 on February 3, 2004) officially established Eagle County's Open Space Program. Referendum 1 H and Resolution 2003-97 both contained language defining the intent and purpose of preserving open space in Eagle County. Based on these definitions, evaluation criteria have been developed to ensure conformity with the expressed desire of the people and the specific direction of the Board. The six criteria are summarized on page two and detailed on pages three through eight of Eagle County's Open Space Criteria document (see attached). For each criterion, qualitative ratings of High, Medium, Low and Not Applicable can be assigned based on the project's degree of conformance to criterion standards. Points can also be assigned, with High receiving 4 points, a Medium 2, a Low 1 and Not Applicable O. A discussion regarding conformance follows each of the open space evaluation criteria listed below, resulting in a qualitative rating. A summary of ratings is provided, as is a point summary and relative point comparison. Scenic Landscapes and Vistas: Preserve and protect Eagle County's outstanding natural beauty and visual quality. 18 05-11-04 Those portions of the Bair Ranch labeled "River Parcel" are visible as a foreground and background element as one travels Interstate-70 between Dotsero and Glenwood Canyon. The land borders thousands of acres of public property under BLM administration, and the transfer in fee simple of this property to the BLM would guarantee an uninterrupted open space view shed to the south. The land is dry sagebrush and rather unremarkable in terms of prominent features or landmarks. The BLM property to the south, however, is somewhat interesting in terms of topography and ridgeline features. In addition, the parcel contains almost three miles of river frontage, and the overall scenic quality of the River Parcel is considerably enhanced, from certain viewpoints, by the feature of the river and is associated riparian vegetation. Scenic Quality Rating for the River Parcel: MEDIUM *OSAC placed higher emphasis on the scenic quality of the river frontage, and noted thefact that the River Parcel directly influences 3 miles of the view from interstate 70. The Committee rated this as HIGH. That portion of Bair Ranch labeled "Mountain Parcel" includes the ranch headquarters on the Colorado River in Garfteld County, but is otherwise separated from the interstate corridor by signiftcant expanses of public lands. According to the view shed analysis performed by Eagle County's GIS Department (attached), Eagle County's portion of the Mountain Parcel is only briefly visible, and at considerable distance, from the Interstate corridor, which is the only viewpoint frequented by the public in this part of the County. Most of the Mountain Parcel can be seen by recreational campers and hunters as they travel upper Coffee Pot Springs Road, a seasonal back-country access route that climbs out of Deep Creek and heads towards the Flattops Wilderness area to the north. The subject parcel is three to four miles away when viewed from this vantage. Several small "slices" of the Bair's property are also visible when one looks down Cottonwood Creek from the summit of Cottonwood Pass. As such, the Mountain Parcel contributes little to the scenic quality of lands in Eagle County. Scenic Quality Rating for the Mountain Parcel in Eagle Co. LOW *OSAC disagreed, placing value on the scenic quality of this land when viewed by recreational users from the surrounding public lands (not just from the Interstate corridor). They applied a rating of MEDIUM. The most scenic view of the Ranch occurs in Garfteld County at the east end of the Glenwood Canyon. This is the location of the Ranch Headquarters, and travelers on 1-70 get a good view of the facility and surrounding lands as they pass by. For those that choose to stop at the Bair Ranch Rest Area located on the north bank of the Colorado River, the ranch, with its arrangement of buildings, fences and irrigated meadows, is one of the primary elements of the view. In this regard, the property is a landmark of regional signiftcance, and reflects many of the values that attract residents and tourists to the western slope of Colorado. The canyon with its scenic beauty is a "backyard element" of Eagle County, and Eagle County residents frequently travel the canyon to visit the world famous Hot Springs Pool in Glenwood Springs. This is also the most common route for individuals traveling back and forth between the Roaring Fork River side and the Eagle River side of the County. The proposed conservation easement would preserve the scenic quality of the canyon indeftnitely. Scenic Quality Rating for the Mountain Parcel in Garfield Co. HIGH *OSAC agreed The lands of the Bair Ranch contribute, on and off, to the visual experience as one travels from Dotsero 3.5 miles west to the Bair Ranch rest stop on Interstate 70. This travel route is frequented by Eagle County residents, and is the primary east to west transportation route across Colorado. Much of the scenery provided by the ranch in Eagle County is rather nondescript, although there are snapshots of outstanding Colorado scenery provided in those areas where the Colorado River can be seen. The Ranch Headquarters in Garfteld County is very scenic, and as an established cultural landmark, belongs to all residents who live in this part of the State. With due consideration to of the above, The Scenic Quality of the proposed Conservation Project as a whole is rated MEDIUM 19 05-11-04 *Given the changes listed above, OSAC assigned a rating of HIGH to the project as a whole Regional Heritage, Agriculture and Ranching Retain Eagle County's history, culture and agricultural land uses. The subject property is large, with 3306 total acres in Eagle County and 1524 acres in Garfteld, and is completely surrounded by public lands. The Ranch has both historical and cultural signiftcance, having been operated by the same family since 1919, and its highly visible ranch headquarters in Glenwood Canyon contributes to the overall aesthetic quality of this vicinity, or "region" of Colorado. Although economic realities have necessitated some diversiftcation, the Bair Ranch remains a viable ranching operation, historically home to as many as 6000 sheep during summer months. Drought conditions recently required the owner to sell his sheep, but it is represented that he now intends to restock the ranch with a new herd this year. The property has considerable senior water rights on various creeks, rights which would stay with the land. These rights include appropriations of 15 cubic feet per second on Cottonwood Creek in Eagle County. Three hundred acres of the ranch are under irrigation, most in Garfteld County, and the property has an efftcient and well maintained water delivery system. Hay produced from irrigated pastures supplements the ranch's requirement for feed in the winter. Reference Eagle County's approved open space criteria, no information was submitted regarding an "agricultural rating" of the property based on the Colorado State Uniform Productivity Evaluation System. Staff is able to determine this rating for lands in Eagle County using information from the Eagle County Assessor. Current records indicate a dry grazing 50 acre per animal unit capacity (80 acre per animal on the River Parcel) which results in a rating of 4 on a scale of 10. No similar data was available for lands in Garfteld County, though it is assumed a higher rating would result given the productivity of the irrigated areas. Additional development on the property would be limited by the proposed conservation easement to the repair of existing ranch structures and facilities within ftve (5) identifted "Ranch Building Areas", and the construction of three new single family homes. All new family homes would be constructed near the present-day ranch headquarters in Garfteld County. Two of the "Ranch Building Areas" exist in Eagle County, the Spring Creek Cabin on Spring Creek and the Mayne Homestead on Cottonwood Creek. Neither of these facilities is visible to the public. They may only be repaired to their original condition, with the exception of the Mayne Homestead, which may be repaired and enlarged by no more than 10%. Facilities within the Ranch Headquarters area in Garfteld County appear to be in excellent condition and well maintained. The proposed conservation easement lists those "guest ranch" activities that will be allowed to continue on the property. Offered to ranch guests only, they include: Hunting, Guiding, Outfttting, Camping, Horseback riding, Hiking, Fishing, Cross Country Skiing, Snowshoeing, Guided snowmobiling and all-terrain- vehicle trips (on existing roads), Hay rides, Raft trips and "similar recreational activities". The degree to which these guest ranching uses would or would not diminish the conservation and open space values of the property is somewhat subjective, and is not discussed in the application. It is provided, however, that "the Bair's use of the ranch is aimed at maintaining the wildlife habitat and natural resource values on the ranch". As provided by the conservation easement for lands in Eagle County, these guest ranch activities and any associated improvements would be subject to review and approval as required by Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Based on size, contiguity with other large tracts of open space, rich history, senior water rights, and a "front door" location to EagleCounty, the property is rated mGH For Regional Heritage. *OSAC agreed Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat and Migration Routes Set aside areas critical to the long term health and vitality of indigenous wildlife Considerable mention is made in submitted material concerning the importance of this property to the well being of wildlife in the area. Eagle County Wildlife Maps indicate deer and elk winter range 20 05-11-04 on that portion of the property in Eagle County, and possible Golden Eagle nesting sites along Cottonwood Creek. Studies submitted quote the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) as saying that the property is a production area for deer, elk, black bear, wild turkey and mountain lion. CDOW staff contacted by the County corroborated this assertion, adding that acquisition of those portions of the subject site adjacent to the Colorado River would help to preserve and protect the ftsh habitat and bald eagle and water fowl habitat, and would further guarantee unhindered access to the Colorado River for all wildlife species. The Colorado Breeding Bird Atlas has identifted 64 species of breeding birds in the area surrounding Cottonwood Pass, which includes the ranch. This number is well above the state average. Given its size, diversity of habitat, streams, ponds and river frontage, identiftcation as winter range for deer and elk, and its extensive contiguity with thousands of acres of open public lands which support and extend similar habitats in virtually all directions, the property is rated HIGH For Wildlife. *OSAC agreed Sensitive Lands & Environments Protect riparian areas, flood plains, and other sensitive, unique or endangered ecosystems or environments. The subject property is large, and includes 3.5 miles of flood plain and riparian habitats along the Colorado River. Five small streams run through the ranch, draining to the Colorado River. The terrain is generally steep, and riparian areas on the streams generally exist as narrow bands immediately adjacent to the channel bottom. With the exception of the Colorado River floodplain, areas of geologic hazard have not been mapped, and no endangered ecosystems or environments have been identifted. Most of the ranch exists in a natural, undisturbed condition, and impacts from years of grazing were not evident on a fteld tour of the property conducted on April 16, 2004. Elevations across the entire property range from 6100 feet to 8900 feet, and nine different native plant communities have been identifted within the ranch boundaries. These different communities provide considerable diversity in wildlife habitat (reference report by Alan Carpenter, Land Stewardship Consulting). Eagle County Master Plan maps indicate winter range for both deer and elk on the property. The ranch is contiguous to many thousands of acres of surrounding public lands, and as such its preservation would help ensure the continued connectivity and functional vitality of a much larger ecosystem. Given its size, the miles of floodplain and riparian habitat that would be protected, its diversity of vegetative communities and wildlife habitat, and the potential for a signiftcant contribution to the preservation of a larger ecosystem, the property is rated HIGH For Sensitive Lands. *OSAC agreed Physical and Visual Buffers Promote community separation and distinction, and provide separation between developed areas and sensitive lands Preservation of the River Parcel as open space would provide a "buffer" between development in the Dotsero area and the public BLM lands to the south. However, development of the River Parcel is unlikely given the lack of reasonable access. Additionally, the Union Paciftc railroad right of way bisects the property, further diminishing its potential for development. The Mountain Parcel in Eagle County is surrounded by public lands and as such does not provide "buffering" as contemplated by this criterion. In general, the Hair Ranch does not provide the benefits contemplated by this criterion *The Open Space Advisory Committee did not agree with this conclusion, noting the shared boundary of the River Parcel with the Two Rivers Village PUD, and the fact that this land would indeed serve as a buffer at the perimeter of that development. They spoke to the difficulty of predicting the future, and that access to lands south of the Colorado River might one day become feasible. The Committee also commented that purchase of the River Parcel would significantly diminish development potential between Dotsero and the mouth of Glen wood Canyon, providing appropriate development transition at one of Eagle County's ''front doors". As such, OSAC assigned a rating of MEDIUMfor "Buffers". 21 05-11-04 Access to Streams, Rivers, Public Lands and Dispersed Recreation Opportunities Provide access to public lands, and improve opportunities for high quality dispersed recreation. Access by the public to the ranch is inconsistent with the ranch's operational needs, and will not be allowed. The River Parcel land, which by this proposal will become public property, presently requires access by boat or by wading across the river. The proposed acquisition will not improve access to this parcel. No other access to streams, rivers or public lands is contemplated by this project, and opportunities for quality dispersed recreation will not be signiftcantly improved. In general, the Bair Ranch does not provide the benefits contemplated by this criterion *OSAC disagreed, noting that the conversion of this property from private to public ownership will result in its becoming accessible to the public, and that opportunities for dispersed recreation will be improved. Noting the lack of access to the Mountain Parcel, however, and the future need for a dedicated parking area and a bridge to the River Parcel, they assigned a rating of LOW for access. Regional Weighting In order to appropriately recognize 1) the elevated risk ifloosing critical open space in areas subject to high development pressure; 2) the present-day economic realities of ranching and the resulting risk of loosing significant elements of the County's ranching heritage and culture, and the open space it provides and; 3) the sensitive nature and environmental significance of the County's higher elevation environments and watersheds, three "regions" have been targeted within which certain criteria will receive stronger, or "weighted" consideration. These regions are: 1) Awiculture and Ranching Uses. 2) Development Corridor and 3) Upland Watersheds. Should it be determined that a project is located within one of these regions, points will be multiplied by an assigned factor, as indicated on page 10 of Eagle County's approved Open Space Criteria (copy attached). The decision as to whether Of not a speciftc property lies within one or more of the "regions" identifted above is based on the number of factors, including physical location, physical characteristics, current land use, surrounding land use and applicable Master Plan documents. The Bair Ranch is located in the west central part of Eagle County. While the Mountain Parcel portion of the property is completely surrounded by public lands, it is also in relatively close proximity to several other large agricultural operations found just to the south near the summit of Cottonwood Pass. The River Parcel fronts several private holdings in its north side, including the Two Rivers PUD at Dotsero, but is backed for the entirety of its southern border by federal lands (BLM). The Ranch has historically leased signiftcant portions (tens of thousands of acres) of the public lands surrounding it for the purpose of grazing. Eagle County Master Plans designate future land use on those portions of the Bair Ranch in Eagle County as "Rural" and encourage continuation of the County's agricultural heritage. Based on this analysis, the following determination is suggested: Agriculture and Ranching Uses: It has been determined that the Bair Ranch Conservation project IS within an Agriculture and Ranching Use area, and that subsequent scoring should be weighted as follows: Points Criteria and weight factor Hie:h Med Low Regional Heritage, Agriculture [x3] 12 6 3 Scenic Landscapes and Vistas [x3] 12 6 3 Wildlife, Wildlife Habitat [x3] 12 6 3 Sensitive Lands and Environments [x3] 12 6 3 Access, Dispersed Recreation [x2] 8 4 2 Physical and Visual Buffers [xl] 4 2 1 *OSAC agreed that this property wouldfall into the Agricultural and Ranching Uses region. Development Corridor: The project, while on Interstate-70, is considerably isolated from utility infrastructure and present-day centers of rapid development, with the possible exception of the new community center of Dotsero. County Master Plans do not anticipate development on the subject 22 05-11-04 properties. As such, it has been determined that the Bair Ranch IS NOT within a Development Corridor region. *OSAC had a split decision on this matter, and as such Development Corridor weighing will not be applied Upland Watershed: With the exception of higher elevations on the property, and as evidenced by the agricultural land rating assigned to the property by the Eagle County Assessor, the Bair Ranch is generally dry. Streams are wide spread, small and/or intermittent, and no signiftcant ground water recharge areas have been identifted. While the higher elevations within the ranch may contain characteristics typical to an "upland watershed", they constitute a small fraction of the overall ranch, and the property therefore IS NOT considered a candidate for assignment to this weight region. *OSAC, by vote, agreed *OSAC Criteria Rating Summary Rating (for entire project*) Points I. Scenic Landscapes II. Regional Heritage III. Wildlife IV. Sensitive Lands V. Buffers VI. Access HIGH HIGH HIGH HIGH MEDIUM LOW 4 4 4 4 2 1 *OSAC Point summary Wei~t Points Points possible I. Scenic Landscapes II. Regional Heritage III. Wildlife IV. Sensitive Lands V. Buffers VI. Access x3 x3 x3 x3 xl x2 12 12 12 12 2 2 12 12 12 12 4 8 Total Points 52 Total possible points 60 * The conservation value oflands of the Bair Ranch in Eagle County received priority consideration in determining a ftnal score for this project. However, given the regional influence of the ranch as a whole, the fact that the land in Eagle County has value as a result of its connection to the ranch as a whole, and the beneftts, both direct and indirect, that would be provided to the residents of Eagle County through conservation of even that portion of the Ranch in GarfIeld County, the characteristics of the entire property were also considered. Additional Project Considerations The following represents those items listed as "Additional Criteria and Considerations" on page 9 of Eagle County's Open Space Criteria (copy attached). For the purpose of discussion, the two sections, "Factors Favoring Land Protection" and "Factors Weighing Against Land Protection" have been consolidated into single positive statements that can be evaluated for conformance. The degree of conformance is indicated as positive [+ J, negative [-J, mixed [+/J or not applicable [na]. Economy. Discounts, other funding, partnerships, land donation, and/or endowment contribution favorably reduce the County's portion of the purchase cost. [+] * The donation of $311,000 by the Bair Family favorably affects the total purchase price. 23 05-11-04 [+] If approved as requested, Eagle County would be the largest contributor to the Bair Ranch Conservation Project, providing $2,000,000. This will cover 63% of the purchase cost of the conservation easement in Eagle County, and 39% of the total project cost. Other funding partners include the Eagle County Land Trust, Colorado Great Outdoors, Garfteld County and the Bureau of Land Management. Eagle County's contribution is proposed to be spent entirely on that portion of the conservation project in Eagle County and will leverage $.69 for every dollar spent by the County ($2,000,000 x .69 = $1,380,000 in other funding for Eagle County lands). Relative to the entire project, each dollar spent by Eagle County will bring in $1.50 (or $3,000,000) from outside sources. [+/-] The degree to which other funding sources were available or could have been utilized for this project is not known and has not been represented. [+] Garfteld County's 11th hour contribution of $25,000 is noted as a positive addition, especially in light of the fact that they do not have a dedicated tax to use for the acquisition of open space. Master Plan: Land or development rights acquisition is supported by the intent and purposes of applicable Eagle County Master Plan documents. [+] The importance of preserving Eagle County's open space and rural character is noted often in the County's various master plan documents. Chapter 4 of Eagle County's Master Plan is titled "Guiding Policies and Implementing Actions" and Subtitle A, "Environmental Quality" lists the maintenance and enhancement of critical wildlife areas as Guiding Policy # 1. This project would set aside a large private holding that is surrounded by very large expanses of public property administered by the Bureau of Land Management. In combination, these lands would provide tens of thousands of acres of uninterrupted and interconnected wildlife habitat. This project is also supported by Chapter 4, Subtitle B, "Open Space and Recreation", which lists lJursuing a variety of approaches to set aside land as open slJace as its Guiding Policy # 1. [+] The Future Land Use Map for Eagle County designates the lands affected by this project as "Rural". This designation includes agriculture as a suggested use, and encourages the continuation of this component of the County's economic base and historic heritage. [+] Eagle County's Open Space Plan lists visual quality, buffer zones, recreation, wildlife, water systems and historic resources as criteria for the evaluation of open space lands. Of these, the Bair Ranch Conservation Project would preserve visual quality along 3.5 miles of Interstate-70, protect diverse and unbroken wildlife habitat, retain historic water rights, and maintain a facility of regional historic signiftcance in its present condition. Urgency. Development of the property, to a degree that open space values would be significantly compromised, is imminent. [+] *OSAC noted that the partnerships and other supportfunding have been carefully aligned and are now ready to go, that funding is time sensitive, and that Le Grand Bair has indicated that he will place his portion of the property on the market if the closing does not occur. [+/-] The projects appraiser, Mr. Dave Peterson of Peterson Appraisal Company, indicated in his report that the Bair Ranch could be subdivided into one hundred seventeen (117) 35 acre parcels, 79 of which could be located in Eagle County. No plan has been submitted to represent the feasibility of this claim. Much of the ranch is quite isolated, dominated by steep terrain, and access and infrastructure would pose a signiftcant challenge to any plan to develop residential lots. There are plenty of senior water rights, however, and many areas where homes could be built, even on the more remote parts of the ranch located in Eagle County (a use by right only if densities are 1 unit per 35 or more acres. Greater densities would require County approval). [-] The isolated nature of ranch lands in Eagle County would make subdivision there less feasible. This part of the ranch cannot be seen, and while wildlife habitat could be negatively 24 05-11-04 impacted by the operation of 35 acre "mini ranchetts", any lessening of the aesthetic quality of the land would go largely unnoticed, as the area is out of site from the public. [-] The owner has shown considerable patience, and has worked very hard over the past three years to develop this acquisition. The property is not presently on the market and no speciftc development plans are known to exist. Uniqueness. The subject property is the only remaining, or one of a very few remaining, opportunities to protect open space of its kind [+] The Bair Ranch is one of very few working ranches of any signiftcant size left in west-central Eagle County. It is completely surrounded by open public lands, and has considerable historical signiftcance, with an interstate highway rest stop in Eagle County's "backyard" that showcases its contribution to Colorado's agricultural heritage. Precedent. The project sets positive precedent for open space preservation values and objectives, and may motivate other landowners to consider preservation alternatives. [+] * The consortium of partners developed for this project sets an excellent example for future projects in Eagle County [+] The size of this acquisition, its regional historic signiftcance, the assembled partnerships and other support, the fact that this would be the ftrst entire ranch to be set aside in perpetuity in this part of the state, and the influence of the Bair Family, who have been a part of the local ranching community since 1919, all contribute to the positive precedence that would be established should this acquisition be ftnalized. [-] All parties, people and/or jurisdictions that stand to beneftt from a conservation project should contribute to the project. It is unfortunate that Garfteld County is unable to provide funding or support in an amount more equitable to that being requested of Eagle County. Education. Preservation would provide unique educational opportunities [-] No public access to the property is proposed and no educational opportunities, other than those that might be available through the involvement of groups involved in "guest ranching" activities, are anticipated. [+] The interstate rest stop has a pedestrian overlook dedicated to the view of the ranch headquarters. Should the project be approved, an interpretive sign explaining and promoting the attributes of the conservation easement that was used to permanently preserve the facility and listing the involved partners of the acquisition could be added to the signs already on display at this overlook. This rest stop and related improvements is not located in Eagle County. Support. There is wide-spread community support for the project. [+] *OSAC noted that the preponderance of public comment received at its public hearing supported the project. [+/-] Reference comments occasioned in the local media, and statements made when County support of this project was fIrst requested last year, community support in Eagle County is mixed for the Bair Ranch acquisition. The degree to which the residents of GarfIeld County support this project is not known. Regional and state agency support is indicated, however, as evidenced by the attached letters. Big Picture. The project has potentially significant benefit on a regional or state-wide basis. [+] The Bair Ranch is a historic landmark with a named rest stop on Interstate 70 that sees signiftcant visitation by residents and visitors throughout the year. As demonstrated by their large ftnancial commitments, the conservation project is recognized as signiftcant by the Bureau of Land Management and Great Outdoors Colorado, and is also supported and encouraged by Colorado's congressional representatives, the White River National Forest, and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (letters attached). Encumbrance. The property is not negatively encumbered by mineral rights, rights of way or easements. 25 05-11-04 [+/-] The applicant did not list speciftc encumbrances on the property, but did note that the ranch "has a number of reservations, easements and leases that affect the property, which is typical of a historical ranch of this size". These encumbrances could be signiftcant. The applicant has indicated that title commitments have been preliminarily reviewed by the BLM, the Conservation Fund and GOCO, with no defects found, and that all deeds of trust encumbering the property will be removed simultaneous with the closing of the conservation easement. As a part of the County's due diligence, the Eagle County Attorney will also review all title work to the property if the request for funds is approved. [+/-] Mineral rights on the property are shared between the Bair's (on 1443 acres) and the Federal government (on 1351 acres, including reserved oil, gas, sodium and geothermal rights on 997 acres). There is no history of any drilling or mining on the property, and a Mineral Resource Evaluation conducted in November of 2003 listed the possibility of resource extraction to be so remote as to be negligible on the entire conservation easement parcel. If approved, the conservation easement will prohibit all surface and subsurface mining. Resource extraction potential on the River Parcel south and west ofDotsero was not speciftcally mentioned in the report, although it stated that there was very little potential for coal, natural gas or oil development in this area as the formations holding these resources have been eroded away. Environmental Hazards The property is not significantly burdened by environmental hazards (chemicals) or other waste or refuse. [+] An initial assessment of the property was conducted by the Bureau of Land Management in October of2001 and updated December of2003. The survey found no hazardous materials, no recognized environmental conditions, nor potential for such conditions, on the property. The possible exception to this was a 1000 gallon underground gasoline tank that is located at the ranch headquarters in Garfteld County (see below). [+/-] It was noted on the fteld trip of the ranch conducted on April 16 that the historic structures of the Mayne Homestead, located in Eagle County on Cottonwood Creek, are unquestionably in the flood plain of the creek, and would likely need to be relocated prior to any attempt to improve the buildings to a habitable condition (they are, at present, not habitable). It would appear that there is room within the "ranch building area" assigned to this site to safely relocate the buildings outside the floodplain. [-] The 1000 gallon capacity underground gasoline storage tank located at the ranch headquarters is not registered with the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (State regulations do not require registration of tanks less than 1,100 gallons located on ranches or farms). The tank does represent a potential for soil or water contamination if it has a leak, or if it were to develop a leak in the future. The assessment states that lacking cathodic protection, soil chemistry will eventually corrode the tank to the point that it would leak. The assessment further recommends a Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment as a means to positively identify the present situation with the tank. In the long term, these tests would need to be conducted on a regular basis to assure continued integrity. Otherwise, the tank should be removed. The question as to whether the holder of a conservation easement would somehow be liable in the event of a tank failure remains unanswered. The tank is in Garfteld County, however, and the easement in Garfteld will be held by the Bureau of Land Management. Maintenance. The long term cost to the County of maintaining and/or monitoring the land is expected to be reasonably low. [+] By provision of the conservation easement, maintenance of the property will remain the responsibility of the land owner. Although details have not yet been worked out, it is assumed that Eagle County will share responsibility with the Eagle Valley Land Trust for monitoring and enforcement on those portions of the ranch within Eagle County. It is anticipated that the long term costs to the County would be nominal. 26 05-11-04 Bob Warner, area resident, stated he was in favor of the purchase of the easement by the Open Space Fund. He stated this was not a perfect project but it is a good project. There are problems with any potential project that comes before the Board. Mr. Warner believes this is a good opportunity. He stated the leverage aspect of the County putting in $2,000,000.00 to stop future development is an incredible opportunity as the cost per acre is very low to purchase this amount ofland. This project is an Eagle County project but has received a tremendous amount of publication throughout the State. Other foundations have contributed monies to this purchase. This will be a great opportunity and he urged the Board to vote in favor of the easement. Frances Barela, Town of Gypsum, read a letter from the Town Council in favor of this project as follows: "The Honorable Tom Stone, Chairman, Michael Gallagher, Am Menconi: It is the understanding of the Gypsum Town Council that the Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) has voted to approve the use of County open space funds for a conservation easement on the Bair Ranch. The Town of Gypsum would like to express its support for the decision made by the OSAC which was appointed by the County Commissioners. We feel this is an important project in several respects: (1) It is the ftrst project recommended by the OSAC to come before the County for use of the open space funds to protect property in perpetuity and therefore can represent the willingness of the County to work toward future projects; (2) It helps to preserve open space at the south side of the Colorado River for a 3 mile stretch as Interstate 70 enters Glenwood Canyon as well as preserving property which bisects a large amount of wildlife habitat held by the BLM; (3) The partnerships represented by this ftrst open space acquisition represent partnerships between organizations that will be useful and much needed in future conservation projects be they outright purchase or conservation easements. The cooperation of the Bureau of Land Management ($1,500,000.00), Great Outdoors Colorado ($1,000,000.00) the Colorado Conservation Trust ($100,000.00), the Eagle Valley Land Trust (Approximately $500,000.00) and even the effort of Garfteld County ($25,000.00) represent partnerships that need to be nurtured and encouraged in order to make maximum use of County funds on this project as well as on future projects. An approval by the Commissioners would show their concern for cooperative efforts and respect for the determinations already made by the above organizations. We thank you for your consideration of this matter and encourage your support of the decision made by the OSAC regarding the Bair Ranch. Sincerely, Mayor Steve Carver, Tom Edwards, Chris Estes, Gary Lebo, Dick Mayne, Tim McMichael, Pam Schultz, Town Council." Michael Cacioppo, area resident, stated he opposed conservation easements totally. The Eagle Valley Land Trust is just a corporation. For a few bucks anyone in this room and go to the State of Colorado and start a corporation. This corporation could eventually be dissolved. It is helpful that the County is getting some involvement in it. That is a step in the right direction but he is concerned that a corporation can obtain title to the property. He believes the County should be buying open space not buying conservation easements. There is no public access without a boat, which is another reason to not do it. There is no public access on the remainder of the property that is not down by the river. That is another reason to not do this deal. Very little of this parcel can be seen from the Interstate. That is another reason to not do this deal. The property can be seen from Coffee Pot Springs Road. He stated he has lived in the County for thirty years and he has never heard of Coffee Pot Springs Road. He does get out into the wilderness a lot. The very few people who live on Coffee Pot Springs Road do not justify the $2,000,000.00 in tax money. It is a better to bank this money and spend it on serious projects in other areas of the County. This property is likely to be undeveloped anyway. If it would be developed it has to go through zoning and would probably would not be approved for much of a development. He stated this property could be developed as one house per 35 acres. That would not bother him in the least. It seems to bother his liberal friends but he does not understand why. One house on 35 acres would be an intelligent move. Money should be saved and used on open space in 27 05-11-04 Edwards. The support by the public; he does not know where that is coming from. The only people at the Open Space Committee meetings that he attended was himself. There were only committee members, attorneys and staff. There was a meeting held at the end of April that he did not attend. Maybe there are a few people that showed up. Mr. Cacioppo stated he really hates to see the County waste two million dollars on this project. Ifwe do not do this project it will not affect the County in any great way. There are better projects. J.T. Romatzke, Colorado Division of Wildlife, stated the Division's mission statement is to protect, preserve, enhance and manage the wildlife for its residents and visitors. He stated the Bair Ranch easements meet these goals very well. He stated he is here to support that. This property is home to elk, bear, deer, mountain lions, rafters, turkeys. The major aspect of the Ranch is its wildlife reproduction, calving habitats which is very important to his job. The Ranch also has quality riparian areas in the river corridors. This property boarders BLM and Forest Service property which allows movement corridors. The Ranch provides exceptional wildlife habitat. If the property is developed in the future there will be signiftcant impacts on movement corridors, changes to the BLM and Forest Service property. There will also be fragmentation of that property. In the 1996 national survey for ftshing and hunting, expenditures brought $1.7 billion dollars to the State of Colorado. Right behind that, wildlife watch, brought in $792,000,000.00. In Eagle County the direct expenditures for hunting along brought in $8.19 million dollars and ftshing brought in $9.9 million. Total direct and indirect expenditures in Eagle County brought in $26.4 million dollars. Another part of the survey was asking people how important wildlife was to Colorado life. 76% of those rated wildlife a six or better and 48% rated it an 8 or higher. It is an important piece of the puzzle. He stated the open space program is a great program and he commended the County on starting it. Dick Brooks, area resident, spoke in support of the conservation easement. He stated he spends a lot of time floating on the water in that area and riding his bike through Glenwood Canyon. It is valuable wildlife habitat. He always sees deer and elk coming to the river. He stated he is a landscape architect and the ranch has great potential for a couple of golf courses or real estate development. This project has leverage because of other monies from other organizations. He stated the County would be paying less than a third of the cost of this easement. He begged the Board to approve this application. Arlene Quenon, area resident, stated she was pleased when the open space referendum passed. She stated she was a planning commission member in 1991 and one of their ftrst jobs was revision of the Master Plan, purchasing of development rights. The goals today for revision of the Master Plan parallel the goals of ten years ago. The goals were number one, environment and number two, open space. The number one goal for open space was to pursue a variety of approaches to preserve land as open space. Explore methods to compensate land owners for open space, including but not limited to public conservancy, community land trusts, conservation easements and transfer of development rights. They were to explore funding options for open space acquisitions. They were looking at sales tax increases and legislation to provide that. The next item was to provide tax advantages targeted for preservation of open ranch lands and preservation of agricultural uses. Here we are today looking at the same issues. One of the questions being continually raises is what is a conservation easement. They are purchasing the development rights outside of what the Bair's are proposing. Ms. Quenon used sticks to demonstrate mineral rights, water rights, air space rights, uses by right, development rights and the right of quiet enjoyment. The use by right on agricultural land is a big bundle of sticks. You can place two units on 35 acre parcels. On a ranch you can have an outfttters business and reservoirs. By placing the conservation easement on the property they are selling all those rights. She endorsed the statements by J. T. Romatzke of the Division of Wildlife. The impact to have open space, wildlife, ftshing and the recreation environment is the number one reason people are moving to Eagle County. Their old knees have given out on skiing but they can still watch the deer and the elk play. Ken Neubecker, area resident, submitted a letter he wrote that was in the newspaper this morning as follows: 28 05-11-04 "I was sitting in on the new open space committee's hearing (last week) on the Bair Ranch project and I was struck by the major arguments presented against it. First there was access. Why should we spend $2 million of Eagle County open space funds to purchase a conservation easement if we, the public, can't go wander on the property wherever and whenever we please? The second objection point was that there is no need for a conservation easement when a working ranch is by its nature a de-facto "open space", with great scenic vistas that the public can always enjoy from roads like 1070 and that the wildlife will always have to frolic on. First, it seems that the folks objecting to access don't understand what an easement is, or a conservation easement in particular. An easement gives the holder a certain right to use, for a speciftc purpose, someone else's land. If the County or whoever came to me and wanted an easement in my backyard, or on my entire property, for whatever reason, I could ftve it to them, if they pay me. Their new use right restricts my use of my property and I expect compensation. And no, you cannot come into my backyard, ever after the County, using taxpayer money, buys the easement from me. It's still my land, I still pay taxes on it, I still have to work on it to pay those taxes, and I still have to spend my money to maintain it. The County has the right to use the property for the purposes of the easement that they purchased, but unless the easement speciftcally allows public access, you have to stay out. That's the nature of an easement. In the case of the Bair's, all of their land would become severely restricted, forever. That the nature of a conservation easement. Five million dollars compensation is a bargain given land values for property like that in Eagle County. It is an easement for the purpose of protection open space, wildlife habitat and the conservation values that we, the public, hold in such land. It will remain a private working ranch and general public access is currently incompatible with that use and the easements purpose. Perhaps someday public access can become a part of the easement. Which brings up the second point. Ranches are indeed de facto open space that the public can visually enjoy. Ranches act as buffers, as havens for wildlife and preserve our great Western heritage and the cowboy myth. That's all well and good, as long as they stay ranches. Some of the ranchers who make the strongest objection that we don't need conservation easements made a lot of money when their de facto "open space" lands were sold. Places like V ail, Avon, Avon Village, Eagle-Vail, Beaver Creek, Bachelor Gulch, Arrowhead, Cordillera, Edwards, Singletree, Lake Creek, Squaw Creek, Cordillera Valley Club, Red Sky Ranch, Eagle Springs Golf Course, Diamond Star, Eagle Ranch, Cotton Ranch, Two Rivers, etc, were all once ranchland, de facto "open space." All of Eagle County was once "open space." The argument that ranches today are open space just doesn't hold water. They may be open space today but gone into development tomorrow. I guess the parking lots at Wal-Mart and Home Depot are still pretty open as far as space goes. Not too many deer or elk grazing on the landscaping, though. But there is plenty of access. The river parcel would become public and allow access to thousands more BLM acres. Even if access is now only by boat. I know an awful lot of folks with boats. And who knows what the future might hold, what might be in the works at BLM now that this property could become a logical extension of the Glenwood Canyon Recreation Area. Purchasing a conservation easement on the ranch does ensure that the land will remain open space, free from the kind of development that we've seen from Vail to Dotsero. The compensation paid to the rancher for the conservation easement is a fraction of what the actual purchase price would be, and as a reward we get some undeveloped land, the rancher still gets to pay taxes on it, the water stays on and the deer and elk don't have to ftnd a new home. For me that's worth it. It's the last large ranch holding in the valley, at the confluence of the Eagle and Colorado rivers. It's the best $2 million Eagle County could spend on property as good as this." Mr. Neubecker strongly encouraged the Board to support this proposal. One of the important items here is to protect the riparian areas and water shed of Cotton Creek, the Colorado River, Eagle River and other streams and drainages that come in there. These are valuable to wildlife. To keep them in tact with other BLM land is vitally important. He felt that it was also important to have these clean streams running into the river. The DOW already protects main streams in the County to provide more 29 05-11-04 spawning areas to the ftsh. Boating should not be looked at as a ridiculous access to the property. This property is the opening to BLM lands. He noted that he had been to a number of the open space meetings and he did not see Mr. Cacioppo at those. Rosie Sherwood, area resident, spoke in favor of this acquisition. She stated this is the most important issue being looked at in Eagle County in a very long time. She stated she has lived here for 35 years and sat on the committee to update the Master Plan. "While the access is not there for the average person, its importance and value goes far beyond that. 35 years ago she would not have dreamed that the impact of Vail would have trickled down to the extreme that it has" said Ms. Sherwood. She believes Bair Ranch would have a similar impact. In the future she believes the Bair property is very developable. She believes they must absolutely secure this property. Peter Runyon, area resident, stated nothing is easy. "This is not a perfect plan and things could be better. Eagle County will be able to more than double their money. This is a deal for the future" said Mr. Runyon. He wondered whether there would be condominiums built on the property if it isn't purchased. In twenty years he believes this property will be developed. Annie Esson, area resident, stated this morning she hiked the Hanging Lake Trail, then spent time birding on the River Ranch parcel. She stated she could not help but think that it was wonderful to have a few things that are not changing. "The ridges are public land. Visual impact and buffer impacts mean this property is valuable. She stated this year there are no Osprey nesting. There is an impact in development on properties. Fragmentation of habitat is the biggest threat to wildlife. The Commissioners have the opportunity to make a difference" said Ms. Esson. Patsy Batchhelder, speaking on behalf of George Wiegers, spoke to the Board. This gentleman pledges to add a potential of $50,000 to the contribution. She read a letter for the record as follows: "Dear Patsy, I'm happy to pass along my feeling about Bair Ranch. It seems to me that the growing congestion along 1-70 requires an antidote and Bair Ranch provides that. Sitting as it does aside one of the prettiest stretches of the Colorado River and framing Glenwood Canyon, the setting reminds me of what Colorado is all about. I love the sight. The easement buys us the beauty at an affordable price. Buying the land would be prohibitive. In the case of Bair Ranch, it's the beauty that counts. Good Luck, George Wiegers." Commissioner Stone closed public comment. He read many emails for the record as follows: "Gentlemen, No, not only now but hell no. Taxpayer money should not be spent on funding a project that will exclude the public from use! Do the right thing and vote no on spending Eagle County tax proceeds on the Bair Ranch Boondoggle! I am a resident of Singletree and an Eagle County taxpayer. Sincerely, Steve Schmitz, P.E." "Tom, do the ftght thing and vote against spending a lot of County money on a very questionable project. Thanks, Stuart Zimmerman." "Don Rogers got it right in the Vail Daily today. It is a bad deal and a bad use of the public's money. Kay and Hoppy." "Before you allow this travesty to go through, why don't you stop and think about ways that the public could truly beneftt from protecting the Bair Ranch. We all know the 512 acres along the river is smoke the conservationists have blown at us as appeasement. Where are the local wildlife and sporting groups in this? What about the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the Mule Deer Foundation, Ducks Unlimited and Trout Unlimited? Why haven't we heard from them in this matter? Is it because you and the conservationists of Eagle County don't want hunting as a part of the County's resources? 30 05-11-04 In southern Colorado, a conservation easement was put on the South Valley Ranch (also known as the Toupal Ranch). The easement contained provisions for one youth tag to be issued to the public via a drawing through the DOW. Why can't the same be done with the Bair Ranch? One tag for youth? Or is snowboarding the only thing you think helps kids? I urge you to not take the wrong action on this matter. Table it until the public can really beneftt from the use of its money. Thank you, Dennis Goodspeed." "Gentlemen, I still have not seen a reasonable explanation of how the taxpayer accesses the land at Bair. I'm (taxpayer) against spending money for land I and my other taxpayers cannot easily access. Might I suggest that the parcel between Avon and Singletree be a better use of open space taxpayer money. No questions about access here and ... .that parcel surrounded on (4) sides by registered voters. Pete Buckley." "I just ftnished reading Don Rogers commentary and Joy Overbeck's letter to the editor in the May 10th Vail Daily. I have two questions for you to ask on behalf of a resident in Avon. First, as a resident of Eagle County, how would I have access to the Bair Ranch open space? If! or any other resident of Eagle County could not have access who would? I went to the Bair Ranch web site and it appears to me that the only way we, as residents of Eagle County, will have access to the Bair Ranch open space is by paying the Bair's a fee to cross their land. Please vote against the Bair Ranch and spend the money on land in the valley that we all have access to. Eric Goldman." "Dear Tom, Please vote no on Bair Ranch. Bair Ranch is a massive waste of hard earned taxpayer dollars. I don't work two jobs to support this kind of mess. Perhaps the tree huggers from Boulder should be trying to get this handout from the tourists from Texas who will actually be using it. No public access, no public money. Thank you for your time, PM Daniels." "Dear Commissioners, I urge you to vote against this Bair Ranch ftasco! I know most of you are for it, but please look at the facts with an open mind, and don't waste our precious taxpayers money with little or no real beneftt to the residents of Eagle County. Why wasn't this tax used on something like the old Stolport property instead? Parks, ball ftelds and open space much like what was created at the old tree farm in EI Jebel would have been a better use of this immediate impact visually as well as it's something everybody could use and beneftt from. Now look at it .,. it's becoming another disgusting Silverthorne, with out of control urban sprawl that will change the whole look and feel of this entire valley, and not just Avon, all for what, a few tax dollars for the Town of Avon. Remember, whatever happens anywhere in this valley affects us all. Get it together and shoot this project down. Thank you, Jim Bahan." "Mr. Stone, We are Eagle County taxpayers and voters. I understand that you and your fellow Commissioners will be considering again the Bair Ranch conservation easement contribution. The taxpayers and voters approved the recent conservation bill because they thought that their money would be placed to good use in conserving undeveloped property and not to subsidize outfttter/travel businesses. The misuse of the funds in this fashion will only have the effect of making voters skeptical about supporting such issues in the future and sully the reputation of those who supported it. It will have 31 05-11-04 long term damage on the willingness of the people of Eagle County to approve tax measure to improve the area. If this give-away is approved, many will tag it with the names of those Commissioners who approved it. For example, the Tom Stone Bair Ranch Donation Scheme. Let's not have this happen. We are adamantly against this. If approved, I am sure that the issue will not disappear. We ask for your support in having this proposal turned down and defeated. Tim and Barbara Kelley." "Dear Commissioners, I do not wish to have my tax money, or the County's (a.k.a. the taxpayers' money) spend on the Bair Ranch project. Jerry D. Jones." "Vote no tomorrow. Is the Bair's business www.highcanyon.com really the ftrst open space land we want to preserve in Eagle County? There are dozens of qualifted lands that are wholly in Eagle County that should be considered. I can think of a few properties in Gypsum, Eagle, Edwards off the top of my head that are better suited for the open space project. These farms/ranches would not stir up so much controversy as you vote tomorrow as well as at election time. lam sure you have heard all of the arguments before but please really consider the consequences of giving the Bair family company more money to operate their business. From what I have read, voting yes tomorrow shows no beneftt for the County. I just may be a misinformed reader but voting no seems to be the consensus amongst your down valley Eagle County land owners. Loralimc@aol.com." "Dear Commissioner Stone, Please vote no on Bair Ranch's publicly funded subsidy for a private commercial operation. The County would spend my money for land in another County (the BLM is funding the portion in Eagle County) and then I must spend more of my money to access the land? The only public access to the Eagle County portion is by boat? We cannot access it; we can barely see it from the highway. Private outfttter/dude ranch operation. Private cabins/cottages. Private lodging (hotel). Private camping. Private hiking. Private horseback riding. Private biking. Private hunting. Private sightseeing. Private cookouts. Private hayrides. Private special events. Private business operation controls the property. RVs. ATVs. Jeeps, Snowmobiles, Dirt bikes, (each of these private) '" Pristine? Huh?? Single family (private) homes can be built on the land. Public open space? Huh? Does the ability to see private land, from a public road make the land public? The only thing public about this deal is the money. Public money. Our money. My money. I am all for public land that is open to the public, land we can access. Please, please vote no. Best regards, David Denissen." "Eagle County Commissioners, et ai, 32 05-11-04 I urge you not to use my tax monies to participate in the Bair Ranch Conservation Easement facade. I ftrmly support open space and voted for the ballot initiative because I support the concept of land preservation for future generations to enjoy and use. The Bair Ranch cannot and should not be funded by public taxpayer funds unless, the general public is allowed access and full enjoyment of the property. If the Bair family wishes to keep their gates locked, then let private enterprise work with them to fund the easement. There are a few passionate conservationists willing to fund this project with the understanding they cannot trespass on the property. The general public does not share this sentiment, neither do I. Tom, Am and Mike, I urge you to do the right thing for the Eagle County taxpayers; do not support this project but save the funds for a project that is inclusive for the tax paying families of this County. Support an open space project that rewards the taxpayers of this County with recreational opportunities and a positive return for their investment, instead of a brief glimpse from a locked gate. Approval of public funds for the Bair Ranch is an unacceptable investment of tax dollars from our County coffers and may well derail future support for open space tax funding. A lot of people have not yet discovered the whole truth behind this conservation easement purchase and will be very upset and disappointed to learn their representatives expended two million dollars for a view and assurance the land would not be developed in the foreseeable future. Sincerely, Mike Reid." "Please vote no on Bair Ranch Deal. It would be different if the land was open to the public. No no no no no. Eagle County Commissioners this is for all Eagle County, not just one family. Donna Jo Long." "Dear Michael, I am directing this missive to you to offer my thoughts for your prospective consideration of the application of public funds (a portion of which may be my humble contribution) to enhance a private interest, in whole or in part; albeit, some say that there results a beneftt to the public, what with restrictive easement being exacted. I do respect your perspectives regarding the issues that you confront as Commissioners; however, I ask that politics, party loyalties, and bias be set aside in addressing the affects that an enactment of this type of legislation would have, both philosophically and as a matter of jurisprudence. To address the legality of this grant of public funds and at the same time discern a quid pro quo, I feel you would really stretch the constitutional proscription against private legislation. To conger a resolution or ordinance that directly beneftts a selected few (in this case, one) in derogation of the deftnition of the public good, you must determine that what the pubic received, as a whole received (for its money), is meaningful and/or beneftcial. I view the dispensation of public funds by the Land Trust to Mr. Bair as private legislation, pure and simple; viz.,. the beneftt to the public would be minimal, and there would be fomented a governmental subsidy to the Bair Dude Ranching Operation - his paying guests, both in hunting, ftshing or sight-seeing, would enjoy the solitude of the restricted acreage, to the exclusion of the general public, conversely, were the general public (including the ADA qualifted) to have the beneftt and eqjoyment of the restricted acreage, and have a meaningful access thereto, then there in fact would be a discernable and recognizable public interest. The reasoning heretofore espoused by the Trust and its constituents beggars the legal proscriptions against this type of legislation; e.g. they say the restricted acreage would be protected from further development, the general public would be precluded from desecrating the pristine and attendant nature of the land, etc. - to buy into this argument, would belie the fact that the general public gets very little meaningful consideration in return, and that the beneftt to the private landholder (who enjoys an agricultural tax status) would be great in the monies received, and the resulting competitive advantage that he would henceforth enjoy in the commercial market of dude ranching (perhaps still with the agricultural tax status). 33 05-11-04 If your collective and considered reason for approving this dispensation of public tax monies is to protect the restricted acreage from further development, perhaps you should ask - protect it from who or what? And further ask yourself, is this the only vehicle that I have at my disposal to accomplish the same ends. Protection from further developments subsumes that development of private resources is in all instances deleterious to the public good under the circumstances that you have in front of you, private development of the acreage in question, with the oversight of the Commissioners, the BLM and Forest Service, would foment a greater and more meaningful beneftt to the public, and conserve the tax monies for non-private purposes. In answer to the second question, the respective Boards of County Commissioners of Garfteld and Eagle, do have at their disposal the very useful and potent tools of Land Use Regulations, Zoning, and Building Regulations, not to mention the concomitant tools in the hands ofCDOT, DOW, BLM, USFS and the Army Corps of Engineers; ergo, to develop the Bair Ranch into something other than a working and agricultural ranch or a dude ranch (both of which are accepted by the Trust), would invoke the concerted efforts and approval of all of the aforesaid agencies, especially where meaningful access is so tenuous. To grant approval of this proposed resolution, would be tantamount to circumventing the future regulatory interests for which you are obligated to sub-serve, and perhaps preclude a better use that this acreage may be put to future generations to enjoy; ergo, do you have that much vision? Finally, an to promulgate that warm, fuzzy feeling of doing good sentiment as parroted by the Trust and its supporters, you are requested to take the high road on a philosophical basis - conserve our natural resources, preserve them from the imagined or real abuses of the private sector, so that future generations of Americans (or their successors) may enjoy such assets, vicariously or somehow. The Native Americans could have used this mindset on the part of government in the 1800's when their lands were conftscated for both public and private purposes, e.g. the Mining Act of 1872, the Homestead Act, the various Railroad Acts, etc. Of course, and as history bespeaks, we did not take the high road then, nor did we honor our treaties - we did not act legally. Query, by securing a warm and fuzzy feeling now, would it be meaningful, and would it be legal? My humble thoughts on the matter would conduce that it would be neither. Whatever may be your effective decision, in concert, it will be in keeping with out storied history. Thank you for your consideration of these presents, for what it may be worth. Fredric Butler." "Dear Commissioners, I am writing to express my support of the use of funds from the open space tax for the acquisition of Bair Ranch. Protecting Bair Ranch from future development is a unique opportunity to preserve our western heritage, maintain critical wildlife habitat, protect the Eagle watershed from adverse impacts of growth and development, and preserve a natural view shed and ridgeline. The fact that this piece of land has received a considerable amount of state and federal support and recognition speaks to its uniqueness and importance. Please support the acquisition of Bair Ranch. Demonstrate to the people of this County, State and Nation that you have the foresight and vision to take the necessary steps to protect the natural environment that our economy, and quality of life depend on. I don't care if I ever step foot on Bair Ranch. It is enough to know that it is there, that it is wilderness for the sake of wilderness. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kristin Lester" Commissioner Menconi stated that he had a list of 204 signatures in favor of this purchase, and 24 opposed to the deal. He had a letter from Russell George Director of the Department of Natural Resources as follows: "Dear Members of the Open Space Advisory Committee, I am writing to express my support for the Bair Ranch Conservation Project. I concur with Great Outdoors Colorado, which has awarded funding for the Bair Ranch on two separate occasions. 34 05-11-04 The Bair Ranch has many notable natural resource values. Perhaps most importantly, the ranch has high wildlife value due to its varied elevations and habitats, its year round availability of water, and its position in the landscape. As an in-holding surrounded entirely by federal lands, the 4,830 acre Bair Ranch provides a wide movement corridor for mule deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion, and other species. The Colorado Division of Wildlife has identifted Bair Ranch as a production area for mule deer, elk, black bear, mountain lion and wild turkey. The ranch's south facing slopes and middle elevations provide summer and winter range for big gale and non game species, and an important fall feeding area for black bear. Along the Colorado River, the property provides winter habitat for the bald eagle and year round habitat for many other kinds of birds and waterfowl. On adjacent public lands, hunters harvest many big game animals every year that were born on Bair Ranch. The property is also important to its outstanding scenic resources and the system of creeks and streams that drain into the Colorado River. The Bair Ranch is a signiftcant property in our state. I have driven by this historic working ranch on 1-70 on hundreds of occasions. Now, through the willingness of the Bair family and several ready funding partners, the opportunity to consolidate this important agricultural and wildlife resource under a single ownership is before you. Sincerely, Russell George, Executive Director." "Dear Eagle County Commissioners, I just wanted to take a moment to express my unconditional support on behalf of funding Bair Ranch. It's a worthy cause on behalf of Eagle County residents. I have been an Eagle County resident since 1977 and continue to be educated on open space issues. Please vote yes on Tuesday May 11 th so we can protect this jewel for all of us to enjoy. Respectfully, Kara Heide" Commissioner Menconi clarifted that the Colorado Division of Wildlife had identifted the property as important for wildlife migration and habitat. Commissioner Menconi had several questions of the Land Trust representatives. He asked Mr. Tom Macy about his comments. Tom Macy, Eagle Valley Land Trust, addressed the issue oflack of public access. He clarifted that easements that are at the 30% end of the range purchase public access. Ifpublic access were being purchased the appraisal would increase greatly. Commissioner Menconi asked about the progress of the contract to date. Mr. Macy stated that the County Attorney's have a copy of the contract and the closing date is set for July 7. He went on to say the end of the inspection period is June 23rd. He told the Board that they would not be able to proceed without the County's participation. The deal could be called off any time before June 23rd, but after that the earnest money would be lost. Commissioner Stone stated that he read the emails because one of the common threads is the lack of public access. He feels that people are recognizing that they don't feel their money is being well spent on land they can't see and can't use. He asked Mr. Simonton whether the BLM funds would be used to purchase the river parcel. Mr. Simonton stated that this is correct. Commissioner Stone wondered why the money was being spent on purchasing the conservation easement. He desires to act prudently and judiciously on these ftrst few requests for funding. He had read through the ballot language, and believes that most people are under the impression that the funds would be used to purchase land to prohibit development. He wonders what would happen if the funding is approved and what would happen if they didn't approve the funding. It is his impression that the federal BLM money had already been allocated. He asked Mr. Simonton to bring up the slide of the pie chart for further review. He clarifted that the $2,000,000 was 39% of the entire project, but 63% of the 35 05-11-04 portion of the easement is within Eagle County. He stated that the other monies that would be spent from GOCO and BLM have also come from Eagle County taxpayers. Commissioner Menconi asked for clariftcation. Chairman Stone stated that the federal government gets its money from citizen's taxes. He also said that Garfteld County would be using GOCO funds to pay for part of it's contribution. He wanted all to know that this meant that Eagle County residents would be paying not once, but three times. He requested Mr. Simonton bring up the Bair Ranch Website. He showed all present the website highlighting the commercial operations on the ranch. These operations would be allowed with the conservation easement. He is concerned that the purpose of the easement "to assure that the property will be preserved forever in its natural state is incompatible with the current uses." He feels that his constituents are looking at this land to not be used for some of the purposes it is currently being used for. The $2,000,000 that would be spent by Eagle County would not allow public access to the lands. Eagle County is very vibrant and he believes the vote would be against the purchase if it went to the voters today. He is having a difftcult time trying to represent his constituents based on their thought that supporting this purchase does not reflect their intentions when they voted for the open space tax. He appreciates Russell Georges concerns, but suggests that he ftnd more state money to support the purchase. Commissioner Menconi inquired if there was anyone present who could represent the BLM. Vaughn Hackett spoke to the Board. He stated that they had originally applied to 4.5 million and it was cut back to 1.5 million and is currently a line item in the 2003 budget. They were able to hold this amount over and there is a lot of money to spend on another project. Commissioner Menconi asked about other contributions that the BLM had made. Mr. Hackett stated that in Grand Junction the NCA (National Conservation Association) was created. There is also a minor project across from Stephens Nursery that had been acquired at Dotsero. Commissioner Menconi wondered if any of the 1.5 million could be spent on the 5 acres along the river. Mr. Hackett stated that the Bair's were not interested in this proposal. They are interested in the entire ranch proposal and not piece meal sales. Christine Quinlan, from the Conservation Fund, clarifted that GOCO had committed two grants in the amount of $400,000.00 and $600,000.00 for a total of $1,000,000. She believes that if the County did not contribute, the funds would be allocated elsewhere by GOCO. She was aware that there are many other applications that could use the funds. Commissioner Menconi asked about the rarity of this type of partnership. Christine Quinlan stated that it is very difficult in these political times to hold onto federal funds. There is a lot less money around to be used for this type of purchase. Commissioner Menconi asked what the result of giving the money back could be. Christine Quinlan stated that she heard the OSAC members state that they felt it was important to participate for Eagle County with this precedent setting partnership. Approval of this funding would create an easier path to future partnerships. Commissioner Menconi stated that this had been a great opportunity to be able to have the ability to listen to a preservation of 4,800 acres in the state of Colorado. He had been on the property a few times, but listening to those in favor of the project it makes him realize why he moved to Eagle County. He grew up next to a steel mill and soot was a common occurrence on top of the snow. When he moved here trips through Glenwood Canyon were among his favorite. He is sure to take his visitors to the area of Glenwood Canyon as well. He is honored to be representing Eagle County in having a discussion to preserve such a beautiful part of the state. He shared a story about a speaker he had recently heard. He believes this purchase would be an enormous step for Eagle County. He believes that it is going to pass and that our children and future generations will be grateful. He wondered if anyone in the audience was actually born and raised in this County. One gentleman raised his hand. He understands that this is not the perfect deal and the perfect deal would probably never come along. He praised all who had 36 05-11-04 worked so hard on this presentation, and stated again that he could not believe this wouldn't pass. He believes strongly in democracy and representative government and believes that the majority is in favor of this project. He said it boils down to the beauty, and we all moved here on an emotional decision. The $2 million had already been set aside, but now that the advisory committee has passed this, this wouldn't be needed. He wanted quick approval so that the Conservation Fund could go forward and collect the rest of the money they needed to raise. He loves this area and the State of Colorado and the ballot language clearly states that a conservation easement is an appropriate use of County Open Space Funds. The movement of the wildlife is important to preserve. Chairman Stone stated that he shares a passion for the community. He believes that the preservation of the dude ranch operation is what would be accomplished. He represents the normal working families in the communities but doesn't believe this tax should be used for this purchase. He might vote in favor of the proposal if there were some type of limited access so that regular citizens could freely access the Eagle County mountain property. This would be limited to non-mechanized access such as is available for wilderness areas. If a piece of property is truly going to be protected this would be the way to go; hiking, horseback riding etc, and would like to limit the Bair's in this way as well. He does not believe this will be acceptable to the Bairs. He went on to say that a year ago in July the Board was told that if the deadline had not been met that the deal would be gone. He stated that one year later the deal is still available. The federal money is available, but he believes that Mr. Bair is holding out to do the entire deal or no deal at all. He is concerned about the people of Eagle County and their money. He believes the ftrst deal should be the best deal. He spoke about several parcels that would be preferable for allocating open space funds. He doesn't feel any urgency to spend the money on this project. The property is not under imminent threat of development in his opinion. He also stated that development is not a bad word, it provides housing for people to live in. He called for a vote on the issue. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Quinlan about the urgency regarding the prior deadline. Ms. Quinlan stated that the urgency last July was based on a contract between Craig and LeGrand Bair. Because this could not be completed Craig Bair fell out of contract with his brother. She said that Craig Bair's interest in this started with his desire to keep the ranch together. When they fell out of contract, they were at odds with each other. The Conservation Fund representatives went to Utah to meet with LeGrand Bair. She explained that he was initially uncooperative, but softened over time because he also cared about a conservation easement. He wanted to keep the land together. In January, she explained that they were able to secure a contract with LeGrand to participate in this project and now both brothers are solidifted in conserving the land. The delay allows the County to spend from the Open Space funds. Chairman Stone stated that he wanted to remind everyone present that when the break occurred in the heated discussion it was to determine whether the whole property needed to close at the same time. He wondered about the funding commitment that was made by an individual of the public who had offered to contribute the balance to make the deal occur. He found out that there had been a purposeful intent within the community to make sure that the Bair Ranch was the only proposal to come to the County Commissioners during this initial funding request period. He ftnds this unfortunate because all properties should be available rather than rigging the process which he believes took place. He wants the process to be inclusive, not exclusive. He would like a vote as to whether this should be funded or not. Commissioner Menconi stated that in past meetings when a consensus was not evident items had been tabled. Commissioner Menconi moved to table the presentation for approval of the open space fund expenditures to May 25th, 2004. Chairman Stone stated that in the interest of all concerned and to fulftll his position as an elected Commissioner he is willing to grant the tabling of the request. 37 05-11-04 Michael Cacioppo spoke to the Board stating that he believes there should be a vote and there is no reason for there not to be one today. Chairman Stone stated that it was interesting that there had been strong calls for a vote in the previous meeting. He had researched his position and that this was allowed according to Robert's Rules of Order. He is trying to honor Commissioner Gallagher's service to the Board. It had been suggested that he vote over the phone, but this is not a legal option. He believes that a vote should be taken on May 25th, whether or not Commissioner Gallagher can be present. Michael Cacioppo asked that it be tabled until June. He stated that a lot of people are on vacation and will not be back until June. Chairman Stone asked if the Attorney had reviewed the contracts. Brian Treu, Assistant County Attorney, stated that he had just begun. Chairman Stone asked how much the Conservation Fund would lose on June 23rd if the contract was not going to be executed in full. Mr. Treu stated that this amount was $100,000. Chairman Stone told Mr. Cacioppo that June 1 st is an available date, but that June 8th is not available, June 15th is a big day and there is no room, and the ftrst available date is June 29th which is too late. Commissioner Menconi stated that he is trying to show the citizens of Eagle County that the Board is able to function as a Board without Commissioner Gallagher and as such would like to keep his vote to May 25th, at which point he would be willing to table this again if Commissioner Gallagher is not.available then. The other consideration is that additional funds will still need to be raised and time is needed to do so. Chairman Stone stated that he is not in favor of the May 25th date, but would approve June 1st. Commissioner Menconi moved to table the request for funding to June 1 s\ 2004. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote passed unanimously. Berry Creek Open Space Parcel Chairman Stone asked Mr. Simonton to review the Berry Creek request. He asked if Mr. Simonton could help Chairman Stone to highlight areas that the Board is interested in. Mr. Simonton presented the request for funds to maintain the Berry Creek open space tracts. The OSAC moved that this request be denied until the property be placed in some sort of conservation status. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. Ms. Mauriello stated that Ken Marchetti was present with the intention to speak but had to leave. Chairman Stone asked Walter Mathews, Deputy County Attorney, to speak about options to preserve this land. He stated that he wanted to set a good precedent to have methods to permanently preserve land for the future. This would be a fee simple ownership. There is currently a deed restriction on this land. His constituents would like to see a higher level of difftculty to revert property from being a conservation easement in the future. In the law, conservation easements can be removed if the grantor and grantee both agree. Commissioner Menconi stated that he is very much in favor of this process and asked for Chairman Stone's recommendation. Mr. Mathews offered several options. The ftrst option is to convey a conservation easement to a third party pursuant to 38-30.5-101 C.R.S., and give it to another political subdivision. Another option is that the County can create its own land trust by forming a non-proftt organization and can apply for tax exempt status. Another option is to record a notice of property restriction, which would create it as open space in perpetuity. Another option relates to the resolution for the open space program, the Board of County Commissioners can designate any part of the land as permanent preservation to be in the open space program in perpetuity. The Board could also use open space funds to go towards such lands as 38 05-11-04 tracts I and J for maintenance and preservation. The only way that this option could be changed is by a vote of the people. Chairman Stone asked whether there were other Counties exercising this type of option. Mr. Mathews stated that Boulder County and Douglas County have such a program. Chairman Stone asked for an appropriate motion. Mr. Mathews stated that the motion would have to be to designate tracts I and J at Berry Creek as permanent preservation to be in the Open Space Program. The Attorney's Offtce could bring a resolution back to the Board for signature. At that time a resolution for maintenance could also be included. Ken Marchetti spoke to the Board representing a number of Metropolitan Districts adjacent to the property in question, including Arrowhead and Singletree. This parcel as he sees it was originally acquired by a consortium of entities to acquire it for recreation, open space and housing and educational components. He stated that the property had been used as intended since being acquired by the County. Chairman Stone asked about money and changing the use of the property because the money is for use on open space. He stated that he wanted to include in the motion $2,500 per year to maintain the integrity of open space. He stated this money wants the assurance to make minor improvements to the open space. Mr. Simonton stated that rustic improvements might not qualify for this type of money allocation. Chairman Stone wants to go on the record to state that this Board or subsequent Boards could decide to make improvements that are allowed within the use of the open space land. Commissioner Menconi move the Board of County Commissioners designate tracts I & J of Berry Creek, for preservation under the Eagle County Open Space program. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Menconi moved to authorize movement of funds for tracts I & J, Berry Creek, for future improvements in the amount of $2,500.00 annually. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanImous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until May 25, 2004. ~ Attest: Clerk to the Boar 39 05-11-04