Loading...
Minutes 06/23/09 PUBLIC HEARING June 23, 2009 Present: Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Keith Montag Bryan Treu Robert Morris Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Clerk to the Board Deputy Clerk to the Board Absent: Jon Stavney Commissioner This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session There was none. Consent Agenda Chairman Fisher stated the ftrst item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of June 22,2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for July 2,2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative c. Consent to Assignment of the Interests of Chatfield Corners, LLC to Chatfield Corners Metropolitan District as of May 8, 2007, Pursuant to the Assignment of Agreement Regarding Ditch Relocation and Easement County Attorney's Office Representative D. Chatfield Ditch Relocation Agreement Quit Claim Deed County Attorney's Office Representative E. Community Services Block Grant Agreement Amendment Jennie Wahrer, Children & Family Services F. Consolidated Cost Allocation Plan Finance Department's Office Representative Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that item F should be pulled for future consideration. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-E, excluding item F. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. 1 06/23/09 Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Eagle County Housing and Development Authority Alex Potente, Housing & Development Mr. Potente stated that there were two documents for consideration. The fIrst property had been in negotiation for the past several years and the second was the quit claim related to the same. The process began 24 months ago. There was no present intended use for the property, but the hope was that in the future there would be some county encouragement of re-development of West Eagle. Commissioner Runyon asked if the property was fee-simple and as such was truly an asset contiguous to other county properties. Mr. Potente confIrmed the statement. He felt that the price even in today's market was extremely fair. Chairman Fisher stated that the property was part one of a two part potential purchase as there were another five acres adjacent to the property. She believed that moving a horse pasture out of a residential area had its benefits for the community. She stated that she had received a call from a constituent opposed to the sale of Forest Service property for any reason. A. Purchase and Sale Agreement between Eagle County and USDA Forest Service for "Horse Pasture" Property B. Quit Claim Deed between Eagle County and the USDA Forest Service for "Horse Pasture" Property Commissioner Runyon moved to approve items A and B the Purchase and Sale Agreement between Eagle County and USDA Forest Service for the "Horse Pasture" property and the Quit Claim Deed between Eagle County and the USDA Forest Service for "Horse Pasture" Property. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority and re- convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office APPLICANT: REQUEST: EVENT: DATE OF THE EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Samaritan Center of the Rockies Special Events Permit Dinner/Dance Fundraiser July 11, 2009 Elizabeth Myers Vail Christian High School Auditorium - 31621 Hwy 6, Edwards Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: The applicant, Samaritan Center of the Rockies, a non-profit counseling center in Edwards has requested a special event permit for a fundraising event they wish to host in the Vail Christian High School Auditorium on July 11, 2009 from 7 p.m. until 11 p.m. The funds generated from the event will benefit the counseling center. 2 06/23/09 STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises II days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office. 4. The applicant has provided proof of server training and an alcohol management plan per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority. CONCERNS / ISSUES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Ms. Myers spoke to the board. She stated that they hoped for 250 people to attend the fundraiser. It would be a masquerade ball. She explained that the Samaritan Center had been in the valley for 13 years as a non-profit counseling center offering spiritual counseling to all regardless of anyone's ability to pay for these services. Fund raising helps defer costs. Chairman Fisher stated that the Center provided great service to the community. Ms. Myers assured the board that the main bartender would be TIPS trained. Chairman Fisher stated that all servers and bartenders should be server trained. Ms. Myers stated that West Vail Liquor Mart was supplying the alcohol. She explained that the event would be held at the Vail Christian High School and tickets were available at 926-8558. The event would be held July 11 th in the evening. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Events Permit for the Samaritan Center of the Rockies' event being held at the Vail Christian High School on July 11, 2009 from 7:00 p.m. to 11 :00 p.m. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. APPLICANT: REQUEST: EVENT: DATE OF EVENT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: Rink Productions, Inc. Special Events Permit Beaver Creek Property Owners Summer BBQ July 19, 2009 Jean Dennison, Event Manager Beaver Creek Subdivision Kathy Scriver DESCRIPTION: Rink Productions, Inc., a non-profit corporation, has requested a special event permit for the Beaver Creek Property Owners Association BBQ (private event) on Sunday, July 19. There will be entertainment by the band "Airborn" running from II :00 am to 3:00pm. General hours of operation will be from lO:OO am to 4:00 pm although they expect to cease liquor sales around 3:00 pm. The location of the event is in a portion of Lot l4, Tract A, Block 1, Beaver Creek Subdivision which includes an optional premise of Big Sky Restaurants, LLC d/b/a Beaver Creek Chophouse and Beaver Creek food Services, Inc. d/b/a Allie's Cabin. Both entities have given notice that their optional premise will not be in use and permission was granted for use on July 19th by the applicant. Rink Productions, Inc. and the Beaver Creek Resort Company will coordinate alcohol staff and security. 3 06/23/09 STAFF FINDINGS: 1. This application is in order, all requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 2. Public notice was given by the posting a sign in a conspicuous place on the premises, June ll, 2009, 11 days prior to the hearing. 3. No protests have been received in the Clerk's Office. 4. The applicant has provided proof of server training and an alcohol management plan per the requirements of the Eagle County Local Licensing Authority. CONCERNS / ISSUES: None STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All findings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Jean Dennison spoke to the board. She stated that TIPS trained servers would serve the alcohol. Commissioner Runyon wondered when a private party had to get a liquor licensing approval. Bryan Treu stated that since alcohol would be sold a special event permit would be needed. Ms. Dennison explained that drinks in excess of one drink per person would be available for purchase. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Local Liquor Licensing Authority approve the Special Events Permit for the Rink Productions, Inc Beaver Creek Homeowners BBQ held in Beaver Creek on July 19, 2009, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened and closed citizen Input, as there was none. Economic Stimulus Projects Update Tom Johnson, Public Works There was nothing new. Planning Files PDA-2142 Willits Bend PUD Amendment Sean Hanagan, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 5/19/09, to be tabled to 8/4/09 4 06/23/09 The purpose of this PUD amendment is to change language within the text to include "residential" as a by right use as well as change language regarding mezzanines and how they are counted toward FAR. ACTION: LOCATION: Willit's Bend, El Jebel Commissioner Runyon moved to table file PDA-2142, Willits Bend PUD Amendment Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. PDF-2113 Two Rivers Planned Unit Development Final Plat Bob Narracci, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this PUD Amendment is to locate a new Gypsum Fire Protection District emergency response station and regional frre-training center on Parcel 'A' of the Two Rivers Planned Unit Development. The Two Rivers PUD currently allows a frre station facility to be located on Parcel 'F' of the Two Rivers Estates Subdivision. Parcels' A' and 'F' were platted as part of the Two Rivers Estates Subdivision. This PUD Amendment recognizes the changed use of Parcel' A' and 'F'. FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: PDF-2113; PUD Final Plat Final Plat of Parcels A, B, E & F Two Rivers Estates North side of Interstate-70 and u.s. Highway 6 and west of the Colorado River Road in Dotsero. 1) Two Rivers Properties, LLLP 2) Dotsero Realty Partners, LLLP 3) Alpine Bank 4) Gypsum Fire Protection District Owners Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Knight Planning OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The purpose of this Final Plat is to: l) Subdivide Parcel E into Parcels E-l and E-2 so that Parcel E-l can be conveyed to the Gypsum Fire Protection District for the purpose of wildfrre fighting training; 2) Rename Parcels A, Band F to Parcels M, B-1 and B-2 respectively. This is consistent with the prior approval of an amendment to the Two Rivers PUD Guide. This Final Plat is companion to Eagle County File No. PDA-2ll2, approved on February 17,2009, and is intended memorialize the PUD Guide changes already approved. B. SITE DATA: North: Private Open Space Two Rivers 'PUD' 5 06/23/09 South: Interstate 70 right-of-way and Two Rivers 'PUD' Two Rivers Village East: Recreational Vehicle Storage Two Rivers 'PUD' for Two Rivers Residents West: Bureau of Land Management ' Resource Preservation' Existing Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD)* Proposed Zoning: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Total Land Area: Acres: 48.788-acres Square feet: 2,125,221 sq. ft. Total Open Space Acres: 42.499-acres Percentage: N/A Water: Public: Two Rivers Metro Private: N/A District Sewer: Public: Two Rivers Metro Private: N/A District Access: Via U.S. Highway 6 C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: October 5, 1998: The Two Rivers Planned Unit Development was approved by the BoCC. September 18, 2000: The Two Rivers PUD Amendment No.1 was approved by the BoCC. April 23, 2002: The Two Rivers Estates Final Plat and Two Rivers Village Final Plat was approved by the BoCC. April 15, 2003: The Two Rivers PUD Amendment No.2 was approved by the BoCC. May 13,2003: An Amended Final Plat for Two Rivers Village was approved by the BoCC December 29,2009: Application received by Eagle County for the Two Rivers PUD Amendment No.3, the companion Location & Extent application and this Final Plat application. February 4,2009: The Eagle County Planning Commission unanimously approved the companion Location & Extent application. February 17, 2009: The BoCC unanimously approved the companion Two Rivers PUD Amendment No.3 application. June 1, 2009: Applicant provided the fully executed Mylar of the Final Plat document. June 2,2009: Eagle County Attorney's Office signed-off on the executed Final Plat. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-280.B.5 Subdivision Final plat Section Purpose: At the meeting on the Final Plat for Subdivision, the Board of County Commissioners shall review the Final Plat, the submittal materials, provide both County staff and the applicant an opportunity to comment, and approve or disapprove the Final Plat for Subdivision based on whether it conforms to the approval given to the Preliminary Plan for Subdivision and the standards in 6 06/23/09 Section 5-280.B.3.e., Standards., considering specifically the adequacy of required improvements and the acceptance of areas dedicated for public use and easements. Standards: 5-280.B.5.b (3) and 5-280.B.3.e Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b (3), ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, it has been found that: (1) This final plat conforms to, and is consistent with the intentions, representations and conditions as approved with the Preliminary Plan for the subdivisionlPUD. (2) Required improvements are adequate including roadways, pedestrian and recreation pathways, and infrastructure. This Final Plat does not necessitate any additional public improvements. (3) Areas dedicated for public use and all anticipated easements are as approved in the Preliminary Plan and are acceptable as presented in the Final Plat application. Section 5-280.B.3.e: STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~ 'E ..l j 5 PLUM I J ~.....Z;> pe$ignation .t.-.. ..... ~ .;;: tii ( ......;i: , >, ~& Exceeds RecommendatIons I1lcofporates Majority Of Xl X2 X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 RecommendatIons D<)e~not $~t~~.l.Y Majority of Recommendations X X Below are the Recommended Strategies intended to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: Xl: Develooment · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". · "Work to identifY and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services ". · "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". · "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". · "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy". · "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". · "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". 7 06/23/09 · "Analyze development applicationsfor conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". · "Continue to allow variations from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the surrounding community". · "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing". · "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts'~ Xl: Housing · "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". · "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". · "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Planfor all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". · "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications". · "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". X3: Infrastructure and Services · "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub'~ · "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". · Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". · "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". · Encourage transit oriented development". · "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". · "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure ". · "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings'~ · "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". · "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design ". · "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate". · "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". · "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". · "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". · "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". · "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". · "Use House Bill 1 041 powers to fully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposals for new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". · "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". · "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". · "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". X4: Water Resources · "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". · "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". · "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". 8 06/23/09 · "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination". · "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible" · "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". · "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". · "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". · "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". · "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". · "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application". · "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". · "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". · "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". · "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identify and treat other non-point sources of pollution". · "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". · "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". · "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways ". · "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". X5: . . . . . . . . . . Wildlife Resources "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing man-made barriers to wildlife migration". Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments ". "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". "Minimize site disturbance during construction". "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". "Require wildlife-proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". X6: Sensitive Lands · "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use-". · "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". · "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through landform or vegetation modification ". · Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". · "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans ". · "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". · "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved". X7: Environmental Oualitv · "Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". · "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips ". 9 06/23/09 . "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting". "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals'~ "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". Implement energy efficiency guidelines. Implement energy saving techniques. . . . . . . . . . X8: Future Land Use MaD DesiJmation The FLUM of the Eagle County Community Plan identifies the subject property as a "Community Center". "Community Centers are places where mixes of residential and non-residential activities appropriate to serve the Community Center and surrounding rural areas take place. Community facilities, such as schools and fire stations, are appropriately located within Community Centers as are community-oriented facilities". EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance X X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable The use of Best Management Practices for storm water management and protection of the Colorado River are mandatory. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x x x x x x Applicable 10 06/23/09 The subject property is not located in an area identified as a "unique landform". Staff, the Eagle County Planning Commission and the BoCC made positive findings on each of the recommended strategies through approval of the companion PUD Amendment process. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ST ANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. d(:l ..... '"a 5 Cd ~.g] 'g] ~ j ~~~] ~.g@.a z~ttoo u.9'soo '6 ~] 8-0 a~ .~....CI) ~ Q) p;.. g ~ E - en 6h U5 x x x x x x x x The existing Two Rivers PUD complies with all applicable standards and provisions of the Land Use Regulations utilized by Eagle County during the initial evaluation and approval of the Two Rivers PUD in 1998 and subsequent amendments. This proposed Final Plat will not alter Consistency with the Land Use Regulations. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Ea1!le Countv Road CaDital ImDrovements Plan. (2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. 11 06/23/09 (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. This proposed Final Plat does represent an efficient spatial pattern. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future improvements to the area. The Board of County Commissioners in 1998 determined that the subject property was suitable for development. Pursuant to the Colorado Geological Survey response, stability of this hillside must be established, avoided and mitigated, as necessary to ensure that the subject property below is safe for development. Further information regarding the anticipated extent of fire training activities on the steep slope must be provided, including: a site specific geologic hazard and geotechnical report detailing how the site will be utilized and altered from its current condition and whether or not use of the adjacent hillside entails burning natural and/or introduced vegetation, as well as, revegetation. The reports must also address any geologic hazards or constraints present in the proposed building location and set forth recommendations for mitigation. Prior to issuance of either a grading permit or building permit on the site the county and Colorado Geological Survey will review and approve the reports. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Compatibility of the Two Rivers PUD with all existing and allowed adjacent land uses should not be adversely affected by this proposal to re-designate the use of Parcel A (Parcel M) from 'school site' to 'rIfe station and fIfe training facility' or re-designating the use of Parcel F (Parcel B-2) from 'rIfe station and all related uses' to 'storage site' for recreational vehicles owned by residents of Two Rivers. Additional detail regarding the extent of fIfe fighter training use proposed on the steep hillside (Parcel E-l) must be provided prior to issuance of either a grading permit or building permit on the subject property. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (6)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Sketch or Preliminary Plan will be provided adequate facilities for potable l2 06/23/09 water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical senJices ~ 'S. ~ (!) >> ~o.. ....c.. o ;:l ~CIl 5 (!) 'B ~- "8 (!) 1I>'"iii ~ ~ -0 bO'" .t::~ tt '" c:tS 0 "1:l 0 ....,..0. "0 ~ ~ .;'::~ ~g. ~ ~ (!) .- 0'- i:i: CIlO CIlO IZ.lCll X X X X X Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Re uirements Deviation/VIS Requested X In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No Development within the Two Rivers PUD is already served with Adequate Facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, ftre protection and roads. Water and Sewer lines must be extended into Parcel A (Parcel M) from the adjacent US Highway 6 right-of-way. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [PDF-00I02] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines ofthe Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [PDF-00I02] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [PDF-00I02] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [PDF-00I02] request with conditions and/or performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 13 06/23/09 SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modified by this Final Plat, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered condition(s) of approval; 2. All comments set forth in the Engineering Department memorandum dated January 26,2009 must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Eagle County Engineer prior to site disturbance. This condition is carried forward from approval of the companion PUD Amendment application approved by the BoCC on February 17,2009. Eagle County File No. PDA-2112. 3. All comments set forth in the Environmental Health Department memorandum dated January l4, 2009 must be addressed to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Health prior to site disturbance. This condition is carried forward from approval of the companion PUD Amendment application approved by the BoCC on February 17, 2009. Eagle County File No. PDA-2112. 4. All comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey response dated January 21,2009 must be addressed to the satisfaction of Colorado Geological Survey and Eagle County prior to the issuance of either a grading permit or building permit for a fIre station facility and/or alteration of the adjacent hillside (Parcel E-l). This condition is carried forward from approval of the companion PUD Amendment application approved by the BoCC on February 17, 2009. Eagle County File No. PDA- 2112. 5. Pursuant to the Colorado Department of Transportation e-mail dated January 25,2009, the applicant must secure a State Highway Access Permit to access Parcel A (Parcel M) off of US Highway 6. This condition is carried forward from approval of the companion PUD Amendment application approved by the BoCC on February 17,2009. Eagle County File No. PDA-2112. 6. Detailed information regarding the intended use of the steep hillside (Parcel E-l) must be provided to the county prior to issuance of either a grading permit or building permit for a fIre station facility and/or alteration of (Parcel E-l). This condition is carnedforwardfrom approval of the companion PUD Amendment application approved by the BoCC on February 17, 2009. Eagle County File No. PDA-2112. DISCUSSION: Mr. Narracci presented the me. Last February the board approved a companion PUD amendment to distinguish the new uses for the purpose of a Fire Station and training facility. Through the PUD amendment, it was re-classified as R V storage. The land above it was an open space tract. The conditions suggested are the same as the PUD amendment. Jenna Skinner - Markowitz was present representing the owners. She stated that there had been no changes or deviations from the prior PUD amendment. Commissioner Runyon asked about the boundary between the two pieces. He wondered about the drainage and the ridge line. Dave Vroman, Gypsum Fire Chief stated that they were not sure yet what they would provide in terms of training. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Chief Vroman stated that it would be helpful to get this done for grant application purposes. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve file PDF-2113; PUD Final Plat of Parcels A, B, E & F Two Rivers Estates with conditions as suggested; 1-6. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. 14 06/23/09 Public Hearing Open Space - Colorado River Ranch Chairman Fisher addressed the public prior to the meeting and thanked everyone for their comments and letters. She informed all present that the decision about the purchase of the property would not happen during this meeting. She hoped to have another public meeting the following Monday, June 29. She indicated that the meeting was scheduled until 4:30 but could be extended until 5:00 p.m. if they were still receiving public input. She spoke about an article about the Open Space tax in the daily paper regarding the effort to gather a petition for repealing the tax. She clarified that this meeting was only about the Colorado River Ranch. Kris Aoki, Community Development presented the request. She showed a PowerPoint presentation with maps, pictures, background, and other relevant information. There was a previous PUD approval, which has expired. Title: Colorado River Ranch Conservation Easement Owner: River Ranch, LLC c/o John P. Lichtenegger 1210 Greenway Drive, PO Box 350, Jackson, Missouri, 63755 Location: 12799 Colorado River Ranch Road, 12 miles north of Dotsero on the Colorado River Road Date: June 23,2009 Representative: Eagle Valley Land Trust Staff Planner: Kris Aoki, Planner I. Project Overview The Eagle Valley Land Trust, representing the River Ranch, LLC, is requesting Eagle County Open Space Tax funds in the amount of $5,750,000 to secure a conservation easement on the 1,017 acre Colorado River Ranch. The ranch is 12 miles north of Dotsero off the Colorado River Road. The existing land use is ranching; as it has been since the property was originally homesteaded in 190 l. Placing an easement on this property will secure the heritage of the land as a working ranching, preserve views, visual quality in the area, protect wildlife and riparian habitat, provide new access to the Colorado River and enhance existing access to public lands. According to the draft conservation easement, the existing Residential Improvements and Agricultural Improvements are located within the Ranch Headquarters Envelope (RHE) which is a 10 acre area. Within the RHE, the owners are reserving the right to tear down and build a new residential unit up to 7,000 sq. ft. and may add or expand Agricultural Improvements without limit. Any indoor or outdoor riding area and stable within RHE is exempt from the limitations and requirements of the easement. Buildings within the RHE will not exceed 50 percent coverage of the RHE. Outside of the RHE, the owners may construct no more than 10 new Agricultural Improvements which can be no more than 3,000 square feet in floor area and no more than two new Agricultural Improvements which cannot exceed 5,000 square feet of floor area each. These new Agricultural Improvements therefore may total up to 40,000 square feet. The owners are also reserving the right to subdivide a 70 acre tract into two 35 acre parcels which cannot be sold separately from the ranch. A 7,000 square foot residence is allowed on one 35 acre parcel. The other 35 acre parcel may contain a second 7,000 sq. ft. residence or a fishing/hunting lodge of no more than 9,000 square feet. Neither structure may encroach within 150 feet of the Colorado River. The Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) initially reviewed this project on March 9, 2009, and April 13, 2009, when the northern most 514 acres were proposed for preservation. On May 11, 2009, OSAC unanimously agreed with the recommendations from staff, but had additional comments they wanted brought forward to the Board. 15 06/23/09 The property was targeted in the recent past for development. On May 8, 200 l, the Board of County Commissioners approved a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Preliminary Plan application for the Colorado River Ranch PUD - (File No. PDP-000l8). The developed portion of the property would have covered approximately 200 +/- acres accommodating: 1. An 18 hole golf course; 2. Golf course clubhouse facility with a pro shop, cart storage, restaurant and 16 overnight rooms; 3. 25 small ranch homesteads; 4. A children's pavilion; 5. Golf course maintenance facility with an employee dorm; 6. Pool(s), tennis court(s), sporting clays, etc; and 7. Related facilities including comfort stations, range building, pump-houses. 8. Fire station with two bays and an employee unit housing up to four employees; Agricultural uses (a ranch operation) and open space would have covered the balance of the ranch, approximately 800 +/- acres. The Colorado River Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan approval was valid for five years. On February 8, 2006, the Board of County Commissioners was petitioned by the owner of the property with a request to extend the Preliminary Plan approval for an additional two years. On March 28,2006, the Board of County Commissioners denied the request for extension based on the applicant's failure to proceed with a speculative development and a determination that the proposed development no longer complied with Land Use Regulations as well as the Comprehensive Plan. Subsequently, on May 29,2007, the zoning was changed on the Colorado River Ranch from PUD back to Resource. No other development applications have been submitted to Eagle County for the subject property. The total appraised value of the Colorado River Ranch that is being considered by this application is $13,250,000. The appraisal was done by David E. Peterson in May 2009. According to the appraisal, the value of the land after the development rights have been removed by the conservation easement is $5,300,000. Therefore, the value of the conservation easement has been set at $7,950,000. River Ranch, LLC has agreed to a bargain sale, with a contribution of $1,000,000 value resulting in a project cost of $6,950,000. The funding request for Eagle County open space funds is $5,750,000, which is 72% of the easement value. An application for $800,000 has been submitted to Great Outdoors Colorado. This leaves a budget shortfall of $400,000. The Gates Family Foundation, Keep It Colorado - Colorado Conservation Trust, the National Fish & Wildlife Foundation - Acres for America program, as well as the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation are being contacted by the Eagle Valley Land Trust for donation requests. Other gifts and grants from individuals may eventually contribute to the purchase of this portion of the Colorado River Ranch. II. Land Description The Colorado River Ranch is located in the rural upper Colorado River drainage. The property is the largest remaining private in holding in the Colorado River corridor surrounded by public lands zoned Resource Preservation and private lands zoned Resource. Approximately two miles of the Colorado River flow through the property, as does 1.25 miles of Willow Creek, a tributary to the Colorado River. The eastern part of the property lies in the Colorado River bottomlands and has relatively low topographic relief. The west part of the property encompasses the steep, narrow canyon of Willow Creek. Topographic features include bluffs along the west bank of the Colorado River and the canyon of Willow Creek. Approximately 600 acres of the property are considered pasture lands. The property includes one home at the northern end of the property, plus a number of barns, stables, corrals, and outbuildings used in conjunction with traditional ranching operations. Throughout the property are hay corrals, pens, ditches, head gates, and fences used in ranching. This summer, installation will begin on a pivot irrigation system to improve the productivity of the grazing lands and hay fields. 16 06/23/09 Access is from the Colorado River Road. Unimproved dirt roads are located throughout the property to provide internal access to various portions of the ranch. III. Site and Transaction Information Total land area: 1 ,Ol7 acres Land Area in Eagle County: I,Ol7 acres Current Land Use/Zoning: AgriculturaVResource Surrounding Land Uses / Zoning: East: Agricultural and Public Land BLM/Resource and Resource Preservation West: Public Land-BLM/Resource Preservation North: Agricultural and Public Land BLMlResource and Resource Preservation South: Agricultural and Public Land BLMlResource and Resource Preservation Proposed Ownership: Ownership of the ranch would remain with River Ranch, LLC, with a conservation easement to be held by the Eagle Valley Land Trust. Appraised Value of the Easement: Owner's Contribution: $7,950,000 $1,000,000 (12%) Other Funding Sources: OSAC Funding Request: Budget Shortfall: $800,000 request from GOCO $5,750,000 (approximately 72% of easement value) $400,000 - Remainder to come from EVLT and private sources IV. OSAC Limited Review: At its scheduled meeting on March 9,2009, the Citizen's Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC) considered the information submitted by the owners' representative and EVLT. A motion was made to request additional information about this project and that a formal application be submitted. At its scheduled meeting on April 13, 2009, some OSAC members were concerned about preserving only half of the ranch, 514 acres, and this concern led River Ranch, LLC to request a tabling to allow them time to consider applying for a conservation easement and funding request for the entire ranch. On May 11, 2009, a new application was submitted encompassing the entire ranch. V. Criteria Analysis - OSAC Recommendation The following analysis is offered pursuant to Eagle County Resolution 2004-021, Approving and Adopting Open Space Criteria to Prioritize the Selection of Eligible Lands for Open Space: A. Background On November 5, 2002, the voters of Eagle County approved Referendum 1 H, which provided for an increase in taxes to fund an open space acquisition and maintenance program for the County. The ballot provided that open space funds could be usedfor preserving wildlife habitat, protecting workingfarms and ranches, conserving scenic landscapes and vistas, protecting wetlands and floodplains, providing public access points to rivers and streams and servicing future voter approved debt related to this purpose. Pursuant to this end and in concert with the Referendum 1 H ballot language, six criteria were developed to be used by OSAC to evaluate properties that might be acquired or set aside as open space within the County. For each criterion, qualitative ratings of High, Medium, Low and Not Applicable can be assigned based on the property's known physical characteristics. 17 06/23/09 B. Open Space Criteria A description regarding the attributes of this portion of the Colorado River Ranch considered for a conservation easement follows each of the open space evaluation criteria listed below. I. Scenic Landscapes and Vistas. Preserve and protect Eagle County's outstanding natural beauty and visual quality. Staff Comments: There is significant public visual exposure, specifically from the Colorado River Road, the Colorado River, and the daily Amtrak route. This property has high visual quality, diversity and contributes to the rural sense of place in the Colorado River valley. Prominent ridgelines on the property are visual throughout the valley. Colorado River Road and the rail line are considered secondary travel routes which drops the ranking from High to Medium. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. OSAC Unanimous Recommendation - Scenic Quality Ranking: Medium II. Rel!ional Herital!e. Al!riculture and Ranchinl!. Retain Eagle County's history, culture and agricultural land uses. Staff Comments: The Colorado River Ranch is a historic working ranch. The large size, 1,017 acres, has approximately 600 acres of pasture, irrigated land, and prime soils. This site has significant cultural value due the desire to preserve working ranches in Eagle County. The preservation of the Colorado River Ranch would enhance the rural character and visual quality of the area preserving it for future generations. Senior water rights dating back to l890 are intended to stay with the land and the water delivery system will be upgraded this summer to a pivot irrigation system. The property is contiguous to other ranch and BLM open space. Non-ranching activities that would diminish values important to open space preservation are not anticipated. OSAC Comments: It was noted that there appears to be no obligation or compulsion in the deal for the property to continue as an operating ranch. One of the conservation values of the property is the appearance of a working ranch, and some OSAC members suggested that the possibility of abandonment of ranch operation be precluded. This concern was not shared by all on the committee however, with others noting that even if the ranching operation ceased the property would still be immensely valuable as open space. OSAC Unanimous Recommendation - Regional Heritage Ranking: High III. Wildlife. Wildlife Habitat and Mil!ration Routes. Set aside areas critical to the long term health and vitality of indigenous wildlife. Staff Comments: The Colorado River Ranch contains significant mapped winter range, severe winter range, winter concentration area and summer range for elk. The property provides winter and severe winter range for mule deer. The property contains critical habitat, breeding and nesting areas for waterfowl and raptors. Bald and golden eagles are common on the property. The ranch is contiguous with other existing or potential open space and public lands of importance to wildlife. The BLM property on the north side of the ranch is actively hunted in the fall and winter. Long term wildlife benefits would not be negatively impacted from potential uses on adjacent or surrounding properties. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. l8 06/23/09 OSAC Unanimous Recommendation - Wildlife Ranking: High IV. Sensitive Lands & Environments. Protect riparian areas, flood plains, and other sensitive, unique or endangered ecosystems or environments. Staff Comments: The 1,017 acres contains significant undisturbed areas designated as riparian or wetland, specifically the Colorado River and the Willow Creek corridors. The Willow Creek area has significant areas of geologic hazards in the form of steep and eroding slopes. According to the information in the application, the property contains ground water re-charge and surface source water areas. Also according to the application, there are native plant materials on site and rare or endangered plant communities that may be found on this property include Herrington's Penstemon and Many-stem Stickleaf. Protection of the Colorado River Ranch would contribute to the long term viability of the larger ecosystem in the Colorado River valley. Once again, this property is contiguous with other existing or potential open space and public lands. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. OSAC Unanimous Recommendation - Sensitive Lands Ranking: High V. Phvsical and Visual Buffers. Promote community separation and distinction, and provide separation between developed areas and sensitive lands. Staff Comments: Currently, there is limited development on the surrounding properties therefore the need for community separation between developed areas and sensitive lands are not applicable to this proposal. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. OSAC Unanimous Recommendation - Physical and Visual Buffer Ranking: N/A VI. Access to Streams. Rivers. Public Lands and Dispersed Recreation Opportunities. Provide access to public lands, and improve opportunities for high quality dispersed recreation. Staff Comments: As previously proposed an access already exists to the adjacent BLM land but would be enhanced with the two acre parking area and improved access road. The owners anticipate allowing public access to and along the river in the winter for game bird hunting through the Colorado Division of Wildlife Hunter Access program. In this new application, the owners are also providing a two acre parking area and path on the southern portion of the ranch to allow river access. River Ranch, LLC is also providing a one acre parcel for parking adjacent to the Colorado River School for education opportunities. For further explanation on educational opportunities, see Section VI. OSAC Comments: o Better assurance is needed regarding public access points, details of related improvements and the seasonal access provided to the Colorado Division of Wildlife Hunter Access program. Language in the draft Conservation Easement is not sufficiently compelling on the owner. Words like "intends", "considering" and the like should be replaced with well defined commitments and requirements. 19 06/23/09 o The southernmost access point to the Colorado River utilizes a dry wash that is subject to flash flood events. Planning for related access improvements should take this into consideration. o If the public access point under the trestle bridge is not granted by the railroad or is not feasible based on the dry wash area discussed above, an alternative river access point should be provided. o The possibility of additional public space near and along the river at the southernmost public access point should be investigated as well as defined and included in the final conservation easement. A short reach of private lands could connect up with the BLM lands just north of the river access point. Fishing access opportunities for the public on the east side of the Colorado River would include a small portion of the ranch. This should not create any major impacts on the privacy or operations of the ranch. However, the Eagle Valley Land Trust would need to confirm conservation values of the property would not be diminished, such as impacts to riparian areas, by allowing this fishing access to occur. o Public Access Maintenance Concern: The costs to the County of constructing as well as maintaining public access points and related facilities is an important consideration; the County should look at long term costs and how those are to be funded. While it is preferable to use open space funds for the purchase of properties it is also necessary to recognize that either the general fund, OSAC funds, the property owner or some other source will be necessary to take care of construction of facilities and ongoing maintenance. OSAC Unanimous Recommendation - Access Ranking: Medium * *Staff Comments: The public access is located off a secondary travel route, some distance from a community center and therefore the ranking drops from High to Medium. *OSAC Comments: Some OSAC members believe a major reason for ranking this as a Medium is overall access is limited compared to the amount of ranch going into a conservation easement. B. Additional Project Considerations The following represents those items listed as "Additional Criteria and Considerations" in Eagle County's Open Space Criteria. For the purpose of discussion, the two sections, "Factors Favoring Land Protection" and "Factors Weighing Against Land Protection" have been consolidated into single positive statements that can be evaluated for coriformance. At the May 11,2009 OSAC meeting, all 11 Project Considerations were unanimously approved. I. Economy. Discounts, other funding, partnerships, land donation, and/or endowment contribution favorably reduce the County's portion of the purchase cost. Staff Comments: This is a funding partnership with a request from GOCO in the amount of $800,000. At this time, Eagle County is being asked to commit to funding this project in an amount not to exceed $5,750,000 or 72% of the easement appraisal; the land owner is contributing $1,000,000 of the property value. In addition, private monies are being sought to offset the remaining amount. OSAC Comments: The appraisal for the property should be carefully scrutinized for inclusion of questionable data, how the data were used and the impacts of no comparable sales data from December 2007 to the current appraisal date of May 2009. OSAC noted the following in particular: 20 06/23/09 o The paired sales, completed during the period of February 2005 to December 2007, used to adjust the prices of the comparable sales from the date of sale to December 31, 2007, include small parcels and a questionable part interest sale of the Colorado River Ranch itself. Small parcels in the 35 to 40 acre range are known, as cited by the Appraiser, to be more costly per acre and to escalate faster than the larger, harder to sell and higher total price point ranches. One comparable sale property, Commonwealth Title/Potter, was adjusted by 57 months of assumed uniform appreciation. o The sale of a 25 percent undivided interest in the ranch to a small investor group took place at a per acre price 34 percent higher than the prior total ranch purchase only approximately five months earlier. The motivation as well as the tax and investment strategy of the purchase group is unknown but may have played a role in the high purchase price now being cited. It must be noted that at the time of that sale, the property was part of a private land exchange for development purposes elsewhere. o The appraiser noted a monthly escalation of 2.97 percent but discounted this value and used l.5 percent or 18 percent per year. Excluding the small parcels, the questionable sale and acreage weighting the sales, this escalation calculated by the appraiser drops to l.31 percent per month. In short, OSAC believes the appraisal provides an unlikely current value. o Related to the above concern, the downturn in the economy provides an opportunity to negotiate a lower price. Again, since no comparable sales data is available from January 2008, onward, OSAC believes that the valuation of the ranch indicated by the applicant does not reflect market changes over the last 17 months. o The project is not well leveraged and additional funding partners would lessen the cost to the County. According to the application, the ranch lies in the Keep It Colorado Priority Landscapes Conservation Area ofthe Upper Colorado River Corridor. There are very few of these areas designated in Colorado and it would seem reasonable that additional funding sources would be available. o Consider requiring the owners to offer the County the right of ftrst refusal should the ranch be put up for sale in the future. o II. Master Plan. Land or development rights acquisition is supported by the intent and purposes of applicable Eagle County Master Plan documents. Staff Comments: The preservation of this property meets the intent of the Eagle County Open Space Plan, which states that the functions of Open Space include the following: Maintain rural atmosphere Protect natural and social resources Maintain visual quality Control development in unsuitable areas Policies within the 2006 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan that also apply to this project include 3.2.2 - Qualitv of Life, Policy - a. Those attributes that support quality of life options unique to Eagle County today should be preserved for future generations. 3.3.5 - Other Industries, Policy - j. Agricultural land uses should be retained to preserve Eagle County's historical heritage and scenic quality for the benefit of future generations. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. 21 06/23/09 III. Un!ency. Development of the property, to a degree that open space values would be significantly compromised, is imminent. Staff Comments: The River Ranch, LLC originally purchased the property in December 2007 to facilitate a land exchange for property in Gypsum that was intended for development. When the land swap failed, the twelve investment partners were split on the outcome of the Colorado River Ranch. Those partners that wish to develop have given the partners that wish to preserve the property as open space a limited time to sell off the development rights through a conservation easement. Should the conservation easement efforts fail; the partnership will be forced to look at other options, including the immediate sale of the property. Another potential urgency factor is the status of the Colorado Conservation Easement Tax Credit program. Suspending the credit for two years has been contemplated by the State's General Assembly as one way to reduce the budget. The current budget has the Tax Credit program, but discussions about the program will continue through early May. Should the Tax Credit program be removed, the transaction will need to be completed before the new budget begins in July in order to grant the owner a tax credit for the $1,000,000 donation. OSAC Comments: o It might be advantageous to spread the funding over several years. Depending on what other projects might be selected to fund this year or next and whether the County would need to save some money to fund other projects, the Commissioners might prefer to have part of the funding in this year's budget and part in next year's budget. o Countering the applicant's contention of imminent sale/development, the current and foreseeable economic situation, development climate and lending environment have limited the threat of development. Also, current County Land Use Regulations include tools and options such as the conservation development that may apply to any future development application and achieve much of the same outcomes as the proposed conservation easement but at little or no cost. Although, preservation as a heritage working ranch would not be achieved. IV. Uniaueness. The subject property is the only remammg, or one of a very few remaining, opportunities to protect open space of its kind. Staff Comments: The property is the largest remaining private in holding in the Colorado River corridor surrounded by public lands zoned Resource Preservation and private lands zoned Resource. This property is unique in that it is a working ranch, owned by a partnership that wishes to stay and continue the active agricultural uses. The ranch is in excellent condition and is visible from the Colorado River Road, Colorado River and Amtrak routes. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. v. Precedent. The project sets positive precedent for open space preservation values and objectives, and may motivate other landowners to consider preservation alternatives. Staff Comments: This project involves the preservation of a working ranch and it sets a strong positive precedent for conservation easements and open space acquisitions in the Colorado River Road area. The project currently has funding from a variety, but limited number of sources. Holding a conservation easement on this property is creating a foundation for the future of the valley especially if additional partners join the project. 22 06/23/09 OSAC Comments: A careful, fact based and defendable establishment of total value for the ranch and conservation is required to preclude establishing an excessive and non- achievable expectation by other future owners seeking conservation easements. VI. Education. Preservation would provide unique educational opportunities Staff Comments: The old Colorado River Schoolhouse is located on the ranch and the owner is working with the Eagle County Historical Society on a plan to create a museum with this structure to provide public education about the history of the area as well as the school experience nearly a century ago. OSAC Comments: o The eventual ownership of the school house site is unresolved. In the event that the site is deeded over to the local historical society, it has not been demonstrated that this group has the capacity to keep as well as maintain the site; o Details regarding how the school house site would be used and who would be able to use/visit the school house site as well as how tours are conducted, needs to be worked out. Perhaps the county attorneys could create language that would lock in the items above, possibly with the historical society being the designated owner and the County as the owner if the historical society cannot continue operations or some other combination. VII. Support. There is wide-spread community support for the project. Staff Comments: Letters of support for the project are attached to this report. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. VIII. Bit! Picture. The project has potentially significant benefit on a regional or state-wide basis. Staff Comments: The Colorado River Ranch is included in one of the 24 most important conservation landscapes in Colorado as identified by five of the state's leading conservation organizations; the Nature Conservancy, Trust for Public Lands, The Conservation Fund, Colorado Open Lands, and Colorado Conservation Trust. OSAC Comments: Given this identification of importance and levels of support, OSAC suggests that other funding partners should participate in this project. IX. Encumbrance. The property is not negatively encumbered by mineral rights, rights- of-way or easements. Staff Comments: The railroad has historically bisected the property and holds an easement to maintain their corridor of operation. The Colorado River Road also runs through the north side of the property. Eagle County has an easement on the property, but the County Engineering Department is requesting the dedication of a formal right-of-way. A letter from the Engineering Department has been attached to this report. OSAC Comments: OSAC supports the pursuit of a ROW for the Colorado River Road as an additional public benefit provided by the Applicant. X. Environmental Hazards. The property is not significantly burdened by environmental hazards (chemicals) or other waste or refuse. 23 06/23/09 Staff Comments: According to the application, the owner is not aware of any current or historic use of hazardous materials on the property. However, a Phase I Environmental Assessment will be conducted on the property in the spring. The owners have applied for certification as an organic ranch to the Colorado Department of Agriculture. OSAC Comments: No additional comments. XI. Maintenance. The long term cost to the County of maintaining and/or monitoring the land is expected to be reasonably low. Staff Comments: It is expected that the holders of the conservation easement, Eagle Valley Land Trust and the County, will defme and include the amount of monitoring cost, in perpetuity, as well as the source of funding into the total project cost and plan. Additionally the draft conservation easement provides that upon any subsequent sale of the property the Grantee, the County and the EVLT, shall receive from the third party purchaser 1 percent of the fair market value of the Property. OSAC Comments: The receipt, management, and use of the above 1 percent fee must be defined. DISCUSSION: Ms. Aoki presented the details of the request. She stated that a draft appraisal had been completed in May of 2009 and the entire ranch was valued at $13,250,000; a value of approximately $13,000 an acre. After the development rights were removed, the entire property was worth $5.3 million. The appraised value of the conservation easement was valued at $7,950,000. The property owner would contribute $1 million; $5,750,000 (72%) was requested from Eagle County Open Space, $800,000 requested from Great Outdoors Colorado and $400,000 requested from the Eagle Valley Land Trust and other private donors. The conservation easement would allow continuation of the 1 O-acre ranch headquarters envelope, the subdivision of 70 acres into two 35 acres parcel, one parcel allowing a 7,000 square foot residence and the other parcel allowing a 9,000 square foot fishing/hunting lodge. Public access would be available at several locations. She reviewed the Open Space Advisory Committee Criteria detailed above. Commissioner Runyon clarified that some of the criteria was not part of the ballot language. Cindy Cohagen of the Eagle Valley Land Trust spoke to the board. Ms. Cohagen stated that the project was significant to the community and the people of Eagle County. She underscored the fact that the project met virtually all of the criteria identified in the ballot language of 1 H. She found it interesting that the language added public access points to rivers and streams. The public benefits include parking, river access, precedent setting donation of the schoolhouse and the opportunity for public education. River access improved tourist opportunities. The owners had also offered to help pay for the renovation of the schoolhouse. She spoke about the Land Trust's perspective of the appraisals. In 2008, Colorado Appraiser statutes were amended by the passage of house bill l353, the Conservation Easement Oversight bill. Among the regulations were a number of conditions related to conservation easements related to these appraisals. Appraisers must submit copies of completed appraisals to the State Division of Real Estate and must complete classroom educational requirements. The state would not grant a tax credit for these easements unless these conditions were met. If there is evidence that the appraiser has not followed these requirements the appraiser's licenses could be pulled. The EVLT directs property owners to appraisers who were acknowledged and proven experts in this area. Dave Peterson completed the appraisal on the property in this case and the Division of Real Estate reviewed his work. GOCO scrutinizes every appraisal with which they are involved. In addition to these entities, the DOW and Federal Government also scrutinize these appraisals. She believed it was a cost effective deal and the cost of development rights were less than $7000 per acre. The owners were committed as they had roots in Eagle County, were significant taxpayers, great stewards of the land, and were donating $l,OOO,OOO to the deal. They were also willing to work with the county and community to provide public benefits by providing parking lots, the schoolhouse, and they are giving up the opportunity to have another 35-acre development property. She was committed to finding the rest of the money if the county provided a positive push. 24 06/23/09 John Lichtenegger spoke to the board. He stated that they had been on a path for the last 8 months and he thanked Cindy Cohagen, Kara Heide and others for working with him and providing ideas. He felt there had been thorough discussion with the Open Space Advisory Committee (OSAC). He thanked the Great Outdoor Colorado's board for coming to the ranch. He'd made many new friends moving through the process and thanked them for their information, guidance, and support. They had tried to incorporate the 80% of OSAC's suggestions. He introduced Mike Diamond and Chris Weiss who have been long time Colorado residents. Within the ownership group were several full time farmers, several attorneys, and several businesspersons. As a group, they pay over $l60,000 in real estate taxes to Eagle County and many of them consider Eagle County home. When they bought the property, they had no idea that the water rights were worth over $2.4 million as valued by an independent engineer. The rights will go with the easement and as of January were valued at $3.1 million. They had no idea of other valuable aspects of the property including fertility and rich heritage. He showed a photograph of a waterfall on the property that had previously been undiscovered. When the commissioners toured the ranch they indicated displeasure at the parking location and access point. They understood that it was important to improve the access. He received an access easement from the railroad to allow for a better access and parking area. The parking area was now closer to the river. He provided a map that was submitted to Union Pacific, which delineated a 30~foot road easement straight to the river. The proposed parking area would be a flat two-acre area. Chairman Fisher asked for clarification Mr. Lichtenegger stated that the access was still under the trestle and that they would install and fence the road along with the two-acre parking lot. They hoped this information takes the river access criteria to a "high." The access would likely not be open during calving season. However, another change to the easement was making the ranch available for educational tours and wildlife watching - for at least 50 hours per year. The only access to the main body of the ranch was for the Division of Wildlife waterfowl hunting programs. They had an approved construction plan with the railroad for construction of the road. He thanked the board for their time. Commissioner Runyon asked how many at grade crossings the ranch currently had. Mr. Lichtenegger indicated there were currently 3 such crossings. He indicated that he would not consider the option of giving up a river crossing for the ECO Trails program to use elsewhere. His grade crossings were at strategic locations. Chairman Fisher asked about the parking lot easement. Mr. Lichtenegger stated that there was a flat area that could be graded out to create a parking lot. He stated that ifthe BLM did not object they would agree to camping in the area. They also do not object to restrooms being placed on the lot. They intended to tear down the three-bedroom modular home and use that septic system for a possible restroom facility. Chairman Fisher wondered who would be responsible for the upkeep of the parking lot. Mr. Lichtenegger stated that they were prepared to build and maintain the road and parking lot, but had not considered the trash pickup arrangements. He hoped the trash collection would be taken over by the county. He did not want too many in perpetuity obligations on the property. He suggested a possible sharing of responsibilities. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Greg Powell representing Peterson Appraisal Company spoke. He reiterated the level of education that was required for appraisements of this type. The Appraisal Institute and the American Society of Farm Managers and Rural Appraisers. This weeklong course was the only one available in the country and all of the staff of Peterson Appraisal Company had completed the course. He would be a presenter at the upcoming conference in January on conservation easements. He spoke about some of the OSAC concerns related to the appraisal. There were four concerns: the time adjustment was too long, too high, no market adjustments for the last 17 months and there was the question of the partial interest sale. Three of these items hinge and fall on how the partial interest sale was dealt with. He spoke about recent judgments related to previous sales and in so doing the appraiser gave the property too much value. In this case if previous sales were considered it would have the reverse effect. In talking with the seller of the partial interest they made it clear that the purchasers of that partial interest were informed about what was going on. It was purchased with the thought of a potential conservation easement. One of the potential purchasers chose to back out of the project / purchase. They believed this was a valid transaction to use. A partial interest doesn't carry with it all of the interests of fee ownership. This results in a discounted price. The price of $13,000 per acre was the discounted price. The overall value could easily have been much higher. The appraisal was a draft appraisal and was not yet complete. Since the appraisal was completed, there had been a number of 25 06/23/09 changes to the terms of the easements, which would have an effect on the appraisal. In the current real estate market for this type of property comparisons of $27,000 - $40,000 per acre were common. He believed the appraisal was accurately valued. Commissioner Runyon thanked Mr. Powell for doing an extraordinarily difficult job. He acknowledged that there were people on all sides of the issue and the current economic climate was influencing people's opinions. He wondered if a particular sale could adequately indicate the market at this point. He wondered how many 35- acre parcel buyers were out there right now. Mr. Powell agreed that there was a certain amount of uncertainty about the current market In appraisal work, however they were bound to working with completed sales. They tried to limit the comparisons to sales on the Colorado River and the Yampa River. In one case they had to go back many years. In terms of trying to make sure there is accuracy the two sales of the property itself must be considered. The appraisers cannot deal in uncertainties. The report would recognize that it exists however. Commissioner Runyon expressed his appreciation at the difficulty of the task. He argued that the market is in a fluctuating state. He asked if the sale of the property was used as a comparable sale. Since that time prices of undeveloped land have decreased. Mr. Powell stated that they were using court-mandated criteria. In this case, one could take the Hughes case and say that the value of the partial interest sale was the value of the property today. Appraisal work deals with hard and fast facts. The most recent sale of the property occurred within the last six months and as such is the value of the property. Mr. Powell stated that there was an outside party buying into the ownership of the property. The way the transaction occurred actually included a discounted price because it was a ftre sale. The partial interest has more weight than the original discounted transaction. Commissioner Runyon stated that the owners received a good deal when the property was purchased originally. Pat Hammon spoke to the board. She lives in Eagle and was an original open space committee member in the mid 1990s. At that time the committee did public surveys and meetings which indicated that view corridors, vistas and visual concepts throughout the county. The second thing was wildlife corridors and third, maintenance of our agricultural history. The regional history needed to be preserved. The fourth was passive and soft recreation including hiking, fishing and access through to BLM property. They also looked at tourist studies. There was a Steamboat survey done which indicated that seeing livestock when driving into Steamboat was important. She felt that these were urgent times as business was tough but lands must be maintained for the purposes stated. Seeing beyond immediate needs and looking to the future was important. She urges the commissioner's support. Steve Jones spoke. He was in favor of the deal. He rode his horse in Hardscrabble the other day and saw that the BLM land was filthy and was quite a mess. He believed that there needed to be better stewards for wildlife and the land of the county. He moved to the area 30 years ago. The owners were the real ranching / farming deal. The neighbors in the community were accepting the concept. Tom Steinberg spoke to the board. He had been involved in water quality and open space issues for more than 35 years. There was open space in the Eagle Valley equal to 1/3 of the private land. He hoped there would be a restriction on the BLM land restricting use by campers / fisherman and hunters. There are some national organizations trying to get that entire section as wild and scenic river designation. This would be a benefit for people trying to protect that section for anglers and others. There was land that was acquired that was 150 times the value of what was paid 30-40 years ago. He urged the commissioners to make the deal. Larry Benway spoke. He stated that he'd been in the valley for 43 years. He understood the conflict that the appraiser had with the current value. He reminded the commissioners that the board wasn't bound by the appraisal for the price paid for the project. He married into an agricultural family and his in-laws had a cattle operation and he understood how hard these folks work and what it took to make a profit on a day to day operation. His concern was about the quantity of educational hours being provided to locals. He hoped that this would be increased. To truly educate the children and visitors more hours were needed. He wondered how the county could break into an agreement that would guarantee ranching on the property into the future. He questioned the size of the two 35 acre parcels and the allowable square footage that could be built. He suggested proceeding but recommended reducing the price and increasing the use. Susie Kincade spoke to the board. She'd lived in the area for 28 years as an avid rafter and lover of wilderness and was in support of the project. She agreed that an agreement could be worked towards. Supporting the Colorado River and its tributaries was important. She wrote a history of the area for Cordillera and understood that the property was the quintessential history of this county. The property borders proposed wilderness area and preserving it as open space would provide great access to the river for the wildlife. Public access to the river was 26 06/23/09 commendable but she wondered if there were plans for restrooms and banks for rafters to pull out. She reiterated that the open space funds were perfect for this. She commended the partners and felt that it was refreshing to work with people who respond to the government and subcommittees in such positive ways. Chris Herman with the Colorado Conservation Trust spoke to the board. He reinforced that this upper Colorado River landscape was one of the 24 priority landscapes that their partnership had identified as one of the highest priorities for protection. The partnership had not raised significant funds due to the economy but they would potentially fund this purchase. The level of public access was uncommon and remarkable. Warren Jacobsen owner of the Deep Creek Ranch spoke. When he bought the ranch, he paid $300 an acre. He has experiences with appraisers over the years and their values vary greatly. He was interested in ranch conservancy a few years ago but his children didn't agree. He believed his ranch was more spectacular than the ranch in question. Doug Harbison spoke. He had been a visitor for the past 20 years and was spending more time in the county recently. He particularly enjoyed the green nature of the area. He was excited and in favor of the request, because for those involved in ecology they express it in different ways. His company specializes in organic, raw and specialty foods throughout the world, but over the internet. He has been looking for an opportunity for Sun Food to align itself with a community. They are an e-commerce business model but with a very strong educational model. He suggested that the organic certification for the property be achieved. It presents an interesting conservancy and business standpoint opportunity. He provided an example of local honey - the Luark Honey which he feels an unusually good product. It is probably an organic product and is the type that could be produced with zero environmental impact and bringing money to the local economy. He was excited about the possible cycle due to investment money available for expansion, it's psychologically and emotionally a green community and third and most important he'd heard citizens talking about how to make the community better. There is a social media community of 15,000 with 6500 unique website visits per month and it's growing rapidly. Dick Bourret spoke. He listened to the appraiser's comments. He believes that the buyer shouldn't do their own appraisal. He suggested several appraisals be completed and compared. He also wondered if the price paid must match the appraisal. He agreed that it was a wonderful piece of property but hoped for a better price. Don Zelkind spoke. He shared the good feelings about conservation. He spoke about several appraisals. He spoke about the integrity of the process. He wondered if second appraisals were done on other purchases. Chairman Fisher indicated that there was an unofficial second review. Mr. Zelkind spoke about the fact that conservation easements would not get cheaper in the future. As the county develops more and more there would be fewer properties available for this type of arrangement. He endorsed paying for the right property. This property provided many benefits. He also believed that in the past the county never second-guessed an appraiser. He felt that by getting multiple appraisals the process could become distorted. Dora Zhu Zelkind spoke to the board. She was a new resident from China. She had an idea about the value of ranch properties. She didn't believe a new appraisal was required. If the property was purchased now it was at the lowest. Alex Sheaffer representing Trout Unlimited spoke. Their mission is to preserve, protect, and restore fishing areas. Their experience was that riparian corridors and the protection of that space spreads over time. The access for hunting and other recreational opportunities was important as well as access to the BLM lands. The educational component was also very important. They view the ranch as a resource for current and future residents and visitors of the county. They support the purchase. Tom Pool spoke. He owns property two miles up river. His property included 5/8 of a mile of river frontage and he supported the project and hoped some day to be able to put his property into a similar situation. Tambi Katieb, representing the Eagle River Watershed Council supported the project. He spoke about their letter, which emphasized the economic benefits of the river preservation. He provided reference to the commercial Colorado River Outfitter Association report that stated river trips dipped 7%, but there were still 30,000 trips on the upper Colorado River. In terms of economic impact, they estimated that on the Colorado River there was almost $4,000,000 in direct expenditures from river outfitting. When two miles of river is preserved it benefits the economic impact on the county. Diana Cecala spoke on behalf of the Eagle County Citizens for open space. She believed it was a terrific project and she supported the proposal. She believed that the public benefit was outstanding. Prior to putting the open space tax on the ballot there was a survey conducted and water, wildlife and western heritage were overwhelmingly supported. This reflects the public mandate provided in that survey. The ballot criteria was fully met. Public access was increasingly rare in the valley and would become more so in the future. BLM access was 27 06/23/09 critical and the river access was also outstanding. Lastly, the opportunity for educational tours for the public and facilities for bikers was important. Am Menconi spoke to the board. He had been in favor of open space in the past and supported the ballot measure. He had voted both for and against open space projects. He was not in agreement with the price presented currently. The economy changed very drastically in the past months. In the quality of life survey conducted several years ago there was a preference for open space purchases on the valley floor. He didn't believe the pressure of growth was as predominant as it was in year's past. He believed there was an opportunity to wait until the purchase price is better. Both Ron Wolfe and Tom Edwards sent letters supporting the purchase but not the price, even though this aspect was not part of their charge as members of the OSAC committee. Historically the property had sold for $7,000,000 to Cordillera. He was in favor of purchasing the easement if it was closer to the $3.5 to $4 million dollar range. He spoke about a property in Eagle Ranch with an appraised value of $1.4 million that is on the market for $700,000. He feared that the money in the open space fund would be spent too quickly and when properties were available on the valley floor there would be no funds. Steve Bozynski, resident for 15 years had worked at the River Ranch for 6 years. He had seen a lot of wildlife on the ranch and believed the property was very valuable to wildlife and should be controlled. Brian Wodrich with the Division of Wildlife spoke in favor for the benefits to the wildlife. The herd that uses the ranch continues all the way up to the flattops. In 2007, there was a very harsh winter and this ranch provided a safe haven during this time. Elk also use the ranch during calving season. He endorsed the proposal and hoped that other ranches would follow suit to protect migration corridors and preserve the wildlife in the future. Andrea "Andy" Ody spoke. She visited the ranch several times with her autistic daughter. Her daughter was very enthusiastic about being there and seeing a bald eagle. She and her daughter understood how special the place was and hoped that the board would as well. Kay Ferry spoke. She agreed with Mr. Menconi's statements and questioned the criteria used for the appraisal. Just because the courts have identified the way to appraise a property doesn't mean that is the price that must be offered. She spoke about the fact that property values have gone down. She urged the board to move slowly and negotiating a better price. Scott Jones spoke. He felt obligated to say that the county changes and this represented a great opportunity to preserve the type of area where he grew up. Dan Godec spoke as a member of the Eagle Valley Land Trust. They work hard to save land and the opportunity to save over 1000 acres on the river. It would be nice if the entire valley floor could be saved but as other opportunities are presented, they need to be acted on. They supported the application. He asked for consideration of the uniqueness of the property. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Commissioner Runyon commented on the proposal and wondered about the possible funding partners if Eagle County provided 60%, about $4.8m. They want to come to consensus within the board but needed to wait for Commissioner Stavney's input on the project. He believed a settlement could be achieved and that this was a great opportunity. However, he was being greedy with the open space fund so that more property could be purchased in the near future. He asked the partners for some flexibility. Chairman Fisher addressed the phone calls and comments she has received. She believed that a working ranch was not possible with uncontrolled public access. She wondered what public access would look like if it were unlimited on the property. She explained the reasons for limiting public access to preserve a working ranch. She spoke to the ballot text and the fact that it was clear that it was not presented as a tax to fund public parks. The criteria came out of the ballot question and were specific. Preserving and protecting property and critical wildlife areas was up to the good stewards of the land not to the general public as we have not taken good care of the lands we have access to. She also believed the price is too high and wanted money to be available for property along the Eagle River. The landowners have to present their land for possible easements, the municipalities and the county are not actively pursuing these purchases. To allow Commissioner Stavney to participate in the process she suggested a tabling of the request. She hoped that the Land Trust could work on possible partnerships. A second appraisal had not been requested before, but this board had never heard an open space file before. She spoke about how a subsequent meeting on Monday would occur. Commissioner Runyon spoke about comments received against this project. The fund was dedicated to open space purposes. The second thing was that people say it should be purchased so people can use it - but this 28 06/23/09 would cost almost twice as much for this type of use. People like to look at ranches with cows. Picnics in bull pastures are not enjoyable. Mr. Menconi wondered if the commissioners had a price in mind. Mr. Morris advised against negotiating in public. Chairman Fisher clarified her previous statements about how the process would proceed. Commissioner Runyon stated that three commissioners would be making the ultimate decision. Commissioner Runyon moved to table the file until Monday, June 29th at 1 :30 p.m. Chairman Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Attest: ~4~ -af)fLQ~~ Chairman Clerk to the Board 29 06/23/09