Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/07/95 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKE~S 387869 PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 7, 1995 Present: Johnnette Phillips George "Bud" Gates Robert Loeffler Sara J. Fisher Absent: James E. Johnson Commissioner Chairman Pro-tern Assistant County Attorney Clerk to the Board Chairman This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Chairman Pro-tern Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. RESOLUTION E95-1 EXTENDING TIME PROVISION, 1995 COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Bob Loeffler, Assistant County Attorney, presented Resolution E95-1, extending the time provision for the 1995 County Board of Equalization to conduct hearings and render decisions to August 21, 1995. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution E95-1 as presented. Chairman Pro-tern Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Robert Loeffler stated they have received some of the recommendations from the hearing officer. They are presented in three sections. The first being a stipulation agreed to by the tax payer and the Assessor. He related the second group is recommendations in which the hearing officer has made an adjustment based on the information received during the hearing. The last group is those in which the petition has been denied. Mr. Loeffler stated the files are available if there are questions. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Board of Equalization petitions numbers 010200 - E95-210 as stipulated by the taxpayer and the hearing officer. Chairman Pro-tern Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve E-95-150, E95-174, E95-237, E95-505, E95-565, E95-566, E95-641, E95-718, E95-740, E95-741, E95-747, E95-764, E95-769, E95-770, E95-776, E95-777, E95-789, E95-879, E95-882, and E95-886 for adjustment of the assessed value of their petitioned properties. Chairman Pro-tern Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips asked about file number E95-304 and the reason for denial. Ed Schmalley, Hearing Officer, explained the presentation of Buddy Calhoun and Mr. Calhoun I s belief the property in concern does fall under the agricultural classification. Mr. Loeffler asked about hay production. Mr. Schmalley explained the hay is from another person's land and not the land in question. Mr. Schmalley stated no evidence was presented that shows the surface use of the land is for agricultural purposes. Chairman Pro-tern Gates asked about the horse boarding not qualifying whereas horse breeding does. Mr. Schmalley clarified the issue. He further explained the horses are fed on the property in question and not grazed, though that would not really make a difference. 1 Mr. Schmalley referred to 89CA1294, where the surface use of the subject land is not an agricultural endeavor. Mr. Schmalley referred to the letter received from the petitioner's attorney and reviewed the regulations stating that land used for boarding horses does not qualify as agricultural land. He also explained the definition of draft horses as compared to pack horses and saddle horses. Mr. Schmalley concluded the petitioner is indeed a farmer but that definition goes with the individual and not by the land. Commissioner Phillips asked about schedule F. Mr. Schmalley stated it was referred to but not given as part of the packet. Mr. Loeffler explained the filing of schedule F does not ensure an agricultural classification but shows the intention of making a profit. Chairman Pro-tern Gates asked for a further explanation of horses and the difference between draft horse and saddle horse/ranch horse. Mr. Schmalley stated the saddle horse is an accessary but not a requirement for an agricultural property. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve denial of E95-18, E95-42, E95-43, E95-44, E95-212, E95-300, E95-301, E95-310, E95-311, E95-312, E95-508, E95-542, E95-557, E95-571, E95-574, E95-635, E95-636, E95-637, E95-638, E95-639, E95-640, E95-671, E95-672, E95-673, E95-716, E95-724, E95-742, E95-760, E95-765, E95-784 and E95-304. Chairman Pro-tern Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. E95-56 016322, E95-55 019828, E95-495 P004266, E95-496 012843, E95-497 003225 Commissioner Phillips introduced these petitions tabled from July 31, 1995 and stated after reviewing the information presented to the hearing officer and listening to the tapes, she believes the decisions reached by the hearing officer are appropriate. Chairman Pro-tern Gates concurred. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve denial of E95-56 016322, E95-55 019828, E95-495, P004266, E95-496 012843, E95-497, 003225. Commissioner Phillips asked a letter could be drafted to Mrs. Allen and Mr. Calhoun explaining the Board did review the information as requested and concur with the hearing officer. Chairman Pro-tern Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn as the Board of Equalization and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro-tern Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Pro-tern Gates stated the next item on the agenda was the consent calendar as follows: 1. BILL PAYING 2. MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT INCLUDING REAL PROPERTY LEASE FOR GHENT PROPERTIES AND COOLEY MESA LEASING, LLC 3. RESOLUTION 95-93 AUTHORIZING PARTIAL RELEASE OF COLLATERAL AND COMMENCEMENT OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD FOR KUNTZ RANCH SUBDIVISION, INCLUDES AUTHORIZATION FOR BANK TO REDUCE COLLATERAL 4. RESOLUTION 95-94 AUTHORIZING FINAL RELEASE OF COLLATERAL AND ENDING OF WARRANTY PERIOD FOR BLUE LAKE PUD FILING NO 4 (VANTEX) 5. APPROVAL OF EAGLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MINUTES FOR MAY 30, 1995 THROUGH JULY 18, 1995 Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent calendar as presented. Chairman Pro-tern Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 CONTRAcr, EXCHANGE REAL ESTATE, ERNST LEHMANN Jim Fritze, County Attorney, presented a contract to exchange real estate between Eagle County and Ernst Lehmann for airport property. He suggested the Board make a motion authorizing the Chairman to sign the contract once the dates have been changed. He explained the contracts had been presented to the applicant some time ago but not in enough time to have them prepared for this hearing. The Attorney's office has not heard from Mr. Schmidt, representing the applicant or Mr. Lehmann, but believe the contract will be completed within the next two weeks. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the contract to exchange real estate between Eagle County and Ernst Lehmann for airport property and the Chairman shall be authorized to sign said contract once the dates have been changed. Chairman Pro-tem Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. CONTRAcr, EAGLE VALLEY LIBRARY BOARD Jim Fritze presented a contract between Eagle County and the Eagle County Library Board. He explained all of the Board's concerns regarding this contract have been addressed and the blanks on the contract have been filled in. Mr. Fritze explained the dollar amount is $15,000.00 with $5,000.00 being the County's portion. Kevin Lindahl stated the budget amount is for this year. Mr. Lindahl stated the library holds responsibility for 2/3rds of the maintenance on the library parking lot. The Library Board has asked the County take responsibility for snow removal. Chairman Pro-tem Gates indicated that would probably be workable but they must ask the Buildings and Grounds department before making a commitment. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the contract between Eagle County and the Eagle Valley Library Board with changes as discussed. Chairman Pro-tem Gates seconded the motion. In discussion, Mr. Lindahl stated for the record the Town of Eagle is also to be included in this agreement. Chairman Pro-tem Gates called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. SERVICE PLAN, HORSE MOUNTAIN RANCH METROPOLITAN DISTRlcr Kei th Montag, Director of Community Development, presented the Service Plan for Horse Mountain Ranch Metropolitan District. He stated the applicant is proposing to create a metropolitan district that will operate and maintain existing road systems and traffic safety devices within the Horse Mountain Ranch Subdivision. The applicant proposes to improve the existing road network at his expense. The District will then maintain the network. The Mill Levy would be 8 mills projected over 20 years. Mr. Montag stated there have been many changes made, for the better, since this application was first submitted. Mr. Montag explained the major change regards gravel. Site distances have been agreed to. The scope and budget of the maintenance program has increased and a maintenance inspection program is now included. The operating statement has been modified to show an increase in the maintenance expenses and administrative fees based on an expanded maintenance program. Staff's concerns and issues are as follows: 1) The Eagle County Engineering Department and the Eagle County Road and Bridge Department have reviewed and responded to the most recent service plan for Board consideration. The following issues are identified: a) Snow plowing as proposed does not comply with the Eagle County clear road policy. b) While the proposed roads are adequate from a construction and maintenance standpoint, the roadway sections do no meet county standards. 3 2) District proliferation. The Eagle County Master Plan discourages the proliferation of small service districts. The existing homeowner associations are entities that could be utilized for assessment collection and subsequent road maintenance. 3) The existing Horse Mountain Ranch subdivision is an example of the need for County review and approval of subdivisions greater than 35 acres in size. Staff is concerned the approval of the service plan condones creation of subdivisions greater than 35 acres without County review or approval. 4) The proposed district boundaries are not contiguous to Highway 131 where access is taken. How does the district propose to obtain and maintain right-of-way outside district boundaries? 5) The Operating Statement uses a very aggressive market value inflation assumption. Staff questions if the proj ected real estate trend will be maintained for the next 20 years. 6) The Operating Statement reflects a $26,000.00 transfer from the Homeowners Association to allow the District a positive fund balance for the first 4 years of operation. Is it prudent to create a District that operation "in the red" without subsidy? Have the Homeowners agreed to such a fund transfer? 7) The text indicates a $15,000.00 reserve account which is not reflected in the Statement. 8) Inflation of cost was not incorporated into the maintenance report. 9) There is no provision in the Plan that specifies the applicant will incur all fees and costs associated with the condemnation issue. It is not in the District budget. Mr. Montag went on to explain Staff's findings explaining items a - d must be met in order for the Board to approve the service plan. The second set of findings, items a - e may be included by the Board prior to their approval of the plan. Mr. Montag stated he has also listed positive recommendations for the Board's consideration and reminded the Board on March 1, 1995, the Eagle and Colorado Valley Planning Commission recommended approval of the service plan by a 3-1 vote. Gary White, representing the applicant, introduced other individuals present. He questioned if the Commissioners had a bound copy of the July 21 proposal. He introduced exhibits K and S into the record. Mr. White explained the general information portion of their presentation. He first addressed the maintenance and construction aspects of the roads. He further expressed he did not feel land use concerns apply in this matter. Chairman Pro-tern Gates questioned the maintenance requirements. Mr. White responded they do not meet County standards. He continued to explain the road maintenance items and their desire to build County requirements into the road maintenance agreement. The increase of the annual fees will be minimal with the mill levy remaining the same though there will be changes in the physical maintenance. Mr. White stated figure three will be introduced as Exhibit AA, and a revised Exhibit BB, will be the road map. Chairman Pro-tern Gates accepted the exhibits into the record. Mr. White read a letter from Northwest COG regarding compliance with the 208 plan. He asked Exhibit J be entered into the record as well as Exhibit F for the service plan. He referred to Exhibit L which is not being tendered as well as Exhibit F which is not being tendered at this time. Mr. White referred to the letters received from individuals in support of the service plan who were not able to attend. He asked they be marked as Exhibit R and made part of the record and listed as Property Owners Correspondence. Mr. White introduced Exhibit U from Lee Scott regarding traffic analysis. Mr. White referred to the Planning Commission hearing and transcript thereof as Exhibit V. Mr. White addressed the concerns staff previously discussed. Don Fessler, Director of Road and Bridge, stated Staff does not wait until an accumulation of four inches before they begin snow removal. He referred to the school bus routes being a priority 1. Priority 2 roads are those adjacent to the school bus routes. Mr. Toronto, TST Engineering agreed with the County's definition and explained their intent is to plow as needed and be sure it is before the snow reaches four inches. 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Mr. White addressed road standards and the six inch gravel requirement of the land use regulations. Mr. Toronto stated they had met with staff and their intention is to be in compliance however, they believe four inches is more than adequate to handle the minimal amount of traffic that will be seen on the inner part of the development. Chairman Pro-tern Gates asked how long adequate is and expressed his concern that ultimately the roads will end up with the County. Mr. Toronto stated their maintenance schedule shows the entire 22 miles of road being reviewed, analyzed, grated and repaired on an annual basis. They currently have a two year contract in hand to do so now. Mr. White continued with district proliferation. He emphasized the legislative definitions and the response from the County not wanting to take on these roads. Consolidation with another special district is discouraged. Mary Jo Berenato questioned being unable to confirm the sales of any of the properties as the deeds have not been recorded. Discussion continued on market research and sales of properties. The applicant continued with their presentation. Commissioner Phillips asked about the guarantee of water and her concern with the lack of water that is available in that area. She asked how water would be provided. Mr. Morgan stated this district has no responsibility for water and it is not a district function. He stated part of the closing contract provides for the drilling of a well prior to the closing of sales. He informed the Board water has been found on all lots which have been drilled. Ms. Berenato asked how many successful wells have been drilled on the seventeen lots now sold. Mr. Morgan answered eight. Wendell Porterfield, Attorney for Piney Valley Ranches Trust, spoke to the issue of water and asked if the proponents of the district know the availability of water on other lots that have sold that the district does not own. Mr. Morgan stated they have not studied those lots but the geological study has been dispersed throughout the development. Mr. Porterfield questioned the impact on value if water is not available. He asked if consideration has been given to property owners to the west of the LLC if the roads are not accessible. . There has been indication there may be a usage fee charged to those who may need to use those roads to get back to Highway 131. Mr. Morgan stated he understands once created, the roads are public, however, the district would consider annexing those developments into the district as used. Mr. Goldman, representing the Ericksons, owners of the southeastern portion of the development, asked once the district is formed, who will own the roads. Mr. White stated the district will take ownership of the roads from the owners. Mr. Goldman stated he believes the association now owns the roads and asked if they will then be transferred to the district. He asked who will be responsible for bringing the roads up to the standards of the County. Mr. Morgan stated they are not the developer but a property owner. Discussion continued on the development and construction of those roads. Mr. Goldman encouraged the Board to ask for an estimate as well as a Letter of Credit to provide for completion of the roads to a County standard. Mr. Fritze stated part of the Commissioners responsibility is to ensure the Service Plan provides for the principals to guarantee by way of Letter of Credit, or one year's debt coverage, a commitment to build the roads to county standards and that other parties will pay for the condemnation. Mr. White stated they would agree not to accept title to the roads unless they have not been developed to the standards of the county. Mr. Fritze stated the Board has twenty days to approve or disapprove the application after the close of the hearing. He believes the Board's principle concern is that the approval provides to investors the assurance certain improvements will be made. 5 Public comment and lengthy discussion continued on this application. Commissioner Phillips moved to continue the application for Horse Mountain Ranch Metropolitan District for twenty days, enabling the Commissioners to deliberate according with State Statute, and to respond to the applicant on August 22, 1995. Chairman Pro-tern Gates seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to come before this Board the meeting was adjourned until August 8, 1995. ~. 6