HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/09/03
PUBLIC HEARING
SEPTEMBER 9,2003
Present:
Am Menconi
Tom Stone
Diane Mauriello
Jack Ingstad
Teak Simonton
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Attorney
County Administrator
Clerk to the Board
Absent:
Michael Gallagher
Chairman
This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
Executive Session
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board adjourn into an Executive Session for the pwpose of
receiving legal advice concerning continued ownership of shares in the Eagle Park Reservoir Company, for
the pwpose of receiving legal advice concerning Red Table Acres PID and to discuss negotiations with the
airlines, to receive legal advice concerning personnel matters and pending litigation between Eagle Valley
Village, LLC and Eagle County all of which are appropriate topics pursuant to CRS. 24-6-402(4)(b)(Q and
(e).
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher was not present at this meeting.
Commissioner Menconi Moved the Board adjourn from Executive Session and reconvene into the
regular meeting.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Pro tem Stone stated the first matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as
follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for the week of September 8, 2003, subject to review by
County Administrator
B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of August
19,2003
C) Nine County Regional Agreement for Child Welfare Core Substance Abuse services
D) Nine County Regional Agreement for Child Welfare Core Mental Health Services
E) Agreement between Eagle County and Eagle River Youth Coalition
F) Agreement between Eagle County and Valley Partnership for Drug Prevention
G) Agreement between Eagle County and Elaine Harvey
H) Agreement between Eagle County and Tina Z. Fleishman
I) Agreement between Eagle County and Glenwood Springs Community Center
J) Resolution 2003-105, Final Release of Collateral and termination of the warranty
period for Bachelor Gulch Village, Filings 2 & 3
K) Resolution 2003-106 Calling for an election on November 4,2003 to authorize a mill
levy increase for Basalt Regional Library District, Operations and Maintenance, for a proposed new
Library Facility, and a proposed expansion to the existing Library building, setting the ballot titles and
1
September 9,2003
ballot questions for the election, providing for other matters previously taken thereto, and providing the
effective date of this Resolution
L) Resolution 2003-107 Authorizing any of the Eagle County Commissioners to execute
all documents necessary to effectuate the Trust Agreement establishing the Alexander J. Allen
Education Fund
M) Resolution 2003-108 for Release of Assignment of Certificate for Road Cut Permit
No. 3031 for New Pipeline Installations, Inc., dba Continental West Constructors, Inc.
N) Resolution 2003-109, final Release of Collateral and termination of the warranty
period for Cordillera Mountain Tract, Filing 34
0) Holy Cross Energy design and cost estimate for providing electric service to the Eagle
Airport Lighting Equipment Building
P) Animal Control Veterinary Contract with David Guinnee, DVM
Q) Town of Minturn Animal Control Contract.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked the Attorney's Office ifthere were any changes to the Consent
Agenda.
Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated there are no changes or comments.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Plat & Resolution Signing
Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's
consideration:
5MB--00320, Highland Meadows Subdivision, Lot 4, He stated this was a Minor Type
B Subdivision, the purpose of which is to create two 12 duplex lots and an access easement. Staff
findings are as follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Community
Development Director has made the following findings:
a. The Amended Final Plat DOES NOT adversely affect adjacent property owners.
b. The Amended Final Plat IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat.
c. The Amended Final Plat DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable
regulations, policies and guidelines.
d. An Improvements Agreement IS NOT applicable.
e. This amendment IS NOT an alteration of a restrictive plat note.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve 5MB - 0320, Highland Meadows Subdivision,
Lot 4.
Chairman Pro Tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Presentation, United Way of Eagle River Valley
Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health & Human Services, stated the next matter on the agenda
was presentation of the United Way of Eagle River Valley funding for the Eagle County Volunteer
Center and Early Childhood Coaching and Consultation Program.
Tim Cochrane and Tom Edwards, representing the United Way, were present for the hearing.
Mr. Cochrane highlighted the commitment and contributions the organization makes to our
community. He submitted a letter for the record. He stated the 2004 campaign is beginning and he
encouraged employers to allow employees to participate.
Tom Edwards presented the first check to Jackie Benson for the Eagle County Volunteer Center.
2
September 9, 2003
Ms. Benson stated the Eagle County Volunteer Center is the Eagle County version of what
RSVP has been doing the past few years. She stated they include volunteers from all ages.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated they have expanded the program from the senior program.
Ms. Benson stated that was correct.
Mr. Edwards presented the second check to Kathleen Forinash for the Early Childhood Coaching
and Consultation Program.
Ms. Forinash highlighted the programs goals and achievements. She stated this program works
with licensed childcare centers to make sure that children have the very best opportunity for social and
emotional growth.
Commissioner Stone asked Mr. Cochrane about administrative costs.
Mr. Cochrane stated that none of the contributions were used for administration. Well over 90 %
is given back to the community. The only administrative costs are postage and contributions to the
national United Way organization.
Commissioner Menconi thanked Mr. Cochrane for all the work he does for our community.
Resolution. Obligation Bonds, Red Table Acres PID
Diane Mauriello presented Resolution 2003- ???, ordering the question of issuance of general
obligation bonds and the levy of property taxes to pay such bonds be submitted for the Red Table Acres
Public Improvement District, Eagle County, Colorado, at an election on November 4, 2003, and setting
the ballot title and ballot question for the Election.
Ms. Mauriello stated when the Board passed a resolution allowing this organization to move
forward, there was testimony concerning the approximate amount of debt, which was reported to be
around $600,000.00. She stated she received a telephone call indicating there was a question concerning
how much the debt question could be written for compared to the valuation of the subdivision. It is her
understanding that Mr. Peltz was comfortable with writing the question up to $450,000.00, which then
leaves a deficit. She asked if the Board was comfortable moving forward with a debt question
recognizing that the amount of the work could be up to $650,000.00.
Bob Schultz, Red Table Acres, stated they submitted two letters into the record, one dated
September 2, 2003, addressing the reasonable requirements of getting a district started without having
the total of funds to complete the project. He stated they would not ask the Board to approve the
issuance of any bonds before they have satisfied that the funds are in place to complete the project. He
stated they are hearing that this will cost significantly less than the proposal. The Homeowners
Association has agreed to take on the cost of the engineering so the firm bids can be obtained. Once
received, the homeowners will be approached to come up with the additional funds that are not covered
by the bonds. They will them come back to the Board for the issuance of the bonds. He stated they will
send a letter to all homeowners indicating the County will not be responsible for completing this project.
He stated they would like to move forward.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked for public comment. There was none.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked if the proposed letters submitted to the Board had been sent to the
homeowners.
Mr. Schultz answered no.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked ifthe homeowners had been notified ofthe bond issue and the
amounts needed to complete the project.
Mr. Schultz answered no.
Commissioner Menconi asked how many unit owners there were that would be impacted.
Mr. Schultz stated there are 58 lots.
Commissioner Menconi asked how many people have the opportunity to vote.
Mr. Schultz stated any of the owners or residents, which is approximately 130 people.
Commissioner Menconi asked how many individuals were on the Homeowners Association.
3
September 9, 2003
Mr. Schultz stated there are six on the Board.
Commissioner Menconi asked what the vote was to move forward with the project.
Mr. Schultz stated it was unanimous. He stated they also went to the homeowners concerning a
Public Improvement District and it was pretty much unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi asked about the concerns of those voting against the Public
Improvement District.
Mr. Schultz stated there were two owners who do not believe the system needs fixed.
Commissioner Menconi asked what is wrong with the systems.
Mr. Schultz stated they have no fire protection and the system is falling apart.
Commissioner Menconi asked if the ballot initiative failed, what was plan B.
Mr. Schultz stated they do not have a plan B. He stated they would have to try an assessment
process and it would put the Homeowners Association into the collections business. He stated they
would have to take out a loan as the owners cannot do a flat assessment. He stated they currently
receive $360.00 per year from each homeowner.
Commissioner Menconi asked what those monies went towards.
Mr. Schultz stated the water system, electric bills, repairs, etc.
Commissioner Menconi asked if there was a capital reserve for the water system.
Mr. Schultz answered no which is the reason for starting with this program.
Commissioner Menconi asked how old the system was.
Mr. Schultz stated it was started in 1974.
Commissioner Menconi read the proposed ballot question. He asked if the proposed district falls
short could the ballot language be better clarified.
Ms. Mauriello stated she is concerned that if it is the Board's direction to tinker with the
language they can endeavor to do that, however the deadline for this Board to certify language to the
Clerk & Recorder for placing things on the ballot is tomorrow. She would not be comfortable with
changing the language without running it by Mr. Peltz.
Commissioner Menconi questioned the language in achieving the ability that if this should pass
and the money does not cover the costs, the governing body does not need to go forward.
Ms. Mauriello stated no bonds will be issued until the governing body, the Board, determines
that resources are available to fund the completion of the water system.
Commissioner Menconi stated if the funds were raised, the applicant would come before the
Commissioners to have the bonds released.
Ms. Mauriello stated that was correct.
Commissioner Menconi continued to question the language in the proposed ballot questions.
Mr. Schultz stated he agrees they cannot go forward and have the bonds released until the
additional monies have been raised. Until they have hard bids they will not know the exact amount.
Commissioner Menconi stated he understands that this will not go forward until all the funds
have been raised so he is in favor of approving this resolution and getting it on the ballot.
Commissioner Stone stated he disagrees. He stated Mr. Schultz has related the Homeowners
Association does not want to be in the collections business but they will be one way or another. He
stated the bids they have had coming in are actually higher than anticipated. He asked Rich
Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, how bids have been coming in for dirt work and such.
He asked if their estimates have been accurate, above or below.
Mr. Cunningham stated they have been receiving really good bids lately. He stated the work
they did in Berry Creek last summer were very competitive. He stated currently, they have been finding
that the cost of earth work have been flat.
Commissioner Stone stated the estimated figures for this work were $650,000.00 and Mr.
Schultz is hoping to have it completed for $450,000.00. He asked Mr. Cunningham is that sounded
logical.
4
September 9,2003
Mr. Cunningham stated it seems those two figures are off quite a bit. There should be a
contingency of 5% to 10%.
Commissioner Stone asked ifit came in at $550,000.00 and they have property owners that are
opposed to this, how do they plan to collect.
Mr. Schultz stated they would exercise their rights through the covenants to collect the funds.
He stated they really do not want to be in the collection business.
Commissioner Stone stated he understands the need for a new water system but they are already
on plan B or E. He was surprised to hear the recent news from the applicant's bond counsel. He stated
he is not in favor of proceeding forward. He stated he would make a commitment to help the applicant
find the money somewhere else.
Mr. Schultz stated they did pursue all the options. They need water and fire fighting protection.
He stated they needed the Board's help. He stated the Board has no risk.
Commissioner Stone stated the County does have risk. The applicant could come back and ask
the County for the additional monies if they could not raise the extra funds.
Mr. Schultz stated they would sign a letter that they would not ask the County for help.
Commissioner Stone stated he wanted to know the feelings of the property owners. He stated it
will come in more than the $450,000.00.
Mr. Schultz stated by not allowing them to proceed they would be put in a situation with the
same problem of being short monies and cannot complete the new system.
Commissioner Stone stated it is not the County's fault the applicant did not have all the facts to
present at the previous meeting. He stated the Board asked the question about the bonding issue at that
time and they got a different answer than what is being presented today. He stated the I's have not been
dotted and the T's crossed to get this done. He stated he does not have the confidence right now. He
stated he will live up to his commitment to try and help this organization find the money another way.
Commissioner Menconi apologized for not being able to get this accomplished.
Commissioner Stone stated the only way he would move forward is if the ballot issue were
changed that adds some language which states "for a system that has been estimated to cost $650,000.00
which may require a special assessment up to $200,000.00 that the property owners would have to bear
equally." Then it would a full and honest disclosure of the proposal. The ballot language as it is now
would lead someone to believe this would be accomplished for $450,000.00.
Mr. Schultz stated he would agree to that language ifthat is possible.
Commissioner Stone stated this attempt is not happening.
Commissioner Menconi asked if they could have a brief recess to contact bond counsel.
Commissioner Stone stated he is not willing to move forward. He stated there are more
stumbling blocks that keep coming forward. There is too big of a gap.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Resolution ordering the question of issuance of
general obligation bonds and the levy of property taxes to pay such bonds be submitted for the Red
Table Acres Public Improvement District, Eagle County, Colorado, at an election on November 4, 2003,
and setting the ballot title and ballot question for the Election.
There was no second. The motion died for lack of a second.
The next matter was the Resolution ordering the question of the organization of the Red Table
Acres Public Improvement District, Eagle County, Colorado, be submitted to the electors of the
proposed district at an election on November 4, 2003 and setting the ballot title and ballot question for
the election.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Resolution, ordering the question of the
organization of the Red Table Acres Public Improvement District, Eagle County, Colorado, be
submitted to the electors of the proposed district at an election on November 4,2003 and setting the
ballot title and ballot question for the election.
There was no second. The motion died for lack of a second.
5
September 9, 2003
PR-00022, Berry Creek Recreation Tract C
Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file number PF-00022, Berry Creek Recreation Tract C. He
stated this was a proposal for a multi-purpose pond, located near the west side of Tract C ofthe Berry
Creek / Miller Ranch PUD, to be constructed to provide storm water detention, water supply for
irrigation (including operational storage), recreation and aesthetics. The pond will be lined, and aerated
to prevent winterkill of fish. Recreational aspects of the pond will include a beach and fishing; a bike
path will circumnavigate the pond. He stated the Planning Commission discussed the following:
Location of proposed pond relative to existing borrow site.
Differences between the original site plan and the revised site plan.
Disposition of dirt that had been stored on site.
Whether the concerns of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District have been addressed.
Adequacy of existing restroom facilities.
Clarification of water source - Howard Ditch and run-off.
Safety of the pond for swimming; concern regarding liability.
Whether there would be any lighting for the pond.
Adequacy ofthe spillway to handle lOa-year and 500-year storm events.
Whether landscaping will be provided initially.
The Planning Commission has recommended a revised condition of approval to prohibit
swimming in the pond, and has added recommended conditions regarding [1] the concerns of the Eagle
River Water and Sanitation District, [2] consideration of a VFW memorial, and [3] a landscape plan.
The chronology of the application is as follows and as shown on staff report:
1999 - The Eagle County Recreation Authority (whose interests were later to be transferred to
Eagle County) and the Eagle County School District (RE-50J) entered into a Intergovernmental
Agreement to develop the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch site on a joint basis.
2000 - A PUD Sketch Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
2002 - A Combined PUD Sketch / Preliminary Plan Berry Creek / Miller Ranch was approved
by the Board of County Commissioners in March. The final plat for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch
PUD was approved in May.
2002 - Site Specific Development Plan approved for Phase 1 improvements on Tract C which
included three multi-purpose athletic fields; a passive park area to include a picnic shelter, seating and
playground apparatus; landscaping, including a berm along Miller Ranch Road; and drainage and
detention improvements.
Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows:
Eagle County Engineering Department
The proposed beach implies that people can go swimming in the detention pond. This may be a
problem because the water quality in detention ponds is typically not high enough for swimming. The
water in the detention pond should be tested regularly to ensure that it is safe for people to swim in.
Conceptual drawings were submitted for this review. Final construction drawings are required
before grading permit.
The spillway should be directed to discharge into the twenty foot drainage and utility easement
on the CMC parcel.
Natural Resource Conservation Service (USDA)
No comments.
Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health,
Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECa Trails), Eagle County School District,
Partnership for Education, Colorado Mountain College, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, Berry
Creek Metro District, Colorado Division of Wildlife.
6
September 9,2003
Approval of the Berry Creek Recreation Tract may occur after consideration by the Planning
Commission and the Board that the development is consistent with the PUD Guide, the PUD
Preliminary Plan, the Master Circulation Plan, and the Master Drainage Plan for the PUD.
Consistency with the PUD Guide
The PUD Guide establishes that the purpose for this Tract is to "provide sites for indoor and
outdoor recreation, including active and passive recreation areas, parking facilities, and other
community-oriented facilities." The proposed multi-purpose pond, with its proposed uses of storm water
detention, irrigation, recreation and aesthetics, is permitted by the PUD Guide.
The dimensional limitations of the PUD Guide are applicable only to the proposed irrigation
pump house. Most notably, the proposed pump house is shown on the preliminary site and grading plan
to be outside the required 20 foot setback from perimeter lot lines.
The number and design of on-site parking spaces is to be established through this site specific
development review. Some parking will be required to accommodate users of the pond, although the
number of users at anyone time and the related number of parking spaces is likely to be minimal. The
number of spaces provided in the existing temporary parking area for the recreation fields to the east is
128. No additional parking is required for the pond itself.
Portable toilet facilities are currently provided near the soccer fields further east on this Tract and
should be adequate to also accommodate additional users of the pond.
Proposed uses of the pond include storm water detention and recreation. A feature of the pond is
a beach. Eagle County Engineering has noted that swimming in a detention pond can be problematic
because the water quality is typically not high enough for swimming. As a condition of approval, if
swimming is to be permitted in the pond, the quality of the water should be tested regularly to assure
that it is safe for swimming.
[+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Guide [PUD Guide, Section B.3.]
The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Guide.
Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan
The Preliminary Plan approved for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD contemplates the
development of this Tract as a recreation site. An overall landscape plan for the Berry Creek / Miller
Ranch PUD, which was approved with the PUD Preliminary Plan, includes a streetscape/landscape plan
for the Miller Ranch Road right-of-way. Landscaping detail was shown along that part of Miller Ranch
Road immediately east of its intersection with the Edwards Spur Road, in the vicinity of the Housing
Tract D, and in the vicinity of the Berry Creek Middle School. Irrigation is proposed to be primarily by
use of non-potable water. The overall landscape plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD provided
that landscaping and irrigation of individual sites are to be reviewed during the site specific development
review for each site. No additional landscaping is proposed with the development of the pond. However,
it is expected that the Recreation Tract will continue to be developed in stages. Subsequent site design
for this Recreation Tract should include landscaping for the entire site, including the immediate vicinity
ofthe pond.
[+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.]
The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Preliminary Plan.
Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan
The Master Circulation Plan approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan provides a primary
access point into the Recreation Tract at a location to the east, closer to the recreation fields. This access
point is intended to serve both the Recreation Tract to the south of Miller Ranch Road and the proposed
High School Tract to the north of Miller Ranch Road. Ultimately a single lane round-a-bout is
contemplated to serve both Tracts. The timing for improving the access to include a roundabout, as
contemplated in the Master Circulation Plan, will be examined when subsequent site specific
development reviews occur for the balance of the Recreation Tract and/or for the High School Tract.
It was previously determined that the existing T -intersection where the access to the parking area
for this site enters Miller Ranch Road is sufficient to handle the traffic generated by the temporary uses
7
September 9, 2003
on the Recreation Tract. It is expected that the additional traffic generated by users of the pond will not
exceed the capacity of the existing T-intersection.
The pond is located approximately 500 feet west ofthe existing, temporary parking for the
Recreation Tract. A pedestrian path currently exists along Miller Ranch Road, which will provide
adequate pedestrian access to the pond.
[+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.]
The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Circulation Plan.
Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan
Water will be delivered to the pond from the Howard Ditch during the irrigation season. In the
winter, water may come from the Upper Eagle River Water Authority water system wells or the
Authority's recently constructed raw water system. The outlet point for the proposed pond will be an
existing 20-inch diameter steel culvert underneath the railroad tracts. Culvert improvements will include
extending the culvert 35 feet with a 24-inch diameter concrete pipe and headwall.
Eagle County Engineering notes that the drawings for the pond are conceptual and that final
construction drawings are required before a grading permit may be issued. Engineering further notes that
the spillway should be directed to discharge into the twenty foot drainage and utility easement on the
Colorado Mountain College parcel to the west. As a condition of approval, final construction drawings,
satisfactory to the County Engineer, should be provided prior to issuance of a grading permit and the
beginning of construction of the pond.
[+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.]
The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Drainage Plan.
Commissioner Stone asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment.
Commissioner Stone stated he was missing a list of concerns from the Eagle River Water and
Sanitation District. He asked staff to provide a copy of the concerns. He asked if all the questions were
answered by a letter from the County.
Mr. Cunningham stated Leonard Rice is the engineer for the District.
Commissioner Stone asked if all concerns had been addressed.
Mr. Cunningham stated they have issued approval to relocate the lines and install a raw water
tap. They have asked one final item, which is to receive the specifications for the liner in the pond.
They have responded with four concerns. He stated all of those can be addressed. They are all standard
engineering practices.
Commissioner Menconi stated he has not been in favor of this pond since the beginning because
it is not necessary at the time. It will not be used for storm water detention or irrigation. He stated the
present situation will accommodate any kind of run off or storm water. He stated he does not believe it
is prudent to spend $1.1 million dollars to build something that they are not sure what is going to be
around it. Providing something of esthetic value would be of interest to him. There are other things that
could be beneficial to the community. He stated he does not believe there will be an agreement between
the two Commissioners.
Commissioner Stone stated the issue before the Board is they are wearing two different hats.
Today it is whether the Board will approve or disapprove this application. It is not as an applicant. This
approval should be based on whether or not it meets the Land Use Regulations.
Commissioner Menconi stated he believes a $1.1 million dollar pond is not something he wants
to do.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board table File No. PR-00022, Berry Creek Recreation
Tract C, to September 16,2003.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Local Resident Housing Regulations
Rebecca Leonard, Senior Planner, presented the Local Resident Housing Regulations.
8
September 9,2003
CHPT II, ART.4, SEC. 4-720
Inclusionary Housing:
Ms. Leonard stated the Board directed staff to lower the percentages FROM 20%-30% TO 10%
based on the current level of service.
The Board directed staff to remove Accessory Dwelling Units & Rental Units from the list of
exemptions.
Based on feedback from the development community, staff added units deed restricted to Local
Residents (but not necessarily capped for appreciation) to the list of exemptions.
Staff reduced the applicability threshold FROM a subdivision of 5 or more residential units TO
a subdivision of 4 or more residential units based on the threshold for a major subdivision.
CHPT II, ART.4, SEe. 4-730
Nonresidential Linkage:
The BoCC directed staff to lower the percentages FROM 20%-30% TO 10% based on the
current level of service.
The BoCC directed staff to remove the Rental Units from the list of exemptions.
CHPT II, ART.4, SEC. 4-740:
Residential Linkage:
The BoCC directed staffto lower the percentages FROM 20%-30% TO 10% based on the
current level of service.
The BoCC directed staff to remove Accessory Dwelling Units & Rental Units from the list of
exemptions.
Staff added units deed restricted to Local Residents (but not necessarily capped for appreciation)
to the list of exemptions.
Percentages:
Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission
First Review:
- 20% On-site
- 25% Off-site
- 30% Payment in Lieu
Second Review:
- 20% On-site
- 25% Off-site
- 30% Payment in Lieu
Percentages:
Eagle County Planning Commission
First Review:
Inclusionary Residential Linkage Non-Residential
Linkaae
15% On-Site 15% On-Site 15% On-Site
~5% Off-Site 25% Off-Site 20% Off-Site
30% Payment in Lieu 30% Payment in Lieu ~5% Payment in Lieu
Second review.
Inclusionary Residential Linkage Non-Residential
Linkaae
10% On-Site 10% On-Site 10% On-Site
15% Off-Site 15% Off-Site 15% Off-Site
~O% Payment in Lieu ~O% Payment in Lieu 20% Payment in Lieu
9
September 9,2003
10% for On-Site or Off-Site in the Same or Nearest Community Center, 15% for some other community
center. ALL Off-Site development must occur in the Same or Nearest Community Center except Non-
Residential Linkage.
Local Resident Housing Requirements
Organization:
The BoCC directed staff to make the document similar to other parts of the Eagle County Land
Use Regulations.
Instead of an appendix to Chapter II, staff changed the proposed Local Resident Housing
Requirements to its own chapter: Chapter VII. This is similar to the 1041 regulations, building
resolution, etc.
Staff put Definitions in the front of the document.
"Mays" became "Shalls" and used more legislative language throughout.
Staff changed the "Parts" within the Requirements to "Articles" similar to Chapter II.
Reorganized the document so that the developer's requirements are immediately after the
definitions.
Article I:
Background and Purpose
The BoCC directed staff to simplify this section
The detailed description of the two programs (Inclusionary Housing and Employee/Housing
Linkage) was moved to the very beginning of the new Article III: Development of Local Resident
Housing Units where they can be quickly located by developers.
The section stating goals and policies was removed for future inclusion in the Housing
Comprehensive Plan.
The section titled "Enforceability" was moved to the end of the document.
Article II:
Definitions
The BoCC directed staff to review the definitions and ensure that they did not have regulatory
language in them.
The BoCC directed staff to cross reference the definitions with the other chapters in the Land
Use Regulations.
Staff added the definition for "Very Low Income" in the event that a developer chooses to
develop Very Low Income Units instead of Low or Moderate Units as required.
Article III:
Development ofLRHUs
Detailed description of the two programs was moved to this article.
The section titled, "Preference for Local Resident Housing Location" was removed as the BoCC
directed staffto remove the incentive for on-site and off-site development of units.
The section titled, "Location of Local Resident Housing Units" was moved to the beginning of
Article III and renamed, "Site Selection of Local Resident Housing Units".
"Site Selection of Local Resident Housing Units" lists the criteria for choosing a site including
the recommendation ofthe planning commissions that it be within the same or nearest community
center.
Article III:
Development ofLRHUs
Based on feedback from the development community, payment in Lieu was made completely
discretionary to the developers.
The "Local Resident Housing Schedule" was replaced with a section titled, "Collateralization of
the Local Resident Housing Units". This section states that for the release of any CO, collateral for the
LRHUs must be provided. Collateral may be required sooner through a Subdivision Agreement or other
appropriate means.
10
September 9,2003
The section titled, "Maximum Purchase Price for the Initial Sales ofLRHUs" replaced the
section titled, "Enforcement of the Maximum Purchase Price". The BoCC requested that a change in
Purchase Price does not require a replat. Staff added the appropriate language.
Article III:
Development ofLRHUs
The sections titled, "Minimum Square Footage" and "Unit Quality" were combined.
Based on staff recommendation, language was added that required Local Resident Housing Units
be built to the National Affordable Housing Network's (NAHN's) Cold Climate Standards.
Article III:
Development ofLRHUs
Based on staff recommendation, the Minimum Square Footage requirement was changed. First,
one set of standards apply to both Low and Moderate Housing Units. Second, the minimum square
footage was increased to better reflect the trends in for-sale affordable product.
Article III:
Development ofLRHUs
The sections titled, "Local Resident Housing Plan" and "Home Owners Association
Requirements" were combined.
The section titled, "Deed Restrictions" was enhanced to be similar to that ofthe Miller Ranch
Neighborhood.
Article III:
Development ofLRHUs
A section titled, "Alternative Means of Compliance" was added that replaced the section titled,
"Transfer of Development Credits". The new section refers to the options of building units on site or off
site, payment in lieu, deeding land to the county, transfer of development credit, and banking of
development credit.
Based on recommendation from the RFRPC, banked units will have a three year time limitation
for use in meeting a Local Resident Housing Requirement.
Based on recommendation from the RFRPC, units that are built at the time of these regulations
cannot be banked for future requirements.
Language was added that refers to potential incentives as outlined in the New Appendix F.
Article IV:
Eligibility and Occupancy
Sections titled, "Eligibility and Income Limits" and "Application and Certification" were
combined and simplified.
Per staff s recommendation, "Qualified Employee" requirements have changed to reduce the
geographic limit for qualifying to within 3 miles instead of within 5 miles of the county boundary.
Article V:
SalelPurchase Price
The sections titled, "Deed Restriction" and "Improvements" were moved to other areas of the
Requirements.
A section titled, "Maximum Resale Price" was added which replicates the formula used to
calculate the resale price of Miller Ranch units.
The sections titled, "Resale of a Local Resident Housing Unit" and "Sales Fees" were simplified
and material more appropriate to a department's Standard Operating Procedures was eliminated.
The selection and lottery process were clarified in the sections titled, "Selection Criteria" and
"Lottery Process".
Article VIII:
Provisions for Amendments
Based on staff recommendations "Wage Increases" and "Allowance for Property Taxes" were
added to the list of potential annual updates.
11
September 9,2003
The language about policy change procedures was removed since the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations already have procedures laid out for amendments.
Appendix A:
Maximum Purchase Price
The table titled, "2003 Income Range and Maximum Purchase Prices" was updated.
This update reflected updated (2003) Area Median Income figures as released by HUD.
This update also reflected an adjusted interest rate of 6% to better reflect the conditions in early
2003.
Based on feedback from the development community, household size per unit was adjusted to be
aligned with HUD.
Other changes were made simply to clarify the table.
Appendix B:
Calculation of Resale Price
This appendix was redeveloped to parallel the formula used for the Miller Ranch Units.
The language was simplified and clarified.
Appreciation cap set based on wage increases, but confined between 3% and 6% per year.
The $3,000 yearly cap on permitted capital improvements based on 2003 constant dollars to
account for the reduced value of money over time.
Appendix C:
Calculation of Payment in Lieu
This appendix was updated to clarify and simplify.
The 2003 Area Median Income figures were used as posted by HUD.
The average household size of 1.5 people/bedroom was used.
The interest rate was updated to 6%.
The Minimum Square Footage per Unit was updated based on information on similar for-sale
affordable products.
The Median Price Per Square Foot was updated using 2002 sales figures from the Assessor.
Appendix D:
Employment Generation
This appendix was updated to clarify and simplify.
The Residential Employment Generation table was clarified.
Appendix E:
Income Limits & HUD AMI
This appendix was updated to clarify and simplify.
The 2003 figures were used in place of the 2002 figures.
Appendix F:
Potential Incentives
This appendix was added as recommended by both the BoCC and staff.
The potential incentives for those developers offering over and beyond the required Local
Resident Housing Requirements are listed:
Density Bonus
Site Design Flexibility
Priority Permitting
Public Funding Assistance
Example #1 :
Residential Development
A residential development of: 30 dwelling units of approximately 2500sf each and 10 dwelling
units of approximately 4500sf.
Inclusionary Housing = 4 Mod. Income Units
Residential Linkage = .32 Low Income Units
12
September 9, 2003
PIL wi New Unit Sizes = $288,806
PIL wi Old Unit Sizes = $181,891
Example #2:
Golf Course Development
A golf course development of: 80 dwelling units of approximately 5500 square feet each, 20
dwelling units of approximately 7500 square feet, 15,000sf ofbarlrestaurant, 30,000sf of pro shop,
15,000sf of maintenance facility, and 10,000 office.
Inclusionary Housing = 10 Mod. Income Units
Residential Linkage = 1.36 Low Income Units
Non-Residential Linkage = 12.78 Low Income Units
PIL wi New Unit Sizes = $2,173,195
PIL wi Old Unit Sizes = $1,123,551
Example #3:
Mixed Use Development
A mixed use development of: 10,000sfbarlrestaurant, 20,000sf of commercial/retail, 20,000sf of
office, 15 dwelling units of approximately 1500sf each, and 5 dwelling units of approximately 3000sf
each.
Inclusionary Housing = 2 Mod. Income Units
Residential Linkage = .13 Low Income Units
Non-Residential Linkage = 9.64 Low Income Units
PIL wi New Unit Sizes = $1,189,514
PIL wi Old Unit Sizes = $572,619
Conclusion:
Questions Remaining
Proposed regulations will likely require additional resources: another staff member OR a
contract with an outside organization?
Master deed restriction: one that everyone uses (Miller Ranch deed restriction as the prototype)
OR allow the developers to develop their own?
Allow the Y2% up-front fee to the county for marketing the LRHUs to be waived in the case of a
distressed sale (death, illness, etc.)?
Stay with the 10% requirement for on-site, off-site and payment in lieu?
Keep the newly proposed minimum square footage for units?
Richard DeClark, area resident, stated he has not studied this matter extensively. He stated the
entire proposal seems to fly in the face of economic development. If you are trying to encourage
economic development in the County this does not do it. He stated this is unfair tax on the development
community. He stated if he wanted to move his business to this County why should he have to pay
$10.00 to $12.00 per square foot when he is bringing employees and economic prosperity to the County.
It seems unfair that he would have to pay when he pays his employees anyway. He stated this does not
seem to work. This is a benefit to the business community. He stated he does not know if it is needed
now. It seems there are probably 3,000 or 4,000 affordable units coming out of the ground now. He
would like to see what the absorption rate is on those. He would like to read the studies. He stated the
Eagle County Schools had a decrease last year. This year they did not budget any new teachers. It may
have been needed four years ago or four years from now. They need to weigh this in their minds.
Gerry Flynn, area resident, stated he has lived in Eagle County for the past 22 years and has been
involved in affordable housing for the past 14 years. He handed the Board his comments and reviewed
those as follows:.
Eagle
County
[1
13
September 9,2003
Proposed Local Resident
Housing Regs
Income and Price
Limits
Incomes Maximum Purchase Price
UnitTvpe HH Used 60% AMI 80%AMI 100%AMI 120%AMI 60% AMI 80%AMI 100%AMI 120%AMI
Size B --'l
Studio 1 HUD $ $ $ $ $ $
31,440 38,100 52,400 62,880 103,000 125,000 $172,000 $206,000
1 BR 1 EC $ $ $ $ $ $
31 ,440 38,100 52,400 62,880 103,000 125,000 $172,000 $206,000
1.5 HUD $ $ $ $ $ $
33,690 40,800 56,150 67,380 111,000 134,000 $184,000 $221,000
2 BR 2 EC $ $ $ $ $ $
35,940 43,500 59,900 71,880 117,000 142,000 $195,000 $234,000
3 HUD $ $ $ $ $ $
40,440 48,950 67,400 80,880 132,000 160,000 $220,000 $264,000
3BR 3 EC $ $ $ $ $ $
40,440 48,950 67,400 80,880 132,000 160,000 $220,000 $264,000
4.5 HUD $ $ $ $ $ $
46,740 56,575 77 ,900 93,480 153,000 185,000 $255,000 $306,000
HUD HUD guidelines by Unit Type (BLUE)
EC Eagle County guidelines by (RED)
Unit Type
HUD Maximum Purchase Price calculated on consistent basis with Eagle County
calcs
Conclusions
1) Eagle County using lower median income / lower household size than HUD
2) Price targets impossible to achieve (NOT REALISTIC)
3) Price targets inflated by low interest rates
Return to historical rates will lower price targets dramatically (more unrealistic)
EAGLE COUNTY
Local Resident Housina Requirements
Prepared bv Gerry Flvnn
GF Qualifications
Developed over 1,300 affordable units in EC ( Corum,Wintergreen)
Home to over 4,000 eagle County residents
Experience with 60% / 80% HUD income limitations
14
September 9,2003
Involved in Management of over 1,100 rental units
Experience with Deed Restrictions with appreciation caps
Comments
Believe in Incentives vs Requirements
"Carrot" vs "Stick" to achieve desired results
Create incentives for affordable units
Density concessions
Reduced development fees
Federal, state, local assistance
County government should not be as involved in Housing decisions
Deed restrictions extremely cumbersome and unnecessary
Market appreciation has been moderate for affordable units
Reality vs Perception - Buyers avoid deed restrictions
Annual requirements must be maintained
Local resident forced to sell home for bettering economic situation
???
If 80% family earns 100% median, must sell
Extremely regressive policy
See section 3-190.2 and section 4-100
Exemptions do not work
100% affordable at 80% AMFI difficult to achieve
Impossible to achieve at 8% normalized interest rates
Deed restrictions unduly depress values (perception)
Difficult to qualify perspective buyers
Qualification for Studio, 1 BR possible
Qualification for 2BR difficult
Qualification for 3BR impossible
See household income limits
Projects like Brett Ranch no longer possible
Increasing interest rates will exacerbate problem
Payments in lieu get larger
Requirements will inadvertently discourage all low-end / mid-priced development
See example attached for Inclusionary Zoning Requirements
Indirectly encourages more high end development
No incentive to Build vs Pay
Linkaae Reauirements
5,000 sq ft office requires $80,000 PIL
Equivalent to $16 per sf, or 9 months rent
6,000 sq ft restaurant (e.g. Gore Range Brewery) requires $225,000 PIL
Equivalent to $38 per sf, or 2 years rent
15
September 9, 2003
Conclusions:
Market has responded to affordable housing needs to date
Incentives work better than requirements
Limits are not economically realistic
HUD Low Income = 60% to 80%
HUD Moderate Income = 80% to 120%
Eagle County using lowest end of ranges
Rental Projects currently depressed
15% to 20% vacancies prevalent
Projects will not survive sustained vacancies
Recommendations:
Replace requirements with incentives, or
As an alternative, move requirements to upper end of income
ranges
Temper Linkage requirements
Current requirements clearly unaffordable
Increase to 80% or 100% median to lower PIL amounts
Exempt projects below 120% AMFI
Eagle County
Proposed Local Housing Requirements
Inclusionarv Zoning I Payments in Lieu
Provide affordable units (Moderate income limits @ 80%) or payment in lieu ($63,419 per unit)
for10% of all newly approved units
1) Payment in lieu approximates cash subsidy needed to meet requirements
2) No incentive to actually build units (why take development risk? )
3) Policy will not produce affordable units
Payment in Lieu
% of Units
$
63,419
10%
Premium per unit on remaining 90%
Impacts on Developments
Unit Price Point
Land @ 15% Land Premium Probable Impact
Low income (HUD)
Moderate Income (HUD)
Market Units
$
$
$
$
$
$
160,000
220,000
300,000
500,000
750,000
1,000,000
$ 24,000
$ 33,000
$ 45,000
$ 75,000
$ 112,500
$ 150,000
Exempt - Butmay notWork
Cannot Afford- No Development
Cannot Afford - No Development
Drives Up Price - possib fatal
Drives UpPrice - proba sorb
Probably elect Payment in Lieu
Conclusions
1) Will kill all moderate to mid-priced development
2) Land will be zoned for low density, high priced development
16
September 9,2003
3) High End development will result in payments in lieu (County housing war chest)
Recommendations
1) Exempt projects where 100% of units meet moderate income guidelines
2) Create incentive to Build vs. Pay (don't need County war chest)
Avon Crossing
Price History
!Sl %inc
Year Unit type f! # sales Sale Price (dec)
1995/1996 2 BR, 2 BA (NEW) 1005-1146 $ 170,667
1997 $ 170,333 -0.2%
1998 $ 181,833 6.8%
1999 $ 200,455 10.2%
2000 $ 203,286 1.4%
2001 $ 207,750 2.2%
2002 $ 206,000 -0.8%
Total 20.7%
Avg 5 years 4.1%
End - Gerry Flynn printed comments.
Mr. Flynn stated ifhe understands correctly, if a loan resident earns his way out of qualifying he
is forced to sell his home. He asked if someone gets more than an average wage increase are they forced
to sell their home?
Ms. Leonard stated there is a difference between the eligibility requirements and permanent deed
restrictions placed on the unit. The eligibility requirements relate to the requirements are to determine
if the applicant is an employee in Eagle County and to determine salary. Once they own the unit, they
will determine once a year whether or not they continue to meet the eligibility requirements.
Mr. Flynn continued to review his handout.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked why a project like Brett Ranch would no longer be possible
under lease regulations or it would not be possible today anyway.
Mr. Flynn stated it could not be developed under these regulations. He stated under these
regulations they could not meet the 80% guideline. He stated studio and one bedroom unit's square
footage would be under the guideline.
Commissioner Stone asked about Buffalo Ridge.
Mr. Flynn stated studios have been of the highest demand, one bedroom units are next in the
demand and three bedroom units last. He stated the three bedroom units are not deed restricted. He
stated they have had a lot more success with the non restricted units.
Commissioner Menconi questioned the payment in lieu and the jump from the payment to the
pass on to the renter.
Mr. Flynn stated the developer would need to pay it, pass it on, etc. Someone has to pay it.
Commissioner Menconi stated they are taking a payment in lieu and passing it on in a short
period of time. If you spread it out over ten years it would not be so dramatic.
Mr. Flynn stated in ala year lease it would be 20% higher, a twenty year lease would be 10%
higher. He reviewed other scenarios.
Commissioner Menconi stated one of the main goals and objectives is to have an inventory of
housing out into the future. This is a long term attempt.
17
September 9, 2003
Mr. Flynn questioned the benefits of the proposal. He stated there are numerous units out there
that are not priced too high.
Commissioner Menconi questioned the vacancy.
Mr. Flynn stated the project that is suffering right now is the Town of Vail project, Timber
Ridge. It has an actual vacancy that is lower but it has master leases.
Commissioner Stone questioned the vacancy of Mountain Glenn.
Mr. Flynn stated they are at 30%.
K. T. Gazunis, Director of Housing, stated the Housing Department tracks 1280 units on a
monthly basis. Overall they are up to 10%.
Mr. Flynn stated the ones he is directly involved in, Kiak is running 12%, Eagle Bend is at 6% or
7%, Buffalo Ridge is 65% leased. He stated rental units are not exempt from the requirements.
Ms. Leonard stated they would have to develop the local residential housing units.
Mr. Flynn stated Buffalo Ridge got every bit of assistance they could. If they had to build
another 24 units to meet the requirements it would have been fatal.
Commissioner Menconi asked what a developer expects to get on a return of an entry level
housing like Avon Crossing or Brett Ranch.
Mr. Flynn stated the target developer profit when these projects started was $12,000.00 a year.
What they achieved was on Brett Ranch slightly higher as they were able to raise the prices at the end.
On Avon Crossing their target was $12,000.00 per unit.
Commissioner Menconi stated it was reported to him that entry level housing was a 9% return on
the investment and the higher end projects were between 16% and 18%.
Mr. Flynn stated those sound right.
Commissioner Menconi asked if Buffalo Ridge was a requirement to bring to the market by the
Town of Avon.
Mr. Flynn stated it was a requirement for Traer Creek. They then bought the property with the
requirement they satisfy the requirement. He stated they had over a million dollars invested when the
market went soft.
Commissioner Menconi asked if Traer Creek had to move forward.
Mr. Flynn stated they did have requirements. He stated they purchased the land then financed
the project.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked Mr. Flynn ifthey would do it again.
Mr. Flynn stated knowing what he knows not, he would not.
Commissioner Menconi spoke to rental units being tough on the poor and the Colorado market
being the most expensive. He stated the Commissioners are trying to create owner occupied units in
Eagle County.
Mr. Flynn stated he understands this is not targeted towards rentals. The numbers they are using
for rentals were exactly the same numbers they calculated. He was unclear about the comment that
rentals are not exempt. He thought they would be exempt. They are the hardest project to do. He stated
his recommendation is he would still opt for incentives rather than requirements. As an alternative he
would move these requirements to the middle and upper ranges. He stated he would tamper the linkage
requirements. He stated he believes the Board should exempt affordable projects. He stated they are not
trying to achieve killing truly affordable projects. He reviewed the final page of his presentation.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked Mr. Flynn to come back to the Board with a written list of
suggested incentives with a cost to the County.
Commissioner Menconi stated Mr. Flynn's comments have gone far beyond those made earlier.
Mr. Flynn stated some of the suggestions made in January were taken.
Commissioner Menconi asked what Mr. Flynn would feel comfortable with for the County to
move forward with the Housing Regulations. He asked what brought him from the changes in January
to today.
18
September 9, 2003
Mr. Flynn stated he started with the same comments. Had the numbers stayed at the 30% his
comments would have been even harsher. There is not a tremendous inconsistence with those comments
in January.
Commissioner Menconi asked if Mr. Flynn was involved with Mr. Badger's project.
Mr. Flynn stated he spoke with Mr. Badger earlier in the year. He stated he agreed with him on
some items and disagreed on others. He presented a letter from Mr. Badger for the record.
The Board accepted the letter as follows:
"Dear Commissioners:
As you know, I have previously offered my opinion as it relates to the proposed Housing
Regulations. Unfortunately, I will not be able to attend today's hearing. However, I do wish to offer my
comments in writing, regarding the proposed Housing Regulations. While some progress has been made
to further develop the regulation, I feel that there are several salient issues that have not bee addressed,
and to pass it today in its current form would be shortcoming for the community.
First of all, there is no homeostasis state of existence for a community. A community is either
growing or it is dying, and as such, it is dynamic. The "one size fits all" approach just doesn't work for
every proj ect at all times. The world just came out of an unprecedented 10 year global expansion and
into a recession. We need to be able to adapt to these changes within out own community. The
proposed housing regulation will add a cost to almost every project here in Eagle County. It should be
far more flexible and allow for creative variations and solutions in order to make acceptable projects
economically viable. Each project should be reviewed on a "case by case" basis, while taking into
account the current local market conditions, supply and demand of housing in out community. The
housing regulations should be a guideline for each applicant to address the housing needs generated by a
specific project.
Additionally, since every project is different, incentives should be offered to projects that will
promote housing opportunities for locals. I was extremely disappointed to see that the incentives were
significantly reduced from previous drafts.
In closing I request that the Board take some additional time to consider the economic changes in
our community, the supply and demand of housing, putting pack in the incentives for projects which
promote local housing, adding more flexibility, and allowing for applicants to create their own solutions
on a case by case basis.
As always, I appreciate your time and your dedication to public service. If you have any
questions or would like to discuss these issues more, please feel free to cal me."
The letter is signed Lance C. Badger.
Peter Runyon, area resident, stated he agreed with Richard and Gerry that there is a lot of
inventory in affordable housing. He stated in listening to objections, they have time to get this right. He
stated he does believe it is important to do this. He stated rather than coming to support the opposition
to this project, he came in favor ofthis proposal. He stated in the past he has suggested that deed
restricted affordable housing was not the best solution for the on-going housing problems. He stated he
has always been in favor of government trying to find acceptable solutions. The problem as he sees it,
yes the law of supply and demand is the underlying law that controls the capitalistic economic system.
It does not take into account the effect on individuals. He stated there is a demand here for second and
retirement homes. This is a national demand. They also have a number of honest builders and
developers who are willing to meet that demand. There is also a local demand for affordable housing.
This will be an on going problem. National demand will always trump local demand. The law of
supply and demand says it will eventually address that problem if the demand for affordable housing is
great enough. The reality is that we have a finite amount of land in Eagle County and retirement homes
can quickly snap it all up. He stated here is an opportunity for local government to step in and protect
the best interests of its local citizens. He stated the elected officials must strike a balance.
Rick Mueller, area resident, stated from his standpoint he could explain the economics as well.
He is in favor of some form of employee housing. It is something that is needed in the community.
19
September 9, 2003
There is a lot of higher end development in the community. He believes that charging commercial
development is wrong. The Board is saying there is a housing problem. Ifthere is a housing problem at
this point that problem exists from the current residents. Everyone who is living here at the current time
is contributing to the housing problem. Then you are saying to your constituents you are going to sweep
you under the table and not make you be required for the problem. If you are Vail Resorts you will not
have to come up with any more housing for your 4,000 employees. You are shifting that burden to the
commercial development coming in. Why should the new people coming into the valley pay for that.
Along the same lines, ifhe would have gone along with all the costs that were initially given to him, it
would have been $1.3 million dollars. That is $6.00 per square foot which is a 24% increase in the cost
to a new tenant coming in. That will put an undue burden on a new business coming into the
community. It is an unfair advantage. They are stifling competition. He stated the County must look at
incentives rather than requirements. They are putting more cost onto a house and will end up losing
money on affordable housing. Where does the middle guy go. By decreasing the price on the low end
and raising the price on the high end, there is no middle step. Where do those people go. He suggested
taking the increase in taxes and apply that towards housing. That would require physical restraint. They
cannot keep burdening people with increases in taxes and fees.
Commissioner Menconi stated he would not argue Mr. Mueller's point but related it is part of a
much larger conversation. He stated vacant land is the cheapest way to manage. Commercial is next
and residential is the hardest.
Mr. Mueller stated they are here at this meeting because they are anticipating growth.
Commissioner Menconi stated one of the factors of a healthy community is having employees.
Through their research there are people out there that are below 80% of area medium income. That
number and wages is not growing with the cost of housing. One component is to have a labor force.
Mr. Mueller stated he agrees but they must come up with an incentive to stop that. He stated
County staff does a fine job on theory but the actuality is very far apart. The larger areas like Denver
and such consider Eagle County a no growth County due to the amount of fees and costs associated with
development. He stated he does not know everything about Berry Creek but it appears there was
incentive there.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated the County put the land under the developer for free.
Mr. Mueller stated that is an incentive.
Commissioner Menconi stated taxpayer dollars are going towards housing. He stated the issues
is how to spread that out to all individuals. He stated the most compelling statistic is that only 1.9% is
deed restricted units. He asked Mr. Mueller as a developer, ifhe preferred to know up front what would
be required or rather negotiate.
Mr. Mueller stated he would prefer to know up front.
Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Mueller how he valued in a community like ours the need for
housing where people make $12.00 per hour who are our busboys etc. Should these people be part of
our community.
Mr. Mueller stated that ifpeople make $8 - $12.00 per hour and these people are here to party
and meet all the chicks they want (quote) and then leave after a year these people would not necessarily
be able to afford to buy something. The economics would not make sense for developers to provide this
type of housing.
Commissioner Menconi asked about how Mr. Mueller would explain the dozens of communities
around the county who had chosen to impose these regulations and the developers are still building. He
related that the Town of Eagle has these regulations and Eagle Ranch has been able to continue to
develop their property. They fulfilled the requirement. He knows the people who are moving into
Miller Ranch and they are teachers and police officers.
Commissioner Stone stated that Boulder had devastated commercial development. Businesses
moved out of Boulder County and into unincorporated areas to avoid these cumbersome regulations. He
20
September 9,2003
feels this is a good example of what can happen to a community. He agrees that these regulations could
make the problem worse over time. It would encourage higher end homes.
Commissioner Menconi took exception to Commissioner Stone's comment about the Boulder
mall as an aged shopping experience.
Commissioner Stone stated that there was a dis-incentive to re-develop the Boulder mall. It
served as a double whammy because people now live in Boulder but work and shop elsewhere. No one
was motivated to re-develop these areas.
Mr. Mueller asked for a re-assessment in three to five years instead of instituting these
requirements now.
Michael Cacioppo, area residents, stated they really do not need any more regulations. He stated
they do not have to look to Boulder for driving people from residing where they work, all you have to do
is look to the Vail model. People from down valley work in Vail but have to reside down Valley. That
model has been in place for years and is failing miserably. They have lots of units available. There is a
bunch of commercial space available on Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive. That's what regulating
and over regulating does. It kills communities. He stated Mr. Runyon stated they are now seeing
depressed prices in the second home market. The houses are down 10% and 15%. They are not selling.
This so-called goal of an inventory of housing in the future is at what expense. It is at the expense ofthe
people living here today. He stated he got out of owning several units a few years ago. He would not
want own several units in a market where government is constantly competing and interfering with
private industry. He stated he quit renting because he could not get $500.00 a bedroom, utilities
included. He stated it is unbelievable how much housing is available. If the goal here is for polititians
to build power bases and bring in numbers of people from other countries and guarantying them all these
housing units so they can continue to elect themselves, that seems to be working. He stated they cannot
continue to tax our way to prosperity. He stated teaching economics of commercial development to
those that do not care is not going to work. They have gone from win win situations with governments
to win lose situations. Now it is at lose lose situations.
Tim Cochrane, Director of the Chamber of Commerce and 25 year resident of Eagle County,
stated he was one of those guys who came to Eagle County, started washing dishes and looking for
chicks. He ended up meeting his wife and staying. They each worked three jobs for many years in
order to buy their own home with no help from anyone else. He stated ten years ago they bought a home
in the Terrace in Eagle. Ifhe were that kid today and wanted to own a home today, he could not. He
asked if it were true that he would have to move out of an affordable house if he worked hard and made
more money. That is a tough pill to swallow. Adding money onto commercial space is not helping. He
cautioned penalizing the new guys and the rents become too high and no one can afford to establish a
business. He stated this seems like a tax, a penalty that they fought against in years past. They need to
encourage developers coming in and the County needs the sales tax. He challenged the Board to come
up with a plan that encourages developers. Ifthe goal is to push commercial development back into the
Towns, this might work.
Commissioner Stone asked if they had determined where the payment in lieu money was going.
Ms. Gazunis stated currently it is designated for the 400 Housing Fund which is a fund at the
discretion of the Commissioners.
Tom Healy, Executive Director of Habitat for Humanity, stated they do not have any position on
the regulations at this time. He stated they do serve a community within the 25% to 50% medium
income. There is a need for that community for owner occupied homes. He stated they are able to sell
their houses because of the volunteers. However they do need land. He asked the Commissioners for
their opinion on this area.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated they will be making a decision on where the payment in lieu of
goes to.
Gerry Arnold, area resident, thanked staff for the examples she presented. She questioned the
linkage program. She stated she understood the previous program but is confused on these. She stated
21
September 9, 2003
she is confused that under the linkage portion of the proposed regulations it refers to appendix D, and
that appendix refers to square footages of buildings and residential houses. In the last paragraph, it
stated the requirements of this section will apply even if they are only developing lots rather than
houses.
Michael Walter, are resident, stated he believed this document is without question a meritorious
endeavor. He stated it appears to be a time sensitive document. These employee housing and affordable
housing seem like they have been taken care of today. A lot of the units have vacancies that have not
been felt before. This is based on the economy. They are changing to a service based economy. Four
years ago one out of every three businesses in Edwards was tied to the second home industry. That is
not so today. The reason for vacancies is that the rents are set so high that small business cannot afford
it. He stated most mom and pops worked a lot of hours for $60,000 a year. He stated he is concerned
with a cost benefit analysis and let's see what it will cost. Real estate rents have to come down. This
may stifle future growth. He stated he would like to see this spread out further. Why don't we all share
this. This problem belongs to everyone not just a certain few. He agreed with incentives.
Ken Kriz, Two Rivers Village, spoke to regulation. He gave the example of Boulder, the County
offered the developer free land to put up an affordable housing project and by the time he got through
adding in all the costs and regulations they could not afford to develop. He stated taxes go up and there
are more user fees. They are getting regulated to death. His project added up four years ago and they
could afford to do it. Later, after having to add more regulations, they have an additional $18,000 to
$20,000 dollars per unit in regulation fees.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone closed public comment.
Commissioner Menconi stated on March 11,2003, Commissioner Stone and Gallagher were
interested in the 10%. He questioned ifhe was still in favor ofthat 10%.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated he is not so sure after hearing real life examples. He stated he
has always been concerned with the employee linkage in commercial. He stated maybe 1 % might be
more appropriate. He stated he has been a proponent of incentives. Maybe these should not be
regulations at all. Perhaps a better approach might be to have them as advisory documents and look
seriously at the incentives.
Commissioner Menconi stated no one should try to doubt that what they are trying to achieve is
something very complicated. "The efforts of the staff has been incredibly amazing. Over the course of
2 and 12 years staff has put in hundreds and hundreds of hours. The Planning Commission has looked at
this over eight meetings. Is this something they are really interested in doing. When you appoint a
Planning Commission you appoint someone who abides by the policy. They have embraced this
proposal. Today they have come in at one of the final chapters. They are trying to look at what housing
needs there will be in the future. It has been determined they need a certain allotment of employee
housing. The regulation is indeed a tax. What is essential in this process is what do we value as a
community. He stated families, schools, recreation are three of those items." He stated he sees people
who are not making the kind of salaries the Commissioners are making and questioned whether that
makes them deficient. They have not completed defining housing in this community. 1.9% of the
housing is deed restricted. They are trying to create a house of 950 square feet for approximately
$187,000.00 as a sales price. "No one making $45,000.00 per year can afford to buy that unit. A
second home does need labor, cleaning people, landscapers, etc. The return on investment for a
developer is twice as high as an entry level housing. If they burden entry level housing they will burden
themselves. The other incentives are things that all County Commissioners should move towards. What
they are trying to accomplish is build a community. Something that someone under a certain income
can afford to live here." He is going to stand on the possibility of people owning their own homes and
not have to rent. Be~een 1995 to 1999 wages increased by 24% and housing increased by 85%. If
wages are not increasing as fast as housing is, it becomes more and more difficult to keep employees.
They certainly appreciate all of the input over the past two years. He would like to move forward with
the regulations and will look forward to more input at future meetings
22
September 9,2003
Chairman Pro-tem Stone stated he would prefer to have zero percent deed restricted homes in
Eagle County. He believes government is not here to provide for people but rather to help people to
provide for themselves; to give them the opportunity to do so. Jobs provide dignity to people. He stated
he appreciates all the work that staffhas gone through. He never planned to predict the outcome. He
does not want anyone to think that if they do not get adopted their time was wasted. That is not the case.
Staffs time was valuable in coming up with all the plans and the proposed regulations.
Ms. Leonard suggested the regulations be continued to September 16, 2003.
Commissioner Menconi referred to $10.00 per square foot for affordable housing.
Ms. Gazunis stated the smaller the house, the larger the cost. The larger square footages the
smaller the cost. Overall an average would be $9.87 per square foot.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone asked how they account for the changes in businesses.
Commissioner Menconi moved to table the Housing Regulations, file numbers LUR-0038, LUR-
0039, LUR-0040 and LUR-0041, to September 16,2003, at the applicant's request.
Chairman Pro-tem Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Executive Session
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn into Executive Session in the Board of County
Commissioners Conference Room for the purpose of receiving additional legal advice concerning the Eagle
Park Reservoir Company which is appropriate pursuant to CRS. 24-6-402(4)(b).
Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board adjourn from Executive Session and reconvene into
the regular meeting.
Chairman Pro-tern Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
September 16, 2003.
Attest:
23
September 9, 2003