Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/04/95 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEt:S 387869 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 4, 1995 Present: James Johnson, Jr. George "Bud" Gates Johnnette Phillips Jack Lewis James R Fritze Mary Jo Berenato Earlene Roach Chairman Commissioner commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney 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: Horse MOuntain RanCh Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, presented the service plan for Horse Mountain Ranch Metropolitan District. He stated the property is located six miles North of Wolcott. He related Horse Mountain Ranch is a 4,600 acre development and the services to be provided are roads, traffic control and legal powers. Mr. Montag reviewed major concerns and issues identified by Staff as follows: 01) The Eagle County Engineering Department originally identified the following as issues: a) road platfo:rm (thickness of gravel and subgrade) is inadequate. b) minimum site distance not provided. c) level of maintenance proposed for the project does not seem realistic based on projected level of expenditures. 02) District proliferation of small service districts. The existing homeowner associations are entities that could be utilized for assessment collection subsequent road maintenance. 03) The existing Horse Mountain Ranch subdivision is an example of the need for County review and approval of subdivision greater than 35 acres in size. 04) The proposed district boundaries are not contiguous to Highway 131 where access is taken. How does 05) Contrary to the financial report, the County does not register construction for two years on the tax rolls. 06) Inflation of cost was not incorporated into the financial report. 07) based on the numerous requests for exclusion from the District, how does that effect the financial report. It seems that costs would not be substantially reduced, but yet the revenues would decline. 08) Is the developer paying the assessment on the lots he owns. 09) The financial report shows the assessment being paid for all 22 years yet the text indicated only ten years of assessment will be paid. 10) Petitions for exclusion from the District have been received from 5 property owners, Kevin McNett, Eagle Mountain Development, Inc. Stephen & Charlene Erickson, John Forier and Piney Valley Ranches Trust. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated a number of items have been taken care of and questioned if those items were taken care of in the filing submitted to County Clerk and Recorder's Office. Keith Montag responded the original service ~lan was changed. Chairman Johnson questioned if this applicatlon needed to go back to the Planning Commission. Gary White, Attorney re~resenting the applicant, stated the Planning Commission approved the servlce plan with conditions. He related there were 1 minor financial changes asked for by the Planning Commission. He stated the District is not involved in constructing new roads but rather in maintaining those roads. Commissioner Johnson asked when reports were mailed to the property owners. Mr. White stated the revised budget was mailed approximately ten days ago. Mr. Fritze stated prior to this hearing, there is a filing and notice requirement but the Statute contemplates what will be heard and what is filed with the Clerk. He stated if there are major changes to the application the Planning Commission must re-hear the application. Gary White stated Title 32, 32-1204 (3) the Board has the ri~ht to conditionally approve the service plan. He stated the applicant lS not ~ro~sing conditional approval at this hearing. He noted the revised budget lndlcated modifications may be made to the service plan at the time of the hearing. Mr. White introduced Charles Norton, Mitch Morgan and Donald Gerano. He reviewed prior happenings for the Board and items submitted to the County. He stated the roads currently exist but are not maintained. He stated this will be a maintenance district only and will not be involved in capital improvements. Mr. White reviewed possible election and court dates in the future. He stated the question is simple, should this district be organized or should the ~roperty owners take maintenance of the roads upon themselves. Mr. White submitted several exhibits to the County Attorney and reviewed those exhibits. He stated he believes all conditlons tendered by the Planning Commission have been met. Mary Jo Berenato, Deputy County Attorney, questioned if the new budget was mailed to the homeowners. Mr. White answered no. Jim Fritze stated the Board and the applicant must go through the exhibits at some point in this hearing. Gary White reviewed the following exhibits: Exhibit A - proposed budget mailed to property owners Exhibit B - certificate of mailing of notice of this hearing Exhibit C - certificate of public affidavit Exhibit D - affidavit of Donett Hunter, relative to notices mailed to all property owners, relative to this hearing Exhibit E - affidavit of mailing by Donett Hunter Exhibit F - letter addressed to commissioners relative to exclusion certificates Exhibit G - service plan Exhibit H - new addition to service plan Exhibit I - proposed addition relative to best management practices relative to soil erosion Exhibit J - letter from NWCCOG regarding erosion control Exhibit K - proposed addition to service plan Exhibit L - proposed addition declared intention of district to provide safe roads Exhibit M - Mitch Morgan testimony Exhibit N - petition filed by applicant Exhibit 0 - letter from Community Development Dept Exhibit P - excepts of Planning Commission hearing Exhibit Q - testimony of Donald Gerano Exhibit R - Horse Mountain correspondence. Mr. White tendered those Exhibits for the record. He stated the District anticipates a mill levy of 8 to 10 mills over the life of this project, which amounts to $450.00 per lot. He pointed out on a map the boundaries of the district and foreclosure properties. He related the foreclosure of those properties would eliminate access to other properties and stated the cost of maintenance would be added onto other properties. He stated condemnation powers are needed for the District but would not have any financial impacts on the District. Jim Fritze asked who would pay the costs of condemnation. Mr. White stated Horse Mountaln Ranch LLC would finance the District the costs of condemnation. Mr. Fritze asked if appraisals have been done to dete:rmine costs of the properties. 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Mr. White answered no. Mitch Morgan, representing the district, spoke concerning his involvement and read his statement to the Board concerning road maintenance, collection of association dues, lien priorities, foreclosures, properties not included in the district, access, homeowner associations, financial plan, prices of lots and mill levies. Chairman Johnson questioned the fifteen parcels sold for an average of $235,000.00 and the top price was $265,000.00. Commissioner Phillips asked how many homes have been built. Mr. Morgan answered one. Chairman Johnson questioned how many people would be eligible to vote in the election. Mr. White stated their best estimate currently is between 88 and 104 people. Chairman Johnson questioned how many of those are involved in the Limited Liability Company. Mr. White stated seven. Commissioner Gates asked how the homeowners associations would vote. Mr. White stated the homeowners associations would be allowed to vote on the district issues. Donald Terenato, Engineer, read his statement for the Board concerning design of the project, parcels within the proposed district, studies for traffic distribution and soils testing, roads and maintenance of those roads, improvements to the roads, financial plan, market values of the properties, mill levies, expense and growth projections. Chairman Johnson questioned the roads being brought up to County standards. Mr. Terenato stated County Staff is currently devising standards for these roads and the applicant is adopting most of those standards. George Roussos, County Engineer, stated Staff and the applicant are trying to resolve the six areas of concern. He stated design standards indicate reduced traffic would require less shoulder and lane width of two nine foot lanes with two two foot shoulders. He stated safety was a big issue with the Engineering Department. Mr. Roussos info:rmed the Board stopping site distance has been agreed to. Road platforms of 4 inches of gravel will not hold up to the traffic and maintenance. He stated the applicant has agreed to brin~ the road into compliance by the year 2007. Mary Jo Berenato asked lf the road maintenance was based on the revised budget. Mr. Terenato answered yes. Mr. Fritze asked how an individual can make a commitment for a district that has not been fo:rmed. Mr. White stated after a meeting with Staff, a mission statement was arrived at. Mr. Fritze stated if someone buys property and the district says they are going to do these things, there is an obligation for the district to confo:rm. Mr. White stated the service plan will be recorded with the Clerk & Recorder. Mr. Fritze stated Mr. Terenato indicated this district has no debt involved. Mr. Terenato stated this district is intending to provide all maintenance and help property owners achieve an adeguate level of maintenance. He explained debt service resPOnsibillty and related this district will have no debt. Mr. Fritze questioned what happens if there are only fifty homes. Would the district still be viable. Mr. Terenato stated if there are only fifty homes there would be less roads to maintain. Chairman Johnson questioned roads as discussed at the hearing before the Planning Commission. He stated the standard will be achieved after the district has taken over the roads. Mr. Terenato stated the standards are less than the County standards. He stated the width of the roads and the stopping distance will meet County 3 standards when the roads are turned over to the District. He related the depth of the road will not meet County standards at that time. The Board concurred to defer to public comment. Blair Bakken, area resident, spoke in opposition to the district and related the access issue is being used as a smoke screen and the road issue is not being addressed ~roperty nor completely. He questioned parcels not in the homeowners associatlon, once the district is fo:rmed those lots do not have access. He questioned what access is being proposed for those lots. He pointed out on a map the route he must currently take to access his property. He reviewed Exhibit R, road maintenance. He spoke to gravel & surfacing, snow plowing, culverts, number of parcels and access. He requested the Board assure the developers do the right thing. Diane Bakken, area resident, s~ke opposing the ap~lication. She spoke to mill levies, water, Exhibit A, flnancial plans, servlce plan concerning condemnation and ri~hts-of-ways and organizational costs of the district. She stated the servlce plan shall describe the facilities to be constructed and the standards for those facilities. Jay Hartman, area resident, spoke in favor of the district. Bill Post, Attorney and area resident, stated when the acreage was purchased its use was planned to be agriculture. He spoke concerning roads and easements. He stated this ~roperty was considered to be depressed partially due to a pending lawsult. Mr. Post stated if forced into the district, they would be paying for condemnation of their own property. Wendall Porterfield, Attorney and area resident, stated the history of this development must be looked at. This property was divided into three subdivisions and the roads developed served all three areas. He stated none of the Elk Meadow lots were included in the district. Elk Meadow owners must use the roads in Horse Mountain to access their lots. He stated he believed it was immature to ~ropose a district at this time. He stated the roads are impassable at certaln times of the year. Mr. Porterfield reviewed State Statutes indicating why the Board of County Commissioners must disapprove this application. He presented an invoice from Horizon West Property Management as Exhibit 1, a bill for 1995 special assessment from the Homeowners Association, in the amount of $15,000.00, relating to power lines and road improvements. He related four inches of gravel is not enough to maintain the roads and bring them to County standards. He stated the proposed budget attached to the service plan indicates assessments much higher than the proposed actual costs. He reviewed State Statutes for the Board and reviewed the County Master Plan presented as Exhibit 2. He stated it is not in the best interest of all property owners for this district to be approved. Mr. Porterfield stated a metropolitan district must provide two of the services as provided in State Statutes. He stated testimony reveals there will be no improvements made by the district. He reviewed the ~roPOsed service plan. He questioned if the Board were willing to approve a dlstrict knowing the area would have substandard roads and would this district be in the best interest of everyone. He stated it is his contention approval of this application would perpetuate the current problems. Jeanette Francis, area resident, spoke concerning roads and access. She stated the applicant is working with the current owners. She related there is tu:rmoil between the associations and stated it is her opinion the only way to solve this problem is to fo:rm one district. She stated everyone needs to work together as a team. If a district is not fo:rmed the property owners will have less say in how those roads are constructed. She questloned the agricultural use for surrounding properties and questioned if those uses would remain in the future. She requested the Board approve the application for a metropolitan district. Chairman Johnson asked about access to Ms. Frances' ~roperty. Mary Jo Berenato questioned what happens if gravel dld not get to her road untll the year 2000. Ms. Francis stated it is buyer beware when you buy the ~roperty. Doug Walker, area resident, spoke in favor of the distrlct. Dave Garton, area resident, requested the Board approve the application for a metropolitan district. 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Resolution 95-37 Kathleen Fornash, Director of Social Services, presented Resolution 95- 37 declaring April 4, 1995 as a day for children. A group of children made a presentation to the Board and sang songs. Dolls were presented to the Board for them to keep for the month of April. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 95-37 declaring April 4, 1995 as a day for children. Commissioner Gates seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Horse MOuntain Metro nist. Chairman Johnson stated the Board will now continue with discussion on the Horse Mountain Ranch Metropolitan District. . Steve Moore, Bureau of Land Management, stated there is public land on the Southeast corner of this proposal. He stated the applicant is requesting a right-of-way through this property. He stated a right-of-way can be granted if the road meets County road standards and the water is of good quality. He stated most of the concerns can be met by constructing a road to County standards, not was is currently being discussed. He pointed out on a map the location of the public lands and the proposed right-of-way. Jim Fritze asked if a right-of way were granted would there be a rental fee. Mr. Moore answered yes but did not know if there was a difference in fees for governmental agencies. Jim Fritze asked about maintenance of the right-of-way. Mr. White stated the district will maintain the right-of-way. Mary Jo Berenato asked if the budget includes costs for construction and maintenance of the road and right-of-way. Mr. Terenato answered yes, but if more money is needed it will be contributed. Mr. Moore stated there would not be a considerable amount of time needed to approve the right-of-way. Debbie Marquez, area resident, spoke in favor of the proposal and of sharing costs and maintenance of the roads. She stated she believes a metropolitan district is the best way to accomplish access and improvements. commissioner Johnson asked when Ms. Marquez bought her lot. Ms. Marquez stated she closed on her lot in February 1995 and learned about the metropolitan district after she signed her contract. Sharon Thompson, area resident, spoke in favor of the proposed metropolitan district. She stated the homeowners can come together with the metropolitan district and get the road concerns solved. She stated she believes there are not alot of options if the district is not fo:rmed. Chairman Johnson asked when Ms. Thompson bought her property. Ms. Thompson stated she closed in February 1995 but has been discussing the purchase for two years. Michael Landreth, area resident, read letters from Traey Farrow and Clair VonDeveroff supporting the Horse Mountain Ranch District, and Jeff Shiros and Kathy Cole su~porting the proposed district. Mr. Landruth spoke in favor of the applicatlon. He reviewed the background of the property. He stated years ago this property was completely sold out. Mr. Landruth spoke to property values, access, road maintenance, and asked the Board to approve the application. Mr. Porterfield questioned the planned twenty-six miles of road and monies available. Chairman Johnson stated there are three different subdivisions, Horse Mountain, Wool Creek and Elk Meadows. He questioned if there were lots from Elk Meadows included in the boundaries of the district. Mr. Morgan stated there are two lots, EM2 which was mistakenly labeled and EM8 which was annexed into Horse Mountain. Mr. Fritze stated the property is not considered subdivisions. Jeff Forbes, area resident, spoke in favor of the proposed district. He stated he is concerned with the quality of roads proposed but believes a 5 metropolitan district is the best way to acquire monies to maintain those roads. Jim Golden, Attorney representing Mr. Erickson, stated Mr. Erickson has filed a petition for exclusion and related the applicant has not given any reason the ~roperty should not be excluded. He requested they be allowed to hear remainlng testimony before making a statement. Tony Portman, area resident, stated he has owned Lot 19 since 1983. He spoke in favor of the proposed metropolitan district. He stated he had planned on building a home but that has not taken place at this time. He stated the road situation cannot be settled today. He requested the Board approve the application. Naney Dooher, area resident, spoke in favor of the proposed district. She sI??ke to access, foreclosure of some of the lots. She stated the majorlty of the property owners are in favor of the proposal. Marvin Tillman, area resident and owner of Parcel 7, spoke in support of this project. Steve Frances, area resident, stated the issues that should be dealt with are people issues. He spoke of concerns regarding foreclosures and access to other pro~erty. He addressed his concerns regarding water, road improvements and malntenance. Carol Davis, representative of Parcel 6, appeared on behalf of the owner and expressed their desire to approve the proposal Charles Gongaware, owner of Parcel 8, spoke to the positive agricultural aspect of the proposal. He read from a recent newspaper article regarding Mr. Lindholm's concern of trespassing. Kevin McMett, owner of Parcel 14, stated he was guaranteed access to his property when he purchased it. He spoke of an easement for HolyCross at no financial gain. He stated the metro~olitan district has valid reasons for requesting approval but had reservatlons of being subjected to double taxation. He suggested the Board exclude those property owners requesting exclusion. Ed Thompson, area resident and owner of willow Creek 15, expressed concerns of what can and cannot be solved by a metropolitan district. He stated he would like to see all property owners come together and requested he be given an opportunity to vote on the district. John Forier, area owner, stated he previously filed a letter of opposition. He spoke of his problems with access to this property through Mr. Lindholm's property. He told the Board of his maintenance of the roads through the winter for less than $15,000.00. He stated the Piney Valley foreclosure is a threat to all property owners. He related the Metropolitan District seems to be the only option to solve problems faced by the property owners and he now favors the proposal. Dave Veldman, Fort Collins resident and a member of Horse Mountain LLC, stated his partnership buys distressed properties and commented the partnershi~ has funded phone lines and road work. He stated the formation of a Metropolltan District is urgent. Steven Stockrnar, area resident, stated the purchasers of the property in Horse Mountain knew what the roads were when they bought the property. He stated the only equitable way to distribute the cost of various issues is through a metropolitan district. He requested the right to vote on this issue. Jim Golden questioned Steve Erickson regardin~ his property location, access to his parcels, one parcel located in the Dlstrict, and utilities provided to his properties. Mr. Erickson stated his concerns of safety on the BLM road to his property. Mr. Golden questioned Mr. Erickson regarding condemnation of his and other ~roperties for right-of-way. Dlscussion followed on a special assessment from the Homeowners Association in the amount of $15,000 for maintenance. Mr. Erickson stated increased traffic on the road, if the Metropolitan District is approved, will cause the roads to become more dangerous. He stated he will not benefit if the District is approved. Mr. Golden stated that solving access through a metropolitan district is not fair and does not create an even playing field. Mr. Fritze asked Mr. Golden to clarlfy the parcels owned by Mr. Erickson and the access from Highway 131, and civil litigation regarding access. 6 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Gary White spoke re~arding the exclusion petition right of property owners. He reviewed petltions that have been filed. He ~ointed out on the map which properties have filed for exclusion and propertles not included in the proposed District. He addressed the question of whether Piney Valley Trust properties are the property owners and the property owners must be the petitioner. He spoke to Exhibit F, a letter by Mr. John Guyer requesting inclusion. He requested the petition by Piney Valley Trust be denied as they are not the property owners. He pointed out the parcels owned by Mr. Foyer that request exclusion and he stated he is prepared to stipulate to exclusion to those parcels. He argued that the remainder of the petitions before the Board will benefit from the formation of District and requested the Board deny those petitions. Wendell Porterfield cited Statutes regarding petitions for exclusion and the authority of the Board of Commissioners. Blair Bakken stated his belief that it's unfair to allow some parcels in the District and requested exclusion. Mr. White reiterated that Mr. Bakken would have benefits from the district. He spoke of the differences between Mr. Foyer'S property and Mr. Bakken's property. Mr. Forier spoke of the road he is constructing for access to his parcel. Mr. White clarified the number of lots requesting exclusion from the district. Mr. Golden stated that Mr. Foyer will not use District improved roads and nor would Mr. Erickson since he has a pe:rmit from the BLM to use their road. Commissioner Johnson requested an "Executive Session" for clarification on specific items. Commissioner Gates moved to adjourn to "Executive Session". Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Johnson asked the record to reflect the Board went into "Executive Session" at 4:45 p.m. The Board returned from "Executive Session" at 4:58 p.m. Commissioner Johnson asked how various lots would be accessed and serviced by District roads. Mitch Morgan responded regarding access by District roads to several parcels. Further discussion was held on parcels that do not have District access. Mr. Goldman said access to parcel 33 was through Mr. Erickson's property and questioned if access was still available. Mr. Fritze asked Mr. Wright to clarify why a parcel is excluded even though a petition has not been presented. Bill Post maintained the Board has the authority to exclude certain properties. Mr. White cited State Statute's regarding requests by property owners. Mr. Fritze requested he be allowed time for review before giving his interpretation of those Statute's. Mr. White stated the Board would have to rule on petitions presented before the service plan for the metropolitan district could be considered. Discussion was held regarding the completeness of the proposal and petitions before the Board. Mr. McMett re-stated his donation of the easement is an adequate contribution. Commissioner Phillips stated she believes the only parcel which should be excluded is Parcel 57. commissioner Phillips moved that all parcels be included in the District as they will benefit from use of the District roads. Commissioner Gates would not second the motion. Chairman Johnson seconded the motion for discussion. In discussion, Chairman Johnson stated there are benefits to the owners petitioning for exclusion. commissioner Gates spoke to the parcels under litigation and parcel owner construction of a private road. 7 Chairman Johnson called for guest ion on the motion. commissioners Gates and Johnson voting no and Commissloner Phillips voting aye. The motion did not pass. Discussion followed on the petitions for exclusion. Mr. Fritze recommended the Board look at each petition separately rather than in together. Commissioner Gates moved to approve the exclusion petition of Mr. Foyer. Chairman Johnson seconded the motion. commissioners Gates and Johnson voting yes and Commissioner Phillips voting no. Ms. Berenato clarified the parcels included in the exclusion petition. Commissioner Gates moved to approve request to exclude Parcels HM 34 and HM 20. Commissioner Philli~s seconded the motion. In discussion, Commlssioner Phillips reiterated her belief that if you reap benefits of the district the parcels should be included. Chairman Johnson stated these two lots would do just as well inside the district. Chairman Johnson called for the question on the motion. Commissioner Johnson and Gates voting yes and Commissioner Phillips voting no. Commissioner Johnson stated the petition from Piney Valley Ranch Trust is not a valid petition as they are not the owner. commissioner Gates moved to invalidate the request from Piney Valley Ranch Trust. commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. commissioner Gates moved to deny the request for exclusion on Parcel HM 30. commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. commissioner Gates moved to approve the request for exclusion on parcel HM 14. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gates moved to approve the petition for exclusion from the owner of HM 27. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. Commissioners Gates and Johnson voting yes and commissioner Phillips voting no. Mr. White summarized the lots granted exclusion from the district. He submitted Exhibit S, supplemental information, Exhibit U, a letter from traffic consultants and Exhibit V, a transcript of the Planning commission meeting. Chairman Johnson questioned time frames needed for further review on the proposal for a metropolitan district. Allen Sartin, Finance Manager, stated he will need at lease a full day to look at the financial information submitted by the district. Mr. Fritze stated will be further testimony needed before the Board can come to a decision on whether the statutory criteria has been met by the applicant. Discussion followed on time frames needed by the District. commissioner Gates moved to table a decision on the proposal of Horse Mountain Metropolitan District to April 25. 1995. commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Phillips gave her thoughts on the formation of the district, the inconsistencies of the services offered by the district and the exclusion of the four parcels. Mr. Fritze stated for the record, the Board has not heard complete testimony and are not under an obligation to make a decision today. 8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Chairman Johnson stated with public input, the Board has not had an opportunity to review the evidence necessary to give concrete direction to the applicant. Chairman Johnson called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved to acce~t all exhibits into the record. Commissioner Gates seconded the motlon. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until April 10, 1995. Attest: C 9