Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 08/16/99 PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 16,1999 Present: Tom Stone James Johnson, Jr. James Fritze Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board Absent: Johnnette Phillips Chairman This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Consent Agenda Chairman Pro-tern Stone stated the first item before the Board was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of August 16, 1999, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of August 2, 1999 C) Consolidated cost allocation plan D) Sign Change Order 44 for the Grandstands Contract with Evans Mendel Allison. Chairman Pro-tern Stone asked about item C and why there was a significant difference between 1997 and 1998. Julie Snyder-Eaton, Finance Department, stated there was a significant increase in property insurance of$166,000. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the consent calendar as presented. Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips was not present at this hearing. Plat & Resolution Signing Scot Hunn, Planner, Presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 99-141. ZS-00048. Bellyache Rid2e Telecommunications Expansion. He stated this was a resolution to approve the Special Use Permit to expand the Bellyache Telecommunications Site. The Board considered this file on August 2, 1999. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve Resolution 99-141, file number ZS-00048, Bellyache Ridge Telecommunications Site Expansion. Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 'hi Resolution 99-142-G-00007. Lot 5. Aspen Mesa Estates - Hambere Vacation. He stated this is a resolution to approve the Vacation of a Public Equestrian Easement on Lot 5 of Aspen Mesa Estates Subdivision. The Board considered this file on July 26, 1999. 1 08-16-1999 Commissioner Johnson moved to approve Resolution 99-142, file number G-00007, Lot 5 Aspen Mesa Estates, Hamberg Vacation. Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 99-E-05, Petitions to Board of Equalization Robert Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, Ken Call and Bruce Baier, Hearing Officers, presented Resolution 99-E-05, petitions to the Board of Equalization. Lucy Grewe was present for assistance from the Attorney's office. Commissioner Johnson asked to review stipulations 636,637, 703, and 704 and adjustments 141, 624,669,667,671,672,673,697,698, and 730. Mr. Call asked they review the stipulations first. Commissioners Johnson and Stone added 635, 636, and 637 to the list. Mr. Call stated #703 and #704 were cases he heard. He state #703 came to the hearing as a stipulation to lower the vallle after the Assessor's Office had completed more research comparing three comparable properties. After review they stipulated to a price of$738 per square foot. #704 came to the hearing with a stipulation. He stated it too was documented by comparables and was another unit in the same condominium complex. It was stipulated to $736 per square foot. Bruce Baier stated #635, #636, and #637 were part of a conservation easement. Mark Chapin, Deputy Assessor, stated the subject properties are owned Claire F. Keeler Trust and are subject to a conservation easement that limits development of the property and limits the number of homes that can be built. He stated the five parcels are 35 acres but the two building parcels are 80 acres each. He stated this property is also subject to a District Court case for 1997 and 1998. The basis of value assigned here follows the value of the cases. Mr. Call referred to #141 which involves a storage unit at the Airport. He stated it is a start up unit and still has a 25 - 30% vacancy rate. He stated it did have an appraisal and the emphasis was on the income approach. He adjusted the Assessor's income approach to 29% with a cap rate of 11 %, lowering the value slightly. He stated the Assessor had lowered the valuation prior to the hearing. It has been reduced. Commissioner Johnson stated it was adjusted to $134,174. Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, stated the recommended adjustment for land is $6100.00 and improvements are $128,678. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Call stated there are four values as there is an apartment also. Mr. Loeffler stated it appears the four values, as adjusted, are land and residential are $6100.00. The commercial is $179,890, residential improvements are $128,670 and commercial improvements are $842,700. The total is now $1,157,360. Discussion continued about the process of review. Next was #624. Mr. Baier stated there was another property which is docket #618, which was also valued too high. It was recognized by the Assessor's office and they lowered the value. Chairman Pro-tern Stone stated 618,622, and 624 were significantly lowered. He asked if #624 was the only one to look at. Commissioner Johnson stated he understood they were all in the building. #669,671,672,673,697, and 698 all dealt with the same issue and were a reclassification to agriculture. They are now all being ranched by one party in the neighborhood. Mr. Chapin stated the properties are all located in Spring Park by the reservoir. He stated each of the properties is about 35 acres. He stated two years ago they asked for agricultural classification and were informed what was needed to be classified as agriculture. They have then returned under the two 2 08-16-1999 year clause to be granted agricultural classification. He stated the other two parcels are different. Chairman Pro-tern Stone asked about the other parcels. Mr. Chapin stated there are nine lots in the subdivision and they are all used as agricultural. He stated the other lots may come in the batch next week. Chairman Pro-tern Stone stated he would also like to review docket #707. #730, Mr. Baier stated was one of several different condos under one ownership. It is a shopping center in Vail. Chairman Pro-tern Stone stated the numbers don't make sense. Original land value and adjusted value are the same as are the improvements, yet the total is different. Mr. Baier stated the land is the same. Commissioner Johnson asked about the original land and improvements value and the adjustments. Mr. Baier stated in the NOD, the land was $4 million and the improvements were $312,000. He stated the original commercial was $3,419,310, land was $2,382,520, improvements were $3,419, 310, residential was $312,830, for a total of $6,114,660. Adjusted values are land at $2,382,520, residential improvements $312,830 and commercial $2,757,480 totaling $5,452,830. Chairman Pro-tern Stone asked ifhe is to assume the changes will be made accordingly. Mr. Loeffler stated they may want to approve it subject to the amendments and subject to further review in case any other numbers have been eliminated. If that happens staff will bring it back next week. #707 the petitioner was represented by an agent who submitted two values and two different approaches. The Assessor recommended a valuation of $8,500,000. The agent did not accept the offer. Mr. Call stated he supported the proof. He related there are two parcels. Mr. Call stated schedule number 29896 is office space. Commissioner Johnson asked about the adjusted total for schedule number 29895. Mr. Call stated $8,280,510. The difference is that valued for schedule number 29896. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve Resolution 99-E-05, Petitions to the Board of Equalization, as amended in this hearing as well as with further review for accuracy. Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Johnson asked about the item with the vacant land classification to forestry. Mr. Call stated they had another request to change the classification from vacant to forestry. During the hearing they asked for administrative denial for time to review. The petitioner wanted an answer at that time so it was administratively denied. Mr. Call stated Mr. Chapin investigated the procedures. Because they had a recommendation from the Colorado Forestry to value land as forestry, that classification was granted. He stated he then spoke with the person from the property taxation department, Mr. Grieve, who assumed this was all owned by one owner. He stated these properties are all under Limited Liability Companies with the same mailing address. He stated Mr. Grieve faxed the information which states if property is not under one ownership it cannot be classified as forestry. He stated the petitioner has been contacted by Mr. Grieve and instructed to produce the required information. It may be forthcoming. He stated by State Statutes 39-1-102, no property shall be entitled to agricultural classification unless under one ownership. The legal description is not correct. The Forest Service plan breaks it down by units with a total of 168 units. The Assessor at that time did not know what the ownership was for each parcel. When each individual schedule came before them they valued all the land as forestry. There are 85 acres that are the difference between the legal description and the forestry plan. He stated there are legal issues that must be addressed. He referred to the financials he distributed at the last meeting. Commissioner Johnson asked for the schedule numbers and if it is a stipulation or adjustment. 3 08-16-1999 Mr. Call stated it was a land classification change from vacant land to forestry. Mr. Chapin stated it was filed as an adjustment. Mr. Call stated the docket numbers are #547,548,549,550,551,552, and 553. Mr. Loeffler stated this meeting is between the Board and the hearing officer. If the petitioner does not like the results they have another venue through the State. Commissioner Johnson stated these docket numbers are not at this time associated with any resolution and asked ifthey should be denied, should they be denied individually. Mr. Loeffler stated he understands this was originally valued as vacant land and there is a stipulation proposed to classify it as agricultural land. He stated if they approve the denial of the appeal they will prepare a resolution accordingly and bring that forward with the final group of files next week. Commissioner Johnson moved the Board approve the recommendation for denial for docket numbers #547,548,549,550,551,552, and 553. Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous Resolution 99-E-06, Equalizing Property Valuations Mark Chapin presented Resolution 99-E-06, equalizing property valuation throughout Eagle County. He explained the resolution to the Board stating the first item is # 32623 which is a value increase for land from 0 to $3000. He stated this land was sold to a private individual. He stated it is not owned by the Homeowners Association any longer. The individual can't use it but it is contiguous to his property. The next item begins with #48166 and is due to an error ofland valuation in Cotton Ranch, 5th Filing. Mr. Baier spoke to #48194 and 48193. The last one is #41306,41307, 41308, and 41309. He stated these were due to a data entry error and are asking for an increase in value as indicated on the sheet. He stated these are town homes in Avon that were under valued. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve Resolution 99-E-06, equalizing property valuation throughout Eagle County as presented. Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Johnson stated he knows that this has been tedious but he believes they have saved the County a great deal of money. Mr. Call stated he appreciated the questions being asked. Mark Chapin commended the hearing officers and thanked them for their efforts. Australia Visitors Merv Lapin was in the audience and introduced visitors from Delatite Shire, Australia. Graham Nickless who oversees the exchange program they have with Vail is as well the Economic Development Director. His wife Jeannie was present as well and oversees the continuing education program. He spoke to the program stating it is a win-win program for all concerned and the County has a great need for bringing people over to fulfill employment needs. He stated they have a high unemployment rate in Australia. Mr. Nickless thanked the Board for the opportunity to meet. He stated this is an innovative program and it has developed nicely. He thanked them for the previous visit. He stated they have developed some great rapport. Recruiters have just returned and have approximately 250 potential candidates for employment this winter. He stated to supply young people as employees is in the range of200 to 300 per year. These are people who are looking to build a career in the resort industry and it is 4 08-16-1999 beneficial to them. It is a growing opportunity for them and important for their young people to get some hands on experience. Commissioner Johnson asked how long they will be here for. Graham stated for two weeks, but they are really here on holiday. He stated however, he is welcoming the opportunity to meet with some of the community members. He stated he is getting a few days with Bud Gates and will be doing a bit of horseback riding while there. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Lapin about meeting with Scott McInnis. Mr. Lapin stated they will be doing so on Wednesday and discuss the issues of J1 visas. ZS-00052 and 1041-0020, Ten Peaks Mesa Tambi Katieb, Environmental Health, presented file numbers ZS-00052 and 1041-0020, Ten Peaks Mesa. Commissioner Johnson asked if they can go ahead and waive the special use portions. Mr. Katieb stated file number ZS-00052 has been withdrawn and they will only be discussing the 1041 application today. He stated the application presented is for a new domestic water treatment, storage, and distribution system in a Resource Zone District. This system and the accompanying water rights package were designed to serve eight 35 plus acre parcels of the Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivision and two 35 plus acre tracts located adjacent to the Ten Peaks Mesa Subdivision. A single family home and caretaker unit are possible on each of these parcels serviced by the system, for a total of potentially 20 dwelling units serviced by this domestic water supply. All lots in the subdivision may still choose to pursue an exempt domestic well permit from the State of Colorado rather than connect to the system. The system is intended to assure each parcel may have long term and legally dependable water supply. Mr. Katieb stated they have not received any new referral responses Ron Liston, Land Design Partnership, was present representing Ten Peaks Homeowners Association. He stated the recommendation from the Planning Commission is approval with conditions. They have only one concern with a condition. He spoke to the 35 acre parcels and Senate Bill 35, which exempts the applicant from the normal review concerning water, roads and all those typical things developers do. Anything the developer does would be an enhancement. When they reviewed the water system and decided to go the extra mile and develop a central water system, the efforts were made through the water courts and the decree was issued. He stated the number one condition included a requirement that any envelop within 1,000 feet of the water line would be required to connect to the central water system. He asked that requirement be removed and the property owner be allowed to make his own decision. Commissioner Johnson asked for a legal opinion. He stated previously the Board decided to allow the property owner to either have a well or hook to the centralized water system. He stated he did not believe the Board had the power to make a land owner hook up to the centralized system. He stated the Board can require the system to be large enough to handle those property owners if they so choose. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated he could see circumstances where the Board could require property owners to hook to a central water system, but not in this case. He stated it would be over reaching. Mr. Katieb read staff findings as follows: In accordance with Section 6.03.13 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for a major new domestic water system for the Ten Peaks Mesa Water System (which includes all properties as described by the application). a. New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing water and sewage treatment systems of communities 5 08-16-1999 within this County within the development area and source development area; This new water system, as proposed, will result in proper utilization of the water supply and wastewater systems for the subdivision and the source development area. b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable Regional, State or Federal land use or water plan; The proposed development does not conflict with the Eagle County Master Plan, the Eagle County Open Space Plan, or other applicable Regional, State or Federal land use or water plans. c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users; The proposed development will not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users. The applicant has sufficient legal water for the system proposed. d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs; Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, will be available for efficient operational needs. e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must beat or near operational capacity; Not applicable. This is not a request for an expansion, but for a new domestic water treatment system. This is a request for an improvement to the ability to serve domestic water to a property(ies) in the source development area. f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; No additional wastewater treatment facilities are proposed with this development. g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewage services or create duplicate services; The proposed new system may create duplicate services, however, the nearest service line to the property is technically unfeasible to extend to offer the same service. h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; Not applicable. i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; Area and community development and population trends demonstrate a need for an increased domestic water supply storage system in the area. The land has been subdivided under SB35, so the proposed system development will provide more reliable water supply for domestic use and fire protection. j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division; This permit application does not propose a new wastewater treatment plant, therefore, this criteria is un-applicable. k. Appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; The site of the proposal is owned by applicant, the Ten Peaks Mesa Homeowners Association through various easements and contractual agreements. l. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development; No losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands will occur because of the system requested. Those losses took place under the land subdivision. 6 08-16-1999 m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22,1979, and effective July 10,1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted. n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate Federal or State air quality standards; The proposed development and its associated collector system will not violate Federal or State air quality standards. o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forest and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public out-door recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; The proposed development will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forest and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public out-door recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance if the construction is in accordance with the application submitted. p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; The proposed development will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors if the construction is in accordance with the application submitted. q. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution systems will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result; The proposed development will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area, since all project facilities will be paid for by the developers existing fund balances. r. The development site of a proposed major extension of an existing domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snow slides, landslides, avalanches, rock slides or other disasters which could cause a system operation breakdown; To Eagle County's knowledge, the site(specific to the water system) is not subject to natural hazards. s. Any proposed domestic water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health; The proposed development and associated distribution system is capable of providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health. t. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the 7 08-16-1999 proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area; The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed enlargement of capacity will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. In accordance with Section 6.05.13 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, approval of the Permit application: a. The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated; The need for the proposed water system enlargement can be substantiated based on historic growth rate, future growth scenarios, and the existing problems with the delivery of water vis-a-vis individual wells in the Missouri Heights area. Additionally, since the land has already been subdivided and conveyed under SB35, the proposed water system will offer a greater degree of water storage for fire suppression to lots which were subdivided under State statute. b. Assurances of compatibility of the proposed water project with Federal, State, Regional, and County planning policies regarding land use and water resources; The proposed development does not conflict with The Eagle County Master Plan, The Eagle County Open Space Plan, The Mid Valley Master Plan, or other applicable Regional, State of Federal land use or water plans. c. Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas; The proposed project will emphasize the most efficient use of water if approved with the proposed conditions. d. Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources; Adequate provisions have been proposed to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources. e. The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health; The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health; f. The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface water resources in the source development area below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division on May 22,1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; Any disturbances to the water resources would be temporary in nature, for the most part, represent sedimentation due to runoff from disturbed soils until re-vegetation has been established. g. The proposed development and the potential diversion of water from the source development area will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands, and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting area and the habitats or rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; The proposed development will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas, recreational 8 08-16-1999 areas, and unique areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archeological importance. h. The salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Section 6.05.13 (16) and (17) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith, if any, have been paid; Not applicable. i. The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area; The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with he proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. Mr. Katieb stated staff recommended approval with the following conditions: 1) Water users of this system shall be required to have water metered, and a graduated water system service fee structure. 2) No water intensive grasses (ie. Kentucky Bluegrass) shall be allowed beyond 2,000 square feet on each lot which requires water derived from this domestic water system. This minimal use of manicured turf will assist with fires suppression concerns around the perimeter of a residence only. The remaining 1,000 square feet of lawn allowance may be seeded with dry-land drought-tolerant seed mixes only. 3) Except as otherwise modified by the Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval unless otherwise amended by other conditions. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number 1041-0020, Ten Peaks Mesa, incorporating staff findings and the three recommended conditions as read. Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. In discussion, Jim Fritze stated while the special use has been withdrawn the waiver of the special use should be included in the motion. Commissioner Johnson amended his motion to waive the special use requirement for this application as it would be a duplicate.. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the amendment. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Pro-tem Stone called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Riverwalk Appeal Paul Clarkson, Senior Planner, presented the Riverwalk appeal of staff determination that a fractional fee estate is strictly a residential use and not also a commercial use. He stated there are no hearing rules and regulations for this process. He related a time share is a use by right in the Riverwalk PUD, but the question is what kind of use is it. He stated there is a residential cap in the PUD and a cap for the commercial uses. Mr. Clarkson stated it is his understanding the applicant is requesting the time share be a commercial use. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, stated they have worked very closely with staff and understand their views. He stated this is an appeal based on the PUD Amendment. He stated when the PUD was applied for the goal at that time was flexibility. Mr. Knight introduced Bill Williams and Rich Howard, applicant. He stated Larry Dahl was also present representing the time share community. Mr. Knight stated the applicant must prove they are not exceeding the square footage in either residential or commercial uses. He stated staff was correct in their determination but time shares are a use in any 9 08-16-1999 .. zone. He stated they are proposing to have a time share use. Mr. Howard stated he reviewed the Beaver Creek PUD. He stated the Riverwalk definition of time shares speaks to the ownership and the use of the unit. He stated the Beaver Creek PUD only refers to ownership of a time share. He stated in the Beaver Creek PUD they have two zones and calls out uses by right. He stated uses by right are hotel and lodge rooms, apartments, condominiums, commercial use, etc. He stated this appears to be a catch all use. Mr. Howard stated they are trying to allocate the space to use for the time share. Chairman Pro-tern Stone asked what was the reasoning behind having a difference between commercial and residential space. He stated he is not sure how the Beaver Creek Regulations apply. He stated there seems to be distinction between commercial and residential. Mr. Knight stated in building design and consideration, the applicant tried to include everything. He stated they did not focus on where time shares should go. He stated second floors of the buildings were planned for offices and/or time shares. Chairman Pro-tern Stone asked if there are different requirements for commercial versus residential uses. He stated part of those differences would be parking. He stated it was probably determined at the time that those different impacts would be considered. Commissioner Johnson stated the reason for the distinctions is there is a need to know what the uses are with those developments. He asked in the RC Zoning in Beaver Creek, if the buildings have a specific number of units. Chairman Pro-tern Stone stated it is on a site specific basis. Commissioner Johnson stated there is some specificity in Beaver Creek. Mr. Howard stated that may be true of zone districts. Commissioner Johnson stated just because you have the square footage does not mean you can change the plans in mid stream. Mr. Clarkson stated there is an overall cap of units in Beaver Creek. Commissioner Johnson asked if when they move units from one area to another area within the PUD they must come before the Board. Mr. Clarkson stated Beaver Creek may have changed the zoning but he does not recall any movement of units. Mr. Knight stated they believe it is a matter that can be determined either way. Commissioner Stone asked if this would be using commercial space for a residential unit. Mr. Knight stated that is correct but time shares could be used in either area. It states it is compatible with residential uses. He stated this is a commercial enterprise on the second floor of the building. Chairman Pro-tern Stone asked if time shares are a lodging use. He stated Christi Lodge had a large court case which they won, indicating time shares are not a commercial use but rather a residential use. Mr. Howard stated they allowed for the use in general for Riverwalk. He stated they are currently in negotiations to allow time shares in Riverwalk, thus the reason for the request. He stated they believe a time share can be placed in any zone district. Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked how this application differs from other areas and the impacts in those areas. Mr. Clarkson stated traffic and parking would be less impacted but water and sewer would be more impacted. He stated staff is not making a decision whether time shares are appropriate in Riverwalk. He stated he does not know of any time shares that are located in residential areas. He stated there are great similarities between Beaver Creek and Riverwalk but Riverwalk has reached or is reaching one of their caps. He related Beaver Creek will probably never reach their caps. He stated the impacts of a time share in Riverwalk does not bother staff much but he is strictly adhering to the Land 10 08-16-1999 Use Regulations. He stated commercial, residential or time share use have gotten sparse. Bill Williams, applicant, stated he does not want any mis-understandings. He stated they are not trying to get out of anything. He stated with the next building they will finish up their employee housing requirements. He stated they will end up with 74 spaces. He stated they are not trying to add any more square footage than what they are allowed. Chairman Pro-tern Stone asked for an opinion from Jim Fritze, if the Board, based on the PUD Control Document, would not be adhering to their own Land Use Regulations if they decided to approve the use, which is shown as residential. Assume for a moment that the Board determines time shares as a residential use, from a legal standpoint, is the Board risking anything or setting a precedent. Mr. Fritze stated one, with regard to the Land Use Regulations, the Board is called upon to hear the appeal which basically says is this the wording. The Board is called upon to look at the words that are there and not add or subtract words. The second part, is this a precedent. He stated everything is a precedent. Is it one of great concern. No, because you will probably not have this same exact situation anywhere else. He assumes the staff is alerted to clarify this situation so there will not be another in the future. He stated the Board must look at the regulations and determine if staff s interpretation is correct. He stated if this goes against the applicant they could also help fix the language in the regulations and submit a PUD amendment application. Commissioner Johnson stated he agrees with what the applicant is trying to do but he believes staff is interpreting the regulations correctly. In this particular instance he prefers to see time shares taken out of commercial and be put strictly in residential. He would not like to see time shares put into commercial areas. He asked if the applicant could start the process in changing their PUD Guide, which has a cost, but maybe the Board could waive the fees. Mr. Fritze stated he does not see an issue with waiving or reducing the fees in this case. He stated there is staff work that is involved, advertising and such. Mr. Clarkson asked if they are talking about a PUD Amendment. Mr. Fritze stated that would be the appropriate way to handle this problem. He stated he would not recommend the Board attempt to change the regulations. Mr. Knight asked about the advertising for a PUD Amendment. Mr. Clarkson stated there is quite a bit of flexibility in the regulations concerning the time frame. He stated he believes a proposal like this could be heard in about 3 weeks after the application is submitted. Mr. Fritze stated there is language in some PUD's that differentiate between the two uses. Mr. Williams stated they went into great detail with the flex space included in the PUD. Mr. Fritze asked ifthere is a flex space provision. Mr. Williams stated there is a flex space portion in the PUD Guide. He explained the reasoning behind adding flex space to the PUD Guide. He explained flex space refers to residential but he believes was a description rather than a use. Commissioner Johnson stated with the flex space of 4,000 square feet, it may be used for commercial and speaks to residential. He stated there is also an additional 24, 000 square feet of unrestricted space. Mr. Williams stated the 24,000 has not be used. Commissioner Johnson stated the appeal is based on if Mr..Clarkson read the definitions in the Land Use Regulations correctly. He stated he believes Mr. Clarksollhas reviewed the Regulations appropriately and has come to the only decision available. He stated the next step would be the applicant applying for a PUD Amendment. Mr. Clarkson stated the major concern of staff is perhaps those two uses should not be mixed into the same structure. Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated actually the mixed use does work well. 11 08-16-1999 Commissioner Johnson moved to deny ASD-OOOOl, the Riverwalk appeal, as recommended by staff. Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Hidden Valley Pit Appeal John Vengrin, Engineering Department, stated this matter has been withdrawn as the applicant and staff were able to work out the issues. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until August 23, 1999. Attest: Clerk to the Bo 12 08-16-1999