HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 11/22/99
PUBLIC HEARING
NOVEMBER 22, 1999
Present:
Johnnette Phillips
Tom Stone
James Johnson, Jr.
James R. Fritze
Jack Ingstad
Sara J. Fisher
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Attorney
County Administrator
Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
Consent Agenda
Chairman Phillips stated the first item before the Board was the consent agenda as follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for week of November 22, 1999, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Approval of payroll for December 2, 1999, subject to review by County Administrator
C) Approval of the minutes of the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners for
November 8, 1999
D) Resolution 99-192, concerning appointments and re-appointments to the Eagle
County Emergency Medical Services Council
E) County Subsidy Payment Distribution Form, Colorado Emergency Medical Services
Subsidy Program for Counties
F) Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Red Cliff regarding
animal control services
G) Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and the Town of Gypsum
regarding animal control services
H) Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Minturn regarding
animal control services
I) Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Vail regarding
animal control services
J) Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Mid-Valley Kennel, Inc.,
regarding procuring services of an animal shelter for impoundment of dogs and cats by Eagle County
Animal Control
K) Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Eagle regarding
animal control services
L) Service Order Form, E-911 Phase 1, with Airtouch Communications, Inc.
M) Resolution 99-193 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406979 for Kensington Partners in the amount of$352,211.20 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by N orwest Bank Denver
N) Resolution 99-194 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S801733 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of $44,587.00 to
expire December 8, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
0) Resolution 99-195 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406753 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of $279,437.84 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
1
11-22-1999
P) Resolution 99-196 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406754 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of $279,437.84 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
Q) Resolution 99-197 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406747 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of$168,336.71 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
R) Resolution 99-198 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406743 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of$101,151.84 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
S) Resolution 99-199 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406751 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of $96,671.18 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
T) Resolution 99-200 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406752 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of $4,470.00 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by N orwest Bank Denver
U) Resolution 99-201 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406747 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of $309,502.20 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
V) Resolution 99-202 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406748 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of$500,210.37 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
W) Resolution 99-203 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406744 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of$32,108.1O to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
X) Resolution 99-204 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406745 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of$49,122.72 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
Y) Resolution 99-205 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406746 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of $283,500.00 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
Z) Resolution 99-206 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406748 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of$507,159.65 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
AA) Resolution 99-207 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406756 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of $44,487.00 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
BB) Resolution 99-208 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406755 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of $2,579,400.00
to expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
CC) Resolution 99-209 and Power of Attorney conferring authority on the Attorney's
Office to draw on Letter of Credit no. S406756 for Stag Gulch Partners in the amount of$152,426.00 to
expire December 1, 1999, issued by Norwest Bank Denver
DD) Sign and approve the Contract with Brad's Electrical Service, Inc., for electrical
work to be done at the Justice Center.
Commissioner Johnson asked Rusty Williams, Animal Control Officer, about the
Intergovernmental Agreements and the escalator for 2001. He suggested within the IGA's themselves
there is a contract for one amount for the year 2000. He suggested he did not see a corresponding
increase for 2001.
2
11-22-1999
Mr. Williams responded that contract will be written and handed in next year. He states it shows
the increase proportionately since 1990.
Commissioner Johnson spoke to section 9 with the Town of Vail with the Terms. He stated it
states the terms will be in effect through 2001.
Mr. Williams stated that is an error on his part and they are only contracting for a year at a time.
He stated each contract states that.
Commissioner Johnson spoke to item J which is really a contract and not and IGA.
Mr. Williams concurred. He stated there will be another contract coming forward on the 6th
which is with the veterinarian.
Commissioner Johnson stated another item was on L and he was wondering what the deployment
date is for this
Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, stated she is not sure but she can call Mr. Loeffler and find
out.
Chairman Phillips asked Rich Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, if he might
know.
Mr. Cunningham stated he did not.
Chairman Phillips spoke to the minutes saying on page 2 where they discussed the lease of the
bleachers. She questioned if they are going to continue to lease them or sell them so they don't have to
get them back.
Mr. Cunningham stated the amount was $1.00 per year for a total of$5.00.
Chairman Phillips stated on page 3, 7th line down, the question was asked what was the cost. She
would like further explanation where it states "Mrs. Forinash further explained. She stated she would
like further information on what Ms. Forinash explained. She stated approximately 7 lines from the
bottom it again stays Ms. Forinash explained and the minutes should reflect what was explained.
On page 5, five lines from the top, it says Commissioner Johnson asked how things are in
Steamboat. She suggested that the discussion should be eliminated as she doesn't believe all the chit
chat needs to be included.
Commissioner Johnson suggested that the review of the minutes is to reflect what went on at the
meeting.
The Board concurred to strike that discussion.
Chairman Phillips stated on page 6, Gashouse Restaurant, it should state that the applicant was
not present and this matter should be tabled.
Commissioner Johnson stated he believes the minutes reflect what did go on at the meeting. The
applicant did not request a tabling.
Sara Fisher, Clerk & Recorder, stated the minutes do reflect what went on at the meeting. It was
not until Commissioner Stone asked if there was an applicant present that Ms. Roach stated there was
not. She then requested this matter be tabled due to that fact.
Chairman Phillips stated on page 7, please correct spelling to Chairman Phillips, right in the
middle of the page, six lines down. She stated Phillips only has one L.
Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, spoke to the Airtouch commencement date which was
left blank in the document as they don't know when the Vail Center will have the upgrade to implement
the contract. The deployment date will be when it is in place.
Ms. Black asked ifthe Board would like to table all the animal contracts.
Mr. Williams asked if it would be possible to retrieve the contracts, change the date from 2001 to
2000 and have that change initialed by the signer. He would then return the contracts for signature by
the Board.
Ms. Black suggested they could approve the contracts now with the change and the area initialed
by the Towns.
3
11-22-1999
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the consent calendar as presented with the changes to the
minutes as noted for the November 8th meeting, also a change to items F, G, H, I, and K reflecting that
those agreements expire at the end ofthe year 2000 as opposed to the year 2001 and that approval by the
County Commissioners happens after the changes have been initialed by the Towns. Also the change to
item J to reflect the Mid-Valley Agreement is a contract and not an IGA.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Plat & Resolution Signing
Paul Clarkson, Senior Planner and Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and
resolutions for the Board's consideration. Mr. Clarkson stated they did not have time to get the backup
to the Board before today for VIS-0004, Miller's Creek on the Eagle River, Filing 2, PUD. If the Board
would like they can table this matter to December 6, 1999.
The Board concurred to continue the proposed Resolution to December 6, 1999.
5MB-00203. Miller's Creek on the Eae:le River. A Resubdivision of Lot 11. Mr.
Gennett stated this was a Minor Type B Subdivision which is a resubdivision of Lot 11 to create two 12
duplex lots to be known as Lot 11A and Lot lIB, pursuant to the allowed uses by right within Miller's
Creek on the Eagle River PUD. The plat has been reviewed by the Assessor, Surveyor, Attorney,
Engineer, Planning and the building Divisions and is found to be in full compliance with all State and
County requirements, codes and regulations. He read the findings into the record as follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision
(G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director
shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an
Amended Final Plat.
l. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision.
a. Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are
adequate;
b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable
regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and
c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00203, Miller's Creek on
the Eagle River, Lot 11, incorporating staff findings.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
5MB-00204. Miller's Creek on the Eae:le River. A Resubdivision of Lot 8. He stated
this is a Minor Type B Subdivision which is a resubdivision of Lot 8 to create two 12 duplex lots to be
known as Lot 8A and Lot 8B, pursuant to the allowed used by right within Miller's Creek on the Eagle
River PUD. This plat has been reviewed by the County Assessor, Surveyor, Attorney, Engineer,
Planning and the building Divisions, and is found to be in full compliance with all State and County
requirements, codes and regulations. He read staff findings as follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision
(G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director
shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an
Amended Final Plat.
1. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision.
4
11-22-1999
a. Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are
adequate;
b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable
regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and
c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve final plat, file number 5MB-00204, Miller's Creek on
the Eagle River, Lot 8, incorporating staff findings.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Memorandum of Agreement, Riverview Apartments
David Carter, Housing Director, presented the Memorandum of Agreement relating to the
funding of rehabilitation work at the Riverview Apartments. He explained the agreement to the Board
and recommended approval. He stated Eagle County has received a grant of $600,000.00. He stated the
County Attorney has advised what would be most appropriate would be to have the Corporation oversee
the rehabilitation process. The County would remain accountable for the funds.
Commissioner Johnson asked if this is a loan that will be paid back after the bonding
indebtedness.
Mr. Carter concurred. He stated the County will be bringing on an architect to oversee the work
so at some point in the future they will need to look at an amendment between the State and the County.
He stated there will be an amendment to the contract sometime in the near future.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Memorandum of Agreement relating to the
funding of rehabilitation work at Riverview Apartments.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as
the Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two Commissioners present at the time, the vote
was declared unanimous. Commissioner Johnson was not present at this time.
Swiss Stubli LLC
Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented a new application for a hotel and restaurant license
for Swiss Stubli LLC, dba/Swiss Stubli Authentic Swiss Restaurant. She stated this establishment will
be located in the old Legends Restaurant area. This application is in order and all fees have been paid.
The Sheriff s Office reports the applicant to be of good moral character. The first order of business is to
establish the neighborhood then the needs of that neighborhood. The applicant used the Beaver Creek
PUD as the neighborhood.
Chairman Phillips stated since this is the same place as Legends, though it is a new restaurant,
they are just changing the license, this is a pretty easy application in her opinion.
Ms. Roach explained Legends had previously closed so this applicant could not do a transfer of
ownership.
Commissioner Stone moved to establish the neighborhood as the Beaver Creek PUD.
Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unammous.
The applicant submitted a petition of signatures of the neighborhood as evidence of need.
Christina Kuster, applicant, was present for the hearing.
5
11-22-1999
Commissioner Stone moved to establish the needs of the neighborhood as evidenced by the
submitted petition with approximately seventy signatures and testimony at this hearing.
Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unanImous.
Chairman Phillips asked how long they have been in business in the valley.
Ms. Kuster responded they have been here for four years and have 28 years of experience.
Chairman Phillips asked about TIPS training.
Ms. Kuster stated all employees will be TIPS trained. She stated they are planning to open
December 7, 1999.
Commissioner Stone asked about the concept of the restaurant and the different foods.
Ms. Kuster explained it is Swiss in nature with fondues, racqlette and other authentic items.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve a new hotel and restaurant license for Swiss Stubli LLC,
dba/Swiss Stubli Authentic Swiss Restaurant.
Chairman Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared
unanImous.
Gashouse Restaurant
Earlene Roach presented a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license for Gashouse, Inc.,
dba/Gashouse Restaurant. She stated this matter was tabled from November 8, 1999 to allow the
applicant to be present. This application was in order and all fees have been paid. The Sheriffs Office
reports no complaints or disturbances during the past year.
Clay Irons, applicant, and John McWilliams, manager, were present for the hearing.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the renewal of a hotel and restaurant license for
Gashouse, Inc., dba/Gashouse Restaurant.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Ms. Roach stated due to a sting operation conducted by the Sheriff s Office, she will be bringing
forward a show cause notice for South Forty Liquors. She stated this is the third offense.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene
as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
PDA-00023, Edwards Medical Center
Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDA-00023, Edwards Medical Center. He
reviewed the project description as follows:
At the Planning Commission meeting of October 20, the applicant proposed to modify the
proposed phasing of the project as reflected in the following:
Phase Currently Approved Originally Proposed by this Proposed October 20 before
Amendment Planning Commission
1 Bldg A - complete Bldg A - complete Bldg A - complete
6
11-22-1999
2 Bldg E - on-site housing Employee housing - to be Employee housing - to be
for 42 employees satisfied by 34 employee satisfied by 34 employee
housing bed credits at The housing bed credits at The
Tames Tames
3 Bldg B - medical and Bldg B (medical and offices, Bldg B (medical and offices,
admin offices, day care dining facility, Cancer Center) dining facility, Cancer Center)
center
4 Bldg D - on-site Bldg C - addition to existing Bldg D - on-site housing for 42
housing for 42 building (medical and offices) employees (medical and
employees offices)
5 Bldg C - Nurse assisted Bldg D - on-site housing for 42 Bldg C - addition to existing
living employees (optional) building
6 On-site housing for an
N/A N/A additional 42 employees
(optional)
Other revisions to the proposal that are necessary as a consequence of the proposed revised
phasing (for example, parking, landscaping, engineering) have yet to be detailed by the applicant and so
are not available for review and comment by staff.
Mr. Forinash reviewed the Planning Commission meeting for the Board as indicated below:
September 15. 1999. The applicant's presentation included the following points:
· Benefits of the regional cancer center to the community and the region.
· Profile and view from residential areas north of Beard Creek Road.
· Proposed site plan allowed parking to be located closer to where it will be needed.
· Increase in the number of parking spaces compared to the current PUD plan.
· Necessity of the additional height of the buildings to accommodate the space
needs of a three-story medical facility.
Discussions of the Planning Commission included:
· The need to reconcile the 34 employee housing bed credits with the 42 employees
which were to be housed in the original Phase 2.
· The need for more than the required amount of landscaping to screen this use
from residential areas to the north and east, including the parking area at the east
end of the site.
· The need to provide detail on the calculation of parking requirements for the
specific uses intended to justify a lesser number of parking spaces than the Eagle
County Land Use Regulations would otherwise require.
· The greater need for handicapped parking spaces at a medical offices facility.
· The importance of emergency access to the buildings on the site.
· The net visual impact of the buildings in light of proposed changes in height and
location.
· The need to examine transit related issues and accommodation.
He stated they had originally recommended denial, however, with the changes proposed by the
applicant, they are now recommending approval. He spoke to the master plan and the open space plan,
which is applicable because of the visual.
He spoke to the heights of the buildings, which the applicant is proposing be increased instead of
three feet. Staff still has some concern but has determined it is not an issue that needs to be pursued
7
11-22-1999
further. Open space and landscaping, parking and loading considerations have all be reviewed. The
applicant has provided further information demonstrating the use and that they are meeting the
requirements. He stated staff is satisfied with the information that has been provided but is an issue they
intend to look at as they move through the additional phases. Access to Beard Creek Road was an issue
that has also been satisfied.
The engineering plans have been received in a more complete format and as long as that is
provided, the land use regulations should be acceptable. They have, however, only provided phase by
phase which does propose difficulties with the final plat. They in turn will be reviewed incrementally.
One of the areas that has taken the most time has been the employee housing. What was originally
proposed is that there would be employee housing built in phases on site. Originally that was 42
employee housing units in phase two and again in phase four. Originally the first forty two were to be
satisfied at the Tames and the second set of houses at phase five. It was suggested that be modified.
Staff is satisfied that the proposal with respect to housing is consistent with what was originally
proposed assuming that the 34 credits is acceptable for phase two.
The last issue to be resolved is the PUD guide. He stated the guide was the last thing to come
together. He has submitted the revised guide with the changes underlined. With that, staff changed the
recommendation from denial to approval with conditions. He stated the Board has a complete PUD
guide and a proposal with conditions.
Commissioner Stone confirmed he has a total of nine different conditions that were originally
proposed. He asked about the engineering plans being complete.
Mr. Forinash stated as long as they are considered final plats.
Commissioner Stone asked about landscaping, parking, usable open space and clarification of
easements to be vacated and created.
Mr. Forinash stated landscaping, parking and usable open space have been taken care of. He
stated the easements have to be dealt with at final plat.
Commissioner Stone asked if the PUD Guide has been revised.
Mr. Forinash stated it has and the Board has the final copy.
Commissioner Johnson asked about a copy ofthe resolution about the 34 credits and questioned
if they are 34 housing credits or off-site housing credits.
Commissioner Stone recalled they did not make a determination at that time and left it open for a
later date, and that time has now come.
Mr. Forinash stated the wording was for 34 employee housing bed credits. He stated the
proposal was for 42 employees, with 1.25 employees housed per bedroom. He reiterated that it is bed
credits.
Mr. Forinash stated it is a complicated matter which staff and the Planning Commission have
discussed exhaustively. Staff feels it is acceptable.
Commissioner Johnson questioned the phase review of the engineering plans and asked if they
will be reviewed with the standards in place at the time of the review or the standards in place now.
Jim Fritze, County Attorney, and Mr. Forinash concurred it would be those in place at the time of
reVIew.
Chairman Phillips questioned the building permits.
Terrill Knight, representing the applicant, stated he will cover that in their response.
Chairman Phillips asked Mr. Forinash about the building permits.
Mr. Forinash responded it is acceptable as written.
Chairman Phillips spoke to the easements being finalized at final plat.
Terrill Knight introduced Paul Johnson, Vail Valley Hospital Board, Cliff Eldridge, CEO ofthe
Vail Valley Hospital Board, Stan Anderson, facilities manager, Russ Sedmak, representing the design
team with HLM Architects and Jim Atkinson, SA Merrill Civil Engineers. He stated their presentation
will be brief.
8
11-22-1999
Cliff Eldridge reflected it has been a little more than a year since the Edwards Medical Center
have began providing services. He stated they have had 3700 visits to the Eagle Care Clinic, more than
2200 visits to physical therapy and more than 6500 filled prescriptions, as well as having reviewed some
other statistics. He stated that response pails compared to the enthusiasm for the regional cancer center.
He spoke to the first four meetings held to amend the PUD. They are interested in the cancer center and
seem to have a unanimous consensus. He stated there is more than one case of cancer being reported a
day by those who will use this center. As part of the overall project, there is a growing need for medical
offices with 171 physicians. He stated they appreciate the Board's consideration of the application.
Mr. Knight stated they have proposed some minor changes to a previously approved PUD. The
original concept was to provide services for a couple of reasons, one the need for the services and the
need to expand. This area was proposed with the need for affordable housing. He suggested they
thought they may be able to do this within the facility but felt it would be better to do a site plan
application change. They brought housing to an earlier phase and placed it off site. The point being they
know clearly some of the next phase facilities. It was determined a dining facility was also necessary
and it was important to meet the needs of patients as well as of staff. The point is to serve those within
but would allow others to use it as well. He stated the principal result is a revision in the site plan. They
did review the original conditions. Square footage did not change but they did feel they may need to
increase the parking.
Mr. Knight stated the wording on staff recommendation that includes the term "no building
permits or may be issued or building commence" he stated they have done some grading and that would
remain in effect. He stated he would like to discuss the housing issue and whoever said it was confusing
was right on the money. He spoke to the resolution written which was not consistent with what they had
submitted but was in the PUD guide. The 34 units came about as a conceptual idea housing 42 persons.
There is now additional housing on site with an amendment to the first phase. Originally there was 34
beds required, they moved those offsite, but still have 34 more with the possibility of another 34. He
suggested they may be meeting a wider range of employee needs.
Russ Sedmak gave an overview of the project. He reviewed the illustration of the site showing
the five buildings. The proposed amendment reduces the number of buildings from five to three. Phase
three building, the impetus of cancer care center posed some design challenges. He spoke to the specific
needs of these patients. They felt it was imperative to give a specific entrance for cancer care vehicles
while maintaining a public entrance. He showed the entrance on the old plan and the difficulties posed
in entering the facility. The other aspect of difficulty was the distribution of parking and the number of
spaces. They have increased the number of parking spaces and redistributed it accordingly. The new
proposed PUD plan shows the phase 2 building as being the same square footage with the entry points of
the building being adjacent to Bear Road. There is an opportunity for a staff walking area creating a
more campus like ambiance. He spoke to the existing facility and the foot traffic between the two
buildings. In the spirit to reduce the mass they have modified the design. He spoke to the parking and
having it around the facility and believe this is more realistic. He pointed out on the building design that
one of the future buildings was planned with flexible use. Rather than to carry that they decided to plan
for that space to be more closely integrated with the medical center, grouping like functions together. He
stated another benefit is that it can not be easily seen by the neighbors. They loved the idea. He showed
illustrations that represented the building configurations from Berry Creek Road and the PUD Plan. He
stated what they had created was a row of buildings and a dense mass of buildings. He showed a
modified version of the proposed cancer center. He showed how one story steps down with the ridge
line being the same as phase one. There is a portion that does project above. He stated they are reducing
the net bulk of the building. He showed this as the future phase three and phase four. He showed more
detailed drawings of the proposed buildings. They do plan on using similar architecture to the first
phase. They will not be using reflective glass. He showed where the service area will be and how it
will be out of site. He stated they are trying to be sensitive of views from all angels. He reviewed the
9
11-22-1999
inside of the building showing the three floors. The cancer center will be located on the ground floor.
The first floor will be physicians offices and an extension of the Eagle Care Clinic. The upper floor
which is more narrow is strictly for offices yet to be determined.
Mr. Knight summarized as follows: #1, engineering plans, they agree those will be done with
each final plat. They committed to doing final plats by phases which they included in the PUD guide.
#2, landscape plan has been reviewed and approved, #3 parking has been agreed to, #4, open space
calculations have been presented, #5, easements have been identified as to where they need to be
removed and they added at the final plat stage. He stated they understand that and the final plat will be
submitted in the next few days. #8 has been clarified, no building permits for the development other than
the grading plan currently in effect and they believe the PUD Guide has been reviewed and corrected. He
stated their engineer was present if there are any questions. He clarified phase four and six will be when
they provide more housing. Phase 4 would be consistent with or proceed the 5th Phase of the
development of the medical buildings and the final phase would be the optional employee housing
phase.
Commissioner Stone asked them to review the whole housing issue. He referred to the original
approval of 84 units on site. He asked for the historical aspect.
Mr. Knight suggested there may be different opinions on how they are counted. He stated that it
was determined that 42 employees would need to be housed based on the approval of the project. Site
analysis was performed and the Board was interested in getting more housing if possible.
Mr. Forinash stated originally proposed was an additional 42 units. They were also required to
do 42. This is where the 84 came up.
Mr. Knight stated after the site analysis, 42 additional units could be added.
Commissioner Stone reviewed that 42 were required and 42 were optional.
Mr. Forinash stated that is the way they entered into the original approval of the PUD. In the
process of improving the PUD it included two sets of 42 as part ofthe development, not being optional
any longer. That was based upon 20% of the employees on site. They approved two phases of 42
employees and neither was designated optional.
Commissioner Johnson clarified that what they have is a PUD that requires 84 employee units.
He asked for the original wording.
Mr. Knight stated they did not feel it was a requirement.
Commissioner Stone stated that is really his only concem.
Mr. Knight stated he believes the record will show they are not required. He stated he has a
concern because the language differs from the Resolution and the PUD Guide.
Chairman Phillips read from the resolution suggesting it was beds. She stated the Planning
Commission did accept the additional 34 units in phase four.
Mr. Knight stated they have added to the confusion by adding the housing together. He stated
when they were required to move housing into an earlier phase, they asked for a revision to the plan to
make it easier to move that housing into an earlier phase. They came to the Board asking for the housing
at the Tarnes. They signed the deal understanding the change would only be approved with the proper
PUD application.
Commissioner Johnson stated they are talking about what the Planning Commission sent to the
Board and the allocation of off site credits. He asked what was approved in the original PUD as far as
employee housing is concerned.
Mr. Forinash stated one ofthe things looked at was what was required and what is optional. In
the original PUD Guide it shows the employee housing as optional in one place and then in three or four
other places it shows it as being required.
Paul Clarkson stated the applicant proposed 68 units/84 beds. He stated the purpose was to have
34 bedrooms with 42 employees. They did it in such a way that the final phase would be the second set
of buildings. It was with the understanding that the final phase would be one of the buildings and would
10
11-22-1999
be optional in such a manner that maybe the project might never complete itself.
Commissioner Stone asked how many beds were they required to build in the entire PUD.
Mr. Forinash stated 34 units with 42 employees in each phase and there are two phases. He
stated it was approved with 1.25 employees per bed.
Commissioner Stone stated the applicant was required to have a total of 68 beds.
Mr. Clarkson stated they were required to have 68 units.
Commissioner Stone asked if the Board can assume that unit equals bed.
Commissioner Johnson stated during the discussion of employee housing and the calculations,
there was discussion about married employees where both parties don't work for the hospital. He
recalled the discussion and the defined numbers. What they planned on providing was more than
enough housing to satisfy the 20% requirement. When the PUD was approved the guide contained the
68 units. Then they agreed to the Tames and at that time the Board reduced the requirement by 34 units.
He stated the resolution states the agreement with Vail Resorts is with 34 beds, not 34 units. He stated
later they placed the verbiage "offsite". He stated now they question how many beds do they feel still
need to be required and then wether they need to go into phase four or will they be in phase six.
Mr. Knight suggested within the PUD Guide they have permitted uses. They feel that this project
in its current form will bring a place for 42 persons on site. He stated in the PUD Guide they made an
estimate of 10 one bedroom units, 10 two bedroom units and 6 three bedroom units. That was a general
guide as that is what they expected to have.
Chairman Phillips suggested this was probably discussed at great length at the Planning
Commission meeting. She is willing to accept the 34 beds today with the additional 42 beds to be added
when and if the final phase is completed.
Mr. Knight stated they amended the application at the recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Forinash read staffs findings for the record.
NOTE: Revisedfindings are noted with comments in italics.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for th.e review of
a Sketch and Preliminary PUD Plan:
(l) Unified ownership or control. It IS represented that title to all land is owned or controlled by
one (1) entity.
(2) Uses. Uses that may be developed through the proposed PUD Amendment ARE NOT those
uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in
Table 3-000 or Table 3-320 for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the
application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-
240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized.
(3) Dimensional Limitations. The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE
NOT those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations'" for the zone district
designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these
dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5.240-F.3.f, Variations Authorized,
provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire
protection, and ensure proper ventilation light, air and snow melt between buildings.
(4) Off-Street Parking and Loading. It HAS been demonstrated at this time that off-street
parking and loading to be provided in the PUD Amendment can now comply with the standards of
Article 4, Division l, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be
authorized where the applicant demonstrates that:
(5) Landscaping. It HAS been demonstrated that landscaping provided in the PUD complies
with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Applicant HAS
demonstrated that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both
11
11-22-1999
within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse
impacts; creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas; and is consistent with the character of the area.
(6) Signs. A comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD
DOES exist within the Edwards Medical Center PUD Guide that provides the minimum sign area
necessary to direct users to and within the PUD..
(7) Adequate Facilities. The applicant HAS demonstrated that the development proposed by the
PUD Amendment will be provided with adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal,
solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in
relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services.
(8) Improvements. It HAS been demonstrated at this time that the improvement standards
applicable to the development are as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. It
HAS been demonstrated that the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and
installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to
environmental impacts.
(a) Safe, Efficient Access. It HAS been demonstrated that there is safe, efficient access
to all areas of the proposed development.
(b) Internal Pathways. It HAS been demonstrated that internal pathways form a logical,
safe and convenient system for pedestrian accesses with appropriate linkages off-site.
(c) Emergency Vehicles. It HAS been demonstrated that the roadways are designed to
permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units.
(d) Principal Access Points. It HAS been demonstrated that the principal vehicular
access point is designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian
or bicycle traffic.
(e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas for snow storage HA VE been provided on the plans
submitted.
(9) Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. It HAS been demonstrated that the
development proposed for the PUD Amendment is compatible with the character of surrounding land
uses. [NOTE: Staffhas determined that sufficient compatibility with surrounding land uses does exist.]
(10) Consistency with Master Plan. It HAS been demonstrated that the PUD is consistent with
the Master Plans, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). [NOTE: Staff has
determined that sufficient consistency with the Master Plan does exist.]
(11) Phasing. A phasing plan for the PUD Amendment HAS been provided and guarantees
HA VE been provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for
residents ofthe project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be
constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is
reasonable.
(12) Common Recreation and Open Space. The PUD Amendment shall comply with the
following common recreation and open space standards:
Minimum Area. It HAS been demonstrated that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area is
devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public.
Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities HA VE been
shown on the Preliminary Plan for the PUD Amendment and it HAS been demonstrated that such
facilities shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for
each development phase of the PUD Amendment.
Continuing Use and Maintenance. It HAS been demonstrated that all common open space
identified in the PUD will be used as common open space through restrictions and/or covenants that
ensure its maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space.
(13) The PUD Amendment HAS considered the recommendations made by the applicable
12
11-22-1999
analysis documents, as well as the recommendation received by responding referral agencies as specified
in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards with particular reference to Section 4-
450, Ridgeline Protection.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.f.(3), Variations
Authorized. Basis for Granting Variations:
These variations may be granted when the Board of County Commissionersfinds that the
Preliminary Planfor the PUD {Amendment] achieves one (1) or more of the following purposes and
that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved.
Obtain Desired Design Qualities. A variation may be allowed that permits the integration of
mixed uses or allows for greater variety in the type, design and layout of buildings. Structures shall be
designed to be compatible, in terms of height, mass, scale, orientation and configuration, with other units
in the PUD and the surrounding area, yet shall avoid uniformity of design. Residential and non-
residential uses may be mixed together. Various types of residential uses may also be combined within
the PUD, to promote more efficient land use patterns and increased open space. The Board of County
Commissioners may require minimum yard setbacks, lot widths, and space between buildings of such
dimensions as they are determined to be necessary to provide adequate access and fire protection; to
ensure proper ventilation, light, air, and snow melt between buildings; and to minimize the effects of
transmission of noise between units and between buildings. As a general guide, twenty (20) feet
between buildings shall be considered the minimum appropriate spacing.
Avoid Environmental Resources and Natural Hazards. A variation may be allowed that
provides necessary site planning flexibility to enable the development to avoid valued environmental
resource and natural hazard lands, as these have been identified in Section 3-31O.B.1., Purpose. This
shall be accomplished in such a way as to maintain these lands as large, contiguous areas. Such lands
shall not be fragmented into small, unconnected areas by development, unless the applicant demonstrates
that this arrangement is necessary to maintain the underlying density on the property, and the lands
providing environmental resource values have been protected and lands subject to natural hazards have
been avoided. Where applicable, connections of such lands on the site to such lands on adjacent
properties shall be accomplished.
Water Augmentation. A variation may be allowed that creates incentives for applicants to
commit to a water augmentation plan for their development that brings "wet" water into the Upper Eagle
River Basin.
Trails. A variation may be allowed that provides incentives for applicants to make contributions
to the County's multi-use trail system, in accordance with the recommendations of the latest version of
the Eaf:le County Trails Plan, or to provide appropriate forms of access (including summer and winter
parking areas and trail heads) to public lands and to river and creek drainages in Eagle County.
Proposed access shall be consistent with public land management objectives and resource protection
needs for the areas to be accessed. Trails standards are identified in Section 4-630.A.
Affordable Housing. A variation may be allowed that extends an incentive to applicants to
assure that long term affordable housing is provided.
Public Facilities. A variation may be allowed that provides incentives for applicants to develop
public facilities, including but not limited to public transportation facilities, public recreation facilities
and similar facilities. The facilities may be located on or off of the PUD site, and shall be facilities that
meet the demands not only of project residents, but also of other residents of and visitors to Eagle
County.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m Amendment to
Preliminary Plan for PUD:
(1) It HAS been demonstrated that the proposed PUD Amendment is consistent with the efficient
development and preservation ofthe entire Planned Unit Development;
13
11-22-1999
(2) It HAS been demonstrated that the proposed PUD Amendment does not affect in a
substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the
planned unit development or the public interest; and
(3) The proposed PUD Amendment IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any
person.
Staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1) All engineering plans be complete and subject to the review and satisfaction of the County
Engineer prior to approval of the final plat.
Commissioner Johnson questioned this based on Commissioner Stone's questions earlier.
Mr. Forinash explained the intention is to review this with each phase.
2) The landscaping for Phase 1 be reviewed and determined that it was done as represented, and
that the landscaping plan for the entire site be required to be completed and submitted to staff for review
prior to approval of final plat for each phase of the development.
3) The numbers, types and dimensions of parking spaces, including handicapped parking spaces,
be verified to be in conformance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, prior to approval of final
plat for each phase of the development.
4) The calculation of usable open space be verified and shown to be in conformance with the
Land Use Regulations, prior to approval of final plat for each phase of the development.
5) Clarification be provided regarding easements to be vacated and created and vacation and
creation of necessary easements be completed by a final plat or by one or more instruments satisfactory
to Planning Staff, prior to any building permit being issued or development commenced in that portion
of the site affected by easements.
6) No additional building permits be issued or development commenced prior to the approval of
final plat in one or more phases for that portion of the development.
Commissioner Stone asked if that should be amended because of the grading permit.
Mr. Fritze suggested they could include the word additional.
Chairman Phillips questioned that being a building permit. She suggested the applicant doesn't
want his current grading permit to go away.
Mr. Knight agreed.
Mr. Fritze asked if the grading is done. Mr. Fritze suggested it should read "no additional
building permits be issued or development commenced."
Mr. Forinash stated the PUD guide already includes the requirement for the final platting. He
suggested it could be read in and then made part of the resolution.
Commissioner Johnson suggested condition #9 is redundant.
Mr. Forinash suggested they are trying to get the requirement in the PUD guide.
Commissioner Johnson asked if it is included.
Mr. Forinash stated it is not in the copy they have.
Mr. Knight read from the most current PUD Guide, "an approved final plat is required at each
phase or combination of phases prior to issuance to building permit or the commencement of any
construction activity for that phase or phases of the development. Prior to approval of each final plat,
the applicant will obtain approval from the County Engineer for all engineering plans and otherwise
demonstrate conformance with applicable provisions of Eagle County Land Use Regulations and this
PUD Guide".
Mr. Forinash stated staff is satisfied with that condition eliminating #7.
Commissioner Johnson stated he is still confused as far as the housing is concerned and would
like to table this to the 6th to review the tapes.
Commissioner Stone stated he is satisfied with it and even if it were required at the time the
intent is to meet the need of20%. He stated 42 employees is 34 units.
14
11-22-1999
Commissioner Johnson stated that was not placed in there to just meet the 20% requirement. He
stated he doesn't want to say the County was going to get 68 units.
Chairman Phillips suggested they will come back with what is written and she doesn't feel it is
necessary .
Commissioner Johnson continued saying initially they approved the additional units. When they
came in it was not just a proposal for expanding medical services, but the applicants were also being
applauded for providing affordable housing. It wasn't a proposal that just had to do with the medical
center. At the time they came in to offer more office space. He stated he would like to be comfortable
with what they are doing as being what they had approved.
Commissioner Stone questioned if in performing the research they determine they feel that
honestly what was originally promised was 68 units and how that would alter the decision on the file.
He referred to Commissioner Johnson's historical perspective. He asked what additional conditions he
might want to place on the project.
Commissioner Johnson suggested he would alter the additional 34 units or 42 beds not be
optional but that they be part of the requirement for the development. He suggested they may see
additional development of the property.
Commissioner Stone stated a separate concern is that a future Board will have to act on the final
phase and the desire they may want to have more offices. His understanding is the provision of on site
housing for some cancer facilities. He asked if they have considered addressing that need.
Mr. Sedmak stated to fulfill a need for overnight accommodations for overnight patients and
family members would require a more hotel like facility. He stated they were concerned with the
building becoming more than a day facility. With phase four there may be a means of addressing that
concern.
Commissioner Stone stated he wasn't thinking of a hotel but that it might be the units being
available for short term use.
Mr. Sedmak suggested that is a good idea and could be accomplished but it is not formally part
of the proposal.
Commissioner Johnson moved to table number PDA-00023, Edwards Medical Center to
December 6, 1999.
Chairman Phillips stated due to the lack of a second, the motion dies.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number PDA-00023, Edwards Medical Center
incorporating staff findings and conditions as presented and recommended by the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. Commissioners Stone and Phillips voting aye and
Commissioner Johnson voting no.
Mr. Knight thanked Joe Forinash for his efforts in working with them on this file.
Mr. Forinash clarified that when this returns it will come back with 34 housing bed credits have
been applied.
The Chairman called for a five minute break.
PDA-00021, Blue Ridge PUD
Paul Clarkson, Senior Planner, presented file number PDA-00021, Blue Ridge PUD. He stated
this amendment is to amend the PUD that was originally approved in 1993. He stated the purpose of the
amendment is to remove all the commercial uses in the existing PUD and replace those with entirely
residential in a condominium or townhouse format. He stated the original PUD was planned for 21,000
square feet of commercial space and an 80 unit motel. He stated it was arranged in three tiers. The
bottom tier contained the commercial and the hotel, the next tier was 45 multi-family dwelling units and
the next tier there was 5 single family dwelling units. The applicant subsequently came in for a PUD
15
11-22-1999
Amendment at that time to remove or modify the requirement that required cooperation with the
development proposal next door, which was Kodiak Park. This application has been subject to a
previous PUD Amendment and extensions. The PUD Amendment was to release or modify the
application from being required to cooperate with the development next door in the construction of the
through road to run from El Jebel Road to the newly aligned intersection with Willits Lane. He stated
the current PUD has been extended to April of 200 l. He stated staff and the Planning Commission are
recommending denial as there are numerous inconsistencies and inadequacies in the application. One of
the things they may have read is the applicant has not adequately responded to the requirement for a
1041 Permit. He stated however it has now been determined a l041 is not needed nor required. He also
pointed out there are a number of cases in the various master plans that are either in non-conformance,
mixed conformance or are not applicable. He stated with the site development standards, off street
parking, staff determined there was probably not enough parking spaces. Landscaping and illumination
standards, the applicant did not adequately address this item. There is currently no conformance with an
Environmental Impact Report. The Improvement Standards, there is a lot of missing information and the
information submitted points to the fact the roadways do not meet the Roadway Standards. He stated
there were severe concerns regarding grading and drainage. In the application, the landscaping plan
provided, shows an extensive green area that staff was unable to agree on what exists. Most, if not all,
the area involving construction would have to be stripped of the vegetation and significantly graded. He
stated that is a real concern. They were unable to discern how much of the resulting area would be
defined usable open space. The lack of a complete traffic analysis and the one used six years ago. He
stated there is a significant change from a mixed use to an entirely residential use. He stated another
concern is throughout the last six years the two parties have yet to negotiate an agreement to connect the
two properties. With respect to the application there are a number of significant mis-statements. He
referred to the soils test and the report submitted identified soil types which are in part poorly suited due
to slope and potential erosion. He read from the soils report as follows:
"There are some problems and precautions due to rock deposit that occupies the site. Large
rocks will be difficult to excavate and cuts may create unstable slopes as these rocks re-adjust. The
overall deposit is pervious and the space between rocks are only sparsely filled with minor material.
These two conditions can cause a loss of surface soil."
Chairman Phillips stated the letter also indicated if the conditions stated are incorporated the site
can be successfully developed.
Mr. Clarkson stated what is being pointed out is the lack of comfort amongst the necessary
parties.
Chairman Phillips replied that if the recommendations were incorporated the development could
take place.
Mr. Clarkson stated it does say that, however, the site will be made up of cut and fill. He referred
to the concems by the Town of Basalt with the massing of the buildings and the change in character with
the neighborhood. He stated this is not being proposed as an affordable project. He stated to the Town
of Basalt's density map and this being shown as lower density. He referred to the Mid-Valley
Community Plan. He stated the proposal is for about 12 units per acre. He stated those were the staffs
concerns brought to the Planning Commission.
Of particular importance to most Planning Commission members were the following issues and
concerns:
a) traffic impacts to the intersection ofEl Jebel Road and Hwy. 82.
b) the inadequacy of the traffic study submitted which the applicant stated they were not willing
to supply another traffic study.
c) the applicant not being able to negotiate the connection of Blue Ridge Lane through the
adjacent property to the east (Kodiak Park) and its anticipated link to the Willits Lane intersection at
Hwy.82.
16
11-22-1999
d) the visual impacts of the proposed development considering the amount of units and the
proposed building heights. He stated this proposal is in three different tiers and the bottom tier might
accommodate that kind of construction but the tiers above could not. He stated this would have the
appearance of solid wall development.
e) the proposed density.
f) cost of re-vegetationllandscaping given the proposed amount of grading and site disturbance.
g) building architecture and building orientation to the highway.
h) lack of creativity in site design.
i) lack of usable open space in the form of accessible "pocket parks".
He stated all the Planning Commission members were concerned about the density though they
did feel that the area is appropriate for development. He stated the density did not fit the site nor did it
mix with the surrounding developments. He turned the floor over to Steve Isom, Isom & Associates,
representing the applicant.
Commissioner Phillips questioned if any of the Planning Commissions concerns have been
addressed since their meeting.
Steve Isom referred to Mr. Clarkson's presentation as a big smoke screen. He stated they have
supplied both Paul and John Vengrin with the appropriate reports. He stated the reduction in traffic
actually makes this much more acceptable.
He showed the master plan map for the whole area which they enlarged. He explained the area is
directly across the street from City Market. He stated years ago when they were working on this and
because of the development in the area, it made sense to connect Willits Lane. The architect for Ace
Lane has agreed to make the road work. What is approved is the extension of the preliminary plan. At
that time the could have submitted this final plat. They had the motel at this point with the commercial
on the lower level. The second level was multi family with single family being on the upper level. He
showed pictures to the Board. He stated they sit on the benches behind the trees and below the houses.
He stated it is an invisible site. He introduced Kevin and Tammy Tucker, Walt Sasser and Glen Alt..
He spoke to the them after the last meeting going to a residential development rather than
commercial/residential. He stated they submitted this project on April 6. Staff told them they needed
the environmental impact reports, the traffic studies, etc. He stated they have returned with that. All of
the traffic studies were complete. He stated the Planning Commission has been against this from the
start. They want them to solve the current traffic problems. He spoke to the phasing and the need to
work with Ace Lane. They have agreed it is important to spread the traffic. He stated the items
highlighted in this report have been addressed. This is not a ridge line project. The site is appropriate.
It is a rounded area. They have parking on the main road. They see the street as a down town Eagle.
They limited the access to the buildings along the lower bench. He stated they re-sketched to show what
it does. He showed some sketches ofthe character of the buildings. He stated it has been a year. As for
the density, it is appropriate under the master plan.
Glen Alt, resident of Basalt and real estate broker, spoke to the market over there. He spoke to
Lakeside and the 27 units there. He stated the first 12 are in the price range of$230,000. He stated they
had contracts in the first few days. He stated the time it took to market all 27 was four weeks. That's
what the need is for housing in that price range. They are planning on marketing these between $200
and $350,000. He stated entry level will now be between $215,000 and $220,000. He stated there are
people that need housing and it isn't available. He stated they are running into the $300,000 and higher.
There is a real need for housing in the category they are trying to provide. He stated they are trying to
look at what is needed in the market and there is a real need.
Mr. Isom spoke to the letter from Jeff Fine pointing out that as long as the recommendations are
met, the building will be appropriate. He stated this is a good project that provides the range of housing
that is needed. He stated it is the ideal location with City Market across the street. It will have
tremendous art facility when Ace Lane gets his thing built.
17
11-22-1999
John Vengrin, Engineering Department, stated at the October 21st meeting he was given a packet
which did address some of the engineering comments, perhaps 1/3 of them. He stated some of the
comments indicated there would be information forthcoming and he has not received that. One is a
response to Matt Dillage regarding traffic and also a drainage report. They are still at impasse regarding
the traffic concerns. He stated the traffic information they received did not address impacts from the
Kodiak Park Subdivision. They should recognize that the land to the east will be developed and will
effect El lebel Road. He stated the engineering issues are still unresolved and still at the same phase as
when the Planning Commission reviewed it.
Adel Hubbel and Bonnie Williams, area residents, asked to speak to the file. Ms. Hubble pointed
out where her house is on the proposal. She handed out photos to the Board. She stated this proposal is
a lot less of an impact on the single family homes that are surrounding their lot. She stated she feels that
this proposal when compared with the density of the mobile home park, there are too many single family
homes. She stated Mr. Isom has commented on the impact. She stated this road goes right through the
irrigation ditch and the cottonwood trees will be eliminated. She stated the road is such that with every
car that comes by, the headlights will shine into her house. She spoke to the height and the impact that
this will have on her view. She spoke to the ponds on the irrigation ditches. She stated each site has an
irrigation ditch coming out. She suggested engineering may have corrected this. She spoke to the
problems they would experience with backed up irrigation ditches. She spoke to the proposed road and
the draining. She spoke to the movement of the water hydrant. She stated she does not want their water
line relocated. She stated if they have a break they will not be allowed to dig up the road. She spoke to
the other sewer lines and water lines. She stated they will have to be sleeved. She stated she is very
concerned. She stated the traffic study was done in April when everybody left town. She stated it does
not show the hour of the day it was done.
Bonnie Kowar a resident of Sopris Village stated she can not see this from her unit but wants to
review her concerns with this in El Jebel. She referred to the ariel photos and the location of the
development. She suggested the area would be appropriate for multi-family homes. The upper portion
is very steep, over a 30% grade. The area set aside for open space is by the water tank and is also very
steep. She stated her concerns are that what they've proposed are different levels of buildings going up
the entire expanse with a roof design parallel to the hillside. She stated it would be row after row of flat
roofs. She stated as far as the traffic study, they have a very large development going in across the street.
She spoke to the road that is to go through Kodiak and across to EI Jebel Road. She stated the
intersection is not working well. The traffic study submitted only deals with their project and not with
Highway 82. They are ignoring reality. She suggested it is unfortunate they have not considered
affordable housing for a project of this size. She spoke to the landscaping and the fact that much of it
will have to be replaced. She stated this is a real critical area and this parcel is important to the character
of EI Jebel. She stated it has been rural and doesn't have a lot of character which is slowly being lost.
This is the core of El Jebel.
Glen Rappaport working with Glen Hom the architects for the Ace Lane project, stated the road
section works with their's and it is relatively the same. They have agreed on this and their concerns are
more centered around the character and the design through the property. They had sketch plan review
with the Planning Commission last week. They are proposing parking on the sides of their roads and
envisioned more of a town street. That is the only difference he sees between the two proposals.
Bonnie Williams asked if the wood burning devise issue has been addressed. She spoke to the
inversion problem and the restrictions that now exist. She asked if in the plan, where the road is, it looks
like it covers the phone easement. She questioned if they can pave over a fiberoptic cable.
Steve Isom stated they don't touch the cottonwood trees and they are away from the irrigation
ditch. He stated the settling ponds are away from the irrigation ditches. He stated they agree with the
headlights and will landscape accordingly. They agree on the water lines and the sewer lines. They have
no wood burners. The phone easement is outside of this. He spoke to the only really flat area being the
18
11-22-1999
park by the water tank. As for the roof slopes, you only see the first one. He stated everything else will
be behind. He stated on affordable housing they are offering $200,000 to $350,000 range. Since that
date, the prices have gone up. The landscaping plans have been submitted and show all the proposals on
the site.
Chairman Phillips asked for additional questions. She asked about Staff reading their findings.
Commissioner Stone stated they were here when the previous applicant was here and they
discussed just one item of the amendment. He stated to make a decision today with numerous concerns
would be irresponsible. He stated he would like to table this until they can get the information updated.
He stated there seems to be so many things in here that are in nonconformance he needs to get to the
bottom of this. He referred to Mr. Isom's first statement that this is a smoke screen. He stated he has a
real concern with staffifthey are saying things that are not true. Staff has not received the new plan at
the time of writing, and consequently has not been able to review this change.
Commissioner Stone stated he would like to see this matter tabled to clarify the off street
parking, loading standards, landscaping, illumination standards, geologic hazards, wildfire hazards,
wood burning controls, roadway standards, sidewalk and trail standards, irrigation system standards,
drainage, grading and erosion control standards, etc. If all of these items have been answered he
believes he can make an intelligent decision.
Commissioner Stone asked if this should be tabled to a date certain.
Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Vengrin how long he will need.
Mr. Vengrin suggested once he gets the information he would like ten days to review this.
Mr. Isom stated they will gladly work with staff and try to address the differences. He stated
those items they do not agree on will be marked as a difference in philosophies.
Chairman Phillips asked that Mr. Isom review the density and explain how and why they feel that
density will work on that property.
Commissioner Stone asked if they can bring back a topographic map of the area.
Mr. Isom stated they can.
Commissioner Stone asked that they work together and that when they return they either agree or
agree to disagree.
Chairman Phillips asked if Mr. Clarkson will be working with Mr. Isom.
Mr. Clarkson stated in all likelihood he will.
Commissioner Stone moved to table file number PDA-00021, Blue Ridge PUD to December 13,
1999.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Budget Hearing
Chairman Phillips welcomed all to the budget hearing for the 2000 budget. She spoke to the
letter from Jack Ingstad dated November 22.
Jim Fritze stated this public hearing is to take public comment and allow staff to finalize the
resolution reflecting any changes proposed by the Board.
Chairman Phillips spoke to leaving monies in inappropriate line items.
Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, referred to his letter.
Chairman Phillips stated those are not all of them. She questioned the hangar for the Airport, the
sheriff s emergency funds. She suggested that this is the resolution and felt that these things need to be
discussed.
Commissioner Stone asked if they have an opportunity to set a date but between now and then
may they discuss a couple of items.
Mr. Lowell stated the notice has to be in Friday's paper for adoption on Monday, December 13.
Mr. Fritze stated the Board at that hearing can always amend the resolution. He stated at any
19
11-22-1999
time next year if the Board identifies changes, they are not locked into the decisions today.
Chairman Philips suggested that the budget should be that which is lived with but that hasn't
happened for some time.
Mr. Fritze stated the real notion of a supplemental is when you have money that comes in, they
can appropriate for spending.
Commissioner Stone reminded the Board they have the ability to deny the option for any
supplementals.
Mr. Lowell stated to clarify those numbers that are going to be removed from the individual
accounts they will place those in the unappropriated line item if in fact those monies are needed.
Chairman Phillips asked for an answer to her question if this resolution must be finalized at this
moment.
Commissioner Johnson suggested amending doesn't necessarily mean adding.
Chairman Phillips clarified.
Commissioner Stone asked for information about the proposed trail project through the Willits
subdivision.
Ellie Caryl stated her recollection is $15,000 subtracted from the $50,000 leaving $35,000 for the
Donovan Trail Plan.
Chairman Phillips asked if that is for this year's budget.
Ms. Caryl stated that is in the planning department budget.
Commissioner Stone asked what they have requested.
Ms. Caryl stated they requested $25,000.
Commissioner Stone asked about support for the project.
Ms. Caryl replied there have been some accidents and there is support for making this happen.
Commissioner Stone asked if they will find the additional funds to make it happen.
Ms. Caryl stated they will need more than the $10,000 and are requesting a GOCO grant. She
stated there are some other avenues they may be able to go down as well.
Commissioner Stone stated he sees them being on the track to solving this themselves and knows
that it has been something they would like to do.
Mr. Lowell spoke to the Eagle Valley Trails budget and the addition of $50,000 to the regional
trails plan. He stated it was not included in the budget but they have been looking at it.
Ms. Caryl stated this is a new item that ECO and Trails have decided to pursue. She stated they
would like to embark on a regional plan update if the Board agrees they can be inserted in the 2000
budget. It would come out of the ECO County Trails budget.
The Board agreed to include it.
Mr. Lowell spoke to the $35,000 in the general fund for the Eagle County Trials. He stated there
is $20,550 for expenses that they are not going to do and they would like to include that in their budget
now. He stated it would be a $90,550 line item in the 2000 budget for the Donovan Trail System. He
explained $35,000 would come from Trails, $35,000 from ECO and the $22,550 would be a carry
forward to next year.
Ms. Caryl explained is was a savings from the East Edwards and Riverwalk Trails project.
The Board agreed.
Mr. Lowell introduced David Carter from the Housing Department and spoke to the contribution
to the down payment assistance program. He stated Mr. Carter is now seeing some demands on that
money and the projections will exceed what the County has contributed to the fund. If the County
chooses to make another contribution to the fund in 2000 do they want to include that $100,000 in the
year 2000, do they want to increase it, or do it all.
Commissioner Stone asked if it is not in the 2000 budget at all?
Mr. Lowell stated it would be a transfer from the general fund to the Housing fund.
Mr. Carter explained this is a reinstatement of an earlier request.
20
1l-22-1999
Commissioner Stone asked where that will come from.
Mr. Lowell stated from the general fund balance.
Chairman Phillips asked what will happen without it.
Mr. Carter stated this is a program the Board made possible though they changed the guidelines
during the middle of 1999. They have enough to last through January. With the additional $100,000
they will be good through April. Since the Board changed the guidelines the money is moving out more
rapidly. He mentioned the HUD monies which have different criteria.
Commissioner Stone asked if the projections were based on a steady stream of moneys going out.
Mr. Carter stated since the changes kicked in, they have two months of data. He stated the pay
back schedule is based on five years and at the rate of about $32,000, which comes out to a capitalization
of 1.9 million. It would not require additions of money based on the situation today.
Mr. Lowell stated the program started in 1998, the second $100,000 in 1999.
Chairman Phillips asked if they would like to have this in or should they place it with those
things that have to be amended.
Chairman Phillips stated she would like to see it reinstated.
Commissioner Johnson stated he is at a loss for comment. He stated ifthey are going to add
things in he would like to see the market adjustment before adding other items in there. He would like
to know what the effect of the adjustment will mean.
Chairman Phillips spoke to the merit increase being included. She stated if they don't fund the
down payment assistance program, it will stop dead in its tracks.
Commissioner Stone stated he would like to not fund it and look at it again at the first
supplemental. He believes the use of the program will slow down once the void has been filled and
doesn't believe it will be a steady state. He would like to get through the first quarter ofthe year and see
how the sales tax revenues are doing. He suggested if they wait for three months and if they have a
backlog and a real need it can be funded at that time.
Commissioner Johnson asked how much the Board has put in to the program.
Mr. Carter stated $200,000. He stated the money started moving once the program requirements
were changed.
Commissioner Johnson stated he wants to make sure the programs doesn't go away.
Mr. Carter stated they still have the HUD money available to the more needy. They will have to
put the word out to the lenders as well.
Commissioner Stone suggested they may have to readdress the guidelines and he does not think
waiting until the first supplemental will dissolve the program.
Mr. Carter asked that they bounce that back to the committee.
Mr. Lowell spoke to a grant for the weed inventory program and the match from the Soil
Conservation Districts. To do the mapping they would need to purchase some GIS software and a GPS
system. That would be a $3600 capital expenditure.
Commissioner Stone stated the GIS Department already has one.
Mr. Roussos stated they have been using the GPS that is being used for the sign program.
Chairman Phillips stated her understanding is thatthere will be some changes after the first of the
year.
Mr. Lowell stated they will also see a revised budget docUfilent.
Chairman Phillips asked if there was further input.
Commissioner Johnson stated he would still like to visit the maintenance contracts and bring
them all under an umbrella. He stated he would also like more information regarding the printing bid
that they received.
Commissioner Stone asked for clarification on that.
Commissioner Johnson stated that printing can be done through corrections.
Bill Lopez explained that he has gotten a bid from Canyon City and if it is consolidated and done
21
11-22-1999
twice a year it could be done for a significant reduction. He spoke to the business cards and the possible
reduction there.
Chairman Phillips questioned the quality.
Mr. Lopez responded it is very good quality.
Chairman Phillips asked about the maintenance contracts.
Mr. Ingstad stated there is a possibility that it can happen but that he didn't want to jeopardize the
maintenance of the programs in the year to come.
Commissioner Johnson stated he still would like to have people look at their budgets and to note
whether they are actually carrying forward monies or buying another.
Commissioner Stone suggested that they make sure all of the departments get the information
and respond to Commissioner Johnson in writing.
Mr. Ingstad stated he thinks that they have all those answers and will get them to Commissioner
Johnson.
Commissioner Johnson stated he is still not comfortable placing all the monies into the 7-11
Semi Frozen Fund.
Chairman Phillips stated she thinks there is a need for a miscellaneous funds.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
December 6, 1999.
Attest:
Clerk to the Bo
22
11-22-1999