HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/10/05
PUBLIC HEARING
May 10, 2005
'resent:
Am Menconi
Peter Runyon
Tom Stone
Keith Montag
Walter Mathews
Don DuBois
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
Acting County Administrator
Deputy County Attorney
Deputy Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County
Commissioners for their consideration:
Resolution 2005-56 Proclaiming Mayas Older Americans Month in Eagle County
Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services
Commissioner Runyon read the resolution aloud for the members of the public who were in attendance.
John Lowery of Senior Services spoke to the Board and told how much he and his staff enjoy working with
the Eagle County senior citizens. He stated that this is Senior Center Week and all three centers are having special
events, and he invited the Board members to join them for lunch at any time during the week.
Chairman Menconi thanked Mr. Lowery for his hard work and thanked the senior citizens for all they do
for the County.
Commissioner Stone asked that the Board give the senior citizens a round of applause.
Commissioner Runyon felt it was an honor to read the resolution as he would be joining their ranks in four
days.
Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolution 2005-56 Proclaiming Mayas Older Americans
.vfonth in Eagle County.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Menconi stated the next item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of May 9, 2005 (Subject to review by the County Administrator)
Mike Roeper, Finance Department
B. Approval of Payroll for May 12,2005
Mike Roeper, Finance Department
C. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meeting for April 26 and May 2,
2005
Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder
D. Bid Award 2005 Agreement for Guardrail Project, Cruz Construction, In.c. 4850 Geiger Blvd., Colorado
Springs, CO 80915
Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge Director
E. Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Economic & Planning Systems, In.c. Regarding an
Economic Benefit Study Related to the Eagle Airport Interchange Project
County Attorney's Office Representative
F. Contract Agreement between Colorado Departtnent of Transportation and Eagle County Regarding an
Economic Benefit Study Related to the Eagle Airport Interchange Project
1
5/10/05
County Attorney's Office Representative
G. Resolution 2005-57 Appointing Peter F. Runyon to the Berry Creek Miller Ranch Design Review
Committee
County Attorney's Office Representative
H. Resolution 2005-58 Appointing Peter F. Runyon to the Partnership for Education
County Attorney's Office Representative
I. Amended Appointments Resolution 200S-59
County Attorney's Office Representative
Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda.
Walter Mathews, Deputy County Attorney asked about Items E and F, and if they should be pulled from
the agenda.
Commissioner Stone asked that they be pulled and voted on separately.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda for May 10,2005, Items A-I, omitting Items E
andF.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
E. Consulting Agreement between Eagle County and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Regarding an
Economic Benefit Study Related to the Eagle Airport Interchange Project
F. Contract Agreement between Colorado Department of Transportation and Eagle County Regarding
an Economic Benefit Study Related to the Eagle Airport Interchange Project
Commissioner Stone moved to not approve Items E and F of the Consent Agenda.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Planning and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda
Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development
A. Resolution 2005-60 to Approve an Amendment to the Edwards Medical Center Planned Unit Development
(Eagle County File Number PDA-00057)
Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Planning and Land Use Resolution Consent Agenda, Item A.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Minor Subdivision Plat Signing
Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development
5MB-00354. Red Sky Ranch Lot 17. The sole purpose of this plat is to administratively
reconfigure/enlarge the building envelope for Lot 17 to accommodate a parking and turn-around area for
the proposed residence.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve 5MB~00354, Red Sky Ranch Lot 17. The sole purpose of this plat
is to administratively reconfigure/enlarge the building envelope for Lot 17 to accommodate a parking and turn-
around area for the proposed residence.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
<<esolution 2005-61 Authorizing the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder to Conduct
the November 1, 2005 Election by Mail Ballot
Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder
2
5/1 0/05
Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Mathews if the resolution needed to be read aloud.
Mr. Mathews stated that it did not, as the Attorney's Office had reviewed it.
Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder, spoke to the Board about this proposal. She stated that,
tarting this year, the Clerk's Office must verify signatures against their database with each ballot that is returned.
She stated it was a statutory requirement that the Board approve the resolution for a Mail Ballot Election so she
could submit it to the Secretary of State as part of her Mail Ballot Plan.
Commissioner Runyon asked if there is a higher than usual turnout expected due to Referendum C (Home
Rule) and how that would impact direct elections as compared to mail ballot elections.
Ms. Simonton stated that issues effect turnout. She gave a history of past Mail Ballot and Polling Place
Elections and the voter turnout percentages. In 2001, there was a Mail Ballot Election involving the School
District's tax increase for salaries, and the turnout was 41.6%. In. 2003, there was a Polling Place Election with no
significant issues, and the turnout was 39.5%. She stated that there is a slight fluctuation in the total numbers, but
odd year elections tend to have significantly smaller turnout numbers. She believes that there may be a higher
turnout for this year's election due to the possible issues that may be on the ballot.
Chairman Menconi asked why she wants a mail ballot election.
Ms. Simonton stated that it is easier on the office staff to administer and will result in cost savings in terms
of judge training and numbers needed. The staff time devoted to the election, judges' meals, and transportation of
election equipment to the polling places will not be necessary, also. She estimated the cost savings to be around
$5,000.
Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolution 2005-61 Authorizing the Eagle County Clerk and
Recorder to Conduct the November 1, 2005 Election by Mail Ballot.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle
County Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Eagle County Liquor License Authority
Don DuBois, Clerk and Recorder's Office
Consent Agenda
Renewals
A. The Fireside Lodge
Bond, CO
This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Bond. There have been no complaints or
disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid.
Other Consent
B. State Bridge Lodge
Bond, CO
This is a Manager's Registration for State Bridge Lodge. State Bridge wishes to register William
Forsythe as its Manager. The application is complete and the necessary fees have been paid. Mr.
Forsythe is of good moral character, based upon Sheriffs reports.
C. Holden's Restaurant
Beaver Creek, CO
3
5/1 0/05
This is a request to modify their Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License by deleting one of their Optional
Premises. The applicant wishes to delete the tennis courts from their licensed premises. This will
leave Holden's with two Optional Premises.
D. Allie's Cabin
Beaver Creek Mountain, CO
This is a request to modify their Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License by adding an Optional Premise.
The applicant wishes to add the tennis courts that Holden's Restaurant deleted to their licensed premise
as an Optional Premise. This will give Allie's Cabin two Optional Premises.
Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for May 10,2005, Items
A-D.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Other Liquor
A. Wolcott Yacht Club Grill
Wolcott Yacht Club
1) Modification of Premises
APPLICANT:
DBA:
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
CONCERNS / ISSUES:
Wolcott Yacht Club Grill, LLC
Wolcott Yacht Club
Jan Jouflas, Landlord
27190 U.S. Highway 6 Wolcott, CO
SEE STAFF FINDINGS #3 AND #5
..lESCRIPTION: This is a request for a modification to the premises of the Tavern Liquor License of
Wolcott Yacht Club Grill LLC dba Wolcott Yacht Club. The applicant wishes to add the building currently known
as the Wolcott Market to its licensed premises and will be renovating the building. This will allow for year-round
operation of the Yacht Club. As the building that is proposed to be included in the modification is currently
licensed under a 3.2% Beer, Off-premises License and a Retail Liquor Store License, these two licenses must be
surrendered immediately as a condition of approval of this application.
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS:
According to the Colorado Code of Regulations, 47-302 (B), "In making its decision with respect to any proposed
changes, alterations, or modifications, the licensing authority must consider whether the premises, as changed,
altered, or modified, will meet all of the pertinent requirements of the Colorado Liquor or Beer codes and the
Regulations promulgated thereunder. Factors to be taken into account by the licensing authority include, by way of
illustration but not limited to, the following:
1. The reasonable requirements of the neighborhood.
2. The possession, by the licensee, of the changed premises by ownership, lease, rental, or other
arrangement.
3. Compliance with the applicable zoning laws of the municipality, city and county, or county.
4. Compliance with the distance prohibition in regard to any public or parochial school or the principal
campus of any college, university, or seminary.
5. The legislative declaration that the Colorado Liquor and Beer Codes are an exercise ofthe police
powers of the state for the protection of the economic and social welfare and the health, peace, and
morals of the people of this state.
STAFF FINDINGS:
4
5/10105
1. Proper notice and publication was made 10 days prior to the hearing, and there have been no protests
filed with the Clerk's Office.
2. The applicant is in possession of the premises, as evidenced by a lease agreement with the landlord.
3. There is question as to whether the applicant is in compliance with the applicable zoning laws.
Attached is a copy of a letter sent by CDOT (Colorado Dept. of Transportation) to the applicant
indicating the applicant's lack ofa current access permit and violation ofCDOT's Right of Way.
4. The proposed modification will be in compliance with the distance restrictions set forth.
5. This finding is subjective and is up to the Board's discretion to how it is applied. While this
modification will increase capacity, it is Staffs belief that the effect of this modification will be most
evident during the winter months and will have minimal, if any, impact upon the summer months.
However, it is incumbent upon the applicant to adequately demonstrate that it has ample parking for its
customers.
6. As the proposed location is currently licensed with two Colorado Liquor Licenses, these must be
surrendered as a condition of the Board's Approval.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
If the applicant can adequately satisfy all of the StaffPindings and any concerns of the Board, then staff
recommends that the application for Modification of Premises be approved.
DISCUSSION:
Jan Jouflas, landlord of the premises to be modified, was present for the hearing.
Commissioner Stone asked Ms. Jouflas to share how the landlord would comply with the CDOT letter
dated April, 2005.
Ms. Jouflas stated that she has a meeting to discuss this on Thursday with CDOT. They are attempting to
satisfy CDOT's concerns. They feel they are in compliance by way of a grandfathered agreement.
Commissioner Stone wondered how the Eagle County Liquor Board could grant the authority if the
remises weren't in compliance.
Bryan Treu, County Attorney, stated that the land use regulations required permits for highway access. He
feels that the owners should have the meeting with CDOT and then inform the Board as to the actions and
agreements taken.
Ms. Jouflas indicated that they had until June 1,2005 to come to a resolution.
Mr. Treu suggested waiting until Ms. Jouflas has a conversation with CDOT to approve this request.
Commissioner Stone wondered about the legal remedies and whether it should be tabled.
Mr. DuBois clarified the liquor requests. He indicated that Ms. Jouflas eventually desires to take control of
the Tavern Liquor License from her brother. She wants to get the modification approved before she surrenders
licenses currently held for 3.2% Beer sales and Retail Liquor Store sales.
Mr. Treu stated that the entire process should be done at the same time.
Commissioner Stone moved to table the following files until Tuesday, May 17,2005 at 11 :00 a.m.:
Wolcott Yacht Grill LLC Modification of Premises Application; Wolcott Market Ltd. Temporary Permit
Application; and Wolcott Market Ltd. Transfer of Ownership Application.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
2) Temporary Tavern Liquor License
NOTE: This file tabled from April 26. 2005
APPLICANT:
DBA:
REPRESENTATIVE:
,OCATION:
CONCERNS / ISSUES:
Wolcott Market Ltd.
W olcott Yacht Club
Jan Jouflas, Owner
27190 U.S. Highway 6
None
Wolcott, CO
5
5/1 0/05
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a temporary Hotel and Restaurant License for Wolcott Market Ltd. dba
Wolcott Yacht Club. Wolcott Market Ltd. has applied for a Transfer of Ownership of the Tavern Liquor License
from W olcott Yacht Club Grill LLC. The applicant has submitted all of the required documents and associated fees
or a transfer of ownership and is requesting a temporary license to operate until the transfer of ownership process
'an be completed. The applicant currently possesses a Retail Liquor Store License and a 3.2% Beer License.
Under the Colorado Liquor Code, one can not possess both a Retail Liquor Store License and a Tavern Liquor
License, simultaneously. The applicant will surrender her liquor license upon approval of the Temporary Permit,
and this has been made a condition of approval.
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS:
1. The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold has been previously licensed by the state and
local licensing authorities, and it was valid as of the date of receiving the application.
2. The applicant has applied on forms provided by the Department of Revenue and includes the name and
address of the applicant, the names and addresses of the president, vice-president, secretary and
managing officer, the applicant's financial interest in the proposed transfer, and the premises for which
the temporary permit is sought.
3. An affidavit of transfer and statement of account for all alcohol beverages sold has been filed and
signed by both parties.
4. The application for the temporary permit has been filed no later than thirty (30) days after the filing of
the application for the transfer of ownership and the appropriate fee has been paid.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval.
This file was tabled to May 17, 2005 by the Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
3) Transfer Ownership of Tavern Liquor License
APPLICANT:
DBA:
REPRESENTATIVE:
LOCATION:
CONCERNS / ISSUES:
Wolcott Market, Ltd.
W olcott Yacht Club
Jan Jouflas, Owner
27190 U.S. Highway 6
None
Wolcott, CO
DESCRIPTION: This is a request for the transfer of a Tavern Liquor License. Wolcott Market Ltd. has
applied for a Transfer of Ownership from Wolcott Yacht Club Grill LLC dba Wolcott yacht Club. If this
application is approved, the applicant must surrender its 3.2% Beer License and Retail Liquor Store License prior to
the Tavern Liquor License being issued.
STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS
ESTABLISIDNG THE NEIGHBORHOOD
This step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership.
NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD
This step is not necessary under the rules for a transfer of ownership.
.THER FINDINGS
6
5/10/05
>- This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been
filled out, and all fees have been paid.
>- The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold has been previously licensed by the state and local
licensing authorities and was valid as of the date of receiving the application.
>- The applicant is reported to be of good moral character.
>- The statement that all accounts for alcohol beverages sold to the applicant are paid has been received.
>- The applicant is over 21, fingerprints are on file, and Personal History Records are on file.
>- Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises at least 10
days prior to the hearing. Publication of the notice is not required for a transfer of ownership.
>- The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a
license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood
and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets.
>- The premises are not for the sale of fermented malt beverages at retail where, within one year preceding the
date of the application, a license has been denied at the same location for the reason that the reasonable
requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets.
>- The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college,
university, or seminary.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
All findings are positive and staff recommends approval.
This file was tabled to May 17, 2005 by the Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as
the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Resolution 2005-62 Proclaiming the Week of May 7-15 as See America Week in
~agle County
Am Menconi, Chairman
Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2005-62 Proclaiming the Week of May 7-15 as See
America Week in Eagle County.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Planning Files
PDF-00086 - Vail Christian Hi2h School PUD and Subdivision Improvement A2reement
Bob Narracci, Planner, Community Development
ACTION:
To final plat the subject property into three (3) building sites, open space tracts and transportation
corridors
TITLE:
FILE NO./PROCESS:
LOCATION:
Vail Christian High School PUD
PDF -00086 / Planned Unit Development Final Plat
South side of U.S. Highway 6 between Hillcrest Drive and Squaw Creek Road;
In.clusive of the northeast corner of Hillcrest Drive and Squaw Creek Road & U.S.
Highway 6 and the southwest corner of U.S. Highway 6 & Squaw Creek Road.
Vail Christian Schools and the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
Owner
Pylman and Associates (Rick Pylman)
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
eTAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
7
5/10/05
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
SUMMARY: A PUD Pinal Plat to subdivide the subject 205.433 acre property into three developable lots, and
ten tracts designated as Open Space and transportation corridors as follows:
Lot 1 7.278 acres designated as the new Vail Christian High School educational facility and ancillary uses;
Lot 2 5.023 acres designated as future religious, educational and community service;
Lot 3 1.897 acres designated as future commercial, religious and educational uses; this lot is owned by the Eagle
River Water and Sanitation District and is anticipated to be developed as the office headquarters of said
District;
Tract 'A'
Tract 'B'
Tract 'c'
Tract'D'
Tract 'E'
Tract 'F'
Tract 'G'
Tract 'H'
Tract '1'
Tract' J'
Tract 'K'
Tract 'L'
113.507 acres designated as Open Space;
29.284 acres designated as the In.terstate - 70 transportation corridor;
10.595 acres designated as additional Open Space;
Not used in this final plat. Tract 'D' has been incorporated into Tract 'B';
0.794 acres designated as additional Open Space and Union Pacific railroad corridor;
0.882 acres designated as additional Open Space (public fishing access to Eagle River);
0.463 acres designated as additional Open Space and Union Pacific railroad corridor;
21.106 acres designated as U.S. Highway 6 transportation corridor;
Not used in this final plat. Tract '1' was not utilized in the Preliminary Plan either;
7.557 acres designated as Squaw Creek Road transportation corridor;
4.236 acres designated as Red Canyon Road, Hillcrest Drive and Eagle Crest Drive transportation
corridors;
2.811 acres designated as Union Pacific railroad corridor.
CHRONOLOGY:
1996 The State Land Board transferred 20+/- acres of its holdings in Sections 25 and 36, T4S, R85W to the
Archdiocese of Denver (St. Claire of Assisi Site);
1997 The State Land Board transferred 570 +/- acres (the subject property) to Cordillera (Wilmore Development,
LLC). The subject property was part of an historical Colorado State School Land Section under control of
the State Land Board;
2001 Subsequently, that portion of the original transfer located north of Interstate - 70 was subdivided into 35
acre tracts of land and is developing as the 'Timber Springs' subdivision;
2002 Wilmore Development, LLC made application to Eagle County for a mixed use PUD Sketch Plan that
included commercial development, multi-family development and open space;
2003 The Wilmore Development, LLC application was withdrawn in July 2003 prior to the BOCC hearing the
proposal. This was done to accommodate the current proposal since it is not permissible to have two
8
5/1 0/05
pending applications on the same property. The BOCC approved the PUD Sketch Plan for the Vail
Christian High School application on September 30, 2003;
'2004 On the 2ih day of July, 2004 the BOCC approved the Vail Christian High School PUD Preliminary Plan,
Zone Change, and 1041 Permit applications;
2004 The PUD Final Plat application was submitted to Eagle County in August, 2004.
STAFF REPORT
REFERRAL RESPONSES: All referral responses have been satisfactorily addressed.
MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES: None.
STAFF FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Section 5-280. B.5.b(3). Final Plat for Subdivision - Action bv the Board of County
Commissioners, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following finding is made:
The Final Plat DOES conform to the approved PUD Preliminary Plan for the Vail Christian High School, and;
Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e, Subdivision Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the
following findings are made:
(1) Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan
and the FLUM of the Master Plan;
2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES comply with all of the
standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including but not limited
to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards;
(3) Spatial Patterns Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating
spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or
premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
(a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's
service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital
Improvements Plan (no road extensions are necessitated by this proposal).
(b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines ARE sized to serve the planned ultimate population of
the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines.
(c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions ARE allowed only when the entire
range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into
an otherwise un-served area.
(4) Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development,
considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the
potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
(5) Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of
existing land use in this vicinity of Eagle County and WILL NOT adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area.
Pursuant to Section 4-700, School Land Dedication Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the
following findings are made: This standard is not applicable to a private school and commercial development.
9
5/10/05
DISCUSSION:
Bob Narracci of Community Development presented this file to the Board. Utilizing a PowerPoint
resentation, he showed various photographs and maps to the Board indicating the location of the property and the
details of the proposal. This plat will sub-divide the property into three developable lots and several tracts, the
descriptions of which can be found in the Staff Report. There are no outstanding issues and staff does recommend
approval.
Rick Pylman, representing the applicant, was present to answer the Board's questions.
Chairman Menconi opened public comment. There was none. Chairman Menconi closed public comment.
Commissioner Runyon asked if this file precludes any future 1-70 interchange at the Cordillera Valley.
Mr. Narracci stated the many ofthe tracts were being set aside as transportation corridors, and showed
them to the Board on a map.
Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. PDF-00086, Vail Christian High School PUD and
Subdivision Improvements Agreement, incorporating the Staff findings, and authorized the Chairman to sign the
plat and the Subdivision Improvements Agreement.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDA-00021 - Blue Ridee PUD Amendment Extension for Two (2) Years
Joe Forinash, Planner, Community Development
Extension of Preliminary Plan for 100 multi family residential units on 12.402 acres.
ACTION:
LOCATION: 19001 U. S. Hwy 82
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
RE:
3 May, 2005
Board of County Commissioners
Joseph Forinash, Planner
Blue Ridge Planned Unit Development - PDA-00021
Request for Extension of Preliminary Plan Approval
DESCRIPTION: The Blue Ridge PUD is a residential development approved to include 100 townhouse and
condominium units on a 12.95 acre parcel in EI Jebel, located north of Highway 82 and east ofEI Jebel Road.
Please refer to the attached vicinity photo and site plan.
BACKGROUND: The Preliminary Plan and zone change for the Blue Ridge PUD was initially approved on
11 January 1994. The Preliminary Plan was subsequently amended on 12 March 1996 and again on 22 May, 2000.
A single-phase PUD Preliminary Plan, such as the Blue Ridge PUD, is valid for five years from the date of the
approval. In this case, approval of the Preliminary Plan amendment in 2000 would expire on 22 May, 2005.
The Land Use Regulations provide that, upon written request, the Board of County Commissioners may extend a
Preliminary Plan's life for two years if the applicant demonstrates by competent substantial evidence that:
1. Failure to complete the development of the PUD was beyond the applicant's control;
2. The Preliminary Plan for PUD is not speculative in nature;
3. The Preliminary Plan for PUD still complies with the Land Use Regulations and the Master Plan; and
4. There is a reasonable likelihood the PUD will be developed in the next two (2) years.
he owners of the Blue Ridge property at the time of the approval of the PUD Preliminary Plan and the subsequent
amendments were Kevin and Tammy Tucker. An application for approval of a final plat for the Blue Ridge PUD
was submitted in March 1999. That final plat application has been inactive much of the time since due to the
10
5/10/05
applicants' failure to submit revised final plat and construction plans which responded to comments which had been
provided by Planning and Engineering Staff.
The property has recently been purchased by ASW Realty Partners, LLC, which intends to develop the site as
dpproved in the 2000 PUD amendment. ASW Realty Partners, LLC, has since submitted a revised final plat and
construction plans which are currently under review by Staff.
FINDINGS: Staff has determined that the following required findings may reasonably be made by the Board:
1. Failure to complete the development of the PUD was beyond the applicant's control.
The current owner of the Blue Ridge site and Applicant for this extension only recently acquired the property
and has not been in a position to develop the site prior to the past few months.
2. The Preliminary Plan for PUD is not speculative in nature.
It appears reasonable to believe that the proposed development continues to be viable and not subject to undue
speculative risk.
3. The Preliminary Plan for PUD still complies with the Land Use Regulations and the Master Plan.
The PUD Preliminary Plan does still comply with the Land Use Regulations and the Master Plan.
4. There is a reasonable likelihood the PUD will be developed in the next two (2) years.
Given the recent efforts by ASW Realty Partners, LLC, to provide a final plat and construction plans in good
form and sufficient for consideration for approval by the Board, it appears likely that the PUD will be
developed in the next two years.
DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Stone recused himself from this file.
Joe Forinash of Community Development presented this file to the Board. Using a PowerPoint
presentation, he showed various photographs and maps of the property to the Board. He gave a chronology of the
PUD Preliminary Plan, highlighting the various changes that have been made throughout the years. The application
for final plat approval has remained open, but inactive, since 2000. The applicant wishes to extend the Preliminary
Plan approval for two years, until May 22, 2007, before the Preliminary Plan expired. He pointed out an error in
the Staff Report, stating that the owners are still Kevin and Ken Tucker and not ASW Realty Partners LLC. The
Board must make four findings in order to grant the extension, and these are found in the Staff Report. Findings are
positive and staff recommends approval of the extension.
Steve Isom, representing the applicant, was present and spoke to the Board. He gave a history and
reasoning behind the request for the extension, stating that the entire process takes a long time to complete. They
have been working with Kodiak Park to obtain a right of way through their project in order to be able to connect
with Willits Lane. They were allowed to build 60 units without the connection to Willits Lane and were allowed to
build an additional 40 units after the Willits Lane connection was made. He showed a rendering of the project to
Commissioner Runyon in order to familiarize him with the project.
Chairman Menconi opened public comment. There was none. Chairman Menconi closed public comment.
Commissioner Runyon asked for clarification on the status of the project.
Mr. Forinash stated that the Sketch Plan was approved and the Preliminary Plan was approved in 1994 and
had a couple amendments made, the last being in May of 2000. Thus, the Preliminary Plan was good for 5 years
from the last amendment and will expire May 22,2005. If it does expire, the application would have to start over
with a new sketch plan, Preliminary Plan, and final plat.
Commissioner Runyon asked if the final stage is then final approval.
Mr. Forinash concurred.
Commissioner Runyon asked if the Roaring Fork Planning Commission had approved the first two steps.
11
5/1 0/05
Mr. Forinash stated that they had the opportunity to review these phases. He stated that the structure of
Planning Commissions had changed over the years and the early reviews may have had a different structure. But,
they still had the opportunity to review the file.
Commissioner Runyon stated he didn't have enough information to be able to grant approval.
Mr. Forinash stated the process that the file goes through for an extension, as it differs from the other
processes. There is no need for advertising or posting of a sign on the site, nor do they have to send letters to
adjacent property owners. This matter comes directly to the Board.
Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, clarified Commissioner Runyon's questions. He
asked about the level of community participation and feedback from the Planning Commission at the last PUD
Amendment stage.
Mr. Isom stated that they answered all of the Roaring Fork Planning Commission's questions and went
through a complete review process with them. It was recommended for approval at 120 units and the Board
ultimately approved 100 units. They have submitted the adjacent property owners' information to Community
Development for the final plat mailing.
Chairman Menconi stated that he needed more information, as this was a PUD file he did not hear. He
wanted the input of the Planning Commission as to whether they were in favor of it, was it a split vote, and the
deliberation held on the file.
Mr. Mathews stated that the Commissioners could look to see what a prior Planning Commission
recommended, if they desired.
Chairman Menconi asked if the previous recommendations of the Planning Commission and Board will be
followed, or would the applicant come before this Board with changes.
Mr. Isom stated that they would be following through with all the presentations and conditions made at the
Preliminary Plan Hearing.
Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Forinash what community amenities would be created by approving this file.
Mr. Forinash deferred to Mr. Isom.
Mr. Isom talked about the changes that were made to this file. The project has always been called the Blue
Ridge Project, but has had the commercial element eliminated. There are internal walks, a children's play area, and
open space throughout the project. This is an in-fill project, and this is the last piece of development.
Commissioner Runyon asked about the density of this project, compared to the surrounding areas.
Mr. Isom stated that the density in the area to the north is 8 units per acre, which is similar to their project.
This project is similar to the Sopris View Apartments to the west of the project, and actually has a lower density.
Commissioner Runyon asked ifthis would be affordable, or "attainable", housing.
Mr. Isom concurred with that assessment, stating that it would be targeting people in middle management.
Commissioner Runyon asked how far along the applicant was for the final plat hearing.
Mr. Isom went over the process they have gone through, stating that it was a remote possibility that they
could still meet the May 22nd deadline.
Commissioner Runyon wants to make sure that there will be full community participation and Planning
Commission information. He sees no downside to granting the extension.
Mr. Isom stated that there has been very little opposition to this project since its inception, but they will
duly notify the adjacent property owners.
Mr. Forinash gave a history of the Planning Commission recommendations for the two PUD Amendments,
stating they were recommended for denial.
Chairman Menconi believes that this project is classic in-fill. He likes that it would appeal to the local
market and its location on a transportation corridor. He asked if this project could be tabled and wondered if it
would allow a stay of the PUD approval.
Mr. Mathews stated that he would have to look up that information.
Mr. Forinash stated that when the applicant submits a letter asking for an extension, the Preliminary Plan
Approval stays alive until the Board renders a decision.
Chairman Menconi asked what would happen if the PUD was denied moving forward.
Mr. Mathews stated that this PUD was approved already and changes could not be made. If the Board
decides to not extend the PUD, then they would have to decide to extinguish the PUD, and he detailed the process
that must be undertaken.
Commissioner Runyon stated that it sounds like the applicant has done a lot of the work already. He
doesn't think that this project would be denied, and he doesn't see the advantage to going back over ground that
was already covered.
Mr. Mathews stated that there would still be another opportunity for a public hearing.
12
5/10/05
Chairman Menconi gave his thoughts as to what the final plat stage process involves. He doesn't view the
final plat as a chance to deny a project. He doesn't want to cost the developer any more money into a project that
would only be rolled back into the purchase price.
Mr. Isom stated that a PUD gives the applicant the authority to spend the money that it costs to prepare the
lecessary documents and sign the necessary contracts with the Metro District. EI Jebel Road has been the major
stumbling block for the applicant and has taken a large amount of time to resolve. He can't think of anything that
would preclude approval of the final plat, as they have met all of the conditions set before them. The inability to
proceed has caused the applicant a hardship.
Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Forinash ifhe had the Planning Commission minutes from the various
hearings.
Mr. Forinash stated that he did not.
Chairman Menconi asked about dual access and if it existed.
Mr. Isom showed the property to the Board on a small map. He stated that there were two points of access
and pointed them out to the Board.
Chairman Menconi asked if a road on the map continued to EI Jebel Road.
Mr. Isom stated that it will continue to Willits Lane, eventually. He stated that they could build 60 units
with single access and an additional 40 units with dual access, which they have achieved.
Commissioner Runyon shared Chairman Menconi's misgivings. He was concerned about the Planning
Commission's denial recommendation.
Mr. Mathews stated that the Board can not go in and change the density. He then talked about the
requirements for granting the extension and the ramifications ifthey didn't.
Commissioner Runyon feels he is uncomfortable granting approval without having the necessary
information.
Chairman Menconi stated he wants to see what happened to the Planning Commission's denial
recommendations and how they were resolved. He wants to give the public his due diligence.
Mr. Isom stated that the Planning Commission recommended denial of all seven of his projects that he
presented at that time, as they were anti-growth.
Mr. Tucker stated that the Planning Commission was looking to stop growth in principle. He stated that the
.eighbors have supported the project and the only stumbling block has been EI Jebel Road.
Mr. Montag thought the Planning Commission was reviewing more units than what eventually the Board
approved.
Mr. Forinash concurred, stating that 100 units were approved and 120+ units were requested.
Commissioner Runyon asked about the possibility of denial at the final plat hearing.
Mr. Mathews stated that he would have to look into it. He stated that conditions need to be met before it
reached the final plat stage. He believes that if an applicant goes to final plat, they have done everything that they
were supposed to do.
Mr. Montag inquired what criteria the Board would have to base its decision on at the final plat hearing.
Mr. Isom stated that they have received support from the Board throughout the life of this project, to the
point where they passed a resolution to condemn a road right of way through Kodiak Park to Willits Lane.
Mr. Mathews concurred with that assessment.
Mr. Forinash read from the 2000 Staff Report, highlighting the points of Planning Commission discussion
that were raised: Sufficiency of In.formation Provided, Proposed Density, Environmental Impacts, Topography on
the Site, Location of the Proposed Bike Path, Traffic Impacts on Highway 82 and EI Jebel Road, Coordination of
Access Continuity to Kodiak Park, Status of Engineering Concerns and Variances required, and the Usability of
Proposed Open Space.
Chairman Menconi asked about the topography of the project.
Mr. Isom stated that it is a 20% slope, which is well within County standards. He feels the Staffs
recommendation and Board's approval overrode all the Planning Commission's concerns.
Mr. Forinash stated that in 2000, Staff did recommend denial of the file, due to the negative findings. He
then went over the findings. Mr. Forinash addressed the concerns of the Planning Commission individually for the
benefit ofthe Board.
Mr. Isom showed how the applicant had addressed these negative findings.
Chairman Menconi asked if there was a condition requiring the applicant to meet enhanced landscaping
plans.
Mr. Forinash did not recall that this was a condition.
13
5/l0/05
Mr. Isom stated that the only conditions were: No parking within 100 feet of Blue Ridge Lane and 100
units maximum, only 60 allowed until connection to Willits Lane was made.
Chairman Menconi, Mr. Forinash, and Mr. Isom went over other findings and discussed how they were
resolved.
Chairman Menconi asked about the environmental impact issues, location of the proposed bike paths, and
the status of Engineering Department concerns.
Peter Sulmeisters of Engineering stated that he has been going over the file and believes that the biggest
stumbling block was the EI Jebel Road right-of-way, which has been cleared up. The other issues have also been
resolved.
Chairman Menconi asked about the environmental impacts.
Mr. Isom stated that there will be some trees that will be cut down in order to build this project.
Chairman Menconi asked what is currently located on the property.
Mr. Tucker stated his house is on the property and would disappear with construction.
Chairman Menconi asked about the bike trails concerns.
Mr. Isom stated that the Trails Committee asked that it be moved, and the applicant did it. It now connects
to EI Jebel Road and other existing paths, including the Willits Lane Path.
Mr. Forinash stated that the wildlife concerns tended to be geological in nature. The negative finding could
have been turned positive due to information that did not arrive prior to the creation of the Staff Report.
Mr. Isom stated that they hired a geologist and were given a good report.
Mr. Forinash stated that there were no conditions of approval related to geology, so the concerns must have
been addressed.
Chairman Menconi felt he now had proper background of the file and was ready to move forward.
Commissioner Runyon stated that he still had serious reservations. He asked if the applicant comes in with
a Final Plat that satisfied all the conditions, does the Board have to approve it.
Mr. Mathews stated that was the case, as long as all conditions set forth were met. He stated that it was the
Board's decision as to what they wanted to do, but there were legal actions that the applicant could take.
Commissioner Runyon feels there is, in EI Jebel, the perception that the Board approves everything that
nyone wants to do. He doesn't want to lose the opportunity to have a public input process. He asked Mr. Forinash
fhe feels that the applicant had demonstrated enough reason to recommend approval now.
Mr. Forinash stated that a lot of the denial was based on information that was not received at the time, but
has subsequently been received. There were two different kinds of standards that could be met; some were
quantifiable and others were subjective. He believes that, at Final Plat, all of the requirements and concerns will be
satisfied.
Chairman Menconi feels that this boils down to a density question. His personal philosophy is that this is
appropriate in-fill, especially considering the cost of real estate in the Roaring Fork Valley. He feels the previous
Board has done a good job in resolving all of the issues that were raised.
Commissioner Runyon likes that this will be attainable housing, and realizes that it is too late to go back.
Chairman Menconi then went over the findings found in the Staff Report.
Both commissioners found them to all be positive.
~
Commissioner Runyon moved the Board approve the extension of the life of the Blue Ridge PUD
Preliminary Plan, File No. PDA-00021, for two years until May 22,2007, incorporating the Staff findings.
Chairman Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared
unammous.
There being no further business to be broygl1t before the Boar ,
eting was adjourned until May 17,
2005.
,
Attest:
14
5/10/05
