No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/11/03 PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 11,2003 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Diane Mauriello Jack Ingstad Earlene Roach Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners: Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the Soccer Fields Joint Use Agreement and financing of Mountain Glen Housing Corporation, which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402 (4)(b), and for the purposes of receiving legal advice regarding negotiations with the Western Eagle County Metro Recreation District, which is an appropriate topic pursuant to c.R.S. 24-6-402 (4)(e) and for the purpose of receiving advice on the purchase of 50 acre feet of water in Eagle Park Reservoir, pursuant to 24-6-402 (4)(b). Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 8:54 a.m. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9:25 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of February 10, 2003, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes ofthe Board of County Commissioners meeting for January 21,2003 C) Civil Rights Compliance Statement, Internal Revenue Services related to Vita, Volunteer Income Tax Preparation Program D) Eagle County Core Service Substance Abuse Agreement for 2003-2003 E) Eagle County Core Services Mental Health Services Agreement for 2002-2003 F) Agreement between Eagle County and Burns Rodeo Company concerning serving as stock contractor at the 2003 County Fair and Rodeo G) Resolution 2003-021, approving the amendment of Resolution 2003-013, concerning an appointment to the Eagle Valley Library District Board of Trustees H) Agreement regarding provision of consulting services for Eagle County with River Oaks Communications Corporation I) Intergovernmental Agreement with Edwards Metropolitan Board for trail snow plowing 1 02-11-2003 costs J) Contract with Mountain Maintenance for trail snow plowing K) Bid award for 2003 1 ton passenger van, Two Rivers Chevrolet, 130 Center Drive, Glenwood Springs, CO, trade in #6288, 1994 Ford passenger van L) Bid award for 20035 passenger mini van, Two Rivers Chevrolet, 130 Center Drive, Glenwood Springs, CO, trade in #6282, 1994 Ford Escort wagon M) Bid award for 2003 (3) Jeep Grand Cherokee, Grand Junction Chrysler Jeep Dodge, 2578 Highway 6 & 50, Grand Junction, CO, trade in #6486, 1995 Jeep, #6567, 1996 Ford Explorer, #7485, 1998 Ford Explorer N) Bid award for 20033/4 ton cargo van, Glenwood Springs Ford, 55 Storm King Road, Glenwood Springs, CO, trade in #6059, 1993 Cargo van 0) Bid award for 2003 club cab 3/4 ton 4X4 pickup, Berthod Motors, 2914 S. Grand Ave, Glenwood Springs, CO, trade in #7025, 19973/4 ton pickup P) Bid award for 2003 1 ton chassis/dump bed, Glenwood Springs Ford, 55 Storm King Road, Glenwood Springs, CO, trade in #6539, 1995 1 ton dump Q) Bid award for 2003 (5) 1/4 ton club cab pickup, Grand Junction Chrysler Jeep Dodge, 2578 Highway 6 & 50, Grand Junction, CO, trade in #6578, 1996 Ford Ranger, #7504, 1998 Ford Ranger, #8007, 2000 Dodge Dakota, #6990, 1997 Jeep Cherokee, #7749, 1999 Ford Ranger. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated there are no changes. Commissioner Stone questioned items I and J. He asked Ms. Caryl to speak to maintenance of the trails. He spoke to a pavement management program. He stated when he was on the Board, he believes the Board was more interested in making trails than maintaining them. Ellie Caryl, ECO, stated under the current plan they grant $1,000.00 per mile to those communities requesting assistance to help defray costs for maintenance. As far as the trails in unincorporated Eagle County, those are in the Edwards area. Road and Bridge received $4,500 through this program. They will receive a larger amount this year as there is additional footage that has been built. She stated there is also a pledge annually from the Edwards Metropolitan District to help maintain those trails. She stated the West Edwards Section needs re-surfacing but can be maintained as is for a few more years. She stated they are going to have a discussion at their retreat regarding maintenance. She stated there is a need for a fair program. Commissioner Stone stated he hopes they are discussing the concept of the pavement management program. Sometimes there are certain treatments that seem expensive at the time but will extend the life of the trails. He stated it is more than sweeping and plowing. Those trails need to be kept up. Ms. Caryl stated that is why they would like to do something to the West Edwards Trail this year. She stated the Edwards Metropolitan District has volunteered to do the maintenance on the trails through May of this year. Chairman Gallagher expressed his appreciation to the Edwards Metropolitan District and instructed staffto prepare a letter of such for the Board's signature. Chairman Gallagher asked about the Core Services Agreements. He asked if they are State funded. Katherine Craig, Health & Human Services, stated they are State funded. She stated they have not been told that Core Services will be cut any further. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 2 02-11-2003 Plat & Resolution Signing Chairman Gallagher stated there are no plats or resolutions for the Board's consideration. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows: A) EI Jebowl, Inc EI J ebowl This is a renewal of a tavern license. This establishment is located in the bowling alley along Highway 82 in EI Jebel. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) EI Jebel LLC EI Jebel Convenience Store This is a renewal of a 3.2% off premise beer license. This establishment is located in the same building as Wendy's and is along EI Jebel Road. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) Bella Mia, Inc. Bella Mia This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located along EI Jebel Road in E1 Jebel. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. D) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. Broken Arrow Cafe This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located at the base of Arrowhead Ski Mountain in Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. E) 4 Eagle Ranch, Inc. 4 Eagle Ranch This is a renewal of an optional premise license. This establishment is located along Highway 131 in Wolcott. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. F) Thomas J. Domenico Pier 13 Liquors This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is located along Highway 6 in Eagle-Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. G) J S & Nikko, Inc. Tramonti at the Charter This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located in the Charter at Beaver Creek along Offerson Road in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. 3 02-11-2003 Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for February 11, 2003, as presented. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Vail Valley Charitable Fund Earlene Roach presented a special events permit application for the Vail Valley Charitable Fund. She stated this application is for March 15, 2003 from noon to 7:00 p.m. She stated this is the musical chairs event that is an annual event Staffhas no concerns with this application. This application is in order and all fees have been paid. Kate Carey, applicant, was present for the hearing. Chairman Gallagher stated it appears the applicant is using a very small portion of the Beaver Creek Plaza for their licensed boundary. Ms. Carey stated that is correct. She stated it is easier to keep the liquor license under control. Chairman Gallagher stated he appreciated the submitted Alcohol Management Plan and was encouraged there are no complaints. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve a special events permit for the Vail Valley Charitable Funds, Inc. for March 15,2003 from noon to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the Board has had a request for an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn into an Executive Session, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes; 24-6-402 (4) ( e) for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the proposals for a second FBO at the Eagle County Regional Airport. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. . Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was unanimous. Commissioner Menconi was not present at this time. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 4:51 p.m. ZS-00104, Reed Bed & Breakfast Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file number ZS-00104, Reed Bed & Breakfast. He stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to March 25,2003. Commissioner Stone moved to table file number ZS-00104, Reed Bed & Breakfast to March 25, 2003. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. LUR-0038, LUR-0039, LUR-0040, LUR-0041, Housing Regulations 4 02-11-2003 Rebecca Leonard, Senior Planner, presented file number LUR-0038, LUR-0039, LUR-0040 and LUR-004l, Housing Regulations. Staff comments are as shown on staffreport and as follows: What is a reasonable Local Resident Housing Goal for Eagle County? What percentage of the total housing units should be affordable? (See Exhibit I) 10% (example: Boulder) 20% (example: Whistler) 30% (example: Basalt) 60% (example: Aspen) Is this percentage related to permanently deed restricted or Affordable units? (See Exhibit I and Exhibit F) LUR 0039 Is Inclusionary Housing an appropriate tool to help reach the goal? (See Proposed LURs Section 4-720 and Exhibit AA) What percentage? 30% (example: Routt County uses 33% in areas around Steamboat Springs) 25% 20% (example: Basalt and Boulder) Other (Town of Eagle recently adopted 10%, Garfield County uses 10%, Carbondale uses 15%) What Incentives? (See Exhibit H) Reduced, waived or deferred fees Expedited review and permitting process Allowance for increased density (was included in proposed amendment, but stricken by both Planning Commissions) Modified development requirements Tax exemptions Access to financial resources Transfer of Development Credits (currently included in proposed amendment) Banking of Development Credits (discussed with local developers and found favorable) Donation of land for Local Resident Housing purposes LUR B 0040 Is Residential Linkage an appropriate tool to help reach the goal? (See Proposed LURs Section 4-740) What Percentage? 30% 25% 20% What Incentives? (See Exhibit H) Reduced, waived or deferred fees Expedited review and permitting process Allowance for increased density (was included in proposed amendment, but stricken by both Planning Commissions) Modified development requirements Tax exemptions Access to financial resources Transfer of Development Credits (currently included in proposed amendment) Banking of Development Credits (discussed with local developers and found favorable) Donation of land for Local Resident Housing purposes 5 02-11-2003 LUR 0041 Is Non-Residential Linkage an appropriate tool to help reach the goal? (See Proposed LURs Section 4-730) What Percentage? 30% (Vail currently discussing this rate) 25% 20% (Basalt uses this rate) Other (Pitkin uses 60%, Telluride uses 40%, San Miguel County uses 15%) What Incentives? (See Exhibit H) Reduced, waived or deferred fees Expedited review and permitting process Allowance for increased density (was included in proposed amendment, but stricken by both Planning Commissions) Modified development requirements Tax exemptions Access to financial resources Transfer of Development Credits (currently included in proposed amendment) Banking of Development Credits (discussed with local developers and found favorable) Donation of land for Local Resident Housing purposes Ifboth Residential Linkage and Non-Residential Linkage are approved, shall we combine them into one section of the LUR? (See Proposed LURs Section 4-730 and Section 4-740) LUR B 0038 Should the units be deed restricted? (See Exhibit T) To only local residents? To specific Income groups? (See Exhibit J) Price Capped? Appreciation Capped? (See Exhibit U) 3%? Area Median Income? CPI (Denver/Boulder/Greeley)? CPI (Locally Calculated)? Housing Opportunity Index? For Perpetuity? (See Exhibit T) Should the County be the broker? (See Exhibit X) County Only Two percent fee for listing? Choice of County or Outside Broker Two percent fee for listing? Outside Broker Only Should the County allow a buy down (they can purchase and deed restrict existing units) option to developers? (See Exhibit N) Should the County require the replacement of existing affordable housing in the case of redevelopment? (See Exhibit S) Should we be encouraging mixed use development with these regulations? (See Exhibit V) Are the targeted income groups appropriate for these programs (See Exhibit J) Low Income (less than or equal to 80% of AMI) for Linkage Are the maximum sales prices appropriate? Moderate Income (less than or equal to 120% of AMI) for Inclusionary 6 02-11-2003 Are the maximum sales prices appropriate? Should we include or exempt Accessory Dwelling Units? (See Proposed LURs Section 4-720, B., 2., f. and Section 4-740, B., 2., e.) If so, will we monitor their use to ensure that they are being used for affordable housing? The Housing Need Continuum As Compared to The Housing Unit Type Continuum Apartments with Deep Subsidyl Apartments with Small Subsidy 1 Unsubsidized Rentals 1 228 425 481 1.51% 2.81% 3.18% Household Greater than High Moderate $89,850 7,301 48.2% 120% AMI Income Income Groups 101%to Moderate $71,880 2,000 13.2% 120% AMI Income Less Than Very Low 50% AMI Income $29,950 1,333 8.8% 81%to 100% AMI $59,900 2,802 18.5% 51 % to 80% Low Income AMI $43,500 1,712 11.3% Maximum 2 Person Household Income (HUD) #of Households2 Total=15,148 % of Eagle County Households5 Lance Badger, Cordillera, stated when an applicant is proposing a subdivision or a PUD, the Regulations state they must address wildlife. They in turn engage a biologist and work with the DOW and work up a wildfire mitigation plan. Maybe this can be used as more as a guiding policy. In terms of 7 02-11-2003 the Regulation, adopt something that says the applicant will provide a detailed housing plan with the subdivision application. Let the applicant address the specific needs within that proposal and let the County respond. He stated he believes it would give this Board and the applicant a lot of flexibility and great solutions to some complex issues. Commissioner Menconi asked if Mr. Badger's comments were in red on the handout. Mr. Badger stated they are. He stated Gerry Flynn was on his way to this meeting but due to the delay had to turn around. Commissioner Menconi stated he had comments under sale purchase price procedures. He stated in a previous meeting he had with Mr. Badger, there was no mention of the 3% cap concerns. In the handout, there have been changes made to the statement, "the amount determined by the Board of County Commissioners, the Board of County Commissioners shall have unilateral rights to remove the deed restrictions at any time." He questioned what has happened since their last meeting. Mr. Badger stated at the last meeting he attended there was discussion about setting the percentage. The right to unilaterally lift the deed restriction is a recommendation because this Board expressed the desire to be able to lift or change the deed restriction without the applicant being present. Commissioner Menconi stated Cordillera does not have any more projects left. He questioned the motive for taking such time in reviewing these regulations. Mr. Badger stated his background is in architectural design and he has worked extensively on affordable housing. He stated it has always interested him. There is a personal interest. There is a second project they are currently working on that these regulations would affect. He stated the whole purpose in creating these regulations is to encourage this type of housing. At the current time it is a discouragement. The way the proposed regulations are written, they encourage the second home product. He is just trying to influence the process and offer suggestions that might work better. No single community in this country has solved this delimma 100%. Commissioner Menconi asked if one item can solve that issue, which is if a development is in a certain profile with regards to a medium wage earner, that would be excluded from these regulations. Mr. Badger stated ifit were a Brett Ranch type of project and it was excluded from these regulations, they have proved that it will work in the market place. Commissioner Menconi stated his premise that these regulations will initiate second home development because of the burden on the $250,000 project. Mr. Badger stated project A is 20 units, they are 5,000 square feet each and are priced at $2.2 million dollars. Commissioner Menconi stated the issue is a significant one. Rather than taking all the different items, would it not be facilitated faster if it said "a property were to be developed would be exempt from these regulations". Mr. Badger stated yes, if a project like Brett Ranch were excluded, it would work. Commissioner Menconi asked if that were to happen, would they be satisfied. Mr. Badger stated with some ofthe suggestions the regulations could work better. Commissioner Menconi stated he appreciates the work Mr. Badger has put into the regulations. K.T. Gazunis, Habitat for Humanity, stated this organization is 26 years old and has completed 125,000 houses and now house over 625,000 people. She related they are the 15th largest homebuilder in the United States and the 5th largest home builder in the world. She stated they do not use the deed restrictions here but rather they use their own deed restrictions. It is shared appreciation. That means that over the course of the mortgage, the buyer retires the deed restriction. They own the equity and the appreciated equity of the house at the point of sale. If it is a 30 year mortgage, at the end of ten years, they retire one third ofthe appreciated value to the buyer. At the end oftwenty years they will own two thirds ofthe value ofthe home. It would be completely retired at the end ofthe thirty year mortgage. She stated the purpose is to prevent a windfall. They want to keep affordable housing for the people who need it. It helps eliminate transients. Ms. Gazunis stated they have a less than 1 % foreclosure rate. 8 02-11-2003 She stated deed restrictions with a 3% cap is an appropriate tool for a government project, like Miller Ranch. It is not appropriate for private industry. Ms. Gazunis stated in terms of payment in lieu of building affordable housing, they have recently been a recipient ofthe payment in lieu. They can sell their mortgages to someone and give all of their cash up front, and they are in the position to purchase property in Eagle County. Chairman Gallagher asked for additional public comment. There was none. He closed public comment for this session. Commissioner Stone asked Commissioner Menconi ifhe had a meeting with Mr. Badger and Mr. Flynn. Commissioner Menconi answered yes. Commissioner Stone stated he would appreciate it if in the future Commissioner Menconi would keep all discussions in public meetings. He stated this was a public file and discussions are to be held before the public. It could compromise the file. In a normal situation he would ask that Commissioner Menconi would recuse himself from voting on this file but he will consider that at this time. He stated he is sure that Commissioner Menconi had everyone's best interest at heart. Chairman Gallagher stated he also met with Mr. Badger and other members ofthe public. He appreciates Commissioner Stone's comments but believes this is a matter of great importance to the public. Commissioner Stone stated Mr. Badger does work for Cordillera who has another file before the Board. He believes they should be a little more careful. Commissioner Stone moved to table file numbers LUR-0038, LUR-0039, LUR-0040 and LUR- 0041, Housing Regulations to March 11,2003, at the applicants request. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-00043, 1041 Revisions Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, presented file number LUR-00043, 1041 Revisions. He stated approving these revisions will affect the Land Use Regulations. He related this matter was tabled form January 28,2003. He spoke to the revisions. The following proposed amendments are necessary if the revisions to Chapter 6, Sections one through five are adopted. Please note that new language is italicized. There are two last minute changes On page 13, Water and Sewer Exemptions. The word routine will be struck from A & B. On page 35, Financial Guarantee. It was always meant to be at the discretion ofthe permit authority to require or not require financial guarantees. The first line will now read, "before an permit is issued, the permit authority, at its own discretion, require the applicant", and continue from that point as written. Taylor Halls, NWCCOG, page 15 section 4, stated they proposed striking that entire section and on page 14, adding language on providing an estimate for determining ifit is a fonzi or an actual permit. Diane Mauriello stated that change is found on the two page document in the Board's packets. She stated another alternative for the Board is a flat fee. The third option is no application fee. Mr. Merry stated his recommendation is to continue as is. The applicant can corne in and ask for an exemption if they so choose. Chairman Gallagher stated he likes the last phrase in the submitted language being, "any excess funds will be applied to the permit application if required, or refunded". Mr. Merry suggested the language remain as it is today. Chairman Gallagher suggested a change in Appendix VII., he would like to include "used to extinction". He would like people to know they are going to take it seriously. Taylor commented some water is allowed to be used to extinction and other water is not. Commissioner Stone stated he can think of instances where it is supposed to be used to 9 02-11-2003 extinction and it is not. Nicole Guaromi, Leavenworth & Carpe, thanked staff for working with them. They are very pleased with the changes that have been made. She stated the fonzi process gives staff the flexibility to avoid the permit process through this finding. She suggested the County allow a broad interpretation of that so that in the future, if the Districts have a change in their service it would not constitute a major modification to their plans. Commissioner Stone stated major is in the eyes ofthe beholder. Mr. Merry stated he will note that. Staff findings are as follows: ARTICLE 2 DEFINITIONS SECTION 2-110 DEFINITIONS MAJOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING DOMESTIC WATER TREATMENT SYSTEM means (1) the expansion of existing domestic water treatment capacity or storage; or (2) any extension of existing water supply systems to sewe service an additional development density of ten (10) or more residential dwelling units or the equivalent thereof in other uses. MAJOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING SEW ACE WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM means any modification of an existing sewage treatment plant to increase hydraulic capacity or upgrade treatment capability or any extension of existing main collector sewer lines or any increase in capacity of existing main sewer lines or any extensions to serve a total development density of ten (10) or more dwelling units or the equivalent thereof in other uses. MAJOR NEW D01\fESTIC W,A..TER SYSTEM means a new system for provision to the public of piped water for human consumption or a system for the pro'lision to the public of piped water v/hich "vill be used in exchange for '.vater for human consumption, if such system is proposed to serve a total development density often or more dwelling units or the equivalent thereof in other uses. MAJOR NEW DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM means a new water supply system or water treatment plant if such system or plant is designed to serve a total of ten (10) or more residential dwelling units or the equivalent thereof. (See Water and Sewer Projects.) 1\f,'\JOR NEW D01\fESTIC SE'VACE TREATMENT SYSTE1\1 means a new sewage treatment system and collector system capable of treating the wastewater generated by ten (10) or more residential dwelling units or the equivalent thereof in other uses. MAJOR NEW DOMESTIC WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM means a new wastewater treatment plant, group of wastewater systems or collector system designed to treat the wastewater generated by ten (10) or more residential dwelling units or the equivalent thereof in other uses. (See Water and Sewer Projects.) 1\IUNICIPAL OR INDUSTRIAL '" ATER PROJECT means a system and all integrated components thereof through which a municipality and/or industry derives its water supply from either surface or subsurface sources. This includes a system and all integrated components thereofthrough which a municipality or industry derives water exchanged or traded for water it uses for its own needs. This term also includes storm vlater and wastewater disposal systems of a municipality and/or industry. MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL WATER PROJECTS means systems and all related components that provide water or may provide water in the future either directly or by exchange for municipal and industrial uses; provided, however, ''systems and related components "for a snow making project are limited to (i) those through which water is diverted and/or stored for snow making, and (ii) permanent distribution systems and components that are not otherwise regulated by state or federal regulations. WATER STORAGE FACILITY means any enclosed impervious structure, capable of holding five thousand (5,000) gallons or more, either above or below ground and that is used to store water for public consumption or fire protection. 10 02-11-2003 WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS. The Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems, Major Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems, and Efficient Utilization of Municipal and Industrial Water Projects, including any proposed land development directly related to such Project if such development is to be located wholly or partially within this County and if such development specifically generates the need for the Project. ARTICLE 3 ZONE DISTRICTS-EAGLE COUNTY SECTION 3-310 REVIEW STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO PARTICULAR RESIDENTIAL, AGRICULTURAL AND RESOURCE USES 1. Major New Domestie 'Vater or Sewer Systems, Major ExteDsioDs of Suell Systems aDd l\fuDiei-pal aDd IDdustrial 'Vater Projeets. WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS 1. Major new domestic v/ater or sevier systems, major extensions of such systems and municipal and industrial water projects WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS shall comply with the following standards: a. Abstract. The applicant shall submit an abstract of the proposal indicating the scope and need for the facility. b. State Review. Preliminary review and comment on the proposal by the appropriate agency of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources and the Colorado Department of Health shall be provided within sixty (60) days of submission of the application to the County. c. Alternatives. Alternatives to the proposed facility shall be evaluated, including but not limited to alternative locations and the no development alternative. d. Demographic Data. Any demographic data needed to fulfill the requirements of this Section shall be consistent with the data used for the 208 Areawide Waste Treatment Management Planning for Region XII, Colorado. 2. Waiver Provision. The Special Review Use permit application for a major ne\v domestic water or sewer systems, major extension of such systems, and municipal and industrial water projects WATER AND SEWER PROJECTS may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant showing that: a. A permit application pursuant to Chapters 3, 4, and/or 5 ofthe Guidelines and Regulations of Areas and l\cti'.'ities of State Interest of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, 1980, as amended, Chapter 6, sections one though five of the Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle County Permit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use permit application. b. Compliance with the Special Review Use permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. Such a waiver may be granted upon a determination by the Board of County Commissioners that requiring a Special Review Use permit in addition to the permits(s) required under the Guidelines and Regulations of Areas and Activities of State Interest of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, 1980, as amended, Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. 11 02-11-2003 Commissioner Stone moved to approve file number LUR-00043, 1041 Revisions, incorporating staff findings and after considering the recommendations of both Eagle County Planning Commission and the Roaring Fork Valley Planning Commission, as delineated in the final draft version date February 5,2003, and incorporating the recommended changes discussed today. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until February 18, 2003. 12 02-11-2003