Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/24/2001 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 24, 2001 Present: Tom Stone Michael Gallagher Arn Menconi Renee Black Jack Ingstad Sara J. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner Acting 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: Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss the following: 1) Developments in the Case of Vail Associates, Inc. v. Eagle county Board of Commissioners concerning possessory interest 2) Junior Livestock Sales Commission. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The time was noted at 9:04 a.m. Michael Cacioppo, area resident, asked if the Courts have ruled that the County has won. Chairman Stone stated he does not know and that is what they intend to find out. Renee Black, Acting County Attorney, stated the case is not done yet, they are not appealing but they are trying to remand it back to a lower level. She stated it has gone back to the Board of Assessment Appeals. Mr. Cacioppo asked what the amount of money is. Chairman Stone stated he does not know, but they will let him know. He called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9: 16 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of April 23, 2001, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for April 10, 2001 C) Resolution conferring Power of Attorney upon the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit No. SLCDDEN00497 in the amount of$14,016.00, for the account of the Vail Corporation, road Cut Permit No. 2829, drawn of U.S. Bank, Denver, Letter of Credit will expire May 1,2001 D) Resolution 2001-057, amending Resolution 96-22, providing that on recommendation from the Town or other members of the Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority, the board of 1 04-24-2001 County Commissioners may remove and replace representatives E) Second Amendment to CM/GC Agreement for Eagle County Joint Maintenance Service Center for Road & Bridge Department and Transportation Authority F) Intergovernmental Agreement for 800 MHz wide Area Smartzone Trunking Radio Services, between Eagle County and Greater Fire District G) Intergovernmental Agreement for 800 MHz Wide Area Smartzone Trunking Radio Services between Eagle County and Western Eagle County Ambulance District H) Intergovernmental Agreement for 800 MHz wide Area Smartzone Trunking Radio Services, between Eagle County and Eagle County Ambulance District I) Intergovernmental Agreement for 800 MHz wide Area Smartzone Trunking Radio Services, between Eagle County and Town of Eagle J) Intergovernmental Agreement for 800 MHz wide Area Smartzone Trunking Radio Services, between Eagle County and Minturn Fire Department K) Intergovernmental Agreement for 800 MHz wide Area Smartzone Trunking Radio Services, between Eagle County and Minturn Police Department L) Intergovernmental Agreement for 800 MHz wide Area Smartzone Trunking Radio Services, between Eagle County and Eagle County School District M) Intergovernmental Agreement for 800 MHz wide Area Smartzone Trunking Radio Services, between Eagle County and Town of Vail N) Intergovernmental Agreement for 800 MHz wide Area Smartzone Trunking Radio Services, between Eagle River Water and Sanitation District 0) Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program Contract between Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Division of Housing and Eagle County P) Agreement between the Junior Livestock Sales Commission and county of Eagle to use the facilities at the Eagle County Fairgrounds for Junior Livestock Auction Q) Resolution 2001-058 concerning appointments to the Eagle County Extension Advisory Board R) Resolution, concerning appointments to the Junior Livestock Sales Commission S) Resolution 2001-059, concerning appointment of Ernest A. Chavez to the Minturn Cemetery Board T) Resolution 2001-060, appointing Steve Miller and tom Denboske to the Emergence Telephone Service Authority Board U) Resolution 2001-061, concerning appointments to the Eagle county Planning Commission and roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission and Zoning Board of Adjustment and Building Board of Appeals. Chairman Stone asked the County Attorney's office if there were any changes. Ms. Black stated item C, Resolution for Letter of Credit for Vail Corporation, needs to be pulled from the agenda as a substitute letter of credit has been received. Commissioner Gallagher stated he has some questions on items P, Agreement with the Junior Livestock Commission, and R, Resolution concerning appointments to the Junior Livestock Commission, to be discussed with Mr. Devererux. Chairman Stone addressed Sheriff Johnson and asked he give them an update as to what the agreements are about. A. J. Johnson, Eagle County Sheriff, stated they cover everyone on the system to date except Avon and Gypsum. He stated he is writing up a new agreement for them. These are operating agreements from last year and roll over to allow continued use of the service. Each entity pays towards the maintenance of the system. Chairman Stone asked if Eagle County has been the primary payer for the installation and 2 04-24-2001 maintenance. Sheriff Johnson stated yes at the tune of about $5,000,000. He stated their expenses have previously been born by his office. He stated they have every agency plus some on the system. He explained added repeaters that have been added to enhance the system. He stated there are a number of different quasi governmental entities but mostly public safety entities. Chairman Stone stated the goal is for emergency situations to have everyone on the same radio system. He asked about the repeater in Burns and McCoy. Sheriff Johnson stated they have something geared for that area and are working with Routt County. He stated they have not been able to get the final connection in the Basalt area. That will be the last site and part of the on going fees they pay on the lease purchase. It has been a huge process. Chairman Stone asked about compatibility with the Forest Service and BLM. Sheriff Johnson stated they are on VHS but they are looking to move over. He spoke to the different tiers and them moving to tier 5. He spoke to cross patching to bring agencies in. He stated they have dual radio systems or cash systems they provide them in emergency situations. As the state changes the tiers will change and there will be more changes needed to be compatible. The problems are not unique to Eagle County. Chairman Stone stated it is such a big project which has required many hours and great effort. Sheriff Johnson stated it works pretty well overall. Commissioner Gallagher asked on item U, appointments to the Planning Commission, page 2, the paragraph regarding alternate members, he would like to amend the resolution by striking the first name. Mr. Montag stated that resolution has been amended as Brian Judge has declined the appointment. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the consent agenda as presented items A - U striking items C, P and R. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Jena Skinner, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: PDF-00049, Diemoz River Ranch Final Plat. She stated the intent of this Final Plat is to create 4 residential lots, one common open space area and easements. This file was approved by the Board at the November 20th, 2000 hearing, however, neither the Plat, nor the SIA Agreement were signed at this hearing pending the creation of a new Development Agreement. Staff findings are 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. 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 Gallagher moved to approve file PDF-00049, Diemoz River Ranch Final Plat approving the new SIA and Development agreements, and authorizing the Chairman to sign both the agreements and the Plat. 3 04-24-2001 Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-062, (1041-0034), A Resolution Permit for Site Selection and Construction of a Major New domestic Water and Treatment Plants to Serve the Colorado River Ranch pun and Efficient Utilization of Municipal Water Projects. The Board considered this 1041 request on March 6,2001. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve 1041-0034, A Resolution Permit for Site Selection and Construction of a Major New domestic Water and Treatment Plants to Serve the Colorado River Ranch PUD and Efficient Utilization of Municipal Water Projects Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Early Head Start Program Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services, stated the next item is the continuation application for Early Head Start. She stated this is the third year they have applied for this funding. Early Head Start works with low income pregnant women and families with children up to age 3. She explained the program and the matching contributions of hours and times by the participants. The amount of the grant has been $367,112. She stated they are requesting approval to submit the application for funding. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the continuation application for the Early Head Start Program. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PUD Development Hearing, Terminal A Expansion Jim Elwood, Airport Manager, stated the next item on the agenda was the PUD Development Hearing for Terminal A Expansion. He stated the PUD requires the County Commissioners approve the external colors for the airport as well as the expansion of the facilities. He noted the colors to be used are identical to those used previously, red sandstone, forest green roof and the off white for the stucco. Commissioner Gallagher stated he has no problems with the color scheme continuing but wants to be sure that their comments previously made be taken into consideration by the architect. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the colors as presented for the stucco, stone and the roof of the Airport for the planned expansion of the Eagle county Airport. PUD Development for Terminal A Expansion. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone asked if there is any action the Board needs to make regarding the purchase of the Vail Valley Jet Center. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated the plan is to schedule signing ofthe documents for the meeting next week and at that time the Board can make the determination as to whether they want to proceed. The intent is to close May 1 st as that is the date for signing of the contract. They will also have to have a loan agreement in place with ECA T to release the money. The intent is to get direction from the Board but staff is proceeding as though they will close May 1 st. Commissioner Gallagher asked what the Board will be closing on. Mr. Ingstad stated the agreement with the Vail Valley Jet Center to purchase the passenger terminal business. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they can have an analysis from the Finance Director of the pros and cons financially, to be reviewed before the next meeting. Mr. Ingstad stated they believe there will be about a $10,000 savings to the County though there are some variables. He stated they are going to advise them that prior to releasing any monies, all of the 4 04-24-2001 pieces, the agreements with the three airlines and the agreement with United Airlines should be in place and a report from Bond Counsel be included in the packet as to the investment in bonds and a cost consideration. It looks like everything is falling together. They are going forward with the business purchase regardless. May 1 st is the closing date and they start paying interest as of then. Chairman Stone stated it does look like there are meeting minutes to be approved. He suggested they take care of that. Commissioner Menconi stated the one concern he has is there any possibility that the bond will not get sold to reimburse the monies laid out for the Jet Center. Chairman Stone stated he had the same thought. The worst case scenario would be the bond sale not going through. One of the important purposes of the letter from the FAA is verifying they could take other airport funds to pay for the purchase of that business. They could have the Airport pay back over a period of years. Right now the Airport operates at a net revenue of about $750,000 per year. The Airport could pay them back in a period of four to five years. Mr. Elwood stated he would look for a longer term. Chairman Stone stated the quickest time period would be four to five years. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation Board of Directors. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows: A) Boaters Bar LLC Boaters Bar This is a renewal of a optional premise license. This establishment is located at 4199 Trough Road in Bond. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for April 24, 2001, as presented. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Boaters Bar Earlene Roach presented a modification of premises for Boaters Bar LLC, dbaIBoaters Bar. She stated the applicant proposes to reduce his premises, excluding the concrete pad and only utilizing the fenced area where KK's Barbeque is. This area is fenced with picnic tables and such. Shane Beaty, owner, is present for the hearing. Chairman Stone asked for an explanation. Mr. Beaty stated last year they put in the deck with the path to the area where KK's Barbeque is. He stated the deck was not used much and they would like to use it for something else. Chairman Stone asked if they have a small licensed area. Ms. Roach stated the whole area is existing premise but now they would like only the grassy 5 04-24-2001 picnic area to be licensed. She stated there is a storage area that is included with the barbeque. Chairman Stone stated the applicant is just going to eliminate the deck. Ms. Roach explained it is a seasonal operation and there have been no problems. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the map. Ms. Roach stated the orange outline is the current premise, they are just eliminating the cement pad and the path. The area on the map outlined in blue will be the new area. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the size. Mr. Beaty stated it is about 25' by 25' in a circular space. Chairman Stone stated he sees no problem with this. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve a modification of premises for Boaters Bar LLC, dba/Boaters Bar. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-00033, Land Use Regulation Amendment Keith Montag, Community Development Director, presented file number LUR-0033, Land Use Regulation Amendment. He stated the Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study should be referenced and utilized as an integral part of the presentation and discussion relative to this LUR-0033 File. The complete documentation and justification for amending the Land Use Regulations is contained therein. He stated they have Jim Duncan with them today who is the consultant for this project. Chairman Stone reiterated this is a fee that would effect Road Impact Fee and School Land Dedication Fees. He spoke to Mr. Duncan's work to identify the impacts these changes would have and the compliance issues with State laws and regulations. He asked Mr. Duncan for his response rate on challenges. Mr. Duncan stated he has done over 200 of these and had only two challenged for fees. He explained the situation in Phoenix and the challenge of the school fees. He stated that is now at the Supreme Court. He stated the other litigation was in Bozeman, Montana where a new council froze the fees and it was challenged by the homeowners through the referendum process. Chairman Stone asked how they were going to proceed today. Mr. Duncan stated he made it through the road fees but had not addressed the school fees. Chairman Stone asked if Mr. Duncan was at the Planning Commission meetings. Mr. Duncan stated all but the last one. Chairman Stone asked they finish the discussion on the road fees and them go to the schoolland dedication fees. He asked Mr. Montag to share what area of road impact fees the Planning Commission had issues with and asked for the direction they gave. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the points made by the Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission and compare those to the Eagle Valley Planning Commission. Eagle County Planning Commission: The initial public hearings were held with the Eagle County Planning Commission on January 17th and January 3 pt , 2001. Presentations were made by staff which was followed by public comment and Planning Commission discussion. The LUR amendment was recommended for approval on February 21 st by a 5-1 vote. Specifically, the Commission 6 04-24-2001 recommended: Option B (as outlined in the "Road Impact Fee Options" document) Exhibit "A" be modified to remove "public good" type uses from the fee schedule (ie: Church, School, Hospital, Nursing Home, etc.) To verify that fees refunded by the State (and Federal Government) on those projects listed on Exhibit "B" be put back into the County's road impact fee fund. Great discussion took place on when they should collect the fees. Mr. Montag stated the regulations suggest, as written, to collect the fees for both residential and commercial uses at the time of building permit. The biggest pitfall by putting off residential is the person applying for the building permit paying the fee and not the builder and the historical record would have to be preserved. The Planning Commissions chose Option B which recommends the residential be collected at final plat and non-residential fees at the time of building permit. He reminded the Board they do not currently collect impact fees from non-residential. The reason for that is to collect residential at the time of final plat there would be no change. Numerous times, you don't know the ultimate use of commercial property until they are applying for a building permit. Staff agrees with Option B. Another item of discussion is listed as exhibit A which is all the land uses and the associated fees. Chairman Stone suggested they try to make decisions as they go along. Commissioner Gallagher stated he likes staffs recommendation being Option B. Commissioner Menconi concurred. Chairman Stone stated they would like to impose and collect the fees as defined in Option B. Mr. Montag stated he has prepared the language to go in that direction. Chairman Stone asked the audience, Steve Isom, Geri Arnold and Kathy Heicher to comment as they go. Steve Isom, Isom and Associates, stated he thinks the idea of a residential fee is agreeable. He suggested there should be a scale as the same fee for a house that is 10,000 square feet compared to someone trying to do employee housing doesn't seem rational. He thinks it is a very big burden. He spoke to Two Rivers Village and the use of parking and busses. He does not think it is equal impact. To pay at final plat is a burden and it is difficult. He suggested the County would feel the same thing in the Edwards area. He suggested it is also difficult for commercial uses that have 40,000 square feet and could have a tremendous fee at building permit. He suggested sales tax helps offset these costs. Chairman Stone stated looking at the Edwards area, there isn't enough money to pay for all the roads that need attention now. Mr. Isom stated you have one bad road in Eagle County which is the Edwards area. This is almost a knee jerk reaction for the Edwards interchange. Chairman Stone asked how he'd explain the issues on Highway 6 in Eagle-Vail. Mr. Isom stated the County wasn't educated enough at the time to require Eagle-Vail pay for the Highway 6 expansion. Chairman Stone asked to talk to the timing of the collection and imposition of the road impact fee. Mr. Isom questioned when this becomes effective, does it include projects already in the works. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Duncan to speak to the size of the different homes. Mr. Duncan stated he agrees with Mr. Isom philosophically. He stated it was more difficult to look at here. The impact fees that can be established by the size of the unit are being adopted. It is rare when road impact is done other than for type of unit. They have designated four categories. He stated as a County they are restricted to comparing the type of 7 04-24-2001 unit rather than size by square footage. School Impact Fees are not allowed in Colorado so they are talking Land Dedication Fees. On roads, almost every road impact fee is based on the ITE trip generation manual. They test projects and use. It does not relate the vehicular impact by the size of footage but by the type. Chairman Stone suggested it would be difficult other than assessing by building type as there is no nationally recognized data on the number of square feet. Mr. Duncan spoke to Jefferson County which bases it on the number of garages. He suggested this is something the County may want to look at in the future other than single family attached or detached. Chairman Stone suggested there is no data on homes under a certain square footage versus homes over a certain square footage. He spoke to having large garages with the cars parked outside. Commissioner Menconi suggested the amount is charged based on the number of cars brought on to the road. He suggested someone building in a certain area should be able to subsidize the roads going in and out of the community and the high end homes should be supporting the infrastructure around them. Mr. Duncan stated the impact fees have to be thought of differently from taxes. A large house may have the same or less trips than small homes. Chairman Stone spoke to second homes versus primary residences. Mr. Duncan suggested they've stayed away from that. Commissioner Menconi suggested it is assessing the residents who are driving the roads. He questioned there not being impact fees based on size of home rather than type. Mr. Duncan stated they have done that in Hilton Head. They looked at below 1,500 square feet and above 1,500 square feet. Nobody challenged it, but they could have. Commissioner Gallagher asked Mr. Isom when he thought the fees should be paid. Mr. Isom suggested they should all be paid at building permit as that is when you get the impact. He stated he is against the commercial being included. He stated whoever handles this is going to pass it on to the consumer. Commissioner Gallagher asked if that is because they are closer to a sale. Mr. Isom stated that was correct. Commissioner Menconi asked why there has not been an impact fee on commercial. Mr. Duncan stated that is a good question and Eagle County is one of the only jurisdictions that has not had impact fees on both residential and commercial. Mr. Montag stated the next item discussed was the list of uses and the associated fees. Eagle County has suggested rather than have several lists there should be a simpler more concise list. He showed the condensed version and the longer list of two pages. He stated there are pros and cons going each way. He stated the longer list is more specific which may reflect the exact use being proposed. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Duncan's preference. Mr. Duncan stated they produce the long list and let the local jurisdiction make adjustments. He spoke to the higher traffic generators being convenience stores, fast food centers, etc. He stated retail would be less and they would be lumped into lesser categories. He spoke to day care centers getting a great deal of traffic as do park and ride lots. They have condensed it down to categories of offices. Commissioner Menconi asked if there are communities to take the fees and allow the applicant to negotiate the amount. He spoke to child care and if a community is in desperate need of child care the fees be reduced or waived. Mr. Duncan stated you can't reduce the fees, but there are some type of uses that the communities will be wanting to pay the fees for. He spoke to Orange County, Florida where 8 04-24-2001 they will pay some of the fees if the purpose is for community good. He stated there will be unique uses. Some developer will come up with something that doesn't fit the study and they will bring in documentation and argue the fees should be less. He spoke to retiree communities with deed restrictions. Florida suggests they are not creating impact. It is all related to the impact on the system. He stated it is one of the more straight forward systems there is. Commissioner Menconi spoke to exhibit A being modified to exclude certain types of developments. Park and rides is considered for deletion by the Roaring Fork Planning Commission. Mr. Montag suggested that would be something positive that would reduce travel on the roads. They preferred the longer list eliminating the park and rides. Chairman Stone suggested they have presented the two extremes. The Commissioners would then want to go through the list to determine what should or should not be included. Mr. Duncan stated they would pay a fee under a generic category. He suggested an office building would fall under office building. Chairman Stone suggested if you take a park and ride off the list what would it be moved to? Mr. Duncan stated if it is a certain type of use it would not be included nor charged. He spoke to the retail categories. He suggested a furniture store would be low. There are some fees that would go up. Superstores would have a lower rate per square foot. Chairman Stone asked if this is something the two Planning Commissions agreed on? Mr. Montag stated the Eagle Valley Planning Commission preferred the shorter list and the Roaring Fork Planning Commission preferred the longer list. Both eliminated the park and ride, while Roaring Fork suggested they eliminate the more public uses. Chairman Stone suggested they should look at it line by line. Mr. Montag stated the Roaring Fork Planning Commission wants the County to look at the roads that require capacity expanding improvements. He stated there is only one road on the Roaring Fork side identified for future improvements and that was Upper Cattle Creek Road. There may be others that should be added to the list. He spoke to the direction from the Roaring Fork Planning Commission who asked they continue to look at the list of road projects and update that regularly. Chairman Stone asked how you would do that. Mr. Duncan suggested most communities review and update every three to five years. He suggested the reason that suggestion came from Roaring Fork Planning Commission is there aren't too many places to spend the money. He suggested they get transportation engineers to review the list and update it. Chairman Stone suggested they add the requirement to review it once every three years. Mr. Montag stated the regulations suggest once every five years. Commissioner Menconi asked them to consider the regulation. Mr. Montag stated the consultants, Duncan Associates, drafted the regulations. Mr. Duncan stated it includes the standard, legally required components. Mr. Montag stated the County Attorney's office has recommended changes and those have been included. Commissioner Menconi addressed Geri Arnold and her wanting information on golf courses. Chairman Stone suggested they will get to that on the list. Mr. Montag stated at the end of the road impact fee option sheet there are a couple of variations the Board may want to consider. These regulations as written would apply to previously platted subdivisions and they would collect fees on lots that have not yet been built. He suggested they may want to consider changing the effective date and not go back to the 9 04-24-2001 unbuilt lots that were previously platted. Chairman Stone asked if previously platted means final plat. Mr. Montag stated that was correct. Chairman Stone stated there are two options. Mr. Montag stated one would be to not impose the new fee on previously platted lots or to impose the fees on those. He stated he is talking about non-residential uses. Chairman Stone stated he would think that there could be considerable complaints about assessing it on previously platted but not yet permitted building sites for non-residential. Mr. Duncan suggested that even on non-residential they would collect at the time of building permit. He asked if there are a lot of platted, non-residential that has not been built. Chairman Stone stated his tendency would be to not assess it on previously platted projects residential or non-residential and that this would apply to those after the approval of this change. Commissioner Gallagher added if for any reason the previously established impact fee was collected, they not impose the fees. Chairman Stone stated if they are defining this as final plat, they would be okay. Commissioner Menconi asked how many properties they are talking about. He stated anyone who has been going through the process should have taken this into consideration and have factored it in. He asked if it is one or two properties is there a possibility the County could be sued for making it retroactive. Renee Black stated the basis of this comes out of subdivision law and they would be much safer to apply it from here on out. She spoke to a mixed use parcel and looking at the history of a project. When you are trying to sell something to the public you want them to clearly have an understanding of the changes. Commissioner Menconi asked if there are any properties that fall into platted but not yet built. Chairman Stone asked about Riverwalk. Mr. Montag stated they have been platted but are doing it in phases. Chairman Stone spoke to the road intersection of Highway 6 and the Spur Road and building to go on there. In unincorporated Eagle County there is not a whole lot there. He spoke to Vail, Eagle-Vail, the Town of Avon, west to Edwards, Wolcott, Town of Eagle which is mostly in the Town. Town of Gypsum boundaries are from the Airport on. Mr. Montag spoke to Dotsero and the V ogelman site. Chairman Stone spoke to Kodiak park which does not have final plat. He doesn't know that its worth the potential battle you would have and you'd offset the fees with the legal costs incurred. Commissioner Menconi asked if the other municipalities have impacts fees and are they about the same. Do they impact commercial. Mr. Montag stated the Town of Eagle and the Town of Basalt are the only ones that have impact fees. He'd have to look at what they are charging. Commissioner Menconi stated he would be in favor of what Mr. Montag is suggesting, that the road impact fees would not be assessed on non-residential properties that have been previously approved. George Roussos, Asst. County Administrator, asked how redevelopment enters into road impact fees. Mr. Duncan stated if it is a building torn down they would have impact fees. Chairman Stone asked about an amendment to the final plat. He spoke to two examples being a final plat on something where they amend the PUD and the final plat. What if they up- zone the property and gain approval or what if they down zone by taking commercial to 10 04-24-2001 residential. Mr. Duncan stated that is one of the problems with using platting rather than building permit. Trying to tie this to the subdivision process is more difficult. He suggested the developers want to assess early and pay late. He stated if there is an increase there is an obligation to increase. Ifthere is a decrease, that shouldn't effect the amount paid. Mr. Montag stated there is language in the proposed regulations that indicate if you are increasing the number of trip uses there would be an increase in fees. Commissioner Menconi questioned if nationally, attaching the fees at building permit is what is done. Mr. Duncan stated that is correct. Chairman Stone suggested there are different recommendations. Mr. Montag stated most jurisdictions collect at the time of building permit for residential and non-residential. He stated they currently do residential at time of final plat. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there is anything in the statute that says when to collect. Ms. Black stated since all the basis for collecting the fees is in the subdivision law that is why many communities do it at final plat. Commissioner Gallagher stated that would also be easier to track year after year. Mr. Montag stated they can do that. Chairman Stone asked if it would be a good way to tie it into the subdivision process by assessing at the time of final plat and collecting at building permit. With commercial do they get building permits that are different than when platted. Mr. Montag stated you don't know at final plat what the uses will be. Chairman Stone suggested for non-residential uses that would be difficult to do. Ms. Black stated it is when the fee gets applied. Chairman Stone suggested that a use of property that is non-residential is assessed and the developer has agreed to an impact fee that is collected at the time of building permit. They will know what the fee will be at the time it is approved. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to Cordillera and their subdivision. If assessed at final plat, what would they assess it as. Chairman Stone stated they would not have final plat. He spoke to Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch. He stated they move densities. Mr. Montag stated it would be easier to calculate and easier to track. Commissioner Menconi asked with residential nationwide, if it was assessed at building permit, one scenario would be on a large PUD development the developer would be building the units. He spoke to Eagle Ranch where they are developing the project and selling the lots. The other example is the developer selling to individual residents and passing along the cost. He asked how this effects the different developers. Mr. Duncan stated they will adopt a schedule to identify the fees. He showed the proposed fees. He pointed out they have been charging $1,000 across the board. The builder will know the fee is there and if the impact fee had been paid. If by some reason there is not an obligation, that is all in the market negotiations. Commissioner Menconi asked if you move the time from plat to building permit, you are collecting the same money just at a different time frame. What would be the advantage of charging it earlier than at final plat. Chairman Stone suggested the concern is the value of the dollar and when it is paid. He suggested the fee imposed by regulations at the time of final plat and the concept of inflation, the impact fee would be what it is at the time you get the building permit. Mr. Duncan spoke to a 100 lot subdivision and that takes them ten years to build out. 11 04-24-2001 Over that time period you may visit it twice. The last twenty lots, the fee schedule would be greater. They were assessed at the time of the plat. The equity gives the certainty and that is the trade off. Commissioner Gallagher suggested if they are trying to assess at plat, they should collect at plat or assess at building and collect at building. Chairman Stone stated they could give the option to pay in advance. He stated he doesn't see it as a trade off. They could give the developer the option to pay the fee at that time and if not paid it could be whatever is assessed at the date. Commissioner Menconi asked how the assessment goes up over time. Mr. Duncan stated you would do that by reviewing the fees. Commissioner Menconi stated they are increasing the scope to include non-residential, but it has not changed over twenty years. For residential there is not an increase in dollars though the costs of building roads has gone up. He asked why they are not seeing an increase. Mr. Duncan stated the $1600 is not unrealistic for road construction. Commissioner Menconi suggested they are lower than average Mr. Roussos stated this is an improvements driven kind of model and in the past when there was less use of the roadways it would be a lower fee structure. He suggested if this would have been in place in 1983, it would have been less than that. In the methodology they used, it reflected the amounts of monies used throughout the state. He spoke to the funding of the airport interchange project if CDOT chose to fund that. Mr. Duncan stated they try to be very conservative. The data they have used they are very comfortable with. If anything the figures may be five years old and the costs may be low. Being low is not necessarily bad. Commissioner Menconi asked if when they visit the transportation studies, is there something built in that would increase or decrease the fees. Mr. Duncan answered yes. Geri Arnold asked on page nine of the actual language, number 18, the traffic- generating development, commencement of, confuses her. The definition reads it occurs upon the issuance of a final plat or the issuance of a building permit. She asked if they need to make a distinction between residential and non-commercial. She asked about non-platted land. She spoke to 35 acre parcels. Commissioner Gallagher asked if she is considering the timing. If they switch it all to building permit would that take care of it. Ms. Arnold asked if they need to distinguish between the two. Chairman Stone proposed as a starting place they go back to Option A. He read the option but suggested it be written so it included non-PUD processes so that everyone that gets a building permit pays a road impact fee. He suggested this fee would be applied to new development or lots that achieve final plat or new building permits for properties that don't require an additional platting process. It would not apply to previously platted commercial lots. Commissioner Gallagher stated he did not like the developer being given the option, but everything else he is in agreement with. Commissioner Menconi asked ifthey could explain options A, B, C and D. Chairman Stone stated he proposed a variation of Option A. The Planning Commission was looking at Option B, but he thinks Option A makes better sense with the amendments. Option C is looking at final plat for both residential and non-residential. He suggested giving the developer the option will not avoid the tracking program that will be needed. Commissioner Menconi asked for Mr. Duncan's opinion. Mr. Duncan stated he is most familiar with assessing and imposing the fee at the time of building permit. He suggested that is what the homeowners prefer. One of the reasons they 12 04-24-2001 have given the building permit as the proper time, is that you can't hold the money forever. There is some benefit to collecting it late. It gives more time to think about how to spend it. Commissioner Menconi asked Commissioner Gallagher about the option. Commissioner Gallagher stated he believes they should assess and collect at the same time. If the developer wants to wait until building permit to pay, the fee would be adjusted to where the development is at that time. He does not see how they can assess commercial at the time of final plat. He suggested he has no problem with assessing and billing at the same time. He stated he would like to hear about the comments of doing the assessment at final plat. Mr. Montag stated the subdivision regulations gives them the authority to assess and collect. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they need to assess at final plat. Ms. Black stated they don't need to assess at final plat though it may be legally more defensible. Rick Poffenberger, representing a majority owner of a potentially impacted developments, stated he finds to effect previously approved final plats is objectionable. He stated that it impacts people who come in with costs in mind and those change. He does not believe it is legally enforceable. It puts the developer at odds. He thinks it is odd the Board doesn't know ifit is in line with the Towns that now charge impact fees. He questions the intergovernmental agreements and what impacts it may have on a developer if they do not have an agreement with CDOT or the Towns. He is concerned with the older data being used. He does not have a copy of Option C. He stated they are trying to build a low income development in Dotsero. Another way to impose costs of impacts is mill levies. He referred to the impact fees on second homes being less than a resident in Dotsero. That would offend him. He would urge the Board to look at mill levies as it seems to cover the impacts more demonstratively. Chairman Stone spoke to the TABOR amendment and difficulties there. He suggested they will not get through this entire proposal today and Mr. Poffenberger may want to hold some of his comments until a later date. Mr. Poffenberger suggested when collecting at building permit, it is because the regulation would be in place at the time of preliminary plan. It is unclear where they stand legally. He urged the Board to not enact the regulation to change the cost structure for someone who already has preliminary plan approval. Commissioner Gallagher asked about vesting at preliminary plan. Ms. Black stated it is her opinion that vesting has nothing to do with fee impacts. It is a commitment to building at a certain level. Chairman Stone asked if the County can exempt itself from the regulations and impact fees. Ms. Black stated it has always been the Counties practice to follow the regulations, but yes they could. Commissioner Menconi suggested it seems as though they might be taxing the individual twice. Mr. Duncan stated it is a shell game. Chairman Stone spoke about considering affordable housing. Mr. Duncan spoke to New Mexico and the State of Colorado enabling acts. Chairman Stone stated he likes the expanded schedule and that over simplification could become subjective. He spoke to pages 24 and 25 being the long list. He suggested he would go through the list item by item. Commissioner Gallagher asked for the definition of attached and detached. He asked about a mother-in-law unit. Chairman Stone asked where that would be placed. 13 04-24-2001 Mr. Duncan stated they will add that it. He spoke to the use under office/institutional which is a managed care facility. He stated that would be more of a residential use. Chairman Stone asked about assisted living. Mr. Duncan stated that would be congregate care. Commissioner Gallagher suggested a health care category. Chairman Stone spoke to three levels, senior housing, assisted living, and nursing home. Mr. Duncan stated they will add that under health care do away with congregate care if it is not different than the others mentioned. Chairman Stone stated the following is the Road Impact Fee Schedule as shown in the resolution. The Board reviewed the schedule. Exhibit A ROAD IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Land Use Tvpe Single-Family Detached Single-Family Attached Multi-Family Congregate Care Facility Mobile Home Park Hotel/Motel Retail/Commercial Shopping Center/General Retail <100,000 sf Shopping Center/General Retail <250,000 sf Shopping Center/General Retail <500,000 sf Shopping Center/General Retai1500,000 sH Automobile Parts Sales Automobile Sales Automobile Service/Repair/Tire Store Bank Building Materials & Lumber Store Car Wash, Self-Service Convenience Store Discount Club Discount Store Discount Superstore Electronics Superstore Furniture Store Gasoline Service Station Hardware/Paint Store Home Improvement Superstore Unit Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Dwelling Site Room 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. Stall 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. Fueling Position 1000 sq. ft. 1000 sq. ft. 14 F eelU nit $1,600 $979 $1,109 $361 $802 $942 $5,805 $4,923 $4,232 $3,504 $4,549 $2,756 $2,118 $5,758 $3,317 $9,018 $14,790 $3,350 $4,539 $3,764 $3,611 $170 $3,263 $4,285 $1,874 04-24-2001 Land Use TVDe Unit Fee/Unit Nursery/Garden Center 1000 sq. ft. $3,013 Pharmacy/Drug Store 1000 sq. ft. $6,035 Quick Lubrication Vehicle Shop Service Position $3,407 Restaurant, Fast Food 1000 sq. ft. $10,772 Restaurant, Sit-Down 1000 sq. ft. $5,708 Wholesale Market 1000 sq. ft. $755 Wholesale Tire Store 1000 sq. ft. $2,278 Video Rental Store 1000 sq. ft. $1,136 Office/Institutional Cemetery Acre $792 Church 1000 sq. ft. $1,523 Day Care Center 1000 sq. ft. $3,176 Elementary/Secondary School 1000 sq. ft. $995 Government Office Building 1000 sq. ft. $5,758 Hospital 1000 sq. ft. $2,802 Library 1000 sq. ft. $4,509 Office, General <100,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. $2,218 Office, General <200,000 sf 1000 sq. ft. $1,887 Office, Genera1200,000 sf+ 1000 sq. ft. $1,717 Office, Medical 1000 sq. ft. $6,035 Nursing Home 1000 sq. ft. $785 Park and Ride Lot Parking Space $752 U.S. Post Office 1000 sq. ft. $4,519 Recreational Arena Acre $5,568 Bowling Alley 1000 sq. ft. $5,568 Campground/RV Park Acre $12,421 City Park Acre $267 County Park Acre $381 Golf Course Hole $5,969 Horse Racetrack Acre $7,181 Movie Theater 1000 sq. ft. $13,036 Racquet Club 1000 sq. ft. $2,862 Recreational Community Center 1000 sq. ft. $3,821 State Park Acre $110 Tennis Courts Court $5,184 Industrial Industrial Park 1000 sq. ft. $1,166 15 04-24-2001 Land Use Tvne Unit FeelUnit Truck Terminal 1000 sq. ft. $1,647 Warehouse 1000 sq. ft. $828 Mini-Warehouse 1000 sq. ft. $418 Mr. Duncan suggested moving nursing home from office to residential. Chairman Stone asked about an assisted living place. Mr. Duncan stated assisted living is covered under congregate care. Commissioner Gallagher suggested putting congregate care, assisted living, hospital, nursing home and Hospice under the health care heading. Mr. Duncan agreed. Chairman Stone stated there are several levels, Senior Centers which are independent living, assisted living and then nursing home. Hospice is somewhat different than that. Commissioner Gallagher suggested adding the word lodge after hotel/motel. Chairman Stone asked about a bed and breakfast. Mr. Duncan stated he would have to see what the definition of a bed and breakfast was. Commissioner Gallagher suggested renaming bank to financial institution. Chairman Stone stated some mortgage companies get less traffic than a bank. Mr. Duncan stated he will research it. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the difference between a lumber store and a paint or hardware store. The Board questioned fueling stations and if that was each nozzle or each station. Mr. Duncan stated it is each pump. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the nursery/garden centers. Chairman Stone stated it will need to be looked at. Mr. Duncan stated he will research it. Commissioner Gallagher asked if a fast food place has to have a drive through. He stated a lot of the fast food places have both a sit down eating place and a drive through. Mr. Duncan stated the definition of a fast food establishment is paper plates and such. The Board suggested striking either a tire store or a wholesale tire store and just call all of them tire stores. Commissioner Gallagher questioned cemeteries. Chairman Stone asked if they were supposed to charge for a plot. He suggested it be removed. Commissioner Menconi suggested before anything is taken out maybe they should leave everything in and effect the grant. That would give them the flexibility they are looking for. Mr. Duncan stated they have to be careful when speaking to public versus private. The impact is the same regardless of who owns it. Commissioner Gallagher stated maybe it would avoid the shell game. Ms. Black stated instead of having that provision, the most legal way to do it is to allow those to apply for a waiver of the fee. Commissioner Menconi stated at first glance he was willing to remove everything that was for the public good but it appears there might be an addition to the resolution to allow the Board to review it on a case by case basis. 16 04-24-2001 Commissioner Gallagher suggested rather than using the word school, make it educational institutions. Ms. Black stated schools do not pull building permits from the Counties so the fees would not apply. Discussion on government office buildings and the Board concurred to leave it as it is, however park and ride will come off of the list. Chairman Stone asked about the Post Office. The Board concurred to take it off the list. Commissioner Gallagher asked ifthey can look at space versus acres on RV Parks. Mr. Duncan stated he will research it. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there should be other kind of theaters included with movie theater. Places like the Vilar Center. Chairman Stone stated they should. Commissioner Menconi asked if something comes in that is not in the category will it go into the next closest one. Mr. Montag answered yes and it could also go under the general category. Mr. Isom stated it appears they will now have to pay for the amenities within a subdivision. Mr. Duncan stated if an applicant can show there will be no external uses they should not have to payor to only pay a minimal amount. Mr. Roussos stated if looking at the definition of a racquet club, they will see it fits a privately owned facility. Chairman Stone suggested they leave both racquet club and tennis courts in and then the applicants can provide evidence if they are only for owners in the subdivision and will not increase the traffic. Mr. Isom stated the Board is to determine if they have a right of decision on a case by case basis. Commissioner Gallagher stated it appears that a recreation center is different than an event or convention center. He suggested they be combined. Mr. Duncan stated he will look at the definitions. The Board concurred to take out State Parks. Commissioner Gallagher suggested there be an Industrial General category. The Board concurred. Mr. Duncan stated there will be five or six categories under Health Care. They are hospital, assisted living, nursing home, medical office, hospice and possibly congregate care if different than the other five. Chairman Stone directed staff to bring the document back to the Board with the proposed changes spoken of today. Commissioner Menconi asked if they can reference the ITE whenever there is an item that is not covered. If they had this as an example inside the resolution, the default would be going to the ITE. Mr. Montag stated the intent is to use the definitions in the ITE and if a use doesn't fall into the specific category, why would they not want to go to the general category. Commissioner Stone suggested the Planning Commissions desire was to simplifying this more than they have. He feels the default category would be the general category. Commissioner Gallagher asked how often the ITE changes. 17 04-24-2001 Mr. Duncan suggested about every five years. Chairman Stone stated they should refer to a specific manual. He stated they need to get it started and then tweak it as they go along. ROAD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Area Improvement Total Cost Eligible Cost Gypsum Widen US 6 from 1-70 to airport to 5 lanes (urban) $4,791,366 $4,791,366 Gypsum Widen US 6 from 1-70 to airport to 4 lanes (rural) $1,549,713 $1,549,713 Gypsum New 1-70 interchange with bridge & RR tracks $25,000,000 $25,000,000 Eagle Widening US 6 to 1-70 spur to 5 lanes $633,600 $633,600 Eagle 2 bridges along spur for highway/RR overpasses $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Eagle Widening US 6 between Eagle and airport $5,280,000 $5,280,000 Eagle Construct raised median on US 6 through town $316,800 $316,800 Eagle Spur road/US 6 intersection roundabout $560,000 $560,000 Eagle Eby Creek/Chambers traffic signal $100,000 $0 Wolcott Widen US 6 to add passing lanes $1,028,491 $1,028,491 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail Widen US 6 to 5 lanes (Squaw Creek-Edwards) $2,674,283 $2,674,283 Edwards/ A von/Eagle Vail Widen US 6 to 5 lanes (Edwards-Avon) $4,114,282 $4,114,282 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail Widen Edwards Spur Road $2,536,481 $2,536,481 Edwards/ A von/Eagle Vail 2 bridges along Edwards Spur Road $3,382,000 $3,382,000 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail Traffic signals at Edwards Spur Rd (exc ramps) $200,000 $200,000 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail Traffic signals at Edwards Spur Rd (I-70IUS 6 $225,000 $225,000 ramps) Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail Avon Road roundabouts (5) $5,991,173 $5,991,173 Edwards/Avon/Eagle Vail Traffic signal at Arrowhead/US 6 $100,000 $100,000 Edwards/ A vonlEagle Vail Widen Avon Road to six through lanes $708,473 $0 Edwards/ A von/Eagle Vail Turn lanes on Avon Road $171,428 $0 Edwards/ A von/Eagle Vail Signals/improvements at 1-70 ramps/Avon Road $395,000 $0 Minturn/Dowd Junction Widen US 24 (Dowd Junction-Minturn) $2,399,998 $2,399,998 MinturnlDowd Junction Geometric imp to US 6, Dowd Junction to 1-70 $1,750,000 $1,750,000 (Eagle Vail) Minturn/Dowd Junction US 6/1-70 interchange at Eagle-Vail $3,200,000 $3,200,000 Minturn/Dowd Junction Traffic signals at 1-70 ramps/US 6 $200,000 $0 Basalt Improve Upper Cattle Creek Road $1,877,660 $1,877,660 Edwards/ A von/Eagle Vail Widen Stone Creek to four lanes $192,000 $192,000 Vail Bighorn Road $3,750,000 $0 Vail E Vail Interchange $2,000,000 $0 Vail 1-70 Frontage Rd, E Vail to E end of Ford Park $5,250,000 $0 Vail 1-70 Frontage Rd, E ofFord Park to Vail Valley $3,700,000 $3,700,000 Dr Vail 1-70 Frontage Rd, Vail Valley Dr to Main $700,000 $700,000 Roundabout Vail 1-70 N Frontage Rd, Arosa Dr to W Vail $0 $0 18 04-24-2001 Area Improvement Total Cost Eligible Cost Roundabout Vail 1-70 N Frontage Rd, W Vail Roundabout to $1,250,000 $1,250,000 Buffer Creek Vail 1-70 N Frontage Rd, Buffer Creek to Red $6,000,000 $6,000,000 Sandstone Vail 1- 70 N Frontage Rd, Red Sandstone to Main $6,400,000 $0 Round Vail 1-70 S Frontage Rd, Main Roundabout to Hospital $750,000 $750,000 Vail 1-70 S Frontage Rd, Hospital to Lionshead $2,250,000 $0 Parking Structure VaiJ 1-70 S Frontage Rd, Lionshead Parking to Forest $3,850,000 $3,850,000 Rd Vail 1-70 S Frontage Rd, Forest Rd to Cascade Village $3,550,000 $3,550,000 Vail 1-70 S Frontage Rd, Cascade Village to Gore $2,200,000 $2,200,000 Creek Dr Vail 1-70 S Frontage Rd, W Vail Roundabout to End $750,000 $0 Vail Main Vail Roundabout $1,000,000 $0 Vail Simba Run Underpass $8,000,000 $8,000,000 Total Needs. 1995-2010 $122777748 $99.802847 MAJOR ROAD SYSTEM Facilitv Se!!lllent Miles Surface 1-70 Co. Line to Colo. River Rd 3.3 Paved I-70 Colo R Rd to Interchange 140 6.2 Paved I-70 Interchange 140 to 147 7.0 Paved I-70 Interchange 147 to 157 9.5 Paved I-70 Interchange 157 to 163 5.7 Paved I-70 Interchange 163 to 167 3.8 Paved I-70 Interchange 167 to 171 4.4 Paved I-70 Interchange 171 to 173 2.3 Paved I-70 Interchange 173 to 176 2.8 Paved I-70 Interchange 176 to 180 3.8 Paved I-70 Interchange 180 to Co. Line 9.5 Paved I-70 Frontage Rd E Vail to E end ofFord Park 2.6 Paved I-70 Frontage Rd E end of Ford Park to Vail Valley Dr 0.7 Paved I-70 Frontage Rd Vail Valley Dr to Main Roundabout 0.4 Paved I -70 N Frontage Rd Arosa Dr to W Vail Roundabout 0.4 Paved I-70 N Frontage Rd W Vail Roundabout to Buffer Creek 0.6 Paved I-70 N Frontage Rd Buffer Creek to Red Sandstone 1.1 Paved I-70 N Frontage Rd Red Sandstone to Main Round 1.2 Paved I -70 S Frontage Rd Main Roundabout to Hospital 0.2 Paved I-70 S Frontage Rd Hospital to Lionshead Parking Str 0.7 Paved I -70 S Frontage Rd Lionshead Parking to Forest Rd 0.6 Paved I -70 S Frontage Rd Forest Rd to Cascade Village 0.6 Paved 19 04-24-2001 Facility Selmlent Miles Surface I-70 S Frontage Rd Cascade Village to Gore Creek Dr 1.2 Paved 1-70 S Frontage Rd Gore Creek Dr to W Vail Round 0.2 Paved I-70 S Frontage Rd W Vail Roundabout to end 1.2 Paved US6 I-70 (Gypsum) to Brush Creek Rd 7.6 Paved US6 Brush Creek Rd to SR 131 9.3 Paved US6 SR 131 to Squaw Creek Rd 4.2 Paved US6 Squaw Creek Rd to Lake Creek Rd 2.3 Paved US6 Lake Creek Rd to Intersection 171 8.9 Paved US 24 I-70 to Tigiwan Rd 5.2 Paved US 24 Tigiwan Rd to Shrine Pass Rd 6.2 Paved US 24 Shrine Pass Rd to Co. Line 12.4 Paved SR 131 US 6 to Landfill Rd 2.0 Paved SR 131 Landfill Rd to Trough Rd 11.6 Paved SR 131 Trough Rd to Co. Line 7.7 Paved SR82 Garfield Co Line to Pitkin Co. 5.2 Paved Beard Creek Dr I -70 to surface chg 1.4 Paved Beard Creek Dr Surface change to end 0.1 Unpaved Beaver Creek Dr I-70 to end 1.0 Paved Bellyache Ridge Rd I-70 to end 5.5 Paved Bighorn Rd I -70 to end of paving 1.7 Paved Bruce Creek Rd Brush Creek Rd to end 2.1 Unpaved Brush Creek Rd I -70 to E Brush Creek Rd 9.9 Paved Brush Creek Rd E Brush Creek Rd to Sylvan Lake 4.7 Unpaved Brush Creek Rd Sylvan Lake to County Line 11.0 No Plow Buck Creek Rd I-70 to end 1.4 Paved Colorado River Rd 1-70 to Deep Creek Rd 1.7 Paved Colorado River Rd Deep Creek Rd to Sweetwater Rd 5.3 Paved Colorado River Rd Sweetwater Rd to end of paving 9.5 Paved Colorado River Rd End of paving to Derby Mesa 6.4 Unpaved Colorado River Rd Derby Mesa Loop to Poppy Creek 6.5 Unpaved Colorado River Rd Poppy Creek Rd to SR 131 5.3 Unpaved Cooley Mesa Rd Gypsum Creek Rd to US 6 4.0 Paved Copper Spur Rd SR 131 to County Line 2.5 Unpaved Cottonwood Creek Rd Sheephom Creek Rd to end 1.9 Unpaved Cottonwood Pass Rd Gypsum Creek Rd to Gypsum Creek 0.8 Paved Cottonwood Pass Rd Gypsum Creek to no plow 2.0 Unpaved Cottonwood Pass Rd No plow to Co. Line 11.4 No Plow Deep Creek Rd Colorado River Rd to no plow 1.0 Unpaved Deep Creek Rd No plow to County Line 6.5 No Plow Derby Mesa Loop Colorado River Rd to Derby Mesa 15.0 Unpaved E Brush Creek Rd Brush Creek Rd to no plow 5.9 Unpaved Eby Creek Rd I -70 to end of paving 0.9 Paved Eby Creek Rd End of paving to priv gate 1.3 Unpaved Fender Ln Upper Cattle Creek Rd to surf chg 0.2 Paved Fender Ln Surface change to Co. Line 0.9 Unpaved Frying Pan Rd SR 82 to Co. Line 10.4 Paved Frying Pan Rd Co. Line to Co. Line (reservoir) 4.7 Paved 20 04-24-2001 Facilitv Se!!ment Miles Surface Gypsum Creek Rd US 6 to end of paving 5.0 Paved Gypsum Creek Rd end of paving to end of plowing 8.2 Unpaved Landfill Rd SR 131 to end 1.5 Unpaved Piney Lake Rd I -70 to E Meadow Creek Rd 6.6 Unpaved Poppy Creek Rd Colorado River Rd to Co. Line 1.6 Unpaved Salt Creek Rd Brush Creek Rd to end 2.9 Unpaved Sheephorn Creek Rd County Line to end 7.2 Unpaved Shrine Pass Rd US 24 to 0.8 miles east 0.8 Paved Shrine Pass Rd 0.8 miles east to Co. Line 8.0 Unpaved Simba Run Underpass N to S 1-70 Frontage Roads 0.1 Not Existing Singletree Loop Rd 1-70 to I-70 2.0 Paved Squaw Creek Rd End of paving to end of road 2.1 Unpaved Squaw Creek Rd Hwy 6 to end of paving 3.1 Paved Sweetwater Rd Colorado River Rd to Co. Line 6.7 Unpaved Trough Rd SR 131 to County Line 9.1 Unpaved Upper Cattle Creek Rd SR 82 to end of paving 2.3 Paved Upper Cattle Creek Rd End of paving to Co. Line 4.6 Unpaved W Lake Creek Rd US 6 to end 3.6 Paved Mr. Duncan spoke to the School Fees-in Lieu. He explained they looked at both school districts. He showed the different profiles between Eagle County and Roaring Fork. He stated when you look at the current requirements, it shows the amount of acres per school is .036. He stated when you are doing the school dedication and the fee in lieu of, you want to find the average household sizes. He stated they used the census data for Colorado with focus on the western slope counties. What they found was the homes in Eagle County are slightly larger. What they want to find is the category on impact. They estimated the number of students per residential unit. He reviewed the figures. He stated the next table in the study shows the students per unit. He spoke to the value ofland. Mr. Montag stated the different voting precincts were used and related the land values have not been updated since 1995. This will be done by a separate resolution. They will be working together with the Assessor to come up with the most recent land values that they have. They are tweaking the actual land dedication formula. Mr. Duncan explained the proposed changes to the school calculations. He stated there will be decreases in some that are currently required. Chairman Stone questioned the single family attached and how that differs from a duplex. Mr. Duncan explained the definitions don't work for them. Mr. Montag stated single family attached and a duplex are the same. Chairman Stone asked about a triplex. He suggested this needs some work for definition purposes. He stated he wants to be consistent with the road impact fees. Mr. Duncan stated they can reconcile that and the acreage requirements are not going to be higher than what they are now. Chairman Stone asked if there is anything more with the school. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the formula and that it doesn't seem to be an accurate representation. For example, Minturn verses Beaver Creek. He spoke to the blanks in the draft, 21 04-24-2001 paragraph A and B. He asked Ms. Black to speak to what the Statute recommends. Mr. Montag pointed out the Roaring Fork Planning Commission recommendation and that the County will decide the need and use of school land. Commissioner Gallagher suggested this is in addition and is in the Statutes. Ms. Black stated it is not clear in the Statutes. It relates to usable land. Commissioner Gallagher stated his other comment is in C 1, taking the initials MAI and spelling them out. He returned to the people per household and one of the things the Statutes requires is the need based on a particular development. If you are having a low to moderate income housing, it is going to have more kids. How is it reconciled that everyone pays a fair share. Mr. Duncan stated at the present time they are forced to rely on 1990 census data and that this could be revisited. He stated they went County wide and there will be some projects that have more students than others. For communities that have school impacts over time they will come up with detailed studies. Chairman Stone suggested they have all the direction they need and asked when they will have the final proposal. Mr. Montag stated in two weeks. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission: The initial public hearings were held with the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission on January 18th and February 8th, 2001. Presentations were made by staff which was followed by public comment (one person) and Planning Commission discussion. The LUR amendment was recommended for approval on March 8th by a 3-0 vote. Specifically, the Commission recommended: Option B (as outlined in the "Road Impact Fee Options" document) Use Exhibit "A" as originally proposed (deleting park-n-rides) Clarify Section 4-700 B., indicating who will hold the money ifthe School District requests County to sell dedicated school land. Fill in the blanks in Section 4-700 A & B, indicating the County will decide the need and usability of school land taking into consideration the recommendation from the applicable School District based on their capital improvements plan. Direct staff to initiate the update of Exhibit B (Road Capital Improvements Program) by March 2002 to include road projects in the El Jebel areas and to work with the Town of Basalt staff to incorporate their legitimate projects. Comments and Response: A matrix has been prepared to capture the various comments/concerns raised to date. A response has been drafted to address each comment. Modifications/Option: A revised copy of the proposed LUR amendment language is attached depicting changes made to date. In addition, "Road Impact Fee Options" have been outlined for discussion. In summary, Eagle County is updating the Land Use Regulations to incorporate Road Impact Fees and to modify the School Land Dedication/Fees-in-lieu requirements. These items were contemplated for inclusion/modification into the LUR's during the previous major revision process that occurred in 1998. However, associated studies needed to be completed detailing the background information and data before moving forward. Now that this information is available, the County Commissioners have directed staff to proceed. 22 04- 24- 2001 The Road Impact Fee and School Fee-in-Lieu Study and accompanying proposed regulations were prepared by the County's consultant, Duncan Associates. The study has been accomplished pursuant to the Board's direction as part of the initial Land Use Regulation adoption process. Meetings were held as part of the process with the School Districts, Towns and CDOT to obtain feedback and determine their commitment level. The Study provides an excellent description of the concepts and components utilized in preparing the proposed regulations. Road impact fees. Eagle County has historically charged a road impact fee of $1 000 per dwelling unit to help cover the cost of road improvements as a result of additional traffic impacts associated with development. The basis of the current fee has historically not been well documented or clear. The purpose of the "Study" and regulations is to provide a sound basis for a revised road impact fee. The County recently completed a county-wide road improvements plan providing the foundation for updating the road impact fees. The Eagle County 2010 Road Capital Improvement Plan identifies the road improvement costs attributable to growth, versus costs attributable to existing service deficiencies. The proposed road impact fee methodology is based on the "improvements-driven" model. This approach distinguishes between improvements required to remedy existing deficiencies, and improvements needed to accommodate the traffic generated by future growth. The road impact fees are designed to fund growth-related, capacity-expanding improvements to the major road system in the County - for both residential and nonresidential uses. This includes all state and federal highways, as well as County and Town roadways identified in the Eagle County 2010 Road Capital Improvement Plan. IGA's will need to be adopted by participating Towns and CDOT to address the cross-jurisdictional traffic impacts. Staff has identified options available for the Board to consider regarding the time of fee collection. These options (Road Impact Fee Options) are attached for consideration and Board direction. School land dedication. The existing Land Use Regulations contain requirements for school land dedication or fees-in-lieu payment associated with residential development. The dedication formula has not been updated since the 1970's, although the land valuation have been periodically adjusted over the years. A firm legal basis will be established with the adoption of the regulations. Based on the analysis as described in the Study, the net result of all recommended changes in the regulations is that the land dedication requirement would increase for single family detached units, and decrease for duplexes, apartments and mobile homes. In addition, the proposed (by separate BOCC Resolution) land values would change the fee-in-lieu costs. This application was referred to: The Towns of Avon, Basalt, Eagle, Gypsum, Minturn, RedCliff, and Vail, the County Assessor, the County Attorney, Eagle County School District RE50J, Roaring Fork School District RE-l, Colorado Dept. of Transportation, and the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. Responses are attached. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.04 Referrals of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: The proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate referral agencies, including the town within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs. 2. Pursuant to Chapter 1, Section 1.15.05 Public Hearin2 of the Eagle County Land Use 23 04-24-2001 Regulations: Public notice HAS been given. 3. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations: (a) The proposed amendments SOLELY AMEND THE TEXT of the Eagle County Land Use Regulation and do not amend the Official Zone District Map. (b) Precise wording of the proposed changes HAVE been provided. 4. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Section 5-230.D. Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as applicable: (a) The proposed amendments ARE consistent with the purposes, goals, policies, and Future Land Use Map of the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) The proposed amendments DO address a demonstrated community need. (c) The proposed amendments ARE in the public interest. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Stone stated the Board will return to this matter later in the day. Earth Day Poster Contest Awards Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, stated the next item on the agenda was the Earth Day Poster Contest. He welcomed everyone to the Eagle County Building and related this is the best turn out in eleven years. He stated the only thing he can take credit for is coming up with the idea. They believe that long term environmental change is really a concern of youth. He stated it starts at a young age. He gave special thanks to the Board of County Commissioners. He spoke to those who made donations. He gave a brief history of Eagle County's role in past Earth Day celebrations; introduced the environmental health division staff and their role in this year's event, and recognized and thank all of the sponsors and teachers for their participation. This years donations came from the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. Pazzo's Pizzeria Cascade Theater Group W alMart, Avon Cordillera Golf Club Alpine Bank FirstBank of Vail Gore Range Brewery 4 Eagle Ranch Town of Basalt El Jebowl Bowling Alley Timbo's Pizza Panda City Restaurants Eagle County Env. Health Janet Kohl 1 18" thin crust pizza 20 movie tickets $25 gift card dinner for 4 at the Chaparral $50 value $50 Savings Bond 2-$100 Savings Bonds $25 Gift certificate $50 Student season pool pass 4 free game coupons 1 large pizza 4 $20 gift certificates $25 gift certificate from Gart Bros. Sports 1 movie ticket 24 04-24-2001 Individual schools will be presented alphabetically beginning with Avon Elementary School, and ending with the Grand Prize winners. Winners are announced in ascending order from 3rd place to 1 Sl. Group photos will be taken of the Grand Prize winners and the entire group of winners with the BOCC by the local press and environmental staff as follows: Avon Elementary School Fiona Jeppson, gift certificate for free 18 inch pizza from Pazzo's Pizza in Avon Kelsey Comerford, 2 free movie tickets from Cascade Village Theaters Maryanne Marcum, 1 free movie ticket from Cascade Village Theaters Basalt Elementary School Shannon Collins, gift certificate for Gart Brothers Sports Luke Diekmann, gift certificate for pizza from Timbo's Pizza in Basalt Dusty Havens, 4 free games from El Jebowl Bowling Alley in El Jebel Eagle Valley Christian Academy Morgan Wyrick, gift certificate from Panda City Restaurants, Riverwalk or Gypsum Erik Schiskin, 2 free movie tickets from Cascade Village Theaters Miranda Mock, 1 free movie ticket from Cascade Village Theaters Eagle Valley Elementary School Brian Matthews, gift certificate from Panda City Restaurants, Riverwalk or Gypsum Whitney Wright, 2 free movie tickets from Cascade Village Theaters Kelsey Andrews, 1 free movie ticket from Cascade Village Theaters Edwards Elementary School Hugo Parra, gift certificate from The Gore Range Brewery Perla Carmona, 2 free movie tickets from Cascade Village Theaters Maria Reyes, 1 free movie ticket from Cascade Village Theaters Gypsum Elementary School Kelly Burns, gift certificate from Panda City Restaurants, Riverwalk or Gypsum Stephanie Renzelmann, 2 free movie tickets from Cascade Village Theaters Amanda Nelson, 1 free movie ticket from Cascade Village Theaters Red Sandstone Elementary School Olivia Fauland, gift card from WalMart in Avon Christopher Escobedo, 2 free movie tickets from Cascade Village Theaters Colin Hazard, 1 free movie ticket from Cascade Village Theaters Vail Mountain School Matthew White, gift certificate from Panda City Restaurants, Riverwalk or Gypsum Courtney List, 2 free movie tickets from Cascade Village Theaters Robert Fitz, 1 free movie ticket from Cascade Village Theaters Overall Winners Grand Prize Winner: Brendan Jackson, Gypsum Elementary, $100 savings bond from 151 Bank 151 Prize Winner: 2nd Prize Winner: 3rd Prize Winner: 1 sl Prize Winner: 2nd Prize Winner: 3rd Prize Winner: 151 Prize Winner: 2nd Prize Winner: 3rd Prize Winner: 151 Prize Winner: 2nd Prize Winner: 3rd Prize Winner: 1 sl Prize Winner: 2nd Prize Winner: 3rd Prize Winner: 1 sl Prize Winner: 2nd Prize Winner: 3rd Prize Winner: 1 sl Prize Winner: 2nd Prize Winner: 3rd Prize Winner: 151 Prize Winner: 2nd Prize Winner: 3rd Prize Winner: 25 04-24-2001 1 st Prize Winner: of Vail, and dinner for 4 at the Chaparral from Cordillera Kyle Wood, Basalt Elementary, Student season pool pass from the Town of Basalt Rebecca Hughes, Red Sandstone Elementary, $100 savings bond from 1st Bank of Vail Kelsey Foster, Eagle Valley Elementary, $50 savings bond from Alpine Bank 2nd Prize Winner: 3rd Prize Winner: LUR-00033, Land Use Regulation Amendment Chairman Stone returned to file LUR-00033, Land Use Regulation Amendment. Commissioner Gallagher moved to table file number LUR-0033, Eagle County Land Use Regulation Amendment, to May 8, 2001. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until May 1,2001. ~~ Chairman 26 04-24-2001