HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/11/11 PUBLIC HEARING
January 11, 2011
Present: Sara Fisher Chairman
Peter Runyon Commissioner
Jon Stavney Commissioner
Keith Montag County Manager
Bryan Treu County Attorney
Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney
Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board
Kathy Scriver 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:
Swearing -in Ceremony for Newly Elected Officials
The Honorable R. Thomas Moorhead, Chief Judge, 5 Judicial District
Commissioner Stavney honored each of the folks for how long they had been in office. The voters this
year declined the opportunity to give the commissioners a chance to be in office more than two terms. He stated
that Teak Simonton, Joy Hoy, Kara Bettis, and Dan Corcoran had been in office since 2003, Mark Chapin since
2007, Karen Sheaffer since 1996, and Sara Fisher since 2007.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Fisher stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of January 10, 2011 (subject to review by the Finance Director)
Finance Department Representative
B. Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and the Foundation of Trustees for the Family Learning
Center for the Provision of Child Care Services
Anne Robinson, Health & Human Services
C. Agreement between Eagle County and Valley View Hospital Association for Medical Officer Services
Anne Robinson, Health & Human Services
D. Agreement between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and Allison Cassias, Esq., Special County
Attorney for Legal Services in Support of Child Protection
Sherri Almond, Health & Human Services
E. Subdivision and Off -site Improvements Agreement for West End Development (File No. PDF- 00101)
Eva Wilson, Engineering
Chairman Fisher 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.
Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -E.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
1
01/11/2011
Citizen Input
Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none.
Contract Agreement with the Community Office for Resources Efficiency to operate
Energy Resource Center in Pitkin County for the Energy Smart Program
Adam Palmer, Community Development
Mr. Palmer introduced John Gitchell, the new Energy Smart Regional Program administrator.
Mr. Gitchell thanked the board and stated that he was working on coordination with budget and grant
activities, and started on federal reporting for the program. He was from Colorado and has been working as a
management consultant for the last six years, and prior to that he worked for Vail Resorts for 12 years. He had
been focused on environmental management and helping companies and organizations improve policies and
practices.
Commissioner Fisher expressed excitement for the endeavor and the partnership.
Mr. Palmer explained that the Energy Resource Centers were key to the program. There would be 3
Recourse Centers, one in each of the three counties; Gunnison, Pitkin and Eagle. Free energy assessments and low
cost upgrades would be offered as well as efficiency incentives.
Commissioner Stavney asked about the agreements between the other counties for Mr. Gitchell's services.
Of the 5.9 million grant, approximately $431,000 was allocated to each county for staffing, events, marketing,
workshops etc. There was also an additional $20,000 a year going towards each of the three parties. He wondered
if those dollars covered Mr. Gitchell's salary.
Mr. Palmer stated that the budget for the grant administration was separate. The Regional Finance Program
Administration piece was put in the agreements to be utilized for a PACE program administration.
Commissioner Stavney wondered if the other counties were clear about the agreement requirements.
Mr. Mitchell stated that he had developed a monthly budget spread and each of the three counties had a
very clear itemized budget.
Mr. Palmer stated that the program was setup on a reimbursement basis.
Commissioner Stavney spoke about the agreements and wondered if there would be an agreement with the
Valley Home Store.
Mr. Palmer stated that there would be an identical scope of work and they were not anticipating taking it
through a formal approval process, but the format was similar. They intended to put it together as an
interdepartmental agreement.
Mr. Montag added that he believed it would be beneficial to have periodic updates on the program, the
progress and challenges.
Mr. Palmer stated he would be happy to comply. He was ramping up the Energy Resource Centers with a
launch date of January 19 He suggested a month end update.
Mr. Montag added that it was important that the public relations firm put forth an effort to educate the
public starting with a press release indicating that Mr. Gitchell had been hired and his role.
Commissioner Runyon asked about the resolution to overturn Fanny and Freddie Mae's opposition to the
PACE program.
Mr. Palmer stated that currently there were three legal cases in progress surrounding PACE. He anticipated
some sort of resolution in the first quarter of 2011.
Commissioner Stavney spoke about the PACE programs potential to create jobs.
Commissioner Runyon stated that it was a contentious issue at the National Association of County's
(NACO) conference. NACO agreed to support the legislation to make Fanny and Freddie more agreeable to the
program. He requested a one -page position paper that could be used by the commissioners to lobby.
Mr. Palmer asked the board if they had a continued interest in pursuing a PACE program within Eagle
County. Last fall the county was pursuing a fmancial partner to launch the program for homeowners who had non -
Fannie Mea mortgages or who owned their own home but was unsuccessful.
Mr. Treu believed that the county just needed to continue working with the banks.
2
01/11/2011
Commissioner Stavney stated that the board was in a wait and see mode in terms of the Smart Energy Loan
Program and didn't believe it was worth a lot of effort on staff's part to pursue it because the county had no need to
take on any risk when there is a hold up on a national level.
Commissioner Runyon agreed. The voters were promised that the program would be self - funded. However
he would like staff to continue seeking a bank willing to partner in the program.
Chairman Fisher stated that Governor Ritter had been active and she believed Governor Hickenlooper
would also support the program. She thought the county should continue moving forward and be the example in
future conversations.
Commissioner Stavney stated that he and Commissioner Fisher were meeting with the Governor on Friday
in Edwards.
Mr. Palmer stated that their fundamental mission statement was to make energy efficiency improvements
simple and easy. It was complicated and he hoped to make it simplify the process.
Commissioner Runyon spoke about the board's passion for the program. He spoke about the
weatherization program and the fact that Northwest Council of Governments was given $3 million to promote
energy efficiency. He encouraged anyone involved in the LEAP program to look into this program. Even :renters
could qualify for these funds.
Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the contract agreement with the Community Office for
Resources Efficiency to operate Energy Resource Center in Pitkin County for the Energy Smart Program.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Contract Agreement with the Office of Resource Efficiency to Operate the Energy
Resource Center in Gunnison County for the Energy Smart Program
Adam Palmer, Community Development
Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the contract agreement with the Office of Resource Efficiency
to operate the Energy Resource Center in Gunnison County for the Energy Smart Program.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Annual Eagle County Investment Policy
Treasurer's Office Representative
Karen Sheaffer and Mari Renzelman presented the policy.
Diane Mauriello, Assistant County Attorney representative explained that this was a policy reviewed by the
board annually. The existing policy would remain in effect until the new policy was adopted. There had been very
few changes. A bank was added to one of the appendices and the document acknowledged an ongoing relationship
with the county's long -term investment firm, one that the county had worked with for a number of years.
Ms. Sheaffer stated that the Treasurer could not enter into a contract any more than a year at a time. This
was an only the renewal of an investment policy that had been in place for previous years.
Commissioner Runyon stated that he believed the policy was very conservative, which was appropriate.
Ms. Sheaffer stated that Eagle County's policy was more restrictive than state statute allowed.
Commissioner Runyon asked Ms. Sheaffer to share an example of what the state allowed and the board
didn't.
Ms. Sheaffer stated that the preservation of capital was the first priority, the second was liquidity and the
third was the earnings. The county investment advisors had made suggestions in the past, but in today's investment
world there were not a lot of options. She offered to have a work session with the investment advisors so they could
present the options and philosophy.
Commissioner Runyon stated that he was not looking to open up the investment policy, he simply
wondered if all the possibilities and opportunities were being considered.
Mr. Treu did a quick look at the statutes and it seemed as if most were covered in the policy. It did appear
that the ratings were a bit stringent.
3
01/11/2011
Commissioner Stavney wondered if some of the advice passed on by the investment firm could be passed
on to the board.
Ms. Sheaffer stated that she received a monthly report which she believed the board should be receiving as
well. As Eagle County had money to invest, she contacts the advisor and they prepare 3 proposals.
Commissioner Stavney stated that he was more interested in reviewing the overall direction provided by the
advisors.
Ms. Sheaffer believed that Eagle County used the best advisor available in Colorado.
Chairman Fisher thought a work session could be helpful for the board and public. She felt there was no
urgency in scheduling this type of meeting and presentation however.
Ms. Sheaffer stated that if and when interest rates were rose the county would be poised to take advantage.
Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Annual Eagle County Investment Policy.
Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion.
Chairman Fisher thanked Ms. Sheaffer for her service to the county and her dedication to a conservative
investment policy.
Ms. Sheaffer thanked Ms. Renzelman for her hard work.
Chairman Fisher called the vote. The vote was declared unanimous.
Resolution 2011 -004 Annual Appointments
County Attorney's Office Representative
Bryan Treu presented the resolution. He spoke about a few of the appointments.
Commissioner Stavney thanked Chairman Fisher and stated that it had been an honor to serve with her.
The position of chairman was an honor. He would strive to honor the seat with the same grace and dignity as
Chairman Fisher. The board remained committed to working together for the good of the order.
Commissioner Runyon concurred with Commissioner Stavney's comments. He spoke about the contact
base Chairman Fisher had with the community. He believed this was based on love for the people of Eagle County.
He could not remember having a board re- elected for a second two -year period. He had served with three different
boards and believed this board respected one another and mostly agreed, which was not always the case with the
other boards.
Chairman Fisher spoke about the rigors of the job. She was honored to serve for two consecutive years.
She cared deeply for the people. There was still a great deal of focus required. She thanked her husband and the
community for their unending support with her recovery. She looked forward to working with Commissioner
Stavney in his role as chairperson.
Commissioner Runyon stated that policy governance was a great system and Chairman Fisher should be
thanked for the approach.
Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Annual Appointments Resolution.
Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion.
Chairman Fisher thanked everyone on the resolution for his or her hard work and called the vote.
The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the
Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation. •
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation
Airport Representative
1. New Business
4
01/11/2011
s
Bryan Treu stated that the new officers were appointed the first meeting of the year. He suggested a
motion appointing these officers.
Commissioner Runyon moved to appoint Jon Stavney as the chair of the Air Terminal Corporation, John
Lewis as the Treasurer and Keith Montag as the Secretary.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
2. Consideration for Execution: Agreement for operation of retail concession, Eagle County Air
Terminal Corporation and Mountain Sky Massage, LLC
Mr. Anderson stated that the Mountain Sky Massage was interested in offering automated chair massage
services. There would also be attended massages available. The agreement would be from the date of execution
until October 31, 2011 with the option to extend for 2 additional 1 -year options. The concession rental terms would
be 50% of gross revenues earned from each automated massage chair and the greater of either a monthly chair fee
for the attended massage chairs or 15% of the gross receipts received for use of the chairs. There is a honor system
involved as there was not a computerized sale system.
Ms. Fisher thought the service would be nice.
Mr. Stavney encouraged Mr. Anderson to somehow keep track of sales and wondered if this would better
as a per location flat fee.
Mr. Montag wondered if TSA were in agreement with the chair locations.
Mr. Anderson stated that TSA was fine with having the services provide they complied with the rules set
forth in the airport security program. It would be treated just like any other business.
Mr. Montag stated that he had encouraged Mr. Anderson to enhance the business plan for the terminal. As
these progressed it would bring it back to the ECAT board for further discussion.
Mr. Anderson stated that they were working to establish a maintenance program as well.
Mr. Montag moved to approve the agreement for operation of retail concession between Eagle County air
Terminal Corporation and Mountain Sky Massage, LLC.
Mr. Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
3. Other Business
Mr. Anderson spoke about the busy holiday season. The early numbers indicated growth over 2009.
Operationally, in the control tower, everything went well. Revenue numbers would be available early February.
Mr. Treu stated that the Jet Center broke their 2 -day record, which they attributed to the bright scope this
year.
Ms. Fisher asked about the in -line baggage system.
Mr. Anderson stated that they were ahead of schedule and anticipated getting bid documents out in late
April or early May.
Mr. Stavney asked about the discussions regarding an international terminal.
Mr. Anderson stated that the jet center had engaged an individual to research revenue sources in charter
services and international flights. He stated that this could be a two -year process.
Mr. Runyon stated that this type of facility could go a long way towards setting Eagle County apart from
the rest.
Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and re- convene as
the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Eagle County Liquor License Authority
Kathy Scriver, Clerk & Recorder's Office
Consent Agenda
5
01/11/2011
Renewals
A. Enterprise Hotels of Colorado, Inc. d/b /a Rocks Modern Grill
#25- 39682 -0000
This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or
disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on
file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided.
B. Asian Spice, Inc. d/b /a Asian spice Bistro
#25 -53136 -0000
This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Edwards. There have been no complaints or
disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on
file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided.
C. Bella Mia, Inc. d/b /a Bella Mia
#05- 43100 -0000
This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in El Jebel. There have been no complaints or
disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on
file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided.
D. Eagle -Vail Metropolitan District d/b /a Mulligan's at Eagle -Vail
#04- 33003 -0000
This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 4 -Opt. premises in Eagle - Vail. There have
been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol
Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided.
Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for January 11, 2011
consisting of Items A -D.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Fisher 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.
Planning Files
SE -3069 Frvint Pan Fishing Camp
Bob Narracci, Planning
ACTION: The purpose of this Subdivision Exemption is to adjust the property lines between each of the three
(3) lots comprising the Frying Pan Fishing Camp. In order to align the boundaries of each lot with
the edge of the Frying Pan River and to provide more useable lots than currently, exist. All three
lots have residential structures; no net gain in residences will result due to this lot line adjustment.
LOCATION: 011526 Frying Pan Road / 011618 Frying Pan Road / 011620 Frying Pan Road
OWNERS: Lot 1 — Frying Pan Fishing Camp, LLC
Lot 2 — Three Johns Company
Lot 3 — John L. Morris
REPRESENTATIVE: The Land Studio, Inc. / Doug Pratte
6
01/11/2011
1. BACKGROUND
A. SUMMARY:
The owners of the three lots comprising the Pruessing Subdivision Exemption wish to amend the property lines of
the Subdivision Exemption to align with the edge of the Frying Pan River to provide more useable lots that are
more compatible with the neighborhood than presently exists. The procedure for amending property lines between
previously exempted parcels is via a subsequent Subdivision Exemption.
The original 1993 Subdivision Exemption was approved by the Board of County Commissioners to legalize an
improper division of land while ensuring that each resulting exempted parcel is a viable building site. All three lots
have since been developed.
No net gain of building sites will result from this proposal to adjust the lot lines.
Presently, Lot 1 encompasses approximately 33 acres inclusive of the Frying Pan Road right -of -way; Lot 2
encompasses 0.071 acres (3,092.76 square feet); Lot 3 encompasses 0.293 acres (12,763.08 square feet).
As proposed, Lot 1 will be 27.341 -acres less the Frying Pan Road right -of -way; Lot 2 will be 0.255 acres (11,101
square feet); Lot 3 will be 0.535 acres (23,295 square feet)
B. CHRONOLOGY:
October 25, 1993: Board of County Commissioners approved the Pruessing Subdivision Exemption.
September 29, 2009: Board of County Commissioners approved a Special Use Permit for an Accessory
Dwelling Unit on Lot 1.
November 3, 2010: This Subdivision Exemption application was received by Eagle County.
C. SITE DATA:
Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning:
East: Resource / Agricultural and Residential
West: Resource Preservation / USFS
North: Resource / Agricultural and Residential
South: Resource Preservation / USFS
Existing Zoning: Resource
Total Area: 33.623 -acres (includes 5.492 -acres of Frying Pan Road right -of -way)
Water: Private- Existing wells
Sewer: Private- Existing Septic ISDS Systems
Access: via Frying Pan Road
2. STAFF REPORT
A. REFERRAL RESPONSES:
Engineering Department: Provided quality control comments for the survey. All corrections have been made.
Dan Corcoran, County Surveyor: Provided detailed survey corrections. All corrections have been made.
B. MAJOR CONCERNS AND ISSUES: None
7
01/11/2011
C. STAFF FINDINGS:
Exemptions approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The Board of County Commissioners
may, pursuant to a Resolution duly adopted at a public meeting, exempt from the provisions of Section 5-
280, Subdivision, any division of land, if it is determined that:
1. Not within purpose of Section. Such division is not within the purposes of Section 5 -280,
Subdivision. Such divisions may include, but are not limited to, divisions that:
a. Condemnation. Could be created pursuant to powers of condemnation; Not applicable.
b. Perpetual Open Space. Would result in property division for the purpose of perpetual
open space; Not applicable.
c. Pre- Existing Lots. Were created and established in the records of the Clerk and Recorder
prior to August 22, 1984 notwithstanding compliance with Eagle County Land Use
Regulations in existence at the time of the creation of the parcels. Not applicable.
d. Lot Line Adjustments. Are for the purpose of making a lot line adjustment to correct
boundary errors, align boundaries with topographic features, or straighten boundaries.
This applies only to contiguous lots, neither of which lies within a subdivision approved
pursuant to these Land Use Regulations, and which are not subject to merger with each
other pursuant to Section 6- 120.B., Contiguous Parcels Under Single Ownership. The
Board may exempt a lot line adjustment if:
(1) The total area of land subtracted from the one lot and added to the other, net of any
addition to that lot as a result of the lot line adjustment, does not exceed 25% of the
total area of the lot from which it is subtracted,
The total land area subtracted from the 27.767 -acre Lot 1, and being added into
Lots 2 and 3 is 0.426 -acres or 1.5 %.
(2) The resulting lots are in substantially the same configuration as the original lots
before the adjustment, and
Yes, the resulting lots are in substantially the same configuration as the original
lots before the adjustment and will provide a logical division of the three lots
consistent with the edge of the Frying Pan River.
(3) The lot line adjustment:
(a) Does not create a nonconforming (in terms of applicable zoning) lot or
increase the nonconformity of any lot, or
This proposal, if approved, will result in two of the three lots increasing
conformity by virtue of gaining additional square footage. Lot 1 will
negligibly decrease in size by 0.426- acres. It must be noted that the
0.426 -acres being removed from Lot 1 is separated from the useable
portion of Lot 1 by the Frying Pan River. The end result will expand
Lots 2 and 3 to align with the high water mark of the Roaring Fork
River in order to provide more usable lots and accommodate driveway
access to Lots 2 and 3 from Frying Pan Road. No new building sites will
8
01/11/2011
be gained by this request. All three of the existing lots are already
developed and held in separate ownership.
(b) The Board determines that:
(i) A site plan can be designed for the nonconforming lot(s) that is
consistent with the use requirements of these Land Use
Regulations, and minimizes to the greatest degree practicable any
nonconformities, and,
All three of the lots are already developed in a manner consistent
with the land use regulations and prior county approvals. This
proposal will not increase any pre - existing non - conformities,
such as stream setbacks.
(ii) The nonconforming lot(s) can function adequately for its
designated land use pursuant to a site plan(s) approved for the
nonconforming lot(s) as a part of the exemption, and,
The nonconforming lots will continue to function adequately for
their designated land use. Siting of the existing structures on the
subject properties are as was approved by the Board of County
Commissioners in 1993. The proposed lot line adjustment does
not alter the previously approved site plan.
(iii) Notwithstanding the nonconformity(ies) of the lot(s) which results
from the adjustment, the site of the nonconforming lot(s), taken as
a whole, provides a more useable lot, or one more compatible with
the neighborhood or with the public health and safety, than existed
before the adjustment.
The proposed lot line adjustments will make Lots 2 and 3 more
useable than they currently are; will increase compatibility with
the neighborhood and improve public health and safety by
allotting more land area to Lots 2 and 3 for onsite wastewater
management systems and access. Lot 1, although decreasing in
size by 1.5% will be unaffected by this lot line adjustment
because the land area being transferred to Lots 2 and 3 is
separated from the useable portion of Lot 1 by the Frying Pan
River.
2. Adequate access, adequate potable water, and adequate sewage treatment facilities are available.
Adequate access, adequate potable water, and adequate sewage treatment facilities are available. Pre- existing
access shall be exempt from current driveway standards until the use of the access increases due to either a
change, or intensity in use.
The existing access will be utilized with no traffic increases due to either a change, or intensity in use. The
Lots will all continue to utilize existing wells for their potable water supplies. Existing individual sewage
disposal systems have been approved and permitted by the Eagle County Department of Environmental
Health.
9
01/11/2011
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Narracci presented the request. He presented some background. The owners wished to amend the property
lines so that they would align with the edge of the Frying Pan River and provide more usable lots. The property was
zoned resource, which required a minimum 35 -acre lot size. The lots were non - conforming. This was the only method
available to adjust lot lines on parcels that were exempted from subdivisions. All three lots were developed in the
manner constant with the land use regulations prior to county approvals. This proposal would not increase any
preexisting non - conformities. The proposal would create more compatible usable lots.
Mr. Pratte presented a graphic that explained the configuration of the proposed change. The applicant was just
trying clean up the lot lines in order to better utilize their property.
Commissioner Runyon believed that because there were no impacts to the community, the process could have
been simplified.
Mr. Narracci stated that he spoke to the attorney's office to utilize the consent agenda for these types of files in
the future.
Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve file no. SE -3069 incorporating the findings and
authorize the Chairman to sign the plat.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Communications Strategic Planning
Kris Friel, Communications
Recorded
Planning Files
PDS -2313 Eagle River Meadows
Scot Hunn, Planning
NOTE: Tabled from 01/26/10, 03/30/10, 05/25/10, 06/08/10, 07/06/10 08/24/10, 08/31/10,10/5/10,
10/19/10, & 12/7/10
ACTION: The purpose for this Sketch Plan is for a mixed use Planned Unit Development, inclusive of
residential, commercial, medical, and office uses. Proposal also includes active and passive
recreational and open space uses.
LOCATION: Former `B &B Gravel Mine" site generally situated along Hwy 6 Edwards, Colorado, NW 1/4,
Section 5, Township 5, Range 82.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Hunn presented the conditions for approval for discussion and highlighted the new language.
Chairman Stavney asked the other commissioners for their preference about how to conduct the meeting.
Commissioner Runyon stated that there were two options, and he asked to hear from the applicant which
choice was being continued, specifically what was the current issue with the North side. He had the impression that
the request had become development of the south side only.
Mr. Badger clarified that after the last meeting he believed Plan B was still being discussed.
Commissioner Runyon wondered if it was possible to approve just the portion of the request on the
southern side with conditions. There was also the option of approving the request with open space on the north
side. He felt that option A was now off the table. There would be no guarantee of vested right and in the future
there would be a lot of variables.
Chairman Stavney suggested that the board was ready to make an approval with conditions.
Commissioner Fisher stated that she was not clear about the result of the last meeting. She was challenged
with the north side due to lack of knowledge about the conditions. Prior to wetland work being done to a
10
01/11/2011
significant degree there still needed to be discussions about connecting routes and bike and pedestrian paths. It was
possible it could end up being open space but there were still some unknowns. She wanted to understand what was
or wasn't feasible on the north side of the parcel.
Chairman Stavney asked for clarity on the north side discussion. He wondered about development rather
than infrastructure and whether she was interested in approving building.
Commissioner Fisher stated that there still could be some good reason for development on the north side.
She did not want to set the county up for minimizing the amount of housing and in so doing create higher prices for
the housing. She wondered if it became a development for non - locals or a project for local owners.
Commissioner Runyon stated that resident occupied implied Eagle County residents.
Commissioner Fisher stated that resident occupied would not require year round residency.
Mr. Hunn stated that resident occupied meant primary residence.
Commissioner Fisher stated that by eliminating development on the north side of the property it would
make the remaining housing more expensive.
Commissioner Runyon asked about the number of units.
Mr. Badger stated that originally, there would have been 240 units, but it had been reduced to 160.
Commissioner Runyon asked if Mr. Badger was still open to this pending soil studies.
Chairman Stavney suggested continuing the discussion of the options. He clarified that Commissioner
Runyon did not want development on the north side. He asked for clarification from Commissioner Fisher.
Commissioner Fisher stated that she believed there was still room to explore development options for the
south side and some of the challenges the developer would be up against. There was also pro and con input from
residents regarding the north side. She wondered if there was something that could enhance the development
overall if there were a small number of residences on the north side. There was already development on that side.
She thought the connection was still important to consider.
Chairman Stavney asked if Commissioner Fisher would like to see what on the north side could reasonably
be developed.
Commissioner Fisher did not think it needed to be decided immediately. The board should mindfully work
at the best possible solutions for the plan. She did not want to close the door on all the possibilities.
Commissioner Runyon stated that the applicant needed direction on how to proceed and there was always
the possibility of the best project possible and there would always be different points of view. The board
represented their ideas and best use of the property but this was probably different from the developer's point of
view. Normally he would say "no" unequivocally. The concept was intriguing enough to him to allow
continuance of the exploration process. He liked the condition of a bonafide anchor tenant. He wasn't concerned
with the applicant maximizing their investment. He did not believe the north side should be developed. He wanted
to see if the developer could come up with a feasible plan for the south side. He was concerned with the core of a
business generation for the community. He was adamant that the north side be kept undeveloped.
Chairman Stavney stated that he also wanted the project to have the potential, because of job generation, of
keeping the north side in on the request. In the past, it would have been very easy to just run ahead in that
direction, but the middle ground was to address several audiences. There was the board and there was the public.
He believed the north side had become a distraction. He thought the core strength of the opportunity was the jobs
deal and they were not on the north side. He was willing to give up the north side to bring unity on the board and in
the community with the concept.
Commissioner Fisher did not mind continuing the discussion with that mindset. She would still like to
leave the door open to possibilities for the potential for the north side.
Chairman Stavney spoke about the housing part of the development. It was his view the housing wasn't the
strength of the project although it was still an important issue in the county. He felt the project was more about the
jobs.
Commissioner Fisher agreed. She did not want the project to be the creator of additional housing needs to
satisfy the jobs in the project. She was not in favor of workforce needing to be housed down valley for jobs up
valley. She spoke about the possibility of a hotel facility on the project.
Commissioner Runyon stated that he made this point years ago. Development of a parcel should be driven
by the prime business generator and if it was the medical community they might need a hotel. It was critical to get
the interested tenants in the game and then additional direction could be given.
Chairman Stavney stated that there should be some linkage of housing available to jobs created.
Commissioner Runyon stated that this addresses to a degree economic diversity. Eagle County was at core
a recreation county.
11
01/11/2011
Commissioner Fisher believed the best project was a carefully planned project that would complement the
economy.
Commissioner Runyon asked Mr. Badger about his thoughts on comments made by the board.
Mr. Badger stated that he felt he had fairly clear direction on a very difficult project. He felt it was an
evolutionary project. He felt solid collaboration would be needed between sketch and preliminary plan. They
would not put forward a plan that did not work. He believed over the next 18 — 24 months good things would
become apparent regarding the exact plan and opportunities.
Chairman Stavney wondered if it was appropriate to make a motion then discuss conditions of that motion.
Mr. Morris recommended making a motion to approve with conditions and directing staff to prepare a
resolution incorporating that decision along with such conditions as were prepared based on discussion following
the vote on the motion.
Commissioner Runyon moved to approve file number PDS -2313 Eagle River Meadows sketch plan for
PUD with conditions using version B specifically excluding the north side to be considered at a later date.
Directing staff to prepare a resolution incorporating that decision along with such conditions as were prepared
based on discussion following the vote on the motion.
Commissioner Runyon wondered how it would work if the conditions could not be agreed upon.
Mr. Morris stated that with sketch plan the specific conditions could be worked on at the next stage.
Chairman Stavney clarified that the condition to remove the north side was limited to buildings, not
improvements.
Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimously.
Mr. Morris suggested working with Mr. Hunn to restructure the conditions and categorize the ones that
could be dealt with at preliminary plan. The other conditions could be divided into appropriate categories. As the
board reviewed the conditions, it would become clear which conditions could be perfected later.
Mr. Hunn reviewed all conditions individually.
Chairman Stavney asked if they were holding the applicant to abide by the housing guidelines or saying
that the discussion would have more flexibility than these guidelines.
Commissioner Runyon felt it was not off the table, but it was a piece to be considered. He felt there should
be a formula.
Commissioner Fisher wondered about the timing of the need for a formula. The second sentence in
condition 6 satisfied the need to consider housing requirements.
Chairman Stavney asked Ms. Klosterman for her input.
Ms. Klosterman stated that she had this discussion with Mr. Hunn earlier in the week. Mr. Hunn, Mr.
Badger and she would work together to come up with an acceptable solution as the project proceeds.
Chairman Stavney asked about the possibility of a bridge between the north and south side. He spoke
about the need for a variance to the dual access requirement with a specific letter from the Eagle River Fire
Protection District.
Mr. Morris stated that this should be discussed, as the issue would crop up in other developments.
Commissioner Fisher spoke about school and commuter buses. She wondered if input from the ERFD and
school district would be helpful.
Chairman Stavney stated that if in the end there was no dual access these discussions must be had.
Commissioner Fisher spoke about the difficulty with Miller Ranch street layout.
Commissioner Stavney asked about sketch plan referrals and whether if the plan changed significantly they
would be sent out to the agencies again.
Commissioner Fisher wondered if some of the buildings first levels became parking structures whether this
would become part of the overall square footage.
Mr. Badger stated that the square footage would not include parking.
Commissioner Fisher didn't like this. She was challenged with the traffic component for residents and
visitors. She wanted to consider increasing the footprint to add parking. For every bit of paved parking outside
there needed to be a correlation to the square footage of the project.
Chairman Stavney stated that it was fair to say that parking may be studied, but surface parking should be
kept at a minimum and underground parking should be used to the maximum extent possible.
12
01/11/2011
He felt that maintenance and metro district mechanism would have to be discussed if there were to be areas of dog
parks etc.
Commissioner Fisher spoke about the need for maintenance. She wondered what the recourse would be.
She requested a financial obligation plan for this.
Mr. Badger spoke about the metro districts taking care of ongoing maintenance.
Commissioner Fisher wanted a sustainable maintenance fund for repairs to the project.
Chairman Stavney wondered about the priority of this project's maintenance needs and how it might be
accomplished.
Mr. Hunn wondered about adding such a condition.
Chairman Stavney liked that idea.
Commissioner Runyon had spent time in the Florida Everglades on elevated pathways and thought that
might provide an innovative solution.
Chairman Stavney thought perhaps condition 16 would no longer be necessary due to the north side
development being eliminated.
Mr. Badger did not object to this suggestion.
Commissioner Fisher spoke about the reverse and the noise related to the build -out period for adjacent
neighbors. She hoped this would be an added requirement.
Chairman Stavney agreed and felt this would be delineated later in the process. He suggested a
construction plan.
Commissioner Runyon asked condition 18 and whether the policy needed to be stated for the record.
Mr. Hunn stated that these were custom conditions and he was trying to cover all the bases.
Commissioner Runyon wondered what the point was with some of the conditions until the tenants were
more defined.
Mr. Hunn stated that it would be broader than that.
Chairman Stavney felt this project should demonstrate a business plan showing net new jobs to the
community. He also wondered what type of jobs they would be. The board's expectations were that if Mr. Badger
was sitting by himself at preliminary plan they would be very hesitant to approve the plan going forward. The
board could be relatively different in the future and adding specific language could be helpful to insure the concept
was carried forward. If it could not be demonstrated that the concept was viable it would be challenging.
Commissioner Fisher spoke about an anchor tenant being at the table. The project was less compelling if it
was simply more speculative construction of mixed -use office and retail space.
Mr. Badger stated that the last condition referred to this.
Commissioner Runyon suggested a traffic analysis., He was always concerned with a market and traffic
analysis paid for by the applicant. He did not believe the analysts hired by applicants could be impartial. He would
like to be the hiring entity giving direction to them about the process and guarantee impartiality.
Commissioner Fisher spoke about condition 28 addressing this issue.
Mr. Morris stated that the model for this type of handling existed in the Tree Farm model. This experience
may inform the language.
Chairman Stavney requested the addition of this language.
Commissioner Fisher wanted the wording to include a "community recycling drop off location ".
Mr. Badger asked if she wanted a recycling center for all of Edwards.
Commissioner Fisher stated that it would not be advertised this way, but people could use it in this way.
Chairman Stavney asked about on -site recycling for the construction.
Commissioner Runyon stated it could be added as a possibility but as a cul -de -sac situation it would not be
a great option for recycling.
Commissioner Fisher spoke about it becoming a community center. As a focal point for the western part of
Edwards, a recycling opportunity could be included.
Chairman Stavney spoke about the number of jobs and number of parents who could really use day care
options for the kids while they work.
Commissioner Runyon stated that so many of these conditions needed to be reconsidered after the business
plan was clearer.
Chairman Stavney spoke about the senior center in Eagle and Minturn using borrowed facilities. He stated
that if this fit into the medical plan it would be nice.
Commissioner Fisher asked to include proposed residential and commercial density.
13
01/11/2011
Chairman Stavney spoke about wetlands and the limits of the wetlands so building could be built up to
them. He wondered if the 404 permit shouldn't include the entire flood plain. Another condition could be added to
explore the possibilities of expanded habitat in the flood plain.
Commissioner Fisher wondered if with a phasing plan it could be set up so that the board was able to visit
the project at certain milestones.
Mr. Badger stated that they would map out a phasing plan considering all existing development. Future
plans for development on other properties would consider this plan.
Commissioner Fisher stated that the traffic studies would have to modified and/or updated since the time
for development may take years. She wanted to make sure the developer was at the table until the end.
Chairman Stavney spoke about linking traffic mitigation to the development.
Commissioner Fisher wondered about developer districts being formed. It became her understanding that
the landowners would deed a certain portion of the land who could vote on issues related to the district.
Mr. Badger stated that the board would be required by application to approve the service plans and if the
board did not agree, the service plan would not be approved. He was well aware of the type of plans that worked
and those that didn't work.
Commissioner Fisher suggested getting Access Vail involved in ADA compliance discussions.
Commissioner Runyon stated that it would be obvious when the tenants were identified whether they
satisfied the proposed use of the development.
Commissioner Fisher requested adding an educational component to condition 28. She also asked about
the potential for a bus transit stop.
Mr. Hunn spoke about the Edward's area community plan and the best use of the property would be open
space. The plan talks about an opportunity to enhance or extend the Preserve.
Mr. Badger stated that the plan did not address the Preserve.
Mr. Hunn stated that it did include the Preserve as the language had been amended.
Chairman Stavney felt that there was not much direction from the school district and he would like more.
He did not think an outdoor educational opportunity would satisfy the school district.
Mr. Hunn spoke about the request for transit opportunities.
Chairman Stavney wondered if a bus stop could be added and that the applicant would consider transit
being integral to the project.
Mr. Badger stated that they had designed three stops in the project. •
Commissioner. Fisher spoke about the need for people not driving to be able to access the development.
Chairman Stavney introduced the topic of how to handle the north side of the property.
Mr. Morris stated that the discussion of how to handle this should be separated from the approval of the
Eagle Rivers Meadow approval.
Chairman Stavney wondered if the board wanted the property be deeded to the county.
Commissioner Runyon felt one consideration was how much could reasonably be extracted from the
developer. Mike Eaton had offered to purchase the land and use it for running cattle. He felt the developer should
figure out the dollar value. If Mike offered a fair price it could be attractive.
Chairman Stavney stated that in the event there were a conservation easement on the property then there
was no reason for the county to take title. If that was the direction of the board they need to let the developer know
that.
Commissioner Runyon felt that owning land was not of interest due to the ongoing costs. This wouldn't
preclude the possibility of a conservation easement from another owner.
Commissioner Fisher wasn't sure of the goal of this discussion. She felt that owning land was not preferred
by the county. She thought more leg work needed to be done.
Mr. Badger stated that from their perspective, they were still willing to dedicate ownership to the county
and they could explore other options. It was most important to determine what the board wanted to see on the
property.
Chairman Stavney stated that his vision was a core trail and a bridge connecting this trail across to the
south side. This goal eliminated use by cows. The potential for recreational open space did not seem viable. He
preferred enhanced habitat.
Commissioner Fisher could see cattle using the land for some time, but liked the idea of it being a
recreational path. It could be looked at as an extension of the Preserve.
Chairman Stavney spoke about the difference between this development and the Preserve.
Commissioner Runyon thought the north side had greater visual value than access value.
14
01/11/2011
Chairman Stavney felt that a pedestrian connection would connect the north side developments to the
greater Edwards' community.
Commissioner Fisher felt that there was less of a requirement for a bridge, but it would be nice to have
emergency access available on the bridge as well as a pedestrian bridge. One of the most beautiful views was from
the north property up towards Lake Creek. There was also the possibility of a dog park.
Mr. Hunn suggested the possibility of neighborhood gardens, but there were no water rights.
Commissioner Runyon stated that he was not opposed to these types of uses. He wondered what the
developer thought about these possibilities.
Mr. Badger stated that to afford the infrastructure, the development on the north was necessary. A bridge
to handle vehicles was going to be very expensive. It is cost prohibitive.
Chairman Stavney asked that Mr. Badger explore the emergency service access and the prices of the
various access options.
Mr. Badger stated that the bridge would need to handle a 20 ton load capacity. They would have to explore
a pedestrian bridge and the costs. He was not sure how these costs would be offset. In terms of trails through the
property, that was a reasonable possibility. If there were utilities required that would need to be explored.
Commissioner Fisher spoke about the greater public benefit as part of the ultimate design.
Chairman Stavney stated that a conservation easement would not necessarily be required.
Mike Eaton spoke to the board. Their only involvement would be a way for them to recoup some of their
money. The rest of the discussions were things that would cost the developer money.
Chairman Stavney said that the board just released the developer from building 240 affordable housing
units, and as such requiring the building of a bridge did not seem excessive.
Mr. Badger wondered if the north property were sold whether the Eatons would allow a break down gate in
the event of an emergency.
Mr. Eaton stated that he would not be opposed to this. It was not as simple as it sounded however.
Commissioner Runyon stated that he saw the same problems in the amount they could exact from the
developer. It could also be held as open space for future bridge access.
Chairman Stavney spoke about bridges and the breaking point for the developer. He wondered if there was
enough information to add a condition for the applicant to explore the options.
Mr. Morris stated that the basic deal was that the developer would turn over the north side in full
satisfaction of its affordable housing obligation. He did not see that it was necessary to make any decisions on
future uses of the property. The title to the property needed to be decided. It seemed this was a subsequent
discussion for the county to have.
Chairman Stavney felt that giving up affordable housing was being released as a requirement so that the
north side was not developed. He wanted the opportunity for some of the improvements to be paid for to a degree
by the developer.
Commissioner Fisher agreed. She would prefer that the county did not own the property.
Mr. Morris felt they could set up a condition to deal with the possibilities of the north parcel.
Mr. Hunn felt he had enough direction.
Commissioner Runyon wondered about the 65 acres in the flood plain.
Mr. Badger stated that these acres were really about 80 acres total and it would likely be zoned as
recreational open space. A conservation easement could go on top of this use.
Commissioner Fisher compared other conservation easements.
Chairman Stavney felt that the opportunity was to flush out how amenities could be added to the property
and paid for over time. He wanted certainty there would be no damage to current or future habitat.
There being no further business before the Board, the meetin. adjourned unti an . 18, 2011.
Attest: ' ► 1, a
Clerk to the Board - Cha'. .
A
15
01/11/2011
