No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 03/22/11 PUBLIC HEARING March 22 2011 Present: Peter Runyon Chairman Pro -Tem Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Jon Stavney Chairman This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: El Jebel Community Center - 0020 Eagle County Drive Meet with Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission Bob Narracci, Planning Present were Planning Commission members - Temple Glaser, Kelley McKenny, Kim Bock, and Jay Leavitt. Cliff Simonton provided an update on the Mid - Valley plan. He explained that the county was subdivided into 11 sub areas, including all of the land adjacent to highway 82 and the Emma character area. The mid - valley portion was divided into four areas, the Hwy 82 area, the Emma area, all of the Frying Pan River area and the fourth called Missouri Heights. The work was consistent with other area plans. The planners did not know as much about this side of the county so they relied heavily on the Technical Advisory committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission had been working on a Future Land Use map. The Technical Advisory committee was working on the gold policies and strategies, which would be a part of the plan. The appendices would have resource maps, a section on how one could request an exemption and background data. Within goals, policies and strategies there would be an administration process and for each character area there would be natural resources and environmental quality, design and character, public services and infrastructure and land use. Mr. Simonton presented a PowerPoint slide show with maps and backup information. He spoke about Future Land Use maps and the various designations. The plans were very idealistic, but also realistic. On the Roaring Fork side of the county there were nine designations including urban/ suburban, large lot residential, conservation residential, rural agricultural, outlying rural subdivision, mixed use, recreation / open space, government services and public lands. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon asked about the difference between the Future Land Use maps and current zoning maps. He wondered if any areas were recommended for downzoning. Mr. Simonton indicated that Reudi Shores was one such area. Given today's reality, access etc. additional development was not recommended through the master plan. He provided detail related to all of the designations. In El Jebel, there could be additional development similar to what had been occurring. Each designation included the expected intent, character, where they were located and types of land -use. Goals and policies were close to completion. Future land use maps had recently been completed by the Planning Commission and would be presented to the technical committee. Afterwards public meetings would take place. He showed the maps with the colored designations. He believed that the process was going well. Mr. Montag asked about master plans and statutory processes of the Planning Commission. He stated that these plans were used in land use processes. By statute, the Planning Commission had the authority to adopt the master plans. Mr. Simonton clarified that the statute also indicated that these were guiding in nature, not regulatory. He stated that it was a fluid process and they needed to be sure they received the best input. The Technical Advisory committee would be involved and if all went as expected the next step would be the adoption process after public 1 03/22/2011 hearings. They hope to adopt the plan by the end of August. The Planning Commission wanted to hear the Technical Advisory Committee's comments prior to publishing any maps or information on the website. Commissioner Fisher asked about ideas for how to get the public involved. Mr. Simonton stated that the Technical Advisory Committee meetings had been very well attended and the Town of Basalt had been in attendance at all meetings. Ms. McKenny stated that day and evening meetings would be helpful. Mr. Simonton suggested having several presentations, and that staff be available for the entire day and evening. Ms. Glaser stated that certain time slots for different character areas would be helpful for the public. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon wondered about the outreach to Garfield and Pitkin Counties. Mr. Simonton stated that Pitkin had been involved, but Garfield had not provided much feedback. Commissioner Runyon wondered how Garfield's land use maps overlap. Mr. Simonton stated that it wasn't inconsistent, but they would be informed during the referral process. They liked to have the proper amount of meat on the bone when plans were exposed to the public. The presentations would be provided with a good package and good explanations. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon wondered about Pitkin County's input. Mr. Simonton gave an example, which was the Emma Caucus. He thought Pitkin County was relying on these caucuses. They had not been targeting the meetings in any consistent manner. Ms. Glaser talked about the various caucuses and suggested they be invited to the public presentations and meetings. Discussion about the three county intersections in the Eagle County portion of the Roaring Fork Valley Commissioner Fisher spoke about the Roaring Fork side of the county and has received the comment about it being the stepchild of the county. She spent more time on this side of the county than she did in Vail, Red Cliff, Bond or McCoy. She believed they had tried to be involved on this side of the county, but the demographics were challenging. She did not feel this was a negative, but could be seen as a bonus. She believed they are making positive headway. She wondered if any of the Planning Commissioner members would be interested in sitting on the Planning Advisory Committee for the Airport Master Plan process. She mentioned that Hilary Fletcher would be doing the plan. It was a great opportunity because the airport affected the entire area. The process was expected to take about 18 months. Mr. Leavitt asked if other counties would have representatives on the committee. Mr. Montag stated that the current focus was the Eagle Valley and Town of Basalt. They did talk to Garfield County and they were looking at aviation groups, car rental companies and other stakeholders. Commissioner Fisher indicated that there could be 30 -40 people. Ms. McKenny stated that having representatives from both airports involved would be helpful. Commissioner Fisher agreed that this would be helpful and committed to trying to involve Pitkin county stakeholders. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon indicated that this side of the county was different, however in terms of county services, open space fund allocations, and other funds he felt it is very fair. They were looking to invest some of the Open Space funds in some lands and asked the Planning Commission to put their thinking caps on for parcels that could be purchased. They were trying to hire a Director of the Open Space Fund. Part of this person's job would be to identify new parcels and work towards acquisition. They would like to identify possible buffer zones and create open space. Mike Bair had been helpful on the committee. The board tried to understand the needs of this side of the county. Ms. Glaser stated that there had been a working relationship between the county, Town of Basalt and Pitkin County. She wondered whether it would be possible to have such a functional working relationship with Garfield County. Mr. Narracci stated that there was a rural resort committee, which was comprised of Pitkin, Garfield and Eagle. They did not always receive responses from Garfield, but Eagle County always responded to Garfield's requests for comments. Ms. Glaser stated that she did not believe this side was different, but the plan had different characters. Commissioner Fisher stated that it seemed like everything was getting closer. Ms. McKenny stated that the implications of repeated service were positive. She wondered as economic times became more restricted, if the services on this side of the county would be retracted. 2 03/22/2011 Mr. Montag stated that many services were available online. Discussion about the Board's planning priorities: Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon stated that his priority was related to 40% of the county's economy being related to construction. He was also concerned about the rate of growth at 9% rather than the prescribed 2 -3 %. He wished to slow growth to a more sustainable level. He understood the downturn in the real estate climate, but sales tax revenue was back to 2008 levels. He saw this as an opportunity to get it to a more balanced level. Most middle class jobs had been in construction and there was a danger of falling into a two -class society with the wealthy and the service class. He wondered if projects would create economic diversification and decisions about future projects would consider this goal. He hoped to replace middle class jobs. Commissioner Fisher agreed with Commissioner Runyon. She stated that development decisions made over the course of time might not have been her decisions. She agreed that the growth rate was unsustainable. There were lessons that could be learned about the differences over time. She wanted to continue to focus on building the relationships and interaction with other entities in a healthy, non - priority type way. She hoped to continue efforts to engage the community as much as possible. She wanted to hear from detractors. Often times when Boards and philosophies changed, successful collaboration changed as well. Mr. Leavitt wondered about bringing another industry into the county. There was a source of marble close to the county and perhaps this was a potential new industry. There were also many digital companies, but he wondered how to bring these people together to create an industry outside of tourism and construction. Ms. McKenny wondered about building an infrastructure for telecommuting jobs. She wondered what the county could do to promote this, including better internet connectivity, conference centers, etc. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon stated that any industry opportunity would need to capitalize on the county's core strengths. There were unbelievable assets that the county could and should capitalize on. There are some industries having difficulty hiring the best talents, and if a campus were created, it would be helpful. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the infusion of federal dollars. She mentioned making the airport more accessible. When she was running for commissioner, she worked for a company in Denver and did much work out of her home. Ms. Bock asked about economic development and whether there was a coordinator. Mr. Montag stated that the county has a contract with the Economic Council and they did a lot of this type of work on the Eagle Valley side of the county. They were having a meeting tomorrow and would be having this type of discussion with them. Commissioner Fisher suggested that the Planning Commission include the Board in discussions that might be taking place on the Roaring Fork side of the county. She stated that she didn't read the Roaring Fork papers on a regular basis. Mr. Montag stated that the Governor had created a bottom up process for economic development. Discussion on whether the Board perceived more or less Land Use Regulation in the future: Commissioner Fisher felt that these types of decisions needed to be voiced by the community. The Planning Commission has more concentrated knowledge; however, she did not anticipate the board making any major changes. She intended to listen to input received during the various planning processes. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon stated that he did not think the regulations should be loosened. In terms of increasing regulations, he had been trying to get the 35 -acre state zoning changed. He believed the county should have the ability to weigh in on 35 -acre parcel development. He had problems with the flagpole subdivisions. He expressed concern about the sun setting of approvals wherein developers got a vested approval and that lasted forever. In the pipeline with no further land use oversight or approval, the number of dwelling units in the county could increase by 50 %. There were other locations such as Wolcott with a developer proposing a 2000 unit development. He did not support business as usual. Mr. Montag added that the planning department recently created a white paper on a number of potential changes to the land use regulations and this list was currently being reviewed. Mr. Narracci stated that there were 10 or 12 regulations under review. Commissioner Fisher stated that the commissioners all had different takes on these regulations. This created healthy dialog. The fact that she grew up on a cattle ranch and her opinion of how the 35 -acre parcels rights were available was different from Commissioner Runyon's opinion. 3 03/22/2011 Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon supported the intentions of the 35 -acre law, which was to keep the rancher intact and the ability to sell 35 acres to keep a ranch in business. Large property owners had become land speculators. How to get more tourists to Eagle County Commissioner Fisher spoke about airport planning, recreation district consolidation, increased collaboration and partnerships with neighboring counties for large special events. Mr. Leavitt spoke about buses from other counties and towns for attendance at the X- Games. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the challenges in keeping calendars from competing. She believed there needed to be continued consideration of competing with neighboring entities. She hoped that the Planning Commission could help by keeping the board aware of times they should be at the decision making process. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon thanked everyone for attending. Consent Agenda Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of March 21, 2011 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Agreement between Eagle County and EnviroTech Services, Inc. for the 2011 Magnesium Chloride Project Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge C. Grant Agreement between the State of Colorado Department of Transportation Colorado Aeronautical Board and Eagle County for Airport Truck and Removal Equipment Airport Representative D. Resolution 2011 -024 Approving the Service Plan Amendment for the Western Eagle Health Services District, Formerly Known as the Eagle County Ambulance District (Eagle County File No. SD -3131) Bob Narracci, Planning Department Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bob Morris, Deputy County Attorney stated there were no issues or changes. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the annual agreement between the county and Enviro Tech Services and the grant between the county and the FAA, and the Resolution approving the Service Plan for Western Eagle Health Services District. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -D. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Pro Tem Runyon opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Other Commissioner Fisher spoke about the annual state of the county event and encouraged people to hear the county presentation and view the 2010 annual report. She encouraged input and questions. 4 03/22/2011 Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission Interviews Bob Narracci, Planning Recorded Planning Files PR -3147 Tree Farm PUD Sketch Plan Extension Scot Hunn, Planning Department ACTION: The Applicant requests a two -year extension to the Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD — File No. PDS -1567, which will expire on December 8, 2011. LOCATION: 401 Tree Farm Drive; located along Hwy. 82, due east of the intersection of Hwy. 82 and El Jebel Road, in El Jebel. OWNER: Woody Ventures, LLC REPRESENTATIVE: Jon Fredericks, landWEST, LLC 1. REQUEST & STAFF REPORT A. SUMMARY: The purpose of this application is to request a two -year extension to the previously approved Sketch Plan for PUD approval for The Tree Farm PUD, File No. PDS -1567. The resolution approving the PUD Sketch Plan is attached for reference. B. BACKGROUND The Applicant has worked in good faith since the time of Sketch Plan approval to address and/or satisfy certain substantive conditions of approval. Notably, a detailed market study has been completed with input from Eagle County. Likewise, a recent application to re -zone the majority of the Lane Property surrounding the proposed Tree Farm PUD boundaries has been approved as a first step toward meeting another condition of Sketch Plan approval. In short, the Applicant has continued to move forward with meeting their obligations prior to submitting a Preliminary Plan application. Despite such efforts, staff has anticipated for some time the Applicant's request for an extension, simply based on local economic conditions (specifically the lagging housing and commercial real estate markets in the mountain west), as well as the Applicant's ability to fully address all required conditions of approval within the two years allotted between a Sketch Plan approval and Preliminary Plan approval. The Effect of Sketch Plan Pursuant to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Sketch Plan is valid for two years from the time of approval. Specifically, a Preliminary Plan must be approved (not submitted) within those two years. In this case, the Sketch Plan is valid until December 8, 2011 (two years from the date the resolution was signed). C. FINDINGS 5 03/22/2011 Pursuant to Section 5- 240.2.E (4) — Extension, only the Board of County Commissioners may grant an extension, of up to two years, based on a demonstration by the applicant that: 1. Failure to obtain approval of the Preliminary Plan for PUD was beyond the applicant's control (allowing reasonable time for the review process); 2. The Sketch Plan for PUD is not speculative in nature; 3. The Sketch Plan for PUD still complies with the LUR's and Comprehensive Plans; and 4. There is a reasonable likelihood the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be developed in the next two years. In this case, staff believes the Applicant has provided evidence to support each of the necessary findings. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. APPROVE PR -3147 with or without conditions if it is determined that the petition DOES meet the standards outlined in Section 5- 240.2.E(4). 2. DENY PR -3147 if it is determined that the petition DOES NOT meet the standards outlined in Section 5- 240.2.E(4). 3. TABLE the PR -3147 if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hunn presented the request. The Applicant was requesting a two -year extension to the Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD, which was approved December 8, 2009 via a resolution. The resolution was signed September 1, 2009. This was not a land use file but a procedural matter. Staff believed that the applicant had worked with Eagle County towards submitting a preliminary plan. Mr. Morris stated that the time would run from the effective date of the resolution. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon voted against the sketch plan and explained that without Chairman Stavney it only would take one negative vote to stop the proceeding. He believed it was appropriate to have all the commissioners present. He suggested the applicant present his presentation and continue the file at a later date allowing a vote with a full board. Commissioner Fisher stated that it was up to the applicant to request a tabling of the file. Michael Hoffman, attorney representing the applicant stated that he understood the situation and requested that they move forward with their presentation and table the file to a later date. He believed that they would have the time to address any of Commissioner Runyon's concerns and hoped to have his approval at a later date. He provided a brief history of the approved sketch plan. At this time, the applicant was requesting an extension of the sketch plan's life not to exceed two years. They had been subjected to local and nation wide economic financial influences. The short -term market may not support starting development until 2015. The sketch plan approval for a planned unit development (PUD) included 24 conditions, since the approval, several critical conditions had been addressed. Their request met the requirements of the Land Use Regulations. As proposed, the tree farm should be viewed as a long -term master plan with an over 10 year phasing plan to be developed only as market absorption allowed. The owner had demonstrated a commitment toward achieving a preliminary plan approval by September 1, 2013. Mr. Hunn clarified that the extension date would be September 1, 2013. The applicant would then have 5 years to get to final plat after preliminary plan. Jon Fredericks stated that the market study suggested normalization by about 2014 or 2015 so the intent was not to initiate development any time before that time with full build out by 2025 or 2026. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon wondered if the applicant was allowing enough time to meet market needs. Mr. Hoffman believed that the plan was a good one but clearly they would have to modify aspects of the project to meet the new reality and phasing was clearly a critical aspect. Mr. Fredericks stated that in order for them to keep moving forward into preliminary plan an extension was needed. 6 03/22/2011 Commissioner Fisher asked about some of the other conditions such as having discussions with the town of Basalt, CDOT and the public. She asked about the energy component as well. Mr. Fredericks stated that they had not addressed all the 24 conditions but had started with the critical ones first. Mr. Hoffman stated that some of the energy components were in the works. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the lack of community input and the public relations between the various entities. Mr. Hoffman spoke about the market study and their intent to refine the project if necessary to address the needs of the market, which was one of the critical concerns with the town of Basalt. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon understood that there were four criteria the applicant needed to meet in order to be granted the extension. He was concerned with the first one, w ich was "failure to obtain approval of the preliminary plan for PUD was beyond the applicant's cony :., R lo that when the applicant got the approval they had invested enough time and money that they . .w p ve gone to the preliminary stage. He believed those decisions were in the applicant's control. \ Mr. Hoffman stated that they put a lot of effort and.tim to the market study. They could not say what the market was going to look like in 2015. They would know more in the future. He believed it was totally outside of their control. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon opened public comment. Joseph Edwards, local resident spoke. He believed that the time limits prevented inappropriate development. He encouraged the board to deny the extension. He believed that the applicant was trying to freeze the regulatory process and continue the process in 5 -10 years. He believed it would be unwise to grant the extension. He believed the project was infeasible and could be infeasible in 5 or so years. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon closed public comment. Mr. Hoffman stated that they did a lot of work at sketch plan. He acknowledged Mr. Edwards concerns and explained that the applicant had no vested rights at this time but were subject to any changes to the Land Use Regulations. Mr. Fredericks stated that the extension in no way obligates the board to approve a preliminary plan. There was no part of the code that would carry over into preliminary plan. Chairman Pro -Tem Runyon moved to table the file at the applicants request until April 26, 2011 at 1:30 pm in the Eagle County Room. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Cooperative Parking Discussion - (recorded) County Staff, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority, Crown Mountain Park & Recreation and Mid Valley Metropolitan District Representatives 1. BoCC Statement of intent regarding shared parking 2. Overview of RAFTA BRT in El Jebel 3. Overview of Crown Mountain Recreation Center 4. Roundtable Discussion of feasible solutions 5. Other 7 03/22/2011 Meet with Pitkin County Commissioners - (recorded) Meet with Basalt Town Council — (recorded) Basalt Town Hall - 101 Midland Ave., Basalt, CO There being no further business before the Board, the mee ' as adjourned un) March 29, 2011. Witt Attest: 41,7 Aifit r - NC er to the Board * * Cha' A:CP 8 03/22/2011