No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 02/07/06 PUBLIC HEARING February 7, 2006 resent: Peter Runyon Tom Stone Am Menconi Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Walter Mathews Kathy Scriver Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Administrator County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing, the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: GENERAL FUND 3T SYSTEMS SERVICE 966.00 A FULL HOUSE CASINO CO IN SERVICE 1,992.50 AAA COLLECTORS REFUND 62.80 ADAMSON POLICE PRODUCTS SERVICE 153.92 AFFILIATED CREDIT SERVICE REFUND 11.20 AHMA SERVICE 300.00 ALAN PATTERSON REIMBURSEMENT 108.17 ALICIA LANDA REIMBURSEMENT 6.35 ALL ABOUT BOOKS SERVICE 637.54 ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SUPPLIES 28.50 ALLIANT FOOD SERVICE, INC SUPPLIES 4,508.72 ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY SUPPLIES 158.55 ALPINE MEADOWS ANIMAL SERVICE 10.00 AMADEO GONZALES REIMBURSEMENT 64.80 AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION SERVICE 40.00 AMERICAN JAIL ASSOCIATION SERVICE 1,635.00 AMERIGAS SERVICE 7,484.07 ANDERSON & KEIL REFUND 7.52 ANDIE NOAKES REIMBURSEMENT 228.00 ANIMAL HEALTH SERVICE 521.90 ANN LOPER REIMBURSEMENT 90.00 ANN MUNCASTER REIMBURSEMENT 11.70 ANNE MUNCH SERVICE 2,500.00 APPRAISAL INSTITUTE SERVICE 48.00 APS SERVICE 98.58 APW A CONFERENCE SERVICE 130.00 AQUA TEC SYSTEMS SERVICE 2,108.90 ARMY & FACTORY SURPLUS SERVICE 199.98 ARN MENCONI REIMBURSEMENT 85.00 ARTCRAFT SIGNS SERVICE 16.00 ARTWORKS, THE SERVICE 2,400.00 ASPEN CTR FOR WOMENS HL TH SERVICE 3,150.00 ASPEN PUBLISHERS INC SERVICE 234.99 ASSOCIATION FOR VOLUNTEER SERVICE 109.00 ASSOCIA TIONVOICE,LLC SERVICE 883.00 A V TECH ELECTRONICS INC SERVICE 31,534.22 AVID IDENTIFICATION SERVICE 1,533.67 AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CK SERVICE 2,071.41 AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS SERVICE 49.26 1 2/7 /06 B J ROWE REIMBURSEMENT 33.12 BALCOMB AND GREEN REFUND 1,556.68 BARBARA BRUNDIN REIMBURSEMENT 20.00 BARBARA McDOUGALL REIMBURSEMENT 28.20 BASALT HIGH SCHOOL SERVICE 1,000.00 BASALT SANITATION DIST SERVICE 135.00 BAUDVILLE INC REIMBURSEMENT 2,106.20 BEN GALLOWAY MD SERVICE 1,580.00 BERLITZ LANGUAGE CENTER SERVICE 150.00 BERTHOD MOTORS SERVICE 722.78 BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS SERVICE 72.18 BETHANY VAN WYK REIMBURSEMENT 26.57 BIG STEVES TOWING SERVICE 1,606.00 BRAVO! V AIL V ALLEY MUSIC SERVICE 15,000.00 BRIANNA SHOULDERS SERVICE 569.50 BRUCE BAUMGARTNER REIMBURSEMENT 50.75 BURBACH & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE 70.00 BURNS FIGA WILL PC REFUND 60.00 BUSCH PROFESSIONAL CORP REFUND 30.00 CABELAS SERVICE 149.99 CAPITOL ADVANTAGE PUB. SERVICE 17.95 CARMEN LOZOYO-VELEZ REIMBURSEMENT 159.39 CARSE SERVICE 150.00 CASTLE PEAK VETERINARY SERVICE 75.04 CDW SERVICE 931.99 CEAFCS SERVICE 30.00 CEMA SERVICE 20.00 CENTER FOR EDUCATION AND SERVICE 124.95 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES 3,083.19 CENTURYTEL SERVICE 21,473.07 CENTURYTEL OF EAGLE SERVICE 2,563.63 CGAIT SERVICE 500.00 CGFOA SERVICE 120.00 CGFOAlCMCA ANNUAL CONF SERVICE 90.00 CHARM TEX SERVICE 3,847.41 CHEMA TOX INC. SERVICE 630.00 CHERYL BISANT SERVICE 756.00 CHERYL CRANE REIMBURSEMENT 52.71 CHRISTINE L MOTT REIMBURSEMENT 65.83 CINDY SOUPL Y REIMBURSEMENT 68.58 CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICE 819.36 CLERK OF THE GARFIELD REIMBURSEMENT 150.00 CLIFFORD D ZINDA REIMBURSEMENT 90.00 CLINT PRZYMUS REIMBURSEMENT 1,130.11 CLINTON MEHL REIMBURSEMENT 42.00 CLUB TWENTY SERVICE 2,300.00 CO ASSOCIATION SERVICE 75.00 CO CHAPTER APW A SERVICE 30.00 CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SERVICE 1,062.00 CO SECRETARY OF STATE SERVICE 10.00 CO STATE ASSOC CLERK AND SERVICE 1,025.00 COLORADO BIG COUNTRY RC&D SERVICE 400.00 COLORADO CHAPTER OF ICC SERVICE 1,275.00 COLORADO COALITION SERVICE 350.00 COLORADO CORONERS SERVICE 1,200.00 2 2/7/06 COLORADO COUNTIES INC COLORADO FASTENERS COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE COLORADO SEARCH RESCUE COLORADO STATE FOREST COLORADO STATEWIDE PARENT COLORADO WEED MANAGEMENT COLORADO WEST MENTAL HLTH COLUMBINE MARKET COMMUNITY BANKING SYSTEMS CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING CONTRACT PHARMACY SERVICE COPY PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING COUNTY SHERIFFS COLORADO COVERSA CSU CTSI VOLUNTEER INSURANCE DAN CORCORAN PLS DAN SEIBEL DANIEL BARRON DAVE MOTT DAVID A BAUER DA VIDSONS DECATUR ELECTRONICS DEEP ROCK WATER CO DELTA EXTENSION FUND DEPT HEALTH CARE POLICY DEPT OF LABOR EMPLOYMENT DESIGN WORKSHOP, INC DEVENEI D BALL DIEBOLD ELECTION SYSTEMS DLT SOLUTIONS, INC. DOCTORS ON CALL DONALD LEMON DONNA M BARNES DOSIA LAEYENDECKER EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS EAGLE COUNTY HEALTH AND EAGLE COUNTY MOTOR POOL EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE INDUSTRIES UNLIMITD EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE RIVER YOUTH COAL. EAGLE V AIL ANIMAL HOSPITA EAGLE V ALLEY ALLIANCE EAGLE V ALLEY CHAMBER COMM EAGLE V ALLEY HIGH SCHOOL EAGLE V ALLEY MEDICAL SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 23,859.00 835.08 32.00 5,088.95 675.00 50.00 33,675.41 900.00 260.00 1,274.20 4.97 1,140.00 1,542.49 1,022.45 5 1.25 8,588.70 86.74 5,191.74 300.00 110.00 306,011.00 980.00 27.60 30.60 141.00 30.00 7,221.70 7,240.00 16.95 85.00 25.00 125.00 144.94 30.00 4,725.00 5,776.55 130.00 16.21 158.28 90.00 46,875.00 4,969.00 1,550.00 1,396.29 105.00 64.10 5.60 776.05 223.49 100.00 20.00 1,000.00 695.00 1,000.00 35.00 3 2/7/06 EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING SERVICE 4,344.31 EARTH LINK, INC. SERVICE 1,699.80 EASTER OWENS ELECTRIC CO SERVICE 65.00 EDWARDS BUILDING CENTER SERVICE 13.06 EDWARDS PLAZA LLC SERVICE 42,015.96 ELISA ACOSTA REIMBURSEMENT 72.45 ENGINEERING NEWS RECORD SERVICE 82.00 EPS DESIGN AND PRINT SERVICE 2,056.38 ESRI SERVICE 1,800.00 EVERETT F AMIL Y FUNERAL SERVICE 1,380.00 EXTENSION PROGRAM FUND SERVICE 600.00 FACILITIES PROGRAM FUND SERVICE 4,600,000.00 FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY REIMBURSEMENT 1,931.14 FARRELL & SELDIN REFUND 30.00 FEDERAL EXPRESS SERVICE 385.09 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC SERVICE 1.50 FIDLAR SOFTWARE SERVICE 26,850.00 FINANCIAL EQUIPMENT COMPA SERVICE 172.50 FIRKINS GARAGE DOORS SERVICE 540.00 FIRST AMBERST FINANCIAL REFUND 30.00 FIRST BANKS SERVICE 8,278.96 FLORIDA MICRO SERVICE 5,150.00 FORINASH KATHLEEN REIMBURSEMENT 158.35 FRANKLIN COVEY SERVICE 83.71 FSH COMMUNICATIONS LLC SERVICE 65.00 GALLS INCORPORATED SERVICE 3,394.18 GARFIELD COUNTY CLERK SERVICE 120.00 GARFIELD COUNTY PUB HLTH SERVICE 2,080.00 GENERAL REVENUE CORP. SERVICE 268.56 GEORGIE C ZINDA REIMBURSEMENT 62.85 GLADYS PETIT SERVICE 1,029.74 GOVCONNECTION, INC SERVICE 3,700.00 GRACE FINNEY SERVICE 65.10 GRAINGER INCORPORA TED SERVICE 490.04 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND SERVICE 125.57 GREAT AMERICAN LEASING SERVICE 1,124.00 GRYPHON HOUSE INC SERVICE 458.78 HALL KYLE REIMBURSEMENT 19.22 HANSEN STEVE R REIMBURSEMENT 804.68 HASLER INC SERVICE 189.00 HAWKINS COMMERCIAL SERVICE 130.20 HAWTHORN SUITES SERVICE 355.00 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 4,237,545.66 HELEN M LINDOW REIMBURSEMENT 24.30 HELLO DIRECT INC SERVICE 275.08 HEWLETT PACKARD SERVICE 1,903.00 HIGHLANDS GROUP, INC SERVICE 600.00 HOGAN & HARTSON SERVICE 562.50 HOLIDAY INN EXPRESS SERVICE 138.00 HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC SERVICE 16,312.61 HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 4,738.49 HOLY CROSS ENERGY SERVICE 17.87 HOW TO READ YOUR BABY SERVICE 590.00 HV AC SUPPLY SERVICE 77.70 IMAGE DENTAL SERVICE 108.00 4 2/7/06 INGENIX INTEGRATING GIS & CMA INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE INTELLIGENT BIOMETRIC INTERIOR PLANTSCAPES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAP NETWORK SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION ISA-RMA JAN 0 WESTMAN JANET CONNORS JAY MAX SALES JENNIE W AHRER JENNY WOOD JERRY CHICOINE JILL HUNSAKER JIMMY COLIHAN JOHN KING JOHN LOWERY JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC JOSH STOWELL JOYCE MACK KARA BETTIS, CORONER KATHY SCRIVER KAY VINCENT KEN NEUBECKER KERRY WALLACE KINDER MORGAN INC KIRK HANSEN KRIS WHITTAKER KRISTIN DIEDRICH LA QUINTA LANDS END INCORPORATED LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES LEDERHAUSE EDITH LEFTHAND NETWORKS LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC LEXISNEXIS LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK INC LIGHTHA WK LIGHTNING SERVICES LINDA P ANKUCH LIZ MAYER LORMAN EDUCATION SERVICES MACHOL & JOHANNES MAIN AUTO PARTS MAKYLA MOODY MARIA ANJIER MARJORIE J MARKS MARLENE MC CAFFERTY MAURI NOTTINGHAM MBIA MCCAULLEY REBECCA T MCI WORLDCOM MEADOW MOUNTAIN PLUMBING SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE 192.85 1,215.00 1,650.00 3,870.56 125.00 200.00 2,427.40 150.00 140.00 30.00 127.80 814.40 200.00 140.00 105.90 174.46 355.54 33.12 114.75 10,711.81 500.00 110.40 89.38 45.00 94.88 13.80 20.70 40,047.16 41.40 860.00 119.37 336.00 19.80 37.21 22.80 5,000.00 378.44 87.15 9.50 1,000.00 375.00 436.14 110.91 1,624.00 42.92 175.01 23.32 5.16 213.00 40.50 249.00 4,850.79 117.30 1,933.23 9,425.93 5 2/7/06 MEDICAL ARTS PRESS SUPPLIES 10 1.17 MERCK A TL SERVICE 212.34 MICHAEL MCCLINTON REIMBURSEMENT 55.20 MICRO PLASTICS SERVICE 10.87 MICROWAVE MAINT FUND SERVICE 74,200.00 MID V ALLEY METROPOLITAN SERVICE 396.39 MOES ORIGINAL BBQ SERVICE 154.00 MONICA JACOX REIMBURSEMENT 76.00 MOORE MEDICAL CORP SERVICE 160.25 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 32,806.31 MOTOROLA SERVICE 3,918.17 MOTOSA T SERVICE 1,133.60 MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 432.00 MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT SERVICE 2,495.00 MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY CO SERVICE 1,343.14 NACO CONFERENCE REGISTRA T SERVICE 469.00 NACRC SERVICE 135.00 NAHRO SERVICE 140.42 NARDA REIGEL SERVICE 301.00 NARSVPD INC SERVICE 75.00 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE 400.00 NA WMA SERVICE 65.00 NCES INC SERVICE 83.44 NELSON PLUMBING HEATING SERVICE 340.00 NEVES UNIFORMS SERVICE 54.95 NORMAN SMITH JR REIMBURSEMENT 105.60 NORTHERN TOOL & EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES 19.34 NORTHWEST COLORADO SERVICE 81,817.00 NWCCOG SERVICE 10,662.00 OFFICE OUTFITTERS SERVICE 423.52 OLGA WILKINS SERVICE 105.00 OMNI INTERLOCKEN RESORT SERVICE 360.00 ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO SERVICE 496.09 OSM DELIVERY LLC SERVICE 432.80 OTTALIE FABER-CARLIN SERVICE 169.60 P-LOGIC SYSTEMS SERVICE 13,956.25 PARENTS ACTION CHILDREN SERVICE 364.87 PAT NOLAN REIMBURSEMENT 51.75 PATHOLOGY GROUP SERVICE 3,034.10 PAULA A PALMATEER REIMBURSEMENT 53.40 PEGGY GRAYBEAL SERVICE 140.00 PEPPERDINE'S MARKET SERVICE 18.50 PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING SERVICE 654.38 PHYLISS ROUNDS SERVICE 26.40 PINNACOL ASSURANCE SERVICE 24.52 PITNEY BOWES INCORPORATED SERVICE 1,018.19 PLACEW A YS, LLC SERVICE 600.00 PORTER AUTO BODY INC SERVICE 4,084.80 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS SERVICE 624.15 POST SERVICE 20.00 PRIMEDIA BUSINESS BOOK DI SERVICE 119.95 PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATES REFUND 45.40 PUBLIC SAFETY CENTER SERVICE 345.16 PURCHASE POWER SERVICE 15,698.45 QUEST DIAGNOSTICS SERVICE 318.84 6 2/7/06 QUINLAN PUBLISHING COMPAN QWEST RENEE DUBUISSON RETIREMENT FUND RICHARD A KESLER RICHARD BLANCHARD RICHARD M KAUDY LLC RIDGEGEAR ROBERT B EMERSON, PC ROBERT BEYER ROCKYNET.COM INC ROLLY ROUNDS RON GRUBER DVM ROSIE MORENO RRC ASSOCIATES RSC RUTH LENZ SAN FRANCISCO MARRIOTT SARAH SCHIPPER SAWAYA AND ROSE SCAN AIR OF COLORADO INC SCHAEFER OUTFITTERS SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP SCOTT FLEMING SECURE FILES INC SHAMROCK FOODS CORP SHEILA VIGIL SHELVING RACK & LOCKERS SIGNATURE SIGNS SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SKI AREA SUPPLIES, INC SMITH EDWARD SNOWHITE LINEN SOFTWARE SPECTRUM SOLE MAN LLC SOS STAFFING SERVICES SPECIALIZED PRODUCTS SPIEGEL MCDIARMID SPRING HILL SUITES BY STA TE DISBURSEMENT UNIT STATE OF COLORADO STEPHANIE GLENWRIGHT STEVE TONGUE STRAWBERRY PATCH STUDENT MOVERS SUE FRANCIOSE SUE MOTT SULLIVAN GREEN SEAVY LLC SUPERIOR ENERGY LLC SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO SUSPENSE FUND SYMBOL ARTS TEAK SIMONTON TECHDANCERS INC TENIE CHICOINE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT 922.11 6,458.94 162.14 374,952.50 8,146.61 2,324.32 21.00 2,500.00 74.00 105.23 300.00 42.30 20.00 103.50 7,000.00 70.00 21.00 1,698.60 217.81 41.70 2,724.00 2,361.42 9,718.36 76.00 3,168.00 710.02 190.00 6,693.08 198.00 448.72 955.00 38.00 102.94 6,127.10 120.00 1,047.75 138.95 4,074.60 183.60 276.92 945.12 15.00 1,265.98 80.95 5,794.05 12.08 168.00 1,632.00 1,640.00 675.00 82,897.38 250.00 161.59 2,880.00 180.00 7 2/7/06 THE FLOWER CART THE OLD GYPSUM PRINTER THOMPSON PUBLISHING GROUP THOMSON WEST GROUP TIM LOSA TOM DORITY & ASSOCIATES TOOL CLINIC INCORPORATED TOWN OF BASALT TOWN OF EAGLE TOWN OF VAIL TRAJEN FBO NETWORK TRANE COMPANY UNIFORM KINGDOM UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED REPROGRAPHIC UNITED STATES POLICE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINA TTI UPPER ARKANSAS VALLEY US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US DEPT OF EDUCATION VAIL BOARD OF REALTORS VAIL CHRISTIAN HS V AIL ELECTRONICS VAIL LOCK AND KEY VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL V AIL V ALLEY CHAMBER AND V AILNET INC VALLEY LUMBER VALLEY PARTNERSHIP VALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL VERIZON WIRELESS, VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS VIRGINIA BAIR VISA CARD SERVICES VISIBLE COMPUTER SUPPLY C VORT CORP WALT DISNEY WORLD WASTE MANAGEMENT WECMRD WELLS FARGO WENDY JO HASKINS WESTERN SLOPE BAR WESTERN SLOPE FENCING WESTERN STATES SHERIFFS WILLIAM LOPER WIND RIVER TREES WOLPOFF AND ABRAMSON WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYN TTAYLOR XCEL ENERGY XEROX CORPORATION Y AMP A V ALLEY ELECTRIC ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE PAYROLL FOR JANUARY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL EXUDE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES PAYROLL I &2 93.00 616.00 318.50 1,999.65 63.48 6,019.74 2,999.95 82.58 1,736.96 6,942.71 1,258.81 4,914.37 616.75 337.79 3,117.69 40.00 612.00 500.00 31,206.18 149.92 125.00 980.00 3,789.75 35.05 1,740.00 220.00 67.80 469.09 4,498.59 1,848.00 3,704.32 27.88 11.40 25,089.94 319.02 81.30 1,239.92 2,210.58 1,550.00 298,223.09 43.12 343.68 5,990.73 100.00 90.00 1,585.00 30.00 665.00 24.24 61.30 1,144.89 3,461.59 610.58 55.68 672,335.70 8 2/7/06 11,573,598.90 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND BLAKE MARTIN REIMBURSEMENT 75.00 BRA TTON ENTERPRISE, INC. SERVICE 1,140.89 CARSE SERVICE 180.00 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES 350.00 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICE 78.77 COLORADO ASPHALT PAVEMENT SERVICE 400.00 COLORADO LTAP SERVICE 75.00 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICE 134.40 COpy PLUS SERVICE 77.45 CTSI VOLUNTEER INSURANCE SERVICE 123,989.00 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 9.75 EAGLE PHARMACY SERVICE 23.98 EAGLE V ALLEY MEDICAL SERVICE 85.00 FACILITIES PROGRAM FUND SERVICE 1,500,000.00 FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY REIMBURSEMENT 401.88 GENERAL FUND SERVICE 213,268.00 GMCO CORPORATION SERVICE 14,845.96 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND SERVICE 3,543.58 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 374,469.30 HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 785.20 HOLY CROSS ENERGY SERVICE 1,568.34 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS SERVICE 4,810.65 INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY SUPPLIES 122.98 KINDER MORGAN INC SERVICE 5,1l9.93 LAF ARGE CORPORATION SERVICE 52,860.92 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 5,717.90 NAPA AUTO PARTS-CARBONDLE SUPPLIES 26.82 PAUL M. JOHNSTON REIMBURSEMENT 250.00 PLANTED EARTH, INC. REIMBURSEMENT 100.00 RAGAN COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICE 51.14 RETIREMENT FUND SERVICE 38,090.00 RSC SERVICE 184.93 SAFETY & CONSTRUCTION SERVICE 119.42 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 6,603.04 TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE 239.85 US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS SERVICE 521.73 V AIL ELECTRONICS SERVICE 46.57 V ALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES 5.49 WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE 70.48 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXUDE 29,888.72 WESTERN PAGING SERVICE 282.36 WESTERN SLOPE BAR SERVICE 39.25 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 196.41 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 316.08 Y AMP A V ALLEY ELECTRIC REIMBURSEMENT 3,037.00 PAYROLL FOR JANUARY PAYROLL 1 &2 69,508.75 2,453,711.92 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF SERVICE 19.00 ANIXTER COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 32.16 CAROLINE GONZALES REIMBURSEMENT 314.57 9 2/7/06 CARTER & ALTERMAN CATHERINE ZAKOIAN, M.A. CENTRAL SERVICES/EC CENTURYTEL CHRIS MORTON COLORADO WEST MENTAL HLTH CORPORATE EXPRESS CTSI VOLUNTEER INSURANCE DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY DOLPHIN CAPITAL CORP EAGLE CONVENIENCE STORE EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE RIVER YOUTH COAL. EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING ELIZABETH MCGILL VRA Y EXCALIBUR HOTEL F AMIL Y LEARNING CENTER FORINASH KATHLEEN HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HEART OF THE WEST COUNSEL HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC JEANNE MCQUEENEY JESSICA LUCAS JOHN C COLLINS PC JULIA KOZUSKO KAPLAN COMPANIES, INC KATHY REED KINDER MORGAN INC KRISTI GREMS LAKE CREEK VILLAGE LARA "HEATHER" LA WDERMILK LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK INC LISA GRIGGS LITERACY PROJECT, THE LYONS KATHLEEN MARIAN MCDONOUGH MOTOR POOL FUND NOLA SMITH OLGA WILKINS ONTIVEROS, LUPE ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO PAMELA WHITTINGTON-SERBA PITKIN COUNTY SHERIFF RAMADA INN RETIREMENT FUND SHERI MINTZ STATE FORMS CENTER SUSPENSE FUND VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL HONEYW AGON L TD VAIL RACQUET CLUB SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 156.00 847.07 1,288.45 97.39 70.00 210.00 1,569.60 14,521.00 10,942.84 79.00 27.50 365.87 80.00 73.40 2,000.00 750.00 1,440.69 504.67 21.60 2,375.00 16.04 499,003.04 1,754.78 1,276.00 1,010.01 1,142.98 12.08 12,762.84 1,586.85 37,392.20 136.45 326.47 259.50 461.69 35.01 160.50 162.15 5,721.82 46.44 77.38 939.94 78.08 490.00 113.85 55.00 380.40 82.94 320.24 30,146.50 425.01 73.96 6,175.15 5,814.00 10.00 675.00 10 2/7/06 VAIL RECREATION DISTRICT SERVICE 10,000.00 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICE 482.94 VIRGINIA AVILA REIMBURSEMENT 32.43 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE 3,717.37 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXUDE 20,143.57 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 411.13 PAYROLL FOR JANUARY PAYROLL 1&2 44,834.42 726,531.97 RETIREMENT FUND SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 77,103.00 77,103.00 INSURANCE RESERVE FUND COUNTY TECHNICAL SERVICES SERVICE 21,448.16 FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICES SERVICE 1,624.50 TRANE COMPANY SERVICE 7,304.34 30,377.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND CAROL N VAUGHAN DESIGNS SERVICE 3,407.00 CO DEPT TRANSPORTATION SERVICE 106,412.80 CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING SERVICE 941.14 EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SERVICE 55,437.00 FACILITIES PROGRAM FUND SERVICE 300,000.00 GRAINGER INCORPORATED SERVICE 2,594.44 IMP ACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS SERVICE 875.00 KENNEY & ASSOCIA TES SERVICE 12,039.70 KINDER MORGAN INC SERVICE 1,184.92 LEFTHAND NETWORKS SERVICE 15,000.00 MCLAUGHLIN RINCON SERVICE 8,713.26 R A NELSON & ASSOCIA TES SERVICE 139,707.44 RIPPY CONTRACTORS INC SERVICE 53,567.38 SHEPHERD RESOURCES, INC. SERVICE 1,226.77 ST TIMOTHY CHAIR CO SERVICE 854.66 TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE 250,000.00 V AIL ELECTRONICS SERVICE 382.50 VAUGHN CONSTRUCTION SERVICE 209,432.89 YORK INTERNATIONAL CORP SERVICE 5,156.00 1,166,932.90 SALES TAX E.V. TRANSP. A & E TIRE INC SERVICE 4,931.45 Al AUTO ELECTRIC COMPANY SUPPLIES 29.47 ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY SUPPLIES 1,674.44 BUFFALO RIDGE AFFORDABLE SERVICE 7,505.00 CASTA SERVICE 3,613.07 CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE 156.98 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES 383.01 CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICE 287.31 COLLETTS SUPPLIES 1,291.80 COLORADO DEPT REVENUE SERVICE 2.00 COLUMBINE MARKET SERVICE 16.27 COPY COPY SERVICE 1,027.14 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES 309.Ql 11 2/7/06 CTSI VOLUNTEER INSURANCE DAVID JOHNSON DOCTORS ON CALL DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES EAGLE COUNTY MOTOR POOL EAGLE V ALLEY GLASS AND FEDERAL EXPRESS G & K SERVICES GE CAPITAL GENERAL FUND GILLIG CORPORATION HASLER INC HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HI CRANES INC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HOLY CROSS ENERGY IMP ACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS IMS COLORADO INNOVATIVE ENERGY INSTA-CHAIN INC KINDER MORGAN INC KINETICO WATER PROS KSKE-NRC BROADCASTING KZYR-COOL RADIO LLC LAFARGE CORPORATION LAWSON PRODUCTS LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC LIGHTHOUSE, INC., THE M & M AUTO PARTS MEDICAL CENTER OF EAGLE MID WEST TRUCK MILLENNIUM TOWING MINOR STORAGE MOTOR POOL FUND QUILL CORPORATION QWEST REGAL PLASTIC SUPPLY RETIREMENT FUND RON E BECK SAFETY KLEEN (WHICIT A) SAFETY VISION LP STEWART AND STEVENSON SUSPENSE FUND THE RELIZON COMPANY TIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TOWN OF AVON TOWN OF GYPSUM UNITED STATES WELDING US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS USDA FOREST SERVICE VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL NET VAIL VALLEY COMMUNITY VERIZON WIRELESS, VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 142,568.00 21.39 55.00 7,323.68 47,769.30 194.50 58.42 470.96 269.16 202,145.00 4,931.94 197 .50 663,034.73 240.00 2,901.53 5,491.98 58.50 320.00 2,641.00 814.00 17,928.86 35.00 150.00 333.00 2,359.51 667.16 52.02 51.44 997.78 140.60 1,273.58 450.00 1,440.00 5,803.95 71.84 166.63 1,555.58 67,459.50 1,900.00 96.95 298.60 728.29 10,875.06 696.32 310.00 26,589.24 769.56 28.81 2,229.59 2,000.00 163.06 11.95 237.46 65.78 2,654.18 12 2/7/06 WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE 246.77 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXUDE 63,327.73 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 133.19 XCEL ENERGY SERVICE 1,404.08 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 534.39 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES 129.98 PAYROLL FOR JANUARY PAYROLL 1&2 140,483.13 1,459,584.11 SALES TAX E.V. TRAILS ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 29.99 AMERICAN PUBLIC WRKS ASSC SERVICE 126.00 COLUMBINE MARKET SERVICE 37.14 COPY PLUS SERVICE 30.47 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES 249.81 CTSI VOLUNTEER INSURANCE SERVICE 597.00 FEDERAL EXPRESS SERVICE 20.58 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 2,954.72 IMP ACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS SERVICE 864.06 LAND TITLE SERVICE 1,350.00 MARCIN ENGINEERING INC SERVICE 1,500.00 RETIREMENT FUND SERVICE 952.50 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER SERVICE 7,427.50 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 154.26 TOWN OF VAIL SERVICE 12,000.00 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXUDE 879.46 29,173.49 SALES TAX R.F.V. TRANSP. ROARING FORK SERVICE 76,760.02 76,760.02 SALES TAX R.F.V. TRAILS ROARING FORK SERVICE 8,528.88 8,528.88 AIRPORT FUND ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SUPPLIES 433.69 ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY SUPPLIES 865.28 AMERICAN ASSOC AIRPORT SERVICE 150.00 ASMI SERVICE 2,450.00 A VIS RENT A CAR SYSTEM SERVICE 50.00 BALCOMB AND GREEN SERVICE 316.35 BLUEGLOBES INC SERVICE 368.17 CABELAS SERVICE 202.87 CARTER & BURGESS, INC SERVICE 35,513.21 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICE 194.29 CENTURYTEL SERVICE 2,787.31 CHRIS ANDERSON REIMBURSEMENT 43.12 CO DEPT OF LABOR & EMPLMT SERVICE 35.00 CO DEPT PUBLIC SAFETY SERVICE 85.48 COLLETTS SERVICE 4,546.89 CONCRETE WORKS OF CO INC SERVICE 208,762.20 CTSI VOLUNTEER INSURANCE SERVICE 45,615.00 DISH NETWORK SERVICE 236.73 13 2/7/06 DIVISION OF FIRE SAFETY DOLPHIN CAPITAL CORP DRAGONS BOOT & SHOE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EAGLE EMBROIDERY INC ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPO ELIZABETH WILT ENSEMBLE CARE & FRONTIER RADIO GALLS INCORPORATED GENERAL FUND GLENWOOD AUTO ELECTRIC GYPSUM TOWN OF HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HEWLETT PACKARD HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC JAY MAX SALES KINDER MORGAN INC LAWSON PRODUCTS LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC M & M AUTO PARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS MCI WORLDCOM MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC MOTOR POOL FUND MYSLlK INC NEXTEL OJ WATSON COMPANY INC REPORTING SYSTEMS INC RETIREMENT FUND SERVICE MASTER CLEAN SEVERSON SUPPLY CO., INC. SKYLINE MECHANICAL STEWART & STEVENSON POWER SUMMITEX, LLC SUSPENSE FUND TAYLOR FENCE COMPANY TOOL CLINIC INCORPORATED TRI COUNTY FIRE US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CUSTOMS SERVICE VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL TOWN OF VERIZON WIRELESS, VISA CARD SERVICES WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WASTE MANAGEMENT WAYNE SMITH WELLS FARGO WESTERN IMPLEMENTS WESTERN SLOPE BAR WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY PAYROLL FOR JANUARY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL EXUDE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL 1 & 2 80.00 271.77 176.96 163.72 772.99 10,000.00 18.98 1,773.93 457.00 13.48 107,705.00 714.60 518.72 249,466.20 1,527.00 4,006.68 88.00 7,252.03 142.61 70.57 106.20 392.19 151.71 33,147.50 887.54 2,204.78 636.09 1,140.76 720.00 19,990.50 972.00 2,460.61 2,380.00 272.31 900.15 3,694.78 3,960.00 221.08 322.40 887.53 32,348.55 1,000.00 5,764.48 35.51 1,119.76 942.42 458.37 50.00 22,424.08 1,149.65 79.50 225.82 631.44 53,673.51 883,227.05 14 2/7/06 MICROWAVE MAINTENANCE FUND CENTURYTEL OF EAGLE SERVICE 114.60 HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 7,011.18 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICE 19,225.50 MCI WORLDCOM SERVICE 6,644.81 QWEST SERVICE 944.36 33,940.45 JMC.COP DEBT SERVICE FUND HOGAN & HARTSON SERVICE 421.09 US BANK TRUST NA SERVICE 2,500.00 2,921.09 HOUSING FUND FUNDING PARTNERS FOR SERVICE 18,899.00 GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING SERVICE 1,254.00 20,153.00 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FUND BOUND TREE MEDICAL LLC SERVICE 3,183.60 CINGULAR WIRELESS SERVICE 49.12 EON OFFICE PRODUCTS SERVICE 934.00 H.K.CARR & ASSOCIATES,INC SERVICE 43.35 MIKE NOEL SERVICE 3,200.00 MTN MESA SPORT INC SERVICE 2,296.15 NEW PIG CORPORATION SERVICE 109.37 REIS ENVIRONMENTAL INC SERVICE 432.81 TTCI SERVICE 5,108.00 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE 94.11 15,450.51 OPEN SPACE FUND EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICE 1,167.56 GENERAL FUND SERVICE 103,853.00 105,020.56 LANDFILL FUND ALL-PRO FORMS INC SUPPLIES 212.50 CAROLINA SOFTWARE SERVICE 300.00 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING SUPPLIES 692.20 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICE 144.91 CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH & SERVICE 15,393.39 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICE 755.04 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES 106.38 CTSIVOLUNTEERINSURANCE SERVICE 31,477.00 DOWN VALLEY SEPTIC SERVICE 550.00 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 190.59 EAGLE VALLEY ALLIANCE SERVICE 12,000.00 EPG COMPANIES SERVICE 3,563.00 GENERAL FUND SERVICE 96,192.00 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 160,386.54 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS SERVICE 863.39 KRW CONSULTING INC SERVICE 37,533.93 LAFARGE CORPORATION SERVICE 1,282.51 15 2/7/06 LASER JUNCTION LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC MOTOR POOL FUND RETIREMENT FUND ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMEN SUSPENSE FUND US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAIL ELECTRONICS VERMEER SALES & SERVICE VISA CARD SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT WELLS FARGO WESTERN SLOPE BAR WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE PAYROLL FOR JANUARY SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL EXUDE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES PAYROLL 1 & 2 199.95 676.00 936.00 10,203.00 12,144.51 2,043.45 875.56 330.00 20,000.00 207.73 16,255.28 7,155.19 125.50 1,131.51 109.00 158.71 19,050.48 453,245.25 MOTOR POOL FUND AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INC BERTHOD MOTORS CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL CO DEPT OF LABOR & EMPLMT CO DEPT PUBLIC HL TH/ENVIR COLLETTS COLORADO LTAP COpy PLUS CTSIVOLUNTEERINSURANCE CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES FARIS MACHINERY CO G & K SERVICES GENERAL FUND GLENWOOD RADIATOR REPAIR GLENWOOD SPRINGS CHRYSLER GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY GOODYEAR WHOLESALE TIRE HANSON EQUIPMENT HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HENSLEY BATTERY HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HOLY CROSS ENERGY HONNEN EQUIPMENT HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS KINDER MORGAN INC KOIS BROTHERS LAKE COUNTY AUTOMOTIVE LAUREL POTTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC M & M AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REI MBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES 2,639.29 2,178.61 99.60 82.66 100.45 73.88 140.00 20.00 146,566.87 75.00 276.17 23,724.00 316.44 365.45 221.55 769.00 126,278.00 486.04 1,933.30 447.01 5,024.64 92.80 140,273.16 338.60 2,030.06 4,054.79 272.16 247.45 13,237.09 524.00 1,250.00 28.98 311.89 22.88 4,694.22 16 2/7/06 MAIN AUTO PARTS MOTOR POOL FUND NAPA AUTO PARTS NAPA AUTO PARTS-CARBONDLE NOVUS AUTOGLASS NU-TEC SYSTEMS, LLC POWER MOTIVE RETIREMENT FUND ROCKY MOUNTAIN FLEET SAFETY KLEEN (WHICITAl SUSPENSE FUND TOWN OF GYPSUM TWO RIVERS CHEVROLET UNITED STATES WELDING US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAIL DAILY THE VAIL ELECTRONICS VEEDER-ROOT COMPANY VISA CARD SERVICES WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WASTE MANAGEMENT WELLS FARGO WESTERN COLORADO WESTERN SLOPE PAINT WINTER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY PAYROLL FOR JANUARY SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL EXUDE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES PAYROLL 1 & 2 82.66 548.80 14.49 46.88 2,113.00 95.71 958.45 11,351.00 200.00 96.95 1,822.18 620.13 201.83 330.56 1,761.10 67.00 120.37 378.48 53.26 5,139.71 182.20 7,887.75 45.24 1,591.54 1,087.65 918.53 20,976.54 537,888.05 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND DENMAN GREY AND COMPANY FACILITIES PROGRAM FUND JEFFERSON PILOT FINANCIAL MUTUAL OF OMAHA UNITED STATES LIFE INS EMPLOYEE BENEFIT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 15,178.54 600,000.00 3,578.85 3,278.88 1,147.40 623,183.67 ENHANCED E911 FUND CENTURYTEL MICROWAVE MAINT FUND QWEST SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 185.54 100,000.00 17,473.84 117,659.38 20,394,991.20 Executive Session Commissioner Stone moved the Board of County Commissioners go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on land acquisition which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6- 402(4)(b), Colorado Revised Statutes. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion, which passed unanimously. At the close of the discussion, Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from Executive Session which was ;econded by Commissioner Stone and unanimously approved. 17 2/7/06 Consent Agenda Chairman Runyon stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of Bill Paying for the Week of February 6, 2006 (Subject to review by the Finance Director) Mike Roeper, Finance Department B. Approval of the Minutes of the Eagle Board of County Commissioners Meetings for December 13 and December 20, 2005 Teak Simonton, Clerk and Recorder C. Limited Amendment #5 with the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment for the Women, Infant and Children Nutrition Program Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services D. Resolution 2006-011 Concerning Appointments to the Citizens' Open Space Advisory Committee Community Development Representative E. Agreement between Eagle County and Samaritan Center of the Rockies to Provide Family Services Kathleen Forinash, Health & Human Services F. Technical Assistance Service Agreement for Golden Eagle Development Project Housing Department Representative G. Changer Order Number 1 to Agreement between Eagle County and Vaughan Construction Company for the Multi-Use Events Center at the Eagle County Fairgrounds Engineering Department Representative H. Resolution 2006-012 Approving the Moratorium Exception Request for Penelope Salcido. Eagle County File Number MO-00002 lena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development I. 5MB-00384, Whisky Hill, Lot 32. A final plat to subdivide Lot 32 Whiskey Hill to create two (2) ~ duplex lots to be known as 32W and 32E lena Skinner-Markowitz, Community Development Chairman Runyon requested that Item F be withdrawn for further consideration. Chairman Runyon asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated after the removal of Item F, everything is appropriate as presented. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-I, with the exception ofItem F. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input There was none. Fourth Quarter Interest Report Treasurer's Office Representative Karen Sheaffer, County Treasurer stated that they exceeded the budgeted interest amount by $410,000.00. The additional amount was due to the rise in interest rates. l8 2/7/06 Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Fourth Quarter Interest Report. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals A. Fabulous Food Inc. d/b/a Blue Creek Grill This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License, in El Jebel. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. B. Alpine investors LLC d/b/a Beaver Creek General Store This is a renewal of a 3.2 Percent Beer Retail License, in Avon (Beaver Creek). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. C. EI Jebowl Inc. d/b/a EI Jebowl This is a renewal of a Tavern Liquor License, in El Jebel. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. D. Beaver Creek Food Services d/b/a Broken Arrow Cafe This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant Liquor License with Optional Premises, in Edwards (Arrowhead). Other Consent E. Saint Clare of Assisi This is a request for a Special Event Permit. St. Clare of Assisi will be holding its annual Mardi Gras Ball on February 25th from 5:00 pm to 12:00 am. All the fees have been paid and all the required documents have been received. No protests were filed. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for February 7,2006, consisting of Items A-D. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved that the Board approve Item E of the Liquor Consent Agenda. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 19 2/7/06 .lanning Files SUP-00008 Palmerosa Ranch Subdivision Preliminarv Plan and (Companion File LR-00048 for Accessorv Dwellin2 Units has been Withdrawn bv Applicant) Joe Forinash, Community Development Subdivision of 43.689 acre parcel into 5 residential lots with building envelopes clustered along Lake Creek, with public water, individual septic systems, two points of access and open space easement. ACTION: LOCATION: Primarily west of Lake Creek Road, approximately 1 mile south ofHwy. 6 (887 Lake Creek Road). OWNERS: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Palmerosa Ranch, LLC Palmero sa Development Company, LLC / Jim Comerford Mauriello Planning Group / Dominic Mauriello STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval with conditions. Approval with conditions. (4-1) PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: PLANNING COMMISSION DELIBERATION: Commissioners commented that the Applicant has addressed a number of the concerns expressed at the Sketch Plan review and noted that the proposal had come a long way, although it was still not perfect. Discussion and comments regarding specific aspects of the proposed development included the following: Wildlife - More homes in an area definitely impact wildlife and tend to make elk edgier. The Planning Commission las to rely on professional wildlife specialists and the Applicant has worked with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to reduce potential impacts. Two corridors across the site are definitely better than one. Property owners in the area need to work together to develop an approach that will best mitigate impacts on wildlife, rather than relying primarily on government restrictions. Some support of the recommended 75 foot setback from riparian areas was expressed, and that setback should apply on both sides of Lake Creek. Bear proof trash containers should be required and dogs should be limited in number and adequately controlled. Covenants - Main concern is that the covenants are effective functionally and that they include language that restricts changes which weaken the provisions regarding obligations and enforcement. A requirement to monitor impacts on wildlife should be added. Building envelopes - They are generally too large and generally result in a lack of sufficient clustering. Building envelopes should be limited to % acres in size and be somewhat clustered. Trail segment - The proposed location appears to be the best choice. Size of residential units - Some interest was expressed in limiting the size of the units, but the Commissioners were resigned to reliance on the applicable zoning. Accessory dwelling units (ADU) - The Commission recommends that the number of ADUs be limited to one. PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: The proposed development consists of five single-family home sites, including four accessory dwelling units, on a 43.689 acre parcel ofland. Much of the site consists of a view corridor easement and/or wetland areas, causing home sites (building envelopes) to be clustered along the west side of the property on lots averaging 8.7 acres in area. While the two proposed access roads into the site are not connected, turnarounds for emergency equipment are provided. A private water system, owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association, will be connected to the Upper Eagle Water Authority. Individual sewage disposal systems will be naintained through a management contract under the direction of the Homeowners Association. 20 2/7/06 CHRONOLOGY: September 3,1984 Application made to Eagle County to rezone and subdivide the subject property from ~esource to Agricultural Limited. Tovember 12, 1985 Board of County Commissioners approved the zone change request to rezone 160 acres from 'Resource' to 'Agricultural Limited' and a subdivision sketch plan for 32 single-family residential lots on the rezoned 160 acre parcel plus an additional 120 acre parcel that was (and still is) zoned 'Resource'. This 120 acre parcel was intended as open space. February 4, 2005 Application for this Subdivision Sketch Plan received by Eagle County. July 18, 2005 Subdivision sketch plan was approved. October 3, 2005 Applications received for this Subdivision Preliminary Plan and a companion Limited Review for four accessory dwelling units. SITE DATA: Surrounding Land Uses 1 Zoning: East: Residential 1 PUD West: Agricultural! AL North: Agricultural; residential 1 AL South: Residential 1 RR, PUD Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Proposed No. of Dwelling Units: Total Area: Agricultural Limited No change in zoning is proposed 5 primary dwellings and 4 accessory dwellings 43.689 acres Minimum Lot Area: Maximum Lot Area: Water: :ewer: Access: 6.55 acres lO.35 acres Central water system connected to Upper Eagle Water Authority system Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) Lake Creek Road STAFF REPORT REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department . The proposed development has a proposed bridge structure for access to Lot 1. This structure appears to be within the 100 year floodplain, and will require a floodplain development permit. In addition, the new bridge structure may require a revised floodplain study. . The Department is in agreement with the Applicant that the Applicant will not be required to contribute towards improvements to the Highway 6 1 Lake Creek intersection, as referenced in previous Engineering Memoranda. The Applicant will still be responsible for Road Impact Fees. . The proposed bridge structure for Lot 1 access must be of sufficient strength to accommodate applicable loading standards. . The applicant has stated that a gravel path will be provided along Lake Creek Road subject to Eagle County's direction on placement. Per ECLUR 4-630, trail standards require a 10' wide paved asphalt trail. The Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan recommends an 8' wide paved asphalt trail for spur trails, which would include the Lake Creek corridor. However, given the rural characteristics of the area, an asphalt trail may not be necessary. The applicant should provide a feasible trail alignment. . If the location of the proposed trail is not within County ROW, the applicant must provide appropriate easements to the County. . Additional information is required regarding the proposed development. See Items 6 through 15 in the memo dated 16 November 2005. The Engineering Department has indicated that it is sufficient that this information be provided as part of the final construction plans prior to approval of the final plat. 21 2/7/06 . A detailed organizational and financial structure for the operation & maintenance is required for the private water system, and for the sewage system. . The Applicant must provide a notice of service from the public water provider. . The Applicant must provide "can and will serve" letters from the applicable utility providers, stating that they can and will serve the proposed development. Eagle County Environmental Health . The on-site wastewater treatment systems proposed for this site will adequately address groundwater pollution issues, if properly maintained. It is recommended that the Home Owners Association (HOA) be responsible for over-seeing the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of all on- site wastewater treatment systems within the subdivision. The HOA must have: [1] a dues structure to enable financing the proper routine maintenance; [2] a maintenance agreement with a company or individual to carry out said maintenance; and [3] the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting, performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. . The agricultural BMPs (Best Management Practices) suggested in the regional water quality 208 plan should be implemented by the HOA to protect and conserve natural resource. . The HOA should be responsible for efficient irrigation methods to minimize the potential for breeding disease-vector mosquitoes, especially in areas of livestock grazing. . Air pollution impacts would further be protected by prohibiting wood burning devices. Eagle County Housing Department . The Housing Department finds that the housing plan that has been submitted meets the intent of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. . Two of the four accessory dwelling units in the proposed subdivision will have an Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction placed on them which will be managed by the Eagle County Housing Department. . In addition, should the owners of the deed restricted ADU choose to opt out, they will make a payment- in-lieu (PIL) appropriate to their individual unit at that time. This PIL will be based on the updated Nexus Proportionality Study, the annually updated formula for determining PIL and the specific payment calculated for that unit (currently estimated at $30,605). Eagle River Fire Protection District . The proposed water supply extended from the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District via a 10" main and hydrant locations are acceptable for fire fighting operations. . The plans indicate that the water system would be privately maintained. Additional information is needed to ensure adequate maintenance and operation. . Road width, grade, and turnarounds appear acceptable. Turning Radii will need to be verified based on the requirements of the Fire District's Pierce Quantum engine. . Each road serves 2 or 3 single-family homes with an additional home and two undeveloped lots, which are not part of this project, accessing via the south road. Based on this density, the District does not believe the requirement for dual access applies. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District . If the developer is expecting public water and sewer service supply to this project, the property will need to be included in both the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District for sewer service and the Edwards Metropolitan District for water service. . If the property is not already included in the Edwards Metropolitan District, conveyance of water rights will be required. . If the property changes zoning that allows an increased density over the zoning in place on February 22,2001 (per Resolution of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority), conveyance of water rights and treated water storage, or cash-in-lieu of these, will be required. Eagle County School District (RE50J) 22 2/7/06 . The Palmero sa Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan would result in five single-family homes and four caretaker units. These units would result in a dedication requirement of 0.136 acres - 9 SF units x 0.0151 acres per unit (sic). . As the land dedication acreage is minimal, the district will accept cash in lieu of land for this subdivision. Per County School Land Dedication Requirements, the value of this cash payment will be determined by an appraisal of the land provided by the developer with the application for final plat. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments . The information submitted in the application addresses earlier sketch plan comments regarding protection of wetlands and control of erosion and stormwater drainage. The project should have not measurable water quality impacts. Colorado Division of Wildlife . CD OW met with the developer on 10/19/05 to review the project's impacts on wildlife. The key wildlife concerns for this project center on loss of elk habitat (winter range and winter concentration area), maintaining the elk migration corridor for east/west movements and protection of riparian habitat. During this meeting, several changes were made to the plan to reduce the impacts of wildlife, including the following: . The southern side of the building envelope for Lot 4 was moved to the north to reduce the size of the building envelope and increase the area available for wildlife movements. . The caretaker unit was removed from Lot 4. . The cul-de-sacs for fire access were reduced to reduce the loss of habitat. . Develop a grazing plan for the property to provide for grazing 50% (25% of livestock; 25% for wildlife) of the available forage and leaving 50% of the available forage. . The wildlife mitigation section would be updated with costs, acres impacted and that the funds are held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation, not the CDOW. . Since the elk are currently migrating at varying degrees on both the north and south side of the property, it was felt that providing two migration corridors worked better than having one corridor. The migration corridor is complicated by the subdivision directly to the west of the project (former Chipman/Miller Ranch). The Chipman/Miller Ranch was divided into three home sites but building envelopes were not designated for all the units. Since this project has no control of where the units on the Chipman/Miller Ranch development could be built, having two migration corridors provided the best opportunity to maintain a viable corridor. . The wildlife report has a couple of errors on wildlife species using the site. Abert's squirrels are not found in Eagle County. The correct species would be the Red Squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus). In addition to this error, the wildlife report does not mention the use of the site by black bears, lions and red fox. . The Edwards area has had increases in bear-human conflicts that have centered on improperly stored trash. The CD OW recommends that bear-proof containers be used throughout the construction, bui1d- out, and finished product of this development. The CDOW can provide information on types or methods of trash storage. . The environmental impact report understates the value of the riparian habitat to wildlife. Riparian ecosystems constitute one of the most limited yet species-rich ecosystems in Colorado. The project map shows a fifty foot (50') setback from riparian areas. It is the Division's recommendation that a seventy five foot (75') setback from all riparian habitats along Lake Creek be implemented. This setback should be maintained in natural vegetation and not be manicured within the seventy five foot (75') setback. If removal of riparian vegetation is required, then mitigation should include replacement of the same amount and type of vegetation. Colorado Geological Survey . Steep Slopes - The building envelopes on Lots 2, 3 and 4 should avoid the steep banks on Lake Creek to the west of the lots. The building envelope should either avoid these steep slopes, or a slope stability analysis should be performed, proving adequate factors of safety for the slopes. . Steep Slopes (cont.) - A proposed pond in Lot 4 is located on a steep slope on the north side of the building envelope. The pond should be moved to the east to avoid this slope. 23 2/7/06 . Subsidence - The Eagle Valley Evaporite, which is susceptible to subsidence due to solution, underlies the property. The Eagle Valley Evaporite is prone to sinkhole formation. There is a known sinkhole within 50 feet of the building envelope on Lot 1. CGS recommends site-specific soil investigations as well as direct observation of the foundation excavation in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site. . Shallow Groundwater - The borings by HP Geotech indicate that there is shallow groundwater on the site. Engineered septic systems will be necessary in areas of shallow groundwater. The bottom of the leach field should be at least 4 feet above the groundwater level at the high water mark. Below-grade construction, such as basements, will need foundation and perimeter drains. . Debris FlowlFlooding - The slopes above the property to the west have the potential for debris flow and/or sediment laden flooding. This would only affect Lot 1. HP Geotech recommends a diversion berm to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot 1. This mitigation berm should be a condition of plat approval and the associated hazards should be disclosed to potential buyers on the plat. . Soils - The land that will be developed has been pasture for a number of years. The foundation contractor should be clear that any organic matter in the soil should not be used for structural fill and should be removed prior to foundation placement. . Soils (cont.) - Evaporite soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete. Any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive should utilize Type II cement. . Conclusion - The new lot alignment mitigates much of the geologic hazard on the property and is a much better layout than the previous proposal. If the recommendations in the submitted reports and the recommendations in this CGS response are complied with, then the CGS has no further geologic concerns regarding this subdivision. Colorado State Forest Service . The Colorado State Forest Service has given the Palmero sa Ranch PUD a wildfire hazard rating oflow. A low rating means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. . The majority of this property is irrigated pastureland, or riparian area along Lake Creek. This fuel type represents a low fire hazard, with the exception of extreme weather conditions, or in the absence of haying or grazing. Fuel type, terrain, aspect, road layout, and available water all helped contribute to this low rating. . The addition of dual access to this property is another beneficial step in lowering the fire hazard. . Even with this low rating, CSFS suggests that noncombustible roofing materials be used, and that the pasture be irrigated throughout the summer months. Colorado Division of Water Resources . The Division has reviewed this proposal which includes a water supply which is to be provided by the Edwards Metropolitan District. . Pursuant to applicable statutes, a municipal or quasi-municipality is required to file a report with Eagle County and the State Engineer documenting the amount of water which can be supplied to the proposed development without causing injury to existing water rights. A report of this nature was not included in the submitted materials. Therefore, the Division is unable to comment on the proposed water supply. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Assessor, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Road & Bridge Department, Eagle County Weed and Pest, Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist, Eagle County School District (RE50J) Transportation, Edwards Metropolitan District, Eagle County Ambulance District, Colorado Department of Transportation (Grand Junction Office), Colorado Department of Transportation (Local Office), Water Conservation Board, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA), U.S. Postmaster (Edwards), Qwest, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy, Lake Creek Meadows HOA, Creamery Ranch HOA, Homestead HOA, Lake Creek, Pilgrim Downs HOA 'T AFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: 24 2/7/06 STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. :AGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Xl - Environmental Ouality. The proposed development does not adversely affect critical wildlife habitat, surface and ground water quality (with the recommended conditions), or air quality. Development is not proposed in the floodplain. x2 _ Open Space 1 Recreation. The Plan identifies visual quality, buffers, recreation, wildlife and natural water features as priorities for preservation. This application proposes to preserve and enhance Lake Creek and its associated wetland and riparian areas where it traverses the subject property. Building sites are situated to avoid these areas. The applicant intends to install substantial landscape buffers around each respective home site. Ponds, landscaping and earthen berms will be disbursed throughout the site. A no-build area has been designated over the pasture portion of the subject property. x3 _ Development. The Plan recommends that cluster style development should be encouraged to promote creative and efficient site design, to enable development to avoid locations, which adversely impact environmental resources, and to create designated open space for public and private use. This subdivision would result in the five individual home sites being 'clustered' along the west side of the subject property away from Lake Creek Road. ~ach building site is defined with the intent of avoiding undue impacts upon environmental resources. x4 _ Affordable Housing. Mitigation of housing impacts is proposed to be mitigated by a limited restriction on the occupancy of two accessory dwelling units within the development. If this Housing Plan is determined to be consistent with the intent of the Housing Guidelines, conformance with these policies and objectives will be met. x5 _ Transportation. The proposed development would preserve the rural character of the County's roads in rural areas. x6 _ Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The Future Land Use Map identifies this area as appropriate for 'Countryside' development. Countryside is defined as areas of primarily single family residential development. Historically, these lands have been characterized by individual homes on lots of two (2) to ten (10) or more acres located in subdivisions containing a relatively small number of lots. Open space in these subdivisions is typically found within individua110ts and not as commonly-owned lands. The proposed subdivision is for a relatively small number of lots within the identified density range and open space is proposed as part of the individual lots . EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Cooperation Open Space Provision x Unique Char. Preservation x2 Visual Quality x Development Patterns x4 Hazards Wildlife Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable x' x6 x .1 _ Open Space Provision. The Plan states that, "Eagle County should recognize that planned unit developments and cluster housing assist in open space maintenance". This Subdivision Preliminary Plan being considered capitalizes on the existing Agricultural Limited zoning and is not a Planned Unit Development. The proposed development does, however, endeavor to create and maintain the effect of open space by arranging the building 25 2/7/06 sites along the perimeter of the subject property in areas which are clear of any natural or man made hazards that have already been disturbed in the past and by defining a substantial no-build area closest to Lake Creek Road. In this manner, the view corridor up the Lake Creek Valley will be maintained. ? - Unique Character Preservation. There are no unique landforms identified on the subject property. x3 - Visual Quality. Based upon the Visual Quality map, the subject property is located in an area designated as 'highly' to 'moderately' constrained. The proposal will establish no-build areas on a significant portion of the site adjacent to Lake Creek Road to reduce visual impacts. x4 - Development Patterns. The Plan states that, "It is the policy of Eagle County to encourage development to occur in and around existing communities in order to enhance open space values in the outlying areas". The proposal does not represent leap-frog development and is consistent with land uses in the immediate vicinity. The proposal will result in a subdivision that is substantially less-dense than existing adjacent development further south on Lake Creek Road. The proposal will define a more gradual density transition from south to east on the west side of Lake Creek Road. x5 - Hazards - It is the applicant's intent to constrain the residential building sites to those portions of the subject property which are clear of any known natural or man made hazards and which have already been disturbed through the historic ranching use of the property. x6 - While the site is located in or near elk and mule deer migration corridors, the design will preserve the corridors and minimizes or mitigates adverse impacts. EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN Conformance Non-Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Land Use Xl Housing x2 Transportation x3 Open Space x' Potable Water and Wastewater x' Services and Facilities x6 Environmental Quality x7 Economic Development x8 Recreation and Tourism x9 Historic Preservation xlO Implementation XII Future Land Use Map Xl2 Xl - Land Use. The stated goal is, "The location and type ofland uses balance the physical, social, cultural, environmental and economic needs of the current and future resident (& tourist) population. Land uses are located in a manner that protects and improves the quality of the natural and man made environment, ensures the timely, cost-effective provision of public facilities and services, and retains the unique variety of lifestyles and quality of life found in Edwards". 2 _ Housing. As noted in the discussion above regarding the Eagle County Master Plan, mitigation of housing Impacts is proposed to be mitigated by a limited restriction on the occupancy of two accessory dwelling units within the development. However, at this writing it has not been determined that the proposal adequately meets the intent of the Housing Guidelines. The proposed housing plan may ultimately provide housing permanently 26 2/7/06 affordable to local residents, encourage housing that is within close proximity of the employment centers and community centers, and result in ownership opportunities. 3 _ Transportation .A trail along Lake Creek Road is suggested in the application. Its location and design have yet o be specified. Depending on the nature of the trail, it may ultimately contribute to efficiently, conveniently and safely moving people throughout the Edwards area. x4 - Open Space. "Open Space preservation is promoted within the Edwards Planning Area through coordination with landowners, developers and other agencies and organizations". This proposal does represent an effort to preserve a majority portion of the subject site as no-build open space although it does not entail coordination with outside parties. x5 - Potable Water and Wastewater. The applicant intends to tie into a public water source. As proposed, potable water and wastewater treatment will be provided in a reasonable manner while protecting groundwater and potable water wellheads. x6 - Services and Facilities. This goal pertains to recycling of solid wastes and provision of public schools, occupational training and higher education. It appears that solid and hazardous wastes will be handled in an environmentally sound manner. x7 - Environmental Quality. The Plan sets forth six goals pertaining to Environmental Quality all of which pertain to the greater Edwards area and are not necessarily intended to be site specific. This proposal does satisfy many of the stated objectives: Through the orientation of the home sites, a substantial no-build area and use of landscape buffers, the proposed development endeavors to maintain scenic vistas up the Lake Creek Valley. Natural hazards are being avoided and riparian areas and wetlands will be protected and enhanced. x8 - Economic Development. Not applicable. .9 _ Recreation and Tourism. The stated goal is, "Parks, river access, recreational facilities and open space are provided to meet current and future needs of the residents of Edwards and Eagle County. These are designed in such a way as to ensure increased accessibility and provide a more even distribution to the Edwards Planning Area's parks and open space system". This proposal will provide private passive and active open space opportunities for the residents of the development and visual open space for surrounding land owners and the public. X 10 - Historic Preservation - The Colorado State Historical Society has responded that no identified historical sites exist on the subject property. Xll _ Implementation - If approved, the proposed development will be required to efficiently utilize public infrastructure X12 _ Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The FLUM identifies the lands on the west side of Lake Creek Road as appropriate for residential rural density at a net density of one unit per 10 acres or a gross density of one unit per 20 acres. The Plan, however, specifically states that, "The agricultural nature of this group of properties has been protected by language of the 1985 Area Community Plan. However, several of these properties are zoned Agricultural Limited and Rural Residential which would allow for one unit per five acres or one unit per two acres respectively. Steps should be taken to keep the rural, agricultural character of the Lake Creek Valley". Further, "Potential Uses: This group of properties is appropriate for rural densities of development. The current zoning allowances may be acceptable if the development is clustered in a manner that will maintain the rural character of the Lake Creek Valley". The subject property has indeed been zoned Agricultural Limited since November 12, 1985. This proposed subdivision of the subject property does endeavor to preserve a majority of the subject property as a no-build area and the individual building sites are 'grouped' along Lake Creek of the site. Each . uilding site will be screened through the use of extensive landscaping. Together, these subdivision design techniques satisfY the Plan's stated intent to maintain the rural character of the Lake Creek Valley. 27 2/7/06 :AGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance Xl X2 X3 X4 x5 Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable Xl - Water Quantity. The development is consistent with the spirit of the water quantity objectives of the Watershed Plan. x2 - Water Quality. The development is consistent with the spirit of the water quality objectives of the Watershed Plan. x3 - Wildlife. The development is consistent with the spirit of the wildlife objectives of the Watershed Plan. x4 - Recreation. The trail segment along Lake Creek Road will contribute to recreational hiking and biking in this corridor. 5 _ Land Use. The development will generally protect riparian areas and wetlands. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: · Housing is a community-wide issue · Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . · Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes · Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success · It is important to preserve existing local residents housing · Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county · Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM YES NO N/A I. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . x 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County x 4. Additional rental 0 ermanent local residents should be brou ht on line. 28 2/7/06 ITEM YES NO N/A Some. . . should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average x wage job 5. Seasonal housing is part ofthe problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the x responsibility of. . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents Xl 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on- x site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10. Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County=s housing stock x 11. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are x provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue Xl - As noted in the discussion above regarding the Eagle County Master Plan, mitigation of housing impacts is proposed to be mitigated by a limited restriction on the occupancy of two accessory dwelling units within the development. However, at this writing it has not been determined that the proposal adequately meets the intent of the Housing Guidelines. The proposed housing plan may ultimately provide housing permanently affordable to local residents, encourage housing that is within close proximity of the employment centers and community centers, and result in ownership opportunities. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] This proposal IS consistent with the Master Plan recommendations. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.BJ.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. Article 3, Zone Districts The site is currently zoned Agricultural Limited (AL) and correspondingly has a minimum lot size of 5 acres. While this zoning would allow up to 8 lots on this 43+ acre parcel, the subdivision sketch plan was approved with only 5 residential lots. Accessory dwelling units (ADU), proposed on 4 of the 5 lots, are allowed but require a Limited Review pursuant to Section 5-300, Limited Review Use, of the Land Use Regulations. A Limited Review application for this use (Eagle County File No. LR-00048) has been submitted as a companion to this subdivision preliminary plan application. Under the provisions of Section 5-300, a Limited Review application may be approved by the Director of Community Development if the applicable standards of the Land Use Regulations have been satisfied. However, if there are substantive objections from adjacent property owners, the Limited Review application is to be scheduled before the Board of County Commissioners for approval, approval with conditions, or denial. In this case, substantive objections have been received from adjacent property owners. Consequently, File No. LR- 0048 is a companion file and will be considered by the Board in conjunction with the subdivision preliminary lan. The Planning Commission is not required to provide a recommendation on a Limited Review application. Article 4, Site Development Standards 29 2/7/06 [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Three parking spaces are required for each single family dwelling, and up to two are required for each accessory welling unit. Building envelopes are proposed and building footprints (presumably, tentative) are indicated. While it has not been demonstrated that adequate parking will be provided, given the size of the lots, adequate space for the required parking should be available. The Applicant/developer will be required to demonstrate the adequate parking exists prior to issuance of each building permit. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) Unlike a planned unit development, in which a Detailed Landscape Plan is required as part a preliminary plan application, a subdivision preliminary plan application is required to include only a Conceptual Landscape Plan. A Detailed Landscape Plan for a subdivision which is not also a PUD will be required with the final plat application. A Conceptual Landscape Plan, which generally satisfies the requirements of Section 4-220.B., Conceptual Landscape Plan, is included in the application materials. The Conceptual Landscape Plan is labeled a "Preliminary Plan", Sheets 1 and 2. A condition of approval of the sketch plan requires that the preliminary plan include, in addition to a certain amount of detail in the landscape plan, an irrigation plan and a preliminary housing elevation plan. Both are attached to this staff report. Since the detail of the preliminary housing elevation plan is difficult to read, Staff has provided an enlargement of that part of the preliminary housing elevation plan extending from the south drive to the north drive. The conceptual landscape plan, irrigation plan and preliminary housing elevation plan satisfy the requirements of this Division and appear to be reasonable. The Planning Commission and the Board will want to review these materials to determine whether they adequately address the concerns raised during the review of the sketch plan application. Jo information is provided regarding proposed lighting and illumination. Lighting and illumination subsequently proposed for the development will be required to comply with Section 4-250, Illumination Standards, of the Land Use Regulations. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) All signs within the project will be required to comply with this Division. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - The application includes a Wildlife Analysis which sets forth certain proposed impact mitigation measures. The most significant impacts are expected to be to mule deer and elk which frequent the site due in part to movement along wildlife corridors which currently cross this site. Proposed mitigation measures generally include [1] the reduction in number (from the proposed sketch plan) and clustering of home sites, [2] potential enhancement of the wetlands, [3] upgrading offencing on the property, [4] controlling domestic animals (dogs and cats) through covenants, and [5] the preservation of the migration corridor, such as through berms providing a "secure" passageway. The Applicant is also proposing to make a one-time contribution to an established trust fund to provide, in perpetuity, enhancement of off-site wildlife habitat to mitigate for that lost due to this development. In its referral response, The Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) noted that its key wildlife concerns center on loss of elk habitat (winter range and winter concentration area), maintaining the elk migration corridor for east/west movements and protection of riparian habitat. CD OW reports that several changes were agreed upon between itself and the Applicant, including the following: . Moving the southern side of the building envelope for Lot 4 to the north to reduce the size of the building envelope and increase the area available for wildlife movements; 30 2/7/06 . Removing the caretaker unit from Lot 4; . Reducing the cul-de-sacs for fire access to reduce the loss of habitat; . Developing a grazing plan for the property for grazing 50% (25% for livestock; 25% for wildlife) of the available forage and leaving 50% of the available forage; and . Updating the wildlife mitigation section regarding costs and acres impacted, and providing that the funds in trust be held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation rather than the CDOW. The Applicant has submitted a revised Wildlife Section of the Environmental Impact Report which the Applicant states includes changes which were made to address the Division of Wildlife concerns. The changes include [1] a newly developed grazing plan for the property for grazing 50% (25% for livestock; 25% for wildlife) of the available forage and leaving 50% of the available forage; and [2] an updated wildlife mitigation section regarding costs and acres impacted, and which provides that the funds in trust be held by the Colorado Wildlife Heritage Foundation rather than the Division of Wildlife. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should fully implement all wildlife-related mitigation measures set forth in the revised Wildlife Section of the Environmental Impact Report prepared by Jerry Powell, Wildlife Specialties, LLC, as revised and supplemented by the letter dated November 14,2005, from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. [Condition # 1] CDOW also notes that the environmental impact report understates the value of the riparian habitat to wildlife. Consequently, rather than the proposed 50 foot setback from riparian areas, the CDOW recommends that a 75 foot setback be required from all riparian habitats along Lake Creek be implemented, and that the setback be maintained in its natural condition. (See the letter dated November 14,2005, from the Colorado Division of Wildlife.) As a condition of approval, a seventy five foot (75') setback, as determined by the Director of Community Development in consultation with the Colorado Division of Wildlife, should be maintained from all riparian areas, and these setbacks should be maintained in natural vegetation and not be manicured within the seventy five foot (75') etback. If removal of riparian vegetation is required, then mitigation should include replacement of the same mount and type of vegetation. This condition should be permanently made a part of the covenants for this development and should be adequately noted on the final plat. [Condition # 2] Nonetheless, it has not been made clear whether the proposed reduction of the cul-de-sacs proposed to reduce the loss of habitat will significantly compromise the ability for emergency equipment to negotiate the site, nor that the Eagle River Fire Protection District has reviewed and is satisfied with the proposed changes. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should demonstrate, prior to approval of a final plat for this subdivision, that any proposed re-design of drives, turnarounds or cul-de-sacs is satisfactory to the Eagle River Fire Protection District, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Eagle County Engineer. In the event that any proposed re-design is not mutually agreeable to these parties, the location and design of the drives, turnarounds or cul-de-sacs should be determined by the County Engineer. [Condition # 3] [NOTE: This condition was satisfied prior to the Planning Commission hearing and has been deleted.] [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) notes in its referral response that the proposed lot alignment (revised from the sketch plan) mitigates much of the geologic hazard on the property and is a much better layout. CGS further notes that if the recommendations in the reports submitted with this application and the recommendations by CGS are complied with, CGS has no further concerns regarding this subdivision. However, one of the additional concerns noted by CGS related to the steep banks on Lake Creek to the west of Lots 2, 3 and 4. CGS notes that the building envelopes on these lots should either avoid these steep slopes, or a slope stability analysis should be performed, providing adequate factors of safety for the slopes. A related concern is that a proposed pond on Lot 4 is located on a steep slope on the north side of the building envelope. CGS recommends hat the pond be moved to the east to avoid this slope. 31 2/7/06 Another concern is related to potential subsidence due to the presence of Eagle Valley Evaporite on the site. Due to a known sinkhole within 50 feet of the building envelope on Lot 1, CGS recommends that site-specific soil investigations as well as direct observation of the foundation excavation be required in order to verify the soil onditions for each building site. Due to shallow groundwater on the site, engineered septic systems will be required in areas of shallow groundwater. CGS recommends that the bottom of each field should be at least 4 feet above the groundwater at the high water mark, and that below-grade construction, such as basements, include foundation and perimeter drains. Lot 1 may be affected by the potential for debris flow and/or sediment laden flooding from the slopes above the property to the west. CGS recommends that a diversion berm be required to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot 1, that the diversion berm be a condition of plat approval, and that the associated hazards be disclosed on the plat to potential buyers. Since the land to be developed has been pasture for a number of years, the foundation contractor should be made aware that any organic matter in the soil should not be used for structural fill and should be removed prior to foundation placement. fu addition, since evaporate soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete, any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive should utilize Type II cement. As a condition of approval, the developer should fully implement the recommendations included in and based upon the Revised Wetland Delineation Report, dated August 2005, prepared for this site by Western Ecological Resource, fuc.; the Geologic Site Assessment, dated September 28,2005, and the Preliminary Geotechnical Engineering Study, dated September 15,2005, both prepared for this site by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, fuc.; the Preliminary 100-Year Floodplain Study and Drainage Report, dated September 2005, prepared for this site by Alpine Engineering, fuc.; and the following recommended by the Colorado Geological Survey in its letter dated November 7, 2005: a. The proposed pond on Lot 4 should be moved to the east in a manner satisfactory to the County Engineer to avoid the steep slope on the north side of the building envelope. b. The developer should be responsible for constructing a diversion berm, satisfactory to the County Engineer, to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot 1. c. Since the land to be developed has been pasture for a number of years, the developer should inform contractors that any organic matter in the soil should not be used for structural fill and should be removed prior to foundation placement. d. Since evaporate soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete, the developer should inform contractors that any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive shall utilize Type II cement. e. The final plat should include notes which are substantially as follows: 1. A slope stability analysis may be required by the Chief Building Official prior to the construction of any structures in this subdivision. 11. Due to one or more known sinkholes on this site, a site-specific soils investigation, as well as direct observation of the foundation excavation, shall be required in order to verify the soil conditions for each building site. 111. Due to shallow groundwater on the site, engineered septic systems shall be required in areas of shallow groundwater. The bottom of each leach field 32 2/7/06 shall be at least 4 feet above the groundwater at the high water mark, and below-grade construction, such as basements, shall include foundation and perimeter drains. IV. The potential exists for debris flow and/or sediment laden flooding from the slopes above the property to the west of the building envelope on Lot 1. A diversion berm, satisfactory to the County Engineer, shall be required to deflect potential debris and floodwater away from the building envelope on Lot 1. v. Since the land to be developed has been pasture for a number of years, any organic matter in the soil shall not be used for structural fill and shall be removed prior to placement of any foundations. VI. Since evaporate soils in the region are typically found to be corrosive to concrete, any structures in contact with soils that are found to be corrosive shall utilize Type II cement. [Condition # 3] [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) notes that it has given this site a low wildfire hazard rating. Nonetheless, CSFS suggests that noncombustible roofing materials be used and that the pasture be irrigated throughout the summer months. Typically, irrigation occurs during the months of May through October. As a condition of approval, notes should be included on the final plat for this subdivision requiring the following: a. Noncombustible roofing materials shall be required on all structures. b. In order to reduce wildfire hazard, the pasture shall be irrigated throughout the summer months of May through October. [Condition # 4] [NOTE: This condition was modified by the Planning Commission to delete "b".) [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The Director of Environmental Health has indicated that air pollution impacts from this development would be enhanced by prohibiting wood burning devices. As a condition of approval, a restrictive note should be placed on the final plat which prohibits the use of wood burning devices within this subdivision other than those which may be in place at the time of the approval of the final plat. [Condition # 5] [NOTE: This condition was modified by the Planning Commission to allow "new technology devices" as that term is defined in the Land Use Regulations.) [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - This site is not located on land designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [+] Environmental Imoact Report (Section 4-460) - An adequate Environmental Impact Report has been provided. [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) No commercial or industrial uses are proposed. This section is not applicable. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) - +] Roadwav Standards (Section 4-620) - The Engineering Department has noted that a bridge structure is roposed for access to Lot 1. Since the structure appears to be within the 100-year floodplain, a floodplain development permit and a revised floodplain study may be required. Further, the proposed bridge structure for access to Lot 1 must be designed to meet applicable strength standards. In addition, the Engineering Department 33 2/7/06 also notes that there are a number of deficiencies in the construction plans submitted with this application. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County :ngineer. [Condition # 6] The Eagle River Fire Protection District notes that the road width, grade and turnarounds appear to be acceptable, but that turning radii need to be verified based on the requirements of the Fire District's Pierce Quantum engine. As an additional condition of approval, the Applicant should clearly demonstrate to the satisfaction of the County Engineer, in consultation with the Eagle River Fire Protection District, prior to approval of the final plat, that the design of the drives, turnarounds and cul-de-sacs is adequate to accommodate the Fire District's Pierce Quantum engine. [Condition f:f 8] [NOTE: This condition was satisfied prior to the Planning Commission hearing and has been deleted.] [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Engineering Department notes that the Applicant has proposed that a gravel path will be provided along Lake Creek Road, subject to direction by Eagle County as to its placement. This Section (4-630) includes trail standards requiring a 10 foot wide paved asphalt trail. However, the Eagle Valley Regional Trails Plan recommends an 8 foot wide paved asphalt trail for spur trails, including the Lake Creek spur. This Section also provides that the trails standards are not inflexible and that when an alternative design or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity which reflect community values equal to or better than that that established by the standards in this Section, the alternative may be recommended by the County Engineer. The Engineering Department states that, given the rural nature of the area, an asphalt trail may not be necessary. The nature of the trail should be explicitly considered by the Planning Commission and determined by the Board of County Commissioners. The Engineering Department also notes that a proposed trail alignment has not been provided, and that the trail lignment ultimately approved may not be in the public right-of-way. If the latter is the case, an appropriate asement is required, as provided in Section 4-630.A., Trail Standards. While the Applicant has maintained that the 60 foot Lake Creek Road right-of-way is sufficient for the location of a trail, portions of the areas between the pavement and the edge of the right-of-way, especially with respect to the presence of ditches, would make the construction of a trail particularly difficult. Beyond the right-of-way to the east, a portion of the adjacent property becomes very steep. To the west of the right-of-way, wetlands would further significantly complicate the location of a trail. Providing a trail along this segment of Lake Creek Road is a condition of approval of the sketch plan. However, no details regarding alignment, width and other design characteristics have been provided. GiveR potential diffieulties regarding trail alignment and an open question as to vlhether it should be paved or have a gravel slH"faee, the PluMing Cormnission and the Board of County Commissioners may prefer to revie'll aH-Y proposed alignment, in 'Nhich case this preliminary plan should not be approved until the final alignment is satisfactory. Alternatively, as a condition of approval, consistent with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the developer should construct a 10 foot wide, asphalt trail along Lake Creek Road, in a manner, design, location and at a time which is satisfactory to the County Engineer, if not otherwise approved by the Board of County Commissioners, which meets the trail standards of Section 4-630.A., Trail Standards. [Condition # 7] [This condition has been modified by the Planning Commission, at the recommendation of Staff, to require an 8 foot trail of either asphalt or of gravel or base course, at the option of the developer. A proposed trail alignment is shown on the attached site plan.] - +] Irrigation Svstem Standards (Section 4-640) - The application indicates that non-potable water available ursuant to surface water rights will be used to irrigate a portion ofthe site. While some information is provided regarding a water supply plan and an irrigation plan, it is not clear that all of the provisions of this Section have or will be satisfied, including demonstration of compliance with the requirements of applicable Colorado law, the 34 2/7/06 nature of the delivery system, and how the ditches and attendant structures on the site will be maintained. Among other requirements, the irrigation delivery system must be reviewed and approved by the Eagle County Director of Environmental Health, and an appropriate maintenance agreement between the Applicant and the ditch owner must Ie filed as part of the final approval documents for the subdivision. While much of the irrigation that will occur in the future will be similar to that which has occurred for a number of years, it has not been demonstrated whether changes in the proposed irrigation of the site will be in conformance with the requirements of this Section. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of any final plat for this subdivision, the developer should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Community Development that all of the requirements ofSection4-640., Irrigation System Standards, have or will be satisfied. [Condition # 8] [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has indicated that it is satisfied that the proposal has adequately addressed earlier concerns regarding stormwater drainage. The Engineering Department has not noted any deficiencies regarding drainage. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] The Department of Environmental Health has recommended that agricultural BMPs (Best Management Practices) suggested in the regional water quality 208 plan should be implemented by the HOA to protect and conserve natural resource and that the HOA should be responsible for efficient irrigation methods to minimize the potential for breeding disease-vector mosquitoes, especially in areas of livestock grazing. As a condition of approval, the developer should comply with, and the Home Owners Association should be responsible for implementing, the recommendations and suggestions contained in the memorandum dated November 11,2005, from the Department of Environmental Health, and the final plat should include a note substantially similar to the following: The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for implementing the agricultural Best Management Practices uggested in the regional water quality 208 plan to protect and conserve natural resources, and for utilizing efficient rrigation methods to minimize the potential for breeding disease-vector mosquitoes, especially in areas of livestock grazing. [Condition # 9] [+] Excavation and Grading Standards (Section 4-660) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has indicated that it is satisfied that the proposal has adequately addressed earlier concerns regarding excavation and grading. The Engineering Department has not noted any deficiencies. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] [+] Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-665) - Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) has indicated that it is satisfied that the proposal has adequately addressed earlier concerns regarding erosion control. The Engineering Department has not noted any deficiencies. Nonetheless, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] The Department of Environmental Health notes that agricultural Best Management Practices (BMP) suggested in the regional water quality 208 plan should be implemented by the Home Owners' Association (HOA) to protect and conserve natural resources. As a condition of approval, the developer should comply with and the Home Owners Association should be responsible for implementing the recommendations and suggestions contained in the memorandum dated November 11,2005, from the Department of Environmental Health, and the final plat should include a note on substantially similar to the following: The Home Owners Association shall be responsible for implementing the agricultural Best Management Practices uggested in the regional water quality 208 plan to protect and conserve natural resources, and for utilizing efficient irrigation methods to minimize the potential for breeding disease-vector mosquitoes, especially in areas of livestock graZIng. 35 2/7/06 [Condition # 9] +] Utilitv and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The Engineering Department has noted several technical eficiencies respect to the proposed utility design. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, with the application for the final plat for the development, complete engineering and construction drawings and other engineering detail which are satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 6] The Engineering Department has also noted that "can and will serve" letters from the applicable utility providers have not been provided. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat, "can and will serve" letters from the applicable utility providers. [Condition # 10] Street lighting is not required in the Agricultural Limited zone district. [+] Water Supplv Standards (Section 4-680) - Water service is proposed to be provided by a common system, owned and maintained by the Homeowners' Association, connected to and served by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority. As noted by the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District, conveyance of water rights (or cash- in-lieu) will be required. The Applicant has calculated a water dedication requirement of 1.57 acre-feet, or a cash- in-lieu payment of $19,480. The Engineering Department has noted that the Applicant should provide evidence of the willingness and ability of the Edwards Metro District to provide water service. A condition of approval of the subdivision sketch plan provided that "the applicant must provide an agreement from a public water provider to serve each of the proposed residential lots". The Applicant has indicated that it has submitted a Water Supply Plan to the Edwards Metropolitan District, but that a petition for inclusion into the District cannot be made until the property is conveyed from the current owner to the Applicant. However, the Applicant further indicates that the Edwards Metro District has executed a draft inclusion agreement specifying the terms and conditions required for inclusion. The draft ine1usion agreement has ill!! been pro'/ided as part of the application, nor has it been demonstrated that ";d'.vards Metropolitan Distriet will proyide ',vater to these lots. The Planning Commission and the Board of COlH1ty Commissioners may \-vant to reyie'll, prior to approval of this preliminary plan, evidence that the lots created by this subdiyision 'Hill be served by a public '.vater provider. ,'\lternatively, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat, evidence satisfactory to the County Engineer that the project will be adequately served with potable water by the Edwards Metropolitan District. [Condition # 13] [NOTE: This condition was satisfied prior to the Planning Commission hearing and has been deleted.] The Engineering Department has also noted that the application lacks detail regardi.ng the private 'llater system, inoluding detail regarding the organizational and financial structure for its operation afld maintenanoe. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners may Vlant to revievl, prior to appro'/al of this preliminary plan, the proposed organizational afld financial structure for the operatim-l and maintenance of this pri',<ate water system. ,'\lternati'/ely, as a condition of approval, the Applicant should provide, prior to approval of the final plat, evidence satisfactory to the County Engineer that the private water system will be operated and maintained on a sound organizational and financial basis. [Condition # 11] [NOTE: This condition was modified by the Planning Commission to limit the ability of the homeowners to modify the governing covenants.] [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sewage disposal will be handled through individual ewage disposal systems. The site generally lends itself to this, but the depth to groundwater on Lots 2 through 5 requires special provisions be designed into the type and placement of the systems. This problem is proposed to be mitigated by locating engineered septic systems within the decorative berms proposed on the site. 36 2/7/06 The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has indicated that the bottom of the leach fields be at least four feet above the groundwater level at the high water mark. As a condition of approval, the Applicant should comply with all of he suggestions and recommendations contained in the letter dated November 7, 2005, from the Colorado ieological Survey. [Condition f:t 15] [NOTE: This condition is adequately covered by an earlier condition and has been deleted.] The Eagle County Environmental Health Department has indicated that the on-site wastewater treatment systems proposed for this site, if properly maintained, will adequately address groundwater pollution issues. Several recommendations to help ensure proper maintenance of these systems are provided. The EngiBeering Department has also noted that the application lacks detail regarding the proposed sewage disposal systems, inoluding detail regarding the organizational and finafl:cial struoture f-or its operation and maintenafl:ee. The Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners may v/ant to reviev/, prier to appro'lal of this preliminary plan, the proposed organizational afl:d financial structure for the operation afl:d maintenance of the sev/age disposal systems. fJtematively, as a condition of approval, the Home Owners Association (HOA) should be responsible for over- seeing the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of all on-site wastewater treatment systems within the subdivision. Further, the Applicant should demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director of Environmental Health, prior to approval of the final plat for this subdivision, that the HOA will have [a] a dues structure to enable financing the proper routine maintenance; [b] a maintenance agreement with a company or individual to carry out said maintenance; and [c] the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. In addition, a note substantially similar to the following should be placed on the final plat for this subdivision: The Pa1merosa Ranch Home Owners Association shall be responsible for over-seeing the installation, maintenance, repair and replacement of all on-site wastewater treatment systems within the subdivision; shall establish and rlaintain a dues structure to enable financing of the proper routine maintenance; shall keep in effect a maintenance greement with a company or individual to carry out said maintenance in an appropriate manner and frequency; and shall have the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting and performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. Finally, an appropriate easement should be created on the plat granting to the HOA the authority to enter upon all properties for the purpose of inspecting and performing maintenance or repairs of on-site wastewater systems. [Condition # 12] [NOTE: This condition was modified by the Planning Commission to require compliance and provide greater enforceability.] [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) [+] School Land Dedication Standards (Section 4-700) - The Eagle County School District (RE50J) has indicated that it will accept payment of cash-in-lieu ofland dedication. The Applicant will be required to conform to the standards of this Section at the time the final plat is considered. [+] Road Impact Fees (Section 4-710) - The Preliminary will be required to conform to the standards ofthis Section. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS been demonstrated that, with the recommended conditions, the proposed subdivision MAY 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 Development Standards. 37 2/7/06 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. (a) 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 Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) 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. (c) 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. The proposed development does not create inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, nor does it result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS 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. 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 man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Given the above analysis, the property is suitable for development. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development ofthe property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible 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. The surrounding uses are largely agricultural and residential in nature. The residential lots in the area are of various sizes, including both larger and smaller than those proposed for this subdivision. The location of building envelopes away from Lake Creek Road tends to minimize the impact on the more rural portions of the area. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] With the recommended conditions of approval, the proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and should not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS Housin1! Guidelines. - On April 13, 2004, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution No. 2004-048 dopting Housing Guidelines to establish aframeworkfor discussion and negotiation of applicable housing criteria. The Housing Guidelines were subsequently amended on July 12, 2005, by Board Resolution 2005-90. 38 2/7/06 A condition of sketch plan approval requires that a housing plan that meets the intent of the Eagle County Guidelines as described in a Housing Department memorandum prepared in response to the sketch plan application. The Applicant proposes that of the proposed five lots in the development, four would have accessory dwelling units (ADU). Two of the four lots (initially Lots 1 and 5) would have restrictive covenants which provide that, if the ADU is not "owner occupied", it would be leased or otherwise occupied by a person working at least 30 hours per week in Eagle County. In addition, the Applicant proposes to provide an option for a payment-in-lieu to the Eagle County Housing Fund or a reputable Local Resident Housing Developer (as provided in the Housing Guidelines) equivalent to one dwelling unit (currently $30,605) or for the purchase of banked housing credits in the Fox Hollow PUD equivalent to one dwelling unit. In either case, Habitat for Humanity is proposed to be the beneficiary of the payment-in-lieu. The Eagle County Housing Department has indicated that the proposal meets the intent of the Eagle County Guidelines, with an exception that, if an ADU were to be "owner occupied", as has been proposed, it would not be available for workforce housing. Planning Staff notes that the intent apparently is that the ADUs which are to be subject to the covenant restrictions are to be 2-bedroom units to satisfy the intent of the Housing Guidelines, but that provision does not appear to be specifically set forth in the application materials or the proposed Housing Plan. Discussions between the Applicant and the Director of Housing are on-going. In any event, the County Attorney's Office has not reviewed the proposed restrictive covenant. The proposed Housing Plan seems to be laeking in detail. In addition, tHe Planning CommissioB and the Board of County COITHllissioners may want to rcyiew, prior to approval of this preliminary plan., a complete deseription of the proposed Housing Plan. Alternatively, as a condition of approval, unless the Board of County Commissioners approves an alternative means of providing local resident housing, the Applicant should implement the proposed housing plan, or a revised housing plan, that is acceptable to the Eagle County Housing Director. [Condition tt 17] [NOTE: The Applicant has provided a Housing Plan which has been determined by the Housing Department to meet the intent of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. Consequently, this condition has been deleted.] VIS-0028 Palmerosa Ranch Greg Schroeder, Engineering Department ACTION: Variance from Improvement Standard for LUR 4-620J.1.h - Dual Access Requirement, which requires that the applicant provide two points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system. LOCATION: Primarily west of Lake Creek Road, approximately 1 mile south ofHwy. 6 (887 Lake Creek Road). FILE NO.: RELATED FILE NOS.: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: VIS-00028, Variance from Improvement Standards SUP-00008, LR-00048 887 Lake Creek Road Palmerosa Ranch, LLC Palmerosa Development Company, LLC 1 Jim Cornerford Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group, LLC STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval 39 2/7/06 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SUMMARY: 'he applicant is seeking a variance from the Dual Access requirement (ECLUR 4-620.J.1.h), and also from the Cu1- De-Sacs and Turnarounds Length requirement (ECLuR 4-620.D.9.a). The proposed development consists of five single-family home sites, including four accessory dwelling units, on a 43.689 acre parcel ofland. Much of the site consists of a view corridor easement and/or wetland areas, causing home sites (building envelopes) to be clustered along the west side ofthe property on lots averaging 8.7 acres in area. While the two proposed access roads into the site are not connected, turnarounds for emergency equipment are provided. A private water system, owned and maintained by the Homeowners Association, will be connected to the Upper Eagle Water Authority. Individual sewage disposal systems will be maintained through a management contract under the direction of the Homeowners Association. CHRONOLOGY: September 3,1984 November 12, 1985 February 4, 2005 July 18, 2005 October 3, 2005 December 7, 2005 SITE DATA: Application made to Eagle County to rezone and subdivide the subject property from Resource to Agricultural Limited. Board of County Commissioners approved the zone change request to rezone 160 acres from 'Resource' to 'Agricultural Limited' and a subdivision sketch plan for 32 single-family residential lots on the rezoned 160 acre parcel plus an additional 120 acre parcel that was (and still is) zoned 'Resource'. This 120 acre parcel was intended as open space. Application for this Subdivision Sketch Plan received by Eagle County. Subdivision sketch plan was approved. Applications received for this Subdivision Preliminary Plan and a companion Limited Review for four accessory dwelling units. Planning Commission Hearing, Approved with Conditions, 4-1 Surrounding Land Uses 1 Zoning: East: Residential 1 PUD West: Agricultural 1 AL North: Agricultural; residential 1 AL South: Residential 1 RR, PUD Existinl! Zoninl!: Agricultural Limited Proposed Zoninl!: No change in zoning is proposed Proposed No. of Dwelling 5 primary dwellings and 4 accessory dwellings Units: Total Area: 43.689 acres Minimum Lot Area: 6.55 acres Maximum Lot Area: 10.35 acres Water: Central water system connected to Upper Eagle Water Authority system Sewer: Individual Sewage Disposal Systems (ISDS) Access: Lake Creek Road REFERRAL RESPONSES STAFF REPORT Colorado State Forest Service Per a letter dated November 3, 2005, from Hans Rinke, Forester: 40 2/7/06 1. The Colorado State Forest Service has given Palmerosa Ranch PUD a wildfire hazard rating of low. A low rating means that structures on the property will most likely not be threatened by average wildfire activity. 2. The majority of this property is irrigated pastureland, or riparian area along Lake Creek. This fuel type represents a low fire hazard, with the exception of extreme weather conditions, or in the absence of haying or grazing. Fuel type, terrain, aspect, road layout, and available water all helped contribute to this low rating. 3. The Addition of dual access to this property is another beneficial step in lowering the fire hazard. 4. Even with this low rating we suggest that noncombustible roofing materials be used, and that the pasture be irrigated throughout the summer months. Eal!le River Fire Protection District Per a memorandum dated November 1l, 2005, from Carol Gill-Mulson, Deputy Chief: 1. The proposed water supply extended from ERW &S District via a 10" main and hydrant locations are acceptable for fire fighting operations. 2. The plans indicate that the water system would be privately maintained. Additional information is needed to ensure adequate maintenance and operation. 3. Road width, grade, and turn-arounds appear acceptable. Turning radii will need to be verified based on the requirements of the Fire Department's Pierce Quantum engine. 4. Each road serves 2 or 3 single-family homes with an additional home, which is not part of this project, accessing the south road. Based on this density, I don't believe the requirement for dual access applies. Note: The referrals shown above are the only referrals that are relevant to this Variance file. By way of history, this referral request was sent concurrently with the associated planning file's referral request (SUP-00008). Please see the associated SUP-00008 file for a complete listing of all referrals. STAFF DISCUSSION: This parcel is located at 887 Lake Creek Road, and presently has two existing accesses to Lake Creek Road. The north access, ("North Drive") is located near the northwest corner of the parcel, and runs east-west providing access to Lots #l and #2. The south access ("South Drive") is located approximately 750' to the south, and also runs east- west providing access to Lots #3, #4, and #5. Each drive terminates in a cul-de-sac turnaround with lengths of approximately 970' for the North Drive and 1,200' for the South Drive. Variance Request #1- Dual Access (ECLUR 4-620.J.1.h) The applicant seeks a variance from the Dual Access requirement (ECLUR 4-620.J.1.h). Specifically, the section reads as follows: Dual Access. The applicant shall provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shall be a usable and unobstructed (with the exception of breakaway barriers) secondary emergency point of ingress/egress for all new development or redevelopment capable of accommodating emergency response vehicles commonly operated by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles. Depending upon the length of the road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard. (am 12/17/02) Reference 4-620.J.l.h: 41 2/7/06 The applicant shall provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. ~he applicant seeks this variance because the site is constrained by wetlands, and the impact to the open and environmental qualities of the site. Furthermore, the Palmero sa Ranch is constrained by a view corridor easement and covenant line designed to preserve the rural character of the parcel on the eastern side of the Lake Creek. The applicant has stated that during the July 2005 Sketch Plan Hearing, they were encouraged to apply for this variance as the connection of the two access roads was viewed as unnecessary and interfering with the view of the pasture lands. Reference 4-620.J1.h: Depending upon the length of the road, fire hazard rating, number of units proposed, topography and the recommendation of the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance from the required improvement standard The Colorado State Forest Service has given the development a wildfire hazard rating oflow. Furthermore, Eagle River Fire Protection District (ERFPD) has commented that for the low density proposed, they do not believe that the dual access requirement is applicable. The North Drive consists of approximately 970' to the cul-de-sac. The location of the cul-de-sac is placed at the western side of the "meadow" area, to minimize disturbance, and to provide the closest possible access to Lots #1 and #2. The South Drive consists of approximately 1200' of road to the cul-de-sac. This distance does exceed the requirement for ECLUR 4-620.D.9, which states that the maximum length of a dead end street can not exceed one- thousand (1000'). This maximum length will be discussed below. Variance Request #2 - Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds (ECLUR 4-620.D.9.a) The South Drive road is approximately 1,200' long to the cul-de-sac, which exceeds the 1,000' requirement. A variance from the cul-de-sac and turnarounds requirement (ECLUR 4-620ooD.9.a) is requested. Reference ECLUR 4-620.D.9.a: Maximum Number of Dwelling Units Served. Due to mountainous terrain, it may be necessary to have dead end roads which exceed 1,000 feet in length. In such instances, emergency vehicle turnaround areas shall be provided at the initial 1 000 foot mark and at 1000 foot intervals for the remaining length of the road. The Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction may approve an alternative spacing plan for turnaround areas. The turnaround shall be constructed in accordance with Section 4-620.D.9.c, Cul-de-sacs and Turnarounds, Preferred Design, or as otherwise approved by the Local Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction The South Drive Road length is approximately 1,200' to the cul-de-sac. The road is an existing road that will be improved as a part of this development. The road travels to the south-southwest from Lake Creek Road as it drops elevation to the meadow. The road then heads directly to the west and is bordered on both sides by wetlands. The location ofthe cul-de-sac is at the western edge ofthe wetlands boundary. An additional turnaround located on the proposed road would have an adverse impact to the wetlands. ERFPD has stated that the "road width, grade, and turn-arounds appear acceptable. Turning radii will need to be verified based on the requirements of the Fire Department's Pierce Quantum engine." The applicant has demonstrated that the turning radii can be met with both cul-de-sacs (see enclosed turning diagrams) STAFF FINDINGS: :riteria for Evaluation bv the Countv En2ineer 42 2/7 106 The County Engineer's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 4-610 A.2. of the ECLUR. It states, in part, "The County Engineer's evaluation shall consider whether the alternative will provide for an equivalent level of public safety and whether the alternative will be equally durable so that the normally anticipated user and maintenance costs will not be increased." The County Engineer may also recommend approval of an ,lternative "If an alternate design, procedure, or material can be shown to provide performance and/or environmental sensitivity that reflect community values equal or better than that established by these standards..." For this evaluation, Staff interpreted the standards in the ECLUR to represent the minimum acceptable level of "community values," since the ECLUR were adopted after extensive work and comments by the community. Criteria for Evaluation bv the Board of Countv Commissioners The Board of County Commissioner's responsibility in a variance application is described in Section 5-260 G.2. of the ECLUR. It states in part: "The Board of County Commissioners shall balance the hardships to the petitioner of not granting the variance against the adverse impact on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected, and the adverse impact on the lands affected." The Board may consider a hardship to be caused when the petitioner will be deprived of some or all of his right to use the land if the ECLUR is strictly followed. Staff Findin2s The applicant must demonstrate that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. Variance Request #1- Two Points of Access The applicant has minimized the number of new roads to be constructed on the site by utilitizing established road corridors. The site is constrained by wetlands on the east side of the property, and the applicant is constructing berms to serve as visual shields for the development near the Creek. The ERFPD has stated that it does not believe that the dual access requirement applies for the low density that is proposed. It further states that the road width, grade, and turn-arounds appear acceptable. The applicant has demonstrated that the Fire Department's engine is capable of negotiating the cul-de-sacs. Staff finds that the discussion from the local fire authority will provide for an acceptable level of safety throughout the neighborhood. Staff finds that granting the Variance from Improvement Standards for the two points of access will provide for a design that will perform well and reflect the community values established by these standards. Variance Request #2 - Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds The applicant has made every attempt in the South Drive Road to utilize the existing road corridor. The cul-de-sac is located at the western boundary of the wetlands. If the applicant were to meet the 1,000' requirement, it would require substantial earthwork and realignment of the South Drive, which would have a substantial impact to the wetlands. The proposed South Drive Road as shown provides for the least disturbance of the site and the associated wetlands. The ERFPD has also stated that the road width, grade, and turn-arounds appear acceptable. Staff finds that the constraints of the site, the ability to minimize further site disturbance and minimize wetlands impacts, and the local fire authority's acceptance will provide for an acceptable level of safety throughout the neighborhood. Staff finds that granting the Variance from Improvement Standards for the Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds will provide for a design that will perform well and reflect the community values established by these <;tandards. Board of County Commissioners Finding:s 43 2/7/06 The Board of County Commissioners must make the following findings in order to approve this file: 'in dings for Variance Request #1 - Two Points of Access 1. The property is encumbered by a topographical or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from satisfying these requirements. 2. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship if there is strict adherence to these requirements. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. Findings for Variance Request #2 - Cul-De-Sacs and Turnarounds 1. The property is encumbered by a topographical or other physical condition that prevents the applicant from satisfying these requirements. 2. The applicant has demonstrated a hardship if there is strict adherence to these requirements. 3. The applicant has demonstrated that the hardship of conforming to county standards exceeds the adverse impact to the affected lands and on the health, safety, and welfare of the persons affected if a variance from these standards is granted. IISCUSSION: File SUP-00008 and VIS-0028 were presented concurrently. Mr. Forinash presented a PowerPoint presentation. He summarized the applicant's initial request and reviewed the revisions made to the file since the Board's last review. The presentation included visuals of the previous and current site plans. He stated that the applicant had withdrawn the application for accessory dwelling units and will pursue a conservation easement with Eagle Valley Land Trust. The site plan has been revised for additional clustering of the building envelopes. The applicant has expressed interest in creating a conservation easement on the 120 acres of open land, west of the property. The one outstanding issue is the setback from Lake Creek road. Staff and Planning Commissions recommended 75 feet from riparian areas per the Colorado Department of Wildlife' s recommendation. The applicant proposed a 75 ft setback from the high water mark on Lots 2, 3, 4 and 5 and 50 ft on Lot 1. Mr. Forinash stated that both the Staff and Planning Commissions findings were positive and both recommend approval. During the week prior to the meeting there were 5 letters received from property owners that expressed opposition to all or part of the proposed development. Greg Schroeder, Project Engineer presented file VIS-00028. Mr. Schroeder explained the applicant's request for two different variances. The applicant requested a variance from the requirement of having to provide two points of access to the development and a variance from the requirement of South Drive having a turnaround length greater than 1,000 feet. Mr. Schroeder summarized the hardships for each variance. Since the last meeting there were no changes made to the road network. The applicant did receive a favorable response from the local fire protection district and they don't believe that the dual access points would apply to the proposed low density of the development. He stated that Staff recommends approval. Dominic Mauriello, Mauriello Planning Group, applicant representative spoke. Mr. Mauriello presented a PowerPoint presentation that included various aerial photos of the site, including one that illustrated the jointly wned 120 acres property being considered for the conservation easement. He stated that the applicant met with neighbors one-on-one and revised the plan to further cluster homes per the Board's request. The applicant is working towards developing a conservation easement of pasture landslcorridors with Eagle Valley Land Trust. 44 2/7/06 Some neighbors had expressed an interest in establishing a conservation easements, not all have agreed to date. Mr. Mauriello summarized the revisions. He believes that the revised plan responds to comments and direction given by the Board of County Commissioners. Of the 44 acre property, all the homes would be clustered on 3.6 acres, thus nly 8% maximum of the site will be occupied by homes. 90% of the site will remain open and usable from a 'i1dlife standpoint. The applicant would like to modify the condition with respect to the set back on lot 1. Chairman Runyon opened public comment Kim West spoke. Ms. West stated her opposition for density. She believes that the wildlife corridor would be negatively affected by road traffic traveling in and out of the home sites. Susan Miller spoke. Ms. Miller proposed 3 homes and the elimination of lot 4 and 5. She believes that dividing the 43 acres into three would not compromise the wildlife. She was also stunned to find out there were no square footage limitations on the houses. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Miller about the 43 acres parcel of property that they divided into 3 parcels. He wondered about the size of each parcel and why they didn't put size limitations on those that they sold. Ms. Miller stated that the parcels were approximately 15,25 and 5.5 acres each. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Miller why they chose to subdivide the property this way and if the decision was an economic one. Ms. Miller stated that the division fit the geography of the property. Knowing what they know now, they would have put size limitations on the homes. Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Miller to summarize the last meeting she attended with the developers. Ms. Miller stated that the road block came down to the developer wanting 5 big houses to make it viable. Commissioner Menconi wondered if her home would affect the wildlife corridor. Ms. Miller stated that because their home would be located across from a pond, she didn't believe it would negatively affect the corridor. They are now going to put their property west oflot 4 under a conservation easement instead of building a garage and caretaker unit. She has seen the elk tracks and realizes were they are now and would like to do what she can to keep the corridor open. Commissioner Menconi asked if there were any conversations about fencing at any of the group meetings. Ms. Miller stated that fencing never came up in the two meeting she attended. Chairman Runyon asked Ms. Miller if she had considered putting her home by the stream to allow for a larger corridor. Ms. Miller stated that they would certainly talk about it. She pointed to the pond location across the steam not shown on the map. The elk do not cross at that location so that's why they were considering that spot for their home. Wendell Porterfield spoke on behalf of Chupa Nelson and Judy Pile who were not able to attend the meeting. He stated that the neighbor's primary concerns were the negative impact to the wildlife. He attended one meeting and it was clear that the tension and the issues were purely economic. The migration corridor goes across the proposed lot 4. He stated that both Ms. Pile and Mr. Nelson would like to see lot 4 be eliminated. Bill Rey spoke. He stated his concern for destiny and traffic at the south end of the property. He believes that 3 homes would be more compatible with the surrounding area. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Rey the square footage of his home. Mr. Rey stated that his home was approx. 1,700 square feet on a one acre lot. Some of the other homes in his area are 3,500 square feet. Spence Denison spoke. He believes that five homes are too many for the meadow. He doesn't believe that the development is consistent with the Edwards Master Plan or the surrounding uses. He believes Lot 4 is a key movement pathway and he'd like the whole parcel to be placed in an easement. Kara Campitelli, Lake Creek Meadows resident spoke. She thanked both the Board and the applicant for their careful consideration. She believes that the subdivision should be limited to three. Mary Ellen Cope, Lake Creek Meadows resident spoke. She agrees with those that spoke before her on the wildlife issues. Her home was built in a location that was most convenient at the time because of the vertical challenge of the property. Unfortunately that location was right in the middle of an elk corridor. The elk continue to come within a foot of her home everyday. It saddens her to see the elk suffer. If she had a choice she'd move ler home 50 feet to accommodate the elk. Rachel Nelson, Chupa Nelson's daughter spoke. She believes that five building sites are too many. The elk are being squeezed out and have no way to get to their winter habitat. She asked that the Board to consider the 45 2/7/06 future of the County and all the development that has already impacted the wildlife in our area. Bill Heicher spoke. He was employed by the Division of Wildlife and worked in the Lake Creek area for approximately 32 years. He was asked to look at the wildlife impact by Chupa Nelson. He summarized Dr. A..lldredge's letter for the record. Dr. Alldredge urged the Board to place public wildlife ahead of private profit. fro Heicher stated that he was at the last group meeting; he believed there was some consensus. The consensus was based around a solution based on economics. There didn't appear to be a group solution with the current proposal. An approval would allow for two minimal corridors at best. He asked that the Board make a decision based on the wildlife, not the dollars. He would like the neighbors to continue to work towards a wildlife easement. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Heicher ifhe was hired by Chupa Nelson. Mr. Nelson stated that no money was discussed and he'd never received a cent. rfhe did offer to pay any money, he'd ask that the money be donated to the Eagle River Water Shed Council. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Heicher if he believed that a holistic solution had been achieved. Mr. Nelson stated that a solution wouldn't result in a profit. He believes that simply moving or eliminating lot 4 would not solve all the problems. Lot 5 would still pinch the wildlife movement. He wondered if moving Susan Miller and the Chipman home directly across lot 4 wouldn't be a better solution. Commissioner Menconi stated that his ultimate hope was for a positive change towards the wildlife issues. Mr. Nelson stated that ifhe were in Commissioner Menconi seat he'd vote in favor of the wildlife. Wildlife management is not an exact science, but he believes that the wildlife corridor will become severely compromised if it becomes less than 800 feet in width. He suggested eliminating lots 1 and 4 and moving lot 5 to the north. Chairman Runyon addressed the Estes Park wildlife issues and asked Mr. Nelson how big of an inconvenience it really is for the deer and elk. He asked if they eventually got used to being around people. Mr. Nelson stated that you loose the wildness of elk in an Estes Park situation. The same thing with the deer in the town of Eagle, they are no longer wild. You can't base your wildlife management on how animals act in an urban setting. The deer in Estes Park have no where else to go. The deer herd in Eagle County has decreased by 50%, which means we've lost over 50% of our deer habitat. We still have the deer; we just don't have the numbers we did 30 years ago. Chairman Runyon suggested opening up the northern corridor by moving lot 1 back to the original location nd eliminating the barn. Mr. Nelson stated that anytime you consider tighter clustering it's going to be a plus for wildlife. Bill Andree, Division of Wildlife spoke. He stated that he attended the last group meeting and came out feeling very optimistic. Somewhere along the line things fell through. He doesn't believe home sizes will impact the elk, but the number of homes will. Whether the corridor is 600 or 800 feet, the narrower you make the corridor the more impact people and domestic animals will have on the wildlife. The Division's reason for approving two corridors, one on each end is it gave two chances for somebody in the future to screw one up. Dan Welsh spoke. He has been a,Lake Creek resident for 26 years and is also the listing agent along with Bob Dork for the Palmer family and the Palmerosa. He believes the development is appropriate. He finds it interesting that he hasn't seen many elk going through the Palmero sa Ranch this winter. Bob Dorf spoke. Mr. Dorf stated that he is the co-listing broker for Palmero sa and also an interested party. He is quite familiar with the area and in all the years he's lived on the south end of the property there were very few if any elk tracks in the winter time. He believes that the elk are moving from Creamery Ranch which has a higher density development than the current proposal. He doesn't believe this subdivision will cause any problems to the elk migration. Mr. Andree spoke. He stated that there are 200-300 elk that continue to cross r-70 getting hit by vehicles at a rate of 12 a year. He believes that the highway fencing should come from the developers pocket and not the highway dollars. He doesn't believe that just because the elk walk through neighborhoods and there are 200 elk in Eagle Ranch, they are living there comfortably. People still live in Chernobyl, that doesn't mean they're there comfortable or that's where they want to be. The elk have two choices, they can live next to your house or they can die. He gets tired of hearing that the elk are living comfortably. The animals are on a starvation diet all winter and every time they have to expend themselves it increases their calorie output. They don't have enough calories now and are living on their fat. Once you overgraze the forage it takes 20 years to bring the forage back. rf the habitat is destroyed the animals will vanish. Every house has an impact. Chairman Runyon asked Mr. Andree ifhe believed that eliminating lot 1 would be a reasonable approach. Mr. Andree stated that generally a barn or a building that doesn't have human or dog occupancy has a much less stress factor on the elk. rfyou have people, construction and dog activity, it moves the elk out. Since 46 2/7/06 there's already an existing home on lot 1, there's no sense in moving it. Chris Geiger, attorney for Palmer LLC spoke. He hopes the Commissioners will give the proposal the consideration it deserves. Chairman Runyon closed public comment. Mr. Mauriello spoke. He believes that the group meetings have been positive and have been characterized as not being a success. He believes that the applicant has set a good example with the wildlife fencing and both the applicant and the neighbors will continue to work towards a conservation easement and wildlife issues. Chairman Runyon stated that it's his understanding that the current home on lot on1 is to be torn down and wondered if it would possible to move the home site south 100 feet. Mr. Mauriello stated that there may be a geological reason for its location. Jerry Powell, Wildlife Specialist spoke. He believes the current proposal addresses the wildlife issues but it's not just the Pa1merosa that's important to the wildlife, it's the whole area. On a recent visit to the area he noticed that the elk have been moving through an area south of the Palmero sa Ranch. Mr. Powell reiterated some of the actions that the applicant had taken in response to wildlife concerns. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Comerford to respond to the statements made in regards to personal profit. Mr. Comerford stated that they met with each of the home owners and discussed the idea of proposing eight units for approval. Their plan at that point was if they got the approval for the eight home sites that they could potentially contribute the developable rights into the conservation trust, therefore giving them some tax credits. As they moved through the process and lost units it took away their economic flexibility. When they went back to their tax attorney they were told an approval of only five home sites would nullify any opportunity they would have for submittal to the IRS for a conservation tax credits. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Comerford ifhe felt he'd exhausted all his options to compromise with the neighbors. Mr. Comerford stated that they've worked hard to come up with a good plan; they've tried to be sensitive o the neighborhood by meeting with everyone several times and tried in every way to address the wildlife issues. Commissioner Menconi stated that Bill Heicher is not satisfied. Mr. Andree's letter contradicted his testimony. He doesn't believe that all the wildlife issues have been resolved. Mr. Comerford stated that he believes Bill Andree had been consistent. They did receive a positive letter form the Division of Wildlife endorsing their proposal. He asked Mr. Heicher his ideas and what he'd endorse. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Heicher to address the question. Mr. Heicher stated that the group solution that would keep the northern corridor open and reduce the units to 4 had fallen through. He is not willing to support the development without these changes. Mr. Mauriello stated that at the group meeting everyone endorsed those changes. Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Mauriello ifhe was proposing a reduction to 4 units. Mr. Mauriello stated he'd need to converse with his client before endorsing anything. Chairman Runyon asked Mr. Forinash to explain the geographical reasoning for Lot 1. Mr. Forinash stated that he didn't know the specifics. Mr. Mauriello stated that his client would move Lot 1 as far south as possible, 100 ft might be pushing it. Chairman Runyon wondered if planning this merely to increase the value of their tax deduction was the right thing to do. Mr. George Gregory spoke. Mr. Gregory stated that they are at the limits of making this proposal work. They've tried to satisfy everyone's desires. He believes this is a great project and he would like the Board to consider how much energy, expense and time everyone has contributed to the project. Chairman Runyon stated that the expense does not come into the Board's consideration. He asked about the housing payment in-lue. He questioned the formula which was based on the estimated average house to being 7,000 square feet. Mr. Mauriello stated the square footage didn't really matter and the plan complies with the current guidelines. Chairman Runyon asked Mr. Forinash to address the landscape plan. Mr. Forinash stated that the landscape plan being presented is what the applicant would be required to follow. Typically there isn't an additional landscape plan at final plat unless the Board requires one with modifications. 47 2/7/06 Mr. Comerford stated that they are proposing over 300 trees from 12-18 feet. Chairman Runyon asked about the 50 foot set back request on lot 1. Mr. Mauriello stated that the corner of the existing home is at the 50 foot mark; additionally the current 'ltandard for the County is 50 feet. Chairman Runyon asked how the landscaping would address the visual issues. He would like an aggressive landscaping plan. Mr. Forinash stated that the landscaping plan is a reasonable one. Jamie McCluskey, landscaping expert spoke. He believes that the landscaping plan is a good one and will screen the proposed homes. There will berms that will completely surround each of the home sites. The berms will be wide and look natural. Currently if you drive by on Lake Creek road, the existing willows almost entirely screen the area. Commissioner Stone moved to deny file SUP-00008 Palmerosa Ranch Subdivision Preliminary Plan for the reason that it is not compatible with surrounding uses and the wildlife issues were not adequately addressed. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Clerk to the Board 48 2/7/06