No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 10/24/95 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEt.:S 387869 PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 24, 1995 Present: James Johnson, Jr. George "Bud" Gates Johnnette Phillips Sara J. Fisher Chairman Corrmissioner Commissioner Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Corrmissioners for their consideration: The Board convened as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Gashouse Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with Extended Hours for Gashouse, Inc., dba/Gashouse Restaurant. Staff has a concern relating to a disorderly reported by the Sheriff's office. This was a customer who was refused service and staff questions whether the customer had been drinking there or just walked in. Clay Irons, owner of the Gashouse, stated occasionally they have had customers to whom they refuse service. He remembers an incident where the customer demanded liquor and they called the Sheriff's department to deal with the customer. Commissioner Johnson asked if all employees go through the TIPS program. Mr. Irons stated all alcohol serving staff go through TIPS once a year. Corrmissioner Phillips asked if they have out door music. Mr. Irons responded they have turned from a bar into a restaurant and no longer have music. They now have more wine than beer. Corrmissioner Phillips moved to approve the renewal of the Gashouse Restaurant with Extended Hours. Corrmissioner Gates seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Lodge at Cordillera Earlene Roach presented a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with Extended Hours and Optional Premises for Kensington Management, Inc., dba/Lodge at Cordillera. Staff has no concerns with this license except for the posting of some of the signs. Staff has been informed these have been taken care of. Commissioner Gates questioned the optional premises and asked if that had been addressed. Mrs. Roach responded yes. Chairman Johnson asked how they control liquor access to the tennis courts. Cary Brent, Vice President of Club Operations, stated the tennis courts are accessible either by walking or by golf cart. Chairman Johnson asked if there are signs I?osted. Rick Rosen, Attorney representing the appllcant, responded there are always staff present when the courts are in use and they follow the path directly. Mr. Rosen stated they do not currently have signs but they will certainly do so if that is a concern of the Board. Chairman Johnson stated he does have a concern and would like signs posted. The applicant concurred. corrmissioner Gates moved to aPI?rove the renewal for Kensington Management, Inc., dba/Lodge at Cordlllera. Corrmissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1 Stop and Save Earlene Roach presented a renewal of a 3.2~ Off Premise Beer License for S M Petroleum Properties, Inc., dba/Stop and Save. Staff has no concerns with this application. The Sheriff's office shows no complaints or disturbances for this last year. Corrmissioner Phillips moved to approve the renewal of the 3.2~ license for Stop and Save. Corrmissioner Gates seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Beaver Creek Wines & Spirits Earlene Roach presented a renewal of a Retail Liquor Store License for Viking Investment, Inc., dba/Beaver Creek Wines & Spirits. Staf f has no concerns with this application and all is in order. corrmissioner Gates moved to approve the renewal of the retail liquor store license for Beaver Creek Wines & Spirits. Corrmissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Wolcott Market and Wolcott Liquors Earlene Roach presented a renewal of a 3.2~ Off Premise Beer License and Retail Liquor Store License for Wolcott Market, Inc. Staff has no concerns and all is in order. corrmissioner Phillips moved to approve the renewal of a 3.2~ Beer License for Wolcott Market and the Retail Liquor License for Wolcott Liquors. corrmissioner Gates seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. El Jebel Convenience Store Earlene Roach stated the next item on the agenda was a continuance of the hearing for El Jebel LLC, dba/El Jebel Convenience Store. She related the applicant has reguested this matter be tabled for three weeks to allow time for a new petitlon to be circulated and submitted. Corrmissioner Gates moved to table the El Jebel Convenience Store application. corrmissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Corrmissioner Phillips moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County corrmissioners. Corrmissioner Gates seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Adams Rib - PD-138-95-S1 Keith Montag, Director Community Development, stated this is the fourth hearing in the series for public input. He stated today's hearing will address right-of-way, wildlife, demand on public services, and public hearing corrment. Mr. Montag referred to the outlined agenda. Chairman Johnson questioned the second page of correspondence and asked if it was the entire letter. Mr. Montag responded one page of the letter is missing He continued stating there are comments to be made by the Engineering office, the Division Of Wildlife, and Willie Powell, Town of Eagle Manager. There is time set aside for public comment. He stated relevant to transportation and Right-of-Way, Staff has some corrment. The Town of Eagle's master plan does indicate Brush Creek Road should be improved relative to the character of the valley, not oversized. Staff's concern with a four lane road is it will impact the "open/rural" character of the valley. Concerning parking, there are portions of the proposed right-of-way which have not yet been acquired. There are letters from Eagle Ranch and East/West Partners. Eagle Ranch has stated they will not provide access. East/West Partners, who have an option on the Eagle 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Ranch, have stated they would like to work with the County, the Town of Eagle and Adam's Rib regarding that right-of-way. They are concerned with the speed limit through that area, fitting in with the concept they are trying to achieve. Mr. Montag spoke relative to wildlife stating the master plan and the open space plan address components in those plans. Staff is showing non-conformance in the master plan and the open space plan. The applicant has made great strides in addressing previous concerns. The row is requesting additional lands within the development be removed. The master plan addresses critical water areas. Land use will modify the wildlife species using the area. Disturbance tolerant species will occupy the area ln greater number. The row is not ready to corrmit to the mitigation fee ARRA has proposed of $30,000. Relative to public services, staff does see conformance though there are concerns. The school site, the School District referred to a letter written July 14, 1995 and a site in the Salt Creek parcel. Subsequent to that letter, the school is requiring land dedication on a site closer to Eagle which is part of the Adam's Rib Ranch proposal. On July 14, the school district stated they have concerns and they believe the school site should be in the residential site. Now they are requesting a 27 acre parcel within the ranch proposal. That letter is dated October 13, 1995. Additional items under public service is the need for a new or additional power line to serve Adam's Rib development. Staff has concerns with the main line coming from GyJ?sum to service this area. Adam's Rib is proposing underground utilities wlthin their development. The demands on the Sheriff's department, impacts on Social Services, the land fill, etc. The need for a waste water treatment facility is proposed on Salt Creek. The concern would be with adding facilities withln the area. Does that promote additional development? Mr. Montag introduced George Roussos, County Engineer, to discuss rights-of-way and transportation. Mr. Roussos stated the Engineering department carefully reviewed the revised sketch plan for the Golf Course PUD when it was submitted in February 1995 and has durins the course of the year met with officials of Adam's Rib to discuss outstandlng issues, has listened carefully to the testimony presented to the Eagle & Colorado Valley Planning Corrmission as well as the testimony presented before the Board of County Commissioners, and continues to believe the Sketch Plan submittal is complete and adequate for proceeding to the next step in the design process. Chairman Johnson asked George about the study done by Parsons Engineering Science and asked when it will be available. Mr. Roussos responded it is in the hands of Parsons and will become part of the Environmental Impact Statement. Mr. Roussos stated Parsons has started from scratch and is doinS a totally independent review which will allow them, the County, to reVlew the results of the three studies. Mr. Montag introduced willie Powell, Town of Easle, stating he is here on behalf of the Board of Trustees. They do not belleve the four lane road is appropriate. They believe the developer is focusing on the transportation on Brush Creek Road and stops where Brush Creek meets highway 6. The Spur road will require great upgrade. Commissioner Phillips asked about the upgrade to four lane. Mr. Powell responded they contracted a study that implies because of Adam's Rib and curnulati ve impact a four lane road is necessary. The Town may not be supportive of these proposals because they do not believe it is in conformance with the rural character. Commissioner Gates stated he agrees with Mr. Powell not only for Brush Creek but the expansion of Eagle and Gypsum. Not only will Adam's Rib impact it but all the development well. Chairman Johnson asked if there was an estimate as to what percentage of impact would come directly from Adam's Rib. Mr. Powell responded they don't right now, but the study should provide that. Chairman Johnson asked if Adam's Rib would be responsible for pay back on upgrades on the Spur Road, in the Town, and not just Brush Creek. 3 Mr. Montag moved on to wildlife. John Towon, Division Of Wildlife, addressed his comments first to the golf course and then into general wildlife impacts. Relative to the Ranch PUD, there are concerns with the Brush Creek riparian corridor. The current plans have less impact than in 1993. Even if all riparian areas are avoided there will be great changes. Birds, like magpies, will have an effect on the exotic species by moving into their nests and praying on the eggs. Because of the linear nature, the riparian areas will be greatly effected. They question the disturbances along the stream ways. Their mapping and Adam's Rib mapping does not necessarily coincide. They appreciate the restrictive covenants proposed by Adam's Rib. There is concern with the permanence of the covenants as the home owner's association could change the rules. As far as alignment and improvement of the Brush Creek Road, they would like it spelled out as to who would be responsible for animal/vehlcle collisions. The issue may need to be resolved at preliminary plan but must be addressed before it becomes a problem. General nature of impacts includes the increase of human density, roads and fences. Human noise, presence, lights, etc. are of concern. Human disturbance can interrupt and have pronounced effects on wildlife species. Increased human density also means increase in rural cats and dogs. Much like the increase of magpies will cause a decline in species, so will the presence of dogs and cats. Weeds become a concern. Roads and fences will disturb the area for wildlife. Mr. Towon showed some slides of the area. The first dated 1960 and the second 1995. Gore Creek Valley has become the Vail Valley. Private land changed considerably to existing development. The third slide depicted the approved but undeveloped area. The fourth slide showed proposed development not approved, but considered. The final slide shows Adam's Rib developments along with all of the others. Adam's Rib has indicated they will be the economic determinate of the lower valley. Resort development rather than individual develoI?ment will change the lower valley. The impacts with a resort community ln the lower valley will push the impact to another valley. Commissioner Gates questioned the migration of animals and who will be responsible for game fences and underpasses. Mr. Towon responded that is a good question that they would like answered ahead of time. corrmissioner Gates asked if the DOW would want to be involved and put some money in. Mr. Towon stated he questions if it is their responsibility or the responsibility of those who are doing the development. Chairman Johnson asked for paper copies of the slides. He asked about the irrpacts well beyond the valley. Mr. Towon responded there are a lot of people commuting daily into the valley from Leadville and to the north and south. The I-70 impacts will be increased. Mr. Towon responded the wildlife impacts will be felt when areas such as State Bridge, Bond and McCoy grow, the animals will shift. Chairman Johnson asked if it is better to have more concentrated development or the sprawl. Mr. Towon responded the more you can have people in close proximity to where they work, the better it is for wildlife. COITmlssioner Phillips asked what Mr. Towon's title is. Mr. Towon responded he is from Grand Junction and is a wildlife biologist. commissioner Phillips asked about the proposed $30,000 mitigation fee. Mr. Towon responded they do not know what the mitigation will be at this time. corrmissioner Gates stated there is a decrease in Elk and Deer in his areas due to heavy hunting. He stated the deer are not able to compete with the Elk and he believes somewhere along the line there must be other seasons and numbers of seasons to better regulate the numbers in herds. Mr. Towon responded they have heard from a lot of people and they are studying the concerns. He stated we have record numbers of Elk at thlS time but that may not be true of other species. Fred Kummer, owner of Adam's Rib, indicated Mr. Keith and his staff relate more to Bob Morris than to the County Corrmissioners. Mr. Kummer stated this PUD gives the Commissioners a logical way to develop this County. He believes we should work closer together. Mr. Kummer stated every written 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 study has indicated a two lane road is all that is required. He indicated Mr. Powell is not a highway engineer. He recorrmends if they slow traffic to 15 miles an hour they will need a six lane road. He wishes they could reach an agreement with Mr. Ridgway. He believes the two lane road going up to Beaver Creek does service the area. As to the number of employees per hotel, it runs about .85 employees per room. The 2.7 represented last week is incorrect. Mr. Kurrmer discussed the quality of jobs in the hotel industry. Jose Rios went to work for them in 1986 and is now Banquet set up manager. He went on to discuss further employee files, what the positions were and are, and what they make. Chairman Johnson questioned Mr. Kummer's statement that staff seems to be at odds with the Board, but this is the first time they are hearing this file. Mr. Kummer responded since 1981 the Board has heard this file every three years. He does not believe staff's presentation has been in agreement with the way the Board has voted. Chairman Johnson questioned the use of the office of the Board as far as Charlie Ridgway is concerned. Mr. Kummer responded if the road issue could be better solved by the continuation of a road on the existing right-of-way they would do so, but the limited access road is through Charlie Ridgway's property. He believes the roadway issue could be better if the Board would partner with this development. He again referred to what a wonderful opportunity this is for Eagle County and the Board. He believes if the Board would, through some device, use their office, they can bring things together. Mr. Kummer referred to his property in Denver and talking with Mayor Webb about reaching conclusions. Mr. Webb, he said, worked his magic way, and got the job done. That project would not have happened without that. Terrill Knight stated they are proposing to introduce three technical consultants to respond to the points that Mr. Montag has made. Allen Crocken, an ecologist, stated he has worked with Adam's Rib to provide a mitigation plan. During the last twenty months he has looked at the use by wildlife and the use of public lands. The big game species were looked at closely. What they found out is about 1,000 acres of the PUD are nonsensitive resources, non native lands. The other 700 acres does support native habitat and wildlife use. With regard to this, the areas that have been grazed shows the native habitat has changed. He met with Adam's Rib and Terrill Knight and spent alot of time in the field. He discussed the areas of his concern as an ecologist. 86~ of the emphasis of the area can be avoided. Another 10~ will not be physically disturbed. About 4~ would be impacted by building envelopes, roads and so forth. At preliminary plan stage, those issues can be dealt with. He showed a vegetation map but explained the lines may not be specific. There is a transition zone for wildlife. About a third of the area which will be impacted is on a low hill and southwestern site. Mostly sage brush but heavily disturbed. These habitats are not fragmented. They are contiguous with large areas. That kind of planning is much better than a large area broken up into small blocks. What about the areas not avoided. They came up with mitigation measures. There will be seasonal closures during certain times of the year. They have developed a number of restrictive covenants. Limited lawns, no dogs or cats, no fences. They will market as wildlife preservation areas and enforce leash laws in other areas. The removal of cattle will enhance the area. Other mitigation measures, fertilizing, seeding, the $30,000 per year will enhance the riparian wet lands as well. Adam's Rib has corrmitted to planting cottonwoods, repairins banks, planting fish. As for road kills, they will happen. There are guldelines to follow and Adam's Rib is committed to signage and measures to be taken. The loss of animals will be minor, certainly less than by hunting. He showed on the map that some crossing will take place but most will continue to live in the areas where they currently reside. In summary, he believes Adam's Rib has gone to a lot of trouble to avoid impacts and plan accordingly. Habitat fragmentation will be avoided. It will not be like Vail. The issue of cumulative impact is an issue when only a portion is being looked at. That is not the case here as these impacts are not additive to the development up valley. Since most of 5 the land is owned by the public, the land will not be developed around Adam's Rib. They have avolded impacts to 96~ of the area to be developed. Regarding the riparian corridor, Brush Creek is a ranch land riparian corridor. Adam's Rib is avoiding all of the Frost Creek riparian corridor and preserving the Salt Creek parcel. The trees will remain native and therefore attract birds that currently use them. Arnie Olovic, with Phelbrook & Holt, an independent traffic consultant summarized the technical work they have done for Adam's Rib and the conclusions they are forecasting. The basic purpose of the their work was to update the 1982 work as requested by the County. Their purpose was to analyze the demands on the roadway. The analytical process did incorporate the latest techniques. The key points as they see them are: 1) the I?roposed road improvements are still valid as they were in 1982. The key ltem in their work was focused on the resort travel plans and not the cumulative effects. The final conclusion of their work is the 120 feet of right-of-way road dedication meets the needs and is capable of handling additional demands, use level of service D. Their final finding, regardless of the forecast is 120 feet of right of way is big enough to accommodate the two lane road cross section. A 240 foot right of way would accommodate four lanes as well as additional mass transportation. Stan Bernstein, of Stan Bernstein and Associates, addressed the PUD sketch plan requirements and the impact upon the county's school system. There is a letter from his firm to Charlie Wick written this year. He has identified, based on the 1994-95 school district budget, about 1.7 million dollars per year until build out. He believes that to be un-inflated current dollars. He projects expenditures at full build out of about $6,600 per student. There will be about 190 students. That's about 13~ of the permanent population. The annual surplus to the school district would be about $400,000 per year. The county tax revenue projection would, based on the 1995 budget, generate about $530,000 per year at full build out. The one percent sales tax would be $260,000 per year at full build out. These amounts total close to $800,000 I?er year. The estlmated demands for county services were reflected in a letter. He based this on the 1995 budget, showing 293 county employees. For every 100 permanent population there is 1 employee. At that rate there would be an increase at the county level of 14 employees. The average county employee salary including benefits is $44,000.00. All other county operatlng revenues within the county, total about 10.3 million in the 1995 budget. Terrill Knight summarized the way the technical work was included in the plan. He asked the Board notice a consistent theme by providing a high quality level of research, melding all these issues together. Concerning wildlife, there were several things brought up; 1) because they are avoiding the impact areas, they have agreed to take a further look at preliminary plan to further address those, 2) the concentration of wildlife and public areas, they have stayed away from larse portions, 3) they have strict controls on dogs and cats, 4) they provlded a landscaping plan and the net effect is the map provided by John is that within the boundaries there are specific wildlife area concerns. They are continuing in that mode here, only to a greater extent. Regarding the road, a two lane road is the correct road. A four lane road, not like I-70, is not shown to be needed by the studies. The basic corrmitment is to meet their need and pay for it. The large set backs will help to create the rural feeling. Adam's Rib is committed to building that road early on. As Mr. Roussos stated, they are meeting the sketch plan requirements and they need to refine those plans at preliminary plan stage. The numbers the Board sees are ultimate, final use. They will over build initially and are corrmitted to doing their fair share. As Stan discussed, there will be a net financial need to the County. They will develop parks and public areas within the developing area. He asked for specific questions from the Board. Commissioner Gates discussed the public areas and grazing of animals and hearing the damage done or not done. As far as impact on the lands, he thinks people have greater impact than cows. He questioned the number of employees that Mr. Bernstein referred to. Chairman Johnson asked in the mitigation plan it stated there would be buffer areas that would be marketed. He asked how wide the buffer is? 6 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Mr. Knight stated it varies depending on where it is and what kinds of animals. It was sugsested to them they provide wider fairways and that is being done. There wlll not be permanent fencing on the project unless livestock on public lands becomes a problem. Allen Crocken stated the buffer areas will be part of preliminary plan. They are talking about areas where there are enclaves marketed as such. Chairman Johnson asked if there is a range. Mr. Crocken responded he is unclear as to what is being said. There are some areas along the golf course where native areas will be incorporated into the project. In residential areas, some of the native lands will be incorporated into the private lands. Mr. Knight stated it depends of where it is and discussed the no build line. There is no single answer. There are two areas of principal concern and he pointed them out on the map. The area along the road to the northwest they will have site specific building envelopes. He showed the other area. Allen responded to the second bullet point which says dwellings along the western part of the golf course will be restricted. He pointed out the area on the map and stated there is a table earlier which talks about land within the area which is owned by individuals but remains undisturbed. That area would be outside the lawn areas and would be about 30.4 acres. Chairman Johnson asked about the fencing and the disallowances of pets in specific areas. He questioned speed limits. Mr. Crocken responded areas of risk would be considered. Chairman Johnson asked about the Coffee Mountain control burn and the cost. Charlie Wick, Adams Rib, responded the burn was cancelled because of the rain. Bill Heicher stated prescribed burns are between 15 and 20 dollars an acre. Chairman Johnson asked about the level of service D and what impact a level of service C would have. Discussion continued on the proposal by Adams Rib. Diane Gansauer, Colorado wildlife Federation Executive Director, speaking on behalf of the Colorado wildlife Federation's 5,000 members, spoke concernins who are members of this federation. Because of the interest of wildlife ln this valley they have been opposed to this development for over 13 years. They do not believe the scale proposed is acceptable. wildlife related income is only second to skiing for revenue in this state. The members are opposed to the destruction of this valley for a ski resort, golf course, and housing. The golf course should be considered with the effects of the entire development. She listed all of the additional services and impacts that would be effected. She spoke to the displacement of animals, birds, plants, etc. She doesn't believe this can take I?lace without major wildlife population changes. She discussed the mitigatlon on the solf course and the expense. She deemed the credibility is questionable of thlS project and the developer. They have concerns with the increase use of the Holy Cross Wilderness area if this project develops. Mike Moore, an Eagle resident, asked to speak to the citizens of Eagle, Gypsum and the County Corrmissioners. Mr. Moore questioned the what if. He supports the Adam's Rib project although he does not stand to gain from this development. He would like to address the local community. He would love to see Brush Creek stay as it is but that would not be possible. He discussed the developmental impacts. He then spoke to the economy and the national debt. He discussed employment and the concerns of economics on the western part of the county. Adam's Rib would provide a means of support and would employ locals rather than the transient work force. Janet Rivera, area resident, added her and her husband's voice in opposition to Adam's Rib. They are not anti-growth but not in favor of resort type growth. She asked lf people remembered their first impression of vail and the fact it is a play ground for adults. She talked about the seasonality for the resort businesses. vail has struggled to become a year round play area. They are not anti -growth and would love to see permanent industries. They would like to see other business come in, but if the housing costs continue to get so high that will not be possible. We don't 7 need more seasonal jobs. There is an odd mixture of haves and have not's. Many of the middle families live in Eagle and Gypsum but they will be forced to move if another resort develops. She questioned the non documented workers and the increase and influx that will come with another ski development. We have choices in Eagle County and Adam's Rib would take away those choices. People come first in this county not money. Please don't change our valley. . . leave a little for the common folks. Dick Dixon, area resident, asked what the status of the county master plan. Chairman Johnson responded it is soon to be aPI?roved. Mr. Dixon stated he has a hard time understandlng why this would be considered without a master plan. Chairman Johnson responded that there is a master plan in place but they are upgrading the current one. Mr. Dixon questioned why they would proceed. If the Board insists on going through with this, the entire plan must be presented before any construction takes place. He questions the materials, the gravel issue, will it be up there. What about the animals and the traffic. Is this to be a public road or a private road and will other developments have access to this. Mr. Dixon referred to the number of 20,000 people and asked if this includes just this development or all others to come. Willle Powell, Town of Eagle, also wanted to talk about the master planning efforts and the Eagle Area Community Plan. Last night there was a joint meeting of the Eagle Zoning corrmission and the Town Zoning comnission. The products of consensus and the community goals are: concentrate future development, control development up Brush Creek, etc. A solf course may not fit this area or perhaps a smaller public course is what lS needed. The Town Board is asking that no significant development be approved before the corrpletion of the two master plans. Regarding water, there is substantial agreement needed and their Board does not feel it aI?proI?riate to enter into any agreements. They are finding Adam's Rib to be ln dlscussion on alternative water plans perhaps even below the existing water plan, if these proposals are sranted. Mike Orisl, Brush Creek, stated the pros and cons are hard to believe. Let's go back to the basics. Either we go ahead with this project or stop it. He is in favor of the project. He referred to Breckenridge and the development there. Why are there deer in Beaver Creek and elk in Arrowhead. He sees the animals everywhere. He 1 s been hunting the mountains for the last ten years. This golf course will have no impact. As a matter of fact it will help because they won't be shot. He doesn't know Mr. Kummer but he sees the development of prlvate land. Mr. Oprisi sees twenty five years of development. The Comnissioners can see the right thing is done. This can not be stopped... it's too late. Development is going to happen. This is private money and we should take it for all it is. If it is developed in thirty five acres, we all loose. 35 acres will go for 1/2 million dollars. Who can afford that? Kim Graber, Gersh & Danielson, representins the concerned citizens of Eagle County, The Sierra Club, and Colorado Divlsion of wildlife. They do not have the extensive financial support that HBE does. They have had experts testify during the planning corrmission hearings. What is before the Board are copies of the written comments that have been made by their experts regarding the Golf Course. They are making the effort now to provide the testimony that was presented to the Planning Corrmission as the Board has said they would not review all of those hearings. The wildlife expert will be here on the November 14, 1995. The first letter is from their Land Use Planner, Bill Lamont, exhibit I, as can be seen from the letter, July 1995, they do not approve of the plan for the golf course project. What they feel needs to be looked at is the big picture. Do they want it outside the Easle area. In respect to public services, they have asked King and Assoclates to review the physical impact study done by Stan Bernstein. His letter indicates that there was not adequate information to confirm Mr. Bernstein's studies. They believe the benefits are overstated and even the $300,000 is not an adequate buffer. The sales taxes appear to be overstated. They provided to him the same information and this was inadequate for an impact analysis. She referred to the next letter. Then, regarding transportation, they concur with George Roussos and agree there are hurdles which must be jumped 8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECI<EL'S 387869 before preliminary plan. The four lane/two lane roadway is a concern. Ultimately there will be four lane. Exhibit L consists of corrments from DOT, and the corrmitments requested. upgrading Highway 6 through Eagle has not been addressed. Another traffic concern is I-70 and the ski area traffic. They join in the concerns voiced about right-of-way and the realignment of Brush Creek Road. What will the effect be if this is approved and the easement is not provided to Adam's Rib, the County will have to condemn. Regarding wildlife, there is simply no question the cumulative impacts will be felt. This must be considered ln its entirety. Exhibit M is a collection of letters from Ann Huffman regarding wildlife. One letter is being submitted today. Also attached are corrments on the golf course I?lan. Ann will be here on the November 14, 1995. She asked the video submltted to the planning commission be submitted to record. Richard Carlyle, excused himself and took Mr. Kummer with him. Suzie Kincade, an Eagle resident, spoke first and foremost to the issue of public service. The humanity aspect has not been considered. 15 to 20 thousand more people will be a concern. She addressed the low income services provided in the last few years. Easle County ranks second to last in stress factors for children. Transiency lS the pivotal factor. The resort industry supplies that transiency. The burden to the network of social organizations that keep borderline people afloat would be monumental. It takes a whole village to raise a child. What we haven't built is a good sense of community. We need to address these critical issues before we allow another Development. She corrmended Johnnette for her work with the five county coalition. The driving factor involved is rampant srowth. Ms. Kincade discussed the increase in domestic violence and crlme. With the addition of 15,000 people there will be increased crime. We are fighting to keep our head above water now. We don't need to compound these problems. Regarding transportation, the road proposed will ultimately be another Highway 82. It's high traffic and high peril. In terms of wildlife. She lived in a subdivision that had covenants. Then one day up went a six foot high fence. The homeowner's association had no money to sue. Today six foot privacy fences exist and they are in the Terrace. Covenant's don't work. She's not a wildlife expert but in terms of the quality of life the animals are enriching in every way. This is the last undeveloped land between here and Beaver Creek and Aspen. The survival of our species is dependent on the survival of all species. She asked for denial from the Corrmissioners. Steve Peters, area resident, lives on two corners of the proposed development. He's seen a lot of words spoken and seen alot of paperwork. Fred says work with us, and he's tried. There's plenty of work done, money spent, and no follow through. Steve spoke to Fred's Denver project and the 23 revisions needed for Fred to get what he wants. If Fred would put himself in other people's shoes, perhaps there would be more willingness to work together. At this level, this project should be denied, and Mr. Kummer should have to come back again to take care of his neighbors and the community. He's not zoned for this. He may have carefully planned his land, but he has not taken into account the valley or the neighbors. 'TI1ere is something we can all live with. He's not anti growth. Tom Fitch stated with an increase of human presence there will invariably be increases in everything. What about all the other private land. There will be massive development and rearrangement of habitat. The pockets will be used for recreation and can't be used for wildlife. with that will come more human conflicts with wildlife. If we have bear problems now, we're going to see many more conflicts to come. It will go from bad to worse. He referred to Bud's issue of too many elk. He believes the DOW regulates this with the sex ratios of the animals. There is a twisted logic. If animal numbers are back in-line it will take care of itself. He would like the Board to vote against this. Mady Lukey of Eagle, questioned the abandonment of Brush Creek Road. Jobs in the service industry are not what we need, we need good errployers. This project and any other should provide the fixes for this and caretaker units are not employee housing. If restrictions can be placed on homes, why not on 35 acre lots. The golf course is not a natural habitat. We need to 9 lessen the density as it moves out from the wheel of growth. Kirk Cunningham, representing the Sierra Club wildlife Committee. They're not oPI?osed to skiing as a sI?Qrt. The golf course will not succeed without the sk1. area. They feel obllged to assert the whole I?roject is not acceptable to them. The impacts are not described correctly ln the document and the golf course PUD will have its use by right. There is an economic benefit to be gained by it. The use of the private bottom lands along the creek have created sizeable herds. Good grazing management has good benefits. The removal of grazing herds, as the applicant suggests, is not a means of mitigation. The 35 acre use by right would be dwarfed by this development. The dedication of open space lands are viewed skeptically. The nature of the open space preserves is critical. people will not put large amounts of money in Brush Creek if they can not use the recreation, have pets, use their property as they please. If the open space becomes a city park, for wildlife mitigation, it is useless. The impacts on wildlife and the increased traffic are not dealt with properly. Terrill Knight stated they would like to schedule another meeting for December 12, 1995. They hope to have concluding presentation on that day. Chairman Johnson stated that would be okay as far as they know. They have tentatively looked at the December 5, 1995. The Board concurred the meeting in December would be on the 12th. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until October 30, 1995. ~+~& Chal 10