Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/17/96 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 PUBLIC HEARING SEPTEMBER 17, 1996 Present: Johnnette Phillips James Johnson, Jr. Jim Hartmann Sara J. Fisher Chairman Pro-tern Commissioner County Administrator Clerk to the Board Absent: George "Bud" Gates Chairman This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: PD-139-96-A2, Arrowhead Village Plan Pattie Haefeli, Planner, presented file number PD-139-96-A2, Arrowhead Village Plan Review, development area "A". She stated this was a site plan review of the Arrowhead Village Core development area plan and they have submitted it in accordance with the PUD Guide which requires additional review of Development Area Plans. This site plan review is in response to questions raised as part of the review of a final plat application and recent building permit inquiries. The Arrowhead at Vail PUD Guide states that "Development area plans" are "subject to approval by the County Commissioners." The Development Area Plans shall typically identify the general layout of buildings, parking and other uses to scale, at a preliminary design level suitable for public review but not at the level of detail typically associated with the final design or construction documentation. Earlier this year the County approved a Development Area Plan for a part of Development Area A, which includes part of lot 21. The approved use for the eastern part of lot 21 is parking. This request is for incorporating low density residential use on the western part of lot 21. This density is similar to that which occurs on the surrounding lots. Staff recommended approval. Chris Cares, representing the applicant, showed the plan to the Board and stated he was available to answer any questions. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number PD-139-96-A2, Arrowhead Village Plan Review, Development Area "N'. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gates was not present for the meeting. SM-1059-96, Arrowhead at Vail Pattie Haefeli presented file number SM-1059-96, Arrowhead at Vail, Filing 26, Lots 1, 2 and 3. She stated this was a request for a final plat. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number SM-1059-96, Arrowhead at Vail, Filing 26, Lots 1, 2 and 3. 1 Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Kathy Eastley, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions to be signed by the Board: SM-10Sl-96, Arlian Ranch, Lot 3. She stated this was a Minor Type "B" Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lot 3 to create Lots 3A and 3B. Cash in lieu of School Land Dedication has been submitted for the additional unit this subdivision will create. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve final plat, file number SM-I051- 96, Arlian Ranch, Lot 3. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. SM-I0S8-96, Arrowhead at Vail, Filing No 13, Lot 21. She stated this was a Minor Type "B" Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lot 21 to create Lots 21 and 25. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number SM-I058-96, Arrowhead at Vail, Filing 13, Lot 21. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. SM-1062-96, Diamond Head Townhomes. She stated this was a Minor Type "B" Subdivision, a resubdivision of Lot 3, Block 4 of the Eagle-Vail Subdivision, Filing No 1 to create 4 townhome units. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number SM-I062-96, Diamond Head Townhomes. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution, file number LUR-018-96, Land Use Regulation Amendment. She stated this was a proposed resolution to provide for the extension of Sketch Plan approvals within the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Resolution, file number LUR- 018-96, Eagle County Land Use Amendment. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Commissioner Phillips voting aye and Commissioner Johnson voting no. Commissioner Phillips stated she has a problem as the vote was previously approved by the Board. She would like to see it tabled until both the previously voting commissioners are present. Commissioner Johnson stated he voted no the first time. He stated he can make the motion and then vote no. Jim Fritze stated he has that right. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked file number LUR-018 be brought back on the next planning day. She asked that it come back before all three Board members. Commissioner Johnson asked if this would be a reconsideration hearing. Jim Fritze stated the staff had direction, 2 to 1, to present the resolution. He stated the Board has never adopted Robert's Rules of Order. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips believes this to be unethical. Jim Fritze stated there is a possibility they will have to re-advertise. He would like to review this however. He stated there might be a judicial 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 challenge to the process so they want to make sure whatever process the majority of the Board chooses to adopt will be sustained. Resolution 96-122, file number LUR-018-96, Land Use Regulations Amendment. She stated this was a proposed resolution to amend the Land Use Regulations appendices and Chapter V Regulations for construction within the Public Way of Eagle County. Jim Fritze asked about the intent of this Resolution and when it will be in effect. Ms. Eastley responded the Board approved the file on August 27. Commissioner Johnson stated it does not have an effective date so he would see it being today. Jim Fritze stated if someone has come under different guidelines than yesterday. would be adopted as of today. Commissioner Johnson asked about the file number. Keith Montag, Community Development Director, stated it is one file number. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve Resolution 96-122, file number LUR-018-96, Eagle County Land Use Amendment. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. into today, they will be operating It was agreed these regulations 1041-040-96, St. Clare of Assisi Sid Fox, Planning Manager, presented file number 1041-040-96, St. Clare of Assisi. He stated this was a request to consider a request for a major extension of existing domestic water supply and sewage treatment system, and efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number 1041-040-96, St. Clare of Assisi, incorporating Staff findings. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. ZC-277-96, St. Clare of Assisi Kathy Eastley presented file number ZC-277-96, St. Clare of Assisi. She stated this was a request for a zone change from Resource to PUD. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number ZC-277-96, St. Clare of Assisi, incorporating Staff findings. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-343-96-P, St. Clare of Assisi Sid Fox presented file number PD-343-96-P, St. Clare of Assisi. He stated this was a request for a preliminary plan to allow for a Church, Rectory, Elementary School, Early Learning Center and 24 dwelling units. He stated this is actually three different files combined into one presentation. He stated there is a 1041 permit being applied for as well as that all three files must be approved separately. 3 Commissioner Johnson asked if they should go ahead and approve the 1041? Sid Fox responded at the sketch plan hearing there was discussion regarding sewage disposal. Their recommendation is to engineer the site to hook up to the central sewage collection. That has been taken care of through preliminary plan. They would like to amend the well permit for landscaping. They would prefer using untreated water for landscaping. Commissioner Phillips asked about domestic water use. Sid Fox explained the water services through the Edwards Metropolitan District and the Eagle Water authority. Rick P1yman, representing the applicant, stated they had only two issues and one being the septic. He stated the church is lower in elevation and that was the initial concern. Their decision to go with a pump station is appropriate. The well, they donlt have any concrete answers. They are looking to see if it can be converted for landscaping but they may not be able to. They are going to try. The property does not have water rights. They will have to pay a hefty fee to be included in the district. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number 1041-040-96, St. Clare of Assisi. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Kathy Eastley presented ZC-277-96 St. Clare of Assisi requesting a Zone change from Resource to PUD. She explained the file in conjunction with PD- 343-96-P. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 01) Site plan review will be presented to the Planning Commission and will include analysis of the items as described in the PUD Guide. Approvals of site plans will be based upon the criteria as listed in the PUD Guide. 02) Fencing restrictions be amended in the PUD Guide as follows: a) North Property Line, maximum height not to exceed four feet, materials will be limited to post and rail or solid wood. b) South Property Line, maximum height not to exceed six feet, materials will be limited to solid wood. c) Further review of the location and material type will occur through the Site Plan Review. 03) Issuance of a building permit for the maintenance facility be reviewed through the Site Plan Review procedure to ensure the location of such facility is incorporated into a landscape berm or one of the development pods. The planning commission voted unanimously on the zone change and on the preliminary plan they voted three to one. Rick Plyman, representing the perish introduced Father Ed. He reviewed the history of the plan so far and that which was approved in February. He showed the location and the housing component. The preliminary plan for housing is at 24 units as compared to 20 originally. They have a little over three acres in the area. The learning center is in the same location as is the day care. The elementary school is 46,000 square feet of building. They have the soccer field and the rectory which sits behind. The area they showed as the fellowship hall has been moved back to stay out of the stream tract. There are some great cottonwoods there. There is a single access point with drop off points for the schools. Parking is spread out along the site. The site plan review process is moving forward but they have not designed the facilities yet. All of the building will be based on fund raising. They are looking at the learning center and day care first. The church will be the last phase. They have set up a site plan review process 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 very similar to Arrowhead. It does not come to the Board but to the Planning Commission. The issues in staff's recommendation are workable. The fence is kind of an unknown. They don1t have the school figures in yet but they are assuming they will need fencing between the school and Highway 6. He is not sure what they will need but they would like the allowance to have the chain link if they need it. He assumes it will be necessary. The fence will be part of the site plan review process and important to keep in the PUD guide. The third condition, regarding the maintenance facility is covered. They hope to incorporate it into one of the buildings. They are comfortable with staff1s recommendations and will answer any questions. Commissioner Johnson asked if anywhere along Highway 6 there is chainlink fence that is close to the highway. Mr. Plyman responded yes at Battle Mountain. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that is the interstate. Mr. Plyman mentioned the eight foot high fence keeping the deer out of the highway. Commissioner Johnson asked how many children will be accommodated in the learning center. Mr. Plyman stated about 250 at full buildout. They are designing this after a facility in Leadville providing seven day a week coverage. Staff they feel will be at full build out around 45. The needs change depending on the ages of the children. They conducted a survey to see what the demand was and who would be using it. The result is weighed toward infant care which causes a higher ratio. Commissioner Johnson suggested the employee housing may be a little low for what they may need. He questioned if the amount of housing is enough. Mr. Plyman explained their considerations and their desires. The payment for teachers is set by the Archdiocese in Denver and does not take into consideration the mountain expenses. They did not want a housing project on the site but understand the need for the housing in support of the school and the church. If they were approved for thirty dwelling units, they would be happy and see it as fitting comfortably. They would like a variety of units with some flexibility. He is sure they can fill the units with the employees they will have. They are hoping to build some of the units as part of phase one. It is certainly viable. Commissioner Phillips asked for public input. Suzanne Shepard, Squaw Creek Road resident, stated she was not here for the first meeting. They are an adjacent property owner and she is happy to see it used for the school. She thinks the plan is very good. She is opposed to any increase on the density of housing. She knows people who have lived at Lake Creek and sees it as being not affordable and too dense. She questions people working together and living together and she doesn1t want to see it get more dense. with regard to the housing, there is discussion with how open it is to the south. That land may not always be that way though and would encourage keeping the unit numbers at 24. She referred to the chain link fence by the Edwards trailer park. She stated it doesn't look very good. Her biggest concern is about the highway. She doesn1t see the state looking at the roadway. She spoke to the Edwards turn lane and the Eagle Springs turn lane. At Lake Creek Apartments there is no left turn lane onto Highway 6. She stated she is concerned about Squaw Creek and Lake Creek apartments and the area in between. There are going to be many many cars and activities. It will be a disaster. There are about 5 5000 cars on Squaw Creek Road now. very closely. Jim Elbrook, Alpine Engineering, stated they have just resolved the access issue with the County Engineer but it still needs to go to the state. On Highway 6 the left turn lane into the site westbound. There is not a left turn excel lane which they plan on striping. If it is not working, it can be re-striped. The pavement width will be there so it can be re-striped. Commissioner Johnson stated people don't use that accell lane very well. Mr. Elbrook stated the state access code does not require the accell lane but they recommend it be used on site specific cases. John Althoff, Engineering Technician, stated he does agree the left turn accells are usually site specific and they are effective if they are used properly. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips stated since they have the pavement they might as well use it, consider the need and stripe accordingly. She stated the chainlink may not be the most attractive but it is secure. This is a project we are trying to do as inexpensively as possible. A berm is alot of dirt. Chainlink is safe and does provide security. Perhaps someday they'll get an ample donation. Regarding housing, they have increased the number of units by four. Commissioner Johnson asked if the units can be moved to the west if others are approved. Mr. Plyman responded yes they can. He showed the green space gaps and their desire to keep some of it open. They can work it out and still keep a substantial buffer. He stated it is all very buildable. Commissioner Johnson asked them to consider the way built. A turn to get into the circle may not be as good Mr. Plyman referred to it as their modified round about. do on that. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips stated the turn like that does separate the drop off from the pick up for busses. Mr. Plyman stated they will continue to work on those issues. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number PD-343-96-P, St. Clare of Assisi, incorporating Staff findings and conditions and the Planning Commissions recommendations and increasing the number of dwelling units up to thirty. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number ZC-277-96, St. Clare of Assisi, incorporating Staff findings and conditions. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. She asked the Commissioners to look at it the entrance is as a straight shot. They have work to BE-71-96, Beaver Creek Paul Clarkson, Planner, presented file number BE-71-96, Beaver Creek, Lot 12, Block 2. He stated this was a request for a building envelope amendment. The applicant is proposing to move the building envelope about 30 feet to the north. The method being utilized is in accordance with Section XII.B., Public Meeting for Building Envelop Amendments, Amended and Restated Guide to the Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development. This procedure is made available for those building envelope amendments that are unable to obtain written approval from all owners of any property abutting, directly across the street from or within 75 feet of the property. Mr. Clarkson stated all parties are not in agreement and a letter is in the Board's packets. 6 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEt:S 387869 Sally Brainerd is present to discuss any issues with the Board. Mr. Montgomery's comments may be correct, but there are other lot owners who are being similarly effected. Mr. Clarkson stated the enclave is above this building site and all of the lots are going to be impacted. There are about 150 feet vertical difference as well as about a 300 or 400 foot horizontal difference. There are a couple of spruces on the site and some dying Aspen which will have to be removed. He provided staff's findings and staff recommended approval. Sally Brainerd showed the location of Mr. Montgomery's house and the new building envelope. Commissioner Phillips asked where the building will be. Ms. Brainerd showed it on a site plan map. Commissioner Johnson asked about the letter from RKD and the fact the tree would have to be removed. Ms. Brainerd stated it is a different tree. Mr. Clarkson stated the two spruces are not dead. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number BE-71-96, Beaver Creek, Lot 12, Block 2, incorporating Staff findings. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. SM-807-92, Hat Creek Subdivision Paul Clarkson presented file number SM-807-92, Hat Creek Subdivision. He stated this was a request for the subdivision of three family parcels in conformance with the existing Rural Residential Zone District. There are two 3-acre parcels and one 2-acre parcel. The 8.1 acre parcel is adjacent to East side of highway 82 and the building sites are on a bench above the highway. Water will be provided by wells and sewage disposal will be by way of septic systems (ISDS). While the proposed subdivision is within the Mid- Valley Metro District, the District and the applicant have signed an agreement restricting the development to 3 lots since public water and sewer lines are more than 800' away. The applicant has entered into an agreement with the Basalt Water Conservancy District as part of his water augmentation plan. Access is via an easement through the Church of Christ parcel from the Highway 82 access road. The building sites are separated from the Highway Right-of-Way by the Robinson Ditch and are about 30' in elevation above it. At the public meeting of September 3, 1996, the Board tabled the application to this date in order to provide the adjacent property owners adequate notification of the hearing. Each of the adjacent property owners have been notified by mail. Staff's concerns and issues have been adequately addressed. Staff recommended approval with the condition of school land dedication fee be paid in the amount of $578.33 which has been received. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number SM-807-92, Hat Creek Subdivision, incorporating Staff findings. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Lease Agreement, Avon Commercial Center Jack Ingstad, Ass't. County Administrator, presented a lease agreement between Eagle County and the Avon Commercial Center for the County annex offices. Mr. Ingstad reviewed the lease proposal and the rates to be 7 charged. He explained the CAM fees and taxes. Property taxes will be researched. There are two two year options at fair market value. He referred to the agreements made by the landlord. The landlord has agreed to 13 thirty minute parking spaces for this location. This will be assigned and have signage. Eagle County has the option to purchase the entire condominium space at $230.00 per square foot anytime during the first three years of the primary term of the lease. The last two years of the primary term of the lease Tenant will have a right of first refusal to purchase the entire condominium space. Dave Block, listing agent for Emerald Acres, stated he would like to clarify some issues. He stated that during site visits they were heavily under construction. He showed the parking that was not seen during the site visits. He stated the landlord would consider putting a bus stop and guarantee the same thirteen parking spots. He stated they can1t change the location but the sites have quite a few things in common. The landlord would consider doing a lease purchase also. He stated no one talked to Fred Otto about the purchase possibility. He stated the CAM less real estate taxes, is adequate to maintain the buildings. There is no management company so that is not an added expense. They are new buildings and minimum maintenance. The utilities are separately metered. He spoke with Dan Buckley, Energy Informations Group, about natural gas verses kilowatt hours. For every heating unit they would save at least three times on heat. Mr. Block reviewed the other aspects that Emerald Acres would provide if the Board was to continue considering their building. He would like the Board to reconsider the Emerald Acres building. He addressed the restroom issue as well. He reminded the Board their facility offers public restrooms as well as elevators, heating, air conditioning. He stated the landlord does the finish of lighting, ceilings, walls, etc. They would finish the space in any matter the County would like and within a 60 to 90 day time period. He reiterated that a purchase negotiation could be considered. The only thing they can't give is the Avon location. He urged the Board before making a deal to meet with Fred Otto. Mr. Ingstad stated one of the concerns they have that took them back to Avon was the bus stop. Users of Emerald acres must cross highway 6 to be accessible. Rex Ambrel, property manager of the Avon Commercial Center, stated the bus stop is the main one in Avon and protected and adjacent to the Avon Center. Commissioner Johnson stated as a convenience to those not driving their own vehicles the Avon Center certainly provides greater access. One of the biggest considerations is the lease purchase option. Mr. Ambrel stated there is 5700 square feet contiguous. Mr. Ingstad stated another concern with Emerald Acres is the intersection regulated by the stop sign. If the traffic is heavy having the stop light in Avon is a better situation. The thirty minute parking spaces will be in the northwest parking lot and with some work with the Town of Avon they will be upgrading the parking to alleviate some of the congestion. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips stated she looked at each one of the sites that were considered. She stated a new building is very desirable but she is happy with the remodel options. She feels the Avon site is more aminiable to the employees and the people and employees using it. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the lease agreement between Eagle County and Avon Commercial Center for the County annex offices. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 PD-353-96-S, Mountain Shadows Condominiums Paul Clarkson presented file number PD-353-96-S, Mountain Shadows Condominiums. He stated this was a request for a PUD Sketch plan for 72 multi family dwelling units in three buildings on 5.26 acres. The site plan shows a day care center and proposed PUD guide lists an administration office although these uses are not discussed in the application. The density is 13.69 dwelling units per acre. The units are configured as 36 two bedroom and 36 three-bedroom units in three buildings at 24 units to a building. Each building contains 24 underground parking spaces. The total amount of parking calculates to 2.76 spaces per unit which meets the minimum requirement. The open space is claimed at 40% and is largely passive except for a volleyball court and picnic areas. A tot lot and fenced play yard are shown and the application discusses jointly developing a portion of the Riverwalk open space as active recreation. Access is from Highway 6 and a pedestrian connection to Riverwalk is proposed. At the public meeting of August 20, 1996 the Board tabled the proposal for two reasons: 1. To give the applicant the time to contact the principles of the Riverwalk development for the purpose of discussing the joint development of the Riverwalk open space; 2. At the request of the existing resident in order to contact an attorney for investigation of options. Mr. Clarkson stated they have received a number of signatures (204) of those who find the proposed development not to their liking. Mr. Clarkson referred to staff's findings and the planning commission findings. Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, stated Mr. Brose is on his way. He stated they met with Bill Williams of Riverwalk and he is in agreement in joining the two developments together. He stated they may use the same access points from Highway 6. He stated they talked with staff about the open space issue and it being usable. They will use the maximum layout to keep as much as possible as useable space. Commissioner Johnson asked if the open space within the PUD must be used or can they use the neighboring parcels. Steve Isom stated they have 25% open space in their PUD. They do not need adjacent property. Mary Jo Berenato, Deputy County Attorney, stated the percentages of open space have to be within the Mountain Shadows PUD. The open space of Riverwalk is within their PUD. Steve Isom showed the rendering on the elevation and the overall layout with the Riverwalk scheme. He showed where they would interconnect. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips asked about the small unit. Mr. Isom responded that is for the day care center and the office. Ms. Berenato suggested before opening for public comment, the planning commission instructed Ms. Berenato to issue a letter for their signatures. The letter is to request the Board work with Mr. Broce and the residents regarding relocation. They would like Mr. Broce to keep the dialogue open with the residents. Mr. Isom stated the planning commissions recommendation was unanimous approval. Ms. Berenato stated their recommendation did not change but they would like to have continued dialogue. Jill Kovoskavich stated they have rejected the last offer regarding the negotiations from the residents. Their demands for money have not been 9 accepted by the client. They have offered money terms. She feels that what is being asked is more for intangible expenses rather than market value. They feel they need direction from the Board regarding the conditions that will be put on the development. She feels very strongly the liability put on Mr. Broce is not as clear as what they might like to believe. Her impression is that they would like to handle the relocation on their own and just pay cash. She stated they are in a posture of settlement depending on if the parties can compromise. She stated they have not gotten any movement off the last demand. Their response to that is he is a large developer who can add this cost to the sale. Jim Chandlis, attorney for the residents, stated the residents have been disappointed with the settlement negotiations. They do not feel that Mr. Broce has been working in good faith. They do thank and appreciate the Commissioners being concerned with the welfare of the residents. Because there is such a lack in employee housing and they don't have the funds to move they are reluctant to enter into a settlement agreement with a mobile home park that doesn't now exist. What happens to the employers who employ these people. It is the Commissioners duty to look after the health, safety and welfare of these individuals. The residents want to speak with the Commissioners. Jill Kovoskavich questioned if the residents should not wait to speak until public comment. Mr. Chandlis stated their presentation is with the residents giving comment at this time because they each have items to discuss. Ms. Kovoskavich stated she has no problem with them giving comment now. She does have an issue that she would like to revisit. Mr. Chandlis introduced those that will be speaking and the topic they will be speaking on. Monet Barton, a resident of Lone Pine, speaking on the severe financial hardship as the people in there have made a substantial investment on their own. She has her own business and has made many improvements to it. She will lose those investments. She'll be making her mobile home payments into January of 1998. She stated before this project they could have sold their homes to move upward. She spoke of one family of three generations which will be displaced. They don't own the land but their property is of great value to them. Commissioner Johnson asked how many children are in the day care. Ms. Barton stated she can have six at a time. Commissioner Johnson asked if they are from the trailer park. Ms. Barton stated nobody from that trailer park but from the others. Commissioner Johnson asked how much she put in. Ms. Barton stated she had to put $4000 to the trailer but she has invested another $6000 of equipment, toys, learning equipment, etc. She can not take her day care with her. She is losing her home and her business. She actually moved from Avon Station into Lone Pine. Mary Ann Pacheco, resident of Lone Pine, stated she is a single mother of four. She read a letter of presentation regarding her children and their being in the Eagle County schools. She spoke of Mr. Broce's willingness to move them forward in the trailer park so they can finish school. She asked how a dollar figure can be put on the loss of home, job and her financial stability. Commissioner Johnson asked where Ms. Pacheco works. Ms. Pacheco stated at First Financial Mortgage. She was in housekeeping at various locations in the past. Right now she works only one job. Commissioner Johnson asked about the moving of the trailers to the front 10 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 of the park. Ms. Pacheco stated she didn't know how it would happen. James Gallespie, Lone Pine resident, reported on the results of the latest meeting with Mr. Broce. He explained the proposals presented. The second proposal was for $2000 each. He feels they are unfair and unacceptable. Forty some odd businesses will feel the effects if they loose employees. He referred to the fantom mobile home park in Gypsum. They are not trying to kill the project, they just want to be treated fairly and survive the impact upon them and their families. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips asked about the $2000 offer per mobile home. She asked if that was with the relocation of the trailers. Mr. Gallespie stated there are three moveable trailers. Commissioner Johnson asked where Mr. Gallespie works. Mr. Gallespie stated Alpine Meadow Masonry and that at least half of their employees live at Lone Pine. Sheila Walsh, Lone Pine resident, spoke to the financial impact to each Lone Pine homeowner, she stated the average value of each mobile home is worth $12,500. These are pre HUD and not moveable. The homeowners will loose approximately $12,500. The rent expense will increase. The impact will be $10,900 per year. She discussed the transportation cost of being approximately $5,500 per year. Move in and start up costs, first, last and deposit will be approximately $5000. The legal fees and miscellaneous fees are $5000 and increasing. The total impact to each Lone pine home owner are $34,400. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips asked where they came up with the average value per mobile home. Ms. Walsh explained they surveyed the residents and took into account the repairs and improv~ments. She stated she works at Champions Grill as a bartender and waitress. G.W. Ferrar thanked the Board for the opportunity to speak. He has lived in Lone Pine for nearly 14 years and works in the entertainment/audio field. He stated there have been no new mobile home parks developed in Eagle county or the surrounding counties of the last ten years. He called each of the Counties. There is property in Garfield but it is near willowson which is nearly Grand Junction. There are standards but they are not being developed. In Route County they did enlarge an existing mobile home park. He said the people in Pitkin county have not developed new parks. They are selling lot spaces within the existing parks. Their commissioners see it as a valuable way to keep affordable housing. If a new park is developed, there are still only three moveable trailers. Those with the older trailers will need to buy new, finance, etc. They are also gun shy of moving into a new mobile home park as well. Mr. Ferrar stated they met with Mr. Broce last night and he expressed a willingness to listen to a proposal they brought forth. He realizes the people of this community need to be treated fairly. If we're not careful well destroy what community we have. There is a chance here and Mr. Broce has an opportunity to improve the quality of their lives. This will be a landmark decision that may be used in the future. Mr. Ferrar stated he works for Resort Entertainment, part time for Town of Avon, C & S Productions. He works for ESPN during the winter and many major broadcasters within the u.S. Beth George stated her role is to summarize. Mr. Broce did present them with the $2000 offer with departure of March 15 and April 15. Mr. Broce does 11 not own the Lone pine Land. The land is owned by Dorothy. If this does not go through, Mr. Broce has stated Dorothy will evict them and other developers will follow. They are aware of this and Mr. Broce has been very clear. They have talked with other developers in the county. They have a solution to this scenario. They did not make it up. They presented it last night, and it was denied. What they offered was to work with Mr. Broce. The actuality is, in their price range there is nowhere for 39 families to move within Eagle County. The biggest issue is the good will of the community. Their proposal was this: In exchange with leaving the park on their own, they have asked that Mr. Broce tack on the cost to each unit that he builds. Three percent or $15,000 cash would provide them the income to make the moves. They are suggesting he take the extra 3% and put it on the cost of the new condos they will be selling. The purchasers will deal with it over the term of their mortgage. That will not make them rich but right now they are homeowners in the Vail. With that type of cash, they can remain as homeowners in the valley. It would give them an opportunity to mitigate the blow they are asking them to absorb. If they stop the process, they can be evicted. This idea has been validated and they are asking him to do this. Commissioner Johnson asked who they talked with. Ms. George stated two developers in Arrowhead and an Edwards developer. Beth writes grants for non profit organizations within the County. Mr. Chandlis summarized by pointing out the value of the residents. There are over 100 who will be displaced by this. The harm done to employers and community will be felt. That is the same interest the Board can consider. One of the highest risks they have is that all but three of the homes cannot be relocated. They will lose the value of their homes. Bringing them up to code is not a viable solution. Essentially they have a situation of losing such valuable assets, the residents. They also have a loss in that they will loose thirty nine homes for lower income housing which is so badly needed within this community. They are asking for another two weeks to continue negotiations with Mr. Broce so that they can continue to work out possible solutions. Commissioner Johnson thanked Mr. Chandlis for his choice of words using assets to the community rather than resources. Ms. Kovoskavich stated she does not intend to make this a debate. Mr. Broce has approached this issue with an attempt to be fair. She wants to fill in the gaps of the things they have done to try to work with the residents. This is not a situation where they have just put numbers to them. She stated it has entailed a whole lot of effort. When they come to the negotiation, the residents have decided they want to resolve this issue themselves and they just want money. That has been difficult for her as their settlement is not just take $2,000. The settlement agreement is in fact 13 pages long and includes many provisions to mitigate the expenses. The costs come after the agreement is made. The residents have said they don't need the her expertise as they have made the arrangements themselves. In addition to the $2000 they are offering $500 for moving expenses as well. Acceptable is a clearer term. Because of their older condition, it would cost more than it is worth to move it by bringing it up to HUD standards. They have been offered a $2800 trade in value on a new mobil home. With trade in it would cost them about $25,000. They are in the planning stag of a new mobile home park in Gypsum. They can provide assistance in financing as options within this new park. The lots can be condominiumized if they are written correctly. The last thing they can have happen economically is to walk out with an impasse. If a governmental entity were to come in, they would be offered fair market value. Those older homes will not come in at 12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 $15,000. Maybe the board is being asked to arbitrate. They have tried to put together an offer that is a standard of fairness. What they recognize is that most of the residents do not want to live in mobile homes. First they attempted to move the trailers, since that can't happen, then they are looking for trailers at other lots. She stated the objection came regarding the mobile home parks. She offered condominiumized. She said the residents have said that a mobile home park is unacceptable. She challenged the figures presented as being subjective, but is it fair. She is dismayed by the $15,000 figure. She stated Mr. Broce does have compassion and has done a front door approach. He needs reasonableness. Passing those costs on to the new project would push them out of scale as to what would be affordable housing. Mr. Broce will either have to abandon his project or make it something different than what it is. Ms. Kovoskavich questioned the petitions and cannot discern whether Lone Pine should be left alone or whether mobile home living is an integral part of Eagle County. Studies have concluded we have diminished the number of mobile homes in Eagle County. The Housing Task Force has determined the mobile homes are a necessary part of the housing stock. Whether there will be more to come, who knows. The honesty comes from this developer and saying if there is a nexus to this developer the compensation must be reasonable. Two weeks will do nothing if they are not given direction. They have been told not to build a park because they don't want to live there. They have been asked not to do the tactical stuff, just to give them the money. Commissioner Johnson asked about the nexus to the community. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked if they have considered an arbitrator. Ms. Kovoskavich responded if that is a recommendation by the Board they will do it. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated she has had two individuals come forward who might be able to provide a park. Ms. Kovoskavich deferred to Steve Isom. Steve Isom stated there is a site just north of Highway 6, west of the airport and about a 1/4 mile from the new commercial area going in near Gypsum. The site is 40 acres and it is invisible. Mr. Isom stated the terminology must change. This is not a mobile home park, this is a prefabricated home that sits on its own foundation. He showed the land on a map. He stated they can work with the railroad for a surface crossing. The main thing is that there are sites that can be developed for these purposes and viable for future development. They are in the sketch plan stage and that is conceptual approval of the project. He stated this is the normal evolution of the community of Edwards. Through Bill Williams and the Riverwalk project this is the evolution, the next step. The condo development will happen. It is difficult for any of them to negotiate as they are still in the conceptual stage. Ms. Kovoskavich introduced pictures for the Board. She asked the Board see them as the types of homes they are talking about. She stated she can recognize the ability of the Board to make it conditional upon the welfare of the community. Mr. Isom is correct in stating if they can't get past the initial stage they will have difficulty in proceeding forward. She stated there are federal funds available but asks about County funds. The problem with federal funds is that they take a great deal of time. She asked the Board for their direction. Mr. Chandlis stated they are truly in need of more time. Much of the information they received, they got at 7:00 last night. The residents should 13 have options that Mr. Chandlis being paid. More Broce. Dick Brooks a resident of Gypsum but previously a resident of Lone Pine, stated he sold his trailer in 1992 for $8600. He feels this is zoned as a trailer park and for the Board to change that zoning now is taking money out of the residents pockets and into Dorothy Archer or Mr. Broce. He would like to see the Board not change the zoning until there is an agreement. Commissioner Johnson corrected him saying it is not zoned as a trailer park but residential, low density. It is presently zoned for RSL so even without rezoning the trailers can be removed and another low density development can be built. Mr. Brooks asked if it will need rezoning for a PUD. Monet Barton asked about the photographs. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated they are photos of possible relocation homes. Ms. Kovoskavich apologized for not having introduced them properly. Monet Barton stated there are three trailers that are moveable. There is no place for her's to go. Yes, she can trade it in on a new unit and then be in debt for years and years. It can be used as a trade in on another mobile home. She is terrified about doing this again. The Avon station trailer owners were able to keep their homes and they were given $4,000+ dollars per unit. She stated Mr. Broce wants them to walk away from their homes, their business for $2500, which is less than first and last month rent and deposits. If this wasn't happening, she could have sold her unit for $15,000. Her dream is history. People in Avon Station got to keep their homes. She believes Mr. Broce does want to help them but the $2,500 is not acceptable. She is facing homelessness and joblessness. She believes that Mr. Broce has once offered to do at least what they did for the Avon Station. That is the minimum that she would want to see. The $15,000 would be a down payment for a house and that was what she had planned. She showed articles from the Avon Station agreements. She questioned what the future infrastructure costs will be. She is angry and frustrated. She does feel that she is an asset to this community. She read quotes from the various papers. To move the trailer to the top of the park is unreasonable. will she be able to keep her business? Commissioner Johnson asked if she wants to enter the evidence into the record. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated since it was read it is entered into the record. Commissioner Johnson asked for clarification of the April 30 meeting. Ms. Kovoskavich stated prior to then, Mr. Broce met with Monet and some of the other residents. At that meeting he stated he would provide them with a similar solution to the Avon Station. Ms. Berenato stated what ever happened at Avon station is Ms. Kovoskavich stated Mr. Broce did not say he would not did at Avon Station. That concept is not out of the picture. $15,000 per mobile home. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips accepted the articles into the record to be marked as exhibit I. Beth George spoke of the steering committee for Lone Pine. She stated the $15,000 did not come from out of the air. They researched it. On behalf of the steering committee, they are at an impasse not because of the $15,000. They do not want to be relocated into another trailer park. They have made will allow them to remain in the community. stated the $1500 for attorney fees is three times time will buy them an opportunity to work further what is with Mr. irrelevant. do what they The impasse is 14 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 some tremendous strides. When they came a month ago, they had no attorney fees. One month later all Ms. Kovoskavich talks about relocating into Mr. Broce's trailer park. In looking at financing the average income is above what they as residents have. They are again asking for an extension. Bill Williams, Riverwalk developer, stated he has met with Mr. Broce and Steve Isom and they have found there to be some unanswered questions. One is regarding the open space. If it means using his open space, they need to know how to negotiate it. Mr. Williams said he will work with them but it will take money and time and he doesn1t want to expend the money until they know what they are talking about. If the approval of the sketch plan is approved, they don1t have anything else they can study. He asked for the clarification on open space. Commissioner Johnson responded that Riverwalk was right around 25%. Mr. Williams stated they are at 42%. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated one of the Commissioners did ask not to use the space but to have it there for building. Ms. Berenato stated his open space cannot be incorporated into another PUD unless it is sold. He stated one step forward does not kick people out of their homes. Commissioner Johnson asked about a recreational easement that could be granted. Ms. Berenato responded no. Don Welch stated he was the listing agent for Dorothy who deals with a financial advisor. He stated she wants to sell her asset and no longer wants to be in the mobile home park. She is going to sell the asset. If the people don1t work out a deal with Mr. Broce, they are going to be evicted. If Mr. Broce doesn't buy it, another person will. He suggested they negotiate with earnest. Dorothy listens to her financial advisor, he doesn't care, what he1s going to do is make a financial deal for Dorothy. Deborah West works for Eagle Valley Habitat for humanity. She is affirming the fact there is a need in the valley but they are faced with finding affordable land. There is no land for them to purchase. There is a hugh need here and something has to be done. Commissioner Johnson moved to adjourn into executive session to discuss their options with the attorney. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Johnson moved to reconvene as the Board of County Commissioner having returned from Executive Session. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated the Executive Session provided them the opportunity to discuss the legal options. She asked if there was further information. Commissioner Johnson asked Bill Williams if conceptually there is the ability to work together on open space. Mr. Williams stated it depends on concept. He stated if they knew more they may be able to share some of what his development has to offer. He made a couple of suggestions that might work. He also suggested the County could step up to the project as well. Commissioner Johnson stated one of his sea of asphalt. He questions moving things would waive the 25% open space requirement. concerns is that it looks like a around and whether the Board Mr. Williams stated there is a 15 lot that can be done but should be done between sketch and preliminary plan. Commissioner Johnson stated this is the most difficult decision that he has had to make in a long time. He stated Monet is actually living the American dream and it is difficult to say that the business and the home need to go away. Right now they are between a rock and a hard place. Financial advisors get paid to make other people money. He seriously urges the two sides to come together and to come to some sort of agreement. He thinks they can work out the open space issue and the dislocation issues within the next two weeks. The Board would like to see that agreement within the next two weeks. Steve Isom stated if the have sketch plan approval, perhaps they can work out some of the issues. Commissioner Johnson asked if they can bring in something that will show some of the possible variations. Commissioner Johnson moved to continue file number PD-353-96-S, Mountain Shadows Condominiums to October 1, 1996. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until September 23, 1996. Attest, yf~ O/iilA Clerk to the Board "'~""~ ~4'1..i t'..clcf.;.., o/....-~"~'" r ..~ ..:i,~" t7';\.:;:" ....,.f,.~. ~~""""';,. , ) l ".:, , ,'," '?''.." . J$' ~ . "\"'.. !J.~ .,....~.. .f 1 l';;:'>~i~~;:~;.~~~;l 4.-:;:1// >f/d~~ Chair n 16