No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/10/12 PUBLIC HEARING January 10, 2012 Present: Jon Stavney Chairman Peter Runyon Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Christina Hooper County Attorney Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: 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 January 9, 2012 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. First Amendment to Supplemental Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Gypsum for Prepayment of Water Right Dedication Fees and Water Service Tap Fees for Airport Property County Attorney's Office Representative C. Easement Agreement between Eagle County and the Frank J. Lynch Living Trust and Patricia Lynch Living Trust County Attorney's Office Representative D. Encroachment Easement Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle -Vail Metropolitan District for the Construction and Maintenance of Eagle -Vail Entrance Signs in the County's Right -of -way Taylor Ryan, Engineering Commissioner Fisher asked to speak about item B. Ms. Hooper stated that Bryan Treu was comfortable with the item, but she was not informed. Chairman Stavney spoke about the desire to see the airport grow and add an international terminal at some point in the future. They were pre - paying for some taps to have more autonomy from the Town of Gypsum in the future. Commissioner Fisher added that this would guarantee the price. Mr. Montag provided details of the amount being purchased. This expenditure was included in the 2012 ECAT budget. Taylor Ryan spoke about replacing existing signs to spruce up the neighborhood. Landscaping would take place in the spring. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -D. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Stavney opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. 1 01/10/2012 Commissioner Stavney 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. High Country Pizza, LLC d/b /a Local Joe's Pizza #42- 72643 -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 and proof of server training has been provided. B. Downtown Brown, LLC d/b /a Cafe 163 #15- 75032 -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 and proof of server training has been provided. C. X -Bar Fly, Inc. d/b /a Sato Sushi #04- 33696 -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 and proof of server training has been provided. D. Edwards Station, LLC d/b /a Edwards Station #24- 69488 -0000 This is a renewal of a 3.2% Beer 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 and proof of server training has been provided. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for January 10, 2012 consisting of Items A -D. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Harvey Wang, Inc. DBA: Asian Spice Bistro REPRESENTATIVE: Susan Wang, Owner LOCATION: 69 Edwards Access Road, Unit 6 — Edwards REQUEST: Temporary Permit STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has applied for the transfer of a Hotel and Restaurant liquor license from Asian Spice, Inc. and is requesting a Temporary Permit to allow them to operate during the period in which the application to 2 01/10/2012 transfer ownership of the license is pending. The applicant has submitted all of the required documents and associated fees for the transfer. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The premises where the alcoholic beverages will be sold have been previously licensed by the state and Local Licensing Authorities, and were valid as of the date of receiving the application. 2. The applicant has applied on forms provided by the Department of Revenue and includes the name and address of the applicant, the names and addresses of the president, vice - president, secretary and managing officer, the applicant's financial interest in the proposed transfer, and the premises for which the Temporary Permit is sought. 3. A statement that all accounts for alcohol beverages sold to the applicant are paid has been filed. 4. The application for the Temporary Permit has been filed no later than thirty (30) days after the filing of the application for the transfer of ownership and the appropriate fees have been paid. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. The license would be transferred to a new owner. The sole owner was Susan Wang. Ms. Wang stated that her family had been in the restaurant business for 20 years or so. They were adding a Mongolian grill in addition to traditional Asian fare. They had never had any problem with alcohol service. She described the Mongolian grill configuration. Customers would choose their meat and vegetables prior to presenting them to the chef for preparation. Commissioner Fisher encouraged Ms. Wang to get the employees TIPS trained in the first few days of operation. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the issuance of a Temporary Permit to Harvey Wang, Inc. d/b /a Asian Spice Bistro which will be valid until such time as the application to transfer ownership of the license is granted or denied or for one hundred twenty (120) days, whichever occurs first; except that, if the application to transfer the license has not been granted or denied within the one - hundred - twenty day period and the transferee demonstrates good cause, the local licensing authority may extend the validity of said permit for an additional period not to exceed sixty (60) days. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Colorado Mountain College Foundation, Inc. REQUEST: Special Events Permit EVENT: Jim Calaway Honors Series DATE OF EVENT: January 21, 2012 REPRESENTATIVE: Alice Beauchamp, Event Coordinator LOCATION: Colorado Mountain College 150 Miller Ranch Road, Edwards STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver STAFF CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: 3 01/10/2012 The applicant has requested a permit for an event being held at the CMC Edwards campus on Saturday, January 21, 2011. The campus cafe will cater the event. Complimentary wine will be served from 6:30 — 7:30, however, will not be permitted in the auditorium. The event will be open to all ages. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The applicant has submitted all the required documents and associated fees. 2. Public notice was given by posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises on December 30, 2011, 10 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office. 4. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan, provided proof of server training and properly notified the Eagle County Sheriff's Department per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. Alcohol would be served and it would be complimentary. Alice Beauchamp explained the event details. Chairman Stavney asked questions about control points. Ms. Beauchamp explained the layout. She felt it would not be a problem. Tickets would be sold at the door and in advance. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the special event permit for the Colorado Mountain College Foundation event being held at the CMC Edwards campus on Saturday, January 21, 2012 from 6 — 10:30 p.m. (application hours). Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Vail Valley Foundation DBA: Vilar Center for Arts REPRESENTATIVE: Cecilia Folz, President/CEO LOCATION: 68 Avondale Lane - Avon (Beaver Creek), CO 81620 REQUEST: Transfer of Ownership STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS. / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: Vail Valley Foundation submitted an application to transfer ownership of an Arts Liquor License. The license is currently held by the Vilar Center Arts Foundation & Vail Valley Foundation (joint license). The license is being transferred so it is held ONLY in the name of the Vail Valley Foundation. The applicant is operating under a temporary permit, which expires on January 11, 2012, and requests that the permit be extended 60 days to accommodate review by the state licensing authority. LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the fees have been paid. 4 01/10/2012 • 2. Whether the applicants are of good moral character 3. If applicant plans to make any physical change, alteration or modification of the licensed premises, whether the premises, and if changed, altered or modified, will meet all of the pertinent requirements of the Colorado Liquor or Beer Codes, including, but not limited to the following factors: a. the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants; b. the possession, by the licensee, of the changed premises by ownership, lease, rental or other arrangement; c. compliance with the applicable zoning laws of the county; and d. compliance with the distance prohibition in regard to any public or parochial school. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees have been paid. 2. The state and local licensing authorities have previously licensed the premises where such alcohol beverages will be sold and such licenses were valid at the time the application for transfer of ownership was filed with the local licensing authority. 3. Based on the evidence provided in the CBI report the applicants are reported to be of good moral character. 4. The Affidavit of Transfer and Statement of Compliance has been received. 5. The applicants are over 21 and fingerprints are on file. 6. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, December 30, 2011, 10 days prior to the hearing. 7. Publication is not required for a transfer of ownership. 8. The applicant does not wish to make any physical changes, alterations, or modifications to the licensed premises, which would alter the licensed premises, or the usage of the licensed premises. STAFF CONCLUSION: The applicant has met all the necessary requirements for a transfer of ownership and all findings are positive. DISCUSSION: Chairman Stavney spoke about the parking area. Ms. Scriver explained that the state would not license this area permanently. It could be requested for special events only. Mr. Dunn stated that a temporary modification would also be allowed. Tom Dunn spoke to the board along with Mark Fenstermacher, Vail Valley Foundation Chief Financial Officer. Mr. Dunn explained that this was a simple transaction. All employees were TIPS trained. They asked for the approval of the transfer and a request to extend the temporary permit. 5 01/10/2012 Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority, incorporating staff's findings, approve the transfer of the Arts liquor license from Vilar Center Arts Foundation & Vail Valley Foundation to Vail Valley Foundation d/b /a the Vilar Center for Arts and extend the Temporary Permit, which expires January 11, 2012, an additional sixty (60) days. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. Commissioner Fisher asked about the manager and whether she had been in the position previously. Mr. Dunn indicated this was the case. 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. Mr. Montag proposed taking a few minutes to continue manager update for open space items that weren't covered yesterday. Planning Files PDS -2714 Wolcott PUD Bob Narracci and Sean Hanagan, Planning Department Eva Wilson, Engineering Department Rick Hermes, Jeff Townsend and Rick Pylman; Community Concepts Colorado NOTE: Tabled from 12/13/11 ACTION: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan is for a large scale mixed -use development including a variety of residential single - family, duplex, multi - family, commercial office /retail, industrial, institutional, and community land uses. LOCATION: The Wolcott PUD consists of approximately 373 -acres and is generally centered on the Interstate -70 Wolcott Interchange and the US Highway 6 intersection with US Highway 131. The Wolcott PUD includes lands north and south of Interstate 70 and Highway 6 inclusive of the valley floor. REFERENCE: Staff Report in December 13, 2011 minutes. TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Sean Hanagan and Bob Narracci DATE: January 4, 2012 RE: Wolcott PUD Sketch Plan / Summary of December 13, 2011 BoCC Comments Following is a summary of comments and inquiries made by the Board of County Commissioners during their December 13, 2011 hearing: Chairman Stavney: Regarding the geologic fault on the south side of Interstate -70; does it extend under the highway onto the valley floor? It does not. Will the Colorado Division of Wildlife be providing an updated letter reflective of discussions and agreements made with the applicant? Staff will contact the local CDOW representative again to procure a letter as such. 6 01/10/2012. Linn Brooks: If approved, the development will need to maintain a pace of between 20 to 40 tap fees per year to be able to service the bond debt. ERW &SD has been proactive in preparing for future development of Wolcott. The District has acquired ownership of property in Wolcott where the future water and wastewater treatment plants will be erected. The water tank, which was constructed as a result of the Vines at Vail PUD, has the capacity to serve approximately 400 single family equivalents. The tank is situated on BLM property immediately north and above the Vines at Vail property. It is the District's intent to construct an additional tank in the same location as the existing tank. Commissioner Stavney: Requested a copy of Eagle River Water and Sanitation District's development scale and cost memorandum for the Wolcott vicinity. If Linn can update the information first, that would be ideal. The proposal includes many desirable amenities; what is the assurance that all amenities proposed with this development will actually be installed and maintained in perpetuity? Will Wolcott provide the critical mass necessary to support the proposed 25,000 sq. ft. grocery store? Commissioner Runyon: Requested an overall site plan/development plan which depicts structure footprints on all of the proposed lots. The site plan should also clearly depict the BLM parcel on which the US Post Office is located. Would like to see (clarification) the George Jouflas riverfront parcel that is presently outside of the proposed PUD boundary negotiated into the PUD and/or a commitment from the George Jouflas family to include said parcel into the proposed Conservation Easement. Chairman Stavney: Similar to Commissioner Runyon's request; please provide visual representations of density for each of the proposed residential and commercial product types using either photos of existing development elsewhere or detailed graphics. Commissioner Fisher: A school site or sites is notably absent from the proposal as are day care and preschool facilities. "Walkability" includes resident children being able to walk to school. Chairman Stavney: Has Hennes talked to the VVMC about viable potential for a medical center /facility in Wolcott? Please renew discussions with VVMC. Commissioner Fisher: Many Bellyache Ridge residents moved to that area expressly due to the fact that they wanted to get away from urban-like amenities such as gas stations, grocery stores and other commercial development. As such, it is difficult to say that there is an existing unmet "need" in Wolcott. Commissioner Runyon: This proposal endeavors to focus on a new, more modest demographic in the Eagle Valley. There are already approximately 18,000 by -right developable lots and parcels on the books. What if Traer Creek or Eagle Ranch, for example, starts to compete for the same demographic? What effect would that have on the proposed development? Regardless of how one dices up the 18,000 by -right developable lots /parcels, the bottom line is that this proposed PUD will add more units into the mix. Requested an analysis of proposed unit sizes, price points, etc. including a breakdown of income necessary to purchase each product type. This type of development may also appeal to retirees looking to downsize and second homeowners. 7 01/10/2012 Commissioner Fisher: Requested that the developer provide copies of both the Lex Ivey analysis, as well as, Hermes market and needs analysis. All Commissioners: Please provide any new information at least one week in advance of the next scheduled hearing so that they will have adequate time to review and digest the information prior to the hearing. Per Staff's suggestion, future hearings will progress through the list of discussion topics as time permits. Each topic will be `checked -off the list as we go. This is in lieu of assigning specific discussion topics to specific hearing dates. The Board determined that the next few `heavy- lifting' hearings are to occur during normal BoCC Hearing hours. Once the hearing process reaches the point where the Board is starting to formulate a firm direction and prior to discussing conditions of approval, as may be applicable, that they will again host evening hearing(s) to enable interested public to more easily attend and participate in the hearing process. Application was tabled to January 10, 2012 at 1:00 p.m. DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan presented the file. He reviewed the history and added some details for the hearing schedule for the meeting. Chairman Stavney summarized that the Division of Wildlife was primarily concerned with Riparian habitat, wildlife corridors and the addition of humans to an area where there were very few previously. The scope changed when the project did not cross the Eagle River. Commissioner Runyon spoke about the realignment of Highway 6 and it being a double barrier for the animals. Craig Westcoatt, Colorado Division of Wildlife representative added that the current alignment of Hwy 6 allowed for public views and the proposed highway relocation was a slight loss of public benefit. However, limited public fishing at the east end was a net gain to public benefit. Commissioner Runyon spoke about the market analysis and the overall growth scenario within Eagle County for the long term related to quality of life, traffic density etc. He argued that as an investor he'd want discussion on these topics. As he reviewed the pie chart there appeared to be a lot of housing available for locals. He believed there were over 2000 units in Traer Creek that were not added in and 1700 units in Battle Mountain as well. The reason these were excluded was that they were not yet platted; however, they could provide potential competition to the Wolcott development. Rick Hermes spoke about the competition and explained that those developments were not included because they were primarily multi - family units. Their financial basis was not built around the multi - family sites. If he focused on why he was here, Eagle County just completed a community plan, which included years of input. He believed they would be offering permanence to that vision in a respectful and transparent way. They were also creating jobs. • Commissioner Runyon spoke about the other proposed developments in Eagle County. Commissioner Runyon believed there were some positive aspects. However, arguably during the enthusiasm Cordillera was having a difficult time selling. He wondered if Wolcott was too distant from the resort community. Mr. Hermes believed there was a demand for development in the Wolcott area. Commissioner Runyon asked about the upfront infrastructure expenses and wondered if they'd considered a phasing model. Mr. Hermes stated that they had and would be providing more information on that subject today. Commissioner Fisher believed the plan was interesting but demographics indicated that there would never be growth at the rate it had been in previous years. She wondered about the number of units already on the market. She was challenged with building additional inventory when there was so much existing uninhabited inventory. Mr. Hermes believed that if there wasn't relevant inventory in the market, the county would be behind the curve. They were building similar product in other areas in the country and they see it work. He believed that now 8 01/10/2012 was the time to plan for the future. He did not expect to have sellable product tomorrow but believed that in four years there would be a demand for what they had to offer. Mr. Hermes shifted the conversation and explained what was required for incorporation. Wolcott did not and could not meet those requirements at this time. In the future, the decision to incorporate would be up to the residents. He spoke about the net revenue versus expenditure and based on their analysis their general operating fund would be net revenue. From their perspective, Eagle County would benefit. Jeff Townsend, Land Planner explained that they were trying not to overdue the amenities and put in such burdensome amenities that there would be additional costs that could not be covered. As they continue to shape the plan that basis would always part of the design criteria. Chairman Stavney asked about the financial structure and wondered if it was enough to keep up the amenities and do the things they need to do within the development. Mr. Hermes stated that they compared their development to Eagle Ranch. He believed there would need to be adjustments moving forward. Mr. Townsend believed there were lessons to be learned from some of the other areas within Eagle County. He understood some of the criticism that the board took for supporting unincorporated areas with taxpayer dollars. Their desire was to structure the governance and financial package so they don't become a burden to Eagle County. Commissioner Runyon asked the population requirement to apply for a town. Mr. Hermes stated it was 50 registered electors per square mile. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the board could approve a number. Mr. Morris stated that Wolcott was not eligible to incorporate and there was no way for the board to require that they incorporate at any given time. Incorporation of a town was complicated and almost impossible to prejudge. Commissioner Runyon understood it was difficult to make a blanket statement and a lot would depend on what percentage were second homeowners. Commissioner Fisher asked how many jobs the development might create. Mr. Hermes estimated there would be about the 1600 jobs created and after construction, 819 with a population of 1875 based on 2.75 per household. Commissioner Fisher was challenged with the existing vacant storefronts today. She liked the idea of a walkable community, however it was detached from the rest of the community and she believed it would still be auto central. She did not believe the commercial component was enough to support the development. Chairman Stavney spoke about the underutilized commercial property currently in Eagle Ranch. Mr. Hermes stated that they studied this concept. He believed they understood the basic rules to make this concept successful. The people that live in the development would benefit from the people that were going up and down the interstate. Commissioner Fisher believed that retail meant lower paying jobs. She wondered where those employees would live. She believed the working class was being pushed further down the valley. Any construction jobs would be temporary. She believed slow growth was more sustainable and made better sense. Mr. Hermes stated that their intent was not to bring in just retail jobs. Commissioner Runyon believed that health growth rate for a community was about 3 %. In terms of dwelling units, it was about 750 units a year. Mr. Hermes believed there was an appropriate place to do things in the county. They have adjusted their plan so it would be healthy, sustainable, and a real model for what Eagle County should be approving. He did not believe his company should be asked to wait. Commissioner Runyon expressed concern for the other proposed developments doubling the amount of the dwelling units in the county. Almost 50% of the dwelling units in the county were second homes. Mr. Hermes did not believe they were adding to the number. He believed the number was overstated based on what was reality. The focus should be on those areas where development made the most sense. He believed it was still important to continue planning because he expected things to improve. Mr. Townsend believed that Singletree was a good example. He spoke about the various phases of the development. Chairman Stavney spoke about the build out analysis. He believed that the real debate was whether a new development in a new place in the valley was a good idea and if there was a carrying capacity of population in the valley that could drop the quality of life. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the Ginn property and the challenge with Eagle River Station. It adjoined an already existing community. She stated that this would be totally the county's responsibility as it 9 01/10/2012 would be unincorporated. They want sustainable and well managed, controlled growth making it one community from one end to the other. She believed the development should be part of municipal boundaries. Commissioner Runyon added that one of the things the board was concerned about was the number of approved buildable lots. Any approval would have to include some sort of phasing as things may change in the future. He would require a time limitation. Mr. Hermes stated that they could make the mistake of going too far. The Wolcott community plan was completed in 2009. Commissioner Fisher indicated that most of the work was done before that time however. Commissioner Runyon indicated that option A was a minimal amount of commercial and option B was more like what the developer was proposing. Chairman Stavney spoke about the size of the development and the size needed to pay for the infrastructure. Mr. Townsend detailed the construction phasing. Commissioner Runyon asked about phase three and four and whether they would tap into the water source being created. Mr. Hermes spoke about moving Hwy 6 and the related infrastructure. The portion of the plan that ran North / South gave a good sampling of product. There was a broader range of product on the valley floor this allowed them to get the utilities down the new Hwy 6 location and to the riverfront lots. Mr. Townsend stated that phase 2 would include infrastructure on the valley floor and the ranches, phase 3 was Timbermill and phase 4, Pioneer Park. Mr. Hermes spoke about the promenade section and getting that started for the community. Mr. Townsend spoke about metropolitan districts and the responsibilities. The plan was to divide Wolcott into multiple metro districts. Responsibilities would include maintenance of public facilities, parks, and trails. There would also be homeowner's associations for each neighborhood. Commissioner Fisher asked about the exclusion of maintenance of the ECO trail. Mr. Townsend added that it was his understanding that the trails would be built by them, but the maintenance would be the county's responsibility. They were proposing to re- located Highway 6 and that process was happening at this time as well. CDOT and Eagle County staff was working together through the formal processes required. Engineering comments had been focused on traffic. Commissioner Runyon asked about the wildlife concerns. Mr. Townsend believed that the concerns were related to the wildlife exit ramp locations relative to relocated Hwy 6. DOW asked that the developer continue to work with them to avoid animals being routed onto Hwy 6. He showed the location of emergency services and urgent care. He stated that they had a discussion about identifying what ECO transit would like to see. There was an existing gravel lot and the Planning Commission asked them to look at combining this lot with the transportation center to create a larger facility. Mr. Hermes spoke about duplicity in parking with new and existing areas. Mr. Townsend stated that the dividing line for fire service ran through the middle of Wolcott. Mr. Tom Wagenlander, with Greater Eagle Fire Protection District, stated that there were discussions in the works for this area, but a cooperative situation had not yet been determined. Mr. Townsend spoke about connectivity and the walkability circle and showed other details of amenities. He clarified that bike lanes provided were not the same as the regional bike trails. He summarized that the community would be a transit- oriented community. The Planning Commission requested two bus stops. Chairman Stavney spoke about the walkability circle. Commissioner Fisher wondered if the developer had spoken to the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation. Mr. Hermes indicated that he had not done so yet, but planned to do so. Mr. Townsend showed a map of their development with an overlay of the county's Future Land Use map. The map allowed for single family and duplex units. Mr. Hermes provided details of the type of character, scenic corridors and open space. The community plan did not address the southern hillside. They believed they could satisfy all concerns for development in this area. Design guidelines would be important to blend in with Cordillera and Red Sky Ranch style. Mr. Townsend stated that they had several conversations with the Colorado Geographic Survey. They had a meeting on August 25, 2011. During this meeting, it was determined that the site plan avoided specific areas of concern. The Division of Wildlife has been very involved in discussions about the development on the valley floor and southern hillside. They initially had 17 specific concerns and the developers were able to satisfy 16. The last concern was overall mitigation related to the southern hillside and the department came up with four possible 10 01/10/2012 mitigation strategies, which included a Wolcott wildlife mitigation trust fund, focusing mitigation on open lands within the PUD, exploring mitigation opportunities in conjunction with the DOW, and exploring mitigation opportunities in conjunction with BLM and DOW on public lands. He spoke about the housing requirements. The guidelines were in the process of being revised. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the mills that the metro districts might apply. She asked that in the next meeting the developers would break out these mills along with an estimate of the tax encumbrance. Mr. Hermes asked for board feedback related to the rental market. Commissioner Fisher asked about restrictions on for rent or permanent residence options only. Mr. Townsend presented the school plan. They met with the school district and learned that even at full build out, a neighborhood school would not be supported. Whether there was a public or private school was a question. . Mr. Hermes showed several possible locations for a school They liked the idea of a school on the valley floor. Commissioner Fisher wondered about what type of school ,At some point 'in time if it was 'not —12 school, the children would be commuting out on a daily basis ... Mr. Hermes stated that they had about 2.3 acres available. The Eagle Valley Charter Academy was about 2 acres. The Vail Academy was 1.1 acres. Red Sandstone Elementary was'3.6 acres. Commissioner Fisher wondered who would populate the school in a community, which was separate from the other facilities in the valley. To sell it as a walkable community and then require people to bus or drive to most schools did not make good sense. She wondered who would pay for it. Chairman Stavney spoke about a walkable community and the fact that this did not mean everything was available in the neighborhood. He even wondered about the grocery store. The school district would have to weigh in. He thought leaving school for a Montessori school was a separate issue than providing school space for the school district. Mr. Hermes spoke about being careful to consider the future as well. He wondered about some sort of multiple zoning. Commissioner Runyon wondered about the percentage of families who would have school aged children. He suggested looking at these numbers. Mr. Pylman spoke about the school district's student generation formula, which was a fairly general calculation. Commissioner Fisher added that serviceability by school buses was a consideration. She was interested in learning how this would work. Mr. Townsend spoke about the list of conditions from the Planning Commission. Chairman Stavney suggested starting the next meeting with the conditions. Commissioner Runyon spoke about the valley floor and wondered if there could be any sort of white stakes to delineate the downtown area. Mr. Hermes suggested looking at the site together. Commissioner Runyon asked for a panorama view of approximately what would be anticipated. He wanted to see the massing. Mr. Hermes stated that there were stakes near the post office currently. Commissioner Fisher agreed that a site visit would be advisable. She was also concerned about the noise in the area. She wondered how development in Wolcott would increase this issue. Mr. Hermes stated that sound that rises was far worse than when a development was above the highway. Chairman Stavney suggested a site visit on January 31 at 12:30 and starting the public hearing at 1:30. Commissioner Fisher wondered when the financial reality discussions would occur. She was concerned about an unknown developer who was not interested in community to the same degree. Mr. Hermes indicated that there would be many benchmarks prior to final PUD approval. Chairman Stavney stated that the line had been blurred between sketch and preliminary plan. The question was really, what the proper land use was. Commissioner Runyon understood that there were specific time limits. He was worried about developers getting long -term approvals, and then sitting on the property and doing nothing until the market improved. Mr. Hermes indicated that this development was not intended to be flipped. It was the future of his company and many other companies in the county. They had put many years of thought into this project. Commissioner Fisher appreciated the conversations. 11 01/10/2012 Commissioner Runyon spoke about the fact that anything could happen. He repeated that the contract needed to be solid to protect the county for all contingencies. Commissioner Fisher moved to table file no. PDS -2714 Wolcott PUD until January 31, 2012. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before t. : ._ e meeting was adjoume - • . uary 17, 2012. of co Attest 4ilikt _ _ �. — � ' Clerk to the B' O rd o ' g o o Chairman V?«1 • • � �7 12 01/10/2012