No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 12/13/05 PUBLIC HEARING December 13, 2005 resent: Am Menconi Peter Runyon Tom Stone Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Walter Mathews Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney 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: Executive Session Commissioner Stone moved that the Board go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on Blue Ridge project located in EI Jebel and 84 Lumber application for exception to the Moratorium, and State Bridge Lodge Liquor License which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b), Colorado Revised Statutes. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Runyon and unanimously approved. Following the executive session, Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn from Executive Session which was seconded by Commissioner Stone and unanimously approved. Consent Agenda Chairman Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of December 12,2005 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval ofthe Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meeting for November 1,2005 Teak Simonton, County Clerk and Recorder C. Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle School District for Services to Reduce Adolescent Drinking and Driving Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services D. Change Order #4 for American Civil Constructors to Install Sewer Line for Restrooms at Berry Creek Playground and Skate Park Helen Migchelbrink, Facilities Management E. Resolution 2005-136 Authorizing the Adoption of an Eagle County Motor Pool Vehicle Policy Attorney's Office Representative F. 5MB-00383, Berry Creek Ranch Filing 1, Lot 2. A final plat to subdivide Lot 2, Berry Creek Ranch Filing 1, to create two (2) ~ duplex lots to be known as Lots 2A and 2B. This plat will also create a common access easement for these lots. This item has been examined/approved by the Attorney's office. Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development G. 5MB-00380, Cattail Flats Condominiums; A Resubdivision of Lot 5, Cattail Flats (Brett Ranch PUD), A Minor Type B subdivision final plat and condominium map, the purpose of which is to create five (5) residential condominium units; limited common elements and general common elements. 1 12/13/05 This item has been examined/approved by the Attorney's office. Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development [. AFP-00225, Cordillera Valley Club, Filing 1, Lot 5. An Amended Final Plat, the purpose of which is to modify the existing building envelope for Lot 5. This item has been examined/approved by the Attorney's office. Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development I. Resolution 2005-137 Matter of Amending the Eagle County Land Use Regulations to Provide Clarity of Intent Bob Narracci, Community Development Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated no comments or issues with the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-I. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input There was none Final Settlement of Agreement between Eagle County and Lafarge West, Inc. for Supplying and Hauling Riprap to the Eagle County Landfill Attorney's Office Representative Bryan Treu stated that publishing took place December 1 st and 8th, 2005 and to date the Attorney's office has not received a verified statement claim. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Final Settlement of Agreement between Eagle County and Lafarge West, Inc. for supplying and hauling riprap to the Eagle County Landfill Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Budget Report for Golden Eagle Elderly Housing, Riverview and Lake Creek Affordable Housing Units KT Gazunis / Housing and Mike Roeper! Finance Ms. Gazunis presented the Board with a brief overview of the Eagle Riverview Affordable Housing Corp. This project operates 72-two and three bedroom apartments. She stated to date 49 units have been renovated. The major projects still needing attention are the sewer system and parking lot. Mr. Roeper presented the 2006 proposed budget for Eagle Riverview Affordable Housing Corp. The total income was $1,082,084 and total expenses were $1,081,242. Ms. Gazunis stated that most of the major work that had been done at the Riverview apartments had been a result of grants. Chairman Menconi thanked Commissioner Stone for his hard work and efforts on the project. Commissioner Stone commended the housing department for their management of the property. Ms. Gazunis summarized the Golden Eagle Senior Housing improvements. To date there have been mostly minor repairs. She stated that there are currently 18 names on the waiting list and the addition of 12 units in 2006 will get the list down to a handful. 2 12/13/05 Mr. Roeper explained the 2006 budget for the Golden Eagle Housing Corp. He stated the total income was $222,355, the County's contribution being $51,000, with expenses totaling $222,103. Commissioner Stone expressed his desire to hand over both projects at the end of his term, to another ommissioner that would continue to support their needs and care for the seniors. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Roeper to explain the replacement reserve expense of $10,896. Mr. Roeper explained that the amount is required with the road development agreement for replacement items. Chairman Menconi asked about the wage and benefit amount of $102,300. Mr. Roeper stated that there were currently two full time employees, one management and one maintenance person. Ms. Gazunis summarized the Lake Creek Village Apartments project. She stated that the rents were at or below fair market rents. The County does not directly manage the property. Mr. Treu stated the percentage going to the management company went from 5% to 3.5% and a floating position had been eliminated. Ms. Gazunis explained the requirements for the debt coverage ratio. She believes that some of the expenses from past years will be recovered in 2006. The challenge for 2006 will be energy usage. Commissioner Stone stated his concern for the increasing cost of utilities and he'd like to see something done so that the County isn't subsidizing the increased energy costs. Blue Ridge Development Project Easement Request Attorney's Office Representative Mr. Mathews read from Resolution 2000-107, which stated that the County would assist Kevin and Tammy Tucker, owners of Blue Ridge Development in the procurement of an easement through Kodiak Park. Steve Isom, Isom Associates spoke to the Board. He explained the applicant's request and the safely concerns for an emergency access road. He stated that the applicant would bear the initial cost. They'd like to get he access finalized for financing reasons. Steven Beattie, Attorney representing the applicant spoke to the Board. He emphasized the importance of providing a parallel road to Hwy 82 to provide access to the heavily populated area. The applicant is not requesting money; all the expresses will be funded by the developer. He requested the authorization of a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Lane indicating the Boards intent to exercise their authority and desire to engage in good faith negotiations. By taking this approach he believes that Mr. and Mrs. Lane would conclude that it would be in their best interest to proceed with negotiations. Chairman Menconi recommended to the Board that they assist by trying to get the two parties together along with the County Attorney in order to get to a step before the one they are requesting. He believes there is some interest to the Board for the safety issues. Commissioner Stone stated he is a strong defender of private property rights and loathes condemnation. He was a County Commissioner at the time the Resolution was adopted and remembers everyone agreeing on the road. He doesn't believe that the cost is a County issue. He is not ready to send a letter to Mr. and Mrs. Lane at this point. Commissioner Runyon stated that he agrees with his fellow Commissioners. He has a problem with government assisting private developers. Chairman Menconi stated that he doesn't believe that ifthere was a condemnation on the property that it would be aiding a commercial enterprise. He believes there was a lot said on the record for the purpose of assisting public safety and welfare. 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 Consent Agenda 3 12/13/05 Kathy Scriver, Clerk & Recorder's Office Consent Agenda ~ A. K K Simon Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a The Flying Burrito This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. B. Marko's Pizzeria of Edwards Colorado, Inc. d/b/a Marko's Pizzeria This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. c. Vail Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Two Elk Restaurant This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant in Vail (Vail Mountain). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. D. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Spruce Saddle Restaurant This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant with Optional Premises in Avon (Beaver Creek Mountain). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. E. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Beano's Cabin This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant with Optional Premises in Avon (Beaver Creek Mountain). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. Other Consent F. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Broken Arrow Cafe This is a request for a Change in Location Permit, in Beaver Creek. This establishment will be moving from its current location in 0188 Terrell Creek Road in Edwards (Arrowhead) to 0142 Arrowhead Cr. Unit C-l also in Arrowhead. Public notice has been given. No one has opposed the proposed move. All documentation is in order and all fees have been paid. G. Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Allie's Cabin This is a Manager's Registration for Allie's Cabin Restaurant. Beaver Creek Food Services Inc. wishes to register Shawna Hodul as its Manager. The application is complete and the necessary fees have been paid. Ms. Hodul is of good moral character, based upon Sheriff and CBI reports. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for December 13,2005, consisting of Items A-G. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 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. Public Hearing - Set Mill Levy and Adopt 2006 Budget Mike Roeper, Finance and Department Directors 4 12/13/05 Mr. Roeper presented a summary ofthe 2006 budget. The budget request is for $94,630,740 in expenditures, this includes $37,088,414 from the general fund. The budget proposes an additional 17 new positions, five for the Sheriffs Office, nine for Health and Human Services, a landfill position, animal services osition, and an ECO field position. The District Attorneys requested $1,149,045, representing an increase of 7.5% increase over last year. A new item being proposed is the creation of facilities program fund. The plan to accommodate this fund is to reduce the fund balance from 25% to 15%. The 10% change would then fund the facilities program fund. The budget anticipates $4 million dollars in capital spending. Sales tax revenue is anticipated to increase 7% in 2006. Property taxes are anticipated to increase 6.4% in 2006. The budget includes community projects in the amount of$585,000. Chairman Menconi thanked Mr. Roeper for his presentation. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Runyon asked about the fund balance reduction. He wondered if the reduction would affect the credit rating and how it compares with other counties and municipalities. Mr. Roeper stated that he had no indication that reducing the fund balance to 15% would negatively impact the County's credit rating. He believes that the 15% as a rule ofthumb throughout the nation is a good target percentage. The percentage is less than the town of Avon and Vail, but right on target with an overall government standard. Commissioner Runyon expressed his desire to establish a building reserve fund. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolution 2005-138 The Adoption of the Budget and the Making of Appropriations for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, for Fiscal Year 2006 Chairman Menconi seconded the motion. The motion was passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Stone voting against. Commissioner Stone stated his concerns for the reduction of the reserve account. He believes a 25% reserve balance is needed. A capital improvement budget should be separate. He doesn't believe that the County, }ut of its general fund, should be funding the design and planning of the transportation center to be developed in Avon. He believes it's unfair for the county to fund new programs and staffing that just happened in the last week when other departments didn't have the same opportunity to add people. He believes there are programs that are not needed. If the county services levels are at a high level, programs and positions should not be added just because we can. He is concerned that the County does not have the additional property, buildings or a plan to provide the needed room for any additional positions. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve Resolution 2005-139 The Adoption ofthe 2006 Fiscal Budget Mill Levy. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files LUR-0052 - Emerl?:ency Service Impact Fee Bob Narracci, Community Development NOTE: Tabled from 10/4/05, 10/17/05 and 11/15/05 ACTION: The adoption of an emergency services impact fee program. LOCATION: Within each district's designated boundaries. TITLE: Eagle County Land Use Regulations Amendments (ECLUR) 'ILE NO./PROCESS: LUR-0052; Emergency Service Providers Impact Fees 5 12/13/05 LOCATION: Areas of Emergency Service Providers' District Boundaries Located Within Unincorporated Eagle County Greater Eagle Fire Protection District Gypsum Fire Protection District Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Western Eagle County Ambulance District APPLICANT: Robert G. Cole, Esquire of Collins Cockrel & Cole, P.C. REPRESENTATIVE: .EAGLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On September 21 S\ the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of the Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fee with conditions. During deliberations, it was stated that: ./ An impact fee program will provide certainty that new development will pay its equitable share of future capital improvement needs (relative to emergency services). ./ Also, development will inevitably move into more rural areas, many 35 acre subdivisions are probable in the future. ./ The proposed Impact Fee will help to offset the cost of providing service to (currently) remote regions of Eagle County. ROARING FORK VALLEY REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On September 22nd, the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission (RFVRPC) recommended approval of the Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fee by a vote of four to one with conditions. ./ The RFVRPC strongly questioned the apparent inequity of proposed impact fee schedule between districts, as well as, between unincorporated areas and the Towns. ./ The RFVRPC also sought to understand how the identical Emergency Service Impact Fee can be equitably applied to a modular home and 10,000 square foot mansion alike. ./ With focus primarily on the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, the RFVRPC questioned the need for the impact fee when they already pay a 6.214 Mill Levy for that District's services and future property owners within new developments will also be paying the Mill Levy - why would there still be a shortfall on revenues? ./ Fire Districts already require more exactions of new development than any other service providers (road width, road thickness, minimum water distribution standards, fire hydrants, etc.). They (Districts) already have enough exactions that add significant costs to new development. ./ Concern that impact fees collected in Eagle County will be used to make capital improvements in Pitkin County, as well as, in Town of Basalt; The applicant represented that unincorporated regions of Eagle County are served by fire stations located within Pitkin County and that Pitkin County has recently adopted an impact fee program on behalf of the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and that the Town of Basalt Planning Commission has recommended approval of the impact fee program to the Town Council. Further research revealed that Pitkin County did recently adopt an impact fee program; one notable difference is that in Pitkin County the impact fee is collected directly by the District, not the County. In 2003 the Town of Basalt Planning Commission did indeed recommend approval of an impact fee program to the Town Council. The Town Council, however, desired to wait for Pitkin County and Eagle County to first adopt said program. 6 12/13/05 ./ Concern that someone building inside the Basalt Town Boundary will not be subject to impact fee; Ultimately, the RFVRPC voted to recommend approval with one additional condition added such that, "The Basalt ad Rural Fire Protection District Impact Fee remain at $0.00 until such time as the Town of Basalt likewise adopts e Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fee Program". BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' COMMENTS: Please reference the attached correspondence from staff to the applicant dated November 5th, 6t\ ih and 10th, 2005. Together, these letters capture the various concerns stated by each Commissioner during the previous hearing regarding this matter on October 17,2005. The applicant has responded to each point in a document titled, Emergency Service Impact Fees Eagle County Commissioners' Issues, also attached. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: Applicants request that Eagle County amend Division 4-7 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations to adopt the Eagle County Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fees. This new impact fee regulation would be applicable to all unincorporated Eagle County lands located within one or more emergency service providers' districts. All special districts responsible for the provision of emergency services in unincorporated Eagle County, except for two, have chosen to both champion the adoption of these proposed regulations, as well as, to participate in the regulatory program once established. The Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Health Service District have opted to not participate in the impact fee program at this time but nevertheless remain supportive. As the future capital improvement needs of these two Districts change in the future, they too may choose to participate. The result of the River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Health Service ~ District not participating at this time is that impact fees will not be assessed for those regions of the County served y these two Districts. The Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974 ("Act") and other applicable law grants broad authority to the County to plan for and regulate the development of land on the basis of the impacts thereof on the community and surrounding areas; and in amending the Act in 2001, the Colorado General Assembly specifically allowed local governments to impose impact fees to offset the cost of capital improvements necessary to serve new development. The proposed Emergency Service Provider Impact Fees would be imposed on development which generates a need for additional Emergency Service Capital Improvements. Public Safety Consultants completed fiscal impact studies for each of the participating Districts, which determined the net present value of the capital improvement costs that will be generated by new growth in the unincorporated portions of Eagle County located within the respective Districts' boundaries and found those costs to be: $406,748 for Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District; $888,629 for Greater Eagle Fire Protection District; $823,740 for Gypsum Fire and $1,056,516 for the Western Eagle County Ambulance District. These figures represent the capital expenditures by the Districts necessary to mitigate the impact of population growth from land development within the Districts' boundaries. Below is a table summarizing the impact fees that will be assessed for new construction located within one or more of the participating Districts. The impact fees are differentiated by Residential, Non- Residential and Lodging Facilities: Non-Residential $581.07/2,000 sq. ft. $455.71 /2,000 sq. ft. $867.09/2,000 sq. ft. $469.56/2,000 sq. ft. 'he impact fees are to be collected by the County at the time of building permit issuance and used by the emergency service providers to pay for capital improvements such as buildings, facilities and equipment within 7 12/13/05 each respective district. The County will receive an administrative fee of not more than 2% of the impact fees collected. BACKGROUND: (Excerpt from the Eagle County Emergency Services Impact Fee Analysis Prepared by Public 'afety Consultants) Impact fees are "single payments required to be made by builders or developers at the time of evelopment and calculated to be the proportionate share of the capital cost of providing major facilities." Impact fees are used to achieve two primary responsibilities of local government - land use regulation and provision of public facilities. Impact fees are equitable in that they help shift the burden of paying for new facilities onto the new development that will directly benefit from the new facilities. The premise on which impact fees are based is that development should pay for the cost of providing the facilities necessary to accommodate growth. The basic underlying principle of impact fees is that all development which uses up a measurable amount of capacity on public infrastructure systems should be responsible to offset or make up for those impacts. Infrastructure is generally defined as those services necessary for the development of land and provision of public safety. The costs of projects needed to support growth that is financed with impact fees are based on some measurement of a development's impact on future needs. Impact fees are not intended to be used to pay for capital improvements to correct an existing deficiency or shortfall. Impact fees are often used for initial development of the capital facilities needed to provide water, wastewater, fire suppression and emergency medical services, and transportation capacity to service new development. Development impact fees are not used for operation, maintenance, repair, alteration, or replacement of capital facilities, nor can they be used for existing deficiencies of said facilities. Capital facilities are generally those that have a functional life of more than one year, do not change their character with use, and are able to be discretely described from the rest of the community's assets. The developers, and ultimately the end users, have certain rights regarding the development of impact fees. Developers have the right to know what they are paying for because impact fees can be a significant portion ofthe cost of developing both residential and commercial properties. Developers have a right to know that the projects for which they have paid impact fees will be built. Developers have the right to support impact fees. Developers ave the right to pay for improvements that will benefit their development. Developers also have the right to expect that their payments will not be diverted to finance improvements not related to growth. Finally, an important feature of a system of well-defined impact fee charges is the knowledge that all developers, big and small, will be treated equitably. Prior to the 1960s construction and financing of public facilities to support growth was an unquestioned civic responsibility. However, fundamental changes dampened local government's desire to serve new development: 1. "The quiet revolution" in land use regulation gave state and regional interest a say in land use; 2. Environmental movement led us to question the faith in and benefits of new development; 3. Fiscal revolts demanding alternatives to taxation, such as the TABOR Amendment; 4. Growth rates in some communities exceeded the communities' fiscal abilities to supply infrastructure. Given these changes, public sentiment led to growth paying its own way and impact fees are one means to achieving that end. Impact fees are defined as land development regulations, whose purpose is to protect the public, rather than to raise revenue. The intent of impact fees is not to raise money, but rather, to ensure that adequate and necessary public infrastructure is provided to development in order to preserve the public health, safety, and welfare. Because the intent of impact fees is to fund capital improvements, not general operating expenses, they must be measured against the standards discussed below. Several standards have been developed over the years that an impact fee program must meet in order to pass legal eview in Colorado. The first is that new development must not be held to a higher standard for delivery of services han existing development. The only exception to this is when the existing deficiencies are in the process of being removed through a funding source other than impact fees. The impact fees proposed by the districts are designed to 8 12/13/05 maintain the existing level of service in the community and in the new development and are not anticipated to fund an expansion of services that are not already paid for through ad valorem taxes or service fees. 'he second standard is known as the "Reasonably-Related Standard". This means that at the time the impact fee is dopted, the amount of the impact fee to be charged must be reasonably related to the estimated expense of delivering the service or constructing the facility. A new development may not be charged a higher fee than the estimated cost to provide the additional service or facility to the entire development. The cost is calculated based on the unique character, service standards, and needs of each service provider and reflects the cost of capital infrastructure work done within Eagle County. The proposed impact fees meet the Reasonably-Related Standard in that they were derived from costs associated with infrastructure directly attributable to anticipated development. That is, the costs were calculated by proportioning infrastructure use to each development, proposed and existing. For example, the cost of a new Pumper Truck to be stationed in a particular development is not 100 percent of the Pumper Truck because it can be used for response to areas outside the new development. It should also be noted that none ofthe districts used a "Buy-in" approach where new development pays for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of the existing facilities. The third standard deals with the manner in which impact fees are collected and used. Colorado law is specific about the manner in which impact fee revenues may be collected and spent. Any revenue collected must be used to defray the projected impacts on capital facilities caused by the new development. Further, any revenue must be used to pay for same type of improvements for which the impact fee is charged. For instance, impact fees collected for the impacts to streets can not be used to build parks. The districts' proposed impact fees are designed to meet this standard by being limited to capital improvements for specific public safety functions, and by being proportional to the benefit new development enjoys from the The fourth standard is the universal application of the fee. Since the impact fee is a fee charged for services rendered, all new development should pay it. The districts meet this test by having the impact fee apply to all new development within unincorporated Eagle County. It should be noted that Greater Eagle, Gypsum and WECAD have separate impact fees within the towns of Gypsum and Eagle and that Greater Eagle and WECAD span both owns and have identical fees in both towns. The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District is pursuing impact fees in the Town of Basalt. The impact fees for the incorporated and unincorporated areas will differ due to differing level of service standards in the more urban areas compared to the rural areas. In the instant cases, the fees need only be universal within unincorporated Eagle County. It should also be noted that this analysis only applies to those areas that are in unincorporated Eagle County and within each district. Which presents a problem in equity as each of the districts provides service to areas outside its corporate boundaries in so called "no man's land." This practice is unfair to residents of Eagle County that are paying for emergency services. Eagle County should not approve any new development through anything other than use by right for properties that have not been included into appropriate fire and ambulance districts. In order to develop a sense of the impact of growth, the districts examined growth trends and development potential in unincorporated Eagle County served by the districts. Development trends and build-out in unincorporated Eagle County were also examined. The districts examined areas of potential development within their respective jurisdictions. The annual percent of build-out for new dwelling units was then calculated for the County (2.89 percent) and applied to the unincorporated areas for each jurisdiction. This was then apportioned in development areas that spanned multiple jurisdictions. Potential commercial development was then calculated for the areas in question. Finally, the annual development was corrected to reflect development trends, e.g., the Highway 131 area has several potential dwelling sites; however, Dotsero and Wolcott are expected to develop faster. STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: The proposed amendment package was referred to the following agencies: o County Engineering Department o County Attorneys Office o County Department of Environmental Health 9 12/13/05 o Treasurer's Office o County Sheriff's Office o Board of County Commissioners o Eagle County Planning Commission o Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission o Colorado State Division of Local Affairs o Basalt and Rural FPD o Gypsum FPD o Greater Eagle FPD o Eagle River FPD o NWCCOG o Home Builders' Association o Town of Avon o Town of Basalt o Town of Eagle o Town of Gypsum o Town of Minturn o Town of Redcliff o Town of Vail o Knight Planning Services o Isom and Associates o Tom Braun Associates o Maruiello Planning Group, LLC o Pylman and Associates o Vail Resorts o The Land Studio o Otak o Sid Fox and Company o Johnson & Kunkel o Alpine Engineering o Peak Land Surveying o White Surveying o Starbuck Surveying o Sopris Engineering o Intermountain Engineering o Marcin Engineering o Eagle Valley Surveying As of this writing, only one response has been received from the Engineering Department indicating, 'no comment' . STAFF DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: the proposed amendments HA VE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including the applicable towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Notice of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (a) The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. 10 12/13/05 (b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as applicable: (a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use Map of the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) The proposed amendments MAY address a demonstrated community need. Following are the current assessed Mill Levies for each of the participating Emergency Service Districts, as well as, the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Health Service District: Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Eagle County Health Service District Eagle River Fire Protection District Greater Eagle Fire Protection District Gypsum Fire Protection District Western Eagle County Ambulance District 6.214 2.013 Not Participating 3.800 Not Participating 7.927 7.127 5.233 The Applicants should be required to address to the Board's satisfaction why the two Emergency Service Districts in Eagle County with substantially lower tax mill levies than the participating Districts are able to finance their capital improvement needs without having to seek additional funding via the proposed Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fees. (c) The proposed amendments MAYBE in the public interest. Due to the fact that not all of the Emergency Provider Special Districts are participating in the impact fee program and that the fees vary considerably between districts, Staff is concerned that these proposed Emergency Providers Impact Fees will be perceived by the public as being administered inequitably county-wide. For instance, the new impact fee for building a new single-family home within the unincorporated Basalt vicinity will cost $581.07; the same home constructed in the unincorporated Eagle vicinity will cost $455.71 Greater Eagle + $469.56 WECAD = $925.27, and; again for the unincorporated Gypsum vicinity $867.09 Gypsum FPD + $469.56 WECAD = $1,336.65. Whereas, a new home constructed up valley would have $0.00 Emergency Providers Impact Fee assessed. Thus, depending upon unincorporated location, the assessed fee for construction of an identical home could fluctuate by as much as $1,336.65 and, as such, will likely be quite difficult to justify to future building permit applicants. When coupled with the County's existing Road Impact Fees, a new home constructed in the unincorporated Gypsum vicinity will have a total of $2936.65 appended onto the building permit fees ($1,336.65 EIF + $1,600 RIP = $2936.65). The Applicants should be required to address to the Board's satisfaction how all unincorporated Eagle County citizens will be uniformly and equitably served given the perceived inequity in the proposed impact fee schedule structure. Staff recommends approval if the Applicants can address to the Board's satisfaction: a) Why the two Emergency Service Districts in Eagle County with the lowest tax mill levies are able to finance their capital improvement needs without having to seek additional funding via the proposed Emergency Service Providers' Impact Fees, and; 11 12/13/05 b) How will all unincorporated Eagle County citizens be uniformly and equitably served given the c) Perceived inequity in the proposed impact fee schedule structure? DISCUSSION: Bob Narracci presented the file using a PowerPoint presentation. He summarized the Board's concerns from prior meetings and the applicant's response to those concerns. He explained the applicant's response to the impact fees vs. extraction, the formula for calculating the fees, the uniform fee structure, and the fees being reduced by functional consolidation ofthe Gypsum FPD. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Mathews if there were any restrictions on the administrative fees. Mr. Mathews stated that the administrated fee can be greater than 2% unless the amount is set my statute. The amount can be anything the Board agrees to. Bob Cole, attorney for the Gypsum FPD, Eagle GFPD, Basalt RFD, and Western Eagle County Ambulance District spoke. Mr. Cole explained the revisions to the proposed Resolution Amending the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. He stated that if the County chose to collect a 6% administration fee, it would be appropriate. The Districts believe it would be in the County's best interest to collect the fees, there would be greater control during the application process. The Resolution adopting the Emergency Service impact fees was also revised in Section 3 to provide approval of the form of IGA for the Districts to collect and administer the Emergency Service Impact Fees. The term "Districts" was changed to "Emergency Service Providers" to be consistent with the terminology of the other Resolution and the Land Use Code. He believes that the County has had plenty of opportunity to respond and the public is supportive, the communities are supportive and to their knowledge there hasn't been any organized opposition. He urged the County to adopt the revisions to the Land Use Regulations and make the policy decision that this is a fee program that is appropriate for the County and supported by the Commissioners. Kevin Kline, Public Safety Consultant spoke. Mr. Kline stated that the impact fees will not affect the affordable housing or deed restricted properties. Removing the affordable housing increases the proposed impact fees. Since the capital costs necessary to service the districts remains the same, removing units from the mix of roperties paying impact fees shifts a larger burden onto the remaining properties. Chairman Menconi asked if there had been any consideration to home size and if programs 10-15 years out had been calculated Mr. Kline stated that there was no consideration to home size they are just looking at the service demands. The increase for the Gypsum Fire Protection District is due to the large proportion of the district's total project growth that is the Two Rivers Village development. Chairman Menconi asked if this was an attempt to play catch-up in Gypsum for a fire station and this is best way to raise the money. They aren't looking towards the future, merely addressing an immediate need. Mr. Kline stated that the investment must be made whether it's now or in 10 years down the road. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Kline if Two Rivers became exempt what would happen to the figures. Mr. Kline stated that the fees would increase on the remaining properties. Chairman Menconi asked if they were to get a generous contribution, if it would it bring down the per unit cost. Mr. Kline stated that the contribution would be in-Iue-ofthe impact fees. They are trying to move from individual negotiated exactions on development to something that is more economically efficient and more equitable. Chairman Menconi wondered why it would lower the numbers. Mr. Cole stated that it would depend on how the contribution was made for a specific project. Chairman Menconi believes that there are other options to collecting the fees. He would like to keep the fees as low as possible to cover the cost. He would like more details on the projected cost. Mr. Kline stated that there will always be a need to update the projected cost. The capital cost will stay the same. Commissioner Stone thanked the applicant for there persistence. He wondered what the difference between the road impact fee and the fees that they're asking. He supports the County collecting the fees at the time the uilding permit issuance. This will insure the fees will be paid and provides consistency. He believes that the 6% dministration fee is an appropriate. He also believes that serving the communities at large would be a more beneficial way to share recourses. He suggested that a better solution to the affordable housing issue is to have the 12 12/13/05 County pay the impact fee instead of waiving the fee. The money is necessary whether it comes in the form of a grant or impact fee. Commissioner Runyon wondered how the larger fire districts deal with the issue. Mr. Kline stated that larger districts have one fee that covers everyone, they aren't consolidated. The ntention is to work towards a functional consolidation. Mr. Cole stated that he is not convinced a uniform fee would work in Eagle County. Commissioner Runyon offered the County's assistance to look at the pluses and minuses of a consolidation plan. He believes that the tax payers would be better served if there where one consolidated district. Jon Asper, Fire Chief, Greater Eagle Fire Protection District stated that the whole district supports the impact fee and believes new growth should pay for it self. Scott Thompson, Fire Chief, Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District spoke. Mr. Thompson stated that it is his desire to consolidate. Pitkin County has an impact fee in place and he believes it is an excellent tool. He urged the Commissioners to make a decision. Chairman Menconi asked the urgency of getting an approval today. Mr. Thompson explained that there has been a lot of money spent as separate districts with no return. The amount of service changes they've seen because of development has impacted the district greatly. Chairman Menconi wondered if they were asking for a vote in favor of the regulation and to be able to work on the details of the formula at a later date. Dave Vroman, Fire Chief, Gypsum Fire Protection District spoke. He stated that they have been coming before the Board since 1997 and would be a nice step to know they are making progress. Chairman Menconi stated that for the record, this hearing is only the second one they have had to look at the details. He believes the Board is being pressured to make a decision without all the information. Mr. Vroman stated that as growth continues to occur, they would like to satisfy the needs of the community. They would like the impact fee to take effect beginning January, 2006. Chairman Menconi stated that he'd like to see more numbers figured out in more detail. Mr. Vroman stated that the numbers would be adjusted as they worked out the shared facilities issues and move towards consolidation. Commissioner Stone asked the staff if an approval was given whether it would allow enough time to be dded to the land use regulation. Mr. Narracci stated that he would have time to amend the Land Use Regulations but condition three of the recommended motion would need to be changed. Commissioner Stone read condition three aloud. He asked Mr. Narracci to explain the recommended changes. Mr. Narracci stated that condition three would be no longer valid. Mr. Cole stated that in terms of greater level of detail, the financial plan they have provided is based on the cost of nuts and bolds. What they are proposing is an update on the numbers based on the most current information. Chairman Menconi stated he is in favor of impact fees, but the calculation doesn't make sense. The Gypsum numbers are being thrown off by Two Rivers. He is uncomfortable with the Gypsum example. He would like to find a balance and see better examples. The Eagle numbers make sense. Mr. Narracci stated that he believes it would make sense to approve the regulation. The approval would approve the impact fee, not the fee amount. The fee could be approved at a later date. Chairman Menconi asked for the Town Manager's input. Jeff Schrol, Gypsum Town Manager stated that he is interested in looking at the disparities in fees. He has concerns with the growth and the impact fees being different in areas and the developers looking for the best deal. He would like the fees to be consistent. He believes Gypsum is the most affordable area in the county. Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Schrol ifhe believes the study is accurate. Mr. Schrol stated that he believes the study is accurate. He would like to eventually see consolidation between the two districts. Willy Powell, Town of Eagle spoke to the Board. He believes the impact fee is necessary to organize and manage things. He believes it's time to get a new Nexus study. John Young, former Town Manager and current board member for the Basalt Fire Protection District spoke o the Board. He expressed his desire to get an approval. He believes that all the fire districts are impacted by growth. It's his observation that the communities support the fire district. 13 12/13/05 Commissioner Stone moved to approve File No. LUR-0052 incorporating Staff findings and the following ,onditions: 1) That except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this permit application, correspondence, and public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended by other conditions. 2) Until a resolution is passed by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners adopting the fees, at which time after that the intergovernmental agreements will be approved. 3) The impact fees will not be collected until intergovernmental agreements have been approved by the county and the individual districts. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. MO-OOOOl 84 Lumber Company Application for Exception to Temporary Moratorium Bob Narracci, Community Development NOTE: Tabled from 11/22/05 ACTION: The request is by and on behalf of the 84 Lumber Company that would potentially allow a zone change from Resource to Commercial on property situated in Dotsero TITLE: Hardy Management Company, LLC / 84 Lumber Company FILE NO./PROCESS: MO-OOOOl / Moratorium Exception lOCATION: A parcel ofland situated in Sections 31 & 32, Township 4 South, Range 86 West and in Section 5, Township 5 South, Range 86 West, both of the Sixth Principal Meridian (Dotsero) Coyote River Ranch, LLC / Hardy Management, LLC the real estate holding company for 84 Lumber Company OWNER! APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Knight Planning Services / Tom Boni SUMMARY OF REQUEST: This request is for an exception to the temporary moratorium to allow the applicant to proceed with a zone change application following successful completion of a PUD Sketch Plan. APPLICABILITY: Based upon the adopted moratorium language in BoCC Resolution No. 2005-121, this request for exception is premature. Zone change requests are not considered by the Board of County Commissioners at the Sketch Plan phase of development. Further, a Sketch Plan application has not yet been filed with the County. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The subject property encompasses approximately 10 acres. The applicant's ultimate goal is to construct and operate a lumber wholesale business on the subject property which is located in Dotsero, east of the Colorado River and Union Pacific right-of-way and north of U.S. Highway 6. To achieve this goal, the applicant must successfully complete: 1) A PUD Sketch Plan application; 2) A PUD Preliminary Plan application; 3) A Zone Change application; 4) Possibly a 1041 Permit, and; 5) A PUD Final Plat SITE DATA: urrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Bureau of Land Management / Resource West: Union Pacific Railroad right-of-way and mixed-use / Resource and Commercial General North: Unimproved and Bureau of Land Management / Resource 14 12/13/05 South: Existing Zoning: Total Area: Residential/Resource Resource (non-conforming) 10 +/- Acres mCESSARY FINDINGS: Pursuant to Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 2005-121, "Authorizing the adoption of a temporary moratorium on all zone change applications that would result in more residential dwelling units per acre than the present governing zone district allows, and all zone change applications that would result in commercial or industrial uses-by-right on property that is presently zoned for agricultural or residential uses ". In reviewing an application for an exception based upon a claim of hardship, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the following criteria: a) The extent to which the applicant has, prior to October 4, 2005, received Eagle County permits or approvals for the proposed development; To date, the applicant has not received any permits or approvals from Eagle County. No permits or approvals have been granted by Eagle County. b) The extent to which the applicant has, prior to October 4, 2005, made a substantial expenditure of money or resources in advance on permits or other approvals of the county directly associated with physical improvements on the land such as grading, installation of utilities infrastructure or any other public improvements; To date, the applicant has made investment in its due diligence. The expenditures by the applicant, however, were not for permits or any other county approval. No expenditure of money or resources in advance on county permits or other approvals directly associated with physical improvements on the land have occurred to date. c) Whether the applicant, prior to October 4, 2005, has contractual commitments and reliance upon permits or other approvals to complete the project; Based upon representations made by the applicant, the applicant has lost non refundable earnest money through its contractual relationship with the landowner based upon the prospects of being able to proceed to seek a PUD Application / Zoning on the site. HMC has incurred other contractual obligations for certain engineering, surveying, land planning and other services on the site which will have to be paid. At this point in time, the applicant does not have reliance upon permits or other approvals from Eagle County to complete the project. The applicant has entered into contractual commitments prior to October 4, 2005. No permits or other County approvals have been granted for the applicant to rely upon. d) Whether the applicant, prior to October 4, 2005, has in reliance upon permits or approvals of the county incurred financial obligations to a lending institution which despite a thorough review of the alternative solutions, the applicant cannot meet unless development proceeds; Based upon representations made by the applicant, the applicant, as part of a master line of credit, has identified the subject property as a potential for funding through the line of credit. Under such line of credit certain items are required for such financing, including a title commitment, AL T A survey and Phase I environmental report. Again, reliance upon county approvals is not the basis for these financial obligations incurred by the applicant. Rather, the applicant's expenditures to date are for its own due diligence. The applicant has incurred financial obligations though no permits or other County approvals have been granted for the applicant to rely upon. e) Whether the moratorium would expose the applicant to substantial monetary liability to third persons; or would leave the applicant completely unable after a thorough review of alternative solutions to earn a reasonable investment-backed expectation on the property. Based upon representations made by the applicant, the applicant has incurred monetary liability to third persons and would incur a financial loss if the PUD Sketch Plan, PUD Preliminary Plan, Zone Change, and PUD Final Plat are ultimately not approved. The applicant can proceed at this time with the PUD Sketch Plan application absent approval of a moratorium exception. This is not dissimilar to any other PUD Sketch Plan application processed by Eagle County - the applicant will not be able to proceed to the Zone Change phase of approval until a Sketch Plan application has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners will consider the following non-exclusive factors under the criteria set forth above: 1) The history ofthe property; Based upon representations made by the applicant, the proposed portion of the Property to be acquired by the applicant has materially been unused. The history of the site and the surrounding property is described in Exhibit C of the applicants' moratorium exception request. The site is comprised of sagebrush and rock outcroppings. The applicant understands that the remaining portion of the Property had been used for growing alfalfa and cattle. The entire property was sold to Chemical Lime Company in the 1980's with the intention to mine a 2200 acre tract ofland. However, this use never occurred and the entire Property was sold to Coyote River Ranch, LLC in December, 2004. 2) The history of any development on the property; There has been no history of development on the subject property. 3) The history of property's future land use map classification; The Future Land Use Map of the Master Plan classifies the subject property as 'Rural Center' and 'Rural'. Rural Center is intended to provide limited commercial services to serve the needs of the immediate neighborhood. The 'Rural' classification recommends residential densities of one unit per thirty-five or more acres. 4) The history of the property's zoning; The subject property has been zoned 'Resource' since October 19, 1974 when Eagle County first adopted and implemented zoning. 5) Any change in development when property ownership is changed; Once the applicant purchases the property and receives the necessary County approvals, the future use of the property may be for a lumber yard. 6) The present nature, size and use of the property; Based upon representations made by the applicant, the 10 acre property is a portion of a ranch that is characterized by sagebrush, rabbit brush and field rock and, as such, has never been utilized agriculturally even though that is the purpose for which it is zoned. There are no structures on the property and due to the topography it has not been uses as irrigated pasture or for hay production. 7) Any other factors deemed relevant by the Board in making a hardship determination. 16 12/13/05 CONCLUSION: Based upon the adopted moratorium language in BoCC Resolution No. 2005-121, this request for exception is premature and out of sequence. Zone change requests are not considered by the Board of County Commissioners at the Sketch Plan phase of development. A Sketch Plan application has not yet been filed with the ~ounty. DISCUSSION: Bob Narracci presented a PowerPoint presentation. The presentation included the moratorium exception criteria and items for the Board's consideration. He also included the non-exclusive factors for the Board's consideration; this included the history ofthe property's zoning, change in development when property ownership changed, and the present nature of the property. He stated that the request is not problematic, but does believe it's premature and out of sequence. Cheri Bomar, Attorney for the applicant spoke to the Board. She stated that tHere has been a substantial amount of money spent including staff time. She believes the applicant can get through sketch plan submittal on or about the middle of April. Commissioner Runyon asked Mr. Narracci what the typical time frame for sketch plan approval is. Mr. Narracci stated that the process could take 3-4 months. It largely depends on the applicant's ability to provide the needed information. Community Development has 10 days to respond to any deficiencies. Tom Boni, Knight Planning Services spoke to the Board. He explained the applicant's request. He is extremely impressed with the engineering capabilities and willingness to design this facility. He believes that to move from sketch plan to preliminary plan would move quickly. Ms. Bomar stated that she believes the exemption is necessary. In addition to the earnest money there were also additional hard costs that were expended. Those costs were expended in advance of a permit. Commissioner Stone stated that if an approval were given it would be no indication of a sketch, preliminary or final plan approval. Mr. Mathews stated that if a hardship were granted, any regulations that may change before they got to preliminary plan, would effect them. Chairman Menconi opened public comment. Karl Berger, owner of the property spoke to the Board. Mr. Berger stated that to date the actual earnest deposit was $50,000, not $15,000. There was a non-refundable deposit of $15,000 made and additional non- refundable deposit that is due in a day or so. This accelerates the applicants need to find out if they will be going forward with the property. Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Chairmen Menconi stated that the zone change criteria will be changing. He agrees with staff and believes it's premature on behalf of the Board to hear their case as hardship. Commissioner Runyon asked that someone explain what 84 Lumber Company is and what the general product is. Joe Hardy, owner of 84 lumber company explained that the company was started about 50 years ago in a little town called 84. Their customers are primarily contractors. He stated that he'd bb willing to take the gamble and go ahead with the sketch plan. Commissioner Runyon stated that would like to follow procedure. He is not in favor of granting the exemption. Commissioner Stone recommended the exemption be approved with the condition that they get approval of a sketch plan within a month. He believes that the applicant is overly optimistic, but this would be a way for the applicant to move forward. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Montag to elaborate on the zone change time line and whether he believes that once the criteria is determined the moratorium might be lifted. Mr. Montag stated that that was a possibility and the next step would be to go through a land use regulation mendment and as Mr. Narracci had indicated earlier, that is a 3 to 4 months process. Even if they moved forward lday to amend the land use regulations with modified zone change criteria, it's still 3 to 4 months. If the Board feels comfortable with the direction or with the actual approval of the new zone change criteria, the moratorium could be lifted. 17 12/13/05 Chairman Menconi stated that after listening to the applicant's request, he has not heard that this is a hardship and therefore would deny the request. Commissioner Runyon moved to deny the request made by the applicant. Chairman Menconi seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Stone voting against. There being no further business befOt~~~~i,the meeting was adjourned until December 20,2005. ~ ,1.""(\\(7\/,(\.,\, ~ ~J, ;~.1,\c:;l'/'1J J"~'~ ~ . <on \ '7j"'M,",,~ i"j OJ,,;, ..~ Attest: ~* ~ I 1< erk to the Bard ~l:QO Chairman-- 18 12/13/05