No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/14/05 SPECIAL PUBLIC HEARING January 14, 2005 ~'eserit: Am Menconi Peter Runyon Jack Ingstad Walter Mathews Teak Simonton Chairman Commissioner County Administrator Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Absent: Tom Stone CortJ.rtJ.issioner This being a Special Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Work Session - Legal and Financial Information Meeting on Eaton Ranch Open Space Administration and Attorney's Office Potential Executive SeSSion to disc1lsS Open Space Acquisition Administration and Attorney's Office Chairman Menconi infortrted the public that the hearing is being held to help CortJ.rtJ.issioner Runyon and himself better understand the details of the Eaton Ranch file. The meeting will be a workshop format, and the Commissioners will be asking a lot of questions. There will be an opportunity for public comment. Commissioner Runyon stated he desired the meeting be informal exchange of ideas and concerns. Chairman Menconi stated that no decisions would be made today, and asked a representative from the Vail Valley Foundation to speak. Mr. Harry Frampton of the Vail Valley Foundation addressed the Commissioners and provided an overview of the ,...."'posal. He stated that the Foundation entered into an option contract to potentially facilitate the purchase of the Eaton ch parcel, 75 acres ofland shown on the map he provided. This was their second attempt to obtain such an option, he is fascinated with the idea of a 250 acre green belt park. It is their belief that more open space is needed in the Valley, as well as more Stream access. The possibility of forming partnerships to make this purchase possible was intriguing. The current gravel pit is not attractive, and it would have to be reclaimed over the next couple of years, eventually becoming a meadow. He believes there are three parcels; the first one comprises 75-90 acres and is already open space. The second parcel is owned by B&B that has little developmental possibilities. He showed the wetlands and 100-year flood plain. The third parcel is the land that the Vail Valley Foundation has the option contract on. He showed a photograph of a shot taken from a deck at Cordillera Valley Club highlighting the gravel pit and the current and future reclamation areas. The Vail Valley Foundation has no money in their bank account-all funds are spent on the community yearly. They would serve as a facilitator to help bring in the needed funds. They ate confident that they can gain co:rnrtritmentsforthis purchase, and they currently have firm commitments for $2.1 million. They have informal commitments from conservation groups for $2.0 million. They are very willing to try to fmd the rest of the funds. The Foundation's decision must be made by February 1 st for the contract to move forward. The ownership of the land would be Eagle County and a permanent conservation easement for primarily passive open space, with possibly a nature interpretive center, but no big buildings. A conservation easement document is currently being worked on. They have been approached by two developers whO would like to buy half or one-third of the property for high density development along the upper road. The cost for this purchase has yet to be determined. It is the Vail Valley Foundation's opinion that all ofthe property should remain open space. CortJ.rtJ.issioner Runyon asked how the figure of $6 million was detenmned. Mr. Frampton stated that the number simply felt good, and there was no particular method. The thought they might be able to get $1 million from GOCO, $1 million from the Government, $1 million from the various Metro Districts and governmental entities, and 30 people would each donate $100,000. Commissioner Runyon asked about the additional funds that were desired to improve the property. Mr. Frampton stated that, in his opinion, the meadow is already beautiful, and there would not need to be any ::; spent to maintain this open space. He also acknowledges that if they could raise additional funds, these would be ... for additional improvements and allow them to work with other various partners. 'Commissioner Runyon asked about a sunset to the fundraising commitments. 1 1/14/2005 Mr. Frampton stated that it would most likely be a short run fundraising commitment. He suggested that there might be other entities who would try to raise these funds. Commissioner Runyon asked why this project should take priority over Red Mountain. Mr. Frampton stated that this is simply a window that needs to be taken advantage of by February pt and might + open up again. Chairman Menconi stated that staff had prepared a binder with questions that had been heard privately. He stated that, in preparation for Thursday's meeting, he presented the following questions: 1. Would it be possible to identify areas on the property that would accommodate public use? 2. What are the potential public uses? 3. Will the public use conforlll to the Edwards Area Community Plan and the Eagle County Master Plan? 4. What is the reclamation plan for this property? ChainnanMenconi asked Walter Mathews of the County Attorney's Office about the reclamation plan. Mr. Mathews stated that the reclamation plan included laying top soil, seeding for hay, and insuring that the embankment stays at a 3 to 1 grade. Co~ssioner Menconi read the remaining questions: 5. What additional costs over and above the reclamation are associated with creating the open space? 6. How is access achieved for the property and does it conform to the applicable access control plan? 7. If there is fUfute public use, will access and parking be available? Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Pylman to review the concept plan. RickPylman stated that they had simply put together one concept, and they are in the beginning stages. The plan shows the 3 to 1 embanlrn1ent, natiVe grass and re..establishing the meadows as is required in the reclamation plan. B&B has agreed to re-establish the irrigation ditch, and pasfutes can also be re-established. There is potential for an access road. He felt it would be nice to establiSh some wetlands and possibly ponds. Chairman Menconi asked where parking might be located. Mr. Pylmanstatedthat there would be parking at the termination ofthe road. Chairman Menconi asked about access from Fritz Schmidt's property. Mr. Pylman stated there might not be legal access. " Phillip Bowman stated that the Engineering Department had reviewed the plats and did not see any possibilities which wouldn't be very costly. Commissioner Runyon asked about the grade of the drop for the access road. He wondered if this would be possible. Mr. Pylman stated he believed it would be possible. Chainnan Menconi asked if the Engineering Department had studied this access point, as well. Mr. Bowman referred to a map at Tab Six in the folders and showed the access control plan. He stated the connection at the Lake Creek Road: connection is not addressed. They would like to keep the potential of this connection in tact. This proposed connection is not part of the 72 acre parcel that is to be purchased, though. Chairman Menconi went on to the other questions related to the type of funding, such as, "Can the Eaton Ran.ch be purchased with the Open Space Funds from 2004 and 2005 and the balance from the County General Fund?" Mr. Mathews stated that this was possible. Chainnan Menconi asked additional hypothetical questions related to this purchase, relating to extending the purchase date to 2006 and if 2006 Open Space Funds could be used. He also asked if Mr. Frampton had had any negotiations related to extending the contract had been completed. Mr. Frampton stated that there had not been any conversations related to extending the deadlines. Chaimian Menconi asked if a portion of the property could be set aside for future public or private development. Mr. Matthews stated that there is a way to petition off a portion ofthe property. He suggested this discussion take place in Executive Session, if desired. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Frampton what the Foundation's consideration would be if there were requests to set aside a portion of the property for public use. . Mr. Frampton stated that public use means something different to everyone. They held a series of community ings and received suggestions from all over the board; an amphitheater, a kayak park, a culinary school, etc. Jhe S1"'~rit behind their interest is to make it primarily a passive park. They came up with a conservation easement which 2 1/14/2005 included their best guess as to what the proper and acceptable use from the County would be. He didn't believe they would have support from the donors or the Land Group if they began putting in significant public use projects. He knows that the Land Trust and private donors want their $6 million to be used for specific purposes. Commissioner Runyon stated that there is only so much money in this year's Open Space Fund and wants to be 'e to consider other open space projects in the next year. This means that the money would need to come from other ds. To justify this, he would like to carve out a section of the land for future public use. They can make it restrictive through various easements, and the only way to remove those easements would be by a vote of the people for a very specific use. The Master Plan recommends that this area be used for education. He asked Ms. Leonard of Community Development whether she had identified the four different sections. He asked for clarification about these sections. Cliff Simonton of Community Development stated that he was aware of the interest in the potential of this site for some public facility. Stafflooked at the site and broke it into four different pieces. He reviewed these various parcels and spoke about which areas would be best used for public facilities. The first piece is close to the core area and sewer, gas, and electric are readily available. It is also the most distant site from the interstate. He suggested that ifthere were development on this site, it would be most distant and these structures would be backed by existing commercial development. They delineated the portion that parallels US Highway 6, where a 30% grade exists. Immediately adjacent to Highway 6 would be a logical area for commercial development. The access control plan and the need to limit the nmnber of driveways would make this difficult, though. The third area was delineated next to the existing B&B processing plant and adjacent to the nearby nursery. This area is adjacent to the piece of property which is not included in this proposal. It is likely that B&B will not be choosing to move any time soon based on the future redevelopment plans in the upper Valley, and they could occupy this site for a very long time. He believes this area is about 12-15 acres in size. The fourth area is the center of the pit, a flat piece ofland above the flood plain, and upon reclamation, it is essentially flat. This would be a very buildable area; however it is in the middle of the whole piece of land. Commissioner Runyon stated that he believed that parcel "A" is the best development option. He wondered why one couldn't come back 200-300 feet and make the parcellS acres, instead, to get extra open space around the river corridor. He asked Mr. Frampton if this plan would be totally unacceptable from his point of view. Mr. FramptOn responded that he needed to collect his thoughts, as the details needed to be reviewed. He would ha.ve to go back to all of the donors and the Open Space Committee, as this is a collective process of keeping all interested parties happy. Chairman Menconi sta.ted that at this stage he is looking at the plusses and rrrinuses of both ideas. He stated that a ftheir questions had been answered with the document prepared by staff. He asked how many e-mails had been received. Mr. Simonton stated he had received 80 to 100 e-mails. Chairman Menconi asked for public comment from those who would not be able to attend next Thursday's meeting. Tom Hamed, a former real estate broker, spoke to the Board. He stated that no one in Eagle County wanted to damage the river cottidor in question. He stated that this concept is not currently funded and suggested another option. Everyone is aware of the development in the Edwards area, and he thinks other developers would present a complete concept that would still protect the wetland and stream corridors. He suggested that the Board is in control of the future development. He didn't believe this proposal was a bad idea, but wondered if it was being approached too quickly. He asked everyone to read Tom Edward's letter to the editor in the Vail Daily. He doesn't endorse this use of public monies as the best use for the space. Mr. Frampton spoke about the trade-offs. He believes more open space is needed in this Valley. He doesn't believe commercial property needs to be placed everywhere. He worries about "killing the goose" by overdeveloping. He thinks that, five years down the road, the Commissioners will look like geniuses. Recent purchases were made at $529,000 per acre. In relative terms, the Eaton Ranch property would cost $39 rrrillion. He assured all present that East- West Partners would not make any money on this. He understands the other side of the argument relating to development on the site. Commissioner Runyon agreed to a certain degree. He believes that if this area gets developed, there would still be meadow land and the river corridor maintained. Mr. Frampton stated development would have a large impact on the Spur Road. He is worried that future Boards rrright not make the same conservation decisions. Ron Wolfe, Chairman of the Open Space Advisory Committee spoke to the Board. He believes that this project 's to be done, and the question is how. It passed the Open Space Advisory Committee by a narrow margin. He stated mdeveloped space and open space are two different concepts. He believes this would be an urban park that has some c~uservation value. He wondered if there should be an agreement to have some portion potentially developed. He has 3 1/14/2005 ~- been disappointed that the surrounding communities have not looked at a special taxing district to diminish the County's responsibility. The committee is constantly worried about what might be on the table in the future. He felt it would be terrible to not be able to pursue Red Mountain Ranch in the future because of overextension at this time. He believes this is the Central Park of Eagle County and felt a conservation easement is necessary. He is in support of the project. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Bowman what the infrastructure needs would be if this property would be built on. Lnderstands that additional roundabouts would cost $12 million. Mr. Bowman stated that he is not directly involved with the Spur Road improvements, even though he is aware that these improvements are being moved forward very quickly. He felt that these improvements would be inevitable regardless of any development. Developers could contribute road impact fees, however. The major component of the access plan is the connection of Lake Creek Road to Old Edwards Estates. Chairman Menconi asked about the increase in number of cars related to new development. He wondered if level of service would go down at other phases if population were to remain the same. Mr. Ingstad stated that these improvements would be needed anyway. He stated that the improvements at Highway 6 and the Spur Road are quite a ways off. Helen Migche1brink, County Engineer, stated that based on numerous studies have indicated that there would still be the need for these improvements. Chairman Menconi stated that the Engineering Department is still making the recommendation that due to the present and future traffic flows, there needs to be a road from Old Edwards Estates up to Highway 6. He wondered how this happens. Mr. Ingstad stated that Engineering likes to move traffic through a community as quickly as possible. This is the basis of their recortJ.rtJ.endation, and the Planning Department might not agree with it. Ms. Migchelbrink stated that they were trying to clear up some choke points on Highway 6. Chairman Menconi wondered why lack of increase in population would require additional road systems. He stated that based on approved plans, expansion would be needed. Ms. Migchelbrink stated that it is not just based on development, but general traffic through the area. Chairman Menconi asked if Edwards Spur Road needs the full expansion. Ms. Migchelbrink concurred. CommiSSioner Runyon asked how much traffic would be diverted based on a Cordillera Interchange. Ms. Migchelbrink stated that it would definitely take traffic off the road, but could not give exact figures. Mr. Ingstad asked how far in the future the CDOT money would be available for the Spur Road and Highway 6. Ms. Migchelbrink stated it might not be available until 2015 or 2020 unless Eagle County steps up to advance it. Chairman Menconi asked Commissioner Runyon ifhe had any comments or questions. Commissioner Runyon asked Mr. Frampton what would happen on September 151 if the entire amount had not been raised. Mr. Frampton stated that his grolip would make their best efforts to find the money from other entities than the County. He feels a positive vote from the Commissioners wou~d send a lot of momentum to other possible contributors. Chairman Menconi stated that, in his four years as Corrimissioner, he has been aware of how quickly the cortJ.rtJ.unity is gathering around to express their value of open space. He is excited at the ability to have discussions about preservation and protection and compared it to the preservation of the lake front in Chicago. He echoed Mr. Wolfe's statements that, in ten years, no one would argue that this open space goal was not valid. He believes this request is really more of a grant process. He thanked the Vail Valley Foundation for their leadership and volunteer effort to put this offer together. He hopes that the public shows up for the hearing to express their opinion and thanked the staff for their efforts in providing answers to questions asked. A~t1~~~~::e)~~~~g~ oojo=ed Mti1Jooumy 18,2005. . .-,.0;;", 4 1/14/2005