No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 05/22/12 PUBLIC HEARING May 22, 2012 Present: Peter Runyon Chairman Jon Stavney Commissioner Sara Fisher Commissioner Keith Montag County Manager Bryan Treu County Attorney Teak Simonton Clerk to the Board Kathy Scriver Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Resolution 2012 -054 Designating May 27 — June 2, 2012 as Eagle County Foster and Kinship Care Appreciation Week Sherri Almond, Health & Human Services RESOLUTION DESIGNATING MAY 27 -JUNE 2, 2012 AS EAGLE COUNTY FOSTER AND KINSHIP CARE APPRECIATION WEEK WHEREAS, foster and kinship families are unsung heroes that serve as the primary source of love, protection, and support to abused and neglected children in Eagle County, and WHEREAS, in Eagle County children in foster and kinship homes are provided with compassion and nurturing in safe, secure and stable homes by foster and kinship families; and WHEREAS, foster and kinship families, who open their homes and hearts to children who are in crisis, play a vital role in helping children and families heal and reconnect, and in launching children into successful adulthood; and WHEREAS, foster and kinship families frequently adopt foster children, resulting in a greater need for more foster homes; and WHEREAS, there are numerous individuals, public and private organizations that work to increase public awareness of the enduring and valuable contribution of foster and kinship families, and recognize that the foster care system is only as good as those who choose to be part of it. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO: THAT the week of May 27 — June 2, 2012 be proclaimed Foster and Kinship Care Appreciation Week in Eagle County. THAT, the Board hereby recognizes the foster and kinship parents of Eagle County who devote their talents, time and energies on behalf of children and acknowledge all they do in helping children and families to achieve positive outcomes. 1 05/22/2012 MOVED, READ AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 29 day of May 2012. Commissioner Stavney read the resolution into the record and moved to approve the resolution designation May 27 — June 2, 2012 as Eagle County Foster and Kinship Care Appreciation Week. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Fisher spoke about the training and responsibility of Foster Care providers and encouraged the public to contact the Health and Human Services Office and get involved and learn more about the programs. Chairman Runyon believed the system was a family friendly system. 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 May 21, 2012 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of Payroll for May 31, 2012 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle County Commissioner Meeting for April 24, 2012 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder D. Eagle County Airport Renewal Proposal from Aon Risk Solutions for Airport Liability Insurance with Chartis Aerospace Airport Representative E. Agreement between Eagle County and the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability for Data Management, Communications, Training, Event Coordination, Energy Assessment Scheduling, Review, Participant Follow -up and Support at the Energy Resource Center Adam Palmer, Planning F. Agreement for Professional Services between Eagle County and Matrix Design Group, Inc. for the Eagle County Stone Creek Project, Flood Mitigation Assistance Program Greg Schroeder, Engineering G. Amendment to Agreement between Davis Partnership Architects and Eagle County for the Design of the Relocated Eagle County Sports Field Complex Rick Ullom, Project Management H. Cost Share Agreement between Eagle County, Bureau of Land Management and Gypsum Fire Protection District for the August 2011 Collard Green Fire Barry Smith, Emergency Management Adam Palmer spoke about Item E, the agreement between the county and Alliance for Sustainability. The organization assists in staffing the Energy Resource Center in Edwards. John Ryan Lockman operates the office. John Ryan Lockman, program manager for the Alliance for Sustainability spoke. He supported the success of the program and he believed the Alliance could be a vital member moving forwards. 2 05/22/2012 Tracy Anderson expressed support for the program. She believed it was a win for everyone. Barry Smith spoke about item H. The county was paying 17% of the cost associated with the Collard Green Fire, not to exceed $10,000. Greg Schroeder spoke about item F. This was the final phase to get the engineering consultant moving forward on a pre - disaster mitigation grant. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A -H. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Chairman Runyon opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and re- convene as the Eagle County Local 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. Willrain, LLC d/b /a Rimini #42 -54334 -0002 Renewal of a Tavern Liquor License in Avon (Beaver Creek). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. B. Diamond Five, Ltd. d/b /a Coyote Cafe #04 -65986 -0000 Renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License in Avon (Beaver Creek). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. C. Deschamp, Gloria J. d/b /a El Jebel Liquors #04- 46530 -0000 Renewal of a Retail Liquor Store License in El Jebel. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file and proof of server training has been provided. Other D. Marquez Restaurants, Inc. d/b /a Fiesta's New Mexican Restaurant #04- 89807 -0000 Report of Changes /Corporate Report of Change. Susan Marquez - Ledezma will be replacing Debbie Marquez and Andrea Burrows. Ms. Marquez - Ledezma is reported to be of good moral character and has no criminal history based on the CBI report. 3 05/22/2012 E. Noni's Hair Bar, LLC d/b /a Noni's Hair Bar #15- 81092 -0000 Resolution 2012 -055 approving the application submitted by Noni's Hair Bar, LLC for a Beer and Wine license. These are the official findings of the board, as mandated by the Colorado Liquor Code. Commissioner Fisher moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for May 22, 2012 consisting of Items A -E. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Ritz- Carlton Hotel Company, LLC TRADE NAME: Ritz- Carlton Bachelor Gulch REPRESENTATIVE: Elizabeth Ridgeway, Event Manager LOCATION: 0130 Daybreak Ridge, Avon (Bachelor Gulch) REQUEST: Report of Change /Temporary Modification STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver CONCERNS / ISSUES: None DESCRIPTION: The applicant has requested a permit to modify the premises. This is a temporary modification that would allow the hotel to expand the licensed area for an event taking place on Tuesday, June 12, 2012 7:00 -8:00 pm. Site E, as indicated on the diagram is adjacent to the hotel terrace. The event is for hotel guests only. STAFF FINDINGS: 1. The application is in order, all requirements have been met, and all fees are paid. 2. As a boundary change is occurring to the licensed premise, although temporary, a public notice was posted on the premises. 3. No complaints or concerns were received in the Clerk's Office. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. The event was for one day and for only one hour. Staff had no concerns with the request. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Licensing Authority approve the temporary modification as presented for the Ritz - Carlton Hotel Company, LLC d/b /a The Ritz - Carlton Bachelor Gulch. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. APPLICANT: Indian Summer Outfitters, LLC TRADE NAME: Bearcat Stables REPRESENTATIVE: Leeds Butcher and Gavin Selway, Owner(s) LOCATION: 2701 Squaw Creek Road - Edwards REQUEST: Optional Premises License STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: 4 05/22/2012 The applicant, Indian Summer Outfitters, LLC submitted an application for an Optional Premises license on April 19, 2012. This type of license may only be approved when the premises is located on or adjacent to an outdoor sports and recreational facility. An Optional Premises license allows the sale of malt, vinous, and spirituous liquors by the drink to customers. There is no food requirement. Bearcat Stables is a horseback riding facility that has grounds to host functions and events in conjunction with equine activities. However, consumption of alcohol prior to equine activities will be strictly prohibited. Examples of other such licenses in Unincorporated Eagle County are: Rink Productions in the Beaver Creek Plaza (ice skating rink) 4 Eagle Ranch in Wolcott (equine activities) ESTABLISH NEIGHBORHOOD: The first order of business is to establish the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the definition of the "neighborhood" include the area within a five -mile radius from the proposed location (2701 Squaw Creek Road). MOTION: Commissioner Stavney moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority establish the neighborhood to include the area within a five -mile radius from the proposed location. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. All members of the Local Licensing Authority have been provided with copies of the petition submitted by the applicant. The Board will consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood, the desires of the adult inhabitants of the neighborhood and whether the existing licenses are adequate to meet these needs and desires, per the Colorado Liquor Code, Section 12- 347 -301 (2) (a). 2. Petition circulation was conducted by the applicant. The results were as follows: • 12 Signatures Favoring Issuance OTHER LIQUOR AUTHORITY CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Whether the licensee shall possess and maintain possession of the premises for which the license is issued by ownership, lease, rental, or other arrangement for possession of such premises. 2. Whether the premises are within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 3. Whether the fees have been paid. 4. Whether the applicants are of good moral character. 5. Section 12 -47 -301 (2) (b) of the Colorado Liquor Code reads as follows: "A local licensing authority or the state on state owned property, may deny the issuance of any new tavern or retail liquor store license whenever such authority determines that the issuance of such license would result in or add to an undue concentration of the same class of license and, as a result, require the use of additional law enforcement resources." STAFF FINDINGS: 5 05/22/2012 1. The applicant has filed an application on forms provided by the state licensing authority and provided information as required by the state licensing authority. All applicable requirements have been met, all the proper forms have been provided, and all fees paid. 2. The applicant(s) are 21 years of age and reported to be of good moral character. 3. Public notice was given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises May 11, 2012 and publication in the Eagle Valley Enterprise on May 10 and 17 2012. 4. The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 6. The applicant has submitted proof of possession of premises. 7. Staff received no response from the Eagle County Treasurer, or Sheriff's Office. 8. The Eagle County Environmental Health Department, Community Development Department, and Engineering Department expressed no concerns with the application. 9. The applicant has provided an alcohol management plan per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority. DISCUSSION: Ms. Scriver presented the request. She stated that the applicant had met all the necessary requirements for an Optional Premises License Commissioner Stavney asked about main activities and reason for requesting a liquor license. Mr. Butcher believed that having a liquor license would expand his business. They spent the last few years restoring the cabins and updating the electrical. This was an attempt to reclaim lost revenue due to recent closures in Cordillera. They hoped to offer special events that would include dinner, and wine and cheese events for businesses and homeowners. The Cordillera Board of Directors approved it unanimously and their lease encompasses the entire property. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board find that there is a reasonable requirement and desire for the issuance of this license, therefore approve an Optional Premises License for Indian Summer Outfitters, LLC d/b /a Bearcat Stables based on the testimony, petitions, and evidence submitted today and incorporating the staff findings. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re- convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 6 05/22/2012 Dotsero Area Community Plan Pre - adoption Update (recorded) Clifford Simonton, Planning Mr. Simonton presented a slideshow detailing the history, community vision, goals, future land use, public vision, existing conditions and future opportunities. The Town of Gypsum had been very involved from the start and provided the venue for two community meetings. He thanked them for their continued interest and positive contributions. Through the adoption process there would be opportunity for adjustments. Commissioner Stavney explained that Community Plans were mainly done for the Planning and Zoning Commission, and were not adopted by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Simonton stated that the Planning Commission had the full responsibility for master planning. The community meetings were well attended early on. The outcome of the survey indicated that people were most interested in the river environment and related activities. Chairman Runyon spoke about the possibility of having a local improvements district. Mr. Simonton spoke about the options for the community center. The Two Rivers PUD allowed for this. He presented the outlying service commercial opportunities, rural subdivisions, rural agricultural and public lands. Chairman Fisher thanked Mr. Simonton for his work. She encouraged a conversation with the owner of the existing Dotsero trailer park. She hoped that the dialog regarding clean -up efforts would continue. Mr. Simonton believed the plan would be adopted by the Planning Commission in July. Commissioner Stavney was satisfied with the Town of Gypsum's willingness to take over some of the services. He would like to discuss screening certain areas and beautifying the area. Mr. Simonton stated that the plan would recognize the need for and IGA and encouraged that one be created. Chairman Runyon reiterated that this was information. The Planning Commission would be the one to approve the plan not the board. This was not a binding document for the board but would be useful when considering future land use proposals. Cliff Simonton encouraged a 10 -15 year review of the document once approved. Meet with Basalt Town Council Basalt Town Offices 501 Midland Ave. Basalt, CO Planning Files Eagle County Building 20 Eagle County Drive El Jebel, Colorado PDA -3103 Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD Amendment (Crown Mountain) Bob Narracci (Planning), Greg Schroeder (Engineering), Davis Farrar (Western Slope Consulting), Mark Fuller (Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District) NOTE: Tabled from 6/28/11, 9/13/11, 11/15/11, 2/7/2012 & 4/10/12 ACTION: The purpose of this Planned Unit Development Amendment is to modify the existing PUD to allow for the construction of a recreation center, associated parking additional trails, and ice rink, covered tennis courts and other improvements described in the PUD document. There is also a request to increase the size of the leased area. LOCATION: 20 Eagle County Drive, El Jebel REFERENCE: Staff report in the June 28, 2011 meeting minutes 7 05/22/2012 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1) Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2) All issues identified in the Engineering Department Memorandum dated April 14, 2011 must be adequately addressed and resolved to the satisfaction of the County Engineer prior to approval of a site specific development plan for the proposed recreation center facilities and associated infrastructure by the Board of County Commissioners, with recommendation of the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission. 3) The appropriate manner of canine management on the Mount Sopris Tree Farm Property must be resolved between the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District and Eagle County Animal Services to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. 4) All comments and recommendations of the Town of Basalt set forth in its letter of April 26, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the Board of County Commissioners. 5) All comments and recommendation of the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners in the letter dated April 13, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Board of Commissioners. 6) All recommendations and requirements of the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District in its letter dated April 19, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal. 7) All issues identified by the Colorado Department of Transportation set forth in the letter dated April 7, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of CDOT and the County Engineer. 8) All recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey set forth in the letter dated April 7, 2011 must be addressed and incorporated into the recreation center facility plans to the satisfaction of the County Engineer. 9) The Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD Guide is amended to insert the use of recreation center facilities and ancillary infrastructure as uses subject to future site specific development plan review and approval by the Board of County Commissioners with recommendation from the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission. 1041 - 3140 Crown Mountain Parks Bob Narracci, Planning NOTE: Tabled from 6/28/11, 9/13/11,11/15/11, 2/7/2012 & 4/10/12 ACTION: The purpose for this 1041 Permit is to modify the existing PUD to allow for the construction of a recreation center, associated parking additional trails, and ice rink, covered tennis courts and other improvements described in the PUD document. There is also a request to increase the size of the leased area. LOCATION: 20 Eagle County Drive, El Jebel 8 05/22/2012 REFERENCE: Staff report in the June 28, 2011 meeting minutes MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District FROM: Bob Narracci, Planning Director DATE: May 22, 2012 RE: Summary of Crown Mountain Recreation Center Hearing No. 3 / February 7, 2012 *Please note that pertinent comments made pertaining specifically to the Stofus Traffic Analysis results are included in this summary. During the third hearing on the Crown Mountain Park Recreation Center Facility proposal the following comments and direction was provided by the Board of County Commissioners (the `Board') to the applicant's representative and staff: Intersection Reconfiguration Comments: Commissioner Stavney: One important goal of the intersection reconfiguration is safe pedestrian movement between the RFTA Park and Ride site and Crown Mountain Park. Chairman Runyon: Explained to those in attendance that CDOT Faster $ over the next four years is approximately $16M. Five percent of that amount is set aside for critical intersection repairs as determined by CDOT. The existing El Jebel Road / Hwy 82 / Valley Road intersection is ranked as the fourth most critical intersection. Essentially all available money is slated for the Colorado Mountain College / Hwy 82 intersection. Funding of the Crown Mountain Recreation Center and the associated road improvements is ultimately up to the constituents of the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District. Commissioner Fisher: The Board of County Commissioners takes responsibility for siting the inopportune siting of the existing county building by their predecessors. The fact remains that the intersection requires modification to support future growth. This is a long term healthy solution for the intersection and community overall. Eagle County intends to step -up and plan, design and ultimately assists with funding the necessary intersection realignment. Commissioner Stavney: The Board is fully committed to fund the bulk of the design phase. If there is no Crown Mountain Recreation Center then none of this needs to happen at this point in time. Chairman Runyon: Reminded those in attendance that public testimony needs to be focused on the intersection design and not the recreation center proposal. Pertinent Public Testimony: Robert Hubbell: Concerned that the RFTA Park and Ride site is constrained for future expansion. Also expressed concerned about safe pedestrian movements and that shared parking opportunities are limited. Mike L: Likes the proposed intersection fixes and that the fix should occur even if Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District does not proceed with the recreation center construction. Eagle County should fix the intersection, not Crown Mountain. 9 05/22/2012 Laurie Soliday: Applauds all parties for their efforts in addressing the existing intersection problems. The intersection is still broken; however, and has been for the last 11 years. What is the timing of Crown Mountain's constituent vote? What is the timing of RFTA's grant? Crown Mountain should pay their fair share. Thanked Sara for taking on the blame for problems created by a former Board. Chairman Runyon: Confirmed that this Board of County Commissioners is committed to a proper fix and avoidance of a band -aid repair. Commissioner Stavney: Acknowledged the concerns of Sopris Village residents and the changes they have experienced over the years (Sopris Village has been in place since the 1970's, and the county has grown up around it). The intersection reconfiguration design will be made as sensitive as is practicable to Sopris Village. Susan Wilson, Sopris Village HOA: Our water engineer needs to work closely with the Engineer Team for the intersection reconfiguration. Commissioner Stavney: Explore the possibility of straightening Segment `C' to avoid the Sopris Village private park. Steve, Sopris Village Resident: Basalt's new round about by the Willits Town Center has sent semis through Sopris Village and is concerned that the proposed intersection realignment will filter more traffic through their neighborhood. Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District PUD Amendment Comments: Commissioner Stavney: Likes the phased parking installation and is good with the preferred siting alternative presented by the applicant. Not worried about which side of the proposed recreation center facility parking is to occur. Agrees with the applicant that the alternative site adjacent to the Eagle County building is not suitable. Chairman Runyon: Is parking on the south side of the recreation center building intended to provide more parking for the ball fields as well? Also agrees that the siting alternative adjacent to the county building is not suitable. Commissioner Stavney: Parking on the south side offers more flexibility for future parking expansion. Future access off of West Valley Road should align with future access to the Fitzsimmons parcel. Commissioner Fisher: When will Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District go to the voters? Do you expect to have fully designed plans before the vote? Davis Farrar: Not fully designed plans but enough meat on the bones is necessary for the CMPRD to approach and educate its constituents: They need to know what they are voting on. Chairman Runyon: To Bob Morris: "Is there a problem with a de facto process ?" Bob Morris: No. State Statute allows subsequent events to be conditioned. Commissioner Stavney: How long will it take your team to add details to the Preferred Alternative? Commissioner Fisher: Great location, parking in front or in back is acceptable. When costing the project and before going to the voters, use conservative, highest cost figures. The CMPRD constituents are really the driving force. Make all choices conservatively in the design in terms of overall cost projections. The BoCC wants to see the most cost effective results possible. Commissioner Stavney: Moving forward from here, we need a monetary commitment and contribution from CMPRD to complete design of the road realignment. 10 05/22/2012 Chairman Runyon: Agrees with Sara and Jon; place the parking in a location deemed best by Crown Mountain, accounting for all pros and cons. The recreation center facility requires a sufficient setback to avoid the `canyon' affect between the recreation center and future development on the Fitzsimmons parcel. All other details can be worked out with staff. The BoCC stepped in to force the road improvement issue; whereas voters may not otherwise consider this need. The end result will benefit everyone. Lee Leavenworth, CMPRD Counsel: The CMPRD wants to be part of a final solution. Segment `A' of the overall intersection realignment is the CMPRD's fair contribution. Eva Wilson: Six to eight months for final engineering design. We may have a firm grasp on the total cost of the improvements sooner. More Pertinent Public Testimony: Laurie Soliday: We already know where the water and sewer lines, electric, gas, etc. is located across the site. All this information exists from when the county built its building. Commissioner Stavney: In a perfect world, the intersection improvement costs would be shared based upon impact. At the end of the day, it will likely fall on Eagle County to cover construction costs for Segments 'B', `C' and Mark Cole: Would love to see this project move forward. What is proposed will satisfy many families in the valley. Gymnastics and antigravity elements are needed locally. Woodward at Copper is the nearest training center. Doug Pratte: The proposed Preferred Alternative is the best location with the best circulation anywhere in the valley. Wants to see the PUD Amendment and 1041 Permit approved and let this matter move forward to the CMPRD voters. Jeff: USFS land presently for sale; how does it fit in? Commissioner Stavney: The USFS land in question is listed on the USFS's disposal list. Eagle County approached Pitkin County to team up for purchase of the upland portion of the property. We were not able to do so. The property will likely go to a private party someday. The riparian corridor portion of the USFS property is being acquired with Open Space $ in collaboration with Pitkin County. Mark Fuller: The CMPRD has expressed interest to the USFS in the 9 -acre parcel adjacent to the park. No decision has been made yet. Jennifer Cado: In favor of the recreation center and the antigravity component in particular. Also the ice skating is a plus. Tyler Lindsey: Thanked the BoCC for their attention to this proposal and the road realignment. He is in favor of the recreation center; especially the antigravity elements. Currently have to travel a considerable distance for this type of training. Mark Munger, CMPRD: Thanked the BoCC for their attention to this proposal. Six to eight months to finish the intersection design is quite long. Please expedite the process and approve the PUD Amendment and 1041 Permit. Chairman Runyon: The intersection design is a parallel process; not part of the Crown Mountain process. The design should not hold up Crown Mountain's ability to get to its voters in November. 11 05/22/2012 • Application unanimously tabled until April 10 at 5:00 p.m. in El Jebel. Subsequently tabled again until May 22, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. in El Jebel. Please note that the conditions of approval included in the attached BoCC Resolutions for both the PUD Amendment and the 1041 Permit are acceptable to staff It is anticipated that the Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District desires to discuss several of the conditions of approval directly with the Board of County Commissioners. Exhibit `C' of the PUD Amendment Resolution is intended to be the amended PUD Guide. Once the application is approved, and the amended PUD Guide finalized, it will be attached to the Resolution as Exhibit `C DISCUSSION: Davis Farrar, Western Slope Consulting Mark Munger, CMPRD g Lee Leavenworth, CMPRD Counsel Mark Fuller Chairman Runyon introduced the file. He asked that comments related to the roundabout be held for a future meeting on that topic. Bob Narracci provided some history on the file. The applicants were hoping to get Site Plan approval. He showed some slides. He reviewed the 9 suggested conditions. Chairman Runyon wondered what would happen in the event that voter approval was not gained prior to the project being completed. Mr. Narracci believed that there should be a clause allowing the county to initiate a PUD amendment to restore the PUD back to its current use. Chairman Runyon wondered how long this might be extended. Mr. Narracci proposed limiting the window for possible approval to 5 years. Chairman Runyon clarified that the conditions reflected the direction given at the prior meeting on this file. Staff was directed to work out the conditions. Davis Farrar, Western Slope Consulting Planner spoke. He provided some items for consideration and thanked everyone for their work on behalf of the applicant. He showed Exhibit A and the site plan for Crown Mountain Park, which included existing and proposed improvements. The Design Review document covered the purpose and intent, procedures and conceptual approvals requested during the hearing. Commissioner Stavney wondered about design. Mr. Leavenworth indicated that the conceptual approval was behind them. Commissioner Stavney stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting was not to approve the architectural details. Chairman Runyon stated that there would,be some design elements incorporated in this potential approval. Mr. Farrar indicated that they would be looking for conceptual approval for the site location, circulation and access, setbacks, massing, exterior finishes and materials, lighting, parking, landscaping, signs and refuse / storage. Commissioner Fisher asked when the public vote would take place. Mr. Farrar indicated that the detail design would take place after the vote. He spoke about the staff recommendations. Mr. Leavenworth spoke about the condition related to the 5 -year expiration period for Phase 1 construction to begin. They would like their window to be longer and not automatic. They had spent much time and money on the process. Chairman Runyon compared the Colorado River Ranch and the fact that they had 10 -year expiration on the PUD. The owner came in and applied for an extension. Mr. Narracci stated that the Ranch had changed ownership. The county initiated a change in zoning to revert to the original agricultural zoning. 12 05/22/2012 Chairman Runyon stated that it would be an entirely new board in 5 years. There could easily be two election cycles in a 5 -year period. Commissioner Stavney stated that voter approval within 5 years would allow the proposal to go forward. Mr. Farrar agreed that 5 years was a short window and they would like enough flexibility to keep taxpayer's investments in tact. Commissioner Stavney wondered if it should be changed to receive voter approval, and with that approval, the applicant could have an additional 5 -year period. Mr. Morris stated that language needed to be added to make sure the burden was not upon the county, but upon Crown Mountain to show that there was good reason to extend the window further. State Statues required a minimum of 3 -year window with a site - specific development. This was an existing PUD, and there was talk about amending the PUD to add uses with site - specific provisions. Mr. Leavenworth agreed that he and Mr. Morris could work out the details, and they would like some flexibility. He asked for 7 years for voter approval and 3 years to secure funding. Commissioner Fisher stated that the 5 years took into account that there would likely still be one of the current board members on the board. Leaving it out there for longer did not seem fair for future boards. Even in 6 years there could be modifications recognized as preferable. At the end of the period the then sitting board of commissioners would need to re- approve the file. Mr. Leavenworth asked that the change not be automatic. Commissioner Fisher suggested it would be reasonable for it to come back to the board with the public involved. Chairman Runyon stated that there was little reason to fear the actions of future boards. The community would have to vote on the project and their voice was important. Commissioner Stavney wondered when the first voter approval was asked. Mr. Leavenworth spoke about a vote 5 years ago to fund the planning for the center. Mr. Farrar spoke about staff condition 4. Condition 4A related to cost sharing for the design process. Mr. Leavenworth supported the concept. Section D of condition 4 was their request. The issue they had was related to the road impact fees that would be due under current county resolution. The board was unaware of this fact when they agreed to provide $50,000 for the design process. They are asking for credit of the $50,000 against the Road Impact Fees. They believed that paying for segment A and the design was paying towards the Road Impact Fees. Chairman Runyon asked if acceleration / deceleration lanes were ever credited against Road Impact Fees. Greg Schroeder helped clarify by speaking about Road Impact Fee credit. Per regulation, there are several improvements that were not allowed including one, which was being required. Mr. Leavenworth spoke about the condition related to the CDOT permit. If this permit were issued they may be required to do much more than they were ready for. He was concerned about the totality of the Road Improvement costs. They were willing to pay their share but there was a limit to what was possible. The county had said it needed to step up to pay its fair share. He doesn't think the district should be burdened with solving all of the county problems related to roads in this area. Commissioner Stavney stated that this was the first the board has heard about all of the fees related to roads. Chairman Runyon stated that these were three separate files. The fair number to throw out was the RIF for the current file, or approximately $600,000.00. Mr. Leavenworth asked for credit for the $50,000.00. Commissioner Stavney stated that the Crown Mountain Board is worried that the improvements could cost $750,000.00 and CDOT could require that more be addressed by the Crown Mountain Board. He detailed the worst -case scenario. Commissioner Fisher wondered if the access permit would be Crown Mountain's to pull. She wondered if the permit would be shared with Eagle County and Roaring Fork Transportation Authority. Mr. Schroeder stated that CDOT representatives could speak to these issues. He compared the WECMRD Field House, but clarified that the Road Impact Fees were changed after the Field House was built. The concept of the Road Impact Fees is that the traffic generated throughout the county is provided for due to increased construction projects. Chairman Runyon wondered if types of development were distinguished within the fee structure. Mr. Schroeder stated that the impact was strictly developed based on the number of expected trips to the facility or home. 13 05/22/2012 Mr. Farrar clarified that they were asking for a credit towards the fees. Mr. Leavenworth spoke about the shared responsibility. Commissioner Fisher stated that the board was not asking the applicant to pay for all of the costs. Mr. Farrar stated that with a hotel, home or business the fees would come out of the proceeds. In this case, the taxpayer would be paying for the improvements for the Rec Center. Chairman Runyon spoke about taxpayers paying all of the costs of road impacts. Should the costs be shifted to other taxpayers or paid by those benefitting for the area Rec Center. It was also his understanding that this project brought the intersection problem to the forefront. He did not believe CDOT would charge enormous . fees unfairly. Mr. Leavenworth suggested working with the county staff to craft something less risky. Eva Wilson added that in 2001 the original intent was to bring some seed money to the community to start and design projects. In Edwards, the Road Impact Fees were used for design fees. He understood their concern, but Eagle County was at the table with the applicant and CDOT. As far as allowing the credit, she feared the board would set a precedent and advised against it. They had required developers to pay for off -site, impactful improvements. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the total fees and his disbelief that they would kill the project even at the $2,000,000 level. It was not the board's intent to burden the district with more than their share of the improvements. His feeling was that $1.3 million was seed money to make improvements to Highway 82 and surrounding roads impacted by the proposed development. There was uncertainty of what might have to be paid for depending on the access permit. Ms. Wilson stated that technically the district would be required to pay for all phases of improvements per CDOT's access permit. The Board had indicated that they would share these costs reasonably. Mr. Leavenworth suggested negotiating a cost sharing agreement once the CDOT conditions were known in their entirety. His concern was that the board committed $50,000 in addition to the road Impact Fees and then the costs for improving the roads. Ms. Wilson stated that the Road Improvement Standards were set by CDOT. She felt that requiring the developer to pay for segment A, and the county would pay for B and C was reasonable and fair. Chairman Runyon suggested placing a limit on costs after which additional negotiation could occur. Mr. Leavenworth spoke about using the Road Impact Fees for sections that were being improved. Ms. Wilson stated that these fees could not be used for development improvements providing the fees. There was a committee in place to decide how best to use these fees, whether for seed money to gain more from grants or other uses. She stated that there were two traffic engineers present with expertise about the traffic impact on Highway 82. She did not anticipate CDOT coming up with something new out of the blue. Chairman Runyon stated it was a question of access. The board was coming up with a solution to the Highway 82 solutions and asking for confirmation that CDOT would not require additional solutions after the fact. They had not yet seen a traffic study for which to give final approval. Lisa Babb with CDOT spoke. The original traffic study could not solve some of the overall issues. Looking at a bigger picture allowed the county to solve some of the issues on the whole. Commissioner Stavney stated that it was about the additional development. Effectively the board could lay the entire burden of any improvements on Crown Mountain. Ms. Wilson stated that at some threshold the road improvements costs were higher for the final developers. Mr. Leavenworth proposed some language to clarify this. Chairman Runyon suggested moving forward with the applicant knowing the board's intent and then Y gg g pp g memorializing it going forward. He did not want to set a precedent towards waving or reducing the road impact fee. Mr. Farrar stated that the contribution of $50,000 might be considered a credit. Mr. Leavenworth spoke about the need to improve the road in any event and if the Rec Center does not get built the entire burden would be on the county. Commissioner Fisher stated that if this file were not being considered the county would not be looking about realigning the road. Chairman Runyon spoke about the CDOT critical intersection study on Highway 82 and the El Jebel intersection was number 4 on the list. Commissioner Fisher suggested taking another look at segment A and determine what a proportionate share would be. The traffic coming into the Eagle County building was pretty slight compared to the people utilizing Crown Mountain. 14 05/22/2012 Ms. Wilson stated that originally the county offered to pay for B and C to share fairly in the costs associated to their use at the county building. Mr. Farrar stated that RFTA had indicated delay for a year. Ms. Wilson indicated that she was not aware of this. Chairman Runyon stated that the county was already committed to spending much on this project. Ms. Wilson stated that CDOT would build leg D of the project. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the Town of Basalt future projects and pending requests from other entities. She spoke about the amount going towards this side of the county and the feedback that could be expected. Mr. Leavenworth wrapped up their concerns. He stated that all of the other conditions were acceptable. Mr. Morris suggested a more elaborate condition to reflect the window of opportunity for the district to move forward. Chairman Runyon clarified the understanding of the Road fees. Chairman Runyon opened public comment. Alan Stiers spoke. He wondered why there would not be consideration to help the developer with impact fees. He did not think getting around this issue made good sense. This was the first time he has heard about dollars and sense. He was concerned that the modeling for the impact was not sound. When traffic was considered, the Rec Center was the only thing that would generate traffic. Previously residents were told that the El Jebel intersection was the number one priority. He was told there was $250,000 of Eagle County money set aside to fund this. He spoke about a donation of $100,000 to move the process forward. He wondered who would be paying for this improvement. He did not think the project was viable. Previously RFTA parking areas were approved and bigger projects were built than what were previously presented. He was concerned that this was a game of shells. He spoke about the difficult economy. Chairman Runyon apologized for any misunderstanding. He stated that this board was agnostic on the Rec Center and clarified that the project was not a foregone conclusion. They have said that they were not going to go ahead with the improvements until the vote of the people supported the improvements. Lindsay Holmbeck commended the board on moving forward. He traveled every weekend to Aspen and Grand Junction for example to facilities and he thought if it was built people would come. The center can attract tournaments, which would stimulate the local economy. In three weekends, the City of Aspen tournaments would bring in $1.5 million to the city. He wanted the voters to be able to decide. Ralph Benning wondered if the design had been approved. Commissioner Stavney stated that the design would be considered next Thursday. Chairman Runyon clarified that nine alternatives were considered and the current design was the most desirable. Commissioner Stavney clarified that nothing would happen without an approval by the voters. The intersection was an issue that was becoming a problem and the discussion was moved to the forefront because of the proposed development. Commissioner Fisher stated that there could be some other adjustments in the near future, but the intersection was not in the immediate future. Her vision for Sopris Village was that this would be designed to be a calming effect for the subdivision. Commissioner Fisher clarified that the applicant was coming to the board with a request. The applicant would need to put on the campaign to get the project passed. She added that the public would also have an opportunity for those opposed, to campaign against. Mark Fuller, consultant to the Crown Mountain Board addressed the issue of conceptual planning and preliminary budget numbers to the proposals. There wsAat<detail included similar to what would be provided in an election. In terms of steps and sequen, "sv second. The first was the conceptual plans, which had been worked on over many years. The electio s4 ould involve a totally transparent dissemination of information and the impacts on the taxp ' ,�' iefe was not currently a timetable for this process. Mark Lundberg, past board member and current " , He expressed support for the road fee negotiation in order for the proposal to be presented to thZ t He believed it was time for the voters to say yes or no. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Chairman Runyon acknowledged that there were many steps before this could be put to the voters. 15 05/22/2012 Commissioner Fisher referred back to her initial position when this was first presented. She realized that Rec Centers did not make money and because this was going to the voters an approval from the board gave the district the authority to proceed in preparation for an election. The board has tried through these hearings to be as scrutinizing as possible. The Town of Gypsum had a beautiful Recreation Center, but membership has taken a drop and the Town funds some of the operating expenses through sales tax. The district did not have the municipality to turn back to. Other Rec Centers have general funds to fall back on during lean times. If the district was falling short once this was constructed there was not another pot to look to for the shortfall. She supported it going to a vote of the people. Commissioner Stavney acknowledged that there were fears and misinformation being shared. He was satisfied that the board's part has been handled properly. He was also in favor of allowing it to move forward and be put to the voters after the pro - formas were prepared. Bob Morris asked for clarification on the 5 -year window of opportunity. Commissioner Fisher suggested the possibility of 5 years from the date of the first election. Chairman Runyon believed that within 5 years the district should be moving forward. He still felt that 5 years was sufficient. Mr. Morris committed to working out the process with Mr. Leavenworth. He raised the question about the road impact fee. He wondered if the applicant's total contribution be capped at 1.3 million. Commissioner Stavney stated that the developer would pay the fees associated with segment A, but there would be no credit related to the Road Impact Fee. Ms. Wilson stated that leg A was the responsibility of the district, but they would also have to pay the Road Impact Fees. Chairman Runyon stated that the county agreed that the district should not have to pay for the remaining legs. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve file no. PDA -3103 Mount Sopris Tree Farm PUD Amendment and file no. 1041 -3140 Crown Mountain Parks and direct staff to draw up a resolution based on the modifications to the conditions as discussed and to be presented on June 12, 2012 in Eagle with no public comment. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business before t, . • e meeting was adjourne til May , 2• . Attest: �i �i'`C� �1 "' Clerk to the Board Chairman 16 05/22/2012