No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/21/12 PUBLIC HEARING February 21, 2012 Present: Peter Runyon Chairman Jon Stavney Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Diane Mauriello 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 Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of February 20, 2012 (subject to reviewed by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle County Commissioner Meetings for January 10, 2012 and January 17, 2012 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder C. Resolution 2012 -012 Authorizing the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder to Conduct the June 26, 2012 . Election by Mail Ballot, in Accordance with C.R.S. 1 -7.5 -101 et seq., The "Mail Ballot Election Act" Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder D. Resolution 2012 -013 Concerning Assessor Generated Petitions for Abatement and Refunds of Taxes Assessor's Office Representative E. Resolution 2012 -014 Concerning the Abatement Settlement Recommendation of the Eagle County Assessor's Office Assessor's Office Representative F. Resolution 2012 -015 Concerning Appointments to the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority Board ECO Transit Representative G. Colorado Discretionary Aviation Grant Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado Department of Transportation Aeronautics Division Rick Ullom, Project Management H. Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Pitkin County for the 2011 -2014 Season of Snow Removal in the Frying Pan Valley Gordon Adams, Road & Bridge I. 5309 State of Good Repair Grant between the State of Colorado and Eagle County ECO Transit Representative J. Master Agreement for Professional Engineering Services between Eagle County and KRW Consulting, Inc. for the Eagle County Landfill Ken Whitehead, Solid Waste and Recycling 1 02/21/2012 K. Quit Claim Deed for a portion of Eagle Street to the Town of Gypsum County Attorney's Office Representative L. Agreement between the State of Colorado Department of Local Affairs and Eagle County for the Eagle County Stone Creek Project, Floodplain Assistance Program Greg Schroeder, Engineering M. Colorado health Foundation Grant for Funding and Installation of Computer Access to Online Application Process for Medicaid Nola Nicholson, Health & Human Services Nola Nicholson explained the details of the grant received for computer access to online applications to process Medicaid. Ms. Simonton explained the basis for the Primary Election format by mail. The process would save the county money in the administration of the election. Mr. Montag spoke about Item L, the Stone Creek flood plain project in Eagle Vail. The full amount of the project was $240,000, however Eagle County was contributing $30,000 from the CIP budget and the Eagle Vail Property Owners would match that amount. Kelley Collier spoke about the bus stop and shelter refurbishment grant received. The grant allowed local matches and would greatly leverage the amount of repairs possible. 10 shelters would be completely replaced. 30 bus stops would get some significant improvements including ADA accessibility and lighting. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A - M. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Whitehead explained the agreement with KRW Consulting for the Eagle County Landfill. Mr. Rick Ullom spoke about the Aviation Grant. The overall project covered 6 years. It would remove and replace the majority of the airport parking area for airplanes. Greg Phillips spoke about the commercial apron. It would be replaced with concrete and with a more tested material base. The lifecycle was around 50 years. Chairman Runyon wondered if it would be thicker in the future allowing 767 airplanes to land. Mr. Phillips indicated that the load bearing capacity would increase to be able to handle about a 260,000 pound aircraft. Citizen Input Chairman Runyon opened public comment. John Rosenfeld from Minturn asked that the board re -open the boneyard parcel using Open Space funds. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the Battle Mountain deal and the Forest Service discussions. In 2011, OSAC had been made aware of this. The main hang -up was that it was a large contribution from the fund for a small parcel. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the Town of Minturn should be able to contribute due to recent successful negotiations with the Battle Mountain property owner. Chairman Runyon agreed that the county should take another look at it. Mr. Rosenfeld invited the board to speak to the Minturn Town Council about the Eagle Valley Land Exchange on March 7, 2012. 2 02/21/2012 Resolution 2012 -016 Ordering the Cancellation of Certain Uncollectible Property Taxes Treasurer's Office Representative Karen Sheaffer, County Treasurer presented the information. Commissioner Fisher stated that it was a small amount of money and it said a lot for the staff in the Treasurer's office to figure out how to collect almost all taxes due and overdue. The personal property tax total was around $4,481.00 and they did not have an overall total, but believed it was around $1,500.00. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve the resolution ordering the cancellation of certain uncollectible property taxes. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Contract Agreement with Snugg Home LLC for Data Management System for Energy Smart Program Adam Palmer, Planning Mr. Palmer explained the request. It was a technology license and service agreement to provide a data management system for the Energy Smart program. It is a Colorado based company out of Boulder. The management system would provide a web portal for the public to perform a self - assessment on their property. Commissioner Stavney stated that he was amazed at the amount of staff time has been used to do what this data management system would do with the approval of this contract. Commissioner Stavney stated that this was for three counties and would be paid for by a Federal Grant, with no county fiscal obligation. Chairman Runyon stated that he had taken advantage of the program himself. He encouraged others to take advantage as well. Mr. Palmer stated that the public could call 328 -8777 or sign on to the website. There was a free radon test available as well. There would be savings in staff time. It will help the in -home inspectors with filling out required forms. Commissioner Stavney asked about an annual report. Mr. Palmer indicated there would be a presentation to the board in the future. Commissioner Fisher asked about Snugg and their reputation. She asked for their contact information. Mr. Palmer indicated that it was a good firm with a good reputation. Christina Hooper, County Attorney's representative stated that it was a Colorado entity with a registered agent through the Secretary of State's office. Mr. Palmer stated that he felt confident moving forward. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the contract agreement with Snugg Home, LLC for Data Management System for Energy Smart Program. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files LUR -3398 Eagle County Land Use Vesting Regulation Amendments Bob Narracci, Planning NOTE: Tabled from 1/17/12 3 02/21/2012 ACTION: Multiple amendments proposed with intent to provide greater clarity; to eliminate unnecessary regulation; to provide greater flexibility for the elected officials; and to bring Eagle County's Vesting Allowances into conformance with the minimum requirement of Colorado State Stature for PUD Preliminary Plans, Subdivision Preliminary Plans and Special Use Permits. LOCATION: Unincorporated Eagle County FILE NO./PROCESS: LUR -3398 / Land Use Regulation Amendments PROJECT NAME: Multiple Land Use Amendments LOCATION: All unincorporated lands of Eagle County OWNER: Not Applicable APPLICANT: Eagle County REPRESENTATIVE: Staff 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: This application proposes to amend the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as follows: 1) Revise inconsistent language in various sections of the land use regulations relating to findings on compatibility of proposed development with the Comprehensive Plan, Specialty Plans and Future Land Use Maps; 2) Clarification that mailed and posted notice of comprehensive planning document amendments or updates is not required. Legal published notice is required. 3) Elimination of language which prevents the Planning Commission or the Board of County Commissioners from tabling land use applications for a period of time exceeding six months, either cumulatively or one time. 4) Revise inconsistent language in various sections of the regulations relating to Board of County Commissioners consideration of neighboring land uses when evaluating proposed new zone districts, subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments and Special Use Permits to allow the Board to take into account both currently existing land uses, as well as, permissible future uses on both adjacent and non - adjacent but impacted properties; 5) Clarification that Home Owners Associations or Property Owner Associations may apply for Planned Unit Development amendments on behalf of all individual property owners of the lands subject to the Planned Unit Development. 6) Revise the land use regulations to match the vesting requirements of state law (C.R.S. 24 -68 -104). Multi- phase developments will be addressed by specifically conditioning extension beyond the minimum vesting period on a case -by -case and tying vesting to specific development phases, dates and periods of time. State Statute requires a minimum 3 -year vesting period from the point when a site specific development plan is approved. In unincorporated Eagle County, site specific development plans include Preliminary Plans for PUD, Preliminary Plans for Subdivision, and Special Use Permits; 7) To enable the Board of County Commissioners to grant variations to dimensional limitations and site development standards via the Special Use Permit process. 8) Revise the land use regulations to require that all subdivision plat and subdivision exemption survey applications include a Computer Printout of Parcel Summaries. 9) Revise the Subdivision Exemption portion of the land use regulations to bring it into conformance with Senate Bill 35, which took effect on May 5, 1972. 10) To revise the land use regulations, Chapter I through Chapter VI inclusive, to replace all references to the `Community Development Director' with `Planning Director'. 11) Other general editing of regulatory language intended to provide clarity. 4 02/21/2012 B. PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: Eagle County Planning Commission: Prior to their unanimous vote of approval, the ECPC offered the following comments: 1) Amend the draft regulations to require Planning Commission review and recommendation on any variations to dimensional limitations or site development standards requested by an applicant f Special Use Permit. This language has been incorporated into the draft regulations on Page 43. 2) Amend the draft regulations to clarify that the time limits for installing the infrastructure for Phase 1 of a multi -phase development should be the same as for a single -phase subdivision. This language has been incorporated into the draft regulations. For PUD Preliminary Plan (Pages 36 and 37); Pr Preliminary Plan for Subdivision (Pages 63 and 64), and; for Final Plat for PUD or Subdivision Final Plat (Pages 68 and 69) The ECPC requested that when Preliminary Plans for Subdivision are allowed to expire that a regulatory provision be included which will revert the governing zone district back to the original designation, as applicable. The land use regulations already do require that when a PUD Preliminary Plan expires that the county take the necessary steps to rezone the subject property back to its original zoning prior to PUD approval. The land use regulations are silent to reverting back to the original zone district whenever a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision expires which was granted based upon a standard zone district. This particular amendment will need to be processed separately as it represents a departure from the amendment package in front of BoCC today. Although not part of this land use regulation amendment proposal, the ECPC discussion centered largely on the effectiveness of the Sketch Plan processes, both PUD Sketch Plan and Subdivision Sketch Plan; the concern set forth in the attached Mauriello Planning Group, LLC's referral response questions the effectiveness of the county's Sketch Plan procedures. Over time, Sketch Plan applications have evolved to the point where more and more information is requested of the applicant before the Planning Commissioners or the Board of County Commissioners feels comfortable making a final decision. This additional information is often costly for the applicants to produce and tends to extend the length of time necessary to navigate through the Sketch Plan process. Moreover, the type of detailed information being requested through the Sketch Plan process is more appropriate at the Preliminary Plan stage of the development review process. To this end, the ECPC directed staff to reevaluate the regulatory requirements for a Sketch Plan and amend accordingly to delineate a more clear distinction between Sketch Plan expectations versus Preliminary Plan expectations. A future amendment package will be processed accordingly. Also, in response to the Mauriello Planning Group, LLC's referral response; the ECPC discussed the validity of allowing all regular and alternate Planning Commission members to participate in the discussion, but no more than seven voting members act on any given land use application. The ECPC concluded that having additional perspective and input from all members of the commission provides for a better- rounded, thoroughly vetted recommendation. The extra time added to allow ECPC members to participate is inconsequential to the overall process time. Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission: Prior to their unanimous vote of approval, the RFVRPC discussion was essentially in lock -step with the Eagle County Planning Commission regarding the two above referenced adjustments to the draft language. 5 02/21/2012 The RFVRPC also concurs with the ECPC regarding the Sketch Plan process and the fact that it has evolved over time into a very detailed evaluation process that it was never intended to be. They also want to see further amendment to the regulations to delineate a more clear distinction between the Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan procedures and application requirements. Commissioner Ken Ransford added that perhaps the specific requirements for a given Sketch Plan application can be customized based upon the location of the subject property and what is being proposed. Commissioner Kelly McKenney would also like to see timeframe parameters established for when the second half of the infrastructure necessary to vest a single -phase subdivision has to be installed. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5 -230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official Zone District Map Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, or to confer special privileges or rights on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments in light of changed conditions. Standards: Section 5- 230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed unless in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the County and neighboring lands. In making such a determination, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. There are no specific standards directly applicable for changing the text of the Land Use Regulations. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.04 Referrals, the proposed amendments have been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs; Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Public notice has been given; Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5- 230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. The amendments are specific to: i. Chapters I through Chapter VI, the ECLUR in its entirety to replace reference to `Community Development Director' with `Planning Director'. ii. Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 5 -210 Provisions of General Applicability iii. Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 5 -230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or the Official Zone District Map, iv. Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 5 -240 Planned Unit Development (PUD) District, v. Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 5 -250 Special Uses, vi. Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 5 -270 Subdivision Exemption, 6 02/21/2012 vii. Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 5 -280 Subdivision viii.Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 5 -290 Minor Subdivision ix.Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 5 -295 Conservation Subdivision x.Chapter 2, Article 5, Section 5 -2500 Vested Property Rights b. Precise wording of the proposed changes has been provided (please see attached). Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5- 230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations, as applicable. STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5- 230.D.1] Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but not necessarily limited to the following: Section 3.2 General Development Policies a, c, e, f, g, h, i and k Section 3.3 Economic Resources Policies b, c, d, e, f, h, j, m and o Section 3.4 Housing Policies a, d, e, g and n Section 3.5 Infrastructure and Services Policies a, c, g, i j, k, m and o Section 3.6 Water Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f, g, h and i Section 3.7 Wildlife Resources Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i Section 3.8 Sensitive Lands Policies a, c, e and g Section 3.9 Environmental Quality Policies a, c and d Section 3.10 Future Land Use Map Policy a Section 4 Adopted Area Community Plans All relevant goals, policies and FLUM designations Additionally, all relevant goals & policies of the following plans or such equivalent plans and/or future plans which may be in effect at the time of application for zone change: Eagle County Open Space Plan Eagle River Watershed Plan Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan Eagle County Trails Plan (Roaring Fork) Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan Eagle County Airport Sub -Area Master Plan Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is not applicable. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5- 230.D.2J Does the proposal provide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. The issue of compatibility does not directly pertain to this proposal. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 7 02/21/2012 DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5- 230.D.3] Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing; childcare facilities; multi- modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvements; preservation of agriculture /sensitive lands. The proposed amendments will not directly provide a public benefit; however, will benefit the public, and officials elected by the public by ensuring that newly approved land use development occurs in a timely manner following its approval. Approved, but unconstructed developable density will not continue to accrue over time creating uncertainty about future build out of the county. Y . Y EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5- 230.D.4] Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Conditions have changed such that the proposed amendments are necessitated due to population growth and development pressure and it has been determined that the proposed amendments are necessary for the following reasons: The proposed amendments will provide development vesting consistent with Colorado Revised Statutes unless extended at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. Developments granted approvals are currently vested by Eagle County for a longer period of time than state statute requires. The proposed amendments will make findings relative to comprehensive plan conformance and compatibility consistent throughout all land use procedures. The proposed amendments will codify the Board of County Commissioner's ability to grant variations to dimensional limitations and site development standards via the Special Use Permit process. Greater accuracy in subdivision plats will be realized by requiring a Computer Printout of Parcel Summaries with all subdivision and subdivision exemption applications. This information provides parcel closure data (legal descriptions for lots, blocks, tracts and subdivisions are required to start at a specific point, describe the perimeter and end at the same precise point at which the legal description started, within minimum statutory tolerances). EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5- 230.D.5] Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public use facilities? These proposed amendments will not result in the need for new infrastructure. 8 02/21/2012 EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: • Eagle County Attorney's Office — The language set forth in the Draft proposed regulatory language has been thoroughly reviewed and edited by the County's Attorney's Office. • Eagle County Engineering Department — The Engineering Department requested that the two proposed references regarding a computer printout of Parcel Summaries be worded as follows: "a computer printout, in text format, of Parcel Summaries shall be provided, including lot closure analyses, block closure analyses, and other appurtenant information ". This change has been incorporated into the draft regulations. • Mauriello Planning Group, LLC — Please refer to the attached e-mail responses dated September 26, 2011 and October 10, 2011. Following are the comments provided: 1. The change allowing continuances seems appropriate and I am glad to see you changing that back to the way it was a few years ago. 2. With respect to zone changes and amendments to the text of the regulations we offer the following: a. The zoning map maintained by the County is not a survey document but yet the regulations require a Boundary Survey for a property being considered for a rezoning. In most cases this is maybe not a big deal but it can be an expense element. Would a legal description, parcel number, plat, or other documentation be suitable? b. The regulations reference a "Engineering Geology Report/Geotechnical Study." What does that mean? The word "engineering" causes the confusion. 3. Sketch Plan for PUD. I struggle with the point of having a Sketch Plan process. It doesn't vest anything, has an expiration, and is an expensive process. Maybe a Sketch Plan process should be voluntary and not a requirement. If it doesn't vest anything, why does it expire so quickly? 4. Preliminary Plan, length of approval. The PUD process is an expensive process that can take many years to complete. The three year approval period is very limiting especially given the current economic climate in this country. Having a longer approval period allows a land owner limited but adequate time to move forward with a project in a reasonable way. I would encourage you to maintain the five years to allow projects to begin once the economy turns around. 5. Special Use Permits. We believe the new section on variations is a very positive amendment. This has been the process in the past and agree that it should be documented. 6. PC Format: I have had concerns about the Sketch Plan process and the current format of the Planning Commission (PC) meetings for some time. Let me start first with my comments about the format. In recent years the PC has grown in membership from 7 members to what seems like 12. If I remember the process correctly over the past 15 years, the PC was a Commission of 7 members and alternates were used when there might be a problem obtaining a quorum. This seems to have grown into having all members and all alternates "seated" as voting (or commenting) members no matter how many regular members of the Commission are going to be present. This seems to be very unwieldy and I believe complicates the process and reduces consistency on the Commission. The direction given from meeting to meeting can change and knowing who is going to vote and what the PC issues are is unpredictable at best. Like any group, the more people that are sitting at the table the longer and more complicated it becomes to reach any sort of agreement. 9 02/21/2012 I would recommend that you go back to the old way of doing this whereby the County only has an alternate "seated" when there is a problem with a quorum or perhaps if a regular member is not going to be able to attend a series of hearings you have an alternate "seated" despite having a quorum. If a regular member is going to be out for a substantial portion of the hearing process, perhaps they allow the alternate to complete the process on that file. If alternates are interested and curious about the file or want to be up to speed should the time come, they can attend the meeting and sit in the audience but not participate in the PC discussion. I guess this might be an alternative to listening or viewing the recorded version of the hearing. Going back to the way the meetings used to be run should make the process run more smoothly for everyone involved, including the PC itself. 7. Sketch Plan Process: So back to Sketch Plan. The Sketch Plan process is one that is not vested yet is required as part of the review process. I believe the intent of the review process was for the PC and BOCC to have an opportunity to review an initial project concept whereby staff and each Commission identifies the larger issues that the applicant should be prepared to address at Preliminary Plan. It is a chance to look at a project from 20,000' and look at things like density, environmental issues (based on the County's mapping and other documented issues; hazards, wildlife mapping , etc.), land use, zoning, neighbor concerns, etc. While the application is voted on, the vote is really intended as a process whereby the issues and concerns are delivered to the applicant. What this process has turned into is a detailed review of a project and takes months /years to complete with a level of information that goes way beyond the original intent. I guess it might be different if you were vesting the approval, but you are not. I think part of the problem is over time the County has allowed the process to get more and more detailed and allowed the PC and the BOCC to demand more and more detailed information of the applicant. I believe one of the provisions in the application for a Sketch Plan is that the PC or the BOCC can require whatever it believes is necessary in the review process, many times asking for information that should be left for preliminary plan. I would recommend that the County go back to the original intent of the Sketch Plan process. I believe the code should be very clear about what information should be provided by the applicant and remove the "anything the PC deems necessary." You force the review to be conceptual and the County and the applicant to rely on the planning documents that you have either in the comprehensive plan or local area plans and zoning. The County and state agencies have a significant amount of information already mapped and these should aid in the review. For example, at Sketch Plan you don't need a detailed wetland delineation. You have other resources and mapping to give you a hint that wetlands might be an issue and when the applicant comes back at preliminary, they know they have to deal with wetlands. 8. Sketch Plan Approval Expiration: Additionally, since a Sketch Plan review is not vested, allow it to have a longer life. The proposed two years was probably fine in 2006 when development was proceeding quickly but in this day and age I think it is going to be much more difficult to move from Sketch Plan to preliminary plan. It is going to take time to get investors and financing lined up and two years is a very short window. I would propose that you allow a Sketch Plan review to be valid for 4 years. I think we should embrace that it takes longer to do things in this economy and we need to be mindful of this reality. Harry Frampton said it very directly the other night at the Town of Vail. We need to stop thinking like this is 2006. It is a different world now and it could be decades before the world changes back, if it ever does. 10 02/21/2012 9. Preliminary Plan Vesting: I think you are going in the wrong direction on vesting of the Preliminary Plan as well. At a minimum the code should allow for 5 years for the same reasons stated previously. The world is a different place and your process is an expensive one. You should also allow for a negotiated vesting process for large projects. Five years may not work for everyone especially the larger well planned projects. • Stan Clauson Associates, Inc — In the attached email dated August 27, 2011, Mr. Clauson indicates support for clarifying that HOA's can represent all individual property owners. • Town of Basalt — In the attached letter dated September 26, 2011, the Town offers the following comments and recommendations: 1. The Town supports the proposed changes in vesting with ability of BoCC to negotiate expiration periods for multi -phase developments. The Town further suggests that vesting for Preliminary Plans be even further limited than proposed. Please note that the proposed vesting regulations are consistent with the minimum requirements of State Statute. 2. The Town supports the proposed vesting language which would require that Final Subdivision Plats be submitted to the county within one year following Preliminary Plan approval. 3. The Town recommends that the county consider requiring financial security for the entire project to ensure that all approved lots in a subdivision are served by necessary public improvements. The Town supports expediting the time period in which projects have to commence construction following Preliminary Plan approval to help avoid adding to the approved, unbuilt dwelling inventory within the county. Please note that Eagle County does require collateralization for 100% of required infrastructure. Also, no infrastructure installation is allowed by the county prior to recording Final Subdivision Plat. 4. The Town recommends that the county not allow subdivisions to become fully vested with only a portion of the necessary infrastructure installed, which creates the potential for approved, vested subdivisions to remain partially built out for extended periods of time. The Town understands that after installing a portion of the improvements, subdivisions have statutory vesting, but the Town feels that a statutory vested rights limitation would give the county potential negotiating power to achieve subdivision completion in a timelier manner than if there are no statutory vested rights tied to the subdivision. Staff does not believe it is practicable to develop vesting requirements which are more restrictive than the minimum requirements of State Statute. • Town of Vail — The Town's e- mailed response dated August 29, 2011 indicates no comment or objection to the proposed regulatory changes. • Colorado State Forest Service — The CSFS's e- mailed response dated August 31, 2011 indicates no comment or objection to the proposed regulatory changes. • Colorado Department of Transportation — The CDOT emailed response dated August 29, 2011 indicates no comment or objection to the proposed regulatory changes. • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment — The CDPHE letter dated August 30, 2011 indicates that the proposed regulatory amendments will not create negative impacts on air quality. No other comment or objection was provided. 11 02/21/2012 • Northwest Colorado Council of Governments — NWCCOG's emailed response dated September 7, 2011 indicates no comment or objection to the proposed regulatory changes. • Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District — The CMP &RD emailed response dated August 31, 2011 indicates no comment or objection to the proposed regulatory changes. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies: • Eagle County: Airport, Animal Services, Assessors, ECO Trails, ECO Transit, Environmental Health, Housing, Road and Bridge, RE -50J School District, Sheriffs Office, Surveyor, Weed and Pest, Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Historical Society • Town of Avon, Town of Eagle, Town ofMinturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail, Town of Gypsum. • Braun Associates, Inc., Design Workshop, Isom and Associates, Knight Planning Services, Land Studio, Otak, Sid Fox and Co., • Alpine Engineering, Arroyo Engineering, Benchmark Engineering, CTL Thompson, Gamba & Associates, High Country Engineering, HP Geotech, Intermountain Engineering, Peak Land Consultants, Resource Engineering, Inc., Schmeuser Gordon Meyer, Sopris Engineering, Archibeque Land Consulting, Backlund Land Surveys, Bookcliff Surveying, Eagle Valley Surveying, Eldridge Land Surveying, Gore Range Surveying, John Curran, J&K, Leland Lechner, Lines in Space, Marcin Engineering, River City Surveys, Starbuck Surveying. • State of Colorado: CDOT, Department of Local Affairs, Division of Minerals and Geology, Division of Water Resources, Forest Service, Geological Survey, Water Conservation Board, Historical Society, • Federal: Bureau of Land Management, Natural Resource Conservation Service • U.S. Army Corp of Engineers • U.S. Forest Service • Fire Protection Districts: WECAD, Eagle County Health Service District, Basalt & Rural FPD, Gypsum FPD, Greater Eagle FPD, Eagle River FPD, • Special Districts: All • Mid Valley Trails Committee • Home Builder's Association • American Institute of Architects • Cattleman's Association • All Registered Home Owner's Associations and Design Review Boards C. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: This proposal is intended to provide clarification and consistency throughout all land use procedures delineated in the Eagle County Land Use Regulations relative to Comprehensive Plan and Compatibility findings. This proposal is also intended to match Eagle County's minimum PUD Preliminary Plan and Preliminary Subdivision Plan vesting period to the minimum vesting requirements of state law (C.R.S. 24 -68 -104). Multi -phase developments will be addressed by specifically conditioning extension beyond the minimum vesting period on a case -by -case and tying vesting to specific development phases, dates and periods of time. This decrease in the length of vesting period will help to ensure that: ✓ Approved development comes to fruition in a prompt manner; ✓ Zone changes are not granted speculatively; ✓ Appointed and elected decision makers are provided with a more accurate snapshot -in -time of precisely what approved development is on the books but not yet constructed when determining the appropriateness of new land use proposals and cumulative development impacts. ✓ Vesting for approved but not developed PUD's and Final Plats may still be extended, in two year increments, if the applicant demonstrates, to the Board of County Commissioners satisfaction, competent substantial evidence that failure to complete development of the PUD or Final Plat was 12 02/21/2012 beyond the applicant's control, the Preliminary Plan or Final Plat is not speculative in nature, the Preliminary Plan for PUD or Final Plat still complies with the Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan and there is a reasonable likelihood the PUD or Final Plat will be developed in the next two years. ✓ Written request for extension of a PUD Preliminary Plan or Final Plat must be submitted to the county no later than 30 calendar days prior to the date the Preliminary Plan for PUD or Final Plat is to expire. ✓ Failure to submit an application for an extension within the time limits established by this Section shall render the Preliminary Plan for PUD or Final Plat null and void. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [ ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] 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 [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] 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 [ ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [ ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] 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). DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci, Planning Manager presented the PowerPoint slideshow supporting the amendments. Commissioner Stavney stated that he would not be prepared to vote on this file until a later time to have time to digest the suggested amendments. Commissioner Fisher stated that it was a tremendous amount of information. She believed it was worth having the public presentation and allowing the public their input. Chairman Runyon spoke about the amendments and the fact that the board had actually directed some of the changes. Mr. Narracci spoke about the various facets and their attempts to keep consistency between processes. It had been determined that posting and mailing did not necessarily make sense with comprehensive plans. Presently EC regulations restricted land use applications being tabled for more than six months. Findings of compatibility were different throughout each of the land use processes. Chairman Runyon spoke about the issue of compatibility, which looked towards the future as well as existing. Mr. Narracci spoke about unified ownership and the concern about how to establish this. This would clarify that homeowner's associations could apply on behalf of their constituents for amendments to the PUD. The biggest piece had to do with vesting regulations. The county's regulations were considerably more generous than what Statute would require. The suggested changes would match the minimum and would also match what each of the local towns were requiring. For subdivision processes, the county surveyor had requested a computer printout 13 02/21/2012 of parcel summaries. Some language would change from Community Development Director to Planning Director. He presented proposed language. Mr. Narracci went through each of the areas under consideration to be amended. Chairman Runyon spoke about the nature of these regulations and the need to change them over time. Commissioner Stavney agreed and provided some dates that, the regulations had been revised in recent years. Mr. Narracci stated that the regulations were dynamic. He spoke about subdividing less than 35 -acre parcels and that the law requiring this was set in 1972. Commissioner Stavney provided some real examples of this situation. He wondered about the difference between Consent Agenda handling versus holding a full hearing. Mr. Narracci explained that clear requests could be handled during Consent, and the more complex requests could have a full hearing. Currently there was a three -step process; Sketch Plan with a two year life, Preliminary plan was given a two year vesting, but should be three years, and for single phase PUD Preliminary plan it was 5 years, and multi -phase was 10 years. For Final Plat for PUD or subdivision there was more vesting added. There was somewhere between 7 and 15 years of vesting. Proposed amendments included Sketch Plan for two years, but in Preliminary Plan for PUD or subdivision, it would be a three -year vesting for single phase and multi -phase would be negotiated on a case by case basis. For Final Plat, there would be no absolute vesting. In the last year of the three -years they would have to complete 50% of the infrastructure in the ground. He provided a good example using the Arabelle PUD. There are an additional 1000 units on the books but not platted. Commissioner Stavney asked about the difference between Preliminary Plan and Plat. If density was approved, but never were platted the right to build additional units could disappear. Chairman Runyon spoke about the previous method of granting rights in perpetuity has made the Transfer of Development rights impractical in Eagle County. He wondered if some historical rights could be given up. Mr. Narracci indicated that it would not be retroactive, but would eliminate the situation going forward. Commissioner Stavney stated that he did not like ghost PUDs that really have expired in terms of their usefulness from a planning perspective. He added that part of the phasing could be done, but without negotiations, the rights would go away after a period of time. Mr. Narracci stated that the board had the ability to require longer vesting periods. Single -phase developments would have three years and multi -phase developments would need to be negotiated. Commissioner Stavney compared the Eagle Ranch subdivision. The subdivision took many years to complete and in the middle of the build -out, September 11"' happened. He spoke about the Enchantments at the Routt County line with one house currently and the intent was that at some point the development would be dead. He spoke about the Wolcott PUD and the fact that it would probably be more than one phase. If they develop up front the right to finish the development in 15 or 20 years and if they did not the regulation changes would require them to re -apply to a future board. Mr. Narracci clarified that this was the intent. Eva Wilson, County Engineer spoke. She spoke about the quantity of infrastructure that would need to be completed in order for developers to need not to come back. With 50% of the infrastructure, the development would be sufficiently vested. Mr. Narracci shared the referral responses and shared that the amendments were prepared under the guidance of the county Attorney's office. There were no other significant objections received. The Town of Basalt added some comments including further limitation to plan vesting, requiring collateral for all necessary public improvements, not fully vesting subdivisions with only a portion of infrastructure installed and that statutory vested rights be tied to the subdivision. Mauriello Planning Group offered a number of suggestions including not requiring zone change applications requiring a boundary survey, clarification that an engineering geology report was the same thing as a geotechnical study, the Sketch Plan process be eliminated or become a voluntary step, longer life for the Sketch Plan approval, and 5 year vesting for Preliminary Plans. Chairman Runyon spoke about Sketch Plan importance. Mr. Narracci spoke about Planning Commission discussions about this. The process required for both Sketch Plans and Preliminary Plans were the same. Commissioner Stavney agreed that more discussion was warranted for the difference between Sketch and Preliminary Plan. Preliminary Plan could take a completely different direction than the Sketch Plan. Mr. Narracci stated that in speaking to developers and planners they indicated very little difference between the two presentations and requests. 14 02/21/2012 Commissioner Fisher stated that the Sketch Plan application should be broad and brief. She suggested a five -page document. When a developer has spent so much to submit plans it became personal and about the expenditures and less about the principal. Chairman Runyon suggested a pre- Sketch Plan process — or rather have a very limited Sketch Plan presentation. Suggestions about limited funding for creation of Sketch Plan could be provided. Commissioner Fisher hoped that Sketch Plan would be a conceptual discussion. If a Sketch Plan were not approved perhaps the time before the plan could be re- submitted in a different iteration could be reduced. Mr. Narracci stated that Sketch Plan should be a fatal flaw analysis. Ms. Wilson agreed that it should be a fatal flaw analysis to identify deal breakers. She suggested the board delineating the information they want in the initial presentation. Commissioner Stavney suggested a sort of Charette to vet the details. It was a formalized pre - development conference. He wondered if both Planning Commissions had had the conversation about longer life spans. Mr. Narracci stated that the Roaring Fork Planning Commission has suggested having Sketch Plans go directly to the board rather than going through the Commissions. As far as the length of the Sketch Plans, it was not discussed. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. Tab Bonidy with Tab Associates spoke. He spoke about the length of time for Preliminary Plan for PUD changing from 5 to 3 years. He requested that it remain 5 years. He requested that the extension of Preliminary Plan approval should have the "speculative in nature" qualification removed. Chairman Runyon spoke about the need to try to avoid developers getting rights and then selling them to someone else. He wondered if there would be a better way to do this. Commissioner Fisher wondered why statement "speculative in nature" was included in the first place. Commissioner Stavney spoke about a speculator getting added value to a property and then turning around and selling it to the Colorado Springs Water Board. John Rosenfeld spoke to the board. He agreed that the subdivision and preliminary plan should have at least a 5 -year window. He highlighted the Battle Mountain plan, which had taken more than 3 years. He asked the board to be more flexible. He did not agree with more restriction to things already approved. He suggested easing the process through which people would be put back to work. Chairman Runyon spoke about the need to get people back to work. He was empathetic, but truly believed Eagle County was growing too quickly and resuming to that level was unwise. The 9% level of growth was unsustainable and a level of 2 — 3% was more reasonable. There was already much development approved, but the market was not demanding it and driving building or delay in building. The market created the jobs. Mr. Rosenfeld stated that the market should not be hampered by government regulations. When the market was such that it facilitated moving ahead government should allow it. Chairman Runyon stated that they are talking about the balance point between the two. There was a continuum. From the developer's point of view and the community's point of view, things change over time. Open -ended approvals do not allow re- consideration when market situations changed. Commissioner Stavney added that if a project was moving towards completion within 3 — 5 years the process probably needed to start over again. The point wasn't to cut the right off if it was in motion albeit slow, the point was with a project with remnant rights this was what should be taken off the books. Mr. Narracci clarified that existing approvals would remain. Chairman Runyon appreciated the different application for single versus multi - phase. Mr. Rosenfeld preferred letting the market define the period. Commissioner Stavney moved to table file no. LUR -3398 Eagle County Land Use Vesting Regulation Amendments until March 20, 2012 at a time to be determined. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 15 02/21/2012 Manager Update (recorded) Keith Montag, County Manager 1. Information Sharing 2. Meetings Attended / Future Meetings 3. Discussion Items 4. Highway 82 Basalt signage; Bob Narracci, Planning 5. Dotsero roundabout funding; Eva Wilson, Engineering 6. Open Space Attorney Update date (recorded) Bryan Treu, Attorney's Office A. Open Session B. Executive Session 1. Receive legal advice on Sunriver code enforcement matter 2. Citizen Center v. Gessler lawsuit discussion. Work Sessions (recorded) Vail Valley Foundation/Youth Foundation Ceil Folz, President Susie Davis, Director of Education Colorado River Cooperative Agreement Bryan Treu, County Attorney Planning Files PDS -2714 Wolcott PUD Bob Narracci and Sean Hanagan, Planning Eva Wilson, Engineering Rick Hermes, Jeff Townsend and Rick Pylman (Community Concepts Colorado) NOTE: Tabled from 12/13/11, 1/10/12 &1/31/12 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. 16 02/21/2012 REFERENCE: Staff Report in December 13, 2011 minutes Wolcott PUD Sketch Plan / Summary of January 31, 2012 BoCC Comments Following is a summary of comments and inquiries made by the Board of County Commissioners during their January 31, 2012 hearing: Commissioner Stavney: Complemented Rick and his Team for all of their advance work and community outreach. Garnering support of the community has made this process much smoother and has assisted not only the development proposal, but staff, the Planning Commission and the BoCC. Chairman Runyon: The Residential Inventory versus Absorption numbers do not reflect those who want to sell their homes but cannot because they are either upside down in their mortgages or are inclined to wait for the market value of their homes to recover. (Rick Hermes: Part of the solution is to create jobs, which his development will do with reference to other markets around the country in which he is involved. Eventually, simple supply and demand will kick -in and when it does there will not be any available inventory in Eagle County unless new projects are approved and ready to go when this happens.) Commissioner Fisher: RE -50J School District enrollment numbers reflected an increase over the last couple of years; can these increases be attributed to some of the students leaving private schools in favor of public schools? Does RE -50J have this type of data? Those Eagle County residents who are either self - employed or under- employed are still toughing it out through this economy. Unemployment is a last resort and is reflective of the character of the County's resident work force. As developer, will you guarantee that all local industries will be utilized in creating/constructing this development? (Rick Hermes: His desire is to maintain relationships with local contractors, engineers and other professionals that they have worked with before and trust. His intent is to not go outside of the county to obtain the lowest bid.) Chairman Runyon: The Why Here Why Now graph does not go back in time far enough to reflect the huge jump in annual rate of growth. Sustainable, healthy growth is 2% to 3% per year, not 7 %. Local residents are hanging on and are struggling. The number of people who have to use food stamps has doubled, for example. Commissioner Stavney: Is satisfied with the demographics discussions and wants to now focus on land use matters. (Rick Hermes: At peak market share, Wolcott will comprise only 8% of Eagle County's total market.) Commissioner Stavney: Are the historic ranch fields flood irrigated or is it a natural spring? Flood irrigated. Discussion shifted to Conditions of Approval Recommended by Staff and the Eagle County Planning Commission: Rick Pylman walked through each condition of approval and indicated where the applicant is in agreement and where they have concern or are requesting clarification, as follows: Conditions A -V: A. General Condition - Applicant agrees. B. Engineering Condition - Applicant agrees. 17 02/21/2012 C. ECO Transit Condition — Applicant agrees to provide either one bus stop per ECO Transit's recommendation or two bus stops per Eagle County Planning Commission's recommendation. D. Colorado Geological Survey Condition — Applicant agrees. (Jeff Townsend: With regard to the Colorado Geological Survey conditions of approval; they have procured the Vail Resorts inclinometer data for the south side oflnterstate -70. Two of the inclinometer sites are located within the land area where the south side subdivisions are proposed. The results indicate nominal movement of approximately'/ inch over eight years. Please note that this movement is approximately 160 feet below surface. As such, these sites are buildable with proper Engineering.) E. Colorado Division of Parks and Wildlife Condition — Applicant agrees to continue working with the CDPW on wildlife mitigation strategies. F.1. ECO Trails Condition — Agrees to continue working with the G. Jouflas Family to obtain the appropriate easement agreements for lands east of the Wolcott PUD. F.2 ECO Trails Condition — Maintaining a 30 foot separation of the core trail alignment from the edge of US Hwy 6 pavement, as realigned, is arbitrary and that maximal preservation of the South Meadow Open Space should be considered. The trail will meander further than 30 feet from Hwy 6 and may, at points, be closer than 30 feet to protect the South Meadow Open Space. F.3 ECO Trails Condition — Applicant agrees to provide spur trail connections from the core trail t PP t�' p p to the activity centers within the PUD. F.4 ECO Trails Condition — Insufficient detail was provided by ECO Trails to the applicant for them to understand the implications of this request. This requested trail section is outside of the proposed PUD Boundary. The topic was discussed with ECO Trails but more detailed information is necessary. The applicant does agree to continue working with ECO Trails to better understand the trail alignment request and the implications thereof. Regarding construction of the core trail to the east of the PUD boundary up to the I -70 bridges over US Hwy 6, it is the applicant's intent to obtain the necessary easement on the G. Jouflas properties located east of the PUD. The ECO Trail core trail shall be constructed as part of Phase 1 of the PUD. G. Affordable Housing Condition — The applicant agrees to continue working with the Housing Director and the BoCC to coordinate implementation of appropriate work force housing and/or public benefit. (Rick Pylman: With regard to the Housing condition; the applicant is committed to working with the Housing Director and the BoCC to satisfy this condition. The Housing Guidelines as they presently exist may be difficult to completely satisfy. We understand that the Housing Guidelines are being updated and will continue to work with staff through this process.) H. Utilities Condition — Applicant agrees. I. Emergency Services Condition — Applicant agrees. J. Eagle River Watershed Council — Applicant agrees. K. Wolcott Area Community Plan Conformance Condition — the applicant has provided a comprehensive response to the conformance concerns documented by members of the Planning Commission. L. Conservation Easement on Eagle River frontage property located west of PUD boundary Condition — Applicant agrees to continue working with the G. Jouflas Family to create a Conservation Easement west of Preservation Park; however, this property is not under a purchase agreement nor is it included within the PUD boundary. M. Appropriate square footage limitations for South Meadow Ranch Family Compounds Condition — Applicant agrees. 18 02/21/2012 N. Minimum stream setback Condition — Applicant agrees. O. Relocation of US Post Office and Access Condition — Applicant agrees. P. Conservation Easements on Eagle River frontage as well as valley floor open space Condition — Applicant agrees. Q. Sustainable Community Index Condition — Applicant agrees to work with staff to evaluate the SCI and implementation strategies. R. Comprehensive wetland/riparian area mapping Condition — Applicant agrees. S. Draft Conservation Easement documents detailing preservation, maintenance and control Condition — Applicant agrees. T. Remnant parcel Condition — Applicant disagrees. Any future land use proposal on lands outside of the PUD boundary would be subject to review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners. U. Viewshed and Architectural Analysis Condition — Applicant agrees to provide with Preliminary Plan. V. Community Recycling Center Condition — Applicant agrees. Chairman Runyon: Paused discussion on the conditions of approval to allow any public present and the Jouflas Families to provide testimony. Chris Jouflas: Is proud of the development plan and glad to be part of it. George Jouflas: Also believes it is a good plan and that all details need to be worked out with the county and state. No further public testimony was received. Back to Conditions of Approval Discussion: Commissioner Stavney: With regard to the Emergency Services condition of approval; The Board is very eager to see the Greater Eagle FPD and the Eagle River FPD and the Eagle County Health Services District enter into a firm MOU or IGA for shared facilities. The Public and the Board do not want to see wasteful duplication of services and facilities. The public would find this unacceptable. With regard to the condition of approval concerning fragmented parcels; One of the Board's concerns is the benefit of master planning an entire property to avoid future fragmented development and would like some level of assurance that the river parcel owned by the G. Jouflas Trust adjacent to the west of the PUD Boundary become subject to a conservation easement. Better yet, this river parcel will be included into the PUD Boundary. Commissioner Fisher: Regarding the condition of approval for providing appropriate square footage limitations on the South Meadow Ranch Lots; questioned that three homes are proposed on each of the Ranch Lots? (Rick Hermes: Yes, these lots are anticipated as family compounds with one obvious single-family residence and up to two accessory dwelling units for family members. The accessory dwelling units will appear as barns or other agricultural type structures. More details will be provided with the Preliminary Plan along with reasonable standards.) Commissioner Stavney: Can Eagle County assist in with working with the BLM and USPS to perhaps facilitate a land trade for the BLM parcel where the post office is presently located? Also, to urge the USPS to agree to 19 02/21/2012 relocate into the future village core area? It would be much better if this BLM parcel could be incorporated into the PUD. Chairman Runyon and Commissioner Stavney: A viewshed analysis is appropriate with the Preliminary Plan application. Commissioner Stavney: At this point in the review process, the onus is on him to again study the application materials carefully and craft conditions of approval as may be necessary. He will be prepared in time for the February 21S hearing. Commissioner Fisher: Many of her questions have been adequately answered. Parking is still one of her major concerns; even though future residents of Wolcott have opted to downsize their living accommodations, their toys (bicycles, snowmobiles, dirt bikes, boats, RV's, etc.) will likely not be downsized as well. Where will all of these toys be stored? Also wants to better understand views of the expansive commercial parking area from Interstate - 70. She too will re- review all of the application materials and be ready with more comments and/or direction for the applicant at the next hearing on February 21S Chairman Runyon: This is the time for major public input during an evening hearing. Following discussion with Commissioners Fisher and Stavney, it was agreed to table the application until February 21S at 5:00 p.m. Direction was provided to staff to provide enhanced public notice in the form of a press release and to set up the county's web site with a comment link expressly for this Wolcott PUD Sketch Plan. Staff has initiated this process with the Communications Department. DISCUSSION: Chairman Runyon introduced the file and expressed the desire of the board to do what the citizens wanted and what was best for the county. He felt it was a well thought out Planned Unit Development in the Wolcott area. Mr. Rick Pylman shared some details of the request for the audience. This was only the PUD Sketch Plan part of the process and more detail would be provided at the next stage. There was already a residential and resort community in the area. The Wolcott area community plan had been in the works for many years. They had letters of support from all surrounding landowners. He commended the developers for their detailed work, community outreach and brainstorming efforts. He hoped the project would get a chance to continue the process. Chairman Runyon spoke about Sketch Plans and the similarity to Preliminary Plans. The board would be looking at ways to make this more efficient. The first step was the Sketch Plan, second step was the Preliminary Plan and the final approval was the Final Approval. Sketch Plan did not have any vested right — but gave the developer the direction to get more detail put together. At Preliminary Plan approval, the developer did not have a vested right and as long as all that was asked for was completed, the Final Plan would be presented. Mr. Hermes presented some drawings, maps and renderings of the proposed development. He highlighted where the homes, ranches, open space and relocation of US Highway 6 would be located. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. Mike Burke, General Manager of Edwards Building Center spoke in support of the project. His company had been doing business for 35 years. In 2007, they had many more employees than they do currently. This project would support local trades. The revenue would stay in Eagle County. Josh Lautenberg, resident of Edwards spoke. He had had an opportunity to sit with the developers and believed that everything about the project is exciting. He was in favor of the concept. It was sensible due to the reputation of the developers, their time in the county, amount of open space and the layout as low profile. He was concerned that the current landowners would sell the properties and there would be piece meal development. He hoped the board would approve it rather than allowing smaller developments that could be regretted in the future. Jason Denhart, Director of Communication for the Eagle Valley Land Trust. The mission of the trust was to preserve lands forever in conservation. The strongly and enthusiastically support all voluntary conservation 20 02/21/2012 efforts to conserve benefits and access and should be applauded. The development preserved over a mile of river access. The Land Trust would be honored to hold the conservation easement. Bill Whittaker, life -long resident of the county spoke. He believed it was a good development and was well thought out. If this plan could not be moved forward, what plan could? John Helmering, 24 -year resident spoke. He lived in Bellyache Ridge for many years. He believed it was a good project. Chairman Runyon asked for a show of hands for all in support. All in the room were in support of the plan. Commissioner Stavney suggested going through the conditions. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Commissioner Stavney shared his thoughts on the conditions. Conditions at Preliminary Plan are more significant. Conditions at Sketch Plan provide direction for further flushing out. The first condition he wanted to address was the ECO transit in condition C that included a half -mile walking distance. If there were a centralized bus stop the applicant would have to adhere to this. He hoped that the Edwards truck rest area could be relocated to the location where the current Park and Ride was located. The Wolcott area was much more suitable to the truck parking than Edwards. There should be a dialog with the Colorado Department of Transportation on this topic. Mr. Hermes stated that they were happy to explore this possibility. Commissioner Stavney continued that the condition related to the Division of Wildlife should be brushed up. Focusing mitigation on the open lands within the PUD was not realistic. He encouraged wildlife mitigation in the areas around the development, as it was not current habitat. Commissioner Fisher wondered about keeping pastures at a certain level. Mr. Hermes spoke about multiple strategies that are being honed in. Commissioner Fisher spoke about sage removal and the limitation of this process in the developed area. The mindset was for a thoroughfare for animal traffic. Commissioner Stavney stated that there was not much to do onsite for wildlife mitigation and this should happen off -site. The alignment for Highway 6 must include wildlife exits from I -70. Neighboring public lands could be opened up through development of the property. He felt a trails plan was important in coordination with the Department of Wildlife. He agreed with the affordable housing condition. Some public amenities could be considered in lieu of housing. He wanted the major amenities to be listed. He spoke about utilities and the fact that it is important at the next stage for Eagle River Water and Sanitation district to site all major infrastructure improvements. The project was a candidate for non - potable irrigation. He wanted to see the county and the four emergency providers; fire and ambulance services to work through who would cover the area. He wanted to see a draft River Management Plan for the entire area. The Wolcott Environmental Trust needed more detail as to what it was and how it would be funded. He wanted to see the exact location of the conservation easements. The current plan had been positively impacted by the public discussion. The county could work on a land exchange to clean up the post office location and adjacent triangle of land. He was in favor of the 75 foot river setback, but in the middle of this conversation there were public amenities that were of value and might be placed closer to the river. If there were a great public amenity in a Discovery Center, he would be in favor of allowing it within the setback. The Post Office could be modeled with a contract services type of operation. Mr. Hermes stated that they were very in favor of the Sustainable type of development. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the wetland map. He wondered why, with identified wetlands, they could not be looked at as part of the planning for good public spaces and encouraged the possibility of creating wildlife habitat. He was concerned about surrounding properties and wondered if they could be brought into the PUD. Ms. Mauriello stated that the board could suggest working with adjacent property owners. Chairman Runyon wondered why the applicant disagreed. Mr. Hermes was concerned about having a requirement to access private properties to conduct studies, but they were willing to explore the potential. Chairman Runyon spoke about the green open space around the parcel; parcels on the outside could ruin the effect. Mr. Hermes clarified that they would not be creating non - conforming parcels. Ms. Mauriello stated that the consideration in front of the board was the PUD. 21 02/21/2012 Commissioner Fisher added that she remembered a previous request for development south of town. It was disconcerting to think that the area could become another Edwards, which would continue growing. She did not think every square inch of the county should be developed. Chairman Runyon stated that once water and sewer were available it would change the reality for all adjacent property owners. He did not think it fair to ask the applicant to look at adjacent properties, which would benefit from these amenities. He suggested staff do this type of analysis. He would like to be able to visualize the 50 -year implications. Perhaps working with the Water District to limit taps would be effective. Commissioner Stavney suggested having the conversation with the Water District rather than the developer. Mr. Pylman stated that Eagle County had become more progressive in the last 10 years and the master plans were really good tools for guiding future expectations for land use. Mr. Hermes agreed with this approach. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the community recycling facility and his support of this. The School District land dedication discussion was not necessarily finished. He would like more direction on the land dedication idea. Mr. Hermes added that he was willing to provide for two possible uses on a particular part of the property. Commissioner Fisher was concerned about the need to commute children of school age and was challenged by this fact. She wondered which direction kids would go. This would inevitably create more traffic on Highway 6. Mr. Hermes stated that the school district indicated that they do not want a school. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the fact that no community was self - contained. Most of the jobs would be in other communities. Even with a school in the neighborhood, many parents would drive their children to schools elsewhere. Commissioner Fisher stated that the central campus was developed in Edwards for schools. The saleability of Eagle Ranch included the local elementary school. Mr. Hermes stated that he did not want to detract from any other schools. Commissioner Runyon added that Burns and Red Cliff closed down their public schools. Commissioner Stavney stated that the board should not get involved in school location decisions. Commissioner Fisher believed otherwise and stated that building a community should include everything a community needed, and that included schools. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the commercial portion not being something that served more than the immediate community did. He was comfortable with that and there could be some pass through benefits as well. He spoke about off -site storage for people's toys. Commissioner Fisher concurred. Chairman Runyon spoke about the car trips and the related dynamic. He wondered about 35 mills covering the service needs. He wondered if this could increase. Mr. Hermes requested referring the question to Stan Bernstein, the expert on this type of matter. Chairman Runyon stated that the developer was going after a local market. Mr. Hermes clarified that the prices represented the most popular buying segment, and the target was not necessarily for locals. Chairman Runyon stated that there might be several thousand people who might like to downsize and buy into the Wolcott development. The best argument was against future piece meal development. He acknowledged that the Jouflas family has been looking at development projects for years. Commissioner Fisher applauded the applicant for the detail provided on the Sketch Plan process. She applauded the Jouflas family as well. She encouraged growing the valley in a sustainable and mindful way. She was worried about the county getting over eager in development proposals and in so doing creating employment that was unsustainable. She spoke about the Eagle River Station and Hay Meadow developments being proposed in Eagle and the other development sites in the community caused her concern. She wondered if the county would end up with a community that could not support the trades. She was not ready to make a decision. There had also been some written objections to the project. Mr. Hermes stated that something was going to happen in the area, whether it was their plan or potential piece meal developments. This was a right place for this type of development. From their perspective, the reason they had support was that the project was well thought out. Chairman Runyon stated that he had a different vision of how the county was going to look in the future. He did not have the longevity of the Jouflas family, but he couldn't believe the growth in the last 40 years. He was 22 02/21/2012 a realist and understood that this development was very good for the development option. In the 2006, 2007 and 2008 boom years, there were no applications for Land Use files. Now, in the worst real estate market the requests are coming in. Mr. Hermes stated he could not speak for other developments. There was a Wolcott Master Plan created and they were following the county's lead. They were offering everything and more that they could offer. Many people need jobs. He felt it was only responsible to approve projects that were right. Chairman Runyon spoke about the amount of money waiting to be invested. Mr. Hermes stated that in less than a month he needed to sit down with the debt and equity sources to provide an update to this project. Chairman Runyon spoke about the valley floor and whether the number of homes on the valley floor could be scaled back. Mr. Hermes stated that they have already scaled down from 2100 to 600 and had tried to balance the public benefit items with the number of units. At some point, they had done the best they could do. Commissioner Stavney wondered what the other commissioners felt about his condition comments. He was comfortable with the project at this point. He didn't see any loss in letting the applicant move forward. Mr. Hermes did not object to any of Commissioner Stavney's comments on conditions. Chairman Runyon felt that the school problem would not be able to be solved to a satisfactory level, but options could be left open. There was not likely to be a K -12 school in Wolcott. He was hung up on getting a better understanding of the collateral growth and development that would occur when water and sewer became available. He wished to see control mechanisms. Mr. Hermes indicated that sales would dictate the speed with which the project was built. Their goal was to get the proper funding in place so they did not fumble. Commissioner Fisher asked about the phasing component. She wondered which parts of the development would be completed first. Mr. Hermes spoke about the need for gas for construction vehicles and then the public amenities. He couldn't commit to a specific list in order of development. He had never seen the number of people in support as were present at the meeting. He requested to be allowed to move forward. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the board being partners with the developers to have the best possible project. Knowing that there were no vested rights with Sketch Plan approval and much work required to get to Preliminary Plan she would agree to move it forward. Chairman Runyon asked to add the condition of looking at unintended consequences of bringing utilities into the area He was incredibly conflicted. Commissioner Stavney wondered when Preliminary ran would be brought back. Mr. Hermes indicated that he expected to come back m 6'riionths. Commissioner Stavney asked that staff draw up a mglre detailed list of conditions. Mr. Hermes stated that they intend to address all the+voad''s conditions. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the potential to approve with conditions, but the conditions needed to be finalized. Chairman Runyon stated that he would abstain due to his conflicted opinion. He did not want the developer to be surprised if he ended up not being in favor of the project. It was a good plan, but the overall view needed to be considered. The construction jobs weren't there because the market was not there. The citizens would have to live with the long term implications. Mr. Hermes wondered why Commissioner Runyon stated earlier that he would want to live there. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the affordable housing component. She wondered if there was any thought about a percentage of the units being resident occupied. Mr. Hermes did not object to this approach as long as the right balance could be reached. Commissioner Fisher wondered about the homes that were currently on the market and others for which there was no market. Mr. Hermes stated that many people had the perspective that they needed to find work and that need was more important than the foreclosure situation. Once this round of building was complete, the economy needed to change towards recreational tourism. Commissioner Runyon wondered why Wolcott would become the center of this type of concept. Mr. Hermes stated that some programs were obvious and many people did not prefer to be in Vail where it was incredibly expensive. The COOP idea was being developed with partners. 23 02/21/2012 Commissioner Stavney asked if a motion to table was preferable or a motion to direct staff to write conditions for a vote in the future. Ms. Mauriello stated that a motion to table and directing staff to complete the conditions was an option. There was also the potential to vote to approve the Sketch Plan and require detail on the conditions. Commissioner Fisher moved to approve file no. PDS -2714 Wolcott PUD giving direction to staff to make corrections outlined in the existing and additional conditions. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of two to one with Commissioner Runyon voting abstaining. There being no further business before the e meeting was adj ou. e • • ntil F`.� -, 8, 2012. cr Attest: if ' '` 1 /— Clerk to the Board * 14,7 * Chairman , 24 02/21/2012