No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/30/11 PUBLIC HEARING August 30, 2011 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Robert Morris Deputy County Attorney 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: Resolution 2011 -110 Designating August 2011 as Child Support Month Kristie Williamson, Health & Human Services Ms. Williamson introduced the team members. She explained the goal of child support and medical support orders. The county exceeded all the goals set by the state. Chairman Fisher applauded the staff for their efforts and commitment. She believed it was important for the public to recognize staff's dedication to making the world a better place. Commissioner Runyon stated that their efforts were dually noted and appreciated. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the resolution designating August 2011 as Child Support Month. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Consent Agenda Chairman Stavney stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of August 29, 2011 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of Payroll for September 8, 2011(subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Contract Amendment for Task Orders No. 4 of Master Contract for the Women Infants and Children Program Jennie Wahrer, Health & Human Services D. Amendment to Administration Service Agreement between Eagle County Government and CNIC Health Solutions, Inc. Lisa Ponder, Human Resources E. US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration Grant Agreement Part I: Offer to Acquire Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Vehicle Chris Anderson, Airport F. First Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services between Eagle County, Colorado and Jviation, Inc. for Master Planning Services Related to Eagle County Regional Airport Chris Anderson, Airport G. Grant Agreement AIP -3 -08- 0020 -48 Eagle County Regional Airport Rehabilitation Air Carrier Apron, Phase I (Design) 1 08/30/2011 Rick Ullom, Project Management H. Ratification of Road Project Agreement between Eagle County, State of Colorado, and the USDA Forest Service, White River National Forest for Magnesium Chloride Supplies for the Stabilization and Dust Suppression on Bark Beetle Haul National Forest System Roads Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge I. Participating Agreement between Eagle County and Groundskeeper, LLC for Work Associated with Bellyache Ridge Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project, Phase III Eric Lovgren, Wildfire Mitigation J. Encroachment Easement Agreement between Eagle county and Vail Valley Medical Center for Expansion of Right of Way at Edwards Medical Center Ben Gerdes, Engineering K. Construction Agreement between Eagle County B & B Excavating for Beard Creek and Berry Creek Roads Sidewalk Improvements Ben Gerdes, Engineering L. Agreement between Edwards Metropolitan District, Vail Valley Medical Center and Eagle County for Funding of Sidewalk Improvements along Beard Creek and Berry Creek Roads Ben Gerdes, Engineering M. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and the Edwards Metropolitan District for Beard Creek and Berry Creek Roads Sidewalk Maintenance Ben Gerdes, Engineering N. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and the Berry Creek Metropolitan District for Beard Creek and Berry Creek Roads Sidewalk Maintenance Ben Gerdes, Engineering O. Resolution 2011 -111 Authorizing the Placement of Colorado Department of Transportation Logos Signs and Tourist Oriented Directional Signs within the Unincorporated Portions of Eagle County, Colorado Kris Valdez, Planning P. Resolution 2011 -112 Allowing LaFarge West, Inc. Aggregate Mining Operations to Proceed into Phase V of the LaFarge Gypsum Ranch Sand and Gravel Pit, Pursuant to Special Use Permit ZS -00173 Approved by the Board of County Commissioners on August 19, 2008 (Eagle County File No. PR -3410) Bob Narracci, Planning Lisa Ponder spoke about item D, the service agreement between Eagle County Government and CNIC Health Solutions, Inc. CNIC processed all the insurance paperwork. She stated that fees had gone up slightly. CNIC was reimbursed through listed per service costs and for a shared savings. They were also paid a certain portion per employee. Commissioner Runyon wondered if this could be done in house. Ms. Ponder stated that most big companies did not have their own claim administration. Ben Gerdes spoke about the items J -N related to sidewalk project in Edwards. He explained that the sidewalks were added to the interchange design project in 2007. Federal dollars were not available beyond the road improvements. Partnerships were created in order to complete the sidewalks. The county paid for roughly half. Berry Creek Metro and Edwards Metro had taken on the long -term sidewalk maintenance. Brad Higgins spoke about Item H, the project agreements entailed work that was done above and beyond that was called for in the schedule A. There would a $50,000 reimbursement. 2 08/30/2011 Commissioner Runyon stated that it was this board's policy to encourage local participation. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -P. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners 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 and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Fine Line Foods, Inc. d/b /a Fine Line Bar and Grill #28- 68226 -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. Other B. Rancho Viejo, Inc. d/b /a Rancho Viejo Restaurante & Bar #28- 20442 -0000 Rancho Viejo, Inc. has submitted a Permit Application/Report of Change. The applicant is requesting a permit to change the trade name to Log Cabin Sports Bar & Grill. C. Rink Productions, Inc. d/b /a Rink Productions #26- 65945 -0000 Rink Productions, Inc. has submitted a Corporate Report of Change. The applicant is reporting that Timothy C. Baker will be replacing Tony O'Rourke as the president /director. The background check/CBI report indicated that Mr. Baker was of good moral character. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for August 30, 2011 consisting of Items A -C. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Eagle Valley Humane Society REQUEST: Special Events Permit(s) EVENT: Rancho Del Gumbo Music Festival DATE OF EVENT: September 23, 24 and 25, 2011 REPRESENTATIVE: Char Quinn, Event Manager LOCATION: 4199 Trough Road - Bond STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Striver STAFF CONCERNS / ISSUES: None 3 08/30/2011 DESCRIPTION: Eagle Valley Humane Society has requested (3) special event permit(s) for a 3 -day music festival being held at Rancho Del Rio in Bond. The licensed area will be fully fenced with 6' privacy screened chain -link fencing. The festival is an all age event. Smudge Enterprises of Longmont, CO will provide security as well as privately hired off -duty law enforcement. Security will roam the license area to ensure that only wrist banded 21+ possess alcohol. Alcohol service will begin at 10 a.m. and end at 1:30 a.m. daily. At closing, the bar area will be secured and monitored by security. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. All fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, August 18, 2011, 11 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been filed in the Clerk's Office. 4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan and diagram. 5. The applicant has provided proof of server training. 6. The property owner has been granted a Mass Gathering permit and has worked directly with the Sheriff's Office through the Limited Review process regarding traffic, parking, vehicular and pedestrian circulation. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Due to the recent hurricane on the east coast, Char Quinn was unable to attend the meeting. Marie Shipley spoke on behalf of the applicant. She believed the event was a great opportunity for the Humane Society to raise money and provide help for animals. She explained that there would be extensive security at the event due to the number of people expected to attend. Chairman Stavney believed that the Humane Society had a good reputation for holding safe events. Commissioner Fisher recommended that Ms. Scriver contact Smudge Enterprises and make sure that everyone understood the safety issues. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the permit(s) for the Eagle Valley Humane Society request for a permit for the Rancho Del Gumbo Music Festival being held at Rancho Del Rio, 4199 Trough Road, Bond — CO, September 23 - 25, 2011 from 10 a.m. until 1:30 a.m. 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. 4 08/30/2011 Work Sessions (recorded) Solar Options Ken Whitehead, Solid Waste & Recycling and Adam Palmer, Planning Vail Resorts Update Kristin Kenney Williams, Director of Mountain Public Affairs Chris Jarnot, Senior Vice President /CEO Doug Lovell, Vice President /COO John Garnsey, Co- President Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk & Recorder El Jebel Community Center 20 Eagle County Drive El Jebel, Colorado APPLICANT: DVT, Inc. DBA: Downvalley Tavern REPRESENTATIVE: Drew and Bonnie Scott, Owner(s) LOCATION: 64 El Jebel Road — El Jebel REQUEST: Modification of Premises STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit to modify the licensed premises. The applicant wishes to include a grass area of approximately 4,200 square feet located adjacent to the restaurant /outdoor patio area. The area will provide an outdoor venue for summer BBQs and pig roasts. The property owner must provide an approval prior to any events. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The application is in order, all requirements have been met, and all fees are paid. 2. Public notice was given by posting a notice in a conspicuous place on the premises, August 19, 2011, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been filed in the Clerk's Office. CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Mr. Scott stated that the fencing would be installed prior to each event. He believed the area would be easy to enclose. They had not considered anything at this time. Chairman Stavney asked if anything had been purchased. Mr. Scott stated that he had not purchased anything yet. The fencing would be something that would be in the ground 2 -3 ft. high and could not be removed during the event. Commissioner Fisher asked about smoking. Mr. Scott stated that they did not have a smoking issue. 5 08/30/2011 Commissioner Fisher spoke about a press release that went out of the Sheriff's Office regarding their last visit. His establishment was one that served alcohol to a minor. She asked Mr. Scott to explain what happened. Mr. Scott stated that he was in the kitchen. His manager/bartender served the minor. He was unhappy about the situation and reiterated to staff that this should not have happened. Their policy was to ask for ID from anyone under 30. Commissioner Runyon believed that the fencing should look like a fence. He would like to see the details of the proposed fencing. Mr that he was willing to submit a new plan. Mr. Scott stated g p Chairman Stavney concurred with Commissioner Runyon. He believed that the fencing should be substantial. Commissioner Fisher understood that the applicant had planned an event. She wondered if there were any other events planned in the near future. Mr. Scott stated that they had no other events planned except the one on the 18 of September. Chairman Stavney believed that since this was a permanent modification and he was not comfortable granting an approval with temporary looking fencing. Mr. Scott stated that any permanent fencing would have to be approved by the property owners. Commissioner Fisher encouraged the applicant to get something in writing from the landlord that confirmed his verbal agreements with them and a modification of the alcohol management plan regarding security and management of the outside area when in use. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Licensing Authority table the request to modify the licensed premises for DVT, Inc. d/b /a Downvalley Tavern until September 13, 2011. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. VIS - 3325 — Seven Castles Creek Road Association Greg Schroeder, Engineering ACTION: The purpose of this Variance from Improvement Standards is for a permanent access to several parcels in the Seven Castles Creek vicinity. LOCATION: Approximately 4 miles east of Basalt on Frying Pan Road & Seven Castles Creek FILE NO.: VIS - 3325, Variance from Improvement Standards OWNER: Seven Castles Creek Road Association, USFS, Division of Wildlife APPLICANT: Seven Castles Creek Road Association REPRESENTATIVE: Tom Newland, Newland Project Resources, Inc. 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Seven Castles Creek Road Association is a Colorado Nonprofit Corporation consisting of eight property owners that use Seven Castle Creek Road for residential access. In August of 2007, a debris flood occurred on the adjacent Seven Castle Creek drainage that sent substantial mud and debris through the channel and dislodged a bridge that was the primary access for the property owners. After the flooding event, a sustainable solution was sought after for access, as the drainage is prone to similar flooding events. This application seeks to obtain a variance from improvement standards on the "west side" access that does not cross the creek, thus avoiding the challenges associated with constructing a new bridge that can withstand the sporadic and violent debris flooding. B. CHRONOLOGY: 6 08/30/2011 August 2007 — Flooding on Seven Castles Creek dislodges the main access bridge. Homeowners must use the "west side" access to get to and from their homes. August 2007 — Homeowners apply for a temporary special use agreement on CDOW lands for access to road. This application is for a one year use. October 2010 — The road association members meet with Eagle County, Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, DOW, and USFS to move forward with a Variance Application to the County as a first "public process" as necessary within the USFS and DOW public processes. May 2011 — Eagle County receives a Variance from Improvement Standards application from the Road Association. • C. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Private (Rural Resource Zoning) _ West: USFS — White River National Forest, Private _ North: USFS — White River National Forest, Private South: USFS — White River National Forest, State (Division of Wildlife) _ Existing Zoning: Rural Resource/PUD _ Proposed Zoning: Rural Resource/PUD Proposed No. of Dwelling 8 primary and 8 potential accessory dwelling units Units: _ Total Area: NA _ Water: Individual Well Sewer: Individual Septic _ Access: Frying Pan Road _ 2. STAFF REPORT A. REFERRAL RESPONSES The referral notice was distributed on July 5, 2011 and Adjacent Property Owners Letters were distributed on August 4, 2011. The following section referenced the comments of all responses to Eagle County prior to the date of this writing: Eagle County Engineering Department — Please refer to attached referral response letter dated July 26, 2011. Xcel Energy — Email response dated July 6, 2011, offering no objections. (See attached) B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Section 4 -600 of the ECLUR defines the purpose of improvement standards as the minimum design criteria and standards for infrastructure development in unincorporated Eagle County. The criteria and standards are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of Eagle County. The applicant has been using the "west" access since the flooding incident. A temporary use from the Division of Wildlife was issued, but expired in August 2008, as it is a one year use. The homeowners have been actively working with both the Division of Wildlife and the US Forest Service on obtain and securing a permanent access. In meetings with the DOW, USFS, and Eagle County, both the DOW and USFS determined that they would like to see the applicants acquire approval from Eagle County as a first step, and then they can follow through with the necessary public processes from DOW and USFS. 7 08/30/2011 The Applicant is proposing access to 8 existing residential lots with the possibility of 8 future accessory dwelling units that would generate approximately 160 vehicle trips per day. The proposed ADT corresponds with the Eagle County roadway functional classification of Rural Minor Collector, Type V. The ECLUR Improvement Standards set the geometric dimensions for the design of each classification of roadway. In order to achieve the desired design the applicant is requesting the following Variances from Improvement Standards: 1. Dual Access. ECLUR Section 4- 620.J.1.h: With the exception of properties proposed to be served from the public roadway system by driveways or by urban cul- de- sacs, two (2) points of ingress / egress to the public roadway system shall be provided, such that in the event a road within the subdivision becomes impassable, all properties will continue to have access to a public roadway system. Both points of access should be open available for daily use. In the event that this is not possible, and at a minimum, there shall be provided a secondary emergency point of ingress / egress equipped with emergency breakaway barriers capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles commonly operated by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction for all new development or redevelopment. Secondary emergency access points must be kept free of obstruction, and must be maintained to assure year round use. Depending upon the length of the road, the wildfire hazard rating, the number of units proposed, the topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from this required improvement standard The Applicant has cited the following conditions that they contend represent a hardship to the Applicant if a variance to the Dual Access requirement is not granted: 1. The Dual Access Requirement is requested due to geographic conditions of the area. 2. The only way to meet the dual access would be to construct a bridge over the Creek and associated floodplain. 3. The high cost of constructing such a bridge is a main reason why the Road Association is relocating access to the temporary road alignment. 4. A representative of the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District has inspected the proposed road in the field and has stated that the road as proposed will be serviceable in the event of an emergency. 5. The road will have an all- weather surface that will be plowed. 2. Emergency Vehicle Turnaround Areas. ECLUR Section 4- 620.D.10.d: Emergency vehicle turnaround areas shall be required on rural cul -de -sacs at the initial 1, 000 foot mark and at 1, 000 foot intervals for the remaining length of road. The Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction may recommend an alternative spacing plan for the turnaround areas. The turnaround areas shall be constructed in accordance with Section 4- 620.D.11, Vehicle Turnarounds. The Applicant has proposed 4 Emergency Vehicle Turnarounds along the 0.3 mile roadway. These turnarounds are spaced at approximately 200 feet intervals and are located where practical and near a curve with limited sight distance. Additionally, there are three driveway locations that have existing pullouts that are spaced at approximately 200 feet intervals. 3. Road Design Standards. ECLUR Section 4 -620: The proposed road is estimated to carry an average of 160 vehicle trips per day. This volume corresponds to the Eagle County Rural Minor Collector, Type V standard. This road would have 10 -foot paved driving lanes with 3 -foot gravel shoulders on each side. 8 08/30/2011 The Applicant has requested variances to geometric road design standards as listed in the table below. The variances are shown in bold underline type. In addition, they are requesting a variance from the maximum road speed. The ECLUR recommends a design speed for this type of road of 20mph. The Applicant is proposing a design speed of 10mph. • Standard Eagle County Standard Proposed Variance Request Structural Section 3" Hot Bituminous Pavement 6" Aggregate Base Course 8" Aggregate Base Course Lanes 2 1 with inter - visible pullouts ROW Width 50' 30' 40' at pullouts Minimum Lane Width 10' 10' Minimum Shoulder Width 2' 2' Design Speed 20 mph 10 mph Maximum Grade 8% 8% Rural Cul -de -Sac Dual Access to Public Roadway Utilization of a Rural Cul -de- Required (Section 4- 620.J.1.h) Sac that conforms to the standards in Section 4- 620.D.10 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan As the proposed variance is for an existing road accessing existing residences, there is no direct impact per the comprehensive plan. C. STAFF FINDINGS: Section 4 -600 of the ECLUR defines the purpose of improvement standards as the minimum design criteria and standards for infrastructure development in unincorporated Eagle County. The criteria and standards are intended to protect and promote the public health, safety and welfare of the residents and visitors of Eagle County. Further, Section 4- 610.A.2 of the ECLUR states: Standards Are Not Inflexible. These design criteria and standards provide a certain level of performance, however, they are not inflexible. If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be show to provide performance and /or environmental sensitivity which reflects community values equal to or better than that established by these standards, said alternative may be recommended for approval by the County Engineer. In evaluating the proposed alternate the County Engineer shall follow the procedures in Section 5 -260. G., Variance From Improvement Standards. The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased. However, we must also consider that the Board of County Commissioners has adopted Resolution No. 2009 -115 in response to numerous and substantial public safety concerns recommending strict enforcement of the ECLUR Improvement Standards with the opportunity for the applicant to appeal to the board for a Variance to these Standards. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that if the BoCC finds that a Variance to Improvement Standards is justified, the sub - standard geometric features of the proposed road can be mitigated. Board of County Commissioners Findings The Board of County Commissioners must make the following finding in order to approve or deny this file: (ECLUR 5- 260.G.2.) 9 08/30/2011 Findings for Variance from Improvement Standards Request In determining whether to approve, approve with conditions, or disapprove the application for Variance from Improvement Standards, the Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the applicant of not granting the Variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected. In approving or approving with conditions that are necessary to ensure compliance with the terms of this Subsection, these Regulations, and the Comprehensive Plan. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [VARIANCE] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [VARIANCE] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [VARIANCE] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [VARIANCE] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. All conditions as detailed in the Engineering Department memorandum dated July 26, 2011 shall be adhered to. DISCUSSION: Mr. Schroeder presented the request. In August 2007, flooding on Seven Castles Creek Road dislodged the main access bridge on the east side of the property, and since then the homeowners have been forced to use the west side access to get to and from their homes. The homeowners have been actively working with both the DOW and US Forest Service to obtain and secure a permanent access. The applicant was proposing access for the 8 existing residential lots with the possibility of 8 future accessory dwelling units that would generate approx. 160 vehicle trips per day. The property was zoned Rural Resource. The dual access standard required two points of access from any residential area to a public road. The applicant was requesting a variance from this standard as it was not cost effective. The Fire Protection District inspected the road and believed it was a serviceable road in the event of an emergency. Not having a dual access would require an emergency turn around points. He presented the two suggested conditions. Tom Newland presented some photos of the east access area and former bridge. The temporary access /west side was the road they would like to use as permanent access. They did not plan on doing any cut or 10 08/30/2011 fill or widening of the existing temporary road access. Their intent was to simply place the pullouts and al l weather surface to make the road serviceable. He spoke about changing the entrance to Frying Pan Road to eliminate the need to bring the road across the adjacent property owner's property. Commissioner Fisher asked if the Silver's adjacent property owners would use the same entrance. Mr. Newland stated that they already had an existing paved access and the two would be right next to each other. Chairman Stavney opened public comment. Bernard Silver, adjacent property owner thanked the applicant for their considerations. He agreed with the relocation of the road but asked that there be a 100 ft. setback for the trash receptacles to the west side of the culvert to preserve the views. If the two roadways were to join at the Frying Pan apron, they would have no objections. Commissioner Fisher understood the trashcan issue. She stated that the board could add the condition but it would also need to be approved by the local trash hauler. Commissioner Runyon asked it the applicant had proposed a pedestrian bridge for emergency access. Mr. Newland stated that there was an old stage road out of the subdivision heading west that could be used in the event of an emergency. Commissioner Runyon believed that this was a reasonable solution. Commissioner Fisher wondered if there were larger animals being housed at any of the residences. She thought that getting horses safely out should be considered as well. Chairman Stavney proposed a condition regarding the trash area meeting the 150 ft. request from the Frying Plan Road and that the applicant work with staff and DOW and Silver's to secure an easement from the DOW or negotiate an easement on the Silver's property. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve file no. VIS -3325 — Seven Castles Creek Road Association with the proposed conditions Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Transportation Planning/Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Bus Rapid Transit Dan Blankenship, RFTA Executive Director and Greg Schroeder, Engineering Chairman Stavney noted that the board was aware of the challenges that RFTA faced from a regulatory standpoint adhering to the bounds of their grant from the Federal Government. The board directed staff to review what made the most sense for the future. Mr. Schroeder spoke about proposed development impacts, existing and future background traffic, and present intersection conditions. The traffic counts indicated that the El Jebel Road and Hwy 82 intersection was the busiest intersection within the county and would not handle long -term traffic levels. The partners included Eagle County, Pitkin County, CDOT, town of Basalt, Crown Mountain, RFTA, Crawford Properties, and Sopris Village Subdivision. The county was undertaking an intersection feasibility study to determine the best long -term options. $25,000 was funded through the capital improvement - funding program. He spoke about some of the existing intersection deficiencies. Crown Mountain presented a roundabout concept. However, this option could still cause traffic to back up on Hwy 82. He presented some preliminary options but noted that they had not had the chance to look at the operational analysis, or impacts these options might have. Option A was to develop a roundabout, which would require some reconfiguration of the proposed park n ride. Option B was similar to option A, but had additional lineage. Option C was a T- configuration as compared to a roundabout and rerouting Valley Road to the south, and reconfiguration of Sopris Village Drive. The last configuration was to install a roundabout, making East Valley Road a left turn and adding another T- intersection. Chairman Stavney wondered if there were any options for West Valley Road. Mr. Schroeder stated that these were preliminary options. In the upcoming weeks, a consultant would further review the options. Commissioner Runyon stated that he noticed that with all the options there was no interface with CDOT. It seemed as though there would be no changes to Hwy 82. 11 08/30/2011 Mr. Schroeder stated that one of the challenges of putting roundabouts on main line 82 is it would slow the overall operations. Commissioner Runyon believed this might be an application for a significantly larger diameter roundabout. He believed there may be other possible options. Chairman Stavney wondered if any options were considered using the existing parking lot at the community center for a roundabout and that there be shared parking with RAFT on the other side. Mr. Schroeder stated that this option would be considered. Dan Blankenship stated that RFTA had executed their grant application and funds were available. They were eager to begin the process of constructing the project and having it up and running by 2013. It was critical for them to get through these processes and get the required building permits. Any delays could mean a loss of funding. They were concerned with changes to the project that could increase the costs and put the project in jeopardy in terms of funding. He presented their goals for transit success and explained why bus rapid transit was necessary. Chairman Stavney wondered if there would be a way to plan this part of the site better that would not change the total cost. Mr. Blankenship believed timing was critical. It was important to note that any additional cost above the 46 million would come out of the local side of the equation. He believed their project was lean. They had been vigilant about the cost and would like to deliver the project that they promised voters. It was a complicated process and they hoped to get cooperation from all the jurisdictions they serve. Chairman Stavney asked Mr. Schroeder if he and CDOT were a part of review process for the locations proposed by RFTA. Mr. Schroeder stated that there were some meetings attended by some of the Planning Department but he was not directly involved with the initial discussions. Mr. Blankenship stated that they were in contact with CDOT due to the location of the down valley station. They did an analysis internally and CDOT was part of the review process. They believed their proposal was ideal from a transit standpoint. Commissioner Fisher believed that the plan did not consider pedestrian traffic crossing Valley Road. Mr. Blankenship stated that re- routing Valley Road would be an advantage. He wondered if there was a way for them to move forward without precluding the other options and wondered whether the other options were so imminent that it would be a waste of funds for them to move forward. Chairman Stavney believed there was a potential synergy for the park n ride being placed near the Crown Mountain and County facilities. Mr. Blankenship believed that was a big consideration due to the timing and when these facilities would be built. Chairman Stavney stated that the county was working towards solving the traffic circulation and to some degree the pedestrian safety. Commissioner Runyon stated that he had always been a supporter of the BRT but believed that RFTA was not allowing time to address the intersection issues. Mr. Blankenship stated that they'd been through a planning process and they would like to deliver the project they promised the voters. He didn't think that was being contrary. They were merely requesting a time table. Chairman Stavney believed that RFTA was furthest along by years and he believed it was a fair question. He wondered if it would jeopardize RFTA's funding if they re- located the park and ride and BRT station to the other side of the access road. Mr. Blankenship was uncertain about the funding or how the change would affect the budget. The proposed site was believed to be the best location for the park and ride. They were trying to be efficient about how they sent this out to bid. They could pull the park n ride lot out of the construction bid documents and move forward without it, then come back in the future when things were resolved. Mike Hurns, Project Manager stated that they were at 100% plans and 100% funding. If there were changes made, they would have to start over. He believed a better way to go about this was to build what was proposed and then re- design it later. Commissioner Runyon believed that the worst -case scenario would be moving it in the future. Option A would provide more parking and work well with RFTA's plans. Mr. Hurns believed the phase approach was the best solution to everyone's issues. Chairman Stavney appreciated RFTA's willingness to work with everyone. 12 08/30/2011 Mr. Blankenship stated that they were committed to working with the county and other partners. Commissioner Fisher stated that sitting on the RFTA board had been educational. The BRT location was a big part of the discussion. She wondered if there was a better solution before moving forward with the parking lot that RFTA considered using the community center parking lot as temporary parking as it offered some connectivity. Davis Spare, Crown Mountain planner stated that they understood the dilemma. They were trying to convene a site planning session for Crown Mountain. They were waiting for their design concepts from their traffic engineer. They would be happy to invite RFTA to participate in those conversations. Robert Hubble, CEO of Crawford properties stated that parking was in great demand especially during the ski season. The current park n ride exceeded 150 cars. He supported the idea of shared parking with the community center. Cedar Drive Improvement District Greg Schroeder, Engineering Mr. Schroeder stated that the county had received a petition for formation of a Local Improvement District (LID). The request was for $155,000 that would be paid back over 10 years. He presented the timeline. He explained the Federal Hazard Elimination Grant program process. The grant funds projects to improve the safety of high accident locations. The grant was administered by CDOT. Eagle County applied for the $1.3 million dollar grant, 90% of the improvements would be funded by the grant and 10% would be funded locally. The grant required perpetual maintenance of the improvements. The county required a special, local, or metropolitan improvement district formation. He explained the Federal Hazard Elimination Grant process. He showed a map of the road and explained the current condition of the road. He spoke about the financial impact on the county. The petition was requesting $155,000 for the 28 parcels listed in the petition. The money would be paid to the county in 10 -year assessments of $15,500. The petition received by the board had 17 yes votes and there were still 11 people that had not signed. Carl Hanlan spoke on behalf of the Cedar Drive homeowners. He spoke about the last HOA meeting in early August. There was a limit to the money that could be spent on design. He spoke about the split in the road and the various road standards that would apply. Transaction costs were very different for special districts. Commissioner Fisher opened public comment. Robi Garcy requested that the votes be proportionate to the financial obligation. Bob Meyers believed that the local improvements district was not based upon the number of properties and the number of votes. It was based on the value of the properties. Mr. Hanlan stated that any amendment to the LID would require the board's approval. Jerome Osentowski signed on because he would like to see some improvements to some dangerous areas on the lower road. Robb Janssen wondered if there was damage caused by a rockslide, or mudslide, would the homeowners be responsible for the repairs. Chairman Stavney stated that the LID as it was formed could not fund those repairs and create more of a burden on the homeowners. However, the metro district board could vote to make an assessment. Mr. Hanlan stated that there was a maintenance component. John Katzinburger, 32 -year resident spoke. He sees this as a significant burden and a reduction in his property value. He believed that any fatalities on the road had likely been operator error. He did not believe that making the road wider and smoother might not make it safer. He questioned the county's responsibility for its portion of the road. Mr. Schroeder explained that there were many county roads that were not maintained by Eagle County. As subdivisions are built associations are formed such as metropolitan district, or special districts that take on the maintenance of these roads. Mr. Morris believed it was important to note the difference between the construction of a road and the maintenance of a road. He explained that the county did not build roads. New roads were typically built as a part of a new development and paid for by metropolitan districts. He believed this was one heck of a good deal and the road improvements would benefit everyone living on the road. 13 08/30/2011 Janet Lightfoot stated that they were in the process of finding out the total costs including the application for a variance. Chairman Stavney closed public comment. Chairman Stavney stated that he understood the concerns. He believed this was an important first step. Commissioner Fisher believed this was a stepping- stone. She understood the expense but believed any road improvements would increase the homeowner's property value in the future. It was not feasible for the county to pay for the road improvements. She was proud of the homeowners for stepping up. She encouraged the homeowners to work collaboratively. Commissioner Runyon moved to table the file until September 13, 2011 and direct staff to form a resolution approving the Cedar Drive Local Improvement District and accepting the petition. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before the Board, the mee ` g ' . s adjourned un September 6, 2011. T Attest: ./ u s :fix - -� •� �e Clerk to the Boar. Cha' 14 08/30/2011