The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 05/01/07 Present: Am Menconi Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Bruce Baumgartner Bryan Treu Robert Morris Kathy Scriver PUBLIC HEARING May 1, 2007 Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager 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 21ST CENTURY PHOTO SUPPLY 360 TRAINING A 1 BAIL BONDS ABBOTT LABORATORIES ACCESS ROARING FORK ACE EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY ADVANTAGE NETWORK SYSTEMS AED EVERYWHERE AFFILIATED CREDIT SERVICE ALAMOSA COUNTY ALL PRO FORMS INC ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC AMERICAN SOLUTIONS AMERIGAS AMY BERENS ANN LOPER ANN MUNCASTER ANTLERS VETERINARY APPLIANCE DOCTORS INC APWA CONFERENCE ARCHITECfURAL COMPlTI'ER ARMY & FACTORY SURPLUS ARTCRAFf SIGNS ARTWORKS, TIlE ASPEN GLOBAL CHANGE A V TECH ELECTRONICS INC AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CK AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS B & H SPORTS BJROWE BAILEYS BALCOMB AND GREEN BASALT QUICK LUBE BASALT SANITATION DIST BC INTERIORS BENTLEY SYSTEMS INC BERGLUND RUTH BERNICE WHITE SUPPLIES SERVICE REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 1 05/01/07 161.15 25.00 35.10 202.70 5,000.00 1,250.00 234.47 178.00 617.95 37.10 1,186.34 36.93 748.00 124.1 0 2,261.03 319.90 78.00 15.00 25.00 80.00 150.00 1,460.00 5.98 16.00 2,233.00 745.00 42,985.65 4,406.21 5,317 .22 24.50 37.26 132.00 4,781.43 45.25 139.50 1,632,00 120.00 113.00 14.70 BERTHOD MOTORS BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS BETHANY VAN WYK BMHS PROJECT GRADUATION BONNffiVQGT BOYD COFFEE COMPANY BRA VOl VAIL VALLEY MUSIC BRUCE BAUMGARTNER CAACO CALffiRE PRESS INC CARDINAL HEALTH CARLIN DODGE CARMEN LOZOYO-VELEZ CASA OF THE CONTINENTAL CASTLE PEAK VETERINARY CATHY ZEEB CDAC CDW CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL CENTURYTEL OF EAGLE CGAIT CHARM TEX CHEMATOX INC. CHERYL THOMAS CHERYLE A WOOLSEY CIMA CINGULAR WIRELESS CLEAN DESIGNS CO ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION CO DEPT AGRICULTURE CO DEPT PuBLIC HEAL rn & CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH AND CO SECRETARY OF STATE CO STATE TREASURER COLLEEN WIRTH COLORADO CHAPTER OF ICC COLORADO CORRECTIONAL COLORADO COUNTIES INC COLORADO GUN SERVICE COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO PROFESSIONALS IN COLORADO STATE UNIVERSITY COLORADO WEST MENTAL HLrn COLUMBINE MARKET COMFORT INN CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING CONTRACT PHARMACY SERVICE COPY PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING COWBOY CATERING CUMMINS ALLISON CORP DALY PROPERTY SERVICES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLffiS SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLffiS SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLffiS SUPPLffiS SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 2,952.84 847.21 89.91 1,000.00 20.25 729.26 5,000.00 44.78 540.00 796.00 1,177.20 19,246.00 142.56 2,000.00 279.46 194.00 346.50 44.99 3,302.97 11,578.48 3,177.24 500.00 1,120.44 80.00 160.97 8.36 2,265.00 444.19 355.91 150.00 365.00 640.00 954.25 30.00 3,817.00 30.94 70.00 204.00 670.00 1,218.96 560.00 22,455.89 180.00 14,318.68 11,926.40 22.97 562.00 2,418.63 5,000,81 33.99 5,917.39 122.66 4,690.20 1,012.68 6,899.76 2 05/01/07 DAN CORCORAN PLS DAVID KEKAR DEBBIE RODRIQUEZ DENVER CHECKWRlTER, INC. DENVER PARTS DEPOT DEPARTMENT OF LAW DICK BOURRET DLT SOLUTIONS, INC. DOCTORS ON CALL DOLPHIN CAPITAL CORP DON OLSEN DOREEN CONSTANlNE DOROTIfY KENLON DUFFORD WALDECK & MILBURN E-S PRESSJPMB #233 EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC EAGLE COUNTY MOTOR POOL EAGLE EMBROIDERY INC EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED CNL EAGLE RIVER YOUTH COAL. EAGLE VALLEY CHILD CARE EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EAGLE XM EARLINE BRONN EASYCHAIR MAGAZINE ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF EAGLE ED GRANGE EDWARADS ROTARY EDWARDS BUILDING CENTER EDWARDS STATION LLC EMC2 EMPLOYERS COUNCIL SERVICE EPS DESIGN AND PRINT ERIC LOVGREN ERIN OOWD ESRI EVERETI FAMILY FUNERAL EVHS PROJECT GRADUATION FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FEATHER PETROLEUM CO FEDERAL EXPRESS FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INC FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICES FIRST INDEMNITY OF AMER. FLAT TOPS ELECTRIC FLORIDA MICRO FORINASH KATHLEEN FRAN PAGE FSH COMMUNICATIONS LLC FURNITURE LEISURE G JCT CHRYSLER JEEP OODGE GALLS INCORPORATED GEORGIE C ZINDA SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 1,380.00 79.19 14.00 5,725.00 570.46 100.00 32.40 5,892.61 105:00 96.38 11.27 12.00 4.80 3,050.00 3,900.00 17,021.00 2,933.19 575.27 299.91 571.85 150,000.00 20,000.00 1,125.00 3,310.00 1,720.00 21.00 17,000.00 37,500.00 144.00 500.00 13.49 300.00 231.68 4,075.00 502.60 242.36 224.78 1,425.00 540.00 1,000.00 3,058.18 4.50 630.53 33.53 720,70 1,128.95 266.40 14,736.00 75,68 20.00 70.00 1,649.68 18,347,00 13,129.50 313,50 3 05/01/07 GIRSH AND ROTTMAN GOVERNMENT TECHNOLOGY GRACE FINNEY GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND HAL BURNS HANSEN STEVE R HART INTERCMC HAZELLE GONTER Hl3ALTH & HUMAN SERVICES HELP DESK TECHNOLOGY HENRY SCHEIN HEWLETT PACKARD HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES HILLTOP INN HOGAN & HARTSON HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HOPKINS MEDICAL PRODUCTS HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS HUMAN RESOURCE PLUS INC HUMANE SOCffiTY OF TIlE US HV AC SUPPLY IACREOT ICC IDENTIX IMPACT GRAPmCS & SIGNS INTERGRAPH CORPORATION INTERIOR PLANTSCAPES INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNAP NETWORK SYSTEMS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION JACK KENT MOTORS JACKIE CRUMB JAN 0 WESTMAN JARA DIVERSIFIED SERVICES JBT'S CUSTOM SILK JENNY WOOD JILL HUNSAKER JIM DUKE JOBS W ALLBAORD &SUPPL Y JOHN BADE JOSIE SCHULTZ JUSTIN FINESTONE KARA BErns, CORONER KAREN HOEGER KATHY BARTA KATHY CALTON KAY VINCENT KELLY MILLER KENNEDY INDUSTRIES INC KESSLER MARY J KIMBALL INTERNATIONAL KINDER MORGAN INC KZYR-CooL RADIO LLC REFUND SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLffiS SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLffiS SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPUES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPUES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLffiS REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 34.20 125.00 112.20 346.60 127.24 5,000.00 738.96 10,365.00 28.80 84.04 686.31 300.14 3,567.00 362.45 28.95 198.00 4,706.25 26,319.88 430.03 25.65 3,750.00 22.95 15.84 790.00 28.00 1,887.00 175.00 895.00 100.00 200.00 2,427.40 275.00 480.00 96.39 25.20 100.92 65.00 219.75 381.14 21.60 339.15 12.00 6.30 121.00 138.25 24.89 90.00 236.95 215.25 4.21 351.84 30.45 1,468.73 13,496.96 2,700.00 4 05/01/07 LASER JUNCTION mGACYCOMNmN~ATIDNSmc mONA PERKINS LIANA CARLSON MOORE LffiERTY ACQUIsmONS LIGHTNING SERVICES LINDA JOHNSON LINDBLOOM PHOTOGRAPHY mc LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR LORI SIEFERS LORIE CRAWFORD LORRAINE VASQUEZ LUCY BARKER M CECILIA ZALmGER MAIN AUTO PARTS MARIA ANJIER MARKS PLUMBmG PARTS MARLENE MC CAFFERTY MARTHA SUTHERLAND MBIA MCCAULLEY REBECCA T MEADOW MOUNTAIN PLUMBmG MEDlBADGE, mc. MEET THE WILDERNESS METROPOLITAN PATIIOLOGISTS MICAELA MENDOZA MICHAEL MCCLINTON MICRO PLASTICS MICROFLEX MEDICAL CORP MID V ALLEY METROPOLITAN MIKE, BAIR MOBILE VISION MONUMENT PHARMACY MOORE MOORE MEDICAL CORP MOTOSAT MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN EQUIPMENT MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS MOUNTAIN TEMP SERVICES M1N VALmy DEVELOPENTAL MURRAY DAHL MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY CO NATIONAL ANIMAL CONTROL NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NELSON LABORATORIES NEVES UNIFORMS NORDIC REFRIGERATION NORTHWEST COLORADO LEGAL NRA NRC BROADCASTING, INC. NU CARE PHARMACUETICALS OCTANNER OFFICE DEPOT OMNI DISTRIBUTION mc SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE 219.90 1,301.50 78426 45.36 30.00 50.00 14.40 600:00 242.12 64.50 136.08 98.00 145.20 21.47 8.71 103.20 158.19 81.90 18.00 5,251.19 45.74 1,749.84 57.45 500.00 108.00 51.70 16.20 18.74 79.00 373.14 89.10 484.95 41.00 11,715.00 784.54 1,133.60 279.00 285.98 595.00 1,629.37 10,000.00 8,2()8.22 417.06 990.00 1,580.00 359.40 229.50 786.62 4,000.00 525.00 4,936.00 39.88 3,304.70 165.56 2,249.00 5 05/01/07 OSM DEUVERY LLC PAINT BUCKET TIffi PAPER WISE PARK COUNTY SHERIFF OFF. PAT NOLAN PATRICIA HAMMON PET PICK UPS PETER FREIDRlCH PFCOMAC PHYLISS ROUNDS PHYLLIS KELLY PITNEY BOWES INCORPORATED POCATEll.O SUPPLY DEPOT PORTER AUTO BODY INC POSTMASTER EAGLE BRANCH PRICE DIGESTS PRINTRITE PRO FORCE LA WENFORCEMENT PROGRESSIVE MElHODS INC PROJGRADUATION BASALT HS PROSHINE SALES & SERVICE PSS, INC PURCHASE POWER QUEST DIAGNOSTICS QUILL CORPORATION QWEST R & S NORTHEAST LLC REBECCA WHEELERSBURG RED-CANYON HIGH SCHOOL RED RIBBON PROJECT REE FARREll. REGALIA MANUFACTURING CO REGIONAL HAZ MAT ASSOCIAT REGISTER TAPES UNLIMITED RENEE DUBUISSON RESOURCE CENTER OF EAGLE RESOURCES REYNA lRUnLLO ROARING FORK FAMILY ROBERT B EMERSON, PC ROBERTA E ARNDT ROBIN COCK ROCKY MOUNTAIN FOOD ROCKY MOUNTAIN RECORDS ROCKY MOUNTAIN REPROGRAPH RODOLFO REVELES ATIORNEY ROLLY ROUNDS RON WOLFE RUEDI WATER & POWER RYAN SANDS S CORPORATION INC SALVATION ARMY SARA CROSS SARA J FISHER SA YNOMORE PROMOTIONS SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 484.32 13.58 1,998.00 26,685.00 106.27 48.60 1,338.38 27.72 395.00 24.00 30.88 4,612.00 4,519.07 1,380.60 437.85 1l9.95 367.45 469.55 279.00 1,000.00 1,219.00 857.65 6,963.26 747.54 450.16 6,172.23 113.98 148.42 3,500.00 1,000.00 39.73 116.93 35,923A8 750.00 120.04 15,000.00 28,738.57 214.51 8,500.00 1l4.oo 902.91 16.24 135.00 189.50 3,023.99 9.80 41.40 44.55 10,000.00 209.99 10,959A3 10,000.00 181.96 514.97 1,692.26 r 6 05/01/07 I ~'I SCAN AIR OF COLORADO INC SCHINDLER ELEVATOR CORP SCHUTZMAN COMPANY, INC. SCHWAAB SECURITY TRANSPORT SERVlCEMASTER CLEAN SHAMROCK FOODS CORP SHAPINS ASSOCIATES SHAREE WETTSTEIN S~AFFERKAREN SHERI MINTZ SHESHUNOFF INFORMATION SIGNATURE SIGNS SILVER LEAF SUITES SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SIRCHIE FINGERPRINT SMALL CHAMPIONS SNOWBOARD OUTREACHSCTY SNOWHITE LINEN SOFTWARE SPECTRUM SOUTHERN POLICE INSTITUTE SPRINGMAN & BRADEN SPSS SQUAD FIITERS STATE DISBURSEMENT UNIT STATE OF COLORADO STEAMMASTER , STEPHANIE GLENWRIGHT STEPHEN ELLSPERMAN STERICYCLE INC SUE MOlT SUPERIOR ALARM SUPPORT PAYMENT SUSPENSE FUND SYDNEYPITfMAN TAD DEGAN TAMMI MATIHEWS TASER INTERNATIONAL TCC CONTRACTORS TERRI JOHNSON THE BUDDY PROORAM THE FLOWER CART THOMAS COLE THOMAS F FARRELL THOMSON WEST GROUP TIM LOSA TOTAL ACCESS GROUP TOWN OF BASALT TOWN OF EAGLE TRANECOMPANY TRI COUNTY FIRE TYLER TECHNOLOOIES INC UC REGENTS CASHIER OFFICE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD CO UNITED PARCEL SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT ) REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 1,761.56 164.82 338.31 22.73 16,470.81 2,991.00 5,234.71 3,711.32 32.40 29.26 275.31 465.00 190.00 259.62 1,051.05 152.87 5,000.00 5,000.00 175.58 2,081.34 1,300.00 21.10 2,199.00 69.00 700.00 472.56 2,887.50 180.00 43.34 1,024.78 87.00 639.00 363.00 217,098.17 7.20 91.90 292.59 900.00 708.00 123 .25 5,000.00 214.00 74.52 15.60 4,385.71 55.89 239.50 122.58 2,690.65 1,226.00 2,353.00 9,662.00 663.76 31,946.58 481.51 7 05/01/07 UNITED SITE SERVICES UNITED STATES POliCE UNITED WAY OF EAGLE UNIVERSITY OF CINCINATII UNIVERSTIY PHYSICIANS INC US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US FOODSERVICE INC VAIL DAILY THE VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL LOCK AND KEY VAIL MOUNTAIN COFFEE VAIL RESORTS MANAGEMENT VAIL VALLEYCHAARITABLE VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTR VAIL VALLEY PARTNERSHIP VALLEY LUMBER VALLEY VffiW HOSPITAL VAN DffiST SUPPLY COMPANY VERIFICATIONS INC VERIZON WIRELESS, VIRGINIA BAIR VISA CARD SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT WATSON PHARMACEUTICALS WECMRD WELLS FARGO WEST VAIL SHELL WESTERN EAGLE COUNTY WESTERN LAND GROUP INC WESTERN SLOPE BAR WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WILLIAM G HORLBECK PC WILLIAM LOPER WORKPLACE RESOURCE OF CO WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYNTTAYLOR XCEL ENERGY XEROX CORPORATION XEROX OMNIFAX YAMPA V ALLEY ELECTRIC YOUR PERSONAL CHEF ZASTROW DENTISTRY LLC PAYROLL FOR APRIL ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND AMERIGAS CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL SERVICES/EC COLORADOLTAP COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE INC COpy PLUS OOUBLETREE HOTEL EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING "- SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPliES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLffiS SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL EXPEND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLffiS REFUND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL 8&9 107.51 190.00 20.00 648.00 709.00 21,768.44 7,022.26 2,207.20 2,655.20 31622 82.00 343.75 5,000.00 211.20 150,000.00 455.53 1,456.25 1,980.75 2,680.35 4,055.33 165.60 41,481.34 1,325.98 1,206.30 10,700.00 574,591.86 262.00 2,190.00 362.94 203.85 466.07 4,841.00 9.00 155.13 43.80 29.80 624.79 8,780.02 529.56 99.10 799.00.500.00 821,212.62 2,907,355.58 SERVICE SUPPLffiS SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES 1,0%.47 260.68 120.16 300.00 719.59 236,00 71.97 531.12 37.25 8 05/01/07 EAGLE PHARMACY FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG FRED PRYOR SEMINARS GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND HEWLETT PACKARD HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC INTERMOUNTAIN SWEEPER INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY JAKE J STULL KERRY O'NEILL KINDER MORGAN INC NAPA AUTO PARTS-CARBONDLE ROARING FORK VALLEY COOP SAFETY & CONSTRUCTION THERESA LADENBURGER TOWN OF GYPSUM TRl COUNTY FIRE US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAlL ELECTRONICS VISA CARD SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WHITTAKER LANDSCAPING WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION Y AMPA V ALLEY ELECTRIC ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE PAYROLL FOR APRIL SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIfS PAYROLL8&9 42.76 31,681.77 256.00 50.25 2,507.00 581.65 7,900.00 231.52 75.00 24.00 753.83 18.50 46.55 2,936.34 32.44 495.07 138.70 726.56 371.09 412.02 45.46 33.70 505.00 531.04 605.51 159.56 53.92 76,279.77 130,868.25 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND AMY DAVIS ANGELICA DUQUE BETHANIE LINDAL BLANCA SANCHEZ CATIIER1NE ZAKOlAN, M.A CENTRAL SERVICESIEC CENTURYTEL CHARLENE WHITNEY CO DEPT OF HUMAN SERVICES COWRAOO COUNTIES !NC COMFORT INN CYNTHIA AGUILAR DARLENE MONTANO DOLPHIN CAPITAL CORP DOREEN CONSTANINE EAGLE CONVENIENCE STORE EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOL DIST EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATERAND EARLY CHILDHOOD PARlNERS FWRlDA MICRO FORINASH KATHLEEN REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT 186.69 861.94 300.00 " 11.96 600.00 929.05 98.66 198.70 225.00 27.78 113.90 191.36 102.06 79.00 38.07 24.21 633.83 12,500.00 25.20 9.99 2,115.79 13,456.18 560.00 84,60 9 05/01/07 GARFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF SERVICE 34.60 HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES SERVICE 39.16 HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS SERVICE 44.55 HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 873.44 JAN GOVREAU REIMBURSEMENT 28.69 JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFFS SERVICE 23.37 JOHN C COLLINS PC SERVICE 12,138.00 KIDS FIRST SERVICE 4,378.00 KIM HILDERBRAND REIMBURSEMENT 509.02 LAQUINTA INN & SUITES SERVICE 124.00 LARA "HEATHER" LA WDERMILK REIMBURSEMENT 35.81 LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK INC SERVICE 48.45 LYONS KATHLEEN REIMBURSEMENT 43.26 MERCEDES GARCIA REIMBURSEMENT 42.93 MICHELLE ARANA REIMBURSEMENT 22.40 NCSEA SERVICE 300.00 ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO SERVICE 60.64 PARENTS HANDBOOK SERVICE 1,100.00 QUILL CORPORATION SUPPUES 236.65 RACHAELBORRE REIMBURSEMENT 558.87 RHODE ISLAND DEPT OF SERVICE 15.00 RITA WOODS REIMBURSEMENT 219.09 SHERI MINTZ REIMBURSEMENT 143.37 SOLARA LLC SERVICE 12,000.00 SSTABS SERVICE 5.00 SSTABS CONFERENCE SERVICE 295.00 SYLVIA SALAZAR REIMBURSEMENT 104.49 VAIL HONEYWAGON LID SERVICE 67.00 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICE 571.33 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE 2,487.64 WELD COUNTY SHERIFF SERVICE 23.50 WYNNE MORGAN REIMBURSEMENT 383.86 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 1,016.79 PAYROLL FOR APRIL PAYROLL 8 & 9 76,309.37 147,657.25 WRAP FUND EARLY CHILDHOOD PARTNERS SERVICE 3,053.94 3,053.94 INSURANCE RESERVE FUND COUNTY TECHNICAL SERVICES SERVICE 12,723.07 12,723.07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND ANITA SCOTT SERVICE 7,987.50 CHFA SERVICE 6,182.00 CHICAGO BULLET PROOF SERVICE 5,475.00 COLORADO COMMERCIAL SERVICE 10,043.18 DAVID KEKAR REIMBURSEMENT 806.69 GATEWAY CONSTRUCTION CORP SERVICE 3,183.39 IMP ACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS SERVICE 395.25 KENNEY & ASSOCIATES SERVICE 245.10 LAF ARGE CORPORATION SERVICE 7,844.00 MORTER ARCHITECTS SERVICE 4,110.43 10 05/01107 NATIVE ELECTRIC INC NEW WORLD SYSTEMS PEAK LAND SURVEYING INC PRIEFERT MFG CO INC QWEST INTERPRlSE NETWRKNG REL YCO SALES INC SHEPHERD RESOURCES, INC. SPRONK WATER ENGINEERS VAIL DAILY THE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE , SERVICE 4,243.75 6,000.00 840.00 14,405.45 21,689.71 4,757.00 141.09 3,186.00 1,519.78 103,655.32 SALES TAX E.V. TRANSP. AMERICAN SALES INCENTIVES ANITA PERCIFIELD ARMANDO SCHAFFINO BILLINGS KAR KOLOR INC CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CINGULAR WIRELESS COLLETIS COLQRAOO DEPT REVENUE COLQRAOO MOUNTAIN MEDICAL COLUMBINE MARKET CORPORATE EXPRESS DOCTORS ON CALL EAGLE PHARMACY EVERYDAY OUTFITTERS GLENWOOD MEDICAL ASSOC HASLER INC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC IMPACT GRAPmCS& SIGNS JEFF WETZEL KINDER MORGAN INC KlNETICO WATER PROS KZYR-COOL RADIO LLC LAWSON PRODUCTS LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC LUMlNATOR M&MAUTOPARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS MILLENNIUM TOWING QWEST SNAP-ON INDUSTRIAL TIM MINAROVICH TOWN OF AVON TOWN OF GYPSUM lRANSWEST TRUCKS TRICOUNTYFIRE UNITED STATES WELDING US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL NET VERIZON WIRELESS, VISA CARD SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT WESTERN SLOPE BAR SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 2,460.00 100.04 18.21 37.26 483.84 251.31 1,100.30 350.00 105.00 18.14 1,073.27 310.00 3.74 4,349,00 83.00 189.00 2,036.82 34.32 321.91 2,639.74 35.00 333.00 559.88 25.43 177.42 327.70 12.98 1,850.00 162.16 721.63 118.74 1,010.00 1,733.64 244.17 485.70 29.60 2,544.28 1,299.48 11.95 349.87 1,340.24 159.21 16.85 11 05/01/07 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 13.70 XCEL ENERGY SERVICE 436.60 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 750.55 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES 126.83 PAYROLL FOR APRIL PAYROLL8&9 165,016.80 195,858.37 SALES TAX E.V. TRAILS COLUMBINE MARKET SERVICE 24.83 COPYPLUS SERVICE 5.00 FEDERAL EXPRESS SERVICE 35.64 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND SERVICE 3,239.36 IMPACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS SERVICE 302.50 KEMP AND COMPANY INC SERVICE 1,984;20 SCHMUESER GORDON MEYER SERVICE 5,122.50 VALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES 8.98 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE 1,310.73 12,033.74 AIRPORT FUND ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY SUPPLIES 832.90 AMERICAN ASSOC AIRPORT SERVICE 1,225.00 ASMI SERVICE 9,270.00 BALCOMB AND GREEN SERVICE 188.00 CENTRAL SERVICESlEC SERVICE 78.55 CENTURYTEL SERVICE 3,106.76 CHlEFSUPPL Y SUPPLIES 11.99 CHRIS ANDERSON REIMBURSEMENT 59.13 COLLETfS SERVICE 1,540.02 COLORADO MOUNTAIN EXPRESS SERVICE 48,000.00 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICE 1,753.48 COOPER CROUSE HINDS SERVICE 199.36 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES 173.29 DAVIS AUDIO VISUAL SERVICE 335.00 DISH NETWORK SERVICE 11.98 DIVISION OF FIRE SAFETY SERVICE 20.00 DRIVE TRAIN .INDUSTRIES SERVICE 97.96 ELIZABETH WILT REIMBURSEMENT 52.65 FLORIDA MICRO SERVICE 2,530.00 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND SUPPLIES 60.30 GYPSUM TOWN OF SERVICE 431.05 HEWLETf PACKARD SERVICE 2,438.00 HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 3,380.37 IMAGINIT EMBROIDERY SERVICE 567.32 JAY MAX SALES SERVICE 49.05 KATHY LAWN REIMBURSEMENT 140.49 LAWSON PRODUCTS SUPPLIES 256.95 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICE 4,360.50 MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE 36,324.50 MOES SOUTHWEST GRILL SERVICE 539.75 RLM SOFTWARE INC SERVICE 6,000.00 RON RAMSEY SERVICE 200.00 SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SERVICE 1,994.00 SIGNATURE SIGNS SERVICE 174.00 SKYLINE MECHANICAL SERVICE 971.00 12 05/01/07 STEWART AND STEVENSON SERVICE 2,380.01 SUMMITEX, LLC SERVICE 42.63 TAYLOR FENCE COMPANY SERVICE 9,800.00 TIRE DISTRIBuTION SYSTEMS SERVICE 1,026.00 US CUSTOMS SERVICE SERVICE 39,839.75 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE 3,780.13 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICE 125.66 WAGNER RENTS SERVICE 51.39 WORKRITE SERVICE 185.76 WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS SERVICE 440,67 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 3,570.76 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES 209.14 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY SERVICE 151.37 PAYROLL FOR APRIL PAYROLL 8 & 9 61,124.75 250,101.37 800 MHZ FUND LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICE 19,724.28 MCI WORLDCOM SERVICE 3,245.51 QWEST SERVICE 1~989.08 24,958.87 HOUSING FUND CENTURYfEL SERVICE 44.18 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICE 402.00 RRC ASSOCIATES SERVICE 7,478.75 SLIFER MANAGEMENT SERVICE 200.86 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICE 103.82 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE 117.56 PAYROLL FOR APRIL PAYROLL8&9 2,195.30 10,542.47 HAZARDOUS MATERIAL FUND JJ KELLER AND ASSOCIATES SERVICE 52M5 RBIS ENVIRONMENTAL INC SERVICE 448.55 STEVE CARVER SERVICE 1,200.00 VISA CARD SERVICES SERVICE 248.29 2,423.49 OPEN SPACE FUND ARCHIBEQUE LAND CONSULTIN SERVICE 1,375.00 SHAPINS ASSOCIATES SERVICE 95,00 1,470.00 LANDFILL FUND ACZ LABORATORY INC SERVICE 514.00 AIR CYCLE CORPORATION SERVICE 555.00 ALPINE DESIGN AND SERVICE 500.00 AMERIGAS SERVICE 1,327.79 BARBARA HENDRICK REIMBURSEMENT 49,94 CAROLINA SOFTWARE SERVICE 300.00 CENTRAL SERVlCESlEC SERVICE 74.22 CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH & SERVICE 12,677.35 DOWN V ALLEY SEPTIC SERVICE 790.00 EAGLE V ALLEY ALLIANCE SERVICE 50,000.00 13 05/01/07 FRONT RANGE TIRE RECYCLE GRANT WRITING USA HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC KELLY L BERRY KRW CONSULTING INC LBA ASSOCIATES QWEST INTERPRISE NETWRKNG RONALD RASNIC TRI COUNTY FIRE US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAIL DAILY THE VISA CARD SERVICES WASTE NEWS WESTERN SLOPE BAR WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE PAYROLL FOR APRIL SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL 8&9 12,017.80 425.00 549.05 18.13 4,33.1.87 2,987.03 5,417.13 42.11 391.00 810.00 693.60 21.43 64.00 155.95 193.10 12.93 19,840.91 114,759.34 MOTOR POOL FUND A&E TIRE INC AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INC BERTIIOD MOTORS BOBCAT OF THE ROCKIES BURT CHEVROLET, INC CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE CENTRAL SERVICESlEC CENTURYTEL COLLEITS CORPORATE EXPRESS CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN DELLENBACH MOTORS EAGLE COUNTY CLERK EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL EVERYDAY OUTFITTERS FARIS MACHINERY CO FORCE AMERICA G& K SERVICES GOODYEAR WHOLESALE TIRE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND HANSON EQUIPMENT HENSLEY BATfERY HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC llffERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY KINDER MORGAN INC LAWSON PRODUCTS LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC M&MAUTOPARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS OJ WATSON COMPANY INC POWER MOTIVE PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL SIGNATURE SIGNS STEVINSON CHEVROLET TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE SER.VICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE. SUPPUES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 1,324.05 87.36 208.80 226.94 599.67 323.49 98.01 75.03 99,505.68 342.84 69.61 60,798.00 209.20 89.83 3,965.00 1,487.70 281.73 453.48 253.006101.32 99,718.18 630.20 1,503.81 292.00 1,948.96 2,063.09 584.96 1,803.65 15.37 1,343.35 907.84 1,197.88 1,923.00 34,862.83 1,279.97 14 05/01/07 TRI COUNTY FIRE TWO RIVERS CHEVROLET US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAIL DAILY THE VAIL ELECTRONICS VANWORKS INC VISA CARD SERVICES WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WASTE MANAGEMENT WEAR PARTS EQUIPMENT WESTERN COLORADO WESTERN IMPLEMENTS WESTERN SLOPE PAINT WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYNNE MORGAN XEROX CORPORATION ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE PAYROLL FOR APRIL SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIf:S SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPUES PAYROLL 8 &9 358.60 293.80 1,878.48 2,394.00 959.43 329.98 255.72 1,433.99 117.54 1,134.80 505.34 758.03 983.47 9,939.86 7.60 174.00 80.73 19,633.42 361,814.62 HEALm INSURANCE FUND AFLAC ATIN:RPS JEFFERSON PILOT FINANCIAL EMPLOYEE BENEFIT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 3,147.62 4,270.85 7,418.47 ENHANCED E911 FUND CENTURYTEL LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES NOMAD TECHNOLOGIES QWEST SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 178.45 395.02 850.00 11,262.89 12,686.36 4,299,380.51 Executive Session It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on the Equestrian Center assets and Crown Mountain cell site locations, which are appropriate topics for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b) and (e) Colorado Revised Statutes. It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to go into Executive Session for the purpose of discussing personnel matters regarding the County Attorney's performance review which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(t) Colorado Revised Statutes. It was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn from Executive Session. Special Recognition Award Sandra Suther Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder Ms. Simonton stated that Ms. Suther was currently the Motor Vehicle Coordinator. She is about to be promoted to Sr. Branch Manager. She recently received a very nice letter of thanks for her help in processing a complicated motor vehicle transaction for a customer. Ms. Simonton thought it would be nice to recognize her and thank her publicly for her help. 15 05/01/07 Chairman Menconi read a letter submitted by Mr. John Cook that stated he had received outstanding, warm and friendly service from Ms. Suther. Mr. Cook further stated in his letter that Ms. Suther would be a good role model for those that don't seem motivated when they go to work. Chairn1an Menconi publicly thanked John and people like John who take the time to write in. He also thanked Ms. Suther for being a beam of light for public service. Consent Agenda Chairman Menconi stated the first item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the weeks of April 30 and May 7, 2007 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for May 10,2007 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Agreement between Eagle County and Holy Cross Energy for electrical service at Golden Eagle, Seniors on Broadway Rick Ullom, Facilities Management D. Agreement between Eagle County and Vail Valley Charitable Fund Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services E. Agreement between Eagle County and Roaring Fork Family Resources Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services F. Agreement between Eagle County and Mountain Valley Development Services Kate Forinash, Health & Human Services G. Agreement between Eagle County and Ground Engineering Consultants for geotechnical service for trail construction Ellie Caryl, Eco Trails H. Agreement between Eagle County and Ground. Engineering Consultants for geotechnical engineering services on Cooley Mesa Road Greg Schroeder, Engineering I. Highway 6 BikelPedestrian Sidewalk License Agreement with the Colorado Department of Transportation Engineering Department Representative J. Highway 6 Bike/Pedestrian Sidewalk Construction and Maintenance Agreement with Big-O Tires Minor Subdivision Engineering Department Representative K. Resolution 2007-047 authorizing the release of the Jules Drive Extension Parcel and authorizing the application to the Federal Aviation Administration for such release Attorney's Office Representative L. Agreement to become party to Rocky Mountain Rail Authority contract Attorney's Office Representative M. Consent to Redevelopment of Avon CenterImpact on reserved parking for HHS Facility in Avon Center Attomey's Office Representative 16 05/01/07 N. Resolution 2007-048 concerning appointments to the Eagle County Planning Commission Keith Montag, Community Development Chairman Menconi asked the Attorney's Office ifthere were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Tren, County Attorney stated that based on earlier discussion he recommended pulling item M. The item would be brought back for consideration at a later date. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-N, excluding Item M. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Citizen Input Sara Will, Executive Director of Access Vail Valley spoke. She th.~ked the Facilities Department for installing a sign at Freedom Park in Edwards. Unfortunately, there isn't a good entrance where they installed the accessible signage because there are concrete barriers. She proposed removing part of the concrete barriers so that if needed a vehicle ramp could be used. She stated her desire to come up with a logical solution that would work for everyone. She distributed a photo ofa student stuck in the mud because there is no accessible paved area,in the dirt parking lot. She would like the park to be enjoyed by everyone this summer. Commissioner Fisher asked Ms. Will if she had met with someone from the Facilities Department to discuss design options. Ms. Will stated that she met with Pete Fralick last year and site visit was performed. She stated that often times things are in the ABA manual that may not be right for a particular sitUation, this is one of those situations because it is a dirt parking lot. She suggested a trip to the site to review what has been done and continue to work towards a solution. She hopes that when the facilities are built that they not only get the expertise of the ABA coordinators but the people in the community as well. Chairman Menconi stated.that it was his understanding last time she spoke to the board that a visit would be preformed to discuss recommendations and cost. He apologized for the oversight and stated that he appreciates her persistence. Ms. Will stated that she believes there is way to get a quick fix to the problem until a concrete slap could be built. Commissioner Fisher concurred with Chairman Menconi's and stated that she would like to take a comprehensive look at it and get some of the issues resolved before summer is over. Chairman Menconi requested that Mr. Montag look at the cost of an asphalt pad for the accessible handicap parking. He also suggested that Ms. Will let the board know through email her thoughts on the progress. Commissioner Fisher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office APPUCANT: REPRESENTATIVE: LOCATION: REQUEST: STAFF REPRESENTATIVE: CONCERNS I ISSUES: The Bookworm of Edwards, !nc d/b/a The Bookworm of Edwards Kristen Allio & Nicole Magistro, Owners 295 Main Street C 1 0 1. & 102 Edwards, CO New Tavern Liquor License Kathy Scriver None DESCRIPTION: 17 05/01/07 This is a new application for a Tavern License. This establishment will be located in the Riverwalk Ruby Building in Edwards. The owner wishes to offer their customers coffee drinks, wine by the glass or a beer while browsing their reading selections. STAFF REPORT AND FINDINGS: ESTABUSHlNG THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. During prior discussions the Staff determined that the neighborhood would be based on a two-mile radius to the proposed location. This area was determined by the Board to be sufficient. Staff recommends the following neighborhood: A two radius including but not limited to, the major subdivisions of Singletree, Old Edwards Estates, Homestead, Scottsville, Arrowhead, and Riverwalk. Also included in the two-mile radius are all areas of unincorporated Edwards. MOTION: Commissioner Runyon moved that Board establish the neighborhood to include the area within a two-mile radius from the proposed location of The Bookworm, including, but not limited to, the major subdivisions of Singletree, Old Edwards Estates, Homestead, Scottsville, Arrowhead, and Riverwalk. Also included in the two- mile radius are all areas of unincorporated Edwards. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. NEEDS AND DESIRES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD 1. All members of the Board have been provided with copies of the petition submitted by the applicant and summary provided by the Clerk's Office. The Board will consider the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood, the desires of the adult inhabitants.ofthe neighborhood and whether the existing licenses are adequate to meet these needs and desires, per the Colorado Liquor Code, Section J2-347-301 (2) (a). 2~ There are currently three (3) Tavern Licenses issued in the Edwards area. 3. This application is in order, all application requirements have been met, all necessary documents have been received, and all fees have been paid. 4. Ms. Allio & Ms. Magistro are server trained, over 21 and reported to be of good moral character. 5. Public notice has been given by the posting of a sign in a conspicuous place on the p~mises April 19, 2007 and by publication in the Eagle Valley Enterprise on April 19, and April 26, 2007. 6. The premises are not within 500 feet of a location for which, within 2 years preceding the application, a license of the same class was denied for the reason that the reasonable requirements of the neighborhood and the desires of the adult inhabitants were satisfied by existing outlets. The premises are not within 500 feet of any public or parochial school or the campus of any college, university, or seminary. 7. These findings have been made known, in writing, to the applicant and other interested parties, five (5) days prior to this hearing. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: All fmdings are positive and staff recommends approval. DISCUSSION: Commissioner Runyon wondered what was included in a Tavern license. 18 05/01/07 Ms. Scriver stated that the difference between a Tavern and Hotel and Restaurant license was the food service requirements. The food service for a Tavern license only requires snack ,items such as sandwiches be available. Commissioner Runyon asked if the license would include wine, beer and hard spirits as well. Ms. Scriver stated that it would. Commissioner Runyon asked the applicants if they intended to serve hard liquor. Ms. Allio stated that initially when they open they will only offer beer and wine, possibly in the future they will offer Bailey's and Kahlua coffee drinks but they wouldn't offer any mixed drinks. Commissioner Runyon wondered if it would be possible to make that a condition. Ms. Scriver stated that originally the applicant could have applied for a beer and wine license but having a tavern license would offer them more flexibility. Ms. Magistro stated that they conduct a lot of author events such as book signings and book club meetings; Those are currently held offsite in local restaurants in Edwards. Their desire is to hold those events at their new location and have beer and wine available to their customers. Commissioner (who) asked about the food items being provided. Ms. Allio stated that there would not be a full kitchen for cost reasons and they are primarily a bookstore and intend to stay that way. They will primarily serve crepes, ,something that no one else is doing currently. Commissioner (who) wondered what time of day they will make alcohol available. Ms. Allio stated that had not yet been determined' but she imaginedaround noon. Commissioner Fisher stated her concerns for someone getting a coffee drink to go. Ms. Allio stated that there will be signage posted at all doors. There will be no to go containers for drinks containing alcohol. Chairman Menconi congratulated the applicants and stated that he thought if was a great idea and asset. Ms. Magisto stated they have many more opportunities in the . larger space and are expecting a lot of great authors. Commissioner Fisher stated that she is excited about the bookstore, but she is just a little concerned about the concept of alcohol in a bookstore on an ongoing basis. She had reviewed the applicant's resumes and knows their background and has complete faith that they'll be diligent as to who they serve and how they serve. She would like itto be restrictive to certain events and certain times. Ms. Magistro stated that there are a lot of bookstores throughout the country that have this type of concept and it has worked well for them. There is currently a bookstore in Steamboat Springs that has had a lot of success and has built their reputation as a gathering place. She promised that they would be diligent and take Commissioner Fishers concerns to heart. Commissioner Runyon moved that the Board fmd that there is a reasonable requirement and desire for the issuance of this license and that the existing licenses do not adequately satisfy these needs and desires and, therefore, approve a new tavern liquor license for The Bookworm of Edwards, Inc. d/b/a The Bookworm of Edwards based on the testimony, petitions, and evidence submitted today and incorporating the stafffmdings. Such license is to be issued upon the written fmdings and decision of this Board and ' upon a final inspection of the premises by our Clerk and Recorder's Office to determine that the applicant has complied with the site information provided today and as may be required by the Colorado Liquor Code. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Commissioner Fisher asked the applicant if they had received their food service license and inspection of the premises for food service; Ms. Allio stated that they have not received their fmal walk through because they're still under construction. Commissioner Fisher stated that the issuance of the license being active is predicated on the approval of the food service license. Ms. Scriver stated that the establishment was still under construction and would not open until the end of the month. She had not received any response or concerns from environmental health that there would a problem with them receiving an approval. The vote was declared unanimous. 19 05/01/07 Commissioner Fisher moved to adjoUOl as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority and re-convene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Planning Files AFP-00249 Lake Creek Farm Lots 1 & 2 Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department NOTE: ACTION: Tabled from April 10, 2007 The purpose of this plat is to amend the existing building envelope on Lot 2 and move it closer to the shared lot line between Lots 1 and 2. In addition, a new access, drainage and utility easement will also be created on Lot 1. LOCATION: 1003/1005 Lake Creek Road; Edwards LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: 1003/1 005 Lake Creek Road; Edwards WhiterockProperties, LLC Owner Reslock and Sullivan, LLC 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Lake Creek Farm is a three (3)-lot subdivision approved in 2000. The subdivision is accessed via an easement across the Palmerosa Ranch Subdivision, from Lake Creek Road. The property has significant topography, and is in a highly visible location. At present, all three (3) properties have platted building envelopes; Lot 3 is not subject to this amen4ment. To access the developable building site on Lot 2, a new access drive would be necessary. This access would require significant disturbance of the site. As such, the applicants would like to relocate the building envelope on Lot 2 and situate it closer to the northern property line of Lot 1. By,moving the envelope to its proposed location, the access drive would be significantly shorter, and result in less site disturbance. In addition, the envelope (and proposed single family home) would be further removed from significant wildlife habitat on the neighboring lands to the west. During this process, the Division of Wildlife was contacted in order for Staff to obtain their opinion regarding this proposal. They were very much in favor of the proposed amendment. B. CHRONOLOGY: $ 2000- $ 2006- Lake Creek Farm was platted. Application for modifying the Lake Creek Farm was made. The application was initially a request to subdivide the property. After obtaining responses from the Eagle County Planning and Engineering Departments, and the Division of Wildlife, the applicants modified their request in the opposite direction by requesting to move the existing building envelope further away from significant wildlife habitat and closer to the existing driveway easement on Lot I; thus, minimizing the site disturbance that would result from the necessary access drive for Lot 2. C. SITE DATA: 20 05/01/07 Rural Residential Agricultural Limited Resource 1,633,238.6 sq ft Via access easement from Lake Creek Rd D. NECESSARY FINDINGS: Pursuant to Section 5-290.0.3. Standards for Amended Final Plat: a. Adja~ent property. Review of the Amended Final Platl1as determined that the proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. All odjacentpropertyowners were notifiedfor this file as requiredpursuantto Section 5-210. No responses were received from any of the adjacent property owners. By relocating the envelope lower on the slope, closer to Lot 1, site disturbance will be minimized to the greatest extent possible. b. Final Plat Consistency. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined that the proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. Lake Creek Farm was platted in 2000. At the time of platting this subdivision, all three (3) lots were intendedfor residential development and were provided platted building envelopes determining placement of the dwellings. As this project seek to relocate an existing envelope for a futtne residential structure, the intent of this plat IS consistent with the previous approval. c. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Review of the Amended Final Plat has determined thatthe proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. d. Improvement Agreement. DOES NOT apply. e. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT apply. E. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages. 21 05/01/07 When considering this proposal, the benefits of relocating the building envelope on Lot 2 far outweigh the disadvantages of utilizing the existing building envelope for future development. Benefits include: Minimizes site disturbance Reduces the visual effects of future development by relocating the building envelope/future dwelling lower on the hillside which minimizes scarring on the hillside from a shorter driveway; Further separates the future residence from significant wildlife habitat. Disadvantages: None At present the property owner could apply for, and would receive a building permit for a single family home to be constructed in the existing/platted building envelope location. *The applicants have satisfied all of the necessary fmdings for this application. Commissioner Fisher moved to table File No. AFP-00249 Lake Creek Farm Lots 1 & 2 to June 26, 2007 or July 3, 2007 if the June meeting is cancelled. . .. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS..00152 Foster ADU Terri Johnson, Planning Department ACTION: Owners of a nonconforming 7.67 acre property located in the resource zone district are seeking a special use permit in order to construct a secondary 1,800 sq ft accessory dwelling unit. LOCATION: 0795 Willits Lane Basalt; S3 T8S R87W FILE NOJPROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: O~R: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF PLANNER: ~S-00152 / Special Use Permit Foster ADU 795 Willits Lane Jeremy & Angela Foster Owners Land Studio; Doug and Julie Pratte Terri Johnson 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicants are proposing to construct an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) of 1800 square feet on their property at 795 Willits Lane, just west of the Town of Basalt boundary. The property is relatively level. The southern property line follows a portion of the Roaring Fork River and is lined with dense, native vegetation. Currently the property sustains a single family residence and a garage, two accessory buildings with habitable space, a workshop, carport and storage shed. Accessory buildings up to 850 square feet are allowed by right in the Resource Zone District. 22 05/01/07 A building envelope is being proposed for the additional unit to ensure a limit of disturbance to the character of the existing meadow on the NorthWest side of the property, the 100 year flood plain and 7S' stream setback, as well as the historic orchard on the North side of the property. Per the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Resource Zone District permits an Accessory Dwelling Unit of up to 1800 sqUare feet as a 'use by right' on conforming properti~_s of 35 acres or greater. This particular property is comprised of 7.67 acres rendering it a (legal), nonconforming property. As such, the ADD use requires a Special Use Permit in lieu of a 'use by right' via building permit in order to assess the potential land use with a more ' detailed analysis. Special Use Permits are valid for three (3) years before use implementation. With the onset of the approved use, Special Use Permits remain valid in perpetuity thereafter; unless an expiration date or exception has been placed upon the permit by the Board of County Commissioners. B. SITE DATA: South: Diemoz River Ranch PUD 4 Platted Residential Lots East: Residential Town of Basalt Single Family Residential Property is nonconforming; Mid Valley Metro District Via Willits Lane 334,105 sq ft C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: . Late 1800's- Current primary dwelling is constructed. ' . 1979- Jeremy & Angela Foster purchase the property. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-250 Special Use Permits Section Purpose: Special Uses are those uses that are not necessarily compatible with the other uses allowed in a zone district, but which may be determined compatible with the other 23 05/01/07 uses allowed in the, zone district based upon individual review of their. location, design, configuration, density and intensity of use, and the imposition of appropriate conditions to ensure the compatibility of the use at a particular location with surrounding land uses. All Special Uses shall meet the standards set forth in this Section. Standards: Section 5-250.B. The issuance of a Special Use Permit shall be dependent upon findings that there is competent evidence that the proposed Use as conditioned, fully complies with all the standards of this Section, this Division1 this Article1 and these Land Use Regulations. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Board of County Commissioners may attach any conditions deemed appropriate to ensure compliance with the following standards, inc1uding.conformity toa specific site plan, requirements to improve public facilities necessary to serve the Special Use, and limitations on the operating characteristics of the use, or the location or duration of the Special Use Permit. STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-250.B.J] The proposedSpecial Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Pian and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards/or building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN "Plan Area" See Mid Valley Community Master Plan . x x Xl X X X X X X Xl- ADUsare encouraged in the Comprehensive Plan. The intent of this ADU is for private purposes (by defmition, the ADU is, "... intended for occupancy by the caretaker of said property, persons who . live and work in Eagle County, or relatives and guests of the occupants of the principal use of the property." There are no provisions or statements indicating that this is intended for employee housing. MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN x x x 24 05/01/07 EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN x x x x x x x ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ... ...MEE, ~ THE, MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall beappropriatefor its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. South: Diemoz River Ranch PUD East: Residential Town of Basalt West: Residential Resource x X X ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ME. ETSTHEMAJ, . ORITYOFMINIMUMSTAN,D ARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5-250.B.3] TheproposedSpecial Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Awicultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. Review Standard: Requirements: 3.310.A Accessory Dwelling Unit Size: Sq Ft: 1800 No. Bedrooms: 3 ADU Location: Independent/separate from main unit Parking: Two (2) parking spa.ces (required) Potable Water: Public~ Mid Valley Metro District Waste Water: Public- Mid Valley Metro District Solid Waste Disposal: Yes Electrical Supply: Yes Fire Protection: Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Access: Via direct access easement to Willits Lane 25 05/01/07 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . . MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS ., DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact. [Section 5-250.B.4] The design of the proposed Special U,se shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact oftheproposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking andloading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, andshall not create a nuisance. As conditioned meets minimum standards. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ., MEETS THE MAJORITY 0, F MINIMUM," STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact. [Section 5-250.B.5} The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. See Conditions 2, 3, 5, 6 As conditioned meets minimum standards. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 26 05/01/07 D' DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and e1Jlergencymedical services. See Conditions 4, 5, 8 As conditioned meets minimum standards. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ' ~ .'. MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MmWUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B. 7] The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. X Off-Street ParkinlZ and LoadinlZ Standards (Division 4-1) 4,5 X LandscapinlZ and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sim RelZUlations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) 2 X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) 6 X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridge/ine Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) 2,3,6 X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) 27 05/01/07 Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) 4,5 X Sidewalk and Trail Standmds (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-6(0) 8 X Drainage Standmds (Section 4-650) 3 X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) 3,5,6 X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) 8 X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) 8 X Imoact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Applicable ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS .. MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS . DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Other Provisions. [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . ,MEETS THE MAJORITY OF, MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Colorado Geological Survey- Please refer to attachment dated March 22, 2007: . In response to your request I visited this property to review the development plans. . The Application for Special Review for Accessory Dwelling Unit (1/8/07) prepared by the Land Studio included a Flood Hazard Area Delineation (11/14/01) prepared by Matrix Design Group. The property consists of7.67 acres on which an accessory dwelling is planned. . Floodplain. The site includes a section of the Eagle River and its floodplain. The site plan by the Land Studio shows the 75-ft setback from the high water mark of the river that is required by Eagle County for construction. The proposed ADU would not encroach on this setback, there is a distinct terrace break that separates the existing and proposed development from the floodplain limits. There should be no impact to the development from flooding. 28 05/01/07 . The access to the ADU would cross an irrigation ditch. This crossing (which was snow-covered at the time of my visit) would probably require some improvement to meet Eagle County requirements. · Erosion methods should be in place before grading at the site begins. · The terrace alluvium at the site should provide a good substrate for a foundation, but the foundation excavation should be examined by a geotechnical engineer to confirm conditions. Below grade construction is not recommended because of the possibility of wetness when groundwater rises during high river stage. . There are no geological conditions that would preclude development. . See Condition 6 Town of Basalt - Please refer to attachment dated April 5, 2007: . Due to our Planning and Zoning Commission schedule we were notable to formally present this referral to the Commission; . Town Staff has spoken with the Land Studio and prepared the following staff comments for your consideration: . The Town supports creating a building envelope that is outside of the 100 year flood plain, outside of significant areas of native vegetation and habitat, and ,does not impact the historic orchard on the site. · The Town of Basalt owns parkland near the site. The Town would support any expansion of public enjoyment of the Roaring Fork by way of fisherman easements and/or protection of native habitat through conservation easements. The Roaring Fork Conservancy should be contacted to provide additional insight and recommendations on wildlife and habitat protection strategies. · Connection to the Mid Valley Metro District for water and sewer service is supported by the Town and should be included asa condition of approval. . Protecting major stands of existing vegetation and trees is supported by the Town including specific tree protection measures and fenceing that should be required during construction. . Additional technical analysis of drainage issues and water quality protection should be considered. . The Town also supports the modest size of both the historic homestead and the proposed accessory dwelling unit provided that the ADD approvals include limitations on the allowable size of both of the units consistent with the current application/proposal. . The following comments were provided by the Basalt Town Engineer. · The applicant's property appears to overlay a portion of Willits Lane (formerly Eagle County Road No. 13) audit's unclear whether a fOrinal right of way for this road has previously been dedicated. If sufficient right.;.of-way has not been previously dedicated to the Town, it should be done as part of this application. . A Town of Basalt Access Permit will be required. · The existing driveway may encroach into Parcel 10, the Town of Basalt Public Park (part ofSopris Meaoows PUD). Ifit does, this should be cleared up as part of the Willits Lane access permit (see above). This should be determined by a boundary survey as recommended on the Existing Conditions survey in the application. · Willits Lane is owned and maintained by the Town. The Town requests that any road impact fees collected by Eagle County be transferred to the Town in accordance with the existing IGA between Eagle County and the Town of Basalt. · The Town is undertaking a comprehensive study of Willits Lane including the planning for potential street and pedestrian/trail improvements. The study should be completed in 2007 and may include recommendations for improvements adjacent to the Applicant's property . See Condition 7, 8 Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District ~ Please refer to attachment dated March 28, 2007: · To follow are comments relative to the Foster application for an ADU unit at 0795 Willits Lane, Basalt, Colorado. · Access. The applicant has proposed that a 14' foot wide driveway with a one foot shoulder on either side extending from the existing structures be installed. Based on the submitted site plan this width is acceptable. Additional comments are as follows: . Vertical clearance of 13' 6" shall be maintained; . All grades shall be 10% or less; 29 05/01/07 . The surface shall be an all weather surface H-20 load rated at 60,000 pounds . The driveway shall terminate at the ADU unit such that a fire truck can extend a 150 foot hoseline and reach all points of the perimeter of the building; . A turn around at the building that has been depicted does not appear to meet the following requirements: · The outside radius shall be a minimum of 50'; · Any inside radii shall be a minimum of 30'; WaterSuDDlv. Water supply for fIre suppression shall confonn to the standardsofNFPA 1142 and Appendix B of the International Fire Code, 2003. The requirement shall be 1,000 gallons per minute for a minimum of2 hours for any dwelling up to 3600 square feet and of Type V-B construction. As this property is within the Mid-Valley Metro Water District, 3 of their hydrants are within the proximity ofthis property. Based on previous hydrant tests, a flow meeting the above requirements would be expected. These hydrants will be tested when the building and site plans are presented to the Basalt Fire Department as part of the building pennit review process. Based on the application submitted and conditions outlined above, the Basalt Fire Department approves of the application for a Special Use ADU unit. . See Condition 4, 8 Eagle County Environmental Health Department - Please refer to attachment dated April 3, 2007: . Eagle County Environmental Health Department reviewed the Foster ADU Special Use Permit Application and respectfully submits the following comments to better mitigate anticipated environmental impacts: · We recommend a condition be included to require a separate grading pennit be ' submitted along with the building pennit application. The grading permit application must include dust suppression and storm water/erosion control plans approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health Department. Failure to adhere to the aforementioned plans will result in a stopping work until compliance with the approved plans is restored. . See Condition 3 Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to attachment dated April 5, 2007: . The Eagle County Engineering Department has reviewed the above referenced submittal dated March 5,2007. . The proposed driveway extension which will provide access to the accessory dwelling unit (ADD) is 16 feet wide. Unfortunately, the driveway is constricted at a narrow opening between the existing car port and garage. My concern is thata parked vehic1e(s) could easily block regular and emergency access to the ADU. The applicant will need to address this concern. . See Condition 5 Colorado Division of Wildlife - Please refer to attachment dated March 28,2007: . The 'Foster property located on Willits Lane does not lie within any mapped mule deer or Elk winter range. Mapped elk winter range is adjacent tot the property located on the south side of the Roaring Fork River. The proposed ADU site plan and building envelope should have minimal impact to wildlife. In order to minimize the impacts that will be created the following recommendation should be considered: . Maintain 75' setback from high water mark of Roaring Fork River. . No removal of vegetation outside of the building envelope and maintain native. vegetation to greatest extent possible within the building envelope. . Bear/human conflicts have the potential to be a reoccurring problem in this area and it is paramount that certain measures be taken to minimize these conflicts: · Homeowners have and use an approved bear-proof container for storing all trash/garbage. Trash compactors inside the house can help eliminate bulk and odors, which will further reduce potential problems. 30 05/01/07 · Pets should be fed indoors, and pet food or food containers should not be left outside. · BBQs should also be securely housed in the garage or cleaned with bleach solution when not in use due to the fact that leftover food and grease are an overwhelming bear attractant. · Round door knobs on the outside of doors rather than the lever type can limit bear access into houses as well as installing a cooling system rather that leaving windows open, as this is the main way bears access homes in the summer. · Bird feeders can be used but do not mount hummingbird feeders on windows or the sides of the house. Seed feeders should be strung up at least 10' from the ground with a seed catchment to discourage other wildlife foraging. · Fencing should be held to a minimum. Fencing that is required should meet or exceed COOW Wildlife standards. For wire fencing, 42" maximum height, 4 wire with a 12" kick space between the top two strands. Rail fencing should be 48" or less with at least 18" between 2 of the rails. . · See Condition 2 Additional Referral Agencies ~ This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Assessor's Office; Attorney's Office; Road and Bridge Department; Sheriff's Office; Weed and Pest; Wildfire Mitigation Specialist . USFS; Mid Valley Metropolitan District c. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages. The majority of the improvements needed to prepare the Foster site will be covered with a submittal for grading. and building permits. The applicant appears to have made consideration for possible impacts of an additional dwelling unit on their property. Benefits: The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan encourages the approval of Accessory Dwelling Uses in unincorporated Eagle County. The Town of Basalt is also in support of this application. Disadvantages: The one concern that came up in a number of referral comments is in regard to the driveway and access. The access permit required'by the Town of Basalt should clean up any right-of-way designation issues. Also the driveway will be .examined via the grading permit by the Eagle County Engineering Department as well as Basalt & Rural Fire. D. PLANNING COMMISSION I BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT) request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT) request ifit is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not incompliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT) request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 31 05/01/07 4. Approve the [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request with conditions and/or .performance standards if it is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Ms. Johnson presented a PowerPoint presentation. She stated that the applicants are proposing to construct an accessory dwelling Unit (ADD) ofl800 square feet on their property at 795 Willits Lane, just west of the Town of Basalt boundary. Currently the property sustains a single-family residence and a garage, two accessory buildings with habitable space, a workshop, carport and storage shed. The presentation included several photos of the site and existing ADU. A building envelope is being proposed for the additional unit to ensure a limit of disturbance to the character of the existing meadow on the North West side of the property, the 100 year flood plain and7S' stream setback, as well as the historic orchard on the North side of the property. The access point to the property is off of Willets lane. The'original house on the property was constructed in the late 1800's. The Foster's purchased the property in 1979. The applicant will have to consider an existing ditch at the access point because the ditch is still used loCally. She indicated that the application complies with the minimum standards for an ADU as far as access, water and ftre and safety. Julie Pratte from the Land Studio spoke. She explained the reason for the proposal. She stated that the existing home the applicants currently live in is~ma11. They would like to preserve the old homestead and be able to live in something that is newer and :fits their needs. As they get older, they would like to have someone live on site and help them take care of the property. They are dedicated to preserving the property. Chairman Menconi opened public comment was opened and closed, as there was none. Ms. Pratte stated that the original home would be designated the ADD and the newADD would become their home preserving the original home site. Commissioner Runyon asked the square footage of the proposed residence. Ms. Pratte stated that there had not yet been a determination because they had originally looked at the proposed size of the ADD, whichwas 1800 sq. ft. They would love their new home to be around 2400 square feet. Commissioner Runyon asked the recommendation of the Roaring Fork Planning Commission. Ms. Johnson stated that the Commission recommended approval but it was their idea to bring forth a condition designating the homestead as the ADD upon occupancy of the new one. This would allow a little more freedom with the new home. Commissioner Runyon wondered if a 4000 square foot cap should be placed on the new home. Angela Foster stated that the Roaring Fork Planning Commission recommended a larger home would be better conforming to the area. Ms. Johnson stated that a size cap could be placed on the new home if the board desired. Chairman Menconi read condition 10 and asked if the condition would limit the' square footage of the home. Ms. Johnson stated that the condition would not limit the size of the new unit, only the height and building envelope. Ms. Pratte stated that the applicant would like to modify condition 2. They would prefer adding the word "native" concerning vegetation. . Commissioner Fisher referred to condition 7 regarding the:fishing easement. She thanked the applicant for making that available to the public. Commissioner Runyon wondered if the other commissioners had a problem with adding an additional condition restricting the maximum square footage in the new primary residence to 4000, square feet. Chairman Menconi suggested 5000 square.feet. Commissioner Fisher wondered if there was a need to discuss a caretaker type unit associated with the garage. Commissioner Runyon stated that he would like to prevent a home of 10,000 square feet from being built in the future. Ms. Johnson stated that the original homestead would count as their other dwelling unit because it has a kitchen. They would not be permitted to have another separate unit legally. 32 05/01/07 Commissioner Runyon moved to approve File No. ZS-00152 Foster ADU with the following conditions I- 10 that staff presented with amendment to condition 2, adding the word "native" in front of vegetation and adding a condition number, I I , that the new residence be restricted to 5000 square feet of residential footage. 1. Except asothelWise modified by this development pennit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. There shall be no removal of vegetation outside of the platted building envelope. 3. Bear mitigation measures as suggested by the Division of Wildlife will be adhered to with the exception of an installed cooling system. 4. A separate grading penn it is required along with a building pennit to ensure erosion control is in place and dust suppression measures have been taken. 5. All requirements as indicated in the March 28, 2007 memo from the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District will be met. ) 6. The access for the new unit will be consistent with comments fromthe Eagle County Engineering Department including compliance with standards for crossing an irrigation ditch. 7. A fishing easements shall be granted to the public designated to five feet (5') from the river's high water mark on the island on the south side of the applicants property. 8. The final approval of admission into the Mid V alley Metropolitan District for public use of water and sewage treatment. 9. An access permit from the Town of Basalt will be required to address an easement for Willits Lane as well as a possible driveway encroachment into a public park. 10. The original homestead will be designated as the Additional Dwelling Unit (ADD) with an FAR restriction of 1.800 square feet; the new unit will abide by the underlying zoning dimensional limitations and be contained within the platted building envelope. 11. The new residence is restricted to 5000 square fee of residential footage. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00067 - Cordillera Valley Club West End Noise Mitie:ation and Landscavine: I Hermine: Lisa de Graaf. Planning Department Interstate 1-70 Noise Mitigation including a combination of landscaping, berms and barriers along the entire CVC frontage. LOCATION: North side ofI-70, extending the boundary of the Cordillera Valley Club. ACTION: FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: PDA-00067 / Planned Unit Development Amendment Cordillera Valley Club Sound Mitigation & Landscaping Project Edwards, Colorado Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District 33 05/01/07 APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: Same as Owner VAg, mc. Architects and Planners 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REOUEST: The Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District is proposing to build a noise mitigation barrier. The purpose of the barrier is to reduce the noise levels from 1-70 vehicle traffic thatis perceived as a nuisance and negatively impacts the quality oflife of Cordillera Valley Club's residents and visitors. The proposed barrier would be located along the southern edge of an existing service road on the Cordillera Valley Club (CVC, hereafter) golf course parcel near the southern property line adjacent to the 1-70 right-of-way. The CVC is pursuing>an Easement which is to be granted by Valley GolfLLC, the golf course operator and owner of the land upon which the proposed improvements will be made, to CVC for the purpose of the project. m addition, a Location and Extent application, LEA-00057 is also being reviewed concurrently. This.PUD amendment amends the most current CVC PUD Guide, which was last amended March 29, 1999. It is necessary to revise language in the Guide that currently prohibits the installation of large landscape berms ,and . noise mitigation barriers. The construction of the sound and visual mitigation is a combination of earthen berms and fencing, which would vary in height. The length of the project is approximately 7,500 linear feet; the entireCVC 1-70 frontage. A Holy Cross Utility Easement also generally parallels the property line in this area. B. SITE DATA: South: ROW: 1-70 USFS Lake Creek Aptsl Brett Ranch PUD PUD East: Unplatted/Residential UnplattedlResidential Resource Cordillera Valley Club PUD N/A Residential, golf related recreation Cordillera Metro District Project = 7,500 LF 22.5% 424 (project =16.6) 95.4 C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: 1991 - PUD Sketch Plan was approved for this development which was initially referred to as Cottonwood. 34 05/01/07 1992 - The PUD Preliminary Plan and zone change to PUD was approved which allowed 848 dwelling units, a golf course and associated amenities, a "lodge" and 10,000 square feet of"convenience'~ commercial space. 1994 - An amendm.ent to the PUD was approved which (a) reduced the density from 848 to 445 dwelling units and "allocated" 240 dwelling units to Lake Creek Affordable Housing, (b) transferred 30 acres from the development tracts to the golf course, (c) and eliminated a "lodge site" and the 1 O~OOO square feet of commercial space. 1995 - The initial final plats were approved under the subdivision name of Wildhorse. 1995 - By resolution, the name of the subdivision was changed to Cordillera Valley Club., Subsequent final plats were approved under this subdivision name. 1997 - The PUD was amended to designate certain tracts as "single family" and to provide clarification to certain provisions of the PUD Guide. 1999 - The PUD Guide was amended. 2001 - The PUD was amended for westerly access. D. PLANNING COMMISSION DELffiERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: On April 18, 2007 the Planning Commission heard a presentation for a noise mitigation project from staff and the consultant representing the Cordillera Valley Club. \ Early comments/feedback in the deliberation from the Commission focused on how the applicant 'listened' to former comments on design and landscape elements and that they did a better job in the current application. Additionally~ Commission members commended the applicant/consultant on a good and improved submittal. The Commission also made comments regarding concerns of creating a tunnel effect on 1-70, which isa precedent that is not desired~ Tile following are specific issues that were discussed and/or suggested. · If the precedent. of berming was to be set forth with this application, then doing it well is important. . Use west access into cve for dirt trucks during construction. · No jake-brakes allowed either access routes during construction and hours should be limited to 8 to 5 and Monday - Friday only. . Mitigation to any and all roads into CVC post construction. . The easement agreement between the Metro District and Valley Golf LLC shall be in place. . A landscape guarantee and agreement be provided including standards. . Revisit the site to ensure the landscape plan and guarantee have been 'followed, during construction and after two(2) years time. . The 2:1 slope is implemented on the south side of the noise barrier and berms. . Use other, more natural types of landscaping in addition to current plan, including, but not limited to rock outcroppings. . Water rights for landscaping concerns. . Possibly building project between the fairway and the houses, to lessen the visual impact when seen fromI-70. · If the duration is longer than the anticipated three (3)months, use west access only. (This option uses east access within the first three (3) months). The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to deny application PDA- 00067. The recommendation to deny the File was not based on Regulatory Findings. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: 35 05/01/07 PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-240.F .3.m Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD Section Purpose: No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-104(1)(e) Colorado Revised Statutes. Standards: Sections 5-240.F .J.e., Standards. 5-280.B.3.e Standards and 5-240.F .3.m. Amendment to Preliminarv Plan for PUD are used to evaluate a PUD Amendment. STANDARDS: 5-240.F .J.e STANDARD: Unified ownership or controL [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in theP UD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they wz11 be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . ~ TIlE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM ST, ANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUDshall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effectfor the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j., Variations Authorized Amendment exceeds allowed len Amendment exceeds allowed height The primary uses allowed in the PUD will not be changed. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)J - The dimerzsionallimitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effectfor the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.j., Variations 36 05/01/07 Authorized provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light" air and snowmelt between buildings. x Section S-240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized. provides thatin order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more of the following purposes: Obtains desired design qualities; Avoids environmental resources and natura1 resources; Provides incentives .for water au entation; Provides incentives for trails' Provides incentives for affordable housin ; Provides incentives for ublic facilities. No variation is being proposed. Setbacks: N/A Front N/A Rear N/A Side N/A Stream N/A Height N/A Floor Area Ratio N/A Impervious Coverage N/A Building Coverage N/A This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approvedPUD, other than relative to height and length of berms and noise mitigation barriers. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS .,. MEETS TlII! MAJORTIY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Off-StJ-eet Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkin~ and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: 37 05/01107 (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loadin1: Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation servicesfor these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X' MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS ME, . ETS THE MAJ. ORITY OF MINlMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS This PUD Amendment does not affect parking in the formerly approved PUD. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the pun shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and D/umination Standards. Variatiotls from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. Comments/Description: The CVC must amend the language in the PUD Guide that was last amended in 2001. The applicant proposes to add sub-section under Section ill. Land Use Desienation F. Golf Course ll. Permitted Uses. ill.F.2.D., which reads: "Landscaping, sound, and visual mitigation features to include construction and installation of tree and shrub plant material, irrigation systems, visual screen fences, sound barriers, earthen berms, and walls pursuant to approvalfrom Eagle County". 38 05/01/07 See also condition #1. 8. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X ME. E, TS THE, . MAJQRfIY OF MINIMUM STANDAADS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)J - The sign standards applicable to thePUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Si1m Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development fPUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct USers to and within the PUD. III Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? N/A DYes '=1 No ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEE~ 1HE MAJORfIYOF MINIMUM STANDAADS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS This PUD Amendment appli~tion does ~ot affect standards specified in the formerly approved PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan fot PUD will be provided adequate facilities/or potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police andfire protection, and emergency medical services. x x x x x x In proximity to schools, police & ftre protection, & emergency medical services ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEET, S 1HE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM SoT ANDARDS STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)J - The improvement standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards. Provided, however. the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of irifrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the followingminimum design principles are followed: 39 05/01/07 (a) SaJe, EffICient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO)for thatfunctional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off- site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be grantedfor emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and Jor installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth trqffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle trcifftc. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road.or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the P UD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORiTY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: CompatibUity with Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Nortb: Unplatted Resource X South: ROW: 1-70 X East: Unplatted/Residential Resource X 40 05/01/07 I ,..~,l"i")J.' ,""'lIl West: I ,UnplattedlResidentiaI I Resource I x Discussion This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approved PUD, depending on one's perspective and individual sensibilities. The proposed berming and noise mitigation barrier, when viewed from the South may becoDsidered incompatible. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X ME, EtS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5.;,240.F.3.e (10)) - ThePUDshall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM).'Fhe consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptuallevel,i.e, how aproposal compares' to basic planning principles. As a developmentproposalmoves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its coTl/ormance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not ' necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREBENSIVEPLAN x x x x x x x x x x EDWARDS AREA COMMUNITY PLAN x x x x x x x x x x x x This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approved PUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS 41 05/01/07 D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Phasing. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the P UD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as' early in the project as is reasonable. II' Phasing Plan Provided? 1::1 Yes ~ ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS , MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Common Recreation ~nd OpenSpace. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]- The PUD shall, comply with the following common recreation 'and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to cal9ulate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shallbemultipUed by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (b) Areas. that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (c) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within criticm wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains. as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard. ev~n when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (d) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown. on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. (e) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Planfor PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common openspace, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division' of any common open space. , (f) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. Acres Square feet Square feet 0/. Acres Acres Square feet Acres Square feet 42 05/01/07 Square feet % % This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approved PUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MeETS TIlE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shalT consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recomme1u:lations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Nahnal Resource Protection Standards. XI- According to the DivisionofWUdlife, the project is located adjacent toa mule deer and elk highway crossing area. They suggest any berm construction should be planned to provide for deer fencing and _ape ramp construction - the base of the. berm should be of sufficient distance from any deer fence to prevent the deer from using the berm to jump over the fence. Accumhlation offill against the fencing should be avoided and all fiU on previous berm construction sh()ulci be removed and any damage to fencing should be repaired. The DOW applauds the use of native plants but cautions that it should be understood that mule deer and elk may utilize some to the more palatable plants, and that Some of these species may actually draw wildlife to the landscaping and increase the risk of wDdlife getting on to 1-70. They recommend thatlandscaping trees and shrubs be selected for their low palatability to big game. It may be necessary to fence the new vegetation to prevent wildlife from damaging the plants. · See Condition #2. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS TIlE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARDS: 5-280.B.3.e 43 05/01/07 STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] BThe proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and the FLUM of the Comprehensive Plan. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . MEETS THE MAIOlUTYOF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] B 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 Development Standards. X Off-Street Parkinl!: and Loadinl!: Standards (Division.4-I) X Landscaoinl!: lYtd Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) 1 X Sim Regulations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) 2 X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridge/ine Protection (Section 4-450) X Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) X Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) X Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) X Smoke and Particulates (Section 4-530) X Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interftrence (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) 3 X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) 4 X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposa/Standards (Section 4-690) 44 05/01/07 Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X ~TS TIlE MAJ.. ORITY OF MINIMUMSTANDAlU>S DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Spatia/Pattern Shall Be Efficient [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)]- The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a, "leapfrog" pattern of development. (1) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Etll!le COUItW Road CfllJRal Inwrovements Plan. (2) .. Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoidfuture land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (3) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the-entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than. incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area This PUD Amendment application does not affect standards specified in the formerly approved PUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS TIlE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)]- The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and 45 05/01/07 natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS . . MEE~ THE MAJO,RJ. TY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 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. See prior discussion on Page 9 of this report. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS XMEE~THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. (Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Sketch or Preliminary Plan will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads andwill be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS XMEE~ THE MAJoRITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 5-240.F 3.m. Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD. No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County, following a public hearing called and held in accordance with the provisions of section 24-67-104(IXe) Colorado Revised Statu~s that; (1) Modification. The modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Developments; (2) Adjacent Properties. The PUD Amendment does not effect, ina substantially adverse manner, either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the Planned Unit Development or the public interest; (3) Benefit. The PUD Amendment is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEET,S THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 3. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Eagle County Engineering Department - Please refer to attachment dated April 2, 2007. I. Acceptance from all utilities that are affected by the proposed work must be included with this application. Please provide written approvals from aU utilities. 46 05/01/07 2. The limit of disturbance is shown for the golf course side of the berm, but there is no limit of disturbance shown on the CDOTII-70 side of the berm. Please include on future plans the limit of disturbance on all sides of the berm. 3. A grading permit of permits will be necessary prior to commencing any dirt work including the stockpiling of any additional material that is brought in. Any stockpiles must be contained by acceptable best management practices (BMP). 4. A storm water management plan (SWMP-required for disturbance of areas greater than one acre) must be completed in accordance with the Clean Water Act as administered by the Colorado Discharge Permit System. This must accompany the grading permit application. 5. Sections of the berms are shown with a 1.5: I slope. This is steeper than the steepest allowable slope as defined by the International Building Code (2: 1) (Appendix J). Fill slopes steeper than 2: 1 shall be justified by a soils report prepared and sealed by a licensed engineer. Provide an explanation of how landscaping and maintenance will be accomplished on slopes this steep. 6. Our inspection of the site plans suggest that there will be berms or combinations of berm and fence in excess of the eight (8) feet allowed by regulation, in some areas reaching nearly 30 feet. According to Eagle County Land Use Regulations (ECLUR 3-340.C.4), any fence, hedge, wall, berm, or any combination offences, walls and berms shall not exceed eight (8) feet in height (as measured from natural grade at any point .on the side of the berm that faces an adjacent property). Please provide a,n explanation for the extent ofthis proposal's deviation from height limitations set forth in the ECLUR and include this in the list of deviations as described at the end of this memo. 7. The proposed berms vary in length with the longest being around 1,100 feet long. The ECLUR (3-340.C.4) states that any fence, hedge, wall, berm, or any combination offences; walls and berms shall not exceed 150 feet in length. Please provide an explanation of the deviation from ECLUR for berm lengths that this project is proposing and include this in the list of deviations as described belo",. 8. At station 15+00, the landscaping encroaches on COOT ROW. Written approval from COOT is required to allow any encroachment into the ROW. .. 9. There was no irrigation plan provided for any of the landscaping to the west of station 41 +00 (from 0+00 through 41+00). Please provide more details explaining how the landscaping in this section will be irrigated and maintained. 10. The proposed landscaping easement was not shown on the plans. This must be shown to..illustrate that the proposed easement is adequate for the desired improvements; 11. The proposed easement is not defined as such on the exhibit to be recorded. In addition to the amendment to the PUD, the Easement Exhibit must spell out the purpose and allowable uses for the easement. 12. As was requested at thefttst completeness check, the title commitment is still missing from this application. As such, we eannotcomplete our review of this file untiHhe title commitment is provided. After reviewing this file, we realized that this appUeation was never completed and are still waiting for the title commitment and approvals from the owners of any easements that will be affected by.this proposal. Until these items are provided to the Engineering Department, we are unable to complete our review. .( All of these issues shall be addressed prior to this application moving forward. Please feel free to meet with us to discuss any of these comments. Any approvals that must be acquired shall be provided to the Ellgineering Department to complete this file. We must also receive updated drawings for any changes that are made to address these comments, including grading, landscape, benn/fence, and easementchanges. With regards to deviations that you are seeking from the ECLUR, please provide a list with the following information for each deviation - the governing regulation, requested deviation, and reason for the deviation. The grading issues do not meet standards in the International Building Code (mC). The mc defmes the steepest allowable slopes as a 2: 1 slope. This is the standard to which we review grading plans, and we require a sealed soils report from a licensed engineer stating that the proposed slope is stable. Slopes steeper than 2:1 are generally considered a safety hazard due to the risk of the slope sliding. . See Condition No.1 and No.3 Staff note: The bulk of comments from Engineering have been satisfied. 47 05/01/07 DOW - Please refer to attachment dated March 27, 2007 The project is located adjacent to a mule deer and elk highway crossing area. . FENCING: It is unclear if the proposed berm and fencing will abut the current 8 foot high wildlife fencing on the east end of the property. Any gaps in the fencing could result in increased wildlife/vehicle accidents aswildlife is funneled to these locations. Any berm construction should be planned to provide for the construction of deer fencing and~scape ramps. The base of the berm should be sufficient distance from any deer fence to prevent wildlife from using the berm in an effort to jump over the fencing. The fencing should be protected duing constniction and to.prevent fill from accumulating against the fencing. There are several areas where the previous berm construction has resulted in fill accumulating against the fencing. This fill should be removed and any damage to the fence repaired. . PLANTS: The use of native plants is applauded but is should be understood that mule deer and elk may utilize some of the more palatable plant. The list of evergreen/deciduous shrubs have several highly palatable species (i.e; mountain mahogany, serviceberry, chokecherry). These species may actually draw wildlife to the landscaping increasing the risk of wildlife getting on to . 1-70. The DOW would suggest that landscaping trees and shrubs be selected for their low palatability to big game. It may be necessary to fence the new vegetation to prevent wildlife from damaging the plants. See Condition No.2 CDOT ~ Please refer to attachment dated March 27, 2007. As 1 discussed with you our concern with this project is the slopes adjacent to the 1-70 right of way. Our experience with slopes IV :2H and steeper have shown difficulty in establishing vegetation in this area. The lack of vegetation may result in sediment runoff into the 1-70 ROWand subsequent maintenance issue for COOT. Please note .this comment is from the COOT Eagle Residency not the Regional Grand Junction office which may have more comments. See Condition No.3 Eagle County Environmental Health - Please refer to attachment dated March 27, 2007. A Dust Suppression Plan and Erosion Control/Storm Water Management Plan shall be included with the grading permit and contain detail sufficient to evaluate conformance to the Site Development Standards and Industrial & Commercial Performance Standards. Said Plans shall include contact information for the person available at all tUnes and responsible to immediately address public complaints or compliance issues. No grading permit will be issued without these plans having been approved by Eagle County Environmental Health and Engineering Departments. The approved Plans must be kept on-site, and implemented at all tUnes. Failure to adhere to the implementation of these plans shall result in cessation of work until compliance has been restored. . See Condition No.3 and No.4 AdditionaJRefe"aJ Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office . Colorado State: CDOT (Grand Junction Office) . Federal: Holy Cross Electric c. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits: The proposed project benefits the property owners within the Cordillera Valley Club. Furthermore it may also be construed that the substantial landscaping being proposed on the south side of the berm and the noise mitigation barriers would conceivably benefit the greater Edwards vicinity. 48 05/01/07 Disadvantages: The proposed project primarily benefits the property owners within the Cordillera Valley Club. The visual impacts of the project will impact the 1-70 corridor and those viewing from the south. In addition, the trucks that will transport a substantial amount of earth for the berms have the potential to create a negative impact on Beard Creek Road and the neighborhood in general. D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 1. Approve the [pun AMENDMENT] request without conditions if it is determined. that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in'compliance with both the Eagle County Land ,Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [pun AMENDMENT] request if it. is determined that the, petition will' adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [pun AMENDMENT] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [PUD AMENDMENT] request with conditions aDd/or performance standardsifit is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety; and welfare, and/or enhances the attonement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). DISCUSSION: Ms. De Graafpresented a PowerPoint presentation. She stated the applicant's request foraPUD amendment. The applicant did apply last year for a location and extent noise mitigation barrier. The plan did not go forward due to some technical problems with COOT. The PUD guide states that they cannot alter natural landscaping. According to the Eagle County Land. Use Regulations, the berm restrictions are limited to8 feet and the length cannot exceed 150 feet, which is resulting in this application to amend the PUD. The applicant requested the meeting be broken up into two parts, today and May 22, 2007. The board was also requested to do a site visit between now and then. A site map was presented showing the general location of the project. She explained the background '8Ild overview of the project. The construction of the sound and visual mitigation is a combination of earthen berms and fencing, which would vary in height. The length of the project is approximately 7500 linear feet; the entire Cordillera Valley Club (CVC) 1-70 frontage, A Holy Cross Utility Easement also parallels the property line in the area. As stated earlier the height and width does exceed what is otherwise allowed in the land use regulations, but the board does have the option to grant a variation. The planning commission heard the presentation from staff and the consultant representing the CVC. Deliberation from the Commission focused on how the applicant 'listened' to former comments on design and landscape elements and that they did a better job in the current application. The Commission also made comments regarding concerns of creating a tunnel effect on 1- 70. She explained the other issues that were discussed and/or suggested during that meeting. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommended denial of the application based on regulatory fmdings. Pedro Campos, Senior Landscape Architect with VAg, was present representing the applicant. He stated that he believes this project is an example of the type of projects that are going to continue to emerge in response to the changing conditions in the valley. The applicant wishes to present the project in detail, get some initial feedback and then have a site visit before the second meeting. The applicant believes the project is a public benefit and sets a positive precedent in addressing 1-70 impacts while balancing public and private interests. The process is 49 05/01/07 to establish the regulatory framework (PUD amendment) to proceed with fmal design application and review process. The current plans'are preliminary and the intent is for them to be refmed during the process based on feedback received from the board to satisfy county standards. The project would require an amendment to the PUD to move forward )Vith this level of detail. The applicant has developed substantially detailed plans so that the intent and scope of the plan are clear. He presented a Power Point presentation, which included an overview of the project with focus on realistic photo simulations that depiqt what the project would look like if it wetebuilt as proposed. The project is divided into 10 areas, numbered one to ten, west to east. It encompasses 7200 Lineal Feet/16 acres. There are 5 acres of new berms, 920 LF noise mitigation barrier and 2500' LF visual screening proposed. Trees, shrubs and seeding are also proposed for the area. The project has a west and east end. Areas 1-4 are at the west end. Area 1 is the noisiest area due to the topography of the property, Areas 2-4 would only be enhanced with additional landscaping. This area, currently runs on top of an existing berm that varies in height between 50' -75'feet. He explained that the interstate lanes were at different elevations especially onthe west end. Most of the project can be seen in the westbound direction. The eastbound lanes are recessed 20'.30' feet, depending where you are and a lot of the project cannot be seen, The east areas include areas 5-9; these areas constitute the bulk of the project. Area 5 is 780 feet long and onlyberming and landscaping are proposed. .Area 6 and 8 would have the most significant treatment, receiving berming and fencing. ' The fencing proposed for this area would be 8 feet tall and 150 long with breaks in increments of 50 feet The fence would be standard wood painted a neutral color on the interstate facing side. There is no bermingproposed for area number 7 just to areas of fencing. Area 9 will have minimal beoning with some visual screen fencing and landscaping. Area 10 would receive only landscaping. He explained why the different treatments were proposed for the area. There is an existing road on the east and west end of the property that is used by Holy Cross. The applicant has had to wedge the p.-oject in between this sliver of land. ID some areas, particularly area number 1, there is not enough. space to create a berm. Therefore, each area has its own treatment, which the applicant believes adds visual interest rather than a homogeneous treatment. He presented.a photo simulation that illustrated the proposed landscaping and noise mitigation barriers for each area. Conunissioner Runyon ,wondered about the fence color and stated that there would always be a time when the fencing'color would not match the ~due to seasonal changes. Mr. Campos stated that the color shown in the illustration had evolved from prior discussions with the Planning Commission but they are open to any other color themes. He continued his presentation but strongly recommended a site visit. He showed examples of prototypical noise attenuation projects and stated that this is not what CVC is proposing. He stated that he believes the proposal respects the rural setting of the valley and attempted to fit in with the rural setting for a rural environment. Commissioner Runyon suggested working with COOT towards granting a right of way to' allow for berms instead of fencing. Mr. Campos stated that on behalf of the applicant, they had tried to work withCDOT and had been told "no" very strongly at least three times. He agreed that area 1 warrants further investigation. David White, member of the Property Owner's Association at Cordillera Valley Club spoke. He stated that their fear is that 1-70 could be widened and COOT would put up their own barrier. Mr. Campos stated the differences between their proposal and the Arrowhead berm project. He shared some of the resiclent's points of view from CVC. He Stated that the applicant views the project asa long teon public benefit and an enhancement with relatively no adverse impacts to the public at large. Chairman Menconi opened public comment Rick Pirog, President of the Cordillera Valley Club Metropolitan District spoke. He stated that 87 residents were in favor and 11 were opposed to the project. He believes that Mr. Campos and VAg has presented a creative design to work within the limitations they have to create a balance between the rights of the property owners to mitigate the impacts of the interstate on their lifestyles with a positive benefit to the public. Jay Peterson, Wolcott resident spoke. He stated that he was representing Bob Newman who lives on Beard Creek Road and could not attend the meeting. Mr. Peterson stated Mr. Newman's concerns for the staging and the many truckloads of dirt being brought in though the residential neighborhoods. He suggested using the west entrance as well to balance out the traffic. He commended the Planning Department for being helpful. He is concerned with the proposed fencing. He hopes that something would be developed that is pleasing to the public and will stand the test of time. He would like to see appropriate vegetation. Tim Kelly spoke. He does not believe that fencing will work. The fencing will never fully blend in with the natural scenery. He believes that the traffic noise will travel into the surrounding areas of Edwards. 50 05/01/07 Chairman Menconi closed public comment. Chairman Menconi asked Mr. Campos ifhe thought there would be further public comment. Mr. Campos stated that the acoustical and civil engineers might have something to add. Chairman Menconi suggested that if there were members of the HOA that would like to offer their support that it happen in writing or that one person could represent several people. Commissioner Runyon stated that there were many aspects of the proposal he liked. He is a little hesitant about the irrigation aspect. He has a significant problem with the fencing. He understands the parameters of the project but that is not enough for him to want to put up fences. Although the fences disappear in photo simulation, there are other seasons when the 'fencing would not be camouflaged. He believes that the trees and fencing will bounce the sound off into the surrounding areas. Commissioner Fisher stated that from the homeowner's point of view itis a natural progression. She doesn't believe theproposed trees are native to all the areas. She suggested cedars and juniper. She stated her concerns about the fence and reconunended that the applicant do whatever they could do to avoid painting it.. She believes a site visit would be helpful. She stated that fences don't build gOod neighbors. She's seen the poles and tried to visualize the project. ChainnanMenconistatedthat generally speaking, he is in favor of the proposal. While listeningto'the file he'd thought about other berming in the county and he embraces the principal that is attempting to be achieved by creating some sort of noise mitigation. He believes a site visit may provide a further understanding. He would like the visual on both sides to be similar. At the next presentation, he'd like to know why a barrier was chosen as opposed to natural landscaping. He would like to know what the community benefit would be. He would like to see examples of xeriscaping and environmentally friendly materials. He would like the applicant to address the traffic concerns. Mr. Campos stated that he would follow up on the issues discussed and looked fOlWard to a site visit. Chairman Menconi wondered if the wildlife corridor would be affected. He would like to make sure there are breaks to allow wildlife to get through. Ms. De Graaf stated that the gapping would allow wildlife to cross but the current wildlife fencing would not go away. Commissioner Runyon stated that sagebrush grows up to 10 feet and suggested it as an alternative for the xeriscaping idea. Chairman Menconi stated that he acknowledged the work and investment put into the project and understands the desires of the applicant. He suggested that the applicant reevaluate the barriers. Mr. Campos stated that the barriers were proposed for only the areas with the most noise. Commissioner Fisher asked why the 11 residents Were opposed to the project. Mr..Pirog stated that it was all about cost. Commissioner Runyon suggested berming with an inside retaining wall. Mr. Pirog stated that a structural wall would look unnatural and cost twice as much. Chairman Menconi stated that board would do a site visit. Mr. Campos thanked the board for allowing further discussion. He stated that the planning staffhad been exceptional in terms of coordination and level of feedback. Commissioner Runyon moved to table File No. PDA-00067 Planned Unit Development Amendment pending a site visit, at the applicant's request. , Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Fill slopes steeper than 2: 1 shall be justified by a soils report prepared and sealed by a licensed engineer prior to the grading permit application. Provide an explanation of how landscaping and maintenance will be accomplished on slopes this steep and how the lack of vegetation on steep slopes will not result in sediment runoff into the CDOTROW. 2 All site work must adhere to the DOW recommendations (see comments above) for plant types and fencing. 51 05/01/07 3. There was no irrigation. plan provided for any of the landscaping to the west of station 41+00 (from 0+00 through 41 +00). Prior to the grading permit application~ provide more details explaining how the landscaping in this section will be irrigated and maintained. 4. Pursuant to The Eagle County Department of Environmental Health recommendations (see comments above)~ a dust suppression plan and erosion control/storm water management plan must be provided prior to the grading permit application. ,. The said plans shall contain contact information for the person available at all times and that will respond immediately to address public complaints/concerns and compliance issues. No grading permit will be issued without these plans having been approved by the Eagle County Environmental Health and Engineering departments. The approved plans must be kept on-site. 5 Prior to the BoCC Resolution, the PUD Guide shall be amended to reflect the landscaping in Section m. Land Use Designation F. Golf Course 2). Permitted Uses ill.F.2. D. 6 Prior to the grading permit application, a Landscape Guarantee shall be in place, per LUR Section 5- 240 h;(3)(a) 7 The easement from the Valley Golf LLC to the CVC Metro District shall be completed prior to the BoCC Resolution. 8 Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representation made by the applicant is this application and in public meeting meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. LUR"()()71 - General Ea2le Countv Land Use Remlation Amendment Jena Skinner-Markowitz, Planning Department ACTION: Several Land Use Regulation Amendments of Chapters 1~ 2 and 3 PROJECT NAME: General Amendments to Chapter 1; Chapter 2: Articles 2, 3~ 4, S~ 7, Appendix A; and Chapter 3: Building Resolution 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: Several departments have contributed to this amendment including the Attorney's Office (proposing the amendments to Chapter 1; Chapter 2: Article 7 and Chapter 3); and the Community Development, Engineering, and Environmental Health Departments (proposing the amendments to Chapter 2: Articles2~ 3~ 4 and 5). More specifically~ the amendments affect the following sections: · Chapter 1 Section 1.14: Enforcement; Chapter 2: Article 7-130 Notification to Correct Violation; 7-140 Other Remedies; and Chapter 3: Building Resolution~ Section 3.16 Penalty. These amendments are necessary in order to update the Regulations to reflect current State Statutes pertaining to code enforcement practices and fines; · Chapter 2: Article 2; necessary in order to add new defmitions to this section. The new defmitions are related to the proposed amendments in the other Articles; · Chapter 2: Article 3; necessary in order to add new uses to Tables 3-300 Residential Use Schedule and 3-320 Commercial Use Schedule; and to modify Table 3-340 Notes; . Chapter 2: Article 4; necessary in order to clarify/update the text in Sections 4-660 Excavation and Grading Standards; and 4-665 Erosion Control Standards; · Chapter 2: Article 5; necessary in order to clarify existing text found in Sections 5-2 1 O.Provisions of General Applicability; 5-210.D.2 Minimum Contents of Application; and 5-210.D.3 Determination of Completeness; 52 05/01107 . Chapter 2: Appendix A; necessary in order to reorganize and update the certificates as found in this section. B. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATION SUMMARY & MOTION: Both the Eagle County and the Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commissions. considered this application. Understanding that the goal of this amendment package was primarily for "clean up" and clarification purposes; neither Planning Commission had any comments to provide to Staff and approved the proposed file as was presented. The Eagle County Planning Commission approved the application [5:0]; The Roaring Fork Regional Planning Commission approved the application [6:0]. 2. STAFF REPORT A. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: 5-230 Amendments to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or Official Zone District Map Section Purpose: The purpose of this Section is to provide a means for changing the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations by reference, and for changing the text of these Land Use Regulations. It is not intended to relieve particular hardships, orto confer special privileges or rights'on any person, but only to make necessary adjustments iri lightofch8.nged conditions. Standards: Section 5-230.D. No change in zoning shall be allowed . unless in the sole discretion of the Board of County Commissioners, the change is justified in that the advantages of the use requested substantially outweigh the disadvantages to the County. and neighboring lands. In ,making such a determination, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall consider the application submittal requirements and standards. There are no specific standards directly applicable for changing the text of the Land Use Regulations. B. STAFF DISCUSSION: Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use RegulationS Section 1.15.04 Referrals. the proposed amendments HAVE been referred to the appropriate agencies, including all towns within Eagle County, and to the Colorado Division of Local Affairs; Pursuant to Chapter 1, Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 1.15.05 Public Notice, Public notice HAS been given; Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use RegulationS Section 5-230.B.2 Text Amendment: a. The proposed amendments AMEND ONLY THE TEXT of Chapter II, Article 4, Section 4-450 Ridgeline Protection and Chapter II, Article 2: Definitions of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and DO NOT amend the Official Zone District Map. b. Precise wording of the proposed changes HAS been provided (please see attached) .. Pursuant to Chapter 2, Eagle County Land Use RegulationS Section5-230.D., Standards for the review of Amendments to the Text of the Land Use Regulations, as applicable. STANDARD: Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l] Does the proposed amendment consider the purposes and intents of the Comprehensive Plan, all ancillary County adopted Specialty and Community Plan documents, and is it consistent with all relevant goals, policies, 53 05/01/07 implementation strategies and Future Land Use Map designations including but no/necessarily limited to the following: Section 3.2 Section 3.3 Seetion 3.4 Section 3.5 Section 3.6 Section 3.7 Section 3.8 Section 3.9 Section 3.10 Section 4 General Develooment Economic Resources Housinl! Infrastructure and Services Water Resources Wildlife Resources Sensitive Lands Environmental Qualitv Future Land Use Mao Adooted Area Community Plans Policies a, c, e, f, g, h, i and k Policies b, c, d, e,f, h, j, mand 0 Policies a, d, e, g and n Policies a, C, g, i, j, k, m and 0 Policies a, b, c, d, e, f, g, hand i Policies a, b, c, d, e, f and i Policies a, c, e and g Policies a, c and d Policy a All relevant goals, policies and FLUM designations Additionally, all relevant goals & policies of the following plans or such equivalent plansandlor future plans, which may be in effect at the time of application for zone change: Eagle County Open Space Plan Eagle River Watershed Plan Eagle Valley Regional, Trails Plan Eagle County Trails Plan (Roaring Fork) Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan Eagle County Airport Sub-Area Master Plan This amendment will not result in any change to the Future Land Use Map or its application. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MiNIMuM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section j.230.D.2] Does the proposalprovide compatibility with the type, intensity, character and scale of existing and permissible-land uses surrounding the subject property? Dimensional limitations of the proposed zone district, when applied, should result in development that will be harmonious with the physical character of existing neighborhood(s) surrounding the subject property. The issue of compatibility does pertain to this proposal, and is the impetus for the addition of two (2) new uses in Article 3. The mam intent of the modifications to Article 3 is to recognize the uses of''junkyards'' and "nightclubs" that are cUrrently undefmed in the Regulations. In doing so, and by assigning a land use application process to the uses, Staff would have the opportunity to look more closely at these uses and analyze the compatibility of these uses- especially in areas directly contiguous or in close proximity to residential neighborhoods. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE 54 05/01/07 STANDARD: Public Benefit. [Section 5-230.D.3] Does the proposal address a demonstrated community need or otherwise result in one or more particular public benefits that offset the impacts of the proposed uses requested, including but not limited to: Affordable local resident housing,' chi/dcare facilities; multi- modal transportation, public recreational opportunities; infrastructure improvemenl$; preservation of agriculture/sensitive lands. All of the requested amendments consider the health. safety and welfare of the citizens of Eagle County . EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE ' STANDARD: Change of Circumstances. [Section 5-230.D.4] Does the proposal address or respond to a beneficial material change that has occurred to the immediate neighborhood or to the greater Eagle County community? Conditions have. changed such that the proposed amendments are necessitated. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS X NOT APPLICABLE STANDARD: Adequate Infrastructure. [Section 5-230.D.5} Is the property subject to the proposal served by adequate roads, water, sewer and other public usefacilities? This amendment will not result' in the need for new infrastructure. EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS NOT APPLICABLE C. REFERRAL RESPONSES: NWCCOG/QQ- Please refer to attachment dated March 13, 2007: . I only have one comment for your consideration: . Section 4~65. C. Erosion and S~diment Control Plan; (no.) 7. CDPS and/or NPDES Permit: . Stormwater discharge permits for control of erosion and sediment from construction sites for oil and gas development are exempt from the Clean Water Act and EP A oversight thanks to Bush's 2005 EnergyBill; · The state of Colorado stepped up and has regulated these sites like any other construction sites to date, but there is an informational hearing coming up to assess whether there are waivers or other modifications to the regulation or permitting of these oil and gas sites that might be warranted; . I don't know if there is any oil and gas development in Eagle County but if so NPDES permits will not be issued (although CDPS will) and EPA and Clean Water Act provisions are irrelevant. Colorado Historical Society- Please refer to attachment dated February 28, 2007: 55 05/01/07 . The proposed amendments will have no adverse effect on any historic properties in Eagle County. 180m and AssOciates - Please refer to attachment dated February 27, 2007: . One item should be changed; . Under Section 4-660 Excavation and Grading Standards; (specifically) Section A.3.c Retaining Walls. I believe the retaining walls should be measured from fmished grade to the top of the wall as 4 feet; . MoSt retaining walls have at least 4 feet below grade, so how it is worded would require, all retaining walls to have engineered plans; it would be a simple change to be measured from grade would make a lot of sense; . The other way this could be measured would be that poured in place retaining walls over 8 feet in height with concrete walls and footers would require engineered plans and all stone or boulder retaining wall higher than 4 feet from fmished grade would require engineered plans. Engineering Department - Please refer to attachment dated February 27,2007: . There is one other conflict that we run into with retaining walls. and that is related to tiered retaining walls... We would like to add the following italicized phrase to the first ~n~nce of section 4-660.A.3.c. . "Any retaining walls or combination of tiered retaining walls four (4) feet'in height or greater..." Eagle County Attorney's Office (in response to Basalt and Rural Fire Protection Comments) - Please refer to attachment dated February 27,2007: . While I understand his point about the $100/day fme being somewhat nominal. that language is taken directly from the state statute (CRS 30-28-124) and we will therefore have to leave that amount in place fornow. Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District - Please refer to attachment dated February 21. 2007: . (as written on actual referral) . 1.14.01.2.a. Generally: "...onehundred dollars ($100) [add words] each day..." . Fine is minimal and may not have its desired effect in preventing work. What about $250 a day? . 1. 14.02.1.a.- see previous comment. Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney 'sQffice; Animal Services; Assessor,' ECO TrailslI'ransit; Environmental Health; Historical Society; Housing Division; Road and Bridge Department; School District; Sheriff's Office; Surveyor; Weed and Pest; Wildfire Mitigation Specialist,' . All private planningfirms in Eagle County; . All private engineering and surveyingfirms in Eagle County; . All listed private architectural and construction firms in Eagle County and surrounding region; . Colorado State: CDOT; Department of Local Affairs; Division of Minerals and Geology; Division of Water Resources; Colorado Division of Wildlife; Forest Service; Geological Survey; Water Conservation Board; . Bureau of Land Management; Natural resource Conservation Service (USDA); US Army Corps of Engineers; US Forest Service; . Ambulance District,' Fire Districts; Excel Energy; QwestlCentury/San Isabel Telecom; Special Districts; . Basalt Water Conservancy; CDHPE Air and WaterDivisions; Mid Valley Trails Committee; Postmaster; Roaring Fore Transportation Authority; Home Builders Association; AlA; Cattleman's Association; . Town of Avon, Town of Eagle, Town of Minturn, Town of Red Cliff, Town of Vail, Town of Basalt, Town of Gypsum. D. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages There are not many disadvantages to this application. 56 05/01/07 Benefits: The amendments clarify and further strengthen the necessary compatibility and environmental standards as found in the Land Use Regulations. In addition, some of the amendments clarify and simplify some existing language that is considered confusing; or add definitions that support, provide intention and/or defme significant aspects of the existing Regulations and uses. Finally, in regards to Code Enforcement, the modifications proposed by the Attorney' sdepartment bring our regulations in line with the language in, the Colorado Revised Statutes. Disadvantage: It may result in additional permits for persons necessitating retaining walls in their development. Mandatory pre-application meetings will add an additional step in submitting an application. E. PLANNING CO~SIONIBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: " 1. Approve the [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] request without conditions if it is determined that the petition will not adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and the proposed use is attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 2. Deny the [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] request if it is determined that the petition will adversely affect the public health, safety, and welfare and/or the proposed use is not attuned with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is not in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 3. Table the [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] req1Jest if additional inCormationis required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 4. Approve the [ECLUR TEXT AMENDMENT] request with conditions and/or performance standards ifit is determined that certain conditions and/or performance standards are necessary to ensure public, health, safety, and welfare and/or enhances the attunement of the use with the immediately adjacent and nearby neighborhood properties and uses and the proposal is in compliance with both the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). (None) Chairman Menconi was not present for this file. DISCUSSION: Ms. Skinner-Markowitz presented the file. She stated that several departments had contributed to this amendment. She read the sections affected by the amendment into the record., There is one aspect that will change the process and be helpful to both staff and the board and that is they will be conducting mandatory pre-application meetings. Commissioner Runyon asked if there had been any feedback about the mandatory pre-application meetings. Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that the only feedback was from the Planning Commission, they wondered about the statistics, Typically, other jurisdictions have this process in place. Commissioner Fisher stated that she noticed that the building violation recourse from the county is much more stringent. She wondered how often the county hasto inflict penalties. Mr. Morris stated that it doesn't happen. often. 57 05/01/07 Ms. Skinner-Markowitz stated that having a 30-day notice of violation, which is going to a shorter time allowance so there is a faster remedy. Commissioner Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve LUR-0071 - General Eagle County Land Use Regulation Amendment. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. Th ere be,ing n. 0 fu rthe,r b. usiness befO~r' . .e.,.,meetin,g was adjoumed.until May 15,2007" ~r .., fi c::.'\; ~ j;r "l!i.. :!. ~ Q; _ Attest ~4 ' ~~. ." .:; J4" . · ML- ClerktotheBoar\',~ou)n!;,,?,i Chatmlan frvT~ 58 05/01/07