HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 06/24/03
PUBLIC HEARING
JUNE 24, 2003
Present:
Michael Gallagher
Am Menconi
Tom Stone
Diane Mauriello
Jack Ingstad
Teak J. Simonton
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:
Executive Session
Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn into an Executive Session for the purpose of receiving
legal advice on negotiations regarding water counsel, negotiations with Mountain High Aviation
concerning the FBO and potential stipulations in lieu of shown cause hearing for the State Bridge Lodge
and for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions concerning Wolcott Yacht Club
and Miller Ranch restrictions, all of which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-
402(4)(a)(b) and (e).
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Stone 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 9:26 a.m.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Gallagher stated the next matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for the week of June 23,2003, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Approval of payroll for June 26,2003, subject to review by County Administrator
C) Approval of the minutes ofthe Board of County Commissioners meeting of June 3,
2003
D) Resolution 2003-075, approving the 2003 Intergovernmental Agreement to be used
for Political Subdivisions participating in the November 2003 Election
E) Agreement between Eagle County and Rotary Child Health Project
F) Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado West Regional Mental Health for the
provision of emergency crisis services
G) Agreement between Eagle County and Catholic Charities, Miles for Smiles
H) Agreement between Eagle County and the Salvation Army
I) Agreement between Eagle County and Northwest Colorado Legal Services Project
J) Agreement between Eagle County and Mountain Valley Developmental Services
K) Agreement between Eagle County and Basalt Family Resource Center
L) Amended Agreement between Eagle County and Colorado West Regional Mental
Health
1
06-24-2003
M) Memorandum of Understanding between Eagle County Department of Human
Services and Eagle County for the Colorado Works and Child Care Assistance Programs
N) Agreement with Colorado Mountain College for Clinical Nursing Rotation
0) Assignment of Certificate of Deposit in the amount of $12,000.00 for a Permit to
Construct within the Public Way, No. 3243
P) Agreement regarding ditch relocation and easement modifications
Q) Resolution 2003-076, Final Release of Collateral and Termination of the Warranty
Period for Cordillera, Filing 35
R) Approval of Central Mountains Retac Plan
S) First Amendment to the Agreement for Professional Services for the delineation of the
floodplain of the Eagle and Colorado Rivers
T) Lease Amendment between Eagle County and Geno' s Italian Sandwiches of a portion
of Condominium 107 in Avon Commercial Center.
Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent
Agenda.
Brian Treu, Assistant County Attorney, stated Item H, the Agreement between Eagle County and
the Salvation Army, should be removed pending approval. He stated this Agreement has been signed
locally but has yet to be signed by the Salvation Army. He stated item P, the Agreement regarding ditch
relocation and easement modifications needs to be pulled and brought back on July 1, 2003. Item S,
First Amendment to the Agreement for the delineation of floodplain for the Colorado and Eagle Rivers,
has had minor corrections and the Board has been provided those changes.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, item A through T, item H being
removed, excepting item P and incorporating the changes to item S.
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 2003- 077, To Approve the Zone District Amendment for Bear Trail
Estates (Eagle County File No. ZC-00054). The Board considered the Applicant=s request on June
3rd,2003.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-077, to approve the Zone District
Amendment for Bear Trail Estates, Eagle County File Number ZC-00054.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Airport Tower Contract, Shaw Construction, Guaranteed Maximum Price
Rich Cunningham, Facilities Management Director, presented the final guaranteed maximum
price and related provisions for the Airport Town Contract with Shaw Construction. He explained the
price to the Board and requested approval. He stated $1,678,284.00 is the agreed maximum price.
Commissioner Stone questioned if this was the correct amount.
Mr. Cunningham confirmed that this number was correct. He stated that there are other
requirements in the contract to eliminate excessive change orders.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the final guaranteed maximum price and related
provisions for the Airport Town Contract with Shaw Construction.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.o
2
06-24-2003
Petition for Annexation, Brush Creek Road
Brian Treu presented a Petition for Annexation to the Town of Eagle, of Brush Creek Road and
Annexation Plat. He stated that the Town of Eagle had agreed to take over maintenance responsibility
for that portion of Brush Creek Road.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Petition for Annexation and the Annexation Plat
of Brush Creek Road, to the Town of Eagle.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Petition for Annexation, Polar Star Road
Brian Treu presented a Petition for Annexation to the Town of Eagle of Polar Star Road and
Annexation Plat.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Petition for Annexation and the Annexation Plat to
the Town of Eagle, of Polar Star Road.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as
the Local Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Liquor License Consent Agenda
Earlene Roach presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda for June 24, 2003 as follows:
A) Vilar Center for the Arts Foundation & Vail Valley Foundation
Vilar Center for the Arts
This is a renewal of an arts license. This establishment is located in Beaver
Creek on Avondale Lane. There have been no complaints or disturbances
during the past year.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda as presented.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Blue Creek Grill
Earlene Roach presented a change in location for Fabulous Foods, Inc., d/b/a Blue Creek Grill.
The applicant proposes to move to the new building at 0064 El Jebel Road. The old building will then
be tom down. A referral letter was sent out and no negative comments have been received. Staff has no
concerns with this application. There have not been any complaints or disturbances during the past year.
Chris Sapp, applicant, was present for the hearing. Mr. Sapp stated that this new building would
increase his seating capacity from 50 to approximately 70 inside.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve a transfer oflocation for Fabulous Foods,
Inc., d/b/a Blue Creek Grill.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Route 6 Cafe
Earlene Roach presented an application for transfer of ownership of a hotel & restaurant license
for Route 6 Cafe, Inc., d/b/a Route 6 Cafe. This establishment was previously known as Alsant LLC,
d/b/a Eagle Vail Cafe. The members of the Limited Liability Company who previously owned this
3
06-24-2003
establishment do not have an interest in the new proposed owner. Referral letters were sent out and no
negative responses have been received.
Staffhas no concerns with this application. All applicants are reported to be of good moral
character. This application is in order and all fees have been paid.
Steve Holstar, applicant was present. He stated that he has been in Vail for 20 years and has
never had a license revoked or suspended.
Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve a transfer of ownership of a hotel and restaurant
license for Route 6 Cafe, Inc., d/b/a Route 6 Cafe.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Coyote Cafe
Earlene Roach presented managers registration for Gary Busby, Diamond Five, Ltd., d/b/a
Coyote Cafe. This application is in order and all fees have been paid. Mr. Busby has worked for this
establishment since 2000. He is now the manager and must become registered with the State. Staff
recommended approval.
Chairman Gallagher asked about Mr. Busby's experience.
Mr. Busby stated he has been in employed in several restaurants in the Vail area for the past 25
years.
Chairman Gallagher asked if Mr. Busby had been a registered manager of a liquor establishment
in the recent past.
Mr. Busby stated he was the manager of a liquor establishment for eleven years.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve a manager's registration for Gary Dale
Busby, Diamond Five Limited, d/b/a Coyote Cafe.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Eagle County Government
Earlene Roach presented a special events permit for July 4,2003 from 5:00 p.m. to 11 :30 p.m.
She stated This application is in order and all fees have been paid. The Commissioners have the map
and the alcohol management plan in their packets. Staffhas no concerns with this application.
Nathan Nelson, representing Dick Kessler, was present.
Chairman Gallagher asked Mr. Nelson to identify the red lines on the map.
Mr. Nelson stated that these lines represent the fenced boundaries for the beer garden.
Chairman Gallagher asked about the licensed premises.
Mr. Nelson stated the fenced area would be the licensed premises. He also said that Coors beer,
Wine and Country Cocktails would be served.
Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve a special events permit for Eagle County
Government for July 4, 2003, from 5 :00 p.m. to 11 :30 p.m.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
State Bridge Lodge
Earlene Roach stated the next matter before the Liquor Authority was a proposed Stipulation for
Conway's State Bridge Lodge, Inc., d/b/a State Bridge Lodge.
Bryan Treu stated there was a concert on May 24, and the Sheriff on call had some issues. The
Attorney's Office and the Sheriff met with the owner and were pleased with the meeting. The following
conditions for future events were as follows:
1) To ensure access for EMS vehicles, State Bridge shall preclude parking on either side of
Trough Road for 100 yards on both sides of the licensed premises. This area should be sectioned off
4
06-24-2003
using cones and/or tape and the licensee must have a minimum of two event staff employees monitoring
this no parking zone to ensure compliance and direct traffic to alternative locations. Also, one additional
event staff employee should be present to direct traffic into the parking location near the Yurts. Once
this parking area is full, this event staff employee may be deployed to other duties within the
establishment.
2) State Bridge shall provide at least one employee with a crowd counter to ensure strict
compliance with the occupancy requirements on the deck. If one event staff employee is incapable of
ensuring compliance, State Bridge should place an additional employee in this location. Failure to
control this situation may lead to a reduction in the occupancy loads for this establishment.
3) The licensee must hire a minimum of one law enforcement officer per 100 patrons on the
days/nights of concerts. The role of the officers shall be to enforce the Colorado Criminal Code as they
see fit. The officers are not responsible for I.D. check, crowd counting, parking, etc. Such
responsibility shall remain with State Bridge. The presence of law enforcement personnel shall ion no
way alleviate State Bridge's responsibilities to ensure that the establishment complies fully with the
Colorado Liquor Code.
4) State Bridge shall hire a minimum of five event staff personnel to perform necessary security,
crowd counting, parking control, etc. The amount of security personnel hired shall be sufficient to
ensure that no intoxicated individuals are allowed to enter or remain on the premises of the
establishment. The security personnel shall not be allowed to consume alcohol while on duty. The
event staff personnel shall be in addition to the requisite amount of law enforcement personnel set forth
in this stipulation.
Mr. Treu related that this stipulations were instituted a couple of weeks ago and things have gone
very smoothly.
Greg Conway, owner and license holder, was present. He expressed gratitude for the Eagle
County staff and Sheriff's department for helping get this establishment where it needs to be.
Chairman Gallagher stated that the efforts made had been generous. He expressed the serious
nature of danger to the public, over-service etc. He clarified that the applicant's liquor license could be
at stake.
Commissioner Stone stated that the Board was developing a better relationship with this owner,
and that he hoped that this owner would be able to stay in business and operate the establishment in a
much safer manner.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Stipulation for Conway's State Bridge Lodge, Inc.,
d/b/a State Bridge Lodge, as presented.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Wolcott Yacht Club
Brian Treu stated this matter has been withdrawn.
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and
reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Other - ECO Bus System Parking
Bryan Treu stated Eagle County has asked the Town of Avon to allow parking spaces for 10
buses. The Town of Avon replied with an Agreement that allows for parking often buses at a cost of
$100 per month per bus, plus fuel at cost with may have ten cents per gallon added on. Repair and
maintenance of $80.00 per man hour. Mr. Treu asked the Board to authorize the Chairman to execute
the lease.
5
06-24-2003
Commissioner Stone inquired as to whether the Board of County Commissioners was the proper
authority to hear this request.
Mr. Treu stated the ECD Board has previously approved this agreement and have asked this
Board to approve the Agreement.
Chairman Gallagher asked that the matter be brought to the ECD Board.
Abatements
Mark Chapin, Deputy Assessor, and Jonathon Harrison, Appraiser Coordinator, presented
petitions for abatement as follows:
Petitioner: Schedule No.: Property:
Group 1: Granted
Smith Bridge Partners, LLC R009280 166 Forest Road, Vail
J. Robert and Michelle S. New R030578 197 Park Streets, Gypsum
Highland Business Center, LLC R047102 710 Lindbergh Dr., Gypsum
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the petition for abatement, schedule number R009280,
Smith Bridge Partners LLC, as recommended by the Assessor.
Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. Dfthe two Commissioners voting the vote was
declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present at this time.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve a petition for abatement for schedule number R030578, J
Robert and Michelle S. New, as recommended by the Assessor.
Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two Commissioners voting, the vote was
declared unanimous.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve a petition for abatement for schedule number R0471 02,
Highland Business Center LLC as recommended by the Assessor.
Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Group 2: Denied
Robert Gouterman R043328 110E Charolais Circle. Edwards
Mark K. Johnson R009885 First Westwind Unit 403, Vail
Gypsum Creek Ranch R053858 Possessory Interest Grazing Lease
Peter and Suzie Frenchman R045544 000511 Settlers Loop, Edwards
Robert Gouterman, owner of the first property, schedule R043328, was present. He stated that
when he purchased the house the purchase price was consistent with a fair marker appraisal value. The
Assessor's valuation was significantly higher however. He stated that when he received the Assessor's
list he identified five comparable properties and then used the most recent assessment of his property.
He stated that the mean sale price of comparable properties was significantly less than that set for his
property by the Assessor.
John Harrison stated that the sales prices used to compare were based on the time frame dictated
by Statute, and based on cost per square foot. He stated that a measurement of the property is slightly
different than previously indicated. The actual assessment was reduced based on this information. He
stated that the five comparable properties were selected based on impact from 1-70 and the views
available. He clarified that the comparable properties used by the owner were different from those used
by the Assessor. He also stated that Statute requires that values from 2 years prior be used when
calculating values on properties.
Commissioner Stone asked the owner to clarify the reasons for choosing the comparable
properties.
Mr. Gouterman stated that he chose properties with similar construction, number of bathrooms
and approximate size.
6
06-24-2003
Commissioner Stone stated that the only point of disagreement is which homes should be used
for comparable sales.
Chairman Gallagher stated that the procedure used by the Assessor's office could not be faulted.
Mr. Gouterman submitted that the criteria for comparison that he had used was closer.
Mr. Harrison stated that the difference was around 100 square feet. He also stated that this
change would not have changed the comparable property selection.
Commissioner Stone moved to deny schedule R043328 but to approve the Assessor's
recommendation to abate $1200.00 based on a miss-calculation ofthe square footage of the property.
Commissioner Marconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved to deny the petition for abatement for Mark K. Johnson, schedule
number R009885, as recommended by the Assessor.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Terry Quinn was present on Ned Goldsmith's behalf. He stated that Mr. Goldsmith wanted to
say his piece to the Commissioners. He stated that he reviewed the Statute with the owner and that the
County had the right to impose this fee. The owner had expressed that this was one more nail in the
coffin of agricultural land in Eagle County. Mr. Quinn represented that Mr. Goldsmith would be pushed
one step further towards the developers.
Commissioner Stone stated that the Commissioners do not have the power to decide who to
charge possessory interest to. He feels that the Commissioners must be consistent. He clarified that it is
a position of requirement. He told Mr. Quinn that the largest payer of possessory interest is Vail
Resorts. He stated that if they did not collect the fees from Mr. Goldsmith, Vail Resorts could expect
the same consideration. This rule is part of State Statute and the best recourse would be to approach
change at the state level.
Chairman Gallagher added that the reason Mr. Goldsmith's assessment is so small is that the use
is agricultural.
Commissioner Stone moved to deny schedule number R053858 Gypsum Creek Ranch, as
recommended by the Assessor.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Peter D. Frenchman, owner of scheduled property R045544 was present. He wanted to speak: to
the Commissioners to establish the facts that he feels are not correct. He used the same comparables
that the Assessor chose. He stated that in relation to market value, they purchased the lot for $225,000
from the developer. He stated that the developer was giving credits at time of closing as a standard
practice. Because ofthis the subject property is valued $20,000 too high.
Commissioner Stone asked whether the discount was related to a golf membership.
Mr. Frenchman stated that it was not.
Commissioner Stone stated that the Assessors Office uses the real property transfer declaration,
the TD 1000.
Mr. Frenchman stated that he had paid $225,000 to the developer. He stated that the Market
value on that day was the same. He clarified that the statement of settlement showed that he paid
$245,000, but that was not what he paid.
Commissioner Stone spoke to the difficulty in this type of situation for owners who had received
discounts for club memberships as well.
Mr. French also stated that the purchase price also included an option at a country club
membership.
Commissioner Stone stated that the Assessor's Office must base their information on Property
Transfer Declarations and closing documents.
7
06-24-2003
Mr. French then stated that he purchased the property during the 18 month period. He didn't
understand how the Assessor got to $276,500 for a property tax value. He stated that the two higher lots
on the hill, lot 20 and lot 31 are not in the same category. They were originally priced much higher than
his lot. He stated that he believes the lot should be valued at $225,000. He believes that the higher
priced lots are 1 acre as opposed to % acres - which is the size of his lot. The other differences he
highlighted were orientation and access. He stated that the Gore Range views are what the developer
had sold, and his lot did not have this view.
Jon Harrison responded that the subject property has a good building site. The property was
purchased for $245,000. Comparable sales used are between 1-1-1999 and 6-30-2000. He believes that
the assigned value for the property is fair and equitable based on comparable sales. There is a location
adjustment of $80,000 which gives a discount of 20%. A range of sales is typically used to determine
the sales price according to Mr. Harrison.
Commissioner Stone asked that the Assessor's Office consider an adjustment for the view
situation. He agreed with the applicant about this point. He inquired of the applicant whether he was
satisfied that the views were taken into account.
Mr. Frenchman stated that he felt views were so significant in this case, and that he had been
trying to sell this property almost since they bought it. He has been trying to sell the lot for less than
$200,000. He feels it is out of control.
Commissioner Menconi asked how the applicant was determining his sale price.
Mr. Frenchman stated that it is on the market for $199,000 because they couldn't afford to take
more of a loss.
Mr. Chapin stated that the Assessor's Office uses the recorded sale price. This price is used to
time adjust property values.
Commissioner Menconi asked about several other lots.
Mr. Chapin did not have the numbers available.
Commissioner Menconi asked for clarification about the calculation of the assessed value.
He wondered ifthe comparison was limited to two lots, 30 and 28 what would the assessed value be.
Mr. Chapin stated that he could look at the numbers, but was not personally familiar with the
property. The appraiser who valued the property used comparable sales for the period in question.
He stated that they had taken into account typical sales and adjusted for view.
Commissioner Menconi believed that there was enough information to support Mr. Frenchman's
request for reduction of the value of the lot.
Mr. Harrison stated that the appraiser who had valued this property handles Berry Creek,
Homestead and Cordillera and is very familiar with the view situations and topography problems
associated with the lot.
Commissioner Menconi stated that at the time of this purchased, June of2000, what this property
was assessed at.
Mr. Harrison stated that the value in 2000 would have been based on sales from 1997 and 1998.
He stated that a large portion of the Cordillera lots sold between 1999 and 2000.
Mr. Chapin agreed with Mr. Frenchman that he had negotiated his purchase as all owners do. He
stated that the value does not always match the purchase price. For this reason, comparable sales are
used in determining the value of a property.
Commissioner Menconi stated that appraisals are subject to a great deal of relativeness. He is
probing because there isn't a science to it, there is an art.
Mr. Chapin stated that the sales for 18 months prior had to be considered. The Assessor's Office
is not empowered to make changes to values based on current prices.
Commissioner Menconi stated that there might be the appearance of gouging.
Mr. Frenchman stated that he is a CPA by trade. He didn't understand the math used.
Mr. Harrison stated that the sales listed on the valuation were not all sales used for the
calculation. There were more than 20 lots used.
8
06-24-2003
Mr. Chapin stated that sales today will reflect the values in 2005. He took extreme exception to
the gouging comment from Commissioner Menconi.
Commissioner Menconi asked the Assessor's Office to put themselves in the owner's shoes. The
owner must feel that the owner is receiving a fair and balanced opinion to his objections.
Commissioner Stone complimented the Assessor's Office, and stated that he has knowledge of a
property receiving additional scrutiny. He inquired whether they had done so in this case.
Mr. Harrison stated that he reviewed the recommendation and felt it was credible. When he
reviewed the comparable properties the assessed value seems to be medium. He referred to an appraisal
4-20-2000 by Kurt Lem, Ebert Appraisal.
Commissioner Stone stated that the Board does try to make sure all of their questions had been
answered. He is fairly well satisfied that the Assessor's Office had gone through the proper paces.
Chairman Gallagher wondered whether Mr. Frenchman might be able to file a corrected property
declaration to reflect the actual purchase price of his property.
Mr. Chapin stated that the warranty deed and the property declaration would have to be
amended.
Mr. Frenchman wondered why he had not seen the properties that were used for comparison.
Chairman Gallagher asked the Assessor's Office to review the file again and provide all
information to the applicant regarding the valuation.
Mr. Treu stated that this petition must be ruled on within 6 months, and that means July 21,
The Board concurred to continue this matter to July 1,2003.
Group 3: Denied
London Enterprises, LLC
William A. McCoy Trustee of the
Wild Bill McCoy Living Trust
Legacy Co. LP
Richard V. and Patricia A. Allen
Alan J. Margols
Casper and Irene Lazzara
Hana International Corporation
Jeremy T. Smith
Richard J. Howe
Kathryn F. Hubbard
Kenneth E. and Nancy A. Deline
B&J Holding Co., Inc.
Bernard and Suzanne Scarf
Geoffrey Grant
Charles W.McCall
505 Hamilton Avenue Partners, LP
Craig S. & Bonnie S. McGinnis
Nancy B. Starnes
Michael S. Rosen & Marilyn S. Ro
Steven M. Odre
Hemsley Overseas Corp. BVI
Gomen Texas Corp.
David M. and Virginia A. Borel Rev. Trust
Rodney A. McLauchlan Colo.
Qualified Personal Residence Trust
John C. Tolleson
Socca Associated Corp.
2003.
R043047
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-OOl
R043048
R043 049
R043050
R043052
R043054
R043055
R043057
R043058
R043059
R043060
R043061
R043062
R043063
R043064
R043065
R043066
R043067
R043068
R043070
R043071
R043073
R043074
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-002
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-101
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-1 02
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-1 04
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-1 06
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-107
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-201
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-202
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-203
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-204
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-301
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-302
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-303
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-304
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-305
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-306
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-401
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-402
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-404
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-405
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-501
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-502
R043075
R043077
R043078
9
06-24-2003
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-503
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-505
McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-601
Wartsila, Ltd. R043079 McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-602
Anne Marie Frigon Revocable Trust R043083 McCoy Peak Lodge Unit R-702
Malcolm Smith and John Lister, Rocky Mountain Property Tax Consultants, were present
representing the owners. Mr. Smith requested to make one statement to represent all properties. He felt
that the denial to the abatement requests seemed to be standard and not individual. He stated that nothing
was mentioned about six properties that sold close to the appraisal period. He also added that personal
property or furniture packages should affect valuation. He highlighted several letters that the
Commissioners had in their packets. He felt that the Assessor did not address the issues that were
submitted.
Mr. Harrison responded that in summary the values for these properties were based on six sales
listed on the sheet the Commissioners had in their packages. Each sale included personal property
declarations by the new owners. The personal property that was represented was subtracted from the
values.
Mr. Smith asked for a copy of this document for review. He had not received a copy of this
information prior to the meeting.
Mr. Harrison stated that the TD 1000 although typically confidential would be available for
review, based on approval ofthe owners of this property.
John Lister spoke about the adjustments of the TD 1000's. He felt that the furniture packages
ranged from $100,000 to $900,000. He stated that the buyers may not have been aware of what they
were buying.
Mr. Harrison read from a sheet given to the Board. The value ofthe furniture is based on the
value the purchaser gives it. For the most part the value given by the purchase is assumed to be fact.
The values ranged from $10,000 to $500,000.
Chairman Gallagher stated that taxation and valuation is one of the least attractive parts of
government. He feels that the Assessor's Office does not have a choice as to the statements people
make when representing personal property. He asked if there was another basis for the request for
abatement.
Mr. Lister requested that the request be continued. This wouldn't have to be ruled on until July
9, 2003.
Commissioner Stone felt that this was a different situation than the previous owner's objection.
In this case the valuation was based on fact. He stated that it would be annoying to him if a new
approach was presented the next time. He suggested that the Assessor's Office avoid this situation in
the future.
The Board concurred to continue this matter to July 1, 2003.
PDF-00075, Oleson Subdivision
Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number PDF-00075, Oleson Subdivision. She
stated the intent of this Final Plat is to subdivide the Oleson property into three single-family lots: Lot 1,
as proposed, is 2.281 acres in area and encompasses a pre-existing home; Lot 2, as proposed, consists of
1.035 undeveloped acres, and; Lot 3, as proposed, consists of 1.601 undeveloped acres. Lots 2 and 3
will also be developed with single-family residential units. In October 2000, the Board of County
Commissioners granted approval of a combined PUD Sketch and Preliminary Plan, Zone Change, and
Land Use Regulation Amendment for the subject property. The purpose of which was to accommodate
the proposed subdivision before you today.
Staff findings are as follows and as shown on the Staff Report:
Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
(1) This final plat DOES conform to the approved Preliminary Plan for subdivision.
(2) Required improvements ARE adequate. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement
does accompany this Final Plat application.
10
06-24-2003
(3) Areas dedicated for public use and easements ARE acceptable and;
Pursuant to Sections 5-280.B.3.e. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
(1) Consistent with the Master plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle
County Master Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the Master Plan. The Oleson property is identified
on the Future Land Use Map as 'Community Center', which is consistent with the balance of the Eagle-
Vail PUD.
(2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES comply with all
of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including but not
limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4 Site Development
Standards. The proposed construction plans have been reviewed and approved by the Eagle County
Engineering Department, and are in compliance with the current Regulations. A Subdivision
Improvements Agreement accompanies this Final Plat. School Land Dedication is requiredfor the two
new residential lots being created. The required amount of land dedication is calculated pursuant to the
followingformula (2 Units x 0.0151 = .03 acres). In this instancefees-in-lieu of land dedication will be
required prior to recordation of the Final Plat. Also, prior to building permit issuance on each of the
two newly created residential lots, Road Impact Fees will be collected.
(3) Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to
avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, require
duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
This subdivision is an "infill" development, all utilities and roads serving the subject site already exist.
a. Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the
utility's service plan. There is no proposed road extension necessitated by this subdivision, as all
improvements have been established as part of the Eagle-Vail PUD; the associated Subdivision
Improvements Agreement is for on-site improvements only.
b. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines ARE sized to serve the planned ultimate
population of the service area to avoid future land disruption, which would occur if under-sized lines
had to be upgraded.
c. Coordinate Utility Extensions. Utility extensions shall only be allowed when the
entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service
into an otherwise un-served area. All utilities necessary to service the subject property are present and
available for development of the two new home sites.
d. Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for
development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural, or human-made hazards
that may affect the potential development of the property, as well as existing and probable future public
improvements to the area. As required by the approved Preliminary Plan, the following plat note which
addresses geologic conditions of the future homesites, has been incorporated into the Final Plat: "A
slope stability analysis shall be included in the soils and foundation investigation for any permanent cut
and fill greater than five (5) feet in height prior to the approval of any building permit". No other
natural or man-made hazards have been identified on the subject site.
e. Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision IS compatible with
the character of existing land uses in the area and DOES NOT adversely affect the future development
of the surrounding area. The majority of homes in the area adjacent to, or in close proximity to the
subject property, consist of a mixture of condominiums, duplexes, and single-family homes. As was
determined when the zone change was granted, the proposed use is consistent with existing development
in the Eagle- Vail vicinity.
Rick Pylman, Jamar & Associates, representing the applicant, was present. He stated that this
property was originally owned by the Eagle Vail Metropolitan District.
Commissioner Menconi asked if the Eagle Vail Metro District had an opinion on this
subdivision.
11
06-24-2003
Mr. Pylman stated that the property had come through the County previously with higher
densities. The Metro Board was in approval of a 3 lot subdivision. He stated that the grade is relatively
flat, and then blends into a 7-8 % grade.
Chairman Gallagher asked for Public Comment. There was none.
Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. PDF-00075, Oleson Subdivision,
incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign both the Plat and Subdivision
Improvements Agreement. The following conditions shall apply:
1. Prior to recording the Final Plat, fees-in-lieu of School Land Dedication pursuant to Section 4-
700 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations must be submitted.
2. Pursuant to Section 4-710 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, at the time of building
permit issuance on both of the two newly created lots, Road Impact Fees will be collected for each new
residence.
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
July 1, 2003.
,-
12
06-24-2003