HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/21/06
PUBLIC HEARING
November 21, 2006
re sent:
Peter Runyon
Tom Stone
Am Menconi
Bruce Baumgartner
Bryan Treu
Robert Morris
Teak Simonton
Kathy Scriver
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Administrator
County Attorney
Assistant County Attorney
Clerk to the Board
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
it was moved to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice and discussion of legal
issues relating to a.ppeal on Community Development Director's Alpine slide ruling and discussion of Bachelor
Gulch Street Control which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b), Colorado
Revised Statutes. At the close of the discussion, it was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from
Executive Session.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
Approval of bill p~yihg for the weeks of November 20,2006 and November 27,2006 (subject to review by
the Finance Director)
Mike Roeper, Finance
B. Approval of payroll for November 23,2006 (subject to review by the Finance Director)
Mike Roeper, Finance
C. Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners meeting for September 5 and
September 12, 2006
Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder
D. Final Settlement of Agreement between Eagle County and Lafarge North America, Inc.
County Attorney's Office/ Road & Bridge Representative
E. Renewal of2007 Animal Service Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Red Cliff
Animal Services
F. Renewal of2007 Animal Service Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Minturn
Animal Services
G. Renewal of 2007 Animal Service Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Gypsum
Animal Services
H. Renewal of 2007 Animal Service Intergovernmental Agreement with the Town of Vail
Animal Services
1
11/21/06
I. Agreement between Eagle County and Stewart Environmental Consultants, Inc. for design of a household
hazardous waste facility
Facilities Management
J. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Cendant Car Rental Group for rental car overflow lot space
Chris Anderson, Airport
K. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and the Hertz Corporation for rental car overflow lot space
Chris Anderson, Airport ยท
L. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and WSR Rental, LLC, DBA National Car Rental and Alamo
Rent A Car for rental car overflow lot space
Chris Anderson, Airport
M. Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Frontier Car Rental for rental car overflow lot space
Chris Anderson, Airport
N. Second Amendment between Eagle County, Colorado and Morter Architects for Golden Eagle design
scope of services
Rick Ullom, Facilities Management
o. Resolution 2006-108 for the approval of the Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and Zone
Change for the Willits Bend Planned Unit Development (Eagle County File Nos. PDP-00032 and ZC-
00076)
Joe Forinash, Community Development
P. Resolution 2006-109 for the approval of the Vines at Vail Planned Unit Development Preliminary Plan and
Zone Change (Eagle County File Nos. PDP-00033 and ZC-00079)
Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development
Q. AFP-00248 Beaver Creek Subdivision, Fifth Filing, Tract H, Lot 2, Block 2. The purpose of this plat is to
reconfigure the b.uilding envelope to accommodate a remodel to an existing home in Beaver Creek. All
adjacent property owners and the Beaver Creek DRB have consented to this amendment; the building
envelope will be 61 sq. feet smaller than the original envelope.
Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development
Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda.
Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes or revisions to the consent agenda.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-Q.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Citizen Input
Slide.
Brian Nolan, Beaver Creek Merchant Association spoke. He asked ifhe could speak about the Alpine
Chairman Runyon stated that public comment had been closed for the Alpine Slide.
Mr. Treu stated that the Board was no longer hearing testimony on the Alpine Slide proposal.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle
County Liquor Licensing Authority.
2
11/21/06
Cormnissionet Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Eagle County Liquor License Authority
Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office
Consent Agenda
Renewals
A. Marko's Pizzeria of Edwards, Inc. d/b/a Marko's Pizzeria
This is a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Edwards. There have been no
complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid.
B. Vail Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Game Creek Club
Thisis a renewal for a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Vail (Vail Mountain). There have been
no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid.
Other Consent
C. Beaver Creek Food Service d/b/a Allie's Cabin
Optional Premise-Beaver Creek Club
This is a request to modify its licensed premises. The modification will NOT affect the licensed prenrises
boundaries. All the necessary fees and documentation have been submitted.
D. Beaver Creek Food Service d/b/a Spruce Saddle Restaurant
Optional Premise-Red 'fail Camp
This is a request to modify its licensed premises. The modification will NOT affect the licensed premises
b6undaries. All the necessary fees and documentation have been submitted.
COn1l11issioner Menconi moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for November 21,
2006, consisting of Items A-D.
Cormnissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Other Liquor
APPLICANT:
DBA:
REPRESEN'f A 'fIVE:
LOCATION:
STAFF REPRESENTATIVE:
Big Sky Restaurant, LLC
Beaver Creek Chophouse
Brian Nolan, Manager of Operations
15 W Thomas PL, Avon (Beaver Creek) CO
Kathy Scriver
DESCRIPTION:
This is a request for two separate items. The applicant wishes to register Benjamin McNair as their new manager
replacing John Westerhaus. Mr. McNair is reported to be of good moral character based upon both the in-house
Sheriff Report an.d CBI background check. Next, the applicant wishes to add one (1) additional Optional Premises
to the Beaver Creek Chophouse Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License. The applicant currently posses two (2)
optional premises and wishes to add a third (area C). This addition would change the current existing liquor
.undary and is permitted by the Colorado and Eagle County Liquor Codes. All the necessary fees have been paid.
3
11/21/06
STAFF FINDINGS:
~ The application is in order, all requirements have been met and all the necessary documents and fees
have been received.
~ Mr. McNair is over 21 years of age and both Sheriff and CBI reports indicated that he is of good moral
character.
~ Maps of the current and proposed Optional Premises are attached.
~ Proper posting was done on the premises on November 9,2006, and publication was made in the Eagle
Valley Enterprise on November 9th and 16th.
~ There have been no protests to this application filed in the County Clerk and Recorder's Office.
CONCERNS / ISSUES:
None
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval
Commissioner Menconi moved that the local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the manager registration
of Benjamin McNair and the addition of a third Optional Premises to the Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License(of.
Big Sky Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Beaver Creek Chophouse.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene
as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation
County Attorney's Office Representative
Mr. Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re-convene as the Board
of County Commissioners.
Mr. Baumgartner seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Other
Resolution 2006-110 Granting Authority To The Eagle County Attorney's Office To
Negotiate The Terms Of The Purchase Of The Grange Ranch In Order To Preserve
Open Space In Eagle County.
Mr. Treu stated that the Attorney's Office is currently in discussion with Pitkin County and Basalt to
determine ownership of the various parcels.
Commissioner Stone moved.to approve Resolution 2006-110 granting authority to the Eagle County
Attorney's Office to negotiate the terms of the purchase of the Grange Ranch in order to preserve open space in
Eagle County.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
4
11/21/06
S])-0031 Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District First Amendment to Consolidated
Service Plan for Smith Creek Metropolitan District and Bachelor Gulch
Metropolitan Disttict
Community Development Representative
FILE NO:
TITLE:
SD-0031 1 Service Plan Amendment
~First Amendment to Consolidated Service Plan for Smith Creek Metropolitan District and
Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District
1252.90 acres covering the Bachelor Gulch Vicinity
Collins Cockrel & Cole 1 James P. Collins
Bob Narracci
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
STAFF:
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW:
This Service Plan amends the Consolidated Service Plan for Smith Creek Metropolitan District and
Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District to clarify that the Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan District ("the
District") is authorized under the Service Plan to provide security services in addition to its current
regulatory enforcement activities and revises the Service Plan to clarify that the District is authorized under
the Service Plan to provide covenant enforcement services and is submitted pursuant to Article 1 of Title
32, COR.S., as amended (the "Special District Act").
The District isa quasi-municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Colorado. The
Service Plan was approved by the Eagle County Board of Commissioners on August 22, 1994.
Organization of the District and authority to provide services were approved the District electors at a duly
held election on November 8, 1994. The District was organized on November 14, 1994 by Order ofthe
Eagle County District Court pursuant to the provisions of the Special District Act. The powers of the
District are enabled and authorized by the Service Plan and Special District Act.
Pursuant to the Service Plan, the District initially functioned as a financing district in cooperation with
Smith Creek Metropolitan District which district initially functioned as a service district. Section LA.4. of
the Service Plan authorizes the District and the Smith Creek Metropolitan District to consolidate into one
district ot dissolve. PurSuant to the Master Agreement dated March 1,2004 by and among Vail Resorts
Development Company, the District, the Smith Creek Metropolitan District and the Bachelor Gulch Village
Association, the Smith Creek Metropolitan District transferred all of its assets, liabilities, functions,
operations and management to the District and retained only those powers and functions to perform certain
chair lift 1 gondola functions. Section II.B.ll.a. of the Service Plan provides that both districts shall have
the right to amend the Service Plan independent of participation of the other district; provided, that neither
district shall be permitted to amend those portions ofthe Service Plan which effect, impair, or impinge
upon the rights or powers of the other district without such district's consent.
Subsequent to the approval of the Service Plan, the General Assembly granted to Title 32 metropolitan
districts:
a) The power to furnish security services for any area within the special district subject to written consent
of all local law enforcement agencies having jurisdiction within the area and any applicable master
association or similar body having authority in its charter or declaration to furnish security services in
the area, Sec. 32-1-1004(7), C.R.S.; and
b) The power to furnish covenant enforcement and design review services within the boundaries of the
district subject to the approval of an applicable master association or similar body and other statutory
requirements. Sec. 32-1-1004(8), C.R.S.
The District currently has the authority under the Special District Act to enforce its rules and regulations.
The Board of Directors of the District has determined that its ability to enforce its rules and regulations in
5
11/21/06
general, and its roadway rules and regulations in particular, would be significantly enhanced if the District
also directly provided security services as authorized by the Special District Act. The Board of Directors of
the District has determined that such enhanced enforcement along with the performance of covenant
enforcement services as provided by the Special District Act are in the best interest of the District, its
residents and visitors. Furthermore, the District expects that its provision of security services will lessen
the burdens of the Eagle County Sheriff.
To provide security services, the District will need to obtain the cOlllsent of the Eagle County Sheriff. The
District will also need to obtain the consent of the Bachelor Gulch Village Association to the extent the
District will provide security services within areas of the Districten:cumbered by the Association.
Additionally, the District will need to enter into an agreement with the Bachelor Gulch Village Association
setting forth the scope of the District's covenant enforcement activities.
This Amendment, if approved, is in addition to all of the provisions of the Service Plan. To the extent the
assumptions, projections and limitation of the Service Plan are incOil1sistent with this proposed Amendment,
the provisions of this proposed Amendment shall control; the Service Plan shall otherwise remain effective.
The District has determined that the exercise of the additional powers confirmed by this Amendmentwill
not effect, impair or impinge on Smith Creek; however, to the extent such exercise would effect, impair, or
impinge on Smith Creek, the District has determined that such powers shall not be enforceable against
Smith Creek.
II. CHRONOLOGY:
August 22, 1994 - The Service Plan was approved by the Eagle COUlnty Board of Commissioners.
November 8, 1994 - Organization of the District and authority to provide services were approved the
District electors at a duly held election.
November 14, 1994 - The District was organized on by Order of the Eagle County District Court pursuant
,to the provisions of the Special District Acl
March 1, 2004 - Pursuant to the Master Agreement dated by and among Vail Resorts Development
Company, the District, the Smith Creek Metropolitan District and the Bachelor Gulch
Village Association, the Smith Creek Metropolitan District transferred all of its assets,
liabilities, functions, operations and management to the District and retained only those
powers and functions to perform certain chairlift I gondola functions.
September 29,2006 - This Service Plan Amendment proposal was filed with the County Clerk.
III. STAFF COMMENTS:
On October 6, 2006, this proposal was referred for comrrtent to:
Ken Marchetti, CPA
Eagle County Assessor's Office
Eagle County Attorney's Office
Eagle County Finance Director
Eagle County Engineering Department
Eagle County Environmental Health Department
Eagle County Sheriff's Office
Bachelor Gulch Design Review Administration
As of this writing, no referral responses have been received.
6
11/21/06
There is currently litigation amongst the various affected entities and home owners in the Bachelor Gulch
vicinity regarding road access issues and the District's legal authority to provide security services.
Counsel will further explain the circumstances.
V. APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION:
A complete description ofthe proposed service plan amendment, response to any referral comments and
justification pursuant to the below listed statutory findings will be presented by the Applicant.
v. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
VI. STATUTORY FINDINGS:
The Board of CountyCom.missioners shall disapprove the service plan amendment unless evidence
satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented:
a. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be served by
the special district;
b. The existing service in the area served by the special district is inadequate for present and
projected needs;
c. The special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within
its boundaries;
d. The area included in the District has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the
proposed / existing indebtedness on a reasonable basis.
The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the service plan amendment if evidence satisfactory
to the Board of any of the folloWing is not presented:
a. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through Eagle County or other existing
municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special district, within a reasonable time
and on a comparable basis;
b. The facility and service standards of the District is compatible with the facility and service standards of
Eagle County and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1-204(1), C.R.S.;
c. The service plan is in substantial compliance with the master plan adopted to Section 30-28-106,
C.RS.;
d. The service plan is in compliance with the duly adopted long range water quality management plan for
the area;
e. The service plan will be in the best interest of the area proposed to be served.
VII. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
On October 18, 2006 the Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously recommended DENIAL of this
proposed service plan amendment.
During deliberations, the Planning Commissioners were concerned that none of the affected parties have
consented to this request and expressed their dismay at being placed into the middle of an ongoing
7
11/21/06
disagreement between the various affected entities.
DISCUSSION:
Bob Narracci, Eagle County Community Development presented the file.
Mr. Jim Collins, General Counsel for Bachelor Gulch Metropolitan Districtwas present.
Mr. Narracci indicated that the County has published and provided written notice of this hearing at least 20
days prior to the hearing. Written notice had also been sent to all municipalities and districts within two miles of
the service area.
Mr. Collins presented a certificate of mailing to 442 property owners.
Commissioner Stone moved that the Board of County Commissioners table File No. SD-0031 until
February 14,2007, at the applicant's request.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Planning Files
PDA..00066 Nottin!!ham Cotta!!es/McGradv Acres PUDs
Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department
ACTION:
In order to modify a shared lot line between two separate and independent PUD developments, it is
necessary to amend both PUDs. An Amended Final Plat is also necessary for the lot line
amendment, and has been submitted in conjunction with this application.
LOCATION: 0085 and 0155 Nottingham Ranch Road, Avon/Eagle-Vail
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
Margaret Beyer and Church of Latter-Day Saints
Owners
Sid Fox, Fox & Company
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions
PLANNING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
A. SUMMARY:
The Nottingham Cottages PUD and the McGrady Acres PUD are contiguous developments. Nottingham Cottages
PUD was approved in 1998; McGrady Acres PUD was approved in 1991.
The main access to Nottingham Cottages PUD is from Nottingham Ranch Rd. Once the access leaves the roadway,
it crosses a portion of Lot 7 in the McGrady Acres PUD and then enters the Nottingham Cottages PUD. The goal of
. the applicants is to adjust the shared lot line between the two PUDs resulting in the creation of an access which no
longer crosses through the McGrady Acres PUD; thus accessing the intended development directly from the
roadway.
In addition to modifying the lot line, the secondary intent of this PUD Amendment is to recognize the return of
Tract B (as it is now known), to the Nottingham Cottages PUD. In 2002, the Town of Avon/Traer Creek
Metropolitan District condenmed a portion of the Nottingham Cottages PUD in order to construct the road right-of-
way for William J. Post Blvd. After completion of the road improvements, the remaining property (Tract B) was
8
11/21/06
returned via Special Warranty Deed to the original owner. Pending the appropriate mechanism to essentially "de"
annex" or disconnect Tract B from the Town of Avon and return it to Eagle County, the zoning should revert back
to PUD- its former zoning. At this time, the mechanism to disconnect Tract B from the Town has not been
identified, and a condition has been added to this file in lieu of this discovery. If it is not feasible to disconnect
ract 13, this POO Amendment will reflect the intemallot line adjustments only; Tract B will remain outside of the
UD and in the Town of Avon.
This POO amendment simply recognizes that the boundaries of the PUDs are being modified. No other
modifications of either POO are being requested; this is simply a technical exercise. In addition to this POO
amendment,the applicant has also submitted an Amended Final Plat; the mechanism for modifying the shared lot
line. If these properties were in the same PUD or within the same standard zone districts, an Amended Final Plat
would be sufficient to accomplish this type of technical amendment.
B. CHRONOLOGY:
$ 1991- McGrady Acres POO was platted.
$ 1998- Nottingham Cottages was platted.
$ 2002- A portion of McGrady Acres POO (Lots 1-6) is annexed into the Town of Avon
$ 2002- A portion of Nottingham Cottages PUD (renamed Tract B) is annexed into the Town of
Avon
$ 2005- Land annexed by the Town of Avon is adjusted pursuant to a new Final Plat which amends
the proposed road layout for William J. Post Boulevard rendering Tract B unnecessary
$ 2006- Owners of Nottingham Cottages POO and McGrady Acres apply for lot line modification
$ 2006- Owners of Tract B convey land to owners in Nottingham Cottages PUD
$ 2006- Applicants include Tract 13 in the lot line modification/PUD amendment
C. 8ITEDATA:
Surrounding La.nd Uses 1 Zoning:
East: Residential: McGrady Acres 1 PUD
rest: ROW: Post Boulevard 1 Town of Avon
orth: ROW: Nottingham Ranch Rd 1 Town of Avon
South: Nottingham Cottages PUD Lot 2 / McGrady Acres J>UD (Open Space)
Existin.g Zoning:
Tota.l Area:
Water:
Sewer:
Access:
POO
6.316 acres
Existing -Public
Existing - Public
Existing access from Nottingham Ranch Rd
D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATIONS:
The Eagle County Planning Commission had no comments regarding the intent of this application.
E: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
Motion: [5:0]
The Planning Commission Recommended unanimous approval of file PDA-0066 incorporating all Staff
findings and conditions.
2. STAFF REPORT
F. REFERRAL RESPONSE (KEY POINTS):
. NONE
Referrals were sent to the following agencies:
$ Eagle County Engineering
$ Attorney
$ Assessors
9
11/21/06
$ Road and Bridge
$ Town of Avon
G. STAFF DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a
Sketch and Preliminary plan for PUD:
STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section S-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of
a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in
the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject
to the conditions and standards of the PUD.
[+] FINDING: Unified ownership or controL [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)]
The title to all land that is art of both of the PUDs IS owned or controlled b
STANDARD: Uses. [Section S-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those
uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in
Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320,
"Commercial ahd Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule, "for the zone district designation in effect for the
property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be
authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f., Variations Authorized.
There are no new uses being proposed as part of this PUD amendment outside of what was originally
contemplated as part of the initial Preliminary Plan approval. Rather, this is a technical exercise which
recognizes that the boundaries of the PUDs are being modified.
[+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)]
The Uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or
allowed as a limited for the zone district de~ignation in effect for the property at the time ofthe application for the PUD
Amendment.
STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that
shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for
the zone district designation. in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of
these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f., Variations
Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildingsfor necessary access and
fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings.
No variations are necessary outside of what was originally contemplated as part of the initial Preliminary
Plan approvals.
[+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)]
The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional
Limitations", for the zone district desi ation in effect for the ro ert at the time of the a 1ication for PUD.
STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and
loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking
and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant
demonstrates that:
(a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not
require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents,
guests and employees of the project will be met; or
(b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the projects residents, guests and employees will be less than
those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may
commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized
bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard.
10
11/21/06
Parking was examined as part of the PUD Preliminary Plans for each development. There are no
modifications to these PODs that would necessitate re-evaluation of parking needs.
[+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)J
It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUDs comply with the standards of Article 4, Division
I, Off-Street Parkin and Loadin Standards, without a necessit for a reduction in the standards.
STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply
with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these
standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides
sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding
uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas
and is consistent with the character of the area.
The POO guides contain adequate landscaping guidelines. There are no modifications to these PUDs that
would necessitate re-evaluation oflandscaping needs.
[+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)J
It HAS previously been demonstrated that landscaping provided in the PUD can comply with the standards of ArtiCle 4, Division 2,
I.,andsca . in . and HIutnination Standards.
STANDARJ): Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD Shall be as
specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sirm Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed
in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that
is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to
and within the PUD.
No new signage is proposed. There are no modifications to these PUDs that would necessitate re-
evaluation of signage.
STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the
development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable
water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be
conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
Existing facilities (electricity, telephone, gas, cable, etc) currently service both PUDs. Agreements ate in
place for all utilities including water and wastewater service.
[+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)]
The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development that was proposed inthe Preliminary Plans for both PUDs were
provided adequate facilities for roads; the applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development that was proposed in the
Preliminary Plans for both PUDs were provided adequate facilities for potable water, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal,
electrical supply and fire protection. In addition, the Applicant HAS previously demonstrated that the PUDs are conveniently
located in relation to schools, olice and fire rotection, and emer enc medical services.
STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the
development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however,
the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater
efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or
achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are
followed:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all
areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be
11
11/21/06
(d)
(e)
(b)
by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No
roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or
more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway.
Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and conveni
system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages oJr
site. .
Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles. to all
lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as
applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency
services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities.
Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth
traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a
major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual
lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly
connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are
necessary to maintain the County's road network.
ShOW Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street
network and from off-street parking areas.
(c)
Access, shoW storage, an emergency turn. around area and emergency access to the river have all been
adequately addressed as part of the Preliminary Plans for both PUDs. There are no modifications to these
PUDs that would necessitate re-evaluatic)ll of necessary improvements.
[+) FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)]
It HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the developments were as specified in Article 4,
Division 6, Imbrovements Standards regarding:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access.
(b) Inter)1al Pathways.
(c) Emergency Vehicles
(d) Principal Access Points.
e Snow Stora e.
STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development
proposedfor the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
The Applicant clearly demonstrated that both of the development that was proposed in the Preliminary
Plans for both puns are compatible with surrounding land uses.
land uses.
STANDARD: COhsistency with Master Plan.~ [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent
with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration
of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal
compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary
plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain
static.
Both of the subject PUDs were analyzed under the Eagle County Master Plan. When considering the
current Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, it is apparent that no portion of this plan anticipates or
acknowledges technical amendments and as such, is not applicable when considering the current
application. If, along with the proposed technical amendments, modifications were proposed which added
or affected land uses, then the Comprehensive Plan would be pertinent for this review.
12
11/21/06
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. The proposed Special Use Permit CAN be shown to be appropriate for its
proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and FLUM,
inc1udin standards for buildin and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use.
STAND.AR.I>: Phasing [Section 5-240.FJ.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a
phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then
guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for
residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be
constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is
reasonable.
Additional phasing is not applicable and/or necessary with this proposal.
STAND.AR.I>: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.FJ.e (12)]-
The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards.
(a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted
to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD
shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for
every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the
number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two
and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each
dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County MasterPlan.
(b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-oI-ways, and
areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space.
(c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas,
riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations,
that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are
not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be
conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD.
(d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreationalfacilities shall be shown on the
Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the
development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD.
(e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to
conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the
common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or
covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of
any common open space.
(f) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or
nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational
and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance,
administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned,
and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall
be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association
or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD.
Common areas/open space areas currently exist as part of these PUDs and will not be altered as part of this
PUD Amendment.
13
11/21/06
[+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]
The PUD HAS demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards
with respect to:
(a) Minimum area;
(b) Improvements required;
(c) Continuing Use and maintenance; or~
d Or anization.
STANDARD: Natural ReSource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the
recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral
agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards.
The modifications to these PUDs are located on previously developed portions of land and will not further
affect or hinder any natural resources.
FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)]
The PUDs DO demonstrate that the recornmendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the
application was submitted, as well as the recornmendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural
Resource ProteCtion Standards, have been considered.
PurSuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of both
a Sketch Plan, and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision:
STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The proposed
subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the
Comprehensive Plan.
the consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptualleve!,
i.e., how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch
plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not
necessarily remain static.
See previous discussion on page 7.
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)]
The PUDs ARE consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and ARE consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).
STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B The proposed
subdivision shall 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.
Article 4, Site Development Standards
[+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
[+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2)
[+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3)
[+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4)
[+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) B
[+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) B
[+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) B
[+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440)
[+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450)
[+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460)
[+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5)
[+] Storage of Hazardous and Non-Hazardous Materials (Section 4-550)
[ +] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6)
14
11/21/06
[+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620)
[+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630)
[+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640)
[+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650)
[+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660)
[+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670)
[+] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680)
[+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690)
[+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) No Impact fees are associated with this
proposal, as it was contemplated as part of previous approvals.
[+) FINDING: Consistent with Limd Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)]
The Applicant HAS fully demonstrated that the previous subdivisions complied with all of the standards of this Section and all other
provisions ofthese Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and
Article 4, Site Development Standards.
STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] B The proposed subdivision
shall be 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.
(1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service
plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road
extensions shall be consistent with the Ea1lle Countv Road Capital Improvements Plan.
(2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimatepopulation of the
service area to avoidfuture land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines.
(3) Coordinate UtilityExtensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire
range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into
an otherwise un-served area.
This development has already been assessed for efficiency as part of the original approvals for both PDDs.
[+) FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)]
The existing subdivisions ARE 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.
STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B The property proposed to be
subdivided shall be suitablefor 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.
These lots are not encumbered by geological hazards, floodplain or steep slopes in the areas subject to this
PUD amendment, and are suitable for development.
[+) FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.BJ.e (4)]
The property to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or rnan-
made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the
area.
STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B The proposed subdivision
shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the
future development of the surrounding area.
See previous discussion on page 6.
15
11/21/06
(+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)]
The existing PUDs ARE compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future
development of the surrounding area.
Amendment to Preliminary Plan for .PUD. No substantial modification, removal, or release of the
provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing
called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-104(1)(e) Colorado Revised Statutes
that;
(1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development
and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Developments; (am 3/12/02)
(2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not effect, in a substantially adverse manner,
either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or
the public interest;
(3) Benefit. The POO Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person.
The application has been submitted by both of the owners of existing PUDs which currently
supports this amendment. In addition, this amendment alleviates any potential access issues for
future/any of the residents and/or owners of property within either POO.
DISCUSSION:
Connnissioner Menconi moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. PDA-00066
incorporating all Staff findings and the following conditions:
1. Except as otherwise modified by this permit, all material representations made by the
Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval.
2. The legal mechanism to disconnect Tract B from the Town of Avon and return it to Eagle County (as
approved by the Eagle County Attorney) must be finalized prior to Board of County Commissioner
signature on the Resolution for this PUD Amendment. Further, approval of this PUD Amendment shall
not be valid until the Resolution has been signed (by the BoCC) and subsequently recorded. If Tract B
cannot be disconnected from the Town and retUrrled to Eagle County, this PUD Amendment shall
solely recognize the boundary modification of the shared lot lines between the Nottingham Cottages
POO and the McGrady Acres PUD.
Connnissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
AFP-00239 N ottiueham CottaeeslMcGradv Acres. PUDs
lena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department
ACTION:
To modify the northerly portion of property line between Lot 1 and Lot 7. Lot 1 will increase from
1.11 to 1.228 acres; Lot 7 will decrease from 5.113 to 4.996 acres.
LOCATION:
OWNER:
APPLICANT:
REPRESENTATIVE:
0085 and 0155 Nottingham Ranch Road, Avon/Eagle-Vail
Margaret Beyer and Church of Latter-Day Saints
Owners
Sid Fox, Fox & Company
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with Conditions
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
16
11/21/06
A. SUMMARY:
The Nottingham Cottages PUD and the McGradyAcres PUD are contiguous developmehts. Nottingham Cottages
PUD was approved in 1998; McGrady Acres POO was approved in 1991.
he mairt access to Nottingham CottagesPUD is from Nottingham Ranch Rd. Once the access leaves the roadway,
t crosses a portion of Lot 7in the McGrady Acres POO and then enters the Nottingham Cottages POO. The goal of
the applicants is to adjust the shared lot line between the two POOs resulting in the creation of an access which no
longer crosses through the McGrady Acres POO; thus accessing the intended development directly from the
roadway.
In addition to modifying the.lot line, the secondary intent of this PUD Amendment is to recognize the return of
Tract B (as it is now known), to the Nottingham Cottages PUD. In 2002, the Town of Avon condemned a portion of
the Nottingham Cottages PUD in order to construct the road right-of-way for William J. Post Blvd. After
completiort of the road improvements, the remaining property (Tract B) was returned via Warranty Deed to the
original oWner.
The purpose of this Amertded Final Plat is to vacate certain lot lines including the shared lot line between the two
PODs; artd the lot lines surroundirtg Tract B. This plat will also vacate and recreate certain easements and the
buildirtg envelope as fourtd On Lot 7 in McGrady Acres. In addition to this Amended Firtal Plat, the applicant has
also submitted a Pun amendment; the mechanism for recognizing the boundary modifications to the existing
PUDs. If these properties were in the same POO or within standard zone districts, an Amended Final Plat would be
. sufficient to accomplish this type of technical amendment.
B. CllRONOLOGY:
$ 1991- McGrady Acres pUD was platted.
$ 1998- Nottingham Cottages was platted.
'$ 2002- A portion of McGrady Acres POO (Lots 1-6) is annexed into the Town of Avon
$ 2002- A portion of Nottingham Cottages POO (renamed Tract B) is annexed into the Town of
AVOn
$ 2005w Land annexed by the Town of Avon is adjusted pursuant to a new Final Plat
which amends the proposed road layout for William J. Post Boulevard rendering Tract B
ut1Iiecessary I
$ 2006~, OWners of Nottingham Cottages POO and McGrady Acres apply for lot line modification
$ 2006w Owners of Tract B convey land to owners in Nottingham Cottages PUD
$ 2006- Applicants include Tract B in the lot line modificationIPlJD amertdment
$ 2006- The POO Amendment associated with this Amended Final Plat receives a
recommendation for approval with conditions.
C. SIl'E.DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning:
Ea.st: Residential: McGrady Acres / POO
West: ROW: Post Boulevard / Town of Avon
North: ROW: Nottingham Ranch Rd / Town of Avon
South: Nottingham Cottages POO Lot 2 / McGrady Acres POO (Open Space)
Existing Zoning: POO
Total Area: 6.316 acres
Wa.ter: Existing ~Public
Sewer: Existing - Public
Access: Existing access from Nottingham Ranch Rd
D. STAFF FINDINGS:
Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat:
a. Adjacent property. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed
amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. All adjacent property
17
11/21/06
owners were notifiedfor this file as required pursuant to Section 5-210. No responses were
received from any of the adjacent property owners.
b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed
amendment IS NOT inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. The McGrady Acres PUD was
platted in 1991. The Nottingham Cottages PUD was platted in 1998. At the time of platting f!ach
these subdivisions, the neighboring developments (Wal-Mart/Home Depot, etc.) were not in'
existence. It was these neighboring developments that prompted the condemnation of ROW that
included a portion of the Nottingham Cottages PUD (Tract B) and Nottingham Ranch Road into
the Town of Avon. This Amendment actually increases the level of consistency of the original
Nottingham Cottages PUD Final Plat by reuniting Tract B; Tract B was once common space.
c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has
determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements
and other applicable regulations; policies and guidelines.
d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply.
e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply.
DISCUSSION:
Ms. Markowitz presented the file. She showed a PowerPoint presentation for the PUD amendment and
amended final plat. The amendment is necessary to clarify an access into the Nottingham cottages and to recognize
the return of Tract B to the Nottingham Cottages PUD. The amendment does not alter any text. She highlighted
some of the background steps leading up to this request.
Chairman Runyon asked for an idea of the boundary between the Town of Avon and Eagle County.
Ms. MarkOwitz showed this delineation on the PowerPoint map. She showea the new proposed boundaries
for Nottingham Cottages and McGrady Acres. Staff and Planning Cornmission both recommend approval for both
files.
Sid Fox Was present for the applicant.
Chairman Runyon opened public comment. There was none. He closed public comment.
Cornmissioner Stone moved that the Board of County Commissioners approve file no. AFP-00239
Nottingham Cottages/McGrady Acres PUDs incorporating the findings and with the following conditions:
1. Except as otherwise modified by this permit, all material representations made by the
Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered
conditions of approval.
2. The legal mechanism to disconnect Tract B from the Town of Avon and return it to Eagle County
(as approved by the Eagle County Attorney) must be finalized prior to Board of County
Cornmissioner signature for this Amended Final Plat. If Tract B cannot be disconnected from the
Town and returned to Eagle County, the Mylar will have to be amended to remove Tract B, and the
purpose shall be amended to only reflect the following modifications: the shared lot line between
the Nottingham Cottages PUD and the McGrady Acres PUD; the necessary modifications to
affected easements; and the modification of the building envelope on Lot 7 of McGrady Acres.
These changes must be approved by the Community Development Staff and the Eagle County
Attomey prior to Board of County Commissioner signature.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Alpine Slide Appeal Decision
Community Development Representative
18
11/21/06
Chairnlan Runyon read a statement about the history of this appeal. He stated that the Board had an
opportunity to review the evidentiary record and briefs. Today's proceeding is to give members of the Board the
opportunity to question Staff and County Attorney concerning legal arguments, discuss the issue and reach a
decision on the appeal. After the Board reaches a decision, that decision would be reduced in writing and in the
Onn of a resolution. Adoption of that resolution would be considered the final agency action for purpose of any
ppeal to the courts for that decision. Chairman Runyon urged the Resort Company and the Homeowners to work
together to come up with a mutually agreeable solution. There are good arguments on both sides. The Board feels
they are in the position of judges. He feels it is most difficult to come. up with an answer. He considers the fact that
Vail Resorts removed the words "Alpine Slide" from the 1994 document. He believes this is a legai mechanism to
detract attention to this possibility. Vail Resorts also marketed Beaver Creek as an exclusive resort with certain
style to it. The question is whether an alpine slide is consistent with this or not. A number of owners have stated
that the slide would hurt their property values, but he doesn't believe this is a valid argument. He also feels that it
would be better to have an alpine slide at a more visible location such as Dowd Junction. He believes that as a
community we are about recreation. He inquired about the genesis of the POO change in 1994.
Keith Montag responded that there were numerous modifications within the Beaver Creek PUD in 1994.
Predominant reasons included shifting the densities and moving some uses along with some modifications to the
purpose statements, but the main genesis was to shift some of the densities from one area of the PUD to another.
Commissioner Menconi stated that based on the evidence and testimony that has been presented in
connection with the Appeal presently before the Board, he moved to affirm Keith Montag's interpretation that an
Alpine Slide is a Use by Right on land designated Open Space Recreation in the POO Guide for Beaver Creek.
Chairman Runyon seconded the motion.
COlnmissioner Stone stated that it comes down to is whether an alpine slide is compatible with the valley's
environment and how one would define valley. He believes that the omission of the words alpine slide was
purposeful. He guessed that it wasremoved by a clever attotney who decided to not write it in at the time becallse
it was found to be a contentious issue. He believes that it's important to first define the valley's environment and
then define whether or not this alpine slide is compatible. He read from the POO guidelines and believed it is .
. l1possible to separate the sentence from "consistent with the needs of a year round mountain resort". Beaver
reek has developed into a resort, which is slightly different from what the creators imagined. This area has grown
from being a mostly second home environment to one that now includes a lot of year round residents. He thinks the
emphasis that was put solely on recreation has changed to what makes a nice living environment on a year round
basis. He agrees that this is a difficult decision. He has wavered in both directions. He has learned that Vail
Resorts did make an effort to reach out to the homeowners, and yet he is disappointed that they didn't do more.
There had also been a lot of changes that residents objected to that made Vail Resorts backtrack and change their
mind in the past. In looking at it in a truly technicallegal sense, he finds it difficult to reverse Keith Montag's
decision because of the technical and legal wording in the document. The ambiguity comes from the subjectivity of
the definition of "compatible". An alpine slide can be consistent with the needs of a year round mountain resort.
He believes that he would have to agree with the other two commissioners and vote in favor of Mr. Montag's
interpretation.
Commissioner Menconi listed the reasons why he was in favor of reconfirming Keith Montag's
interpretation of the amendment. The first reason is consistency with the needs of a year round mountain resort.
Recreation means "refreshment or comfort produced by something affecting the senses or the body mentally or
spiritually etc." The definition of amusement includes recreation. The previous discussion about "included but not
limited" to means exactly what it says. The language prohibiting alpine slide was included in the chair 14 base
area. There has been a constant effort to expand the year round recreational opportunities in the county. He
believes this is a compatible activity for visitors and residents alike. Keith Montag has been with the county for
over 20 years and this represents a review of his work. He doesn't believe that was allowed by a previous Board
should not be second guessed or interpreted at this point. He feels the language is clear and represents work
between the Planning Commission, the Resort Company, the Planning Staff and the Board of County
Commissioners.
Commissioner Stone added that he disagrees with the conservation easement that was entered into which
fers to permitted uses as shown in attachment B. The uses permitted on open space recreation property mimics
hat is allowed in the PUD. He gets concerned about the comments on page 3 of this easement, which says "to
19
11/21/06
preserve and protect the conservation values of the property in accordance with terms". He believes the easement
makes a mockery of conservation easements. He has been a vocal opinion leader in opposition to conservation
easements in the county. This is a good example of why conservation easements give people false hope that the
environment will be preserved and conserved in its current state. The only things really prohibited are commercial
and residential buildings. His concern for Vail Resorts is that at some point in time someone with a higher
authority may find that the conservation easement was a farce.
ChairITian Runyon stated that all three commissioners have spent a lot of time considering and struggling
with this decision. He feels that it comes down to a legal issue. The inclusion of "included but not limited to"
canhot be gotten around. He urged Vail Resorts to think seriously about going ahead with this project. He
cautioned them to tread carefully and deal cautiously with the homeowners. He believes it is unfortunate that it has
become so divisive.
Commissioner Stone asked Rick Johnson to give his opinion of what could take place on that property that
is not enumerated specifically in the wording.
Mr. Johnson answered that physical recreational activities such as snowboarding, which is not a material
departl.lre from the intent of that provision. The deletion of the wording "alpine slide" is important. He added that
snowshoeing would be a good example, not a roller coaster.
Commissioner Stone asked about physical facilities.
Mr. Johnson answered that ski storage, bike storage, ancillary physical facilities that support recreational
use.
Diane Mauriello on behalf of Vail Resorts spoke to the Board. In the brief, they tried to point out that the
PUD is broad but not limitless. They are not envisioning the six flag environment at the base of Beaver Creek She
added that a mountain bike course, inner tubing, coaster sleds would be reasonable permitted uses. Recreational
uses consistent with the needs of a year round mountain resort. She suggested looking at other mountain
environments for comparison. Other possibilities would include ancillary buildings, which support the mountain
environment.
Chairman Runyon asked about a kayak course with a diverted steam.
Ms. Mauriello stated that recreational amenities common to our community and environment are permitted
uses.
Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Johnson to clarify the main objection to the alpine slide. He wondered
specifically what was causing the greatest concern among the people who were opposing it.
Mr. Johnson stated that there are two things; it's a breach of trust and a nuisance. There was testimon.y
through three affidavits that the purpose of the negotiations in 1993 and 1994 to allow the build out in Bachelor
Gulch and Strawberry Park. Because of these negotiations, the alpine slide language was removed. Mr. Raganetti
admitted that the language was removed on purpose as a result of negotiations between the resort company and the
homeowners. An alpine slide in anyone's backyard is inconsistent with a residential area. The noise experts
admitted that there would be increased noise with this slide.
Commissioner Stone asked Ms. Mauriello to respond. He also stated that if Vail Resorts is successful
today, a higher court would be relying on the decision made by the Board.
Ms. Mauriello stated that Vail Resorts takes the development of its resorts seriously. They work hard to be
good and responsible neighbors. They are not interested in destroying the property values within Beaver Creek or
destroy the resort experience. They view it not as a breach of trust, but take the comments very seriously. In terms
of the nuisance, there is a different view of the facts about the slide. The type of slide being proposed is not as
noisy and would not ruin the environment. She added that these homes are at the base of a resort. The PUD guide
from Vail Resort's perspective states, "Included but not limited to" and as such does not eliminate the slide option.
Commissioner Stone wondered how Ms. Mauriello would address the breach of trust. He wondered what
Vail Resorts would doto mitigate this issue.
Ms. Mauriello stated that she doesn't have specific course of action. If an alpine slide were put in place,
they would continue to hear the concerns of the residents. She believes that Vail Resorts had been listening and
would install a slide that is not noisy and environmentally friendly, that blends with the environment.
Commissioner Menconi asked to stop the conversation and call for the vote.
Commissioner Stone asked for the opportl.lnity to give Mr. Johnson a chance to respond.
Commissioner Menconi stated that the purpose of the hearing is to affirm or deny the recommendation of
Mr. Montag, not a hearing for the process of trying to negotiate between two disputing parties.
Mr. Johnson stated that Ms. Mauriello stated that the slide would not be noisy. He said that without the
20
11/21/06
special use proce.ss there would be no way to control what Vail Resorts could do. The "included but not limited to"
language was there in 1988 before negotiations occurred in 1994. He asked to make a stateme.nt for the record.
Commissioner Stone stated that Commissioner Menconi is correct that only the testimony that the
Chaiffi1an decides to allow or not allow is allowable.
Mr. Johnson stated that he desired to make his statement for the record.
Chairman Runyon stated that they are only allowing answers to questions from the Commissioners.
Mr. Morris stated that the statements ofMr. Johnson would be considered for what they were worth, when
and if the question arises.
Mr. Johnson stated that Vail Resorts has improperly attempted to change the record after the was closed.
Vail's general counsel wrote a letter to the editor of the Vail Daily attempting to publicize the matter and influence
the Board's decision. She also introdu.ced new arguments and commented on evidence. Vail Resorts took out a
full~page advertisement quoting Vail Daily's employees in support of this slide. These publicity attempts were
unseemly and inappropriate. Mr. Brian Nolan may have been in contact with the Commissioners after the record
was closed in this matter. Commissioner Menconi may be employed by the Snowboard Outreach Society and
receives substantial funding from Vail Resorts. The SOS website states that Vail Resorts is highly involved with
the success of his organiza.tion.
Mr. Morris instructed Commissioner Menconi not to answer the question posed by Mr. Johnson. He stated
that the time is not now after he sees how the Commissioners are going to vote to raise issues of impartiality. He
has not proceeded in a professional manner.
Chaiffi1ah Runyon stated that the Board had heard sufficient testimony.
The vote was called. All Commissioners voted in favor of upholding Mr. Montag's interpretation of the
1994 PUD.
Community Budget Presentations
This work session was taped
There being no further business before the Board, the meeting was adjourned
Attest:
~'y.~
Clerk to the Board
.......~
; ~; .r~Chairman
,
21
11/21/06
