Loading...
Minutes 08/13/2002 PUBLIC HEARING AUGUST 13,2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Tom Moorhead 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 Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of August 12,2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting minutes for July 23, 2002 C) Resolution 2002-105 Appointment of Diane Mauriello as acting County Attorney D) Wood Grinding Agreement between Eagle County and Alternative Recycling, LLC E) Application for Federal Assistance / Land Acquisition (Leving Parcel) F) Resolution 2002-106, regarding application for a Grant from the Federal Aviation Administration to provide funds for the acquisition of real property G) Request for Emergency Treatment Assistance, under Section 403 of Title IV, Emergency Conservation Program of the Agricultural Credit Act of 1978, USDA-NRCS'S 216 Program (Emergency Watershed Protection Program). Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes. Tom Moorhead, County Attorney, stated there are no changes to the Consent Agenda. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, items A through G. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2002-107 To Approve The Preliminary Plan and Zone Change for the Woodland Hills Planned Unit Development (Eagle County Files No. PDP-00022 and ZC-00050). The Board considered the Applicant's request on July 9th, 2002. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-107, to approve the preliminary plan and zone change for Woodland Hills PUD, file numbers PDP-00022 and ZC-0050. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-108 To Approve Special Use Permit for Lot SA, Colorow at Squaw Creek Subdivision, (Eagle County File No. ZS-00094). The Board considered the Applicant's request for an Accessory Dwelling Unit on July 9th, 2002. 1 08-13-2002 Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-108, to approve a Special Use Permit for Lot 8A, Colorow at Squaw Creek Subdivision, file number ZS-00094. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. County Attorney, Leaving the County Commissioner Stone spoke to Tom Moorhead thanking him for his dedication and hard work while employed by Eagle County. Chairman Gallagher also thanked Mr. Moorhead for what he has done and what he is going to do. Commissioner Menconi also expressed his gratitude and spoke to Mr. Moorhead's integrity. SD-0026, Cordillera Valley Club Service District - Resolution 2002-109 Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, presented file number SD-0026, Resolution 2002-109, Cordillera Valley Club Service District. He stated the applicant is proposing a Service Plan for the creation of a special district entitled the Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District. The purpose of the District is to assist in the funding, integration and coordination of metropolitan district services and facilities. The proposed District consists of the existing Cordillera Valley Club development which has obtained PUD approval for 128 residential units and an 18 hole golf course through Eagle County. The major infrastructure (roads and utilities), the golf course and approximately 67 homes have already been constructed. The remaining homes are estimated to be built at a rate of six per year for ten years. While the infrastructure has been substantially completed by the developer, "the District intends to make certain enhancements to the infrastructure, primarily in the areas of road and landscape improvements, improvements at the entries to the subdivision, and a potential construction of a berm along the southern boundary of the subdivision". In addition, the District will maintain the infrastructure improvements which includes road and drainage maintenance, snow removal, road landscape maintenance, road lighting and signage, and weed and pest control. Park and Recreation components are also being proposed as part of the Plan. Although much of the Cordillera Valley District will be open space, some organized recreation facilities may be provided, so long as such amenities do not duplicate those already provided by Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District (WECMRD) or Edwards Metropolitan District. It is anticipated that approximately $3,000,000 will be required to finance the capital costs associated with the proposed improvements. The mill levy within the District is projected to range from an initial 25 mills (2004 - 2023), decrease to 20 mills (2024 - 2028) and end at 15 mills (2029 - 2032). General powers (described in the Plan) of the proposed Districts are: Roadway Infrastructure Drainage Facilities Safety Protection Facilities Mosquito Control Public Park and Recreation Facilities Transportation and Other Facilities and Improvements 1. Any and all functions and facilities associated with the District must be in conformance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and/or applicable State Statutes governing Special Districts. This includes any potential berming along the southern property boundary. 2. Numerous references are made within the Plan about providing service or extending improvements outside (adjacent to) the proposed District boundaries. Again, conformance with applicable regulations will be necessary as well as the consent of the property owners. 2 08-13-2002 3. Powers and authorities are being proposed in the Service Plan that overlap with other existing Special Districts (Transportation, ParkslRec). Provisions will be required to address the duplication of services such as IGA's or other appropriate agreements. 4. The applicant needs to address the attached referral comments. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: The Board of County Commissioners shall disapprove the service plan unless evidence satisfactory to the Board of each of the following is presented: a. There is sufficient existing and proj ected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the special district; b. The existing service in the area to be served by the special district is inadequate for present and projected needs; c. The special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its boundaries; d. The area included in the District has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. The Board of County Commissioners may disapprove the service plan if evidence satisfactory to the Board of any of the following, at the discretion of the Board is not presented: a. Adequate service is not, or will not be, available to the area through Eagle County or other existing municipal or quasi-municipal corporations, including existing special districts, within a reasonable time and on a comparable basis; b. The facility and service standards of the District are compatible with the facility and service standards of Eagle County, and each municipality which is an interested party under Section 32-1- 204(1), c.R.S.; c. The service plan is in substantial compliance with the master plan adopted pursuant to Section 30-28-106, C.R.S.; d. The service plan is in compliance with the duly adopted long range water quality management plan for the area; e. The service plan will be in the best interest of the area proposed to be served. Pursuant to the aforementioned findings which necessitates the applicant adequately addressing the issues identified, Staff recommends approval. On July 17, 2002, the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended unanimous approval with a vote of 4 - O. Matthew Dalton, Attorney for the applicants, referred to a memo by himself to the Board which attempted to address all staff concerns. He stated this district will overlap Edwards Metropolitan District and Western Eagle County Metropolitan District. They are required to obtain the consent of those two districts. He stated the District does have the right to go outside of its boundaries and does have the power of condemnation. He stated the district is being proposed as they are inheriting roads and such from the developer. He stated it is a private entity and does not have the borrowing powers of a political subdivision and cannot take advantage of tax exempt financing. He stated they operate under the protection of the Governmental Immunity Act, insurance costs are less, they can own open space and they cannot deduct homeowners association assessments. Out of pocket expenses are the same but they will enjoy tax deductions. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Rick Pirog, homeowner at the Valley Club and manager of the Property Owners Association, stated the developer is in the position to transfer control of the subdivision community CPOA to the homeowners. He stated they had an annual meeting and there appears to be unanimous support and they are taking a pro-active stance to try to enhance the community. He stated they appreciate the Board's support. 3 08-13-2002 Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Commissioner Stone asked the difference between Cordillera Valley Club and the remainder of the Cordillera Subdivision. Mr. Dalton stated the balance of Cordillera is served by three districts, the Cordillera Metropolitan District, Cordillera Mountain District and the Squaw Creek Metropolitan District. Commissioner Stone asked about the general powers, specifically under park and recreation facilities, and if the berm is part of the park and recreation facility. Mr. Dalton stated the berm is intended to bailout some of the noise from the interstate. It is currently considered open space. Commissioner Stone asked about other park and recreation facilities planned. Mr. Dalton stated there has been talk of gazbo' s and flower planting. Commissioner Stone stated it is only public and available to those residing in Cordillera Valley Club. Mr. Dalton stated in this area the public are only those who live within the boundaries of the district and pay taxes into the district. Chairman Gallagher asked if there was an existing district that overlays this property. Mr. Dalton stated there are two, the Edwards Metropolitan District and Western Eagle County Recreation District. He stated the Edwards Metropolitan District does not maintain streets, etc. He stated one of the items they need to demonstrate is there is no other district that performs these services. Commissioner Stone stated they have findings they have to make in order to approve this proposal, and the applicant must show the existing service is inadequate. Mr. Moorhead stated that is correct. Mr. Dalton stated they have to ask and if the other district refuses then it is considered inadequate. Commissioner Stone stated he is trying to follow the letter and intent ofthe law. Chairman Gallagher asked about the Edwards District and what their service plan relates to. Mr. Dalton stated they do have the powers being suggested but have not been doing those items. Chairman Gallagher stated the idea of having a duplicate district overlaying a current one, does not seem appropriate. Mr. Moorhead stated the owners of the Edwards District are running the district how they see fit. He stated the evidence has to be presented to the satisfaction of the Board. Mr. Dalton stated Service Plans are documents of empowerment and limitations. Ken Marchetti, area resident, stated Edwards was formed for constructing certain infrastructure and then conveying those to other entities. He stated the roads were conveyed to the County and the water was conveyed to the Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Water District. They carry a very small mill levy. He stated they would not have the opportunity to levy different taxing rates for different parts of the community. Chairman Gallagher asked ifthey have accomplished the mission oftheir district. Mr. Marchetti stated they have outstanding debt and have an obligation to payoff their current existing debt. He stated he believes that will be in about ten years. Chairman Gallagher asked about the Edwards District re-writing their Service Plan. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-109, File number SD-0026, Cordillera Valley Club Service District, incorporating staff findings as follows: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the special district; 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the special district is inadequate for present and projected needs; 3. The special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within 4 08-13-2002 its boundaries; 4. The area included in the District has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00152, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 35 Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number AFP-00152, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 35. She stated the intent of this plat is to reconfigure the building envelope on Lot 5 to accommodate proposed, external water features such as patios, water features, and a hot tub. The building envelope will not . .. mcrease m SIze. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-90.G.2. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adjacent property. Review ofthe Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. The following adjacent properties have been notified: Squaw Creek Realty Corp. and WE. Rowsey, III & L. Moselle. No letters of opposition have been received by the Community Development Department, from either of these owners, prior to the distribution of this Staff report. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review ofthe Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS NOT inconsistent with the intent of the Final Plat. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. Proposed improvements and/or off-site road improvements agreement ARE adequate. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT Apply Brent Aim, representing the applicant, was present for the hearing. He stated he would be happy to answer any questions. He stated there is existing vegetation between the two building envelopes that will remain in place. He stated they will also be planting additional vegetation to mitigate their encroachment. Chairman Gallagher asked about the distance between the two building envelopes. Ms. Skinner stated it is over 100 feet. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. AFP-00152, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 35, incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00141, Bronn Duplex Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number AFP-00141, Bronn Duplex. He stated this was an amended final plat which would adjust the configuration of Lots 9-A, 9-B and 9-C on this duplex lot. The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1974 - Pinal plat for Lake Creek Meadows approved creating Lot 9, Block 6. 1982 - Pinal plat for Bronn Duplex approved subdividing Lot 9, Block 6, creating two duplex parcels and a common parcel, Lots 9-A, 9-B, and 9-C, respectively. 5 08-13-2002 Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.2 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community Development Director has made the following findings: The Amended Final Plat DOES NOT adversely affect adjacent property owners. The Amended Final Plat IS consistent with the intent ofthe Final Plat. The Amended Final Plat DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. An Improvements Agreement IS NOT applicable. This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive plat note. Rusty Buick, representing the applicant, was present to answer any questions. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Commissioner Stone moved the Board of County Commissioners approve File No. AFP-0014l, Bronn Duplex, incorporating the Staff findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0038, Local Resident Housing Requirements LUR-0039, Inclusionary Housing LUR-0041, Residential Housing Linkage LUR-0041, Commercial Employee Housing Linkage Rebecca Leonard, Senior Planner, presented file numbers LUR-0038, Local Resident Housing Requirements, LUR-0039, Inclusionary Housing, LUR-0041, Residential Housing Linkage and LUR-004l, Commercial Employee Housing Linkage. Ms. Leonard stated staff compiled a list of the questions asked by the Board at the last hearing and she has presented those to the Board. She stated "Exhibit A" is a collection from other communities and what they are doing in those areas. "Exhibit B" is a recap of what Denver is trying to do with their inclusionary housing. "Exhibit C" is information on what the towns are doing within Eagle County. She spoke to the towns and their current plans. Ms. Leonard reviewed the proposals from the Towns. "Exhibit D" is an example showing a comparison between the Arrowhead formula and the employee linkage shown here. Commissioner Stone asked if Exhibit D is saying that it would add $13.33 per square foot. Ms. Leonard stated it will add a difference of .62 cents per square foot. "Exhibit E" is a recap of interviews that were held by telephone. "Exhibit F" is a new and improved list of affordable housing units in Eagle County. These charts show what has been called affordable and deed restricted and a breakdown of percentages. Chairman Gallagher asked if the projections contemplate adoption of the regulations. Ms. Leonard stated there is another table that is known as Households Meeting mcome Criteria and Percentages. "Exhibit G" is a copy ofthe State Demographers projections and forecasting worksheet. "Exhibit H", is a list of incentives that can be used. "Exhibit I" is a recap of what others are doing as far as unit goals. "Exhibit J" is the area medium income. In the housing comprehensive plan they used the wage as their indicator for affordability. "Exhibit K" is absorption and vacancy rates. "Exhibit L" is a survey that was conducted as part ofthe needs assessment. "Exhibit M" is a site suitability study for local resident housing. "Exhibit N" is a recap ofthe conversions of units. "Exhibits o and P" are legal questions and the Attorneys Office may be able to answer those. "Exhibit Q is the slide show they went through at the last hearing. "Exhibit R" is more detailed consideration ofthe process and when these were assessed to the applicant. Chairman Gallagher complemented Ms. Leonard and the Housing Department for a rapid 6 08-13-2002 response. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Jack Lewis, Vail Resorts, stated their opinion is that there has not been a developer that has stepped up to the plate as they have. They agree with the principles the County is trying to address. He stated they question need and will continue to address that need. He spoke to how the inclusionary regulations can be taken care of by a developer, pay in lieu or on site and off site. This program as written is not that type of program. One would come in and staff would determine ifthe developer can or cannot pay in lieu of. He stated the off site requirements would mean there would be no off site units available. He stated 3/4 of a mile from a bus stop and 3/4 mile from a school. He questions what kind of school. He stated there needs to be significant change in the proposed regulations. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Commissioner Stone requested they have an additional public comment time in the future when the regulations are closer to adoption. Chairman Gallagher stated he intends to allow public comment at each hearing. Chairman Gallagher stated on page 6, he questions why there is a difference between residential and commercial linkage. If you are generating ajob you are generating ajob. Ms. Leonard stated the Planning Commission recommended different percentages for non- residential and residential housing linkage. Mr. Moorhead stated the Board can assign different percentages between commercial and residential linkage. He stated "the County does have the discretion to require different mitigation rates for different types of development provided they are based on legitimate public purpose. Commercial development can be assessed a lower mitigation rate than residential providing there is a finding of fact that doing so achieves a public purpose such as encouragement of economic development and support of fiscal soundness through the generation of sales tax revenues." He stated he concurs with the finding. Laurie Bower, Housing Department, stated there were calculations on the impacts regarding square footage and it was significantly lower on residential as there was on commercial. Chairman Gallagher stated does that person working in the commercial need a house any less than others. Ms. Leonard stated staff is recommending they be the same however the Planning Commission was thinking that a small business as much as a large business. Chairman Gallagher asked about the letter from the Town of Basalt, address for replacement requirement for existing affordable housing. Ms. Leonard stated they have no language to require someone to replace an affordable unit if it is being moved. She stated staff feels it should be addressed separately. Chairman Gallagher asked about deed restrictions and related it seems to be the focus. If they obtain a deed restricted unit and it sells, when they move their equity will not be much. He questioned putting them on a path of only affordable housing. Ms. Leonard stated that is a potential issue and recognizes these units as a stepping stone between full market units and rentals. She spoke to the cpr and the return of such. They tried to create some units that would be deed restricted only to local residents. She spoke to deed restricted units to employees. Chairman Gallagher stated he is not looking at these as a benefit to the developer but rather to the buyers. Ms. Bower stated the theory is for permanent affordability. She explained five or ten years later that person would make a profit and that supply would be lost. Chairman Gallagher asked what they can do to help the person buying the affordable housing to step out of it. He stated they are giving that person some inducment to stay. Commissioner Menconi stated if they back up and look at the bigger picture and at what percentage would the Board like to help with affordable housing. He stated ifthey make no change in 7 08-13-2002 the year 2020 there will be 1.7%. This regulation is calling for a percentage from the decision makers of housing that would be deed restricted. He asked how they are creating housing for individuals to own. He stated in some ofthe information being presented on housing, going up a 3% growth is a modest rate. He stated ifthere is a 25% reduction in the purchase price they would have an incentive. These regulations are to set aside a housing inventory stock and the regulation is fitting a portion of that need. He stated this is an issue with the scarcity of land, prices, etc. Ms. Leonard spoke to the affordable units and there being 215 units they have now lost. Chairman Gallagher stated he prefers the CPI rather than percentages. He requested staff to look at other items rather than deed restrictions. There is an additional factor in not only wanting people to buy these houses but also telling them what they can and cannot do with the house. He would like to have a broader sprectum to look at. Commissioer Menconi asked ifhe is suggesting the Board can approve the 3% or other options and if the regulations would have the CPI or a flat fee written into them. Chairman Gallagher stated it is his suggestion the regulations use the CPr. Commissioner Menconi asked why would they want to depart from the caps that work. Chairman Gallagher stated he does not want it to be the Denver Boulder CPI but rather the Eagle County Cpr. Ms. Bauer stated she does have more information on the CPI that she will provide at the next hearing. She stated they have provisions to review the 3% every year. She stated they could adjust the 3 % every year if need be. Chairman Gallagher stated if the CPI is not Eagle County they should not use it. Commissioner Stone stated to put real numbers to this discussion, 3% over 30 years on Chairman Gallagher's home that he bought for $28,000, it would now be worth $68,000. Chairman Gallagher asked if staff could find out about a CPI for Eagle County. Commissioner Menconi stated if they have a target of a moving CPI over the next twenty years, there will have to be a historical way oftracking that year to year. Ifthere are varying CPI's, there would have to be a way of computating those changes for each one of the units. There would be a lot of discrepancies. Commissioner Stone suggested CPI is being used loosely. One of the potential resolutions may be discussing the increase in home values. Maybe an appraiser can appraise the home with the appreciation of value and take out the deed restriction. Maybe they can increase in value or decrease in value as per the market. Commissioner Menconi stated add to that the breakdown of single family homes, townhomes, second homes, and condominiums up valley and down valley. Commissioner Stone stated the National Homebui1ders Association has an affordability index and that could be what the Board is looking for. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like to better understand the percentages they are speaking to. He questioned if that was a valid picture. Should they remove second homes from that total. He questioned the summary of percentages by both Planning Commissions. He asked about housing above big stores such as W aI-Mart and City Market. Ms. Leonard stated housing above store fronts has been going on for the past ten years. Chairman Gallagher stated Riverwalk would be as good an example as possible. He stated they should differenciate between residential and commercial. Commissioner Menconi asked what is just for the individual who is going to be purchasing the homes. Is it just for someone to live above a big box store. He asked what is wrong with creating a certain inventory of property that strikes a balance with the properties. He stated people have been purchasing it out of a need. If they are going to walk through every scenario the bottom line is are they in favor of a just amount of housing that staff has shown or should they be creating more. Commissioner Stone stated this is an opportunity to work with the real estate companies. 8 08-13-2002 Ms. Leonard stated they have incentatives to go on site but it may not be appropriate to be that at all times. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like staff to consider what is or what is not appropriate. Ms. Bauer stated they are serving a small sliver ofthe population and there are other choices. Chairman Gallagher stated Wal Mart builds and they are required to put units on site. He stated that housing will be for their employees and maybe a line shoud be drawn somewhere. Commissioner Stone stated he would like to spend a lot more time on the incentives. Chairman Gallagher questioned ownership and resident tenture and if those are the same thing and how is diversity in this statement. Ms. Bauer stated that would be the different incomes. Ms. Leonard stated they are trying to get diversity out there. Chairman Gallagher questioned the barriers. Commissioner Stone stated along with that, ifby reference under each one of the goals it should state where in the Land Use Regulations those can be found. Commissioner Stone questioned item C, five years. The Board continued to review the proposed regulations. Commissioner Stone spoke to Douglas County being the other entity that is looking at a jurisdictional multi-purpose entity. Commissioner Stone asked if this document is actually a summary of the Land Use Regulations. Ms. Leonard stated what they did is three amendments to the Land Use Regulations. That gets you to the authority and the purpose behind it. She stated from that point you refer to Appendix F which will be a new amendment to the Land Use Regulations. Commissioner Stone spoke to LUR 39,40 and 41. He asked ifthe language in those will be consistent with the LUR. Mr. Leonard stated it will also give you the percentage requirement. She stated there is limited information in the Land Use Regulations that will have to be amended. She stated the bulk of the amendments will be in this document. Commissioner Stone stated he may in time ask that they restate some of the things being reviewed today. He stated he is not sure that under the word purpose, that you need to have all that is written. He suggested you might not need to talk about the Nexus survey. He suggested he may want to go back and remove the things that appear to be value judgements. Chairman Gallagher spoke to page 12, Rent. He asked they take a look at it and include language that permits an owner to hire a property management company and have the rent pay for that as well as to cover increased insurance costs. On paragraph 10, eligibility, the word "only" or "may" to be inserted. Commissioner Menconi moved to table file numbers LUR-0038, Local Resident Housing Requirements, LUR-0039, Inclusionary Housing, LUR-0041, Residential Housing Linkage and LUR-0041, Commercial Employee Housing Linkage to September 10, 2002. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned until August 20, 2002. Attest: Clerk to the Board 9 08-13-2002