HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 09/16/03
PUBLIC HEARING
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
Present:
Michael Gallagher
Am Menconi
Tom Stone
Diane Mauriello
Jack Ingstad
Earlene Roach
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Attorney
County Administrator
Deputy Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
Consent Agenda
Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for the week of September 16, 2003, subject to review by
County Administrator
B) Approval of the payroll for September 18, 2003, subject to review by County
Administrator
C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for August
26,2003
D) Change Order #1 to the Contract for the Miller Ranch Road / Highway 6 Intersection
improvements
E) Resolution 2003-110, in re the matter of the modification of the Service Plan for the
Mid-Valley Metropolitan District
F) Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County School District RE-50-J and
Eagle County, Colorado
G) Grant Contract with Habitat for Humanity
H) Intergovernmental Agreement for Emergency Management
I) Agreement between Eagle County and Connie Benson
J) Agreement between Eagle County and Glenwood Springs Community Center
K) Agreement between Eagle County and the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment, concerning the Women, Infants and Children Nutrition Program (WIC)
L) Paving, curb and gutter for Justice Center Annex parking lot - Elam Construction
M) Construction of Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District sponsored
ball fields, Design Build Contract with American Civil Constructors
N) Resolution 2003-111, authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to execute all documents necessary to administer the Grant from the Environmental
Protection Agency for the project titles "Alternatives Evaluation for Growth Along 1-70"
0) Resolution 2003-112 for release of Assignment of Certificate of Deposit for Road Cut
Permit No. 3030 for Dean Christensen
P) Assignment of Certificate of Deposit No. 9476022273, to the extend of $36,954.00
from the Town of Eagle to Eagle County for permit to construct within the public way No. 3280
Q) Contract Airport Traffic Control Tower Operating Agreement between Eagle County
and the Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration
R) Resolution 2003-113 Approving the form Bill of Sale and appropriating funds for the
purchase of the Air Control Tower Cab and related equipment
1
September 16, 2003
S) Resolution 2003-114 Adopting rules and procedures for arbitration and appointing
arbitrators for appeals from decisions of the 2003 Board of Equalization and repealing Resolution 2003-
103
T) Special Warranty Deed between Eagle County and Upper Eagle Regional Water
Authority for consumptive acre feet and historic consumptive use credits
U) Assignment of 260 Eagle Park Reservoir Company shares from Eagle County to the
Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority
V) Water Rights Agreement.
Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent
Agenda.
Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated item G, Grant Contract with Habitat for Humanity,
should be pulled for further discussion. She stated item Q, Contract Airport Traffic Control Tower
Operating Agreement, was set for discussion during Attorney update which has not be held.
Chairman Gallagher stated he would like to discuss this item later in the day.
Ms. Mauriello stated items T, U & V all concern the property at Miller Ranch.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented, removing items G
&Q.
Commissioner Stone 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 2003-115, In the Matter of Amending Chapter II, Article 4, Section 4-700,
School Land Dedication Standards of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, November, 1998
(Eagle County File No. LUR-0045). The Board considered this file on September 2nd, 2003
Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2003-115, In the Matter of Amending
Chapter II, Article 4, Section 4-700, School Land Dedication Standards of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations, November, 1998, Eagle County File No. LUR-0045.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Resolution 2003-116, Designating Family Day
Diane Mauriello presented Resolution 2003-116, designating September 22, 2003 as Family
Day.
Commissioner Menconi read the Resolution for the record as follows:
"Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of
Colorado (hereinafter the "Board") acknowledges that parental involvement with a child or teen is a
natural, effective way to reduce teen substance abuse risk and raise healthier children; and
Whereas, last year, President Bush, thirty-five governors, the mayor of Washington D.C. and the
mayors of many other cities declared the fourth Monday of every September to be "Family Day," a time
for parents and children to share a meal or other family activity together; and
Whereas, Family Day is a national effort to reduce teen substance abuse risk by reminding
Americans of the value of parental engagement, emphasizing the importance of regular family activities
as a way to facilitate parent-child communications, and encouraging parents to make family dinners a
regular part of their lives; and
Whereas, the National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse (CASA) has performed
research consistently showing that the more often a child eats dinner with his/her family, the less likely
that child is to smoke, drink, or use illegal drugs; and
2
September 16, 2003
Whereas, CAS A has asked for Eagle County's support in acknowledging this effort through the
proclamation of September 22,2003 as "Family Day-A Day to Eat Dinner With Your Children"; and
Whereas, the Board wishes to join CAS A in recognizing the importance of parental involvement
with the children and teens of Eagle County.
Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle,
State of Colorado:
That, the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that September 22, 2003 shall be
designated as "Family Day - A Day to Eat DinnerWith Your Children" in Eagle County and be
celebrated by families and communities throughout Eagle County. The Board calls upon all those in a
parental role to examine their personal level of involvement with their children, to have dinner with their
children in an effort to facilitate parent-child communications, and to make family activities a regular
part oftheir lives as a means of combating child and teen substance abuse.
That, the Board hereby finds, determines and declares that this Resolution is necessary for the
public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
Moved, read and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State
of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 16th day of September, 2003.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2003-116, designating September 22,
2003 as Family Day.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene
as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Liquor License Consent Agenda
Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows:
A) Golden Eagle Inn, Inc.
Golden Eagle Inn
This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is
located on the Plaza in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or
disturbances during the past year.
B) Troon, Inc.
Bristol at Arrowhead
This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license with optional premises.
This establishment is located on Sawatch Road in Arrowhead, Edwards.
There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year.
C) Terrance S. Marcum
Shop & Hop #3
This is a renewal of a 3.2% Off Premise Beer License. This establishment
is located along Highway 6 in Eagle Vail. There have been no complaints
or disturbances during the past year.
D) Feather Petroleum Company
Stop & Save #18
This is a renewal of a 3.2% Off Premise Beer License. This establishment
is located along Edwards Village Blvd in Edwards. There have been no
complaints or disturbances during the past year.
E) Swiss Stubli, LLC
Swiss Stubli Authentic Swiss Restaurant
3
September 16, 2003
This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is
located along the Plaza in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints
disturbances during the past year.
F) Rio Rancho LLC
Rancho Del Rio
This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is
located along Trough Road in Bond. There have been no complaints
or disturbances during the past year.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for September 16,
2003, as presented.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Chairman Gallagher asked if staff checks with the Sheriffs Office on all these items.
Ms. Roach answered yes.
Chairman Gallagher asked about checking with Beaver Creek Security.
Ms. Roach replied according to what has been relayed to her, whenever Beaver Creek Security
goes on a call the Sheriffs Office is also involved.
Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc.
Earlene Roach presented a manager's registration for Patrick Hill, Beaver Creek Food Services,
Inc., d/b/a Holden's Restaurant. Mr. Hill is reported to be of good moral character. She presented a
managers registration for Shari Wilson, Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., d/b/a Saddleridge at Beaver
Creek. Ms. Wilson is reported to be of good moral character. Ms. Roach presented a managers
registration for Frederick James Hopwood III, Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., d/b/a Inn at Beaver
Creek. Mr. Hopwood is reported to be of good moral character. She presented a managers registration
for Chad Anderson, Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., d/b/a Spruce Saddle Restaurant. Mr. Anderson is
reported to be of good moral character.
Julie Papengelis, applicant, and Patrick Hill, Shari Wilson, Frederick Hopwood and Chad
Anderson, managers, were present for the hearing.
Mr. Hill introduced himself and related he worked for Vail Resorts as a manager since 2001.
Mr. Hopwood introduced himself and related this would be the first time managing a liquor
license in the State of Colorado.
Chairman Gallagher asked ifMr. Hopwood had familiarized himself with the Colorado State
Liquor Code.
Mr. Hopwood stated he has.
Mr. Anderson introduced himself and related he has managed previous liquor license for Beaver
Creek Food Services, Inc.
Ms. Wilson introduced herself and related she has not managed a liquor establishment in
Colorado.
Chairman Gallagher asked if she had familiarized herself with the Colorado Liquor Code.
Ms. Wilson answered yes.
Chairman Gallagher asked if all managers had been TIPS trained.
The answers was yes for some and others were in the process.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve a manager registrations for Beaver Creek Food Services,
Inc., for Patrick Hill, Holden's Restaurant, Shari Wilson, Saddleridge at Beaver Creek, Frederick
Hopwood III, Inn at Beaver Creek, Chad Anderson, Spruce Saddle Restaurant.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
4
September 16, 2003
Grouse Mountain Grill
Earlene Roach presented a manager's registration for Anthony McNally, Ski Resort Concepts,
Inc., d/b/a Grouse Mountain Grill. Mr. McNally is reported to be of good moral with the exception of
one DUI in 2001. Staff recommended approval.
Anthony McNally, was present for the hearing. He stated he has worked with the owners since
1993 as the restaurant manager but is now the general manager.
Chairman Gallagher asked if Mr. McNally was TIPS trained.
Mr. McNally answered yes.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve a manager's registration for Anthony McNally, Ski
Resort Concepts, Inc., d/b/a Grouse Mountain Grill.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
State Bridge Lodge
Earlene Roach stated the next matter is review of a stipulation for Conway's State Bridge, Inc.,
d/b/a State Bridge Lodge. She stated in June of this year she received several reports from Deputy
Griffin of the Eagle County Sheriff's Office concerning State Bridge Lodge. A problem solving group
met to try and solve the issues that arose from the first concert. The group consisted of the Eagle
County Sheriff's Office, Routt County Sheriff, Eagle County Code Enforcement, Eagle County Building
Department, Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Road & Bridge, Bureau of Land Management, State
Liquor Enforcement, and herself. The group decided what would work best to solve this situation was a
stipulation that concerned parking within 100 feet of either side of the lodge, event staff / security to
assure compliance with the occupancy load, intoxicated individuals and minors, and the hiring of one
off-duty law enforcement officer per 100 participants. The stipulation is attached to the Board's
packets. The stipulation requires review after the summer season, thus the reason for this hearing.
Staff believes after opening the establishment, the applicant was over-whelmed with not only
the amount of attendees but what kind of problems there would be. Staff also believes it takes time to
work out the kinks, so to speak. The applicant has worked very hard to eliminate all problems and
concerns. There have been no further incidents. Staff has been at the establishment on a couple of
occasions to observe and help the owner with potential problems / concerns. The applicant has
accomplished what we wanted to see at this location. Staff believes that the applicants security staff also
had to go through a learning period and now know what to expect and how to handle those situations.
Staffhas spoken to the applicant about the rules of the stipulation and he has agreed to continue with the
no parking within 100 feet of either side ofthe lodge. His event /security staffwill not decrease nor will
the wait staff. The applicant continues to meet with his employees / security staff to defray potential
problems. Staffwill continue to work with this applicant to prevent over service, service to minors,
abiding by the occupancy load and control.
Staffis recommending the stipulation be lifted. It is my understanding the concerts are only in
the summer months. The applicant does know that what is at stake is his liquor license.
Chairman Gallagher asked if the stipulation has worked why should it be lifted.
Ms. Roach stated the applicant is going to continue with all the functions but the expense ofthe
off duty law enforcement officers is over $1,000.00 per night. This amount is putting a burden on the
applicant.
Chairman Gallagher asked what the cost was for the law enforcement officers.
Gregg Conway, applicant, stated it is $45.00 per hour for each deputy. This amount must be
paid in cash.
5
September 16, 2003
Mr. Conway stated there has been a comprehensive effort to eliminate all the problems at his
establishment. He stated they have gained a lot of knowledge in the ways people try to beat the system.
He stated he requested Deputies long before the stipulation was put into place.
Commissioner Stone stated he believes the applicant has shown a real effort to gain control has
been amazing. He believes the stipulation should be lifted. He stated he understands the applicant
knows a stipulation can be re-done if things do not go well. He stated the Board should review how
things are going at this establishment at renewal.
Commissioner Menconi stated he concurred. He related there was a serious concern and Mr.
Conway has been extremely helpful and supportive to get the problems corrected. He stated it is great to
hear that the area is being managed so well.
Chairman Gallagher stated he will make it unanimous. He stated the reluctance is with the off
duty officer.
Commissioner Stone moves the Board lift the current stipulation in effect for Conway's State
Bridge, Inc., d/b/a State Bridge Lodge.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi asked about fencing along the railroad and a culvert.
Mr. Conway stated he installed the fencing and dug out the culvert to keep people off the railroad
tracks and allow free access to the river. He stated there has been no close calls since these have been
installed. He stated Mr. Woodruff went through a special use hearing for his access to the river in which
he claimed Mr. Conway's side of the river. He put up a barbed wire fence to discontinue access to the
river from that side of the river. They are now consulting attorneys to determine ownership ofthat side
of the river.
Commissioner Menconi asked if there is a possibility of someone moving into the retail space
owned by Mr. Conway for supplies for rafters, hikers, etc.
Mr. Conway stated that is a definite possibility. He stated they would like to carry replacement
parts for all activities.
Commissioner Menconi suggested the County Attorney follow this matter to see if they can
assist with this matter.
Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene
as the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDA-00043, Elliott Ranch PUD
Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDA-00043, Elliott Ranch PUD. He stated this
file was tabled by the Board on 19 August 2003 after hearing testimony from Staff and the Applicant, as
well as comments from other property owners within the PUD ("Adjacent Property Owners") and from
a number of members of the community. Before tabling the file, the Board suggested that the Applicant
and the Adjacent Property Owners work together to determine the extent to which there is common
ground in their respective positions. Staff was directed to facilitate these discussions.
In the interim, both the Applicant and the Adjacent Property Owners have continued to work in
good faith to better understand the others' positions and concerns, and to be open to finding a mutually
amenable resolution. Other informal conversations have occurred among the involved parties pursuant
to the same end. However, while there is no consensus, some concessions have been made by all
involved parties and positions have become more clearly articulated.
CURRENT POSITIONS
Applicant
6
September 16, 2003
The Applicant has made a number of concessions in response to the concerns of the Adjacent
Property Owners. The most current proposal regarding permitted operations of the Savory Inn is
outlined in the attached letter from Tom Boni and Nancy Hassett, dated 3 September 2003, to the
residents of the Elliott Ranch Planned Unit Development. Key features of the proposal include the
following:
Cooking Classes - Up to 15 people each, limited to one class per day.
Cooking Demonstrations - Up to 30 people, no limit specified as to frequency.
Special Events/Gatherings - Between 30 and 60 people per event, limited to two events per
week. In addition, four "charitable events" would be permitted each calendar year. Any gathering of
more than 34 people would require that the entire facility be booked.
Outside Activities - Would end no later than 10:00 PM.
Parking - Total parking spaces would be reduced from 22 to 21. Events generating more that 21
vehicles would require the use of alternative transportation such as vans.
Road and Site Improvements - Included are [1] paving approaches to the bridge, [2] deleting one
parking space to save some existing landscaping, [3] a "please drive slowly" sign on the north side of
the bridge, [4] drainage improvements, and [5] markers indicating parking spaces.
Lodge Management - Items include [1] schedules being provided to adjacent property owners,
[2] provisions re snow removal (i.e., all snow stored north of center-line of Elliott Road, and snow east
of drive for Lot 3 pushed further east and stored in the direction of Lot 2 (Jessie Edeen)), and [3]
coordination of commercial van services to limit on-site parking to 21 vehicles.
Jessie Edeen (Lot 2 - at the east end of Elliott Road)
In correspondence dated 8 September 2003, Ms. Edeen has indicated that she has no significant
problems with the proposals made in the Applicant's letter of3 September 2003, except [1] to request
clarification that any "charitable events" would be subject to the same limits applicable to Special
Events, except as to frequency, and [2] to register a strong objection regarding the proposal that much of
the snow on Elliott Road be stored on or near her lot.
Sally and Dan McNutt (Lot 3E - the duplex directly across from the Savory Inn)
Sally McNutt has re-iterated their concern over increased vehicle traffic, deteriorating of Elliott
Road and the loss of privacy. (See attached letter) However, if the PUD is to be amended, Ms. McNutt
asks that the following conditions be considered:
Elliott Road be paved and the owner ofthe Savory Inn be fully responsible for its care and
maintenance.
Leave all existing trees in front of the Inn.
Leave the existing parking in front of and to the west ofthe Inn as is.
Add four parking spaces to the east side of the Inn, for a maximum of 18 spaces.
If the cooking class is added as a permitted use, the following should apply:
Limit classes to a maximum of 15 people.
Limit cooking demonstrations to a maximum of20.
Limit classes or demonstrations to a total of one per day - no multiple events.
Limit classes or demonstrations to a maximum of three per week.
Special events should be held at the Donovan Park Pavilion. There are too many variables that
go along with large parties that the owner cannot control.
Suggested guidelines for Special Events, approval of which would cause Mr. and Ms. McNutt to
consider selling their property, are as follows:
Maximum of 45 people, including people staying at the Inn and outside guests.
Frequency of not more than once per month, including charitable events.
A Special Event in any given week would reduce the number of cooking classes or
demonstrations to two during that week.
Curfew for activities outside the Inn of 8:00 PM.
7
September 16, 2003
No restaurant or bar business at the Inn
Total number of people at the Inn at anyone time not exceed 45.
Remove clause in the PUD Guide regarding "accessory uses", as it is too vague and leaves room
for large special events.
Dan McNutt notes the nature of the quiet, "family" nature of the neighborhood prior to last
August. He goes on to address the findings specifically applicable to a PUD amendment, as follows:
Consistency with the efficient development and preservation of the entire PUD - The cooking
school and special events would have an adverse impact on the integrity and residential nature of the
neighborhood.
Substantially adverse impact on either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across the street
from the PUD or the public interest - The "increased traffic is noisy and dusty" and interferes with "a
peaceful evening on our deck".
Granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person - A change in the PUD would only
benefit the Savory Inn Cooking School, and little or no benefit to him as a home owner.
Jerry and Nancy Stevens (Lot 3W - the duplex directly across from the Savory Inn)
Mr. and Ms. Stevens discuss a number of points in their response (see attached letter), including
the following:
Historically quiet nature of the Elliott Ranch neighborhood.
Concerns about the continued operation of the Savory Inn in the face of an outstanding Notice of
Violation issued by Eagle County.
Absence of a benefit as a result of the proposed PUD amendment to any property owner within
the PUD except the Applicant.
Impact to them and their family of the increased traffic on Elliott Road due to operation of the
Savory Inn and the resulting deteriorating effect on the road itself.
Impact of congestion in the immediate vicinity of their property.
Desire to have the Applicant pave all of Elliott Road.
Potential congestion during emergencies created by movement of people, vehicles and
emergency equipment in opposite directions across the one lane bridge accessing the site.
Impact of daily events in the residential neighborhood of daily events.
In the event that the PUD amendment is approved, certain minimum conditions of approval
should be required, including:
Paving and maintenance of Elliott Road as the sole responsibility ofthe Inn, and be required to
be completed immediately.
Offsetting the Inn parking opposite Lot 3 at least 8 feet onto the Inn property, and keeping and
replanting all of the existing trees.
No more than 16 total parking spaces and no guest parking on the roadway.
No events to last past 9:00 PM.
Events of any sort to be limited to 20 non-resident guests and never to exceed 30 when including
guests residing at the Inn.
Events for non-resident guests to be no more frequent than three per week.
Larger events would require prior written approval by all of the other property owners.
Steve Zorichak (Lot 4 - at the west end of Elliott Road)
In a telephone voice-mail message on 5 September, Mr. Zorichak [1] commented that he would
allow a maximum of30 persons at cooking demonstrations, in addition to lodging guests of the Savory
Inn, [2] suggested a trial period of one year be allowed without paving the parking area, at which time it
would be evaluated and paving might be required, and [3] has reported that a signer of the liquor license
petition has noted that the Savory Inn would be a good place for an adult afternoon hangout. (Note: Staff
has not verified such a statement.) In a subsequent facsimile transmission, Mr. Zorichak has indicated
that pavement is "required".
8
September 16, 2003
NOTE: In addition to the most recent letters referred to above stating the positions of the
respective adjacent property owners, earlier items of correspondence are also included for
reference.
STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff makes the following preliminary observations regarding the proposed revisions included in
the letter from Tom Boni and Nancy Hassett dated 3 September 2003:
There is no stated maximum frequency of Cooking Demonstrations. (see "Two Types of
Cooking Activities.)
It is not clearly stated whether a "charitable event" in any given week would be in addition to
any other "special event" during that week, and would be otherwise limited in the same manner as the
"special events". (See "Special Events/Gatherings".)
Proposed drainage improvements have yet to be fully detailed by the Applicant. (See "Road and
Site Improvements".)
Certain management practices, such as how snow removal is done, are not appropriate items for
inclusion in a PUD Guide, and have been deleted from the most recent draft PUD Guide. (See "Lodge
Management". )
Staff received very late the revised draft PUD Guide and the memo from Sean Kerrigan of
Johnson, Kunkel and Associates referred to in the letter from Boni and Hassett dated 3 September
addressing pavement and road design/maintenance issues. Consequently, as of this writing, these items
have not been fully evaluated by Staff. Depending on the decision by the Board, revisions in the draft
PUD Guide may be necessary.
Operation of the Black Bear Inn Under Previous Ownership
A reference point that may be useful is the nature and frequency of activity which occurred at the
Black Bear Inn when it was operated by the previous owners. Based on a recent conversation with
Jessie Edeen, Staff understands that the following is an accurate characterization of activities at the
Black Bear Inn, in addition to guests staving at the Inn:
Types of gatherings included family reunions, "mystery dinners", birthdays, anniversaries,
wedding groups (typically other thanJhe wedding and the reception, which were held off-site), and
corporate events.
Numbers of people were generally limited to 50 people, with a preference for smaller gatherings.
In some instances, such as wedding groups and corporate events, some of the participants may
have had lodging off-site, but would come to the Inn for group activities.
For certain of the gatherings, members of the groups using the Inn were visitors to the area and
would not have their own vehicles. Use of commercial or group transportation to the Inn was common.
If a group wanted to book more than six rooms at the Inn, or if they wanted to use the common
areas of the Inn, it was required to book the entire Inn.
Generally, the only meal provided by the operators ofthe Inn was breakfast or brunch. Other
meals were typically catered.
The group activities occurred as often as weekly during the summer and monthly in the winter,
with occasional activities in the off-seasons. Personal events (e.g., family reunions, birthdays, and
wedding groups) were more common during July and August. Corporate events were more common in
June and in the fall.
There were no regular daily activities at the Inn which correspond to the cooking classes and
demonstrations currently under consideration.
A significant exception was during the World Alpine Ski Championships in 1999, during which
the Inn was completely booked for 5 to 6 weeks, and users ofthe Inn may have exceeded 50 people.
Conditions of Approval
If the Board is inclined to consider approving an amendment to the PUD, Staff offers below
certain revised conditions of approval for consideration. The revised conditions of approval offered for
9
September 16, 2003
consideration are as set forth in the Staff Report except as noted, with deletions indicated by stfilre
tocough and additions by bold lettering).
1. The operator of the Lodge shall ensure that the parking of all vehicles of patrons of the Lodge
be limited to the on-site parking spaces and, if necessary, appropriate parking areas further removed
from the site, and not be allowed to occur on Elliott Road, the nearby Frontage Road or the drive from
the Frontage Road to the site. Further, if in the judgment of the Director of Community Development,
parking other than in the spaces provided on-site violates the foregoing condition and becomes a
problem in the area, the Director of Community Development may require and the operator shall
provide in a timely manner a written plan to resolve any parking related violations and/or conflicts. If
parking violations and/or conflicts persist, the Director of Community Development may, in his sole
discretion, schedule the matter before the Board of County Commissioners as a potential violation of the
conditions of approval of the PUD amendment. The Board of County Commissioners may impose any
additional conditions of approval that it deems appropriate.
2. The Applicant shall demonstrate prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD
amendment by the Board of County Commissioners [a] that any necessary permits to construct in the
lOa-year floodplain have been issued by the Eagle County Engineer; and [b] that any necessary 404
permits have been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, and/or that satisfactory evidence be provided
that all previous and proposed improvements on the site have been approved by the Army Corps of
Engineers. Further, if any variation occurs between the approved site plan and that permitted under any
requirements imposed as a result of either a permit to construct in the lOa-year floodplain or any Army
Corps of Engineers permit, the Director of Community Development shall determine either that the
resulting revised site plan is substantially consistent with the site plan and applicable conditions
approved as part of this PUD amendment, or shall refer the revised site plan to the Board of County
Commissioners for further review.
3. The Applicant shall demonstrate prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD
amendment by the Board of County Commissioners that a contract for fire service has been executed
with the Town of Vail Fire and Emergency Services, and that any required improvements have been or
will be made in a timely manner.
4. A road impact fee as prescribed in Section 4-71 0, Road Impact Fees, ofthe Land Use
Regulations shall be paid within 30 days of approval of prior to approval of a resolution regarding
this PUD amendment.
5. A complete amended and restated PUD Guide shall be provided within two weeks of approval
of the PUD amendment that includes in the definition of the Lodge the sentence "If a caretaker's unit is
included, it will exist in one of the twelve units" is consistent with action of the Board of County
Commissioners.
6. Prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment by the Board of County
Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide, a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer, [ a] a site
plan and all required engineering detail, including that which demonstrates that on-site drainage on Lot 1
will be properly managed, including run-off from the parking areas and the snow storage areas; and [b]
sufficient information regarding on-going maintenance of proposed improvements.
7. The Applicant shall provide, prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment
by the Board of County Commissioners, a revised site plan which depicts all proposed and approved
landscaping on Lot 1.
8. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant
in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval.
Commissioner Stone asked if everything addressed by Mr. Forinash has been agreed upon by the
applicant.
Mr. Forinash answered yes.
10
September 16, 2003
Dan Wolf, Attorney representing the applicant, introduced Nancy Hasset, applicant and Tom
Boni, Planner for this application. He stated the first element is the special functions that have been
done in the past and the applicant will continue with those but limit the size of those functions. He
stated the second element would be the cooking classes and the cooking demonstrations. He stated the
cooking classes are less controversial. There was no consensus between the neighbors. The concerns
were all different. Ms. Hasset has reduced the scope of the application. He stated there was not much of
a two way dialog. He stated she has met with her financial advisors and has cut the budget to the bone.
Mr. Wolf spoke to the benefit between the PUD versus one property owner. He stated the current PUD
promotes accessory uses. The previous owner made the language broad to allow for different uses. He
spoke to the historic events. The hosting of events is a legitimate use of the lodge. They have the
unique opportunity to define the events that are permissible and those that are not. Everyone will know
the rules. This is the opportunity to protect the neighborhood. Other potential buyers of the Inn were
considering a full service restaurant. He related the Board cannot give the neighbors what they want.
They cannot turn the clock back. He stated the alternative is to sell the lodge to someone who may want
more than what is being proposed. There is animosity in the neighborhood. This is the opportunity to
absolve the issues.
Mr. Boni stated they have a person that purchased the lodge who has a plan for that lodge. He
showed slides of the lodge and spoke to the cooking classes and cooking demonstrations. He stated the
PUD Guide indicates the owners have the ability to expand the lodge. The new owner will operate the
lodge differently. There has been two meetings with the neighbors. The hands on cooking class was
reduced down to 15 people. They have limited the number of cooking classes to one per day. Cooking
demonstrations have been limited to 30 people. The special events will be limited to a maximum of 60
people. The frequency will be limited to a maximum of two per week. There has been a reduction in
the gathering of more than 34 people they must book the entire lodge. They will arrange for alternative
means for guests to get to the lodge. Parking - paving, they will pave the approach's to the bridge, one
of the parking spaces have been eliminated, signage will be one sign warning about the road being a
dead end and would identify a slow speed. Drainage improvements to assure there is no runoff to
impact adjacent property. Vertical markings will be placed to identify the parking spaces. Lodge
management, there will be periodic schedules sent to the neighbors indicating when there will be special
events. They will coordinate with the transportation authority for alternative means of getting guests to
and from the Inn. He stated in 1989 there was approval for a 10,000 square foot lodge. The
construction of the Black Bear Inn predated the residential housing in that area. Suitably, the lodge
contains a small commercial kitchen, the grounds contain a private area along the east side of the Inn for
outside events. On-site space for parking has been allocated. They are not changing the residential
commercial zoning. He read from the Master Plan. There is an application in front of the Board in an
already approved commercial area. The standards ask if the application is consistent with the entire
PUD? They believe at this juncture in time, there is a plan to keep the lodge at a low impact and low
scale endeavor.
Ms. Hasset stated the last time she sat before the Board she was asked to meet with the
neighbors. She was pleased to do so. She stated she met with her accountant to see how to keep this
business viable. She stated it is difficult to make things work. She has been accused of trying to make
money. She did get into this business to make some money. She stated she has been cussed at and
threatened, her employees have been vandalized. She agreed to cut backs and thought they were making
progress. Then came the letters from the same people who were at the meetings. She stated she is
buying a van, has spoken to every transportation service available and she is committed to keep the area
as quite as she can but yet remain a commercial entity. She stated she has done everything she can do.
The neighbors want entirely too much. She stated she agrees to more charitable events than necessary.
This is a two million dollar property. No one can make it work as just a bed and breakfast. She did not
intend to upset the neighborhood. This is a neighborhood and things happen.
11
September 16, 2003
Chairman Gallagher asked the applicant to respond to the bullet points on staff report.
Mr. Hasset stated she has limited the cooking demonstrations were limited to 30 people and no
more than one per day.
Chairman Gallagher asked about charitable events.
Ms. Hassett stated she does host charitable events. They are limited to the agreements they have
made. She has asked for four additional charitable events per year.
Chairman Gallagher spoke to the proposed drainage improvements
Mr. Forinash stated that will be required before they begin.
Chairman Gallagher asked about snow removal.
Mr. Boni stated they have no concerns with that proposal.
Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment.
Patty Ramsdale, area resident, stated she travels the Frontage Road daily and she has not seen a
lot of traffic. She stated the Savory Inn is an asset to the community.
Nancy Stevens, owner of Lot 3, stated she moved there in 1993. The Edeen's did a great job.
She cannot imagine 50 to 60 people and their cars coming to an event. She expressed concerns with
the safety issue. She stated if there are a lot of cars there the emergency vehicles cannot get across the
bridge. She does not see the benefit to the other homeowners to have the PUD changed. She spoke to
space 13. Cooking school classes she is fine with but is against the special events.
Randy Milhoun, area resident, stated he went by and looked at the Savory Inn. He stated he does
know all the neighbors in the area. He believes the proposed plan by the applicant is a good plan. He
stated the economic diversification for the entire Vail valley is needed by this County. There has been a
great deal of expense in buying the property and making improvements. It is hard to project the
outcome. He encouraged the Board to approve this proposal.
Gerry Stevens, area resident, stated the applicant made a comment that she has bent over
backwards to help elevate this situation. He stated he disputes that. He stated the big trucks, dust,
keeping the ambiance of the neighborhood has not happened. He stated she has been operating this
establishment in violation of the regulations. He stated this solely benefits the applicants and takes away
from the neighbors. He stated he has not cussed at nor vandalized the applicant or her property. This is
a mixed use neighborhood. It is a small quite neighborhood.
Dan McNutt, area resident, stated this is not about personalities but is about a permanent change
to the PUD. He stated they seemed to agree but then there was an event. This is about his home. He
goes home to relax and enjoy himself. These events are held on Saturday and Sunday and will affect his
enjoyment of his property. He stated they are asking the neighbors to give up their quiet enjoyment of
their homes. The PUD was specifically designed not to allow such commercial endeavors in their
residential neighborhood. He stated a PUD cannot be changed unless it is consistent with the
preservation of the entire PUD. If the amendment adversely effects the enjoyment of the land it should
not happen. It does affect them. An amendment should not occur if it solely benefits one person. He
stated this proposed amendment does benefit only one person.
Jessie Edeen, area resident, stated she believes Ms. Hasset has tried to accommodate the
neighbors. She referred to the parking and come down with the numbers so as to not affect the
neighbor's. She stated it is the same trucks that delivered to them when they owned the Inn.
Sally McNutt, area resident, stated Ms. Edeen's events were so low key they had no idea they
were happening once a week. She stated there is now way more trucks and way more traffic than
before. The old owners were extremely responsible. Most of the time during an event Ms. Hasset is not
on site to see what is going on.
Chairman Gallagher closed public comment.
Mr. Wolf stated the neighbors did propose different remedies. But not all the neighbors liked all
the ideas. He stated this is an issue with ownership. He stated the PUD was designed as the center of
12
September 16, 2003
this neighborhood. Jessie Edeen is not going to own the lodge again. Approving the current application
will be making the best of a not so ideal situation.
Mr. Boni stated they have a commercial operation. There is traffic, maybe more traffic. He
stated they believe the cooking demonstrations and placing limits on the size and management of events
are improvements to the overall PUD.
Mr. Forinash reminded the Board there were five letters that are included in the Board's packets.
Ms. Hassett stated she is at the Inn most of the time. She stated she does not want to sell this Inn
but wants to keep it.
Chairman Gallagher stated he is concerned with a transit system being tied to a number of cars.
He suggested it be tied to the number of people. He would like to see the transit plan in more detail. He
questioned the 10:00 p.m. curfew. He stated that could be late on a school night or a Sunday. The
expectation of buying a piece of property next to a twelve room lodge he would expect more that 24
people there. He does not have difficulty with the cooking school and the cooking demonstrations. The
issue is primarily traffic. The parking / transit proposal do address that but is not sure if it is addressed
to satisfaction. He asked staff is Elliott Road was public or private.
Mr. Forinash stated it is a private road.
Chairman Gallagher asked if a gate would control the amount of people entering the area. As far
as the question of benefiting all the neighbors, he wonders how did Mr. Zorchiak obtain approval for his
art gallery when it only benefits him.
Mr. Forinash stated that was done early in the PUD process.
Chairman Gallagher asked about the zoning.
Mr. Forinash stated the zoning is PUD.
Ms. McNutt stated Steve's property is not a gallery but rather than a studio.
Mr. Forinash stated in terms of the use of the lot.
Ms. Edeen stated Steve's Art Studio only benefits Steve. It is not open from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00
p.m. She stated he has large delivery trucks coming in, people coming to see what he does.
Commissioner Stone asked if the applicant has reviewed the advised list of conditions.
Mr. Boni stated they have.
Ms. Hasset stated she agrees with all conditions.
Commissioner Stone stated he agrees that the main issue is parking. He stated the revised
conditions will meet his concerns. He questioned the 404 permit.
Mr. Forinash stated that has not been determined yet. Those must be either obtained or show
they are not needed.
Chairman Gallagher stated the old owner did limit the number of attendees at a special event to
50 the new owner wants 60 and wants these events twice a week. He suggested the applicant may want
to drop the special events. He stated he is not apt to vote favorable without a better traffic plan.
Commissioner Stone stated he had the concern but he believes the proposed conditions take care
of the issue. He read condition one for the record which seemed to cover all the concerns. If the
applicant knows the only place to park is in the parking spaces and other cars must be parked elsewhere
and not on the Frontage Road or Elliott Road there should not be a problem.
Chairman Gallagher stated he agrees somewhat but is concerned with the need that the applicant
agrees fully with all rules and regulations.
Commissioner Stone suggested a written parking plan be provided to staff.
Ms. Hasset stated she sent a letter on how they operate, spoke to the trucks, and indicating she is
purchasing a van to use as a shuttle to eliminate the parking problems. She stated the additional parking
spaces will also help.
Commissioner Stone stated it is troubling to see the pictures of illegally parked cars on the road.
He requested a written plan from the applicant that they have a workable parking plan. If conflicts or
traffic violations occur they would have to be solved.
13
September 16, 2003
Chairman Gallagher asked if Ms. Hassett would move people attending the events inside at 9:00
p.m.
Ms. Hassett stated she would be happy to.
Commissioner Menconi stated he has seen progress. This is a mixed use PUD and the Board is
trying to give definition to the future use of the PUD. He stated he sympathizes with both parties and
the best they can do is clarify of the use of this property. He stated he is in favor of moving forward
with this application.
Chairman Gallagher asked staff to incorporate those items raised at this hearing, including using
the number of people rather than the number of cars to initiate other parking.
Mr. Wolf suggested using both.
Chairman Gallagher agreed.
Commissioner Stone moved to approve file PDA-00043, Elliott Ranch PUD, with the following
conditions:
1. The applicant shall demonstrate, prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD
Amendment by the Board of County Commissioners, that the operator has a written parking plan,
satisfactory to the Board, that requires the owner/operator ofthe Lodge to limit the number of patrons
and the number of cars so that parking for patrons and employees is limited to the parking spaces
provided on Lot 1, and that in no event shall cars be allowed to park on Elliott Road, the nearby
Frontage Road, nor the drive from the Frontage Road to the site.
2. The Applicant shall demonstrate prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD
amendment by the Board of County Commissioners [ a] that any necessary permits to construct in the
lOa-year floodplain have been issued by the Eagle County Engineer; and [b] that any necessary 404
permits have been issued by the Army Corps of Engineers, and/or that satisfactory evidence be provided
that all previous and proposed improvements on the site have been approved by the Army Corps of
Engineers. Further, if any variation occurs between the approved site plan and that permitted under any
requirements imposed as a result of either a permit to construct in the lOa-year floodplain or any Army
Corps of Engineers permit, the Director of Community Development shall determine either that the
resulting revised site plan is substantially consistent with the site plan and applicable conditions
approved as part of this PUD amendment, or shall refer the revised site plan to the Board of County
Commissioners for further review.
3. The Applicant shall demonstrate prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD
amendment by the Board of County Commissioners that a contract for fire service has been executed
with the Town of Vail Fire and Emergency Services, and that any required improvements have been or
will be made in a timely manner.
4. A road impact fee as described in Section 4-710, Road Impact Fees, of the Land Use
Regulations shall be paid '.vithin 30 days of approval of prior to approval of a resolution regarding
this PUD amendment.
5. A complete amended and restated PUD Guide shall be provided within two weeks of approval
of the PUD amendment that includes in the definition of the Lodge the sentence "If a caretaker's unit is
included, it will exist in one of the twelve units" is consistent with action of the Board of County
Commissioners.
6. Prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment by the Board of County
Commissioners, the Applicant shall provide, a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer, [ a] a site
plan and all required engineering detail, including that which demonstrates that on-site drainage on Lot 1
will be properly managed, including run-off from the parking areas and the snow storage areas; and [b]
sufficient information regarding on-going maintenance of proposed improvements.
7. The Applicant shall provide, prior to approval of a resolution regarding this PUD amendment
by the Board of County Commissioners, a revised site plan which depicts all proposed and approved
landscaping on Lot 1.
14
September 16, 2003
8. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant
in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
5MB-00308, Highland Meadows, Filing 2, Lot 15
Joseph Forinash presented file number 5MB-00308, Highland Meadows, Filing 2, Lot 15. He
stated this matter was tabled from an earlier hearing to determine access to the site. He stated this was a
minor subdivision to subdivide Lot 15, Highland Meadows Subdivision, Filing 2, into two lots, each of
which may have one single family dwelling. This lot, in its current configuration, was originally
intended to accommodate a duplex structure. The existing zoning allows single-family residences as a
use by right and the existing lot contains sufficient area to satisfy minimum lot size requirements for two
separate single-family residential lots.
Pursuant to Section 5-290.G.2. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations the Community
Development Director has determined the following in the review of this Type B Minor Subdivision:
a. Access, Water and Sewage. The access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be
subdivided IS adequate;
b. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The subdivision IS in conformance with the
Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and
c. Improvements Agreements. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement is NOT applicable to
this application.
Note: Notices have been mailed to Elie and Heidi Ouaknine, A. Luc Pols, Chizmadia Family
Partnership LLP, James and Bonnie D' Aquila, Antonio Roig Ferre, Phillipe and Ellyn Courtois, James
and Kathleen Mestl, Richard Young, and Phillip and Pamela Ruschmeyer. A letter from Richard Rosen,
Esq., representing James and Kathleen Mestl, objecting to the proposed subdivision, has been received
and is attached.
Mr. Forinash stated this file was most recently heard by the Board on 12 August 2003. At that
time it was tabled to 26 August 2003, and subsequently to 16 September 2003. The additional time was
to allow County Engineering Staff to visit the site and complete a more detailed evaluation, primarily
with respect to any physical constraints related to access.
The site, including building envelopes and proposed access points, has been staked by the
Applicant's surveyor. County Engineering Staffhas determined that access is best limited to a shared
access which coincides with the common property line between Lots 15A and 15B. A revised plat has
been prepared (copy enclosed) which includes a 25 foot wide common access easement and a
corresponding note which limits vehicular access to that common access easement.
Soil stability on the site continues to be a concern. As a part of the application, Staff required a
soils report from a Geologist. Subsequently, the initial review of this plat was delayed several months
last winter until an Engineering Geologist from the Colorado Geological Survey could visit the site and
complete its evaluation. Both reports were provided earlier to the Board and are included again as
attachments. As a result of these reports, Staff required that a note be included on the plat which requires
"a site specific hazards assessment and geo-technical report by a Registered Professional Engineer,
including structure-specific soil testing" prior to issuance of any building permit. The note goes on to
state that "adequate care should be taken during construction and in subsequent maintenance of the site
with respect to excavation, irrigation and drainage to minimize potential slope instability and loss of soil
strength. "
Earlier comments from adjacent property owners reflect concerns regarding soil stability. Staff
has recently received a letter dated November 14,2002 (sic), and received 21 August 2003 from Richard
Rosen, attorney representing James and Kathleen Mestl, owners of Lot 16, immediately to the east of
this site. Mr. Rosen has again expressed concern regarding stability ofthe hillside and provided certain
15
September 16, 2003
reports and items of correspondence regarding a landslide which occurred in the immediate vicinity in
1980.
Staff notes that, since Lot 15 is in an approved subdivision, a building permit could be issued for
this site ifit were demonstrated by a soils qualified soils or geotechnical engineer, to satisfaction of the
County Building Official, that the structure would be safe and that any potential hazards would be
adequately mitigated. The proposed plat would allow two single-family structures to be built on the site,
as opposed to the one single-family or duplex structure that is currently allowed.
Attachments: Staff Report
Proposed final plat
GIS photograph of Lot 15 and immediate vicinity
Letter from Collins & Associates dated 16 January 2003
Letter from Colorado Geological Survey dated 14 May 2003
Letter from Richard P. Rosen dated 14 November (sic) with attachments
Topographical map of Lot 15, prepared by Backlund Land Surveys
Merridith Baum, representing the applicant, spoke regarding the stability of the soil and referred
to tests and surveys that indicate stability of the lot. She stated they have tried to do everything the
County has asked them. She believes both of these reports come to the same conclusion that the debris
slide hazard is no greater than any of the adjacent properties. If a soil specific test was done to mitigate
the problems, the applicant believes the Board should grant this request.
Phillipe Courtois, adjacent property owner, spoke against this development as it will increase the
traffic in the area by subdividing the property. He would like to see the Master Plan for this area as it
was in the beginning. He related concerns of what the proposed new house would look like and how big
it would be. He spoke against the subdividing of the lot and stated it doesn't meet the planned density of
the area.
Mike Tuthill, representing Jim Mestel, adjacent property owner, stated there is proven instability
ofthis area. He spoke of previous stability studies that spoke of hazards, and that if the area is
subdivided, it stands to reason the hazards are increased. He stated if the Board determines to approve
this plan he requested the Board not allow a future hardship variance. There will be major problems.
There are a great deal of soil stability and drainage problems. He requested denial ofthe proposal.
Ms. Baum responded to the public comment regarding stability or instability. She stated there
was a landslide but it was primarily in Lot 22. She stated there is a letter in the file regarding Lot 22,
indicating that extensive excavating exposed a spring that will cause instability. The letter requested
this be rectified immediately. She stated the owner was aware of the problem and was negligent in
fixing it for a year. She stated nothing will be done to this property until a soils and stability test has
been performed. It will be tough for someone to build on this property.
Commissioner Stone asked about a plat note.
Mr. Forinash stated there is a plat note that requires a soils examination for the site. He read the
note for the Board.
Commissioner Stone stated the Colorado Geological Survey letter mentions trying to minimize
excavation, volume and duration and taking care to stay above the water table.
Mr. Forinash stated that should be taken care of with the soils study.
Commissioner Menconi spoke to the issue Mr. Courtois brought up regarding increased traffic.
Is there any other abilities or avenues for the Board to take.
Mr. Forinash stated there is no additional traffic to be expected going from a duplex to two single
family dwellings. The strongest issue has to do with stability and soils. He stated the density will not
change. There is a duplex currently allowed.
Commissioner Menconi stated they can argue that there is really not a change. Is there any other
possibility he may not have considered.
16
September 16, 2003
Mr. Forinash stated to determine traffic the Engineers use the method of trips per day. For a
duplex there is approximately 10 trips per day, which is standard. For a single family detached
residence it would be the same.
Mr. Courtois stated changing the lot around would be a problem. That will disturb every tree
that is in the development. He stated he does not know how they will be able to build on the small lower
lot.
Commissioner Menconi asked how much further out to the east and west are the building
envelopes being moved.
Mr. Forinash explained the difference.
Commissioner Menconi stated it is not moving it out any further but moving it closer to the road.
Mr. Courtois stated because of the steepness of the lot it is hard to move anything on the lot.
Mr. Tuthill stated the soils test for lot 22, the one that had the landslide, are not confined to lot 22
but affect lot 15 also. With the additional movement coming closer to the extreme slope it will be
catastrophic results to Alpine Drive are eminent. To go in once is bad. To go in there twice is worse.
Commissioner Menconi stated he is not prepared to separate the owner of the duplex and the
single family at this time. He stated he is inclined to deny this file.
Commissioner Stone stated he is not inclined to give permission for this application. He stated
he believes there will be a lot more slope disturbance.
Chairman Gallagher stated there was another application where they combined entry ways.
Commissioner Stone stated they are trying to make the best out of a bad situation. There will be
problems with one owner building on that lot let alone two. He stated he believes this application is
making it worse. He does not think there is an increase in density. The Board wants to retain the
integrity of the neighborhood and this would be a precedent setting event.
Chairman Gallagher stated he believes the whole world is waving red flags and this application
should not proceed. He stated he is looking at the contours. Lot 15B has 26 feet between the front and
back of the building envelope and 20 feet in lot 15A. The slope and the history of the adjacent slope,
geology does not stop at a property line, it continues. He concurred with the other Commissioners.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board deny File No. 5MB-00308, Highland Meadows, Filing
2, Lot 15.
Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
File No. PR-00022, Berry Creek Recreation Tract C
Consent Item Q, Airport Traffic Control Operating Agreement with the FAA
Attorney Update
Commissioner Stone moved the Board continue consent item Q, the Airport Traffic Control
Operating Agreement with the FAA, Attorney update and File No. PR-00022, Berry Creek Recreation
Tract C, until tomorrow September, 17,2003 at 9:30 a.m.
Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Local Resident Housing Regulations
Rebecca Leonard, Senior Planner, presented the Local Resident Housing Regulations. She
represented a letter from Gerry Flynn, Polar Star Development as follows:
"Dear BOCC;
You have asked that I provide a list of possible incentives to be used in achieving Eagle County's
affordable housing goals. As I recommended at your hearing on the Local Resident Housing Regulations on
Sept 9th, I believe appropriate incentives would be much more effective in achieving these goals than an
impact fee on new development. The development community will respond to the need given appropriate
17
September 16, 2003
incentives, and they will typically respond when it is needed, with a product that will serve that need.
Oftentimes, the response results in more than fulfilling the need ( e.g. the temporary oversupply of rental
housing currently available). Incentives can be adjusted over time accordingly.
You have already spent considerable time educating the board, the staff and the public as to
accepted definitions of affordability. HUD assures that these affordability thresholds are maintained over
time with their annual publishing of median family incomes for Eagle County. The 60%,80%,100% and
120% guidelines are acceptable definitions of Low and Moderate Income households for Eagle County.
Average household sizes are also promulgated by HUD in determining affordable monthly payments for
one, two or three bedroom units at various income levels. I would maintain, based on recent experience,
that it would be difficult to achieve home ownership for families below the 60% A11FI levels without
significant subsidies. But ownership for families at the 80%, 100% or 120% level should be achievable, at
each of these specific income levels.
Incentives could be base on a sliding scale, with the greatest incentives offered to projects achieving
the lowest affordability threshold. While a project trying to meet the 120% threshold still needs some
encouragement, a project trying to achieve the 80% price threshold will need additional incentives to make a
project economically feasible.
The types of incentives that could be considered are the following. The level of incentive could vary
based on targeted affordability guidelines . The list is roughly in an order of priority showing the most
effective at the top of the list:
1. Density Bonuses - quite simply, additional density can translate to a lower price point per unit
2. Waiver / Partial Waiver of Impact Fees - if a development results in serving a public need, waiver
of fees can be a relatively innocuous incentive. While everyone understands that the project has
impacts on services, the public putpose aspects should be sufficient to outweigh opposition to
waIvers
3. Waiver of Building Permit Fees - similar logic to (2) above
4. Accelerated Approval Process - avoiding extensive delays in the approval process can result in
considerable savings in professional fees. Savings should translate to better affordability of end
product
5. Assistance with securing any state or federal funding available for affordable housing
The following list contains additional items not necessarily within the pUIView of Eagle County, but
possibly could be influenced or assisted by eagle County.
1. Waiver or deferral of tap fees
2. Land subsidies - e.g. BCSth
3. Down Payment Assistance
4. Cooperation with favorable construction financing structures
This list may not be exhaustive of all of the ways the county could help, but represents the most
significant incentives which could be granted at relatively little cost to Eagle County taxpayers. Such a policy
could be administered with little or no additional staff time. It would certainly be easier to administer than
the requirements being proposed currently, which I don't think anyone believes could be accomplished with
one additional staff person.
I also have a philosophical difference with respect to appreciation caps. With appropriate incentives
in place, appreciation caps become unnecessary. Adequate supply will regulate prices and appreciation rates.
Homes would be available at various price points along the housing spectrum, avoiding the inevitable "gap"
that Mr. Mueller referred to between "affordable" and market units under the regulations being proposed.
When developers are forced to provide a number of affordable units, at the expense of higher priced
market units, this gap would widen. Qualifying first time buyers get "stuck" in their subsidized housing with
nothing to trade up to. The primary incentive of home ownership is lost - the ability to leverage some price
appreciation and move up the housing ladder as your economic situation improves. We all understand that
price caps permanently depress the value and marketability of the burdened real estate -- savvy buyers will
18
September 16, 2003
avoid these caps. But the reality is that given adequate supply, appreciation should track the average wage
increases in Eagle Gmnty anyway.
I hope this adequately responds to your request for incentives that might help Eagle County meet its
affordable housing goals. We all understand that this has been an especially difficult issue in a resort
community where land prices have escalated almost unabated for 40 years. This issue will continue to be a
high priority in years to come, but I firmly believe that the market can and will respond with appropriate
incentives in place."
Chairman Gallagher stated in listening to the tapes from the previous meeting he has several
questions. He asked about the time frame for the Nexus Study.
Ms. Leonard stated it was done in 200l.
Chairman Gallagher stated it is his understanding that a Nexus Study finds a situation the way it
currently is and then works it forward, improving that situation.
Ms. Leonard stated that was correct with an exaction on development of employee linkage. She
stated the inclusionary housing is not dependent upon the Nexus Study.
Chairman Gallagher questioned the public comment of $40 a square foot, triple net. He asked
for an explanation.
Mike Walter, real estate broker, stated the term triple net means net to the owner. The owner
would pay the normal rent plus the common area maintenance fees, taxes, etc. Net charges are those
that are above the base rental amount. Ifthe rent is $30.f1at rent, plus utilities, taxes and maintenance
fees.
Rick Mueller, area developer, stated there is a net lease and a gross lease. A gross lease means
you pay $40.00 per square foot that includes every cost there is.
Chairman Gallagher asked if for that amount they get to occupy the space.
Mr. Mueller stated that was correct. He stated for a $40.00 triple net, you pay the base of $40.00
then they add on insurance, taxes, etc.
Commissioner Stone stated the tenants cost is more than a regular lease cost.
Chairman Gallagher stated it seemed they were looking at deed restrictions as one of the
indicators of affordable housing. Is that part of the formal definition of affordable housing?
Ms. Leonard answered yes.
Chairman Gallagher stated there was comment about a provision that spoke to exceptions from
the regulations, one of which was if you are 100% affordable you are exempt from the regulations.
Ms. Leonard stated if it fits the definition of the affordable units, it is exempt from the
regulations. Also, ifthe project is deed restricted to local residents and there is not an appreciation cap,
it would also be exempted.
Chairman Gallagher asked if you can build at least 10% market housing to meet the requirement,
why would you want to go with 100% affordable.
Ms. Leonard stated it says all those units that are planned to be affordable, they are exempt.
Chairman Gallagher asked about the linkage housing being the lower percentage ofthe AMI and
the affordable housing is the higher end of the AMI.
Ms. Leonard stated they have identified the two low income groups. They wanted to keep a
clarification.
Commissioner Menconi asked about the income and if the income escalates. He asked her for
additional information.
Ms. Leonard stated that portion relates to someone being able to succeed themselves out of the
units. She related she tracked that back, and it changed between the Planning Commission and the
Board of Commissioners. Staffwas directed to clean up the language. It is on pages 11 and 12. The
initial intent was to make it part of the eligibility requirements. She read the two sentences that apply to
that requirement. She stated it could be changed to read they continue to work and earn 70% of their
income from Eagle County.
19
September 16, 2003
Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. He expressed his gratitude towards staff.
Dave Garton, resident of Gypsum, Buckhorn Valley, stated he is strongly opposed to this
regulation. He would like to see it thrown out. He stated he has been building affordable housing in
Gypsum for several years. He stated they are hanging on because he keeps borrowing more money. No
longer is there a dearth but rather a glut of affordable housing. There are several affordable housing
developments in Eagle County currently, Buckhorn Valley, Chatfield Comers, Eagle Ranch, The Bluffs,
The Orchard, Two Rivers, Miller Ranch, two government developments, one in Vail and one in Miller
Ranch. There are 2,000 units on the Board now. Gerry Flynn is doing Buffalo Ridge. He stated they do
not need more affordable housing. He stated he believes in the free market and free enterprise. If the
County does this it will frighten developers away. Socialism is what is being proposed.
Commissioner Menconi asked the starting price ofMr. Garton's affordable units.
Mr. Garton stated they start at $246,000.00. They are 1,600 square feet, have a two car garage,
three bedrooms and two bathrooms.
Gerry Flynn, Edwards resident, stated he has nothing to add but wants his follow up letter of
September 10th as a part of the record.
Randy Milhoan, area resident, asked about rental units and how many there are available.
K. T. Gazunis, Director of Housing, stated there are 1,280 affordable units for rent and the
vacancy rate is running around 20% to 24%. These units are for anyone earning an income of 80% AMI
and below.
Commissioner Menconi asked about the average vacancy. He asked the difference from the last
hearing.
Ms. Gazunis stated it jumped higher as the month of August was added in. In all of the units it is
the 2 bedroom that are pushing the vacancy rate.
Mr. Milhoan stated the economy is a bit soft right now and it will probably continue. 85% of
Eagle County is public land and much of the buildable land is saturated. Something will stall economic
development. There is currently an abundance of housing for sale and for rent in Eagle County. He
stated this proposal is an intrusion by the government into the housing market.
Tom Boni, Knight Planning, stated as they approach affordable housing he urged them to do so
in a non intrusive manner. He stated a two market system will drive away the people we want to settle
here. Part of economic diversity will be driven away by these regulations.
Glen Healen, area resident, stated if they start looking at commercial development they will have
and are telling the developer they will have to charge an additional $10.00 per square foot, this County
will lose the commercial developers. That is about $2,000 per month. Commercial value is determined
by rent income. This is a true anti growth amendment.
Ken Kriz, area developer, asked where the money goes from the affordable housing.
Mr. Gazunis stated it will go into 400 Housing Fund and can be used for affordable housing, for
the Down Payment Assistance and can solely be used at the discretion of the Commissioners.
Mr. Kriz stated if there is already a glut of affordable housing why does the County need more
money.
Chairman Gallagher stated it is something they have to determine.
Mr. Kriz stated in his project they have 40,000 square feet of commercial space to be developed.
He wondered would he be charged more when that happens.
Commissioner Menconi stated if there is an approved file these regulations do not apply.
Tom Hamed, area resident, stated take what Dave Garton, Randy Milhoun and several others and
sign his name to the bottom with a here here. There is no good that can come from this. He stated deed
restrictions hurt the first owner a little and the second buyer cannot get in at all because the fees have
gone up. Listen to these folks in this room. This is a bad idea. The is a communist form of growth
control.
Michael Walter, area resident, stated he agrees and has nothing further to add.
20
September 16, 2003
Richard DeClark, area resident, stated he read the needs assessment and questions that. He
stated he has spoken to the School District who have related they are down 2% on the number of
students and have not hired any new teachers.
Lance Badger, area resident, stated he has voiced concerns on this proposed regulation. It is a
simple business decision. If it is too burdensome it will not get developed. About a year ago the
Planning Commission sent up the first draft of these regulations and recommended approval. At that
time he had a development being reviewed with a buyer restriction, they denied this project. It is a lot
easier to pass regulations than to build housing. He stated the only way to get affordable housing built is
to offer incentives. He stated he will submit a list of those incentives to staff.
Commissioner Menconi stated Mr. Badger and Mr. Flynn have been very helpful and in the past
Mr. Badger has expressed he was in favor of some sort of guidelines.
Mr. Badger stated ifit is a guideline it could be a good thing but he is opposed to a regulation.
He stated you must run the economics on a project to see if it works. The economy has taken a turn.
The Planning Commission, when reviewing a project, is not in sync.
Commissioner Menconi stated there have been some grave changes made as the percentage were
twice as high. One of the main items was changing AMI to the HUD levels. It has been his
understanding they should move forward.
Mr. Badger stated he also stated incentives were a major part of this proposal. Those incentives
have been taken out. Lowering the density changes the project.
Commissioner Menconi stated if they took his recommendation on Brett Ranch, these
restrictions would not apply to them.
Ms. Leonard stated if the unit is restricted to local residents it would be exempted from the
regulations.
Commissioner Menconi stated he believes Mr. Badger has done a diligent job in helping the
Board understand the concerns.
Mr. Badger stated some ofthe language is a step forward. Some of the projects will operate and
build on a very thin margin. The economics must be there. If you are going to try and promote the
creative housing you must offer incentives in both the financial incentives and the zoning and approval
to get it done.
Rick Mueller, area resident, stated he is in favor of affordable housing. We are in an unusual
situation. They have got to figure out a way to help disparity. Using more regulations will not work.
You have to have incentives. You go to Wal-Mart to save money. He stated most of his tenants are
mom and pop operations. He stated ifthis regulation passes he will be done as a developer. They must
figure out a way to get into a community. He still does not understand why it is the responsibility of the
new people. If it is a community problem the community should share in the solution. He referred to a
book written by Tiger Woods. He stated the people in this room are telling you what works and what
doesn't.
Dick Gustafson, area resident, stated the County was involved in the Mountain Glen project that
is now in default. He stated he had a conversation with John Brendza, Superintendent of Schools, who
related the current enrollment is 4,900 students. They projected zero growth this year and that is exactly
what they got. The cost of setting up a business is high anywhere but it is exorbitant in Eagle County.
Affordable housing has failed in all other areas. Insurance premiums have gone up 150% in Eagle
County alone. He stated he was personally involved in two businesses that have moved to other
locations. He reiterated he went to Harbor Springs, Michigan recently and during the time he was there,
all members of the Planning Commission, every member ofthe Town Council, came in to ask what they
could do to help that business to survive. He stated in Eagle County the only time he saw an elected
official is when they wanted to take something away from him. Most of them that moved here did not
come in under socialized housing. They survived. He stated the comments concerning incentives are
good ones but what about the businesses. Why should we penalize new businesses to come into our
21
September 16, 2003
area. There will be a decrease in the demand for housing because there will be no businesses and no
employees that need housing. Prices, taxes and insurance escalates and the taxpayer will foot the bill.
You will have less revenue instead of giving incentives. He requested the Board vote against this
regulation.
Brian Woodell, area resident, echoed all the previous comments. He agrees that this regulation
killing business.
Mike Tuthill, area resident, stated they have 244 undeveloped projects that cannot get started
because of all the costs and the regulations. He stated the County needs to be stimulating the economy
rather than hurting business.
Mike Cacioppo, area resident, stated he needs to support this proposed regulations because he
learned the Commissioners will be able to take this money and vote on how they want it spent. His
taxes on the home he lives in went from $1,800.00 to $2,600.00 in the last two years. He wants to sell
the home he lives in to the Commissioners, then give it away to their constituents. Everyone will be
happy.
Chairman Gallagher asked about the zillion dollar second homes and everything else. He stated
most of what he has heard is about business linkage and middle class housing. He spoke to the profit
factor for a second home is way up and a Brett Ranch is at a minimum. Do they believe that some type
oflinkage and / or inclusionary housing tied to the second home market would get rid of that market.
Gerry Flynn stated he submitted an exhibit that pointed out the burden is greatest on the
affordable housing. The expensive housing might be able to absorb a payment in lieu fee. Inadvertently
they have then destroyed the entire middle of the market. There is no place for the person to move from
affordable housing to be able to move up to. If that employee gets a higher than average wage increase
in Eagle County, he would have to sell his house.
Chairman Gallagher stated that provision will not survive.
Mr. Flynn stated it is a burden on those trying to build regardless ofthe project.
Chairman Gallagher commented the County moves a little bit slower than other things. They are
addressing things that existed a few years ago. Some of the employees will not be able to reside in
Eagle County but will work here. He stated he would like to see a list of incentives and what an
accelerated approval process means in dollars.
Mr. Flynn stated you start spending significant money before you get through the approval
process. Ifit takes 18 months to get the project started, that is a large amount of money to carry. You
must pay for land, professionals, architects, staff, etc, and you carry that amount of money for a large
portion of the project.
Chairman Gallagher questioned density in a project.
Mr. Flynn stated density is huge. The Board could tie density bonus' to affordable projects. You
can only put so many units on an area. Maybe 25% or 30% density bonus over the norm. Typically
they try to reduce the density and you cannot build affordable units in the County.
Chairman Gallagher questioned what the price of land represents. If it was available to a
developer at no cost, what would that represent?
Mr. Flynn stated land could represent 15% to 20% ofthe end project. On a $150,000.00 unit,
$22,000 of it is land. In Miller Ranch it should reduce every unit in the project by $20,000 to $25,000.
Rick Mueller stated if you pay $1 million dollars and you get ten units on that property, it will
cost $100,000.00 for the ground per unit. The more density you get the more it brings the costs down.
Mr. Badger stated it would be hard to administer a linkage program on one type of product and
not the other unless there were incentives.
Chairman Gallagher stated from everything he has heard and the countless meetings, it seems
they need to recognize the need for affordable housing and balance that against what is available at any
given time. He stated he does not believe the Commissioners should be interested in re-writing these
regulations every time the market hiccups. He would like to see the Board pursue something more
22
September 16, 2003
flexible. If these regulations were taken as the worst they would do a developer, and say these are on the
shelf and are available to start them up again at any time. He would like to see them do as they have
done in the past and negotiate with developers and the regulations be used as guidelines. They have
used the 20% model for linkage for commercial on several occasions. They need to have something that
is flexible.
Mr. Gustafson stated this is not just a developers problem as far as incentives and business costs
are concerned. This is a problem for the small business owner. That is just as much an area that needs
incentives as the builders.
Commissioner Stone asked what is the effect of staff review when they follow those
recommendations. He stated Mr. Mueller did negotiate a payment in lieu fee. If they go along with
Chairman Gallagher's idea using these regulations as guidelines or recommendations.
Mr. Mueller stated there is not a lot of flexibility. You must know what your cost are going into
the development. A flexible situation is harder for the development.
Chairman Gallagher stated he was looking at having something as a cap. The developer would
know that it would be no worse than the regulations.
Mr. Mueller stated negotiations would be better in that case.
Commissioner Stone stated he remembers Mr. Mueller struggling for every last dollar. If Mr.
Mueller compared these proposed regulations with the current list of recommendations, or to alter the
current list of recommendations, what would he do?
Mr. Mueller stated they have to lower what the costs are. Why not take the tax increase and
apply that. You cannot keep adding cost onto something and expect it to work.
Veronica Whitney, Reporter for Vail Daily, stated there are plans for redevelopment of
Lionshead. The burden is on the taxpayer because the incentives for the developer ends up costing the
taxpayer.
Commissioner Stone stated the Board has not taken a position. He stated it is interesting to note
that Woodland Hills was supposed to be an affordable development and the owner could not get the
financing. He stated his opinion has changed on affordable housing. He stated he was more on the
government side but has been moved by the public's testimony. He stated not one single person has
been in favor ofthese regulations. He read from a letter from Michael Mutter, Vice President of
Acquisitions and Development for Frontier Communities, for the record as follows:
"Dear Commissioners,
I strongly urge you to reconsider the objectives of the proposed Local Resident Housing
Regulations as written. These regulations should not be approved as written.
Eagle County has faced tremendous growth over the last ten years. This growth has taxed many
of the foundations of community including roads, trail systems, open space, recreation, schools and
housing opportunities. Faced with the limited supply of developable land, many non-profit groups have
struggled to serve the growing community. Each and every dollar spent on capital and operational
budgets are raised from everyday people through donations. In search of permanent homes, each of
these organizations has been faced with increased land costs, soaring construction costs, very limited
land opportunities and the increased burden of government regulations that are applied to them in the
same manner as commercial entities.
We, as a community, need to facilitate the establishment of homes for these non-profits, such as
the proposed Vail Christian High School campus that includes the agle Valley Religious Foundation's
inter-faith chapel and community outreach center. We need to minimize the government add ons for
affordable housing, trail, bus shelters and open space, just to name a few. The new local housing
regulations would potentially add $10 per square foot or $1.1 million in additional costs to the Vail
Christian High School's campus. The Planning Commission graciously recommended that the campus'
non-profit components would be exempt from the proposed regulations.
23
September 16, 2003
While the establishment of additional local housing opportunities is a tremendous concept, I am
afraid that the Local Resident Housing Regulations, as written, will discourage the development of
commercial opportunities and in the end, local resident housing opportunities. Eagle County saw
historic growth in both residential and commercial development throughout the 1990s, however, the
market has stabilized from its rapid growth in supply and pricing. Land has become scarce and more
difficult to develop. Yet the local resident population is demanding increased services and products.
Eagle County's Community Development and Planning staff, the Planning Commission and the
Board of County Commissioners have kept the local resident housing opportunities at the forefront of
public debate throughout this period of growth. Eagle County has effectively addressed the local
housing issue through innovative negotiations with developers and effective partnerships with
employers. Lake Creek Apartments, Villas at Brett Ranch and the newly developed Millers Ranch
community at the Berry Creek 5th Filing are tremendous successes.
I hope that the Board of County Commissioners will re-think these regulations and try to outline
incentives for the development of local resident housing opportunities rather than mandating additional
costs to non-profit organizations and future commercial development. At the very least, I highly
recommend that you exempt all non-profit agencies / uses, such as the Vail Christian High School and
the Eagle Valley Religious Foundation, from these regulations.
Thank you for addressing this very important issue. I only hope that you will see the wisdom of
reviewing its impacts on non-profit organizations and the development of new commercial
establishments throughout Eagle County.
Sincerely, Michael A. Mutter."
Commissioner Stone stated if they are really trying to do community good for the non-profits,
they are penalized just like everyone else. Ifit is a church they still must go through the Land Use
Regulations. They have been working against themselves. The market is depressed. There must be
incentives. It would be an unfair advantage if a new developer came in with a project we do not need.
He does not want to Boulderize or Aspenize Eagle County. Those areas have ruined their housing
market. They have ruined their commercial economy. They regulated it to death. The only people
that can afford to have store fronts, is real estate, high end art shops and t-shirt shops. The small mom
and pop operations cannot afford to make it. They are killing the goose that laid the golden egg. It is
amazing they would consider penalizing new business because it is from the tax revenues the
Commissioners find the money to fund those necessary projects. It is easy to pass a lodging tax. Rent
control does not work. It is also illegal. They will end up paying the price down the road for deed
restrictions.
Mr. Gustafson stated this is the gift that keeps on taking.
Commissioner Stone stated it would be a permanent subsidy not a temporary subsidy. If there is
a time in the future they need regulations, they will have done a lot of work towards that.
Commissioner Menconi stated he owes a great debt to developers. He stated his father was a
developer. He spoke about the cost of housing vs. earnings in our area. He stated that he doesn't
question the information that the developers had brought forward. He stated that obviously when a
regulation is instated it will impact someone's bottom line. He believed in the sincerity of statements
made but felt they were very broad and brush stroke comments. The regulations are for unincorporated
Eagle County for future development. This might mean the Wolcott and Dotsero area. Up-zoning of
commercial real estate might also be impacted. The recommendations are based on the needs
assessment. This morning he had two board members from Habitat for Humanity come to him to
express that there was not enough housing. The target price point is $187,000. The goal is to create a
minor niche. He believes that people who work in our community should be able to live in our
community. He reminded the public that there are three years of analysis behind these
recommendations. They have tried to create flexibility with the level of "entry-level" housing.
24
September 16, 2003
He believes that this will not be ruinous to the economy. If a developer is building a property they are
creating jobs and it should be required that housing be provided for these employees. Three need
assessments have been considered. He felt that rental units should be removed from the discussion. By
the year 2020 there are 4000 plus deed restricted units for people making 80% of AMI or less. He
questioned how we would create community if people are moving farther away. He referred to the
Town of Vail's success with deed restricted properties. He has never heard ofthis type of regulation
destroying an economy. The people moving into Miller Ranch are people who are unable to find units
at a higher range. He is trying to hold to a reality check of just how little these regulations would
impact the developer. It goes without saying that if you make it cheaper people will want to go forward.
Michael Mutter's letter was helpful to create distinctions between non-profit organizations who are
trying to build houses. He thanked Gerry Flynn for his help and the information he provided about these
types of regulations. During the 30 years he has been involved in housing, government has been very
involved. He believes it is a good effort. It's not whether or not he is in favor at this stage. He thought
the regulation would balance out the sacrifice people who work in our community make by moving
further and further away. He believes the discussion has been valuable and future discussions will be
valuable. He thanked Lance Badger and Gerry Flynn in addition to the staff for all the work they had
put into these recommendations. He felt it was a shame that $100,000 had been spent in staff and
consultant fees.
Commissioner Stone stated that it is a difference in philosophy that the way you help people who
live in this community is by creating jobs and not by stifling jobs. Good job creation is the key.
Commissioner Menconi countered with the fact that wages had not increased in relation to the
housing. He knows there are a lot of moving parts. Creating jobs does not necessarily mean that we are
going to have better paying jobs.
Commissioner Stone stated that you would not have better paying jobs if you discourage new
business from coming into the area. He referred to the wall board plant in Gypsum - a case in which
incentives worked. When he worked in a brush factory in Massachusetts making tooth brush handles he
met people who had been there for 30 years. He then came to understand that many of them had worked
there for that long and had put their children through college because of it. He learned the value of jobs.
K. T. Gazunis thanked Commissioner Stone for the accolades but gave the success to the
developers and financers of that project.
Rick Mueller commented that he might be wrong in representing the developer as a business
person. They pass the costs off to the people in the community. He did not believe that any developer
present had presented that they were against affordable housing. The question is how you get to that
point.
Commissioner Menconi stated that the main argument is that we do not have incentives
to develop housing for that sector of our society.
Michael Caccioppo stated that Commissioner Menconi's approach is more regulations and the
other approach is lower regulations.
Randy Milhoan wondered how many towns and cities there are in the U.S. that are in the same
situation. To think that we are so special that we have to create entry level housing for 20% of the
population is fool-hardy.
Commissioner Menconi stated that this occurs so frequently in the resort economies because of
the second home demand and nature of needs associated with these homes and the service sector needs
of our community.
Mr. Milhoan stated that with a limited amount of land he finds it curious that enormous amounts
of money are used to acquire open space.
Joan Hamed, Black Bear Real Estate, commented that there are properties in Two Rivers and
they are struggling to get them under contract. Rental markets do affect housing prices. She agreed that
people are moving into Miller Ranch but questioned their motives.
25
September 16, 2003
Gerry Flynn stated that the Aspen / Pitkin County Housing Authority is a disaster. He did not
believe this authority was a huge success. This authority is the second largest entity in that Valley.
Commissioner Menconi stated that it depends on how you define success. He asked Mr. Flynn
how deed restricted housing was not a good thing.
Mr. Flynn stated that there is nothing in between deed-restricted housing and high-end housing.
This situation in conjunction with the no-growth policies has created a disaster.
Chairman Gallagher asked staff to revise these regulations into guidelines with a cap and
formalizing within the guidelines the negotiations that had been utilized in the past to bring the
developers into agreement to provide some housing; including incentives. He asked staffto consider all
options for incentives. He wondered what the end of the economic slump would look like.
Commissioner Menconi asked for clarification. He asked Mr. Montag about bundling the
inclusionary and linkage together.
Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, stated that there are a number of ways that
it could be approached. These guidelines would be used as a point of negotiation on a case by case
basis. This would simply be endorsing the current regulations as guidelines.
Commissioner Menconi recommended that the guidelines be compartmentalized and then
incentives be something separate.
Chairman Gallagher asked staff to come at it a bit softer. He wanted to formalize the fact that
developers need to contribute to the effort. He was not necessarily looking for a regulation.
Commissioner Stone stated that his concern about the regulations is that the County
Commissioners will ask whether developers are in adherence with the Eagle County affordable housing
guidelines. He felt if these regulations were changed to guidelines they would be more extractive.
Ms. Leonard stated that the percentage is 10% now and the regulations are 20%. She had not
done a strict comparison.
Commissioner Menconi stated he understood that with the Arrowhead calculation for
commercial, it would be less burdensome.
Ms. Leonard stated that currently there are no inclusionary guidelines in place.
Chairman Gallagher stated that he would hope that negotiations would be accomplished by staff
prior to the projects going to the Planning Commission. He stated that he could not take responsibility
for future elected official's decisions related to these guidelines.
Rick Mueller suggested that future discussions include some business partners to influence these
decisions. He suggested these people be present at staff meetings.
Chairman Gallagher stated that he didn't object to having the public involved.
K.T. Gazunis spoke to the comment of "crystal ball". On September 26 there will be a regional
housing summit to present survey results related to projected workforce needs, employer housing
options, regulatory barriers to housing.
Commissioner Menconi stated that the discussion had moved to whether there should be
guidelines or nothing. He stated that a developer would be better served by having regulations instead
of guidelines.
Chairman Gallagher stated he felt negotiations would be better.
Commissioner Menconi stated that he feels it corrupts the whole dialog to include rentals in this
discussion. He referred to a book by Peter Lynch on the economy. The author believes that you don't
play into the market when the market is up and down. He asked for a reality check. This would have
very little affect on future files.
Commissioner Stone stated that you have to include rental housing, because not everyone has the
same work ethic or abilities and not everyone would be able to afford a home.
Commissioner Menconi responded that the rental price fluctuates with what the market can bear.
If a certain allotment is restricted, 20 years from now these properties would go up slower. In 1991,
Sunridge was renting for $350.00 and now rents for $1200.00. There are no regulations.
26
September 16, 2003
Lance Badger stated that reports had shown that 80% of those who wanted to buy would not buy
a deed-restricted unit. He asked Dave Garton how many units were available in Buckhorn Valley and
Mr. Garton responded there were over 3000 units available.
Commissioner Stone suggested that the housing guidelines be left as they exist today without
turning the recommendations in to guidelines, but that some incentives be included.
Chairman Gallagher stated there seemed to be three different opinions present.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the staff recommendations for files LUR-0038, LUR-
0039, LUR-0040 and LUR-0041, including the Eagle County Planning Commission's
recommendations.
Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Commissioner Menconi voting aye, Commissioners
Gallagher and Stone voting nay.
Commissioner Gallagher asked staff to continue to look at incentives, looking at the future needs
to determine how to modify the regulations.
Commissioner Stone related a sale that his wife had made recently with a 5% drop in sales price.
Chairman Gallagher stated that it is left to us to use the 20% requirement and incentives would
be looked at.
Commissioner Menconi moved to consider these regulations as guidelines; LUR-0038, LUR-
0039, LUR-0040 and LUR-0041.
Chairman Gallagher asked staff to come back with a draft that would accomplish this. This
would give staff an opportunity to review them.
Commissioner Menconi concurred to the amendment and included that in his motion.
Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Ofthe three voting commissioners, Commissioners
Menconi and Chairman Gallagher voting aye, Commissioner Stone voting nay.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board move forward with anlyzing density bonus' with a
discussion from Community Development to bring in projects with more affordability.
Commissioner Stone agreed with the need.
Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the three voting Commissioners the vote was
declared unanimous.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
September 23,2003.
Attes .
Clerk to the
27
September 16, 2003