Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.

No preview available

The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 09/01/09 Present: Sara Fisher Peter Runyon Jon Stavney Keith Montag Bryan Treu . Robert Morris Christina Hooper Teak Simonton Kathy Scriver PUBLIC HEARING September 1, 2009 Chairman Commissioner Commissioner County Manager County Attorney Deputy County Attorney Assistant County Attorney Clerk to the Board 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: AUGUST 2009 BILL PAYING AND PAYROLL GENERAL FUND 360 TRAINING A & A Custom Tire & Wheels A SEWING MASTERPIECE ABBOTT LABORATORIES ROSS PRODUCTION DIVISION ABBOTT LABORATORIES ROSS PRODUCTION DIVISION ABBOTT LABORATORIES ROSS PRODUCTION DIVISION ACCESS LOCK & KEY INC ADP ADP ADP ADP ADV ANT AGE NETWORK SYSTEMS AFFILIATED CREDIT SERVICE INCORPORATED AFFILIATED CREDIT SERVICE INCORPORATED AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE AIR COMPRESSOR SERVICE ALICE JARAMILLO ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALPHA MEDICAL DISTRIBUTOR INCORPORATED ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE LUMBER COMP ANY ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ALPINE P ARTY RENTALS ALPINE PARTY RENTALS ALPINE P ARTY RENTALS Alpine Snow Removal & Trucking ALPINE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. AMADEO GONZALES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES CAPITAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 100.00 19.00 26.00 (62.17) 16.44 164.70 140.00 18.00 908.49 985.04 1,806.69 19.00 11.80 19.00 210.10 316.59 438.85 572.92 45.00 71.00 168.48 1,165.35 3.45 7.17 8.99 11.88 11.97 28.58 36.00 143.98 1,442.60 2,311.50 2,590.65 19.00 110.00 25.20 1 09/01/09 AMERICAN JAIL ASSOCIATION AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION AMERICINN LODGE & SUITES AMERICINN LODGE & SUITES AMY BERENS AMY BERENS AMY BERENS ANDERSON & KEIL AND ERSON & KEIL ANDIE NOAKES ANN MUNCASTER ANNA POLICASTRI APPLIED TRUST ENGINEERING APPLIED TRUST ENGINEERING ARAMARK COMPANY ARAMARK COMPANY ARAMARK COMPANY ARAMARK COMPANY ARAMARK COMPANY ARAMARK COMPANY ARAMARK COMPANY ARBITRAGE COMPLIANCE SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED ARCHffiEQUE LAND CONSULTING ARLIE BRAGG ARMY AND FACTORY SURPLUS ARNOLD AND ARNOLD Aronberg Goldgehn AT&T AT&T ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT A V -TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED AV -TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED AV -TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED A V -TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED AV -TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED AV -TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED AV -TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CREEK I HOA AVON CENTER AT BEAVER CREEK I HOA AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS ASSOCIATION BAILEY FUNERAL HOME BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN BALCOMB AND GREEN Bald Eagle Snow Removal & Trucking Inc BARBARA GARNETT 2 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES CASH TRANSFER CASH TRANSFER SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 48.00 415.00 2,067.70 5,304.10 60.00 73.70 229.97 17.40 51.12 112.00 54.00 106.20 141.66 1,908.75 48.97 96.97 203.63 246.99 518.98 625.87 1,558.75 434.50 1,500.00 871.37 109.98 76.60 19.00 33.63 3,998.94 101,320.91 5,000,000.00 30.90 72.00 72.00 640.00 662.66 702.66 1,005.00 1,645.13 2,543.72 2,245.43 287.50 70.50 94.00 420.25 531.50 538.00 540.50 572.00 690.50 813.45 1,140.00 5,248.43 19.00 150.00 BASALT SECURITY, INC BENTLEY SYSTEMS INCORPORATED BERGLUND RUTH BERTHOD MOTORS BERTHOD MOTORS BEST WESTERN EAGLE LODGE BETHANY V AN WYK BETHANY V AN WYK BETHANY V AN WYK Bieging Shapiro & Burrus, LLP Big Nugget Supply Ine Big Nugget Supply Ine Bill & Carol Williams BMW OF DENVER, PIONEER MOTORCYCLES LTD. BOB ENGELBRECHT BONNIE EMBRY BOYZ TOYZ AND SONZ INC BOYZ TOYZ AND SONZ INC BRANDON BEAUDETTE Brian E. O'Reilly, P.C. BRUCE BAUMGARTNER BRY AN TREU BURTON LEVIN ESQ CANYON WATER RESOURCES LLC CAPET - CO ASSOC OF PROPERTY & EVIDENCE TECHNICIAN CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CARAHSOFT TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION CARMEN LOZOYA VELEZ CASTLE PEAK VETERINARY CASTLE PEAK VETERINARY C-B Construction! Photography Ine COW COMPUTER CENTERS COW COMPUTER CENTERS COW COMPUTER CENTERS COW COMPUTER CENTERS COW COMPUTER CENTERS COW COMPUTER CENTERS CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL CENTURYTEL CENTURYTEL 3 09/01/09 SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL PAYROLL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 111.23 60.00 112.00 9.25 20.20 389.96 23.10 89.10 114.40 108.60 864.00 2,286.00 513.00 1,500.60 1,475.00 112.00 305.95 375.00 539.13 16.00 44.86 154.00 10.40 2,185.00 275.00 3,140.00 4,075.04 145.20 100.00 111.72 1,000.00 (58.80) 17.51 129.84 268.28 616.52 816.94 24.32 38.20 42.67 70.73 86.32 86.81 91.92 120.44 141.25 154.65 161.26 236.90 516.92 1,001.52 2,516.87 (140.80) 12.26 86.02 CENTURYTEL SERVICES 128.54 CENTURYTEL SERVICES 515.66 CENTURYTEL SERVICES 515.66 CENTURYTEL SERVICES 10,200.52 CHAFFEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE SERVICES 18,315.00 CHARLES B DARRAH SERVICES 3.00 CHARLES B DARRAH SERVICES 18.20 CHARLES B DARRAH SERVICES 30.00 Charles Fickle SERVICES 120.00 CHARLOTTE NESTOR SERVICES 23.10 CHEF DE CUISINE EPICUREAN SERVICES 6,399.14 CHELSEA NURSERY SUPPLIES 128.00 CHEMATOX INCORPORATED SERVICES 80.00 CHERYL THOMAS SERVICES 16.61 CHERYL THOMAS SERVICES 134.20 CHIEF SUPPLY SUPPLIES 122.88 CHRISTINA HOOPER SERVICES 73.09 CINDY PREYTIS SERVICES 914.85 CIRCUIT MEDIA, LLC SERVICES 1,400.00 Citadel Security & Investigations SERVICES 5,280.00 Citadel Security & Investigations SERVICES 12,492.00 CLEAN DESIGNS SUPPLIES 57.10 CO DEPT OF REVENUE SERVICES 172.00 COLLETTS SERVICES 782.25 COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT PAYROLL 16,603.81 COLORADO MOUNTAIN COLLEGE SERVICES 2,745.00 Colorado Mountain News Media SUPPLIES 13.00 Colorado Mountain News Media SERVICES 24.44 Colorado Mountain News Media SUPPLIES 40.05 Colorado Mountain News Media SUPPLIES 40.94 Colorado Mountain News Media SUPPLIES 52.00 Colorado Mountain News Media SERVICES 85.45 Colorado Mountain News Media SERVICES 134.97 Colorado Mountain News Media SUPPLIES 371.27 Colorado Mountain News Media SUPPLIES 561.00 Colorado Mountain News Media SERVICES 609.12 Colorado Mountain News Media SUPPLIES 1,485.38 Colorado Mountain News Media SERVICES 1,500.00 Colorado Mountain News Media SERVICES 2,536.20 Colorado Mountain News Media SUPPLIES 11,516.41 COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT SERVICES 376.93 COLORADO RIVER WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT SERVICES 408.53 COLORADO SECRETARY OF STATE SERVICES 60.00 Colorado West Broadcasting, Inc SUPPLIES 840.00 COLORADO WEST MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 560.00 COLORADO WEST MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 733.60 COMPUTER SITES INCORPORATED SERVICES 5,657.00 CONNIE STUMP SERVICES 67.00 CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING INCORPORATED SUPPLIES 81.48 CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING INCORPORATED SUPPLIES 128.00 CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION SERVICES 163.61 COPY PLUS SUPPLIES 4.80 COPY PLUS SUPPLIES 10.50 COPY PLUS SUPPLIES 28.80 COPY PLUS SUPPLIES 30.64 4 09/01/09 COPY PLUS SUPPLIES 34.50 COPY PLUS SUPPLIES 40.03 COPY PLUS SUPPLIES 229.50 COUNTY SHERIFFS COLORADO SERVICES 150.00 COWBOY CATERING SERVICES 5 I 8.50 DAN CORCORAN PLS SERVICES 600.00 DAN SPARKMAN SERVICES 226.1 0 Danaleigh Sheehan SERVICES 142.91 Daniel J Davis SERVICES 4.00 DARREN ANDERSON SERVICES 452.53 DAVID A BAUER SERVICES 11.80 DAVID A BAUER SERVICES 15.80 DAVID A BAUER SERVICES 19.00 DAVID E. MOTT SERVICES 80.00 DENISE MATTHEWS SUPPLIES 1,043.13 DIXIE KOZINSKI SERVICES 112.00 DJENSEN ELECTRIC INCORPORATED SERVICES 75.86 DOCTORS ON CALL SERVICES 1,062.00 DOLORES "DEE" GLEASON SERVICES 5.00 DON OLSEN SERVICES 6.55 DONNA SMITH SERVICES 100.00 DONYELLE DEWEY SERVICES 178.75 Doug DeChant SERVICES 110.00 DUFFORD WALDECK AND MILBURN SERVICES 520.00 EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE SERVICES 200.00 EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE SERVICES 1,350.00 Eagle County Tapayers for Common Sense, Ine SUPPLIES 200.00 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER PAYROLL (19,009.00) EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER PAYROLL (11,687.57) EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER PAYROLL (4,792.64) EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER PAYROLL 636,000.00 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER PAYROLL 675,000.00 EAGLE EMBROIDERY SUPPLIES 53.15 EAGLE EMBROIDERY SUPPLIES 254.56 EAG LE PHARMACY SUPPLIES 4.19 EAGLE PHARMACY SUPPLIES 13.98 EAGLE PHARMACY SERVICES 69.20 EAG LE PHARMACY SUPPLIES 85.34 EAG LE PHARMACY SERVICES 1,084.30 EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES 379.86 EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SANITATION SERVICES 1,038.81 EAGLE SINCLAIR SUPPLIES 8.66 EAGLE SINCLAIR SUPPLIES II.IO EAGLE SINCLAIR SUPPLIES II.IO EAGLE SINCLAIR SUPPLIES 21.04 EAGLE SINCLAIR SUPPLIES 21.04 EAGLE SINCLAIR SUPPLIES 35.42 EAGLE V ALLEY EVENTS INCORPORATED SERVICES 6,900.00 EAGLE VALLEY EVENTS INCORPORATED SERVICES 6,900.00 EAG LE V ALLEY HIGH SCHOOL COMMUNITY 640.00 GRANTS EAG LE V ALLEY HIGH SCHOOL COMMUNITY 1,460.00 GRANTS EAG LE V ALLEY HIGH SCHOOL COMMUNITY 2,240.00 GRANTS EAG LE V ALLEY PRINTING SERVICES 85.00 EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING SUPPLIES 135.00 5 09/01/09 EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EARL GLENWRIGHT EASTER OWENS ELECTRIC COMPANY Eastman Kodak Company EC FAIR JUDG E KA TLIN MILLER ED GRANGE EDW ARDS BUILDING CENTER EDWARDS BUILDING CENTER EDWARDS BUILDING CENTER EDW ARDS ROTARY ELECTION CENTER ELISA ACOSTA ELIZABETH HICKS ENV WATER QUALITY CT COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH EPS DESIGN AND PRINT ESI, Technologies ESRI ESRI EVA WILSON EVA WILSON EVERETT E FERGUSON EVERETT F AMIL Y FUNERAL HOME AND CREMATORY EVERETT F AMIL Y FUNERAL HOME AND CREMATORY EXECUCOM FARRELL & SELDIN FARRELL & SELDIN FARRELL & SELDIN FARRELL & SELDIN FARRELL & SELDIN FARRELL AND SELDIN FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL EXPRESS FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED FIESTA'S CAFE FILTERFRESH DENVER FILTERFRESH DENVER FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICES FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICES FIRST IMPRESSIONS FRONT RANGE INTERNET, INC G & S TOOL CLINIC LLC G & S TOOL CLINIC LLC G & S TOOL CLINIC LLC G & S TOOL CLINIC LLC GAIL ZINK 6 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 145.00 195.00 250.00 330.00 976.25 9.00 686.00 529.00 150.00 64.00 1.08 13.52 60.88 265.00 250.00 20.79 17.02 350.00 SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES 235.93 3,900.00 980.00 1,470.00 11.91 99.00 178.08 810.00 1,165.00 102.17 15.80 19.00 19.00 19.00 19.80 19.00 5.90 5.90 24.97 41.14 42.27 52.01 78.00 118.58 100.54 7,715.00 1,265.44 1,428.33 320.30 400.00 570.00 2,000.00 13.50 14.99 14.99 37.69 24.47 GAIL ZINK GEMPLERS INCORPORATED GEMPLERS INCORPORATED Glen E. Niemeyer GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRANICUS INCORPORATED GRANT WRITING USA GREAT AMERICA LEASING GREATER EAGLE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT Green Mountain Promotions GREG MOFFET GREG WINDERS GREGORY GRANGER GYPSUM ANIMAL HOSPITAL, INC GYPSUM ANIMAL HOSPIT AL, INC HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PETTY CASH HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PETTY CASH HEART OF THE WEST COUNCIL HEWLETT PACKARD HEWLETT PACKARD HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED HILLS PET NUTRITION SALES INCORPORATED HOGAN AND HARTSON HOGAN AND HARTSON HOGAN AND HARTSON HOLLY KASPER HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOME FOODS OF VAIL HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE 7 09/01109 SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 182.12 151.45 151.45 4.20 54.83 149.22 336.24 1,083.60 62.45 76.88 92.52 140.22 230.65 1,013.04 425.00 1,294.28 176.96 2,341.58 269.50 225.00 14.00 127.80 356.00 161.52 10.85 107.19 450.00 868.00 7,942.00 41.53 171.65 193.38 17.50 27.36 35.00 38.70 49.00 52.50 52.50 61.25 63.14 1,487.50 1,816.94 3,250.00 36.00 187.10 987.12 6,677.54 305.96 18.34 19.20 28.48 29.21 31.31 53.25 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE Hudgins & Dewald HVAC SUPPLY ICC INTERGRAL RECOVERIES INTERMOUNTAIN LOCK INTERVET / SCHERING PLOUGH ANIMAL HEALTH ISC, me J&K, me JAMES H THERRELL IV JARA DIVERSIFIED SERVICES JBT'S CUSTOM SILK JBT'S CUSTOM SILK JEFFERSON COUNTY JENNIE W AHRER JENNIE W AHRER JENNY WOOD JENNY WOOD J ill Anderson JILL HUNSAKER JJP COMPANIES JOES WALLBOARD AND SUPPLY JOES WALLBOARD AND SUPPLY JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY JOHNNETTE PHILLIPS JOHNNmE PHILLIPS JOHNNETTE PHILLIPS JOHNNETTE PHILLIPS JOHNNETTE PHILLIPS JOHNNETTE PHILLIPS JOHNSON AND HELD LTD JVIATION, INC K2 Trophies and Awards,LLC Kansas City Barbeque Society KARA BETTIS CORONER KAREN V ALAS Kendra Rejda Kendra Rejda Kerr Brosseau Bartlett O'Brien, LLC Kim Eastabrooks Kimberly Clineo KINETICO WATER PROS KONICA MINOLT A BUSINESS SOLUTIONS KONICA MINOLT A BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 8 09/01/09 SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 60.35 102.72 121.87 123.47 173.39 174.79 220.09 243. II 401.20 427.56 437.78 19.00 113.39 100.00 14.70 339.50 2,997.50 843.40 3,071.25 3.80 100.64 378.00 3,743.60 325.00 200.00 244.20 14.48 269.64 350.00 805.00 260.65 16.53 248.35 571.81 650.23 5.60 28.00 28.00 28.00 68.00 80.00 2,750.00 4,352.00 507.23 204.00 41.25 208.45 25.00 112.00 56.80 70.00 4.80 215.18 108.90 306.38 KRISTINA WARNER KYLE WEBER KZYR FM KZYR FM LA QUINTA PROMENADE LAP ARG E CORPORATION INCORPORATED LAP ARG E CORPORATION INCORPORATED LAP ARGE CORPORATION INCORPORATED LAP ARGE CORPORATION INCORPORATED LAND TITLE LAURA HORSEY LAURA HORSEY LEONA PERKINS LEWAN AND ASSOCIATES LEWAN AND ASSOCIATES LEW AN AND ASSOCIATES LEW AN AND ASSOCIATES LEWAN AND ASSOCIATES LEWAN AND ASSOCIATES LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK INCORPORATED LEXISNEXIS COURTLINK INCORPORATED LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS LIBERTY ACQUISITIONS LIGIA BONILLA Louise Walker LUCIA SARABIA Linn Gottlieb, M.A. LINN KANAKlS M&J, LLC MAIN AUTO PARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS MANN BRACKEN LLC MARIA ANJIER Mariya Nikolaeva Krumova MARJORIE MARKS MARK YOUNG MARK YOUNG MARY ELLEN COPE MATRIX SYSTEMS, INC Meadow Mountain Homes, Inc. MEADOW MOUNTAIN PLUMBING MEADOW MOUNTAIN PLUMBING MEADOW MOUNTAIN PLUMBING MEADOW MOUNT AlN PLUMBING Megatrax MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC MICAELA MENDOZA MICHAELJOHNSON MICRO PLASTICS MICRO PLASTICS MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 9 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES 89.00 7.70 800.00 1,500.00 128.00 15.59 88.4 7 1,125.36 1,905.65 45.00 160.60 234.76 195.56 65.00 71.31 95.24 97.00 3,280.00 3,512.63 88.50 120.10 14.00 14.00 15.10 23.65 16.00 39.24 70.00 48.00 7,830.00 2.89 21.99 0.80 6.88 22.20 59.60 138.60 277.20 48.00 310.69 4,000.00 700.30 1,044.80 1,044.80 1,165.00 1,375.00 283.80 1,086.25 3,223.75 4,363.75 51.70 112.00 22.19 28.42 80.80 MID V ALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT MIKE MIKE KERST MILLER & COHEN Minturn Middle School MOBILE VISION MOBILE VISION MOES ORIGINAL BBQ MONQVEESCHA WALKER MOORE MOUNTAIN BEVERAGE LLC MOUNTAIN BEVERAGE LLC MOUNTAIN BEVERAG E LLC MOUNTAIN BEVERAGE LLC MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN MOBILE VET MOUNTAIN MOBILE VET MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS COUNCIL INCORPORATED MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY COMPANY MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY COMPANY MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY COMPANY MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY COMPANY MWI VETERNlARY SUPPLY COMPANY MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY COMPANY MWI VETERNIARY SUPPLY COMPANY MX LOGIC, INC Nancy Foster NANCY MULLER NANCY MULLER NANCY WRIGHT NARDA REIGEL Nationa] Association of Adu]t Protective Services NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SCHOOL RESOURCE OFFICERS NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION NATIONAL CRIME PREVENTION NATIONAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPLY NEOGOV NEVES UNIFORMS NEW WORLD SYSTEMS NICOLE SISNEROS NICOLETTI- FLATER ASSOCIATES, PLLP NRA NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED OCTANNER OCCASIONALLY KEEGAN OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT 10 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES COMMUNITY GRANTS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SER VICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 362.08 3] 1.00 9.60 500.00 54.95 483.00 2,500.00 ] 1.06 ],]]9.]6 (4,882.60) (8.40) 3,302.80 5,301.40 8.70 24.00 54.00 72.00 ]56.00 999.00 20.00 36.64 ]89.00 31.97 36.13 37.04 38.40 79.25 404.74 495.9 ] 900.00 ]50.00 4.16 5.20 ]54.00 ] ]2.50 225.00 40.00 116.75 242.75 240.90 7,800.00 ]62.84 945.00 48.40 4,090.00 85.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 359.02 2,500.00 3.80 ]4.08 OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OFFICE DEPOT OLGA WILKINS OLGA WILKINS OMNI DISTRIBUfION INCORPORATED ORKIN EXTERMINATIANG COMPANY ORTEN CAVANAGH RICHMOND & HOLMES, LLC OSM DELIVERY LLC OSM DELIVERY LLC OTTALIE FABER-CARLIN OTT ALIE FABER-CARLIN PAINT BUCKET PAINT BUCKET PAINT BUCKET PAINT BUCKET PAINT BUCKET PAINT BUCKET PAINT BUCKET PAOLONARDUZZI PAOLONARDUZZI PAPER WISE PAT NOLAN PAT NOLAN PATRICIA HAMMON PATRICIA MCCOLLUM PATRICIA MCCOLLUM PAULA A PALMATEER PAULA A PALMATEER Pauline Arujo Agoitia Pedro Campos PEGGY GRAYBEAL PEGGY GRAYBEAL PETALS AND POURS INCORPORATED PETALS AND POURS INCORPORATED PETER FREID RICH PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PHYLLIS ROUNDS PINNACLE TECHNOLOGIES INC PITNEY BOWES PITNEY BOWES PORTER HEATH MORGAN PRECINCT POLICE PRODUCTS Prestige Promotional Group 11 09/01/09 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 26.96 35.58 43.27 71.96 94.52 127.21 154.06 242.33 400.00 400.00 677.00 70.46 96.20 257.40 552.00 80.00 80.00 7.02 2 1.28 26.66 29.38 40.20 60.76 91.14 76.80 90.00 2,933.02 24.20 99.00 27.50 74.41 105.27 37.20 80.00 256.00 132.00 180.00 335.00 6,875.00 8,600.00 41.82 19.17 29.02 36.55 42.90 43.38 217.68 238.86 16.00 2,525.71 37.48 160.00 4.20 8.90 75.62 PROSHINE SALES & SERVICE SERVICES 325.25 PROV ANT AGE, INC SUPPLIES 103.44 PUBLIC SAFETY WAREHOUSE SUPPLIES 128.85 PURCHASE POWER SERVICES 17.00 QWEST SERVICES 98.81 QWEST SERVICES 4,406.75 QWEST SERVICES 4,923.70 RADIO RESOURCE INCORPORATED SERVICES 1,325.00 RAZORS EDGE INCORPORATED SERVICES 509.00 Rebecca Edwards SERVICES 36.60 REBECCA T MCCAULLEY SUPPLIES 28.08 REBECCA T MCCAULLEY SERVICES 149.99 REBECCA T MCCAULLEY SERVICES 299.31 RED BLUFF BUCKLES SUPPLIES 1,850.00 RENEE RUMVILL, DVM. SERVICES 490.00 RENEE RUMVILL, DVM. SERVICES 575.00 RENEE RUMVILL, DVM. SERVICES 715.00 Reva Frink SERVICES 250.00 REVEAL SYSTEMS INC SERVICES 319.80 RICHARD BROSE SERVICES 15.90 RICK KANGAS SERVICES 359.77 RITA HAROLD SERVICES 150.00 RITA SACKS SERVICES 32.00 RITA SACKS SERVICES 48.00 ROBERT B EMERSON, PC SERVICES 114.00 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REPROGRAPH SUPPLIES 187.41 ROCKY MOUNTAIN TACTICAL TEAM ASSOCIATION SERVICES 1,050.00 ROCKY MOUNTAIN YOUfH CORPS. SERVICES 6,800.00 ROLLY ROUNDS SERVICES 19.20 Romana L. Garcia SERVICES 18.20 ROSIE MORENO SERVICES 20.35 Roy Sante REFUND 2,280.61 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SUPPLIES 40.07 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SUPPLIES 40.07 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 93.00 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 112.50 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SUPPLIES 112.71 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 262.50 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SUPPLIES 386.00 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 402.60 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 581.40 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 750.00 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 905.50 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 1,356.60 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 1,618.40 RSC - RENTAL SERVICE CORP SERVICES 5,555.00 RUfH ONTIVEROS PAYROLL 60.89 SAINT VINCENTS CHURCH COMMUNITY 980.00 GRANTS SANDRA L SKILES SERVICES 112.00 SAW A Y A ROSE KALPLAN PC SERVICES 16.90 SCHMIDT POLYGRAPH & CONSULTING, LLS SERVICES 110.00 SCHMIDT POLYGRAPH & CONSULTING, LLS SERVICES 11 0.00 SCOTT FLEMING SERVICES 176.00 SECURITY TRANSPORT SERVICES INCORPORATED SERVICES 765.60 SECURITY TRANSPORT SERVICES INCORPORATED SERVICES 1,445.40 12 09/01109 SERVICEMASTER CLEAN OF VAIL SER VICEMASTER CLEAN OF VAIL SERVICEMASTER CLEAN OF VAIL SERVICEMASTER CLEAN OF V AIL SHAMROCK FOODS CORPORATION SHAMROCK FOODS CORPORATION SHAMROCK FOODS CORPORATION SHAMROCK FOODS CORPORATION SHAMROCK FOODS CORPORATION SHAMROCK FOODS CORPORATION SHANNON CORDINGL Y SHANNON CORDINGL Y SHANNON HURST SHARON BALIUS SHEAFFER KAREN SHRM Corporation Sign Language, LLC Sign Language, LLC SIGNATURE SIGNS SIGNATURE SIGNS SIGNATURE SIGNS SIL VERADO ROPING SILVERMAN LAW FIRM SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SNOWHITE LINEN SNOWHITE LINEN SNOWHITE LINEN SNOWHITE LINEN SNOWHITE LINEN SNOWHITE LINEN SOLARWINDS, INC SOURCEGAS Special District Association of Colorado SPECIAL PROTECTION INC SPECIALTIES INCORPORATED SPRONK WATER ENGINEERS SPRONK WATER ENGINEERS STANLEY M SLOWIK INC Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage 13 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 504.00 845.00 3,288.00 5,001.00 (66.59) (27.39) 992.81 1,510.13 1,780.80 1,943.31 68.75 89.10 112.00 43.34 201.64 160.00 111.40 938.96 210.00 357.00 4,813.25 1,200.00 13.40 58.16 74.80 74.80 93.50 93.50 112.20 130.58 44.07 45.82 57.25 57.25 59.00 101.07 80.00 2,506.52 75.00 620.00 661.89 1,280.25 2,924.75 3,000.00 (I3.15) 1.71 2.44 3.15 5.94 7.84 12.14 13.15 14.57 17.39 21.29 Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage STATE OF COLORADO STERICYCLE INCORPORATED STEVE'S DOG & CAT REPAIR STEW ART TITLE OF COLORADO INCORPORATED 14 09/01/09 SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SER VICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES CAPITAL 22.16 22.36 24.06 26.20 26.20 27.07 27.54 29.34 29.68 30.45 35.56 35.56 35.56 36.03 36.80 36.96 37.11 37.11 40.14 43.15 54.86 56.52 56.58 57.37 57.38 57.47 68.99 71.12 106.76 114.94 117.36 126.64 136.81 158.63 193.40 199.39 203.51 214.47 226.1 0 226.62 234.00 234.72 254.3 7 391.16 449.95 464.33 640.38 678.30 845.80 1,560.00 1,847.58 472.56 360.98 83.00 420,220.00 STONE CREEK OPERATION INC STONE CREEK OPERATION INC SUSAN C LITTLE ASSOCIATES P A SUSAN MOTT SUSAN NARDUZZI SUSAN OLMSTED Susan Rodger, M.A. SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF DENVER SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF DENVER SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF DENVER SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF DENVER SYSCO FOOD SERVICES OF DENVER TASER INTERNATIONAL TAYLOR FENCE COMPANY TCC CONTRACTORS TCC CONTRACTORS TCC CONTRACTORS TEAK SIMONTON Teri Walker TERRI ALLENDER TERRY KETELSEN THE DENVER POST The Dusty Boot II LLC The Dusty Boot II LLC The Fence Post Corporation THE OLD GYPSUM PRINTER, INC THE PATHOLOGY GROUP THOMSON WEST TIM DOOLEY TIM LOSA Tim Speck TOM NEWLAND TOOL CLINIC INCORPORATED Tori Franks TOWN OF EAGLE TOWN OF EAGLE TOWN OF EAGLE TOWN OF GYPSUM TOWN OF GYPSUM TOWN OF GYPSUM TOWN OF V AIL 15 09/01109 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 20.88 25.06 7.20 80.00 80.00 31.20 210.00 207.70 207.70 1,842.23 1,842.23 3,951.14 3,951.14 4,591.11 4,599.76 9,112.09 9,668.23 9,673.62 9,855.21 75,817.54 76,136.08 116.99 129.75 299.26 473.98 1,461.87 550.00 1,685.00 428.50 500.00 626.00 230.68 20.00 490.00 109.63 865.65 50.00 2;277.60 424.00 46.75 3,005.45 281.53 229.40 75.90 3.00 4.38 20.91 176.00 535.01 2,310.00 5,057.35 107.60 885.14 913.53 625,913.90 TRI COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION TRI COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION TRI COUNTY FIRE PROTECTION TRICOR TRISHA CHAVEZ UNDERGROUND VAULTS AND STORAGE INCORPORATED UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US FOOD SERVICE INCORPORATED VAIL BOARD OF REALTORS VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL HONEYW AGON LTD VAIL HONEYWAGON LTD V AIL HONEYW AGON LTD Vail International Hockey VAIL MOUNTAIN COFFEE ROASTERS VAIL NET VAIL RESORTS INC VAIL SYMPOSIUM V AIL V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER VALLEY LUMBER VALLEY LUMBER VALLEY LUMBER VALLEY LUMBER V ALLEY VIEW HOSPIT AL V ALLEYWIDE FORENSIC NURSES, LLC VALUE WEST,INC VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY V AN DlEST SUPPLY COMPANY VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY V AN DlEST SUPPLY COMPANY VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY VANCE GABOSSI VERIFICATIONS, INC. VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED 16 09/01/09 SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES COMMUNITY GRANTS SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES COMMUNITY GRANTS SERVICES SERVICES II 7.00 170.00 2,800.00 181.33 20.70 8.85 18.00 18.00 28.12 30.54 35.70 40.43 49.65 55.34 80.43 91.04 13,457.68 13,457.68 13,457.68 427.84 15.00 165.00 322.50 11.29 1,250.00 2,225.00 820.00 273.80 11.95 1,170.00 625.00 35.00 154.40 13.46 14.97 15.96 31.87 210.00 500.00 4,250.00 67.80 290.00 304.40 324.00 466.88 623.38 1,728.70 2,368.00 3,503.16 108.39 441.90 29.99 30.05 35.42 VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS JNCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS JNCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WJRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS JNCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WJRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED Vem Brock VINCI LAW OFFICE VINCI LAW OFFICE VIRGINIA TRUJILLO VIRGINIA TRUJILLO VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES 17 09/01109 SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVJCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVJCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES 39.97 45.01 45.01 49.13 53.01 66.00 95.24 104.19 13 1.68 136.99 152.90 172.96 180.04 198.74 210.40 223.25 231.75 257.02 270.08 348.98 349.83 381.50 599.09 726.50 935.95 13.75 19.00 34.30 7.04 28.16 (20.50) 1.56 2.61 3.24 3.83 5.37 5.42 5.94 6.10 6.15 6.46 9.63 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 12.49 14.99 15.35 16.26 16.69 17.00 17.35 18.42 VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES 18 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES COMMUNITY GRANTS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES 19.06 21.74 22.15 22.45 24.69 25.00 25.40 27.69 30.05 30.12 31.54 34.08 35.93 38.00 38.97 45.88 46.75 47.12 48.59 48.78 48.80 49.96 50.00 50.54 54.45 54.78 56.80 59.55 60.95 63.53 74.91 75.83 83.85 89.27 99.57 100.00 103.62 104.70 113.10 121.86 124.88 125.46 133.18 140.93 143.92 153.27 167.91 169.34 171.30 178.00 178.00 178.01 178.82 183.72 188.95 VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED WECMRD WECMRD WELLS FARGO WEST BROWN HUNTLEY THOMPSON PC WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES 19 09/01/09 CASH TRANSFER SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES CASH TRANSFER SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES 201.57 209.84 230.40 230.95 250.00 259.97 260.78 278.37 350.00 361.66 395.47 434.00 500.00 549.99 564.65 629.91 652.29 665.30 665.30 710.08 730.60 735.00 755.00 785.92 85 I.I 0 926.69 956.94 969.61 1,091.79 1,099.00 1,197.54 1,342.95 1,360.88 1,416.92 1,436.23 1,586.67 5,302.42 3,360.98 400.00 4,837.50 5,000.00 21.60 3.55 9.55 9.55 9.55 9.55 9.55 10.00 10.29 15.00 15.55 17.90 17.90 17.90 WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WILLIAM G HORLBECK PC WILLITS GENERAL STORE WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYN T TAYLOR XCEL ENERGY XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION, INC XEROX CORPORATION, INC XEROX CORPORATION, INC XEROX CORPORATION, INC XEROX CORPORATION, INC XEROX CORPORATION, INC YAMPA VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION lEE MEDICAL SERVICE lEE MEDICAL SERVICE lEE MEDICAL SERVICE ROAD & BRIDGE FUND ARBITRAGE COMPLIANCE SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT BIG R MANDY ACTURING COLORADO MOUNT AlN MEDICAL Colorado Mountain News Media CRAWFORD PROPERTIES CSW SAFETY SERVICES, COLORADO STRUPE WRIGHT CSW SAFETY SERVICES, COLORADO STRUPE WRIGHT EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE PHARMACY ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED 20 09/01/09 SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES CASH TRANSFER SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 17.90 17.90 19.85 26.25 26.25 113.50 1,361.05 2,904.08 64.00 189.69 15.00 47.16 11.88 15.44 35.19 48.75 64.42 94.75 118.76 121.85 159.03 160.40 219.39 373.34 27.97 177.92 209.46 356.37 476.65 542.04 38.10 22.98 88.46 147.12 8,288,520.01 928.25 193,843.22 252.64 115.00 79.21 1,000.00 796.75 7,908.72 4,881.78 5,305.13 50,000.00 4.73 313.00 5,000.00 5,200.00 8,000.00 10,000.00 ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPORATED ENVIROTECH ENVIROTECH ENVIROTECH ENVIROTECH ENVIROTECH ENVIROTECH EWRT, LLC DBA CME/CME PREMIER FELSBURG HOLT ULLEVIG Finger Rock Preserve, LLC G & S TOOL CLINIC LLC GMCO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY OF COLORADO GORDON ADAMS HA VENERS TRUCKING TOWING IDEAL FENCING CORPORATION INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY KEMP AND COMPANY INCORPORATED LAFARGECORPORATION INCORPORATED M-B COMPANIES, INC. Nicole Wasson OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC PITKIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PITKIN COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS PST ENTERPRISES INC SPECTRUM CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTING Staples Advantage Staples Advantage Staples Advantage SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND VALLEY LUMBER V ALLEY LUMBER VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVICES WESTERN SLOPE AGGREGATE WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION 21 09/01109 SUPPLIES CAPITAL CAPITAL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REFUND CAP IT AL CAPITAL SUPPLIES CAPITAL SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES 15,622.07 75,060.95 351,634.61 5,520.48 7,335.04 7,407.80 11,102.81 17,766.45 22,32 I.I I 87,577.82 7,329.30 15,300.00 20.00 5,967.95 14.07 202.50 39,624.50 41.45 28.80 15,822.73 365.00 167.48 2,833.60 9,812.35 55,600.00 80.20 400.00 85.51 91.35 ]25.26 ]9.23 19.23 115.38 115.38 370.4] 2,031.40 2,389.66 6,466.82 6,837.23 ]8.99 85.66 313.37 68.51 2,100.00 7.50 ]7.90 26.25 13.80 19.77 81.43 98.48 99.50 713.70 191.86 543.79 XEROX CORPORATION, INC XEROX CORPORATION, INC Y AMP A VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION YAMPA VALLEY ELECTRIC ASSOCIATION ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE EARLY CHILDHOOD FUND ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER Evenflo Company, Inc Evenflo Company, Inc MAGGIE SWONGER MAGGIE SWONGER ROSIE MORENO SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND VISA CARD SERVICES SOCIAL SERVICES FUND ALISON D CASIAS ALISON D CASIAS ALISON D CASIAS ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT Certified Business Services, Inc CHARLENE WHITNEY CRM Learning CRM Learning CYNTHIA AGUILAR CYNTHIA AGUILAR DARLENE MONTANO EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING ELISA ACOSTA ERIK MARTINEZ EVERYTHING FOR OFFICES HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PETTY CASH HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PETTY CASH HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE JAMES DUMESNIL, MS JAN GOVREAU JOHN FAY 22 09/01109 SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES CASH TRANSFER PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES CASH TRANSFER SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 186.94 543.79 22.88 53.35 31.53 63.74 1,072,557.10 3,608.40 3]5.47 3] 5.47 3,000.00 3,000.00 1,288.71 1,706.51 8.80 146.85 20.35 399.66 399.66 73.94 14,283.82 4,000.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 46,041.95 458.43 49.36 3 15.00 1,215.45 56.65 69.89 24.20 534.5] 3,813.65 65,000.00 ] ]5,000.00 5.97 270.00 798.75 25.41 5.28 607.76 8.87 58.68 ]9.75 494.58 5.94 34.16 JOHN FAY SERVICES 44.3 ] JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PAYROLL 11.76 JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY PAYROLL 11.76 Julio C. Serna SERVICES 2] 8.40 Karen Koutsoukos SERVICES ]45.84 KATHLEEN LYONS SERVICES 99.05 Ken Mayle SERVICES 62.37 KEVIN ROWE SERVICES 132.00 KONICA MINOLT A BUSINESS SOLUTIONS SERVICES 89.10 KONICA MINOLT A BUSINESS SOLUTIONS SERVICES 250.67 KYLE MCINTYRE SERVrCES 68.48 LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERrCA HOLDINGS SUPPLIES 230.00 LEXISNEXIS SERVICES 210.00 LISA GRIGGS SERVICES 13 1.00 LISA GRIGGS SERVICES 305.90 LISA GRIGGS SERVICES 363.98 LUPE ONTIVEROS SERVICES 66.93 MICHELLE ARANA SERVICES 79.75 MICHELLE ARANA SERVICES 84.15 Michelle Williams SERVICES ]0.00 OSM DELIVERY LLC SERVICES 2]0.60 Panoramic Enterprises, Inc SERVICES 45.00 Panoramic Enterprises, Inc SERVICES 45.00 Panoramic Enterprises, Inc SERVICES 95.00 Panoramic Enterprises, Inc SERVICES ] 40.00 Patricia Dirkson SERVICES 3.30 Patricia Dirkson SERVICES 177.65 PATRICIA MCCOLLUM SERVICES 60.89 PATRICIA MCCOLLUM SERVICES 86.13 PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING SERVICES 299.81 RACHAEL LEABLE SERVICES 209.00 RACHAEL LEABLE SERVICES 2 11.20 Ronald McDonald House Charities of Denver, Inc SERVICES 3]5.00 Samira Tamayo SERVICES 84.70 SARAH LEBLANC SERVICES 22.00 SARAH LEBLANC SERVICES 100.10 SARAH LEBLANC SERVICES 398.75 Sherri Almond SERVICES 31.25 Sherri Almond SUPPLIES 35.2] Sherri Almond SERVICES 132.00 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES (10.75) Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 3.40 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 9.94 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 10.]9 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 10.75 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES ]6.69 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 17.42 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 22.14 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 29.47 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 44.89 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 46.29 Staples Advantage SUPPLIES 56.44 STATE FORMS PUBLICATIONS SERVICES 103.30 SUSPENSE FUND PAYROLL 19.23 SUSPENSE FUND PAYROLL ]9.23 23 09/01109 SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPEN SE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SWEEP STAKES UNLIMITED SWEEP STAKES UNLlMITED SYLVIA SALAZAR SYLVIA SALAZAR THE OLD GYPSUM PRINTER, INC THE OLD GYPSUM PRINTER, INC Tracey L. Branch Tracie Smith VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVrCES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVrCES VISA CARD SERVICES Wendy Ross XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION XEROX CORPORATION Yanina Dobarro Yanina Dobarro 24 09/01/09 PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES SUPPLlES SERVrCES SERVICES SUPPLlES SERVICES SERVrCES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 20.00 49.23 49.23 4]6.61 417.91 675.22 675.22 817.00 817.00 1,607.33 1,607.33 8,3 17.84 20,384.12 35.00 35.00 ]8.70 II 8.80 38.25 75.00 396.22 402.3 I 29.99 52.89 75.56 657.68 (1,206.83 ) 2.25 9.94 ]7.50 18.03 34.75 38.25 45.44 80.00 103.78 107.42 171.13 172.99 803.19 1,145.23 3,396.59 2.97 9.72 ]2.64 28.80 39.88 52.71 77.52 99.70 130.1] 13 1.24 66.26 448.80 296,460.36 WRAP FUND Julie A. Martin L.L.C. Julie A. Martin L.L.c. KELLY PAULSEN SALES TAX E.V. TRANSP. FUND ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS ARBITRAGE COMPLIANCE SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED AT&T ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOBCAT OF THE ROCKIES BUFFALO RIDGE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CENTRAL DISTRlBUTING CENTRAL DISTRlBUTING CENTRAL DISTRlBUTING CENTRAL DISTRlBUTING COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER FEDERAL EXPRESS GFIGENFARE GFI GENF ARE GFI GENF ARE GFI GENF ARE GLENWOOD SPRINGS FORD JANET FIELD JANET FIELD JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY JOHN HANCOCK LlFE INSURANCE COMPANY KELLEY S. COLLIER KINETICO WATER PROS Losh Tools Inc. P ARKVILLE WATER DISTRICT PUBLlC ACCESS 5 QUILL CORPORATION QUILL CORPORATION QUILL CORPORATION QWEST QWEST REGAL PIEDMONT PLASTICS Staples Advantage STEMCO,LP SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND 25 09/01109 SERvrCES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES SERVICES SERVICES CASH TRANSFER SUPpLlES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLlES SUPPLIES SUPPLlES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLlES SUPPLlES SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL SUPPLlES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES SUPPLlES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL 417.50 440.00 315.00 1,172.50 19.95 1,011.20 182.31 285,196.61 50.20 7,805.00 40.98 66.30 127.92 13 1.86 (40.00) (20.00) ] 54.33 373.80 6,977.83 2,519.01 7,376.60 90,000.00 90,000.00 31.16 184.99 709.87 1,869.84 2,716.27 299.88 16.40 84.70 (67.60) 67.60 19.48 35.00 328.70 39.50 250.00 17.90 134.48 259.00 155.49 157.51 2,120.00 2.52 36.00 50.00 50.00 245.18 245.18 SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND TOWN OF AVON TOWN OF AVON TOWN OF AVON TOWN OF AVON Twin Vision na, Inc VALLEY LUMBER VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES XCEL ENERGY lEE MEDICAL SERVICE SALES TAX E.V. TRAILS FUND ALPINE LUMBER COMPANY ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT BOBCAT OF THE ROCKIES Colorado Mountain News Media EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER FEDERAL EXPRESS IMPACT GRAPHICS AND SIGNS INTER-MOUNTAIN ENGINEERING MARCIN ENGINEERING INCORPORATED PAINT BUCKET QUILL CORPORATION SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND V ALLEY LUMBER V ALLEY LUMBER VISA CARD SERVrCES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES SALES TAX RF.V. TRANSP. FUND ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY 26 09/01/09 PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVrCES SUPPLlES CAPITAL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES SUPPLlES SUPPLlES SERVICES SERVrCES SUPPLlES SUPPLIES CASH TRANSFER SUPPLlES SUPPLIES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL CAPITAL SUPPLlES CAPITAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLlES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SUPPLIES SUPPLlES SERVICES CAPITAL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES 1,202.18 1,257.25 I .904.44 2,443.25 11,169.48 1,200.00 1,200.00 2,711.67 94,532.39 48.00 18.91 233.25 13.84 14.60 14.99 27.09 44.22 150.1 7 149.94 620,368.62 117.50 219.65 50.20 660.33 637.56 637.56 1,000.00 1,000.00 14.09 207.75 7,886.25 580.00 13.34 100.69 14.42 14.42 196.1 8 196.18 6.65 11.69 4.95 9.90 125.00 322.27 14,026.58 64,872.70 64,872.70 SALES TAX RF.V. TRAILS FUND ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY AIRPORT FUND A1RGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INCORPORATED ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CASCO INDUSTRIES, INC CENTURY TEL Charles Harman COLORADO FASTENERS Colorado Mountain News Media COLUMBINE MARKET COOPER CROUSE HINDS COOPER CROUSE HINDS DJENSEN ELECTRIC INCORPORATED DJENSEN ELECTRIC INCORPORATED EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER ELIZABETH WILT FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED Financial Energy Management, Inc FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS, INC GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE JAY MAX SALES JBT'S CUSTOM SILK JVIATION, INC 27 09/01/09 SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CASH TRANSFER CASH TRANSFER SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CAPITAL SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLlES CASH TRANSFER SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CAPITAL 7,2 12.30 7,212.30 66.22 27.75 80.70 94.20 97.37 3,394.95 71,361.89 5,000,000.00 294.00 2,055.84 1,000.00 1,775.00 482.04 122.62 405.1 3 1,132.14 520.00 530.00 4,927.91 5,11 1.71 30,000.00 30,000.00 34.85 60.51 696.60 441.30 157.86 1.51 1.88 4.81 4.92 7.00 8.95 29.94 64.23 77.50 81.75 106.56 106.56 107.35 929.50 437.64 457.38 85.56 939.97 1,747.52 1,533.50 313,253.50 KAPLAN KIRSCH & ROCKWELL, LLP LAF ARG E CORPORATION INCORPORATED LAFARGE CORPORATION INCORPORATED LAF ARGE CORPORATION INCORPORATED LAFARGECORPORATION INCORPORATED LAMINATION SERVICE INCORPORATED MARK LANG MILTON SOUZA MULTI ELECTRIC MFG INCORPORATED NOBLE WELDING NORTHWEST CHAPTER AAAE INCORPORATED OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC OLDCASTLE SW GROUP, INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRrSES INC PST ENTERPRrSES INC PST ENTERPRrSES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC QWEST Ralph Glenn Woodward Roger Brown SER VICEMASTER CLEAN OF V AlL SERVICEMASTER CLEAN OF VAlL SKYLINE MECHANICAL INCORPORATED SOURCE GAS SOURCEGAS SOURCEGAS STANDARD SIGNS INCORPORATED SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND TOWN OF GYPSUM TOWN OF GYPSUM TOWN OF GYPSUM UNITED RENTALS US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION 28 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL CAPITAL SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 5,355.00 566.00 1,029.00 1,323.00 1,764.00 4,225.50 399.90 1,000.00 1,742.10 223.68 42.50 I 18,159.48 5,251,206.97 2.00 2.63 5.04 9.98 12.03 15.93 16.62 21.44 22.38 23.62 33.14 46.82 57.20 75.56 97.34 154.92 444.08 554.73 4.85 1,000.00 1,000.00 525.00 1,570.00 ] ,096.00 110.80 25.49 ]08.62 1,295.09 38.46 115.38 192.18 193.43 515.84 716.85 4,245.06 4,275.88 90.80 364.25 652.50 100.00 71.34 142.68 US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION US CUSTOMS BORDER PROTECTION VAlL ELECTRONICS VAIL ELECTRONICS V AIL V ALLEY JET CENTER VAIL VALLEY JET CENTER V ALLEY LUMBER V ALLEY LUMBER VALLEY LUMBER V ALLEY LUMBER V ALLEY LUMBER V ALLEY LUMBER VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WASTE MANAGEMENT INCORPORATED WESTERN IMPLEMENTS, INC WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE 800 MHZ FUND ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED QWEST QWEST QWEST QWEST CORPORATION SUSPENSE FUND 29 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES CASH TRANSFER SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES CASH TRANSFER PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES PAYROLL ] 42.68 142.68 142.68 1,000.00 1,560.00 25.75 3,502.00 5.22 7.58 10.43 28.05 50.52 62.95 136.00 136.90 179.27 217.19 226.86 2,321.41 3,175.45 350.00 5]6.88 930.61 70.00 59.57 18.74 27.48 79.90 120.67 196.78 230.62 242.00 307.50 378.41 124.73 10,898,668.72 1,195.44 424.15 448.2 I 2,000.00 2,000.00 94.93 II 7 .59 130.52 172.86 10,720.83 250.00 246.32 301.64 246.29 1,450.00 286.1 8 SUSPENSE FUND TESSCO INCORPORETED TESSCO INCORPORETED VISA CARD SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH FUND ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT BRIMAR INDUSTRIOS, INC Colorado Mountain News Media EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER ERIK MARTINEZ HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES PETTY CASH JOHN BATSON Kelly Matias METROPOLITAN PATHOLOGIST PC METROPOLITAN PATHOLOGIST PC NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED NRC BROADCASTING INCORPORATED PSS INCORPORATED PSS INCORPORATED REBECCA LARSON REBECCA LARSON REBECCA LARSON SONDRA MANSKE SONDRA MANSKE SONDRA MANSKE STACI BRUCE ST ACI BRUCE Staples Advantage Staples Advantage STERICYCLE INCORPORATED SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND THERESA CAREY V ANESA DOTY VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES 30 09/01/09 PAYROLL SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CASH TRANSFER SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES 286.18 133.83 257.46 935.01 21,697.44 1,365.75 308.73 556.20 (1,212.63) 5,075.83 25,000.00 40,000.00 23.10 29.37 300.00 56.1 0 170.00 364.00 112.00 112.00 2,033.88 2,526.78 4.40 58.30 138.60 46.20 56.21 130.90 23.10 69.30 32.36 81.95 1,287.00 98.48 98.48 100.20 100.20 185.20 192.30 192.30 216.78 270m 270.01 3,495.38 3,955.50 207.90 134.42 6.00 13.05 13.67 13.68 15.84 VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES ZASTROW DENTISTRY LLC HOUSING LOAN FUND FUNDING PARTNERS FOR HOUSING SOLUTIONS FUNDING PARTNERS FOR HOUSING SOLUTIONS HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CDW COMPUTER CENTERS CHOLPON LORD DANIEL DIMITROV EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER ECONOMIC COUNCIL OF EAGLE FIRST AMERICAN HERITAGE TITLE KIM BELL WILLIAMS KIM BELL WILLIAMS KIM BELL WILLIAMS LEONA PERKINS LEONA PERKINS Mosaic Urban Partners, LLC PHILADELPHIA INSURANCE COMPANIES Sherman & Howard LLC SUNRIDGEAT AVON II CONDO ASSOCIATION SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND The HigWand Group, Inc UNITED WAY OF EAGLE RIVER VALLEY VAlL BOARD OF REALTORS V AIL BOARD OF REALTORS VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES 31 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES CASH TRANSFER CAPITAL SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES CAPITAL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES 36.01 38.86 45.00 46.62 99.00 251.68 441.97 120.00 89,407.97 105,699.57 205,698.74 311,398.31 29,609.73 1,745.06 61.05 100.00 2,000.00 3,915.43 20,000.00 20,532.07 8,333.00 300.00 40.00 42.35 1,229.00 60.00 83.60 1,350.00 5,101.00 288.00 802.39 225.02 225.02 384.60 384.60 566.9 I 566.91 648.30 648.30 2,920.54 3,085.88 2,500.00 20.00 867.50 867.50 307.21 71.83 80.00 VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES YURI KOSTICK OPEN SPACE FUND ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT WESTERN LAND GROUP INCORPORATED WESTERN LAND GROUP INCORPORATED CAPIT AL IMPROVEMENTS FUND ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY B AND B EXCA V A TING CHARLES D JONES CO, INC. CHARLES D JONES CO, INC. FERGUSON ENTERPRISES INCORPORATED GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAINGER INCORPORATED Highmark Plumbing & Heating LLC Highmark Plumbing & Heating LLC HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS-COSTCO WHOLESALE HV AC SUPPLY HV AC SUPPLY ISC, Inc ISC, Inc JJP COMPANIES JJP COMPANIES JJP COMPANIES JJP COMPANIES LEW AN AND ASSOCIATES MENENDEZ ARCHITECTS PC PAINT BUCKET PEAK LAND SURVEYING INCORPORATED RODNEY MORGAN,dba RDM EXCAVATING TILE WORK BY PAUL TILE WORK BY PAUL TOWN OF EAGLE TRANE COMPANY TRANECOMPANY V AlL SIGN CORPORATION VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES 32 09/01/09 SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES CASH TRANSFER CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPIT AL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPIT AL SERVICES CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL CAPITAL 241.49 430.50 133.10 110,767.89 12,190.67 1,127.15 2,555.39 15,873.21 17.49 55.72 75.28 165.47 175.00 496.92 602.30 24.65 68.62 17.30 3.94 37.89 101.30 190.04 1,020.00 5,971.46 210.87 4.78 252.70 1,504.50 5,478.13 5,685.33 23,823.10 25,848.70 26,720.22 977.00 430.50 53.08 1,172.50 460.00 200.00 360.00 2,680.00 374.05 1,136.00 615.00 45.88 741.95 921.66 108,719.33 JMC-COP DEBT SERVICE FUND US BANK TRUST NA CORPORATION TRUST DEBT MANAGEMENT LANDFILL FUND ACZ LABORATORY INCORPORATED AIR CYCLE CORPORATION ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER FARIS MACHINERY COMPANY GREAT AMERICA LEASING HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNI KRW CONSULTING KRW CONSULTING KRW CONSULTING LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INCORPORATED NORTHERN SAFETY COMPANY INCORPORATED SHAW CONSTRUCTION LLC SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS US CLEANING PROFESSIONALS VAlL ELECTRONICS VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES MOTOR POOL FUND A AND E TIRE INCORPORATED A AND E TIRE INCORPORATED A AND E TIRE INCORPORATED A1RGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INCORPORATED A1RGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INCORPORATED ARBITRAGE COMPLIANCE SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED ARBITRAGE COMPLIANCE SPECIALISTS INCORPORATED A V -TECH ELECTRONICS INCORPORATED 33 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES CASH TRANSFER PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SUPPLIES SERVICES CAPITAL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES CAPITAL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES CAPITAL 2,500.00 2,500.00 541.00 233.75 69,851.80 1,202.00 1,221.25 18,000.00 18,000.00 451.28 138.00 3,829.50 584.26 2,136.73 6,023.88 707.00 44.25 405,613.67 130.38 130.38 240.78 341.52 405.97 2,4 11.70 2,819.37 103.04 103.04 103.04 421.38 421.38 421.38 360.00 (12.96) 364.90 1,690.81 69.00 539,103.48 127.60 1,859.40 1,954.41 45.46 90.94 416.33 1,159.72 8,040.00 BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT CHEVROLET BURT FORD ON ARAPAHOE INC CENTRAL DISTRlBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL CENTURYTEL Claims Services Group, Inc Claims Services Group, Inc COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS COLLETTS CRAlG POFF CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAlN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES 34 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES (31.51 ) 40.41 52.64 62.58 89.69 145.45 259.63 339.14 414.87 1,082.16 44.18 18.65 37.3 I 42.46 84.92 38.10 38.10 67.50 67.50 264.82 264.83 571.03 620.99 681.94 692.45 949.41 974.07 1,179.82 1,509.60 1,509.60 1,535.25 2,159.43 2,359.98 3,106.47 3,575.99 3,985.3 I 9,080.86 10,506.86 13,656.85 14,995.06 15,658.51 16,325.09 59.00 22.20 (599.00) (45.14) (30.78) (10.26) 9.20 19.66 46.68 54.39 87.79 109.19 127.22 DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER FARIS MACHINERY COMPANY FARrS MACHINERY COMPANY FORCE AMERICA Future Vision Of Aspen, Inc GILLIG LLC GO AUTONATION SSC GO AUTONATION SSC GO AUTONATION SSC GO AUTONATION SSC GO AUTONATION SSC GO AUTONATION SSC GO AUTONATION SSC GRAND JUNCTION CHRYSLER JEEP AND DODGE GRAND JUNCTION CHRYSLER JEEP AND DODGE GRAND JUNCTION CHRYSLER JEEP AND DODGE GRAND JUNCTION CHRYSLER JEEP AND DODGE GRAND JUNCTION CHRYSLER JEEP AND DODGE GRAND JUNCTION CHRYSLER JEEP AND DODGE H,H & H AUTOMOTIVE PAINT INC H,H & H AUTOMOTIVE PAINT INC HANSON EQUIPMENT HANSON EQUIPMENT HANSON EQUIPMENT HANSON EQUIPMENT HONNEN EQUIPMENT HONNEN EQUIPMENT HONNEN EQUIPMENT HONNEN EQUIPMENT INST A CHAIN INCORPORATED INTERMOUNTAIN COACH INTERMOUNTAIN SWEEPER INCORPORATED INTERMOUNTAIN SWEEPER INCORPORATED KOIS BROTHERS KOIS BROTHERS LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS LAWSON PRODUCTS MACDONALD EQUIPMENT COMPANY 35 09/01109 SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERvrCES SERVICES SERVICES CAPITAL SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERvrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERvrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERvrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERvrCES SERVICES SERvrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES 212.25 261.72 356.91 381.11 539.84 10.00 1,693.73 11 ,779.50 20,000.00 30,000.00 (358.39) 615.96 203.34 27,546.70 366.67 63.88 78.92 113.60 190.40 212.00 257.68 383.00 15.00 18.41 93.00 240.65 307.1 1 338.83 188.58 ]88.59 ]5.55 56.68 81.09 215.88 43.07 ]20.80 477.27 1,764.00 106.54 289.75 23.50 23.50 185.26 356.71 (70.44) (35.22) (24.93) (12.47) 39.92 68.90 79.84 113.07 137.83 226.17 81.97 MESAMACK SALES & SERVrCE INC, DBA MID WEST TRUCK PARTS & SERVICE NOVUS AUTOGLASS NOVUS AUTOGLASS POWER MOTIVE POWERSHIFf INC PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL PREMrER TIRE TERMINAL PREMIER TIRE TERMINAL PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRrSES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC PST ENTERPRISES INC SAFETY KLEEN CORPORATION SERCK SERVICES INCORPORATED Staples Advantage Staples Advantage SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND SUSPENSE FUND TIRE DISTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TIRE DlSTRIBUTION SYSTEMS TIRE DISTRIBUTrON SYSTEMS TIRE DlSTRlBUTION SYSTEMS TIRE DISTRIBUTrON SYSTEMS TIRE DlSTRIBUTION SYSTEMS UNITED STATES WELDlNG VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VERIZON WIRELESS INCORPORATED VISA CARD SERVrCES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVICES VISA CARD SERVrCES W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMP ANY WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY W AGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WESTERN IMPLEMENTS, INC WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WESTERN SLOPE SUPPLIES WHITEHALLS ALPINE DISTRIBUTING WHITEHALLS ALPINE DISTRIBUTING 36 09/01/09 SERVICES SERVrCES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL PAYROLL SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SERVrCES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERvrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SERVrCES SERVrCES SUPPLlES SUPPLIES 173.17 433.66 187.50 437.50 526.12 530.56 (258.40) 423.24 817.64 973.12 228.85 357.37 1,674.89 2,165.]4 231.58 856.95 145.17 ]45.17 69.23 69.23 163.27 163.27 3,859.90 3,864.30 91.50 150.00 385.88 462.72 575.00 1,698.00 30.0] 74.04 74.05 25.77 59.99 87.50 87.50 (570.8]) 5.70 12.01 54.3] 69.01 108.97 112.77 177.01 196.08 229.02 308.45 674.81 2,152.07 3 16.1 5 45.38 90.77 34.60 69.20 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE ZEE MEDICAL SERVrCE ZEP SALES & SERVICE ZEP SALES & SERVICE SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLlES 7.70 42.86 85.72 32.07 64.]5 249,623.63 INSURANCE RESERVCE FUND ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CASH TRANSFER 8,446.93 8,446.93 HEAL TH INSURANCE FUND ARN MENCONI Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada SERVICES PAYROLL PAYROLL 1,619.50 4,017.55 4,808.46 10,445.51 911 FUND ATTENTION FINANCE EAGLE COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTURYTEL INTRADOINCORPORATED LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES NOMAD TECHNOLOGlES QWEST QWEST CASH TRANSFER SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVrCES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 4,225.94 178.63 2,362.50 74.52 629.06 850.00 44.96 66.48 8,432.09 Executive Session There was none. Consent Agenda Chainnan Fisher stated the fIrst item before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A. Approval of bill paying for the week of August 31, 2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative B. Approval of payroll for September 10,2009 (subject to review by the Finance Director) Finance Department Representative C. Approval of the minutes ofthe Eagle County Board of Commissioners Meetings for July 14, 2009. Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder D. Agreement with USDA Forest Service and Eagle County to Creek and Coffee Pot Roads Brad Higgins, Road & Bridge Director Repair and Restore East & West Brush 37 09/01109 E. First Amendment to the Ground Lease between the County of Eagle, State of Colorado and State of Colorado, Department of Military and Veterans Affairs Chris Anderson, Airport Representative F. Software Maintenance Agreement-Gatekeeper Systems, Inc. Chris Anderson, Airport Representative G. Equipment, Furnishings & Accessories for the Air Traffic Control Tower located at Eagle County Regional Airport, Contract with Robinson Aviation Chris Anderson, Airport Representative H. Memorandum Of Understanding between Eagle County Board of County Commissioners and Sweetwater Fire Protection Services Center Tom Johnson, Public Works Director I. Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Contract Amendment # 1 of Master Contract for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Program Health & Human Services Representative J. Agreement between Eagle County and Valley View Hospital Association for Medical Officer Services Health & Human Services Representative K. Agreement between Eagle County, Colorado and Clean Harbors Environmental Services, Inc. Ron Rasnic, Solid Waste Manager L. Estoppel Certificate County Attorney Representative M. Resolution 2009-090 for Approval Authorizing Assignment to the Colorado Housing and Finance Authority of a Private Activity Bond Allocation of Eagle County Pursuant to the Colorado Private Activity Bond Ceiling Allocation Act and Assignment of Allocation Housing & Development Representative N. Assignment of Allocation (Multi-Family Housing Facility Bonds) Housing & Development Representative Chairman Fisher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Bryan Treu, County Attorney stated that there were no changes to the agenda. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the Consent Agenda, Items A-N. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Runyon moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and re-convene as the Eagle County Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Liquor License Authority Kathy Scriver, Clerk and Recorder's Office Consent Agenda Renewals 38 09/01/09 A. Summit Food & Beverage, LLC d/b/a The Summit #40-75239-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License with 4-0pt. Premises in Edwards (Cordillera). There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. B. Sleepy Hollow Restaurant, LLC d/b/a Foxnut #15-45201-0000 This is a renewal of a Hotel and Restaurant License in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. C Rio Rancho, LLC d/b/a Rancho Del Rio Liquors #26-18840-0000 This is a renewal of a Retail Liquor Store license located in Bond. There have been no complaints or disturbances in the past year. All the necessary fees have been paid. An Alcohol Management Plan is on file in the Clerk's Office and proof of server training has been provided. Commissioner Stavney moved that the Board approve the Liquor Consent Agenda for September 1, 2009 consisting ofItems A-C. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stavney moved to adjourn 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. Citizen Input Chairman Fisher opened public comment Kathy Heicher, spoke on behalf of the Eagle County Historical Society and praised the county and Red Cliff volunteers for their hard work cleaning up the Red Cliff cemetery. She spoke about the recent cemetery tour and the success of the event. It was the most successful fundraiser ever. Commissioner Runyon stated that he attended the tour and was very impressed with the sense of history. Ms. Heicher believed the event introduced a lot of people to Eagle County history. Commissioner Stavney echoed Commissioner Runyon's comments. Chairman Fisher thanks Eric Lovgren and the many volunteers for working diligently to clean up the site. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Resolution 2009-091 of the Board of Commissioners of Eagle County, Colorado, Submitting to the Electorate at the Election to be held on November 3,2009, a Question to Issue Debt and Enter into a Multiple Fiscal Year Financial Obligation for the Eagle County Clean Energy Local Improvement District Arising Under Section 20 of Article X of the State Constitution County Attorney Representative Yuri Kostick, Adam Palmer and Alex Potente were present. 39 09/01/09 Mr. Kostick spoke about the Energy Smart Loan Program. There were two parts to program, the ballot question, and program implementation. The ballot question would authorize the voters to form a local improvement district. The geography of the district would be the boundaries of Eagle County. The local improvement district would allow citizens to take a loan and pay it back through their property taxes. The loan would be specific to green home improvements. If the ballot question gets approved program implementation would follow. He explained that the program was a low interest financing mechanism and would apply to anyone who paid property taxes. The improvements would run with the property. Energy saving would be greater than the taxes paid. In the Boulder County example contractors and homeowners enter a contractual obligation with the county. In the event of foreclosure, the deed reverts to the lender. If someone were not paying their property taxes, any liens would be paid at tax sale. There would be several financial options. It would be a better deal if there were greater participation. He presented the pros and cons of the program. So far, they received strong support from the community. Details would follow in spring of 2010. Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Megan Gillman, President of Active Energies voiced her support for the proposal. She believed the program would be a great way to assist in home energy efficiency programs and create more jobs. Julie Nordberg with the Eagle Valley Alliance for Sustainability expressed support for the program and offered to help campaign. Commissioner Stavney stated that there was still work that needed to work out the details but the good thing about sending this to the voters is it is an opt in or not. He believed it could potentially stimulate the local home building industry and promote green remodels. He supported the project. Commissioner Runyon expressed his support. He believed it was appropriate for Eagle County to lead the way. In terms of staff time, there was a mechanism for funding which may come in the way of a small fee or surcharge. Mr. Kostick stated that in the Boulder County example there was a $75.00 non-refundable application fee and in addition to that, there was a 1 % fmancing charge on the loans. Commissioner Runyon stated that the board was fiscally responsible in these times and would make sure these details were addressed. Mr. Palmer stated that only after the voters approve the ballot initiative would the administration be decided. Chairman Fisher explained the importance of being up front. She looked forward to further discussion. Mr. Treu stated that the resolution had one minor change; the last bullet point in the resolution had been revised to allow for flexibility. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the resolution submitting to the Electorate at the Election to be held on November 3, 2009, a Question to Issue Debt and Enter into a Multiple Fiscal Year Financial Obligation for the Eagle County Clean Energy Local Improvement District Arising under Section 20 of Article X of the State Constitution. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Fisher stated that there would be no additional cost other than the cost of the tabor notice, which she thought, would be minimal. Introduction and First Reading of: Ordinance for the Regulation of Traffic by the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, Adopting by Reference the 2009 Edition of the "Model Traffic Code for Colorado" as Amended by this Ordinance and Repealing all Resolutions or Ordinances in Conflict Therewith and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof County Attorney Representative 40 09/01/09 Mr. Treu stated that this was the fIrst reading and there would be a pubic hearing in the future. A motion approving the title of the ordinance and setting a public hearing date was needed. The main changes from 2003 to 2009 were state statutes dealing with cell phones. The county was merely adopting the states penalty fInes making them consistent. Commissioner Runyon moved to approve an Ordinance for the Regulation of TraffIc by the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, Adopting by Reference the 2009 Edition of the "Model TraffIc Code for Colorado" as Amended by this Ordinance and Repealing all Resolutions or Ordinances in Conflict Therewith and Providing Penalties for Violation Thereof the next meeting would be scheduled for September 15, 2009, 10:00 am. Commissioner Stavney seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Economic Stimulus Projects Update Tom Johnson, Public Works Susanne Vitale, Director of Health and Human Services spoke about the Early Head Start Expansion Grant. The grant would bring in an additional $790,000.00 offedera1 money for the Early Head Start Childhood program. The county currently serves 45 children in the program, this would allow the county to serve an additional 37 children and allow families to have the option of going to full day, full year childcare. She asked the board if they still supported the expansion grant application. The Commissioners expressed their support. Work Session - Clerk & Recorder Budget Teak Simonton, Clerk & Recorder Recorded Planning Files PDA-2142 Willits Bend PUD Amendment Sean Hanagan, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 5/19109,6/23/09,8/4/09, & 8/25/09. To be tabled 9/8/09 ACTION: The purpose of this PUD amendment is to change language within the text to include "residential" as a by right use as well as change language regarding mezzanines and how they are counted toward floor area ratio. LOCATION: Willits Bend, EI Jebel Commissioner Stavney moved to table file PDA-2142 Willits Bend PUD amendment September 8, 2009. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-2332 Cordillera Valley Club Stora2e Tank Sean Hanagan, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 7/14/09 41 09/01/09 ACTION: The purpose of this 1041 Permit is for the installation of a buried 2.5 million gallon water storage tank at an elevation of7,600 feet north of Edwards. The tank is proposed to be 142 feet in diameter, 23 feet in height and constructed of concrete. The tank is necessary to allow the Edwards Drinking Water Facility to operate at its design capacity, and to provide greater equalization capacity in the overall distribution system and the capacity to deliver water for ftre protection. Once this proposed tank is on-line, the existing water tank situated to the north of the Cordillera Valley Club will be removed. LOCATION: North of the Cordillera Valley Club Subdivision in Edwards, Colorado on White River National Forest Land. FILE NO.!PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF CONTACT: REQUEST: 1041-2332/1041 Permit (Matters of State Interest) Cordillera Valley Club Water Storage Tank Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority Robert Weaver. AMEC Earth & Environmental Inc. Sean Hanagan and Ray Merry 1041 permit to allow the placement of a new 2.5 million gallon water storage tank STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Table ftle 1. SUMMARY This 1041 permit application by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (the 'applicant') proposes the installation of a 2.5 million gallon water storage tank to tie into the existing water delivery/storage system managed by the applicant. The current .33 million gallon tank is undersized for the current recommended capacity. This recommended capacity is based on the American Water Works Association's average demand formula which recommends not more that a 50% average demand on a tank. The tanks dimensions are approximately 142 feet in diameter and 23 feet in height. The top of the tanks elevation (7602 feet) is designed to provide hydraulic balancing within the Upper Eagle River Water Authority system. The proposed tanks elevation must be set equal to that of the Arrowhead tank which is located .6 miles up Cresta Rd. The tank will be partially buried into the hillside to assist in the balancing of the system. Earthen berms will be used to cover the exposed sides of the tank not buried. An 8 foot high security fence painted green and black will be erected to maintain security of the site. In addition to the tank infrastructure to connect the tank to the (UERW A) system the proposal includes water transmission lines and electrical lines to provide power to the water tank. A monitoring system will be installed adjacent to the tank to provide monitoring of the water level, valve position, and other parameters. This information can be measured and sent to UERW A continuously. A ftre hydrant will be installed at the tank so that the lines may be purged if necessary. 2. BACKGROUND The Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (ERWSD) operates three wastewater treatment plants located in Vail, Avon, and Edwards. The wastewater treatment plant in Avon was built in 1966, with the most recent expansion of the plant completed in 1997, bringing the capacity of the treatment plant to 4.3 MGD. The Vail wastewater treatment plant was originally constructed in 1969, and was expanded in 1982 and again in 2000; the capacity of the Vail plant in 2.7 MGD. The wastewater treatment plant in Edwards was constructed in 1981, with expansions in 1986 and 2001, providing a capacity of2.95 MGD. The average daily flow through the entire ERWSD wastewater system is 5.5 MGD, with a range 00.7-7.7 MGD. ERWSD currently operates and services 46 water tanks ranging in capacity from 3,000 to 2 million gallons. The proposed CVC tank is designed to replace the existing CVC tank. The proposed tank will have a capacity of 2.5 million gallons. This partially buried tank will be located on property owned by the United States Forest Service (White River National Forest). 3. REFERRALS This 1041 Permit Application was referred to the following departments and agencies with a request for comment: 42 09/01/09 · Eagle County Engineering Department · Eagle County Attorney's Office · Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist · Eagle County Planning Commission · Eagle County Environmental Health · ECO Trails · Colorado State Health Department - Water Quality Division · Colorado Division of Water Resources · Colorado Division of Wildlife · Colorado Water Conservation Board · Colorado Geological Survey · Natural Resource Conservation Service · Berry Creek Metro District · Edwards Metro District · CVC Metro District · US Forest Service · Fire District: ERFPD · Northwest Colorado Council of Governments · Colorado Historical Society · Eagle County Historical society · Town of Avon As of this writing, the following agencies have responded to this 1041 application with comments: Colorado Division of Wildlife: . Please refer to the attached response dated June 15th, 2009 Northwest Colorado Council of Governments: . Please refer to the attached response dated June 29th, 2009 Colorado Historical Society: . Please refer to the attached response dated June 5th, 2009 Eagle County Engineering Department: . Please refer to the attached response dated July 1 st, 2009 Colorado Geological Survey: . Please refer to the attached response dated June 30th, 2009 Eagle County Planning Commission: . At a work session held by the Eagle County Planning Commission on June 17th 2009, tht: Planning Commission, acting as a referral agencv onlv, discussed the application with Staff and expressed concerns the regarding site location as well as landscaping and system hydraulics. The planning commission's comments are attached 4. FINDINGS & RECOMMENDATIONS A. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 6.04.01, Permit Application Approval Criteria for Matters of State Interest. and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following analysis is provided. The Approval Criteria is numbered and indicated in bold. A summary response is provided with the recommendation indicated in the findings box. 43 09/01/09 (1) Documentation that prior to site disturbance for the Project, the applicant will have obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals. The Board may, at its discretion, defer making a final decision on the application until outstanding property rights, permits and approvals are obtained. The following permits and approvals must be obtained prior to site disturbance: · USFS Special Use Permit · Eagle County Building Permit · Eagle County Grading Permit · Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Construction Stormwater Discharge Permit · CDPHE Discharge Permit [+] FINDING: (1) Riehts. Permits and Approvals. The applicant WILL HAVE obtained all necessary property rights, permits and approvals prior to site disturbance. (2) The Project will not impair property rights held by others. The project will not impair property rights held by others. All necessary easements have been procured, and neighboring property owners have been notified of the proposed improvements. Staff believes neighboring private properties will not be negatively affected by this 1041. [+] FINDING: (2) Propertv riehts of others. The project WILL NOT impair property rights held by others. (3) The Project is consistent with relevant provisions of applicable land use and water quality plans. Eagle County Comprehensive Plan speaks to development within the proposed area: 3. 7.3 Development Impacts Policies: a. Development in areas critical to the continued well being of Eagle County's wildlife populations should not be allowed. b. Where disturbances to wildlife habitat cannot be avoided, development should be required to fully mitigate potential negative impacts. The Comprehensive Plan specifically calls out the impact from the Cordillera Valley Club along with other developments on the north side ofI-70 that impact mule deer habitat. Staff believes that this proposal constitutes development by Eagle County Land Use In addition, The Colorado Division of Wildlife has submitted comments as a referral agency specific to the DOW's comments is concern regarding further development encroachment or disturbance into this mapped winter range. Therefore, staff is unable to make a positive finding and recommends the applicant be required to adequately address this issue working with the CDOW and staff to either demonstrate that any potential negative impacts will and can be "Fully" mitigated. Please see attached memo dated June 3nt, 2009 from the applicant to he USFS providing additional information regarding criteria for site selection. [ - ] FINDING: (3) Consistencv with olans. The Project IS NOT consistent with relevant provisions 0 applicable land use and water quality plans. 44 09/01/09 (4) The applicant has the necessary expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all the requirements and conditions. The ERWSD operates 46 water storage tanks in the ERWSD and UERW A service areas. These tanks range in size from 3,000 to 2 million gallons. To this date, no significant operational incidents or malfunctions have occurred. The UERW A prepares a long-range financial plan as part of the budget process each year. The current plan provides for issuance of $11.7 million in revenue bonds in late 2009 or early 2010 to fund the proposed CVC Tank and several other capital projects. The water rates in place are adequate to cover the operations and increased debt service for these projects. [+] FINDING: (4) Exoertise and financial caoabilitv. The applicant DOES HAVE the necessaJ v expertise and financial capability to develop and operate the Project consistent with all requirements all d conditions. (5) The Project is technically and financially feasible. · Design costs for the CVC tank are currently estimated at $234,00 · Current engineer's estimates run from $2.8 to $5.1 million for the tank and required piping (estimate range based on cost of concrete) · Total mitigation costs will be approximately $412,000 · The UERW A has budgeted approximately $5.1 million for the CVC tank project. These funds will come from revenue bonds as well as water sales revenue · The CVC tanks estimated cost of $5.1 million is estimated to be issued at an average cost of 5.5% over a 20 year period [+] FINDING: (5) Feasibilitv, The Project IS technically and financially feasible. ~ (6) The Project is not subject to significant risk from natural hazards. A geotechnical investigation was performed at the proposed tank site to determine appropriate design criteria for the tank. According to the application materials submitted, "[TJhere are no kno'otn soils or geologic conditions which would expose the Project to unacceptable risk." The project is not proposed to be constructed on, over or across areas of known hazard areas. HP Geotech has made design recommendations and contained them within their report dated November 19th, 2008. In addition, the Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist has performed an analysis (rating) of the subject area and has stated that: "The overall wildfire hazard for the eve tank area is High. This rating is based on fuel types present, topography, slope, access, and water supply. " Although the proposed site is located in an area of high fire danger, no specific mitigation is required other than defensible space due to the nature of the proposed structure. [+] FINDING: (6) Risk from hozards. The Project IS NOT subject to significant risk from natu't' hazards. (7) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on land use patterns. The proposed CVC tank is intended to improve the level of service to existing development in the Edwards area and in no way is intended to serve any specific future development. The existing land use at the proposed CVC tank site is open space (resource Preservation) within the White River National Forest. Adjacent to the parcel to the South is open space in the Cordillera Valley subdivision. Water storage facilities are an allowed use within the RP zone district. 45 09/01/09 [+] FINDING: (7) Land use oatterns, the project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on laIJp use patterns as a result of this 1041 Permit application. (8) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services, or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. The project will not place any demands on local government services or exceed the capacity of service delivery systems. The proposed project will benefit government services by providing additional water storage for wildfire fighting and fire protection at high elevation. [+] FINDING: (8) Service Caoacitv. The Project WILL NOT have a significant adverse effect on t e capability of local governments affected by the Project to provide services, or exceed the capacity f service delive s stems it exceed the ca acit of service delive s stems. (9) The Project will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents ofthe County. The proposed project will not create any undue financial burden on existing or future residents of Eagle County. The proposed project is to be funded by issuance of bonds. Debt service is to be paid by existing fees. · Design costs for the CVC tank are currently estimated at $234,00 · Current engineer's estimates run from $2.8 to $5.1 million for the tank and required piping (estimate range based on cost of concrete) · Total mitigation costs will be approximately $412,000 · The UERW A has budgeted approximately $5.1 million for the CVC tank project. These funds will come from revenue bonds as well as water sales revenue · The CVC tanks estimated cost of $5.1 million is estimated to be issued at an average cost of 5.5% over a 20 year period [+] FINDING: (9) Financial Burden, the Project WILL NOT create an undue [mancial burden on existing or future residents ofthe County. (10) The Project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. The project will not significantly degrade any current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. Approval of this 1041 will not result in the loss of any productive agricultural or recreational lands. [+] FINDING: (10) Protection of local economy. The project WILL NOT significantly degrade am current or foreseeable future sector of the local economy. (11) The Project will not have a significant adverse effect on the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experience. No land development activity is proposed that will adversely affect the quality or quantity of recreational opportunities and experiences within the Cordillera Valley Club. The location of the tank thought located on public lands is not accessible to the general public using the existing road. Residents from CVC have some seasonal access that will not be affected by the tanks construction. [+] FINDING: (11) Protection of recreational opportunities, The Project WILL NOT have a si nificant adverse effect on the ualit of recreational 0 ortunities and ex erience. 46 09/01/09 (12) The planning, design and operation of the Project shall reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. The proposed CVC tank will be a closed-top tank to limit losses from evaporation. In addition, when the tank needs to be drained for routine maintenance, the water will be routed back into the UERWA system, rather than dumped through the outfall. The only time outfall will be used is in the unlikely event of an emergency tank draining. The UER W A has adopted a Water Conservation Master Plan that has been approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and is designed to encourage the efficient use of water. As provided in the application, the draft was completed in 1996 but never adopted. Staff recommends the applicant work with Eagle County staff to ensure current best management practices used in design, construction and operation of any new water storage and transmission lines and tat the Authority update the 1996 plan to reflect today's standards for water conservation and BMP's. [ - I FINDING: (12) Resource Conservation. The planning, design and operation of the project DOES reflect principals of resource conservation, energy efficiency and recycling or reuse. (13) The Project will not significantly degrade air quality. Air emissions include exhaust from vehicles carrying personnel to and from the tank site during construction and during ongoing maintenance activities. Also, fugitive dust will be created during excavation of the tank site and installation of new water lines. Generally, disturbance from grading of access roads and the tank site will be minimized by the implementation dust suppression plan submitted with any future grading permit. As well, best management practices will be employed and all disturbed areas will be re-vegetated. [+] FINDING: (13) Air Qualitv. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade air quality. (14) The Project will not significantly degrade existing visual quality. The proposed plans call for the 2.5 million gallon, concrete storage tank to be almost entirely buried. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a berm and to revegetate said berm with new landscape p1antings of native vegetation to blend with the surrounding areas. Further, the applicant proposes to paint any exposed portions of the concrete tank with a color that blends the tank with the natural surroundings. Finally, the applicant has provided photos taken from points within and outside the subdivision, demonstrating that the proposed improvements will generally not be visible from Highway 6 or 170. Staff believes the aforementioned improvements and mitigation techniques, tank location in combination with existing, vegetation that will surround the new tank site, will significantly reduce or mitigate any visual impacts from this improvement. [+] FINDING: (14) Visual quality. As mitigated, the Project WILL NOT significantly degrade visual quality. (15) The Project will not significantly degrade surface water quality. No off-site discharges into surface water bodies in the vicinity are anticipated. Plans will be developed, in accordance with State Regulations for Stormwater Management, to include Best Management Practices (BMPs) such as: · Sedimentary controls (erosion control fence and straw bale checks) along and around the construction site; · Re-vegetation of all disturbed areas; · Weekly monitoring of all installed fencing and management of petroleum products or other potentially hazardous materials used during construction. 47 09/01/09 [+] FINDING: (15) Surface water qualitv. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade surface wa er quality. (16) The Project will not significantly degrade groundwater quality. The Project will have little or no effect on the quality of groundwater in the area or on groundwater recharge. There are no anticipated "discharges" from the system into ground water. [+] FINDING: (16) Ground water qualitv. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrade ground wat r quality. (17) The Project will not significantly degrade wetlands and riparian areas. There are no jurisdictional wetlands or riparian areas identified within the Project area. [+] FINDING: (17) Wetlands and riparian areas. The Project WILL NOT significantly degrad~ wetlands and riparian areas. (18) The Project will not significantly degrade terrestrial or aquatic animal life or its habitats. In a memo dated June 15th, 2009 from the Division of Wildlife, Bill Andrea was quoted as saying: "The project is located in mule deer migration corridor, winter range, winter concentration area and elk winter range and severe winter range. The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan specifically addresses development within this area contained within section 3.7.3 "Development Impacts"". A discussion regarding this fmding as related to Eagle County Comprehensive Plan can be found as a response to finding number 3 above. Please see the detailed response received from the Colorado Division of Wildlife. [ - ] FINDING: (18) Terrestrial or aquatic animal life. The Project Will degrade terrestrial or aqt atic animal life or its habitats. (19) The Project will not significantly deteriorate terrestrial plant life or plant habitat. Results of the a USFS Biological Evaluation and Biological Assessment indicated that the project would not significantly degrade any terrestrial or aquatic plant life or plant habitat. [+] FINDING: (19) Terrestrial plant life. The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriorate terrestri I plant life or plant habitat. (20) The Project will not significantly deteriorate soils and geologic conditions. A geotechnical investigation was performed at the tank site to determine appropriate design criteria for the tank site. According to the application materials submitted, there are no known soils or geologic conditions which would expose the Project to unacceptable risk. The project is not proposed to be constructed on, over or across areas of known hazard areas. [+] FINDING: (20) Soils and !leOIOllic conditions, The Project WILL NOT significantly deteriora e soils and geologic conditions. 48 09/01/09 (21) The Project will not cause a nuisance. Construction activities will occur during the 2010 construction season. Construction traffic to and from the site will be short-term and will not have significant nuisance impacts. There are no exterior light fixtures or other mechanisms associated with the proposed improvements that will generate noise, glare, or odors. Generally, disturbance from grading of access roads and the tank site will be minimized by the implementation of a dust suppression plan submitted with any future grading permit. As well, best management practices will be employed and all disturbed areas will be re-vegetated. Construction is planned to be conducted during daylight hours. [+] FINDING: (21) Nuisance, The project WILL NOT cause a nuisance outside what is typical of general construction. (22) The Project will not significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic, or archaeological importance. Colorado Historical Society is not aware of any significant historic properties within the project area or any concerns regarding the protection of cultural resources in the Project area. Staff is further not aware of any areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance associated with the Project site. 1+) FINDING: (22) Paleontol02leal, historic or arehaeolordeal areas, The Ptoject WILL NOr significantly degrade areas of paleontological, historic or archaeological importance. (23) The Project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. The project will not result in unreasonable risk of releases of hazardous materials. [+] FINDING: (23) Hazardous materials, The Project WILL NOT result in unreasonable risk of t e release of hazardous materials. (24) The benefits accruing to the County and its citizens from the Project outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources within the County, or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. There are no significant losses of any agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industrial resources with the County, nor is there a loss of opportunity to develop such resources. There is however an impact and possible loss of natural resources to include Mule Deer winter range (please see discussion in finding 3 above). The proposed provides reliable, additional water storage and fire flow. The benefits of the Project clearly outweigh any real or perceived losses accruing to the County and its citizens. [+] FINDING: (24) Benefits outweiflh losses, The benefits accruing to the County and its citizel s WILL outweigh the losses of any natural, agricultural, recreational, grazing, commercial or industri 1 resources within the County or the losses of opportunities to develop such resources. B. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.02, Additional Criteria ATJlJlicable to Municipal and Industrial Water Proiects. and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following additional analysis is provided. 49 09/01/09 The proposed CVC tank will be a closed-top tank to limit losses from evaporation. In addition, when the tank needs to be drained for routine maintenance, the water will be routed back into the UER W A system, rather than dumped through the outfall. The only time outfall will be used is in the unlikely event of an emergency tank draining. The UERW A has adopted a Water Conservation Master Plan that has been approved by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and is designed to encourage the efficient use of water. As provided in the application, the draft was completed in 1996 but never adopted. Staff recommends the applicant work with Eagle County staff to ensure current best management practices used in design, construction and operation of any new water storage and transmission lines and tat the Authority update the 1996 plan to reflect today's standards for water conservation and Best Management Practices. [+] FINDING: (1) Efficient use. The Project SHALL emphasize the most efficient use of wate , including the recycling, reuse and conservation of water, where viable. (1) The Project will not result in excess capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. The proposed CVC tank is needed for the UERW A to operate at its design capacity and will not result in excess capacity in water services or duplicate services. [+] FINDING: (2) Excess caDacitv / duplicate services. The Project SHALL NOT result in exces capacity in existing water or wastewater treatment services or create duplicate services. (2) The Project shall be necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project. The Project (system) has been designed specifically to add capacity to serve based on the needs of current and future residents of this existing regional development and based on the fire suppression needs of the Eagle River Fire Protection District and State Health Department requirements. [+] FINDING: (3) Necessity. The Project SHALL BE necessary to meet community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the project. (3) Urban development, population densities and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas. No Stormwater systems have been proposed as part of the project. [+] FINDING: (4) Protection of Aauifer Recharf!e Areas. N/A C. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 6.04.03, Additional Criteria Almlicable to Ma;or New Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Svstems and Ma;or Extensions of Existing Domestic Water and Wastewater Treatment Svstems, and as more specifically described in the application materials, the following additional analysis is provided. 50 09/01/09 (1) The Project shall be reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in the areas to be served by the Project, or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. The Project is necessary to meet community development and population demands. Specifically, the proposed Project (system) has been designed to allow the UERW A system to operate at its design capacity and provide fire fighting capacity at high elevations. [+] FINDING: (1) Necessitv or rellulatorv / technolollical comDliance. The Project SHALlJb reasonably necessary to meet projected community development and population demands in th areas to be served by the Project or to comply with regulatory or technological requirements. (2) To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment facilities shall be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. No new wastewater or water treatment facilities are proposed in conjunction with this application. [+] FINDING: (2) Consolidation offacilities. To the extent feasible, wastewater and water treatment I facilities SHALL be consolidated with existing facilities within the area. (3) New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. No water or sewage treatment facilities are proposed with this application. [+] FINDING: (3) Prooer utilization of existinll treatment Dlants. New domestic water and sewage treatment systems SHALL be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of adjacent communities. (4) The Project shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and de"elopment that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth and development. No growth is anticipated as a result of the proposed CVC tank. The tanks purpose is to allow the UERW A's system to operate at capacity and to add fire protection for the area. [+] FINDING: (4) Financial and environmental caDacitv. The Project SHALL be permitted in thos areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension ca be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the area to sustain such growth an development. D. Special Use Permit Waiver: In accordance with Chapter II, Article 3, Section 3.310.1.2, Waiver Provision. of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the Special Review Use Permit application for water and sewer projects may be waived in whole or in part by the Board of County Commissioners upon a written petition by the applicant showing that: 3.310.1.2.a. A permit application pursuant to Chapter 6, Sections one through five of the Eagle County Guidelines and Regulations for Matters of State Interest has been submitted to the Eagle 51 09/01109 County Permit Authority relative to this land use which would be the subject of a special use permit application. 3.310.I.2.b. Compliance with the Special Use Review Permit requirements would be unreasonably burdensome for the applicant. The applicant has requested a waiver of the Special Use Review Permit requirements as such application would serve no further legitimate planning, zoning or other land use objective. CONDITION: 1. A wildlife mitigation plan which is acceptable to the Division of Wildlife, be submitted prior to or along with the grading permit associated with the project 2. Applicant shall follow recommendations outlined in the HP Geotech report dated November 19, 2009 3. Applicant will provide documentation that the project has been completed as proposed 4. Except otherwise modified by this permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval DISCUSSION: Mr. Hanagan summarized the request. At the July 14th meeting the board unanimously voted to table the file allowing the applicant to address the Wildlife Mitigation Plan and for further review by the US Forest Service. The proposed conditions were carried over from the last presentation. Commissioner Stavney stated that there were 24 different criteria to meet and staff found that the applicant had met all but two, the main one having to do with the wildlife. Mr. Merry stated that the applicant was required to meet all of the approval criteria in order to have the permit issued. The permit authority had discretion to utilize whatever evidence was necessary to make the appropriate findings. Commissioner Runyon asked if the proposal was intended to provide for future growth. He had issues with encouraging additional growth. He wondered what excess capacity it would provide for ifbuilt. Mr. Merry stated that it was in the application itself that it was not being done to serve any anticipated future development approvals. However, as development occurred within any service area there was a logical sequence of events that took place in order to provide that service toward build out. Commissioner Stavney asked if there were any of the staff fmdings that could be changed to address Commissioner Runyon's concerns. Mr. Merry stated that there was a fmding associated with economic impact and whether or not something was being built way too great to handle what was currently there. There was also a fmding on land use patterns. Linn Brooks, Eagle River Water and Sanitation District spoke. She stated that they did master planning every few years to understand what projects need to be addressed. This tank was identified back in 1998. At that time, the projected usage in the low zone was 3.6 million gallons a day by 2012. Currently they are using twice that much. She explained that when water storage tanks were built, they look at all the approved zoning within the service area and this tank would take care of that level of zoning. Commissioner Runyon asked if the proposal supported any future up-zoning. Ms. Brooks stated that they consider all the zoning impacts that would add to the system. Any new developments would be required to dedicate new storage. The current tank served the Cordillera Development, but the way the area had been built out a regional tank was necessary, and it made sense to consolidate the impacts into one location. Commissioner Runyon wondered what a developer would have to do to request water service. Ms. Brooks stated that they would look at water rights, hydraulic models, treatment capacity, and sewer capacity to determine the impact, and any modification would be paid by the developer through tap fees. Mr. Merry stated that the developer would also be required to submit a 1041 application if their development served more than 10 single-family homes along with a preliminary plan. Ms. Brooks stated that a developer would have to go through a 1041 to extend services. As far as tank storage goes, fire storage and equalization storage are considered. Commissioner Runyon asked what excess capacity was built into the new tank. 52 09/01109 Ms. Brooks stated that the new tank would meet current zoning. Commissioner Runyon asked that it include the additional building rights that Arrowhead and Cordillera had. Ms. Brooks stated that if it was not currently zoned, they had not accommodated for it. Commissioner Stavney asked if the district could refuse service to a development. Ms. Brooks stated that the district was given authority by the state of Colorado to serve, and if they met all the criteria, they would be served. They had no land use authority. They had a responsibility to build their infrastructure efficiently and adequately to meet the needs. Mr. Merry stated that the guidelines the district they followed to determine tank size was based on engineering best management practices Chairman Fisher wondered if the new tank would replace other tanks in the Edwards area. Ms. Brooks stated that it would not replace existing low zone tanks. The tank would serve the need for a regional tank and would replace the CVC tank. Chairman Fisher asked about the visual impacts and why there was a need to go out of the Cordillera Valley Club. Ms. Brooks stated that the new tank would be a buried structure. In order to build a new tank where the existing tank was they would have to take the existing tank out of service. In addition, the location of the existing tank was too narrow. Chairman Fisher stated that the board had not had the opportunity to review the wildlife mitigation plan and talk with staff. Bob Weaver apologized for the delay. He summarized the proposed mitigation plan. The components would minimize the impact. The area of disturbance would be limited to 3 acres, construction activity would be suspended from Nov. 15th through May 20th, a gate would be installed, re-contouring would mimic natural terrain, topsoil amendment would facilitate re-establishment of vegetation, and automatic irrigation system would be installed. Use of native seed mixture and plantings that were wildlife palatable would be used at the site. The applicant would contribute to the Wildlife Heritage Program fund for conducting aerial fertilization or other habitat improvement measures. The existing CVC south site would be fully restored and an inspection and maintenance program would be implemented to assure success. He further stated that the conditions proposed by staff were acceptable. Commissioner Runyon expressed concern with the quality of re-vegetation projects in Eagle County. He wondered if the existing vegetation could be dug up and replanted. Mr. Merry stated that the district would be required to keep track of the success. The applicant would be required to report back to the county. Ms. Brooks stated that they would be willing do whatever was needed to provide successful re-vegetation. Mr. Weaver believed that current re-vegetation plans were much more effective than plans in the past. They were obligated to satisfy the DOW's requirement to restore habitat and mitigate the visual impact by focusing on the use of native species. Chairman Fisher believed that two years was not long enough to maintain the re-vegetation. She suggested extending the time until plants have had time to regain their foothold. The area was critical to both wildlife and the visual impacts. Mr. Weaver stated that a drip system would be used for trees and shrubs, and the sprinkle system would operate for at least two years or until the seeded areas became vegetated. The authority agreed to extent the warranty period for the trees for six years. The states storm water regulations require 75% vegetation coverage as a performance standard. Commissioner Stavney referred to the Aug. 31 letter and wondered if the tank would be fenced. Mr. Weaver stated that the tank would be fenced. Commissioner Stavney echoed the concerns of the other commissioners regarding re-vegetation. He asked Bill Andree to speak. He understood that the DOW was still not in favor of placing the tank on US Forest Service land. Mr. Andree did not believe that maintaining re-vegetation for two-years would be sufficient time for plants to mature. He didn't understand why the entire tank could not be covered. Chairman Fisher asked Mr. Andree about the applicant's contribution to the Wildlife Heritage Fund and what would that money fund. Mr. Andree stated that the money would fund 5 acres of fertilization every three years. Commissioner Runyon wondered if there had been any input from the Forest Service. 53 09/01/09 Mr. Hanagan stated that the Forest Service had not responded to the updated proposal. Mr. Weaver stated that they had submitted everything the Forest Service had required for the issuance of a special use permit. Ms. Brooks stated that CVC was attempting to acquire the property through a land trade. Wally Carey, president of the CVC property owners association spoke. He believed that the tank would bring tangible benefits to the community as a whole. However, the association had raised a number of concerns regarding the impact that construction might have to their community. Pedro Campos spoke about his work with CVe. He stated that CVC was in favor of the tank but had concerns regarding construction activities, visual and environmental impacts, and long-term maintenance. The association requested that if there was to be an approval of the 1041, it be contingent on the execution of an IGA between the two parties prior to a building and grading permit. Commissioner Stavney wondered about the cooperation between the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District and the HOA. Ms. Brooks stated that the HOA had been very cooperative and had not asked anything beyond what they'd ask their own homeowners to do. Commissioner Runyon asked about the access road to the site. Ms. Brooks stated that one of the reasons the site was chosen was because there was already an existing road. Chairman Fisher asked when construction was expected to begin. Ms. Brooks stated that they hoped to start this year. However, they had modified their expectations and were planning to start first thing in spring. She expected the project to be a two-year project due to the size. Mr. Carey wondered if there was any way to shorten the construction time. Ms. Brooks stated that often time construction does not go as planned and it could take longer for various reasons. They would try to complete the project as soon as possible and put requirements on their contractors. Commissioner Runyon stated that he was not thrilled with the project but believed it was appropriate. He asked that there be a tight landscaping plan as a condition of approval. Commissioner Stavney asked about the two negative findings and whether staff wanted to make any changes based on the new information. Mr. Merry stated that regarding the findings it would be unusual for the permit authority to include some sort of ongoing negotiation. The key was whether the permit authority felt that enough evidence had been provided to make each one of the approval criteria positive. The other evidence submitted in the application and in testimony led staff to believe that they were comfortable with recommending approval of the 1041 permit. He hoped that the applicant could work out the details between the CVC HOA and Metro District but staff would not suggest that the permit process be held up to have some exterior agency happy with a project that was a matter of state interest and local concern. He believed that the applicant had provided satisfactory evidence and had met all the approval criteria. Ms. Brooks requested approval in order to secure a contractor. They would continue to work with the homeowners to address some of their concerns and wait for Forest Service approval before moving forward. Mr. Carey stated that he understood the logic but asked for some sort of agreement and have it completed in a way that would minimize any negative impacts. Mr. Campos requested on behalf of the community a condition regarding re-vegetation. He believed it would safeguard some of the concerns of the community. Commissioner Runyon believed this type of condition was appropriate. Mr. Merry believed it was already adequately addressed in their plan. Commissioner Runyon believed something more was needed. Mr. Merry stated that the re-vegetation plan could be collateralized at the grading permit phase. A number of the other impacts associated with dust, storm water management, erosion control, etc. were incorporated with the grading permit process. There was enforcement available if they did not comply with the conditions of the grading permit. Chairman Fisher believed that there were still too many details that needed to be hammered out and thought it would be in the best interest for everyone to table the file. She also requested a site visit. Kent Meyer, CVC resident spoke. He expressed concerns with construction traffic. He urged the board to consider more details. He requested total disclosure. Commissioner Stavney concurred with tabling the file. He stated that he did not want to make the approval contingent upon an IGA. 54 09/01109 Commissioner Runyon agreed with conducting a site visit. Commissioner Stavney move to table file 1041-2332 Cordillera Valley Club Storage Tank to October 6, 2009 scheduling a site visit in the mean time. Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZS-2360 Multi-User Telecommunication Sean Hanagan, Planning Department ACTION: The purpose of this Special Use Permit is for a Multi-user microwave telecommunication facility intended to complete the emergency communication service loop. FILE NOJPROCESS: PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF PLANNER: ZS-2360 / Special Use Permit Multi-user Telecommunication site Red Table Mountain FAA site Holy Cross Energy Owner Kevin Milner Sean Hanagan 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY: The applicant requests review of a Special Use permit for the construction of a Multi-User Telecommunication Facility on the National Forest Federal Aviation Administration Telecommunications site. The purpose of the facility is to provide for critical redundancy in the event of catastrophic wildftre destruction to Holy Cross Energy's other telecom facilities. This facility would provide an alternative path for communications traffic if anyone site on the ring were to experience a failure. The site will also provide two-way radio coverage for Holy Cross Energy, United States Forest Service, State of Colorado, and Eagle County public safety personnel. The proposal requests for the installation of a pre-fabricated multi-section two story equipment shelter not to exceed 1,000 square feet, a self supporting four leg tower not to exceed 30' in height, concrete foundations, standby generator, underground fuel storage tank, gravel parking area and short access driveway. The tower and foundation will be designed for a 10' increase in height in order to accommodate future authorized growth. The Holy Cross Energy power distribution and Qwest telephone cables adjacent to FDR 514 would also be extended. The location proposed was designated as a United Sates Forest Service communication site through the February 17th 1993 Decision Notice/Finding Of No Significant Impact. B. SITE DATA: Surroundin Land Uses / Zonin LafulUse Public Lands ZOning Ownership RP USFS RP USFS RP USFS RP USFS Public Lands Public Lands Public Lands 55 09/01/09 Existing Zoning: Resource Preservation (RP) Proposed Zoning: N/A Current Development: FAA Communication/Radar site. Site Conditions: Pre-existing Communication Facility Total Land Area: Acres: 64,240.000 Square feet: Total Open Space: N/A Water: Public: Private: X (Bottled water) Sewer: Public: Private: X (Electric Toilet) Access: Primarily HelicopterlNational Forest Road 514 (summer) C. CHRONOLOGYIBACKGROUND: . Site designated as Federal Aviation Administration/telecommunication site authorized under Decision Notice (DN) and Finding Of No Significant Impact (FONSI) of the Regional Forester February 17th, 1993 (please see a copy of the attached Decision Notice labeled as (Exhibit A) 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 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 Division, this Article, 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, including conformity to a 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.l} The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the FL UM of the Comprehensive Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 56 09/01/09 ~ g IU "5 a rJ j ij ~ ~ .::! ~ 1:) .::! rJ ~ ~ .I~ FLUM ~ ~ 00 g ~ t ~ ~~ Designation ~ .8 :E ! s ~ rg .s~ tit ~ :00 '" ~ ::= en ij &3g 0 S~ ~ ..s ~ ~~ ~~ en Exceeds Recommendations Incorporates Majority of X X X X X X Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Xl Recommendations Not Applicable X X X FLUM1-Rural Lands/USFS BASALT MASTER PLAN ~ i c'l:l c'l:l Vi i~ .e-~ ~ S FLUM 8 8 ~ l:l .- .- 1:) .::! ~ .i ~ 8 ; a,.- ~.i Designation ~c3 l~ 0'./:1 ~~ ]~ ~ .- . '" ~ 6 uc'l:l ~ &3~ ~~ <:z: D~ Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommeridations Not Applicable X X X X X X Xl Xl-Rural Lands/USFS EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Ex.ceeds Recomtrieridation In~~ .Qf Reeomtn.eri Does Not In . ReCOmmetl N~ Applicabl~; s 4)'j ~R 38 ls en .- .e's oJ: d.'1 ~.~ 'd;e O~ -.e- ~..;:::;; :>g "5 !'" ~G d! 1 == ~ :ij :-;:: ~ X X X X X X X ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Compatibility. [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed telecommunications facility will be located on the current FAA telecommunications facility grounds. This location was designated as and authorized under Decision Notice (DN) February 17, 1993. This Decision Notice (DN) essentially functions as a Finding Of No Significant Impact. (please see a copy of the attached Decision Notice labeled as Exhibit A) 57 09/01109 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS STANDARD: Zone District Standards. [Section 5-250.B.3] The proposed Special 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. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. The new telecommunication facility will be located in a Resource Preservation (RP) Zone district. There are no specific standards for these types of uses found in Section 3-310. Heights of structures are determined by the Board of Count Commissioners on a case-by-case basis. Decisions are based on line-of- site, visual and environmental impacts and view shed analysis. The applicant has provided extensive photo simulation evidence of the extent of the view shed impacts. ~ 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 Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. d/3 8 1:" 8 b' colli) 'il8 y ~~ C '.Q '.Q i ~ IE .~ > ~ ~ ] .... ~ ~'S ~ tI.l~ ,f.3 ~ a :> ~z Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X X Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirements Not Applicable X X X X X By utilizing concealing strategies such as non reflective green paint, no collision avoidance lighting, and revegetation of native species disturbed the design will minimize the visual impacts on adjacent lands. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF 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. D EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS 58 09/01109 ~ MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ~ c'gg ij '0 ~ ~ z gl -a ~ 8 . ~ '': I en .g .g la ! 1~ ~ ~ o > en < i5&J ~~ :> UE-< Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X X X X X X X Does Not SatisfY ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities. [Section 5-250.B.6J The proposed Special Use Permit 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 emergency medical services. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ~ ~ i ~ en en l~ ~u..::- ~..::- ~ ] ;>>8 ] ~~~ 'QiCl. '" g. Co> ~] CloClo Clo~tI.l ~tI.l Clo tI.l Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR X X X Requirements Does Not SatisfY ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable X X X X STANDARD: Site Development Standards. [Section 5-250.B.7J The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) X Landscaoing and lllumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sign Reg:ulations (Division 4-3) 59 09/01109 X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline 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 Interference (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) X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) * X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) NOT APPliCABLE ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS B. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District - Please refer to the attachment dated July 23rd 2009 Town of Gypsum - Please refer to the attachment dated July 28th 2009 Town of Basalt- Please refer to the attachment dated August 11 th 2009 Eagle County Environmental Health- Please refer to the attachment dated July 3rd 2009 Additional Referral Agencies - This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office;, Engineering, , Sherriff's Office, Airport, . Other: Qwest/CenturyTel, USFS C. PLANNING COMMISSION DELmERATION: 8/20/09-Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission unanimously approved ZS-2360 to include staff's suggested conditions #1-3. Benefits/Disadvantages 60 09/01/09 Benefits: Location within a designated existing telecommunication site determined to be appropria1e by the USFS(DN/FONSI) Concealing techniques and view shed distance will minimize visual impacts to the public. Improved emergency communication service to the community. Disadvantages: No real disadvantages are apparent with this requested use. D. 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 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 [SPECIAL USE PERMIT] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 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). E. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: a. Except as otherwise modified by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. b. Applicant (Holy Cross) shall notify the Director of Community Development when altering or modifying equipment on the telecommunications facility. Any increase in number of antennas, or expansion of the equipment shelter, may necessitate a new Special Use Permit c. This Special Use Permit shall be valid for a period of not more than three (3) years prior to actual implementation of the permitted use. Upon implementation of the approved use, such permit shall remain valid, in perpetuity, and shall run with the land thereafter unless an expiration date or exception has been placed upon the permit by the Board of County Commissioners. DISCUSSION: 61 09/01109 Mr. Hanagan stated that the proposal was for a multi-user telecommunication facility on the current FAA communication site. The facility would provide for critical redundancy in the event of catastrophic wildfIre and/or destruction to Holy Cross Energy's other telecom facilities and provide an alternative path for communications traffic if anyone site in the ring were to experience a failure. The proposal was for the installation of a pre- fabricated multi-section two-story equipment shelter not to exceed 1,000 square feet. He provided slides that illustrated the view from the Town of Basalt, Hwy 82 and from Basalt High School. He presented the benefits and stated that there were really no disadvantages. Kevin Milner with Holy Cross Energy spoke. He stated that the color that was selected by the Forest Service was pale green. Commissioner Stavney stated that given the fires in California thought it was appropriate to be proactive. Mr. Milner stated that two of the sites were high risk of fire damage; Sunlight Peak near Glenwood and the Beaver Creek site. Commissioner Runyon wondered if their proposal had been an issue with the Hidden Gems Wilderness Campaign. Mr. Milner stated that the Forest Service approved the application and there appeared to be no conflict. Chairman Fisher opened and closed public comment, as there was none. Commissioner Stavney moved to approve the file ZS-2360 Multi-User Telecommunication Commissioner Runyon seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unammous. Planning File - EI Jebel Community Center PDS-1567 The Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD Scot Huon, Planning Department NOTE: Tabled from 6/30/09 and 7/21/09 The purpose of this Sketch Plan is for a mixed use Planned Unit Development, inclusive of residential, commercial, offIce and "live/work" uses. Proposal also includes active and passive recreational and open space uses including an existing ski lake and associated quasi-public recreational activities. Existing nursery and tree farm uses and operations are to be incorporated into the PUD. ACTION: LOCATION: 401 Tree Farm Drive; located along Hwy. 82, due east of the intersection ofHwy. 82 and EI Jebel Road, in EI Jebel. PDS-1567; PUD Sketch Plan The Tree Fann PUD Woody Ventures, LLC. Owners Jon Fredericks, Nobel Design and Rick Pylman, Pylman & Associates, Inc. Greg Schroeder FILE NO./PROCESS: PROJECT NAME: OWNER: APPLICANT: REPRESENTATIVE: STAFF ENGINEER: RFVRPC RECOMMENDATION: Approval 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. SUMMARY OF REOUEST: 62 09/01109 The applicant requests Sketch Plan review for a new Planned Unit Development (PUD) - "The Tree Fann PUD". The Tree Farm PUD is a 71.71 acre, mixed-use and transit oriented development (TaD) located along the State Highway 82 corridor in E1 Jebel, Colorado. The subject property is currently owned by Woody Ventures LLC, and currently accommodates approved commercial, light industrial and recreational uses including the Wind River Tree Farm, Nobel Design Studios, Woody Ventures LLC offices, a Yoga studio and Kodiak Park Ski Lake. The project consists of three primary land use components configured in a transit-oriented pattern that generally radiate from a planned Roaring Fork Regional Transit Authority (RFTA) "Bus Rapid Transit" (BRT) station and pedestrian underpass located on State Highway 82. Components include Mixed Use Commercial, LiveAV ork and Residential uses. In addition to these primary use categories, the applicant proposes the inclusion of open space, recreational and agricultural/light-industrial uses. The property is located just south and east of the main El Jebel commercial district and directly across State Highway 82 from the Old Orchard Plaza and Willits Town Center commercial and residential (mixed use) developments. The property is bordered to the north and west by the 100-unit Shadowrock Townhomes development; a private in-holding (McKelvey exempt parcel); Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands, and; 127 acres of land owned by Ace and Jennifer Lane. Laura J Estates and Christine State Wildlife Area form the eastern border of the proposed PUD boundary. (See attached vicinity map). B. BACKGROUND The Tree Farm PUD is planned at the site of the former Kodiak Park PUD. The Kodiak Park PUD zoning was originally approved on approximately 199 acres in 1994 and was granted a one year Preliminary Plan extension in 1997. The approval for the development plan expired with no Final Plat approval and in 2000 a new Sketch Plan approval was granted by Eagle County. That plan has also since expired, leaving the entire 199 acre property zoned PUD but with no approved development plan. The previous development plans did not initiate development due to access issues with the proposed Blue Ridge Lane access onto El Jebel Road. In 2006, with the approval of the Blue Ridge project (now Shadowrock PUD) a formal access easement and road construction cost sharing agreement was put into place and the access connection from Highway 82 through the Shadowrock project to E1 Jebel Road is now complete and open to traffic. This new connection (Tree Farm Drive) was designed and constructed to accommodate the traffic volumes of Shadowrock and The Tree Farm project. The current proposed development plan includes 71.71 acres - significantly less land area than was approved previously with the Kodiak Park PUD which included the entirety (199 acres) of the Lane Property. The remainder of the Lane Property, approximately 127 acres ofland located outside of the proposed 71.71 acre Tree Farm PUD, is proposed to be re-zoned from PUD to the Resource (R) Zone District via a separate application. The Mid Valley Metropolitan District has provided a "Can and Will Serve" letter stating the District's intention and capacity to provide water and sewer service to the development site. One condition placed on the District's commitment to serve the development requires the applicant to construct certain water storage improvements on or near the subject property in order to serve the development, provide proper fire flows for the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and to serve the larger community. Negotiations between the applicant and the different Districts are ongoing relative to the final location and construction (design) requirements of such improvements. As well, the applicant has worked proactively with the Roaring Fork Regional Transit Authority (RFTA), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Eagle County, the Town of Basalt and other stakeholders over the past two years to participate in the planning for a new, regional mass transit hub, including dedicate RFT A parking on the subject property for commuter use. A pedestrian underpass connection and a commitment by the applicant to cost share in construction of the underpass has also "informed" the design and development of this land plan. This component of the proposed land plan forms the primary basis for the plan's transit-oriented design and its mixed use core area located along the Highway 82 right-of way. The Town of Basalt's 2007 Community Plan identifies this area as being within the Town's Three Mile Area. Specifically, the Town's Urban Growth Boundary encompasses the subject property. Pursuant to an 63 09/01/09 Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) executed between the Town and Eagle County on September 23,2008, Staff has proactively sought comments via a "joint review" process working with Town Staff. In November, 2008, Staff met with the Town's Technical Advisory Committee (TRC) to discuss the application and in January, 2009, Staff prepared this report to include analysis of the Town's 2007 Master Plan goals and policies applicable to the subject property. The County received "un-official" comments (attached) from the Town's Mayor, the honorable Leroy Deroux, dated February 12, 2009. In his letter, the Mayor notes that comments were derived and forwarded via the Town's TRC (Technical Review Committee) and Staffbut do not reflect any official position of the Town Council. C. CHRONOLOGY 1992: Kodiak Ski Lake approved as Special Use by Eagle County via Resolution 92-75 1993: Kodiak Park Sketch Plan for PUD approved by Eagle County via Resolution 93-100. The plan included the water ski lake, the existing home, 18,000 square feet of commercial space and other ranch and open space uses. 1994: Kodiak Park Preliminary Plan for PUD approved by Eagle County. 1994: Special Use Permit approved by Eagle County for the existing wholesale and retail tree farm and nursery operation. 1994: Eagle County reviewed but did not approve the Final Plat for the Kodiak Park PUD due to access issues with the then proposed Blue Ridge Lane connection to EI Jebel. 1997: Eagle County granted a one year extension to the 1994 Preliminary Plan. This extension has since lapsed. This resulted in the property being zoned PUD with no approved plan or uses. 2000: Eagle County granted approval to a new Kodiak Park Sketch Plan PUD application. This PUD Sketch Plan included approximately 80,000 square feet of commercial space, a 50-60 room hotel, retail and wholesale nurseries, the water ski lake and 27 new residential units. This sketch plan approval has since expired. 2006: Eagle County approved the final plat for the 100 unit Blue Ridge multiple-family development adjacent to the subject property. At that time, Ace Lane (Owner of subject property) and the Blue Ridge (Shadowrock PUD) project owners executed a formal access easement and road construction cost sharing agreement. This allowed both properties to create dual access points and eliminated the previous access issues that affected the Kodiak approval process. 2008: Construction of Tree Farm Drive from State Highway 82 at Willits Lane intersection, through the subject property, has been completed and opened to the public per the Access Agreement between the Lanes, Blue Ridge Investments (Shadowrock), and Eagle County. The completion of this project resolves the access issues that had previously restricted Final Plat approval of this property, and provides a full-motion signalized intersection access point to the proposed Tree Farm community from Highway 82. The property is currently zoned PUD with no approved plan. The Special Use Permits for the existing tree farm/nursery and water ski lake remain valid. 2008: Application submitted to Eagle County for Sketch Plan for PUD for "The Tree Farm PUD". D. SITE DATA: SurrouncIIDg Land Uses I Zonfog: {" " North: Residential (Private 'R' BLM / Resource 'RP' Residence); McKelvey parcel South: Mixed Use (Willits Town 'C3 PUD' State Highway 82 RO.W. 'R' Center) (Town) 64 09/01/09 East: Residential (Laura J Estates) 'RR' Christine State Wildlife Area 'R West: Residential (Shadowrock); 'PUD'/'C3 Orchard Plaza 'C3' (1 own) ..... Willits Town Center PUD (Town) / ..... Existing Zoniug: Planned Unit Development (PUD)* ProIJOsed~gf' , Planned Unit Development (PUD) Cun-:~t ~eJop~n~? ...:. Wind River Tree Farm; Professional Office; Yoga Studio; Recreational Ski Club .. Relatively flat irrigated pasture; competition-sized man made water ski lake; wetland area; Site Conditions:... Robinson Ditch and associated native riparian vegetation; operational nursery and landscape storage stock (plantings ), and; previously disturbed areas associated with previous },,'rading, .. storaj!;e operations (tree farm operations). 1'dtll Land Area: r' . Acres: 71.71 Square feet: 489,245 sq. ft. acres TOtaf Opensp.eCl" <it: Acl-es: ' 36.7 acres Perceritage: 51% The ECLUR's recommend that ...... 25% of the total land area be set Us~~1e Peen Space: Acres: 17.2 acres = 24% Percentage: aside as useahle open space. ..... Useable open space should not exceed 30% slope. Water: . ",hUc: . Mid Valley Metro Private: N/A , .... ..../ Sewer: ...... :]fubli9= Mid Valley Metro Private: N/A ,'r Access: Via State Highway 82; Tree Farm Drive/Shadowrock Note: * PUD zoning exists on the property; all previous development approvals (site specific development plans) have lapsed and are otherwise expired. E. REFERRAL RESPONSES: Referral copies of this application were sent to thirty-nine (39) agencies for review on October 22, 2008. The following section references the comments of all agencies that submitted an official referral response to Eagle County prior to the date of this writing: Eagle County Environmental Health Department Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 12,2008; and follow-up letter from applicant. . See condition(s}: 3 Eagle County Engineering Department Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 24,2008 . Seecondition~}:2 Eagle County Housing and Development Department Please refer to attached referral response letter dated January 14, 2009 . Seeconduion~}:4 Eagle County Wildfire Mitigation Specialist Please refer to attached referral response letter dated January 14, 2008 . Seeconduion(~:6 Eagle County Pest Management Program Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 5, 2008 . See condition(s}: 5 Town of Basalt 65 09/01109 Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 21,2008 Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District Please refer to the attachment dated January 9,2009 . Seeconduion~):8 Roaring Fork Regional Transit Authority Please refer to the attached referral response letter dated November 17,2008 . See condition(s): 9 Garfield County Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 13, 2008; and follow up letter from applicant. Mid-Valley Trails Committee Please refer to attached referral response letter dated October 29, 2008 . Seecondition~):10 State of Colorado Geological Survey Please refer to attached referral response letter dated November 12,2008 . See condition(s): 7 RE-l School District Please refer to attached referral response letter dated March 30, 2009. Additional Referral Agencies This proposal was referred to the following agencies with no written response received as of this writing: . Eagle County: Attorney's Office; Animal Services; Road and Bridge; ECO Trails; ECO Transit; Sheriff s Office . Colorado State: CDOT; Division of Wildlife; Division of Water Resources; State Historical Society; Health Department; Water Conservation Board . Federal: Bureau of Land Management; Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA) . Other: Basalt Water Conservancy District; Colorado Historical Society; Eagle County Historical Society; Northwest Council of Governments (NWCOG); Pitkin County . Home Owners Associations: Shadowrock HOA; Laura J. Estates F. PLANNING COMMISSION DELffiERATION The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission (RFVRPC) held a public hearing on May 7, 2009, to consider File No. PDS-1567. At their regular meeting, the Commission voted 4-1 to recommend approval of the Sketch Plan for PUD for the Tree Farm. During their deliberations, the Commission members had the following questions and/or comments: 1. One Commission member expressed concern regarding the total acreage of the Lane's landholdings relative to the proposed 71.71 acre PUD. Specifically, a question was raised as to the reason why the entire 199 acres (previously included in the Kodiak Park PUD) was no longer being proposed. Further, the Commission member questioned what would happen to the remaining 127 acres under ownership by the applicant and why those lands were not being proposed to be preserved under a conservation easement. The applicant responded by stating the Lanes propose to re-zone the remainder of their land holdings from PUD to Resource Zone District; and, the Lanes have no intention at this time to place those lands in a conservation easement, develop additional dwelling units or subdivide the remaining 127 acres into 35 acre tracts. 66 09/01109 2. One Commission member asked if Whole Foods is a potential tenant given the defunct nature of the Whole Foods development site at Willits Town Center development. The applicant stated there is no intention on behalf of the developer to create a pad site for Whole Foods or any other major grocer; that such consideration would dictate specific site planning not appare1lt on the current land plan and that the land plan does not necessarily accommodate stores of that size. 3. A concern was stated regarding the approximate price points for proposed deed restricted affordable housing units. Specifically, the Commission member stated that the price points may be too high for lower income individuals or families. The applicant responded by stating the approximate sales prices were based on achieving an average 105% AMI, per Eagle County Housing Guidelines. Generally, one half of the proposed for-sale units would fall below 105% (in the 80%-90% range), with half being sold above 105% to arrive at an average. This allows smaller units to be sold at lower price points to suit lower household incomes. He added that sales prices are listed (estimated) as "maximum" sales prices; this doesn't necessarily mean those will be the final purchase prices. As well, the applicant stated phasing plans should aid in bringing the right amount of units, at certain price points to market at the right time to meet the needs of the community. 4. A question was asked about the Phasing Plan. Specifically, how affordable housing will get built and how phasing will respond to the economic conditions of the Mid-Valley. The applicant responded by describing the Phasing Plan and the fact that, in addition to commercial space that will be brought on-line, affordable (deed restricted and resident occupied) housing units will be offered in each phase; that such housing will "track" proportionally with the overall square footage (commercial and residential) developed. He clarified that affordable housing will be dispersed throughout the whole project. 5. One Commission member expressed concern regarding the categorization of the ski lake as open space, questioning the "public" use of the lake as a member's only ski club. The applicant responded by stating that the lake is a separate parcel and use within the PUD; it is quasi- public, but the water ski activities are allowed through club membership. He clarified the lake does qualify as "open space" and that even without the lake (as open space), the project provides approximately 25% usable open space in other forms. Further, the applicant stated the proposed trails around and near the lake would be open to the general public. 6. A question was raised regarding the projected impacts to the school system. Specifically, one Commission member asked why the number of elementary students generated by the proposed development would be more than high school aged students. The applicant responded by stating the number of projected school-aged children to be generated by the development (in this case more elementary students than high school students) is primarily determined by the types (Single-Family, Townhomes, Multi-Family) of housing proposed. The applicant was not able to speak to the disparity between elementary and middle school aged children projected. 7. One Commission member inquired about the availability of local housing data to support the applicant's housing plan. Specifically, while data exists on a regional and County-wide basis, the member questioned if there was more accurate local "catch-up" and "keep-up" data. The applicant responded by stating there was no local data available. Staff confirmed the applicant's answer. 8. One Commission member questioned if the fifty (50) parking spaces within the proposed parking structure provided to RFT A was adequate. 67 09/01109 The applicant responded by explaining the difference between a transit oriented development (TOD) and typical park & ride developments; that TOD's are designed around walkability and compactness for residents and are not heavily dependent on large amounts of parking. He added that the proposed commercial components within the Tree Farm will depend on limited available parking within a planned structure. In contrast, he stated park & ride situations are generally designed to accommodate commuters and are also dependent on large amounts of parking in close proximity to transit stops. He stated that park & rides and TOD's don't necessarily function well together. Introducing a park & ride within a TOD would produce a conflict between compactness and walkability and the need to provide a large amount of parking for regional (transit) feeder systems. He added that this development has been designed as a TOD and not a park & ride. Therefore parking for the commercial component was planned first, and represents the majority of spaces (225) within parking structure. As a result, and working with RFTA, a limited number of spaces will be allocated to meet RFTA's needs to support the planned BRT stop. 9. A general question was raised regarding trip generation and traffic projections. Specifically, one Commission member asked why Single-Family residential units generated higher vehicle trips than other residential units. The applicant responded by stating generation rates are somewhat driven by assumptions made regarding the income levels or socio-economic status of residents who occupy homes of differing sizes and price points. Specifically, a person's or family's ability to afford more than one vehicle per household is somewhat correlated to their ability to afford certain size homes. As well, the number of bedrooms per unit within a development are used to determine trip generation rates. Such assumptions are generated by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) manuals. 10. One Commission member inquired as to the accuracy of projected (incremental governmental) costs associated with the development and whether projected revenues from the development were sufficient to cover such costs. Staff responded by reiterating issues encountered with the Site Stats model as well as their intention to use a revised/updated Site Stats model during the Preliminary Plan stage of development review; that Staff is not comfortable with the (cost) conclusions generated by the Site Stats model at this time. Staff intends to revise the model in the future to ensure a higher degree of accuracy is attributed to ongoing, incremental operational and capital improvement costs to Eagle County over the life of the project. 11. One Commissioner raised a concern regarding traffic projections and trip reduction factors. Staff responded by stating the applicant's projections and trip reduction factors (attributed to transit oriented development) are based on ITE assumptions and standards as well as examples of reduced vehicle trips generated by TOD's in front range communities; however, such assumptions do not necessarily correlate to mountain communities. Specifically, Staff stated that there are simply no examples of TOD's in the Western Slope or mountain region from which to draw comparisons to for trip reduction purposes. 12. A general question was raised regarding funding partnerships for the proposed pedestrian underpass under Hwy. 82. Specifically, one Commission member asked 1) what the developer's monetary contribution will be; 2) when (which phase of development) such improvement would occur and; 3) what would happen if one of the funding partners was unable to participated as planned. The applicant responded by stating the developer is prepared to contribute $950,000 towards the construction of the $3 million underpass; that the developer has committed to construct improvements in phase one of the development, and; that if other funding partners fail to contribute to construction, there will most likely be implications to RFTA's plans to locate a BRT station at the Tree Farm. 13. A question was raised regarding the status of proposed trails and paths and whether additional access to adjacent or nearby BLM lands would be made possible. 68 09/01/09 The applicant responded by stating proposed trails within the development will be public, and the applicant is working with a group represented by BLM, Mid-Valley Trails CommiUee, U.S.F.S and CDOW to address the Mid-Valley Trails CommiUee's concerns regarding public access to BLM lands. The applicant has identified a potential access route to BLM lands, but final determination depends on the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the potential impacts (of additional public access) through State Wildlife Areas. 14. One Commission member asked for clarification regarding the status of Staff s review of the financial modeling tool Site Stats. Specifically, the question was raised as to how "far off' the model was and whether there were any parts of the Site Stats model and conclusions the Commission could use or draw upon to make a more informed decision regarding the fiscal and economic impacts of the proposed development. Staffresponded by stating County Staffis working with the County Finance Director, the developer and Site Stats owner/representatives to revise the model to reflect projected government costs more accurately. Staff clarified that there are portions of the model that appear to be entirely accurate and that the projected fiscal and economic impacts of the project are only one consideration in reviewing the PUD proposaL 15. A question was raised about the Town of Basalt's concerns regarding the Lane Property and the Town's desire to see additional Light Industrial uses on the site. Staff responded by stating the applicant has been asked to provide further information regarding the amount of light industrial space proposed relative to the Town of Basalt's desired or projected need for additional light industrial space. Staff also stated that the applicant is being encouraged to continue working with the Town to beUer understand the needfor additional light industrial space in the Hwy. 82 area. 16. One Commission member asked if the Planning Commission could make a motion to recommend the property for annexation to the Town of Basalt. The County AUorney responded by stating the Planning Commission could make such motion; but clarified that the Board of County Commissioners were legally bound to consider the application. 17. One Commission member suggested requiring a performance bond, tied to phasing and completion of the project, to insure against incomplete projects similar to Shadowrock and Willits Town Center (Whole Foods). 18. One Commission member suggested that all members should complete a site visit to the property prior to taking any formal action on the file. 19. A concern was stated regarding potential impacts to local traffic and specifically regarding up-valley traffic movement and turning movements at the uncontrolled access point on Hwy. 82. The applicant responded by stating there have been conversations with CDOT regarding the existing uncontrolled intersection and that such intersection will remain a full movement intersection (allowing for left hand turns). However, CDOT may close that turning motion by installing medians or the like in the future. 20. One Commission member asked for clarification regarding the proposed solar array or "farm". Specifically, the member questioned why the farm was proposed outside the PUD boundaries. The applicant responded by stating the solar farm will remain on a separate parcel owned by the Lanes due to optimal (mapped) solar access, but that an easement will be granted across adjacent properties to ensure access to the solar farm in perpetuity. 69 09/01109 21. A question was raised regarding the School District's referral response letter. Specifically, one Commission member asked why the "Red Brick" building was being identified as a future District facility relative to recent actions to renovate that building for (other) community uses. The applicant responded by stating the Red Brick building has been identified by the District for some time as a solution to future facilities planning needs. 22. One Commission member questioned if traffic counts and projections included background traffic from Shadowrock and Willits Town Center. The applicant responded by stating that Shadowrock and Willits Town Center (traffic counts) are required to be included in the projections and background traffic. 23. One Commission member inquired about the proposed commercial space. Specifically, the member questioned the price points of 'for-sale' commercial relative to purported opportunities for local business ownership. The applicant responded by stating that price points have not been estimated at this time. County Staff has indicated an opportunity to create "affordable commercial" space and price points and the developer is willing to explore such option. 24. Upon making a motion to approve the application, one Commission member stated that the file was appropriate for review by Eagle County, that elements of the plan such as live-work, density located near Hwy. 82, the size of proposed residential units and proposed open space and trail improvements were positives. As well, the member stated that the combination of transit oriented development (TaD), the preservation of fifty percent of the site as open space and the provision of affordable housing in this location were determinants in making a motion to approve. However, there remained concerns regarding the proximity of the PUD to existing motor cross and ski boat uses and the member encouraged the applicant to continue working on mitigation of any compatibility issues. Another Commission member stated general support for the development concept, but stated concerns regarding traffic impacts and the fact that such transit oriented developments, while representing a step in the right direction, may be of limited benefit since the rest of the Roaring Fork Valley is not necessarily transit oriented in design and function; that personal vehicle trips will remain the norm due to limited mass transit options at this time. 25. During further discussion, one Commission member suggested the (man made) ski lake be moved or "filled-in" to make room for more (affordable housing and commercial) development closer to Hwy. 82. As well, another Commission member suggested that the applicant be required to provide a concurrent re-zoning file for the remainder (127 acres) of the Lane Property. The County Attorney responded to the second suggestion by stating that the Planning Commission could not require the down zoning of lands located outside the proposed PUD boundaries via approval of the Sketch Plan for PUD for the Tree Farm. The applicant clarified that the remaining 127 acres is not part of this application and the land owner is not willing to down zone those properties until such time vested rights for the Tree Farm PUD are obtained. In making a motion to approve the file with staff recommended conditions, the Commission modified condition No. 16 to read: "The applicant is required to perform a detailed market analysis demonstrating the financial viability and compatibility of the project within the local conditions prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; such analysis will be undertaken to test previous market assumptions and financial iriformation used in the Sketch Plan submittal and will aid the applicant, other local jurisdictions and Eagle County accurately assess market viability and phasing plans 70 09/01/09 necessary to ensure the continued enhancement of the local economy and to mitigate any potential (adverse) fiscal impacts to existing businesses. " Condition number 16 previously stated: "The applicant is encouraged to perform a detailed market analysis demonstrating the financial viability and compatibility of the project within the local conditions prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; such analysis will be undertaken to test previous market assumptions and financial information used in the Sketch Plan submittal and will aid the applicant, other local jurisdictions and Eagle County accurately assess market viability and phasing plans necessary to ensure the continued enhancement of the local economy and to mitigate any potential (adverse) fiscal impacts to existing businesses. " The Commission stated that, per Staff's recommendation, requiring rather than recommending or encouraging a detailed market analysis will be important in any future consideration of the proposed development and that such requirement is justified given the size, scope and complexity of the proposed development in context to sUlTounding jurisdictions and commercial developments. 2. ST AFF REPORT C. NECESSARY FINDINGS: PROCESS INTENT ECLUR Section: Section Purpose: Standards: 5-240/5-280 Sketch Plan; The purpose of sketch plan review is for the applicant, the County and the public to evaluate and discuss the basic concepts for development of the proposed PUD, and to consider whether development of the property as a POO will rt:sult in a significant improvement over its development as a conventional subdivision. It is the time when determination should be made as to whether the proposed PUD complies with the purpose and intent of these Regulations and with the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and is generally compatible with surrounding land uses. It is also the opportunity to reach general agreement on such issues as the appropriate range of units and commercial space for development; the types of use, dimensional limitations and other variations that may be considered; the general locations intended for development and the areas planned to remain undeveloped; the general alignments for access; and whether water supply and sewage disposal will be provided via on-site systems or through connection to public systems. The outcome of sketch plan review should be an identification of issues and concerns the applicant must address if the project is ultimately to receive approval for a Preliminary Plan for PUD from the County. Where the PUD proposes activities that constitute a subdivision, the applications for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for POO shall also be required to meet the requirements of Section 5-280, Subdivision, regarding procedures for Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision, respectively. Section 5-240.F.3.e., Standards; Section 5-280.B.3.e Standards and Section 5- 230.D Standards is used to evaluate a Sketch & Preliminary Plan for POD (with subdivision) application. All standards that would be met at a Preliminary Plan level must addressed by the application materials. It must therefore be determined, based on submitted evidence, whether applicable standards have been met at this stage. If the information supplied is found to be sufficiently vague or if it is 71 09/01109 doubtful that the proposal would be able to meet a specific Standard, then a negative finding must be made for that Standard. 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 the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS The subject property included within the PUD boundaries is owned by Woody Ventures, LLC. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall 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 effect for 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.3j, Variations Authorized. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Permitted in Underlying Normally Permitted As: Nature of Variation Proposed Uses Zoning? Yes No By ZS LR Rl2ht Mixed-Use: (Commercial, No variation for use is required; property Residential, Civic and X X previously zoned PUD. Recreation) This application proposes a mixed-use, transit oriented planned unit development (PUD). Existing zoning on the parcel is PUD (Eagle County Resolution No. 93-100) and there exist a special use permit (Resolution 92-75) in good standing for the Kodiak Park Water Ski Lake and Club uses. As well, a separate special use permit for the existing Wind River Tree Farm commercial/wholesale nursery and landscaping operations occurring on the subject property. Previous PUD preliminary plans for Kodiak Park PUD were approved with certain mixed uses including recreation (existing water ski lake and club membership), residential, commercial (retail and live/work), lodging (hotel) and office uses. However, all previously approved PUD preliminary plans have expired, necessitating a new Sketch Plan for PUD application for the purpose of reviewing the most current uses and standards proposed. Proposed uses include a mix of market rate and deed-restricted housing types, 'for-sale' commercial (retail, entertainment, restaurant and live/work) space, office, civic, recreational and agricultural/light industrial uses. Specifically, existing Wind River Tree Farm (wholesale nursery) and landscape uses are proposed to remain on the subject property. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of 72 09/01/09 these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f, Variations 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Intent ofPUD/Use ofPUD Zonin . Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes PUD Zoning Existing zoning on the subject property is PUD, however all previously approved site specific development plans specifying land uses, location, pattern and intensity of development and establishing any vested development rights for such plans have expired. PUD Intent The intent of this Sketch Plan for PUD proposal is to integrate uses, and to promote greater efficiencies in land use patterns as they relate to and support the provision of affordable housing, public transportation and pedestrian oriented commercial uses serving the local community. Further, the intent of using PUD zoning in this instance has been to create safe, efficient and compact street and utility networks for the purpose of furthering the environmental and development goals and policies of both Eagle County and the Town of Basalt. Land Use Pattern The plans submitted differ significantly from previously approved site specific development plans approved for the subject property by locating the majority of development (infrastructure and building footprints) away from the adjacent McKelvey property located to the north of the proposed PUD boundary, surrounding hillsides and generally away from existing irrigated pasture lands on the east side of the property. A substantial portion of agriculturaVnursery lands are to be preserved as open space and working tree farm/nursery operations. The plans locate substantial portions of high intensity uses such as service and retail commercial, live/work commercial and housing density within or around a central commercial 'core' area along State Highway 82 and directly correlated with a proposed RFT A Bus Rapid Transit (BR T) station. Such uses are located to facilitate pedestrian friendly (walkable) land use and transportation patterns, promote resource efficiency and support further development (density) within community centers. Constrained Design Without the use of PUD zoning and the opportunity to work with approval agencies (Eagle County) and referral agencies such as the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and the Town of Basalt regarding specific master plan goals and dimensional standards, the potential for development on the subject property is limited. Specifically, using PUD zoning and development review allows the flexibility to develop the property in a manner that exemplifies quality design and which furthers significant master plan goals related to housing, transit-oriented development patterns, environmental projection and preserving and enhancing local economies. 73 09/01/09 STANDARD: Variations Authorized [Section 5-240.F.3.f. - provides that in 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 ofthe following purposes: ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS PUD Achievement(s): ......... Yes Obtains (applicant's) desired design qualities*; Yes Avoids environmental resources and natural resources**; Yes Provides incentives for water augmentation; Yes Provides incentives for trails; Yes Provides incentives for affordable housing; Yes Provides incentives for public facilities. Note: * The applicant proposes certain variations to Eagle County Roadway Standards (ECLUR, Section 4- 620) in order to further project design goals to minimize overall pavement amounts, promote pedestrian friendly design principles and otherwise promote compact, efficient. However, the Eagle County Engineering Department, working with the Basalt and Regional Fire Protection District has informed the applicant regarding certain minimum design standards involving road widths, routes and access requirements for emergency vehicles which must be addressed (revised) to meet or exceed (via the "performance design" process) minimum standards prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal. ** The applicant has designed the project to avoid any development on, over or within existing wetlands on the subject property. As well, the PUD avoids development of adjacent hillsides. The applicant should be required to revise the site plans prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to ensure proper setbacks of any and all development away from existing wetland areas on the subject property and to work with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to develop a wildlife protection plan inclusive of seasonal closures and interpretive signage for migratory birds and other wildlife species known to use and inhabit the aforementioned wetland areas. See Condition(s): 8, 12 ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS X DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Proposed Dimensional Limitation ECWR Justification for Variation Requirement Planning Area A: Mixed Use Setbacks: Front 20 feet Arterial I 15 feet 25' ISO' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 1 0 feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Side o feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building 74 09/01109 Proposed Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification for Variation Requirement Minimum of 75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater Planning Area B: LiveIW ork Area Setbacks: Front 20 feet Arterial I 15 feet 25' 150' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 10 feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Side o feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Minimum of75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever IS greater Planning Area c: Multi-Family Setbacks: Front 25 feet Arterial I 25 feet 25'/50' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 15 feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Proposed exceeds the ECLUR Requirement given maximum building tallest building height of 25 feet. Side 15 feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Proposed exceeds to the ECLUR Requirement given maximum tallest building building height of 28 feet. Minimum of 75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater Planning Area D: Landscape Nursery Area Setbacks: Front 25 feet Arterial I 25 feet 25' 150' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 15 feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Proposed is equivalent to the ECLUR Requirement given maximum tallest building building height of25 feet. Side 15 feet 12.5' or Y2 ht of Proposed is equivalent to the ECLUR Requirement given maximum tallest building building height of 25 feet. Minimum of75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater 75 09/01109 Proposed Dimensional Limitation ECLUR Justification for Variation Requirement Planning Area E: Recreation Area Setbacks: Front 20 feet Arterial I 20 feet 25'/50' Compact, Transit Oriented Design Local Rear 1 0 feet 12.5' or 'It ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Side 10 feet 12.5' or '/2 ht of Compact, Transit Oriented Design tallest building Minimum of 75' - 50' with Stream NA FONSI- or 100 NA year floodplain, whichever is greater Note: This application proposes several deviations or variations to design standards such as setbacks and road widths for the purpose of facilitating a more compact, transit oriented (walkable) and energy efficient design. Specifically, the applicant proposes to cluster development sites, reduce the overall amount of pavement (impervious surfaces), reduce the overall amount of raw materials used to construct the development, create greater walkability within the development by increasing densities and reducing the distances between residences, commercial and transit facilities. The Land Use Regulations (ECLURs) and pertinent sections of applicable master plans support such concepts and the PUD process is proposed to allow Eagle County the opportunity to review the totality of the proposed development and to consider those variations which further the goals, objectives and policies of Eagle County. STANDARD: Off-Street 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 Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (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 Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for 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 MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 76 09/01109 (1) Per the ECLVRs, one (1) "van accessible parking space shall be provided for every five (5) accessible ~ ~ l i- i- II II f ~ 8. 8. <> <> :a :a en en li'i ~1 .sen .sen 0-. IQ...... ~ f co =8. ]1 Proposed Uses ~ ~ J~ IQ..'O IQ.. '0 co '(;J; '(;1 '(;~l '(; ~1 enl '(;~ '(;.~ ~ ~ il a;, en o it o it .&~ . :.= g' ~~ o1~ ~~ ~~~ Yes No Z 0 Zen Zl"il Yes No Single Family or Per 3/DU Xl X2 X Duplex Residential ECLUR"s - - Multi-Family: 2/DU 2/DU Xl X2 X I-Bedroom! Studio Multi-Family: 2.5/DU 2.5/DU Xl X2 X 2 to 3 Bedroom Multi-Family: 3/DU 3/DU Xl X2 X 4 or More Bedrooms Retail, Service 1/250 s.f. 1/250 s.f. Xl X2 X3 Commercial and Office (NLF A)* (NLF A)* Restaurant 1/ four seats 1/ four seats Xl X2 X Live/Work Residential 2.5/DU 2.5/DU Xl X2 X3 Commercial 1/250 s.f. 1/250 s.f. Wholesale 1/1000 s.f. of Xl X2 X Establishment floor area Recreation Xl X2 X parking spaces, or fraction thereof" The applicant was not asked to provide the level of detail necessary to determine the absolute number of handicap accessible spaces required for the development; this level of detail will be provided at any subsequent Preliminary Plan submittal and the applicant will be required to meet the minimum requirements for handicap/van accessible parking spaces per the ECLURs. (2) Per the ECLURs, one (1) off-street loading berth shall be provided for commercial buildings with a gross floor area "Up to 10,000 sq. ft."; two (2) off-street loading berths shall be provided for commercial buildings Greater than 1 0,000 sq. ft." While the plans submitted do not depict dedicated off-street loading areas, the applicant will be required to meet the minimum requirements for off-street loading for all commercial uses designed to be served by tractor-trailer delivery vehicles, per the ECLURs. (3) The proposed plans for commercial, residential and live/work units meet the required parking standards. The proposal makes no specific provision for shared parking, although in order to meet the Sustainable Communities goals of Eagle County, the plan could be revised to include shared parking for 1he higher intensity use areas (commercial and live/work), thus reducing the overall footprint of the development. As plans are further developed, the applicant may want to include provisions for shared parking. Note * NLFA - Net Leasable Floor Areas include only those areas that are designed to be leased to a tenant and occupied for commercial or office purposes, exclusive of any area dedicated to foyers, bathrooms, stairways, circulation corridors and mechanical areas and storage areas used solely by tenants on the site. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variationsfrom 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. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS [K] MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 77 09/01/09 D MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS I oS 8 '0 ~ '0 Type of ti '1 Iii Iii DeveloPIIlent: <IJ j f ~J u ~ Commercial Pi: ~~ Ctl ~ J Residential .... ~ 8,.g co '8 1 CIl ~co X Miutl Use o co e:a .S ] <IJ .!J u .5 '" 'j 8 ~ = go 8 o = "til .~ 0 ,:l., j U8 &i Z2 .S bO jj .S It bO '" CIl = II "til'O .~ ~B ~ .s .s] ~ :sa J~ ,Sj <IJ ~ ::J s::.3 '" ~ ~CIl ~ 8 CIl Exceeds ECLUR Requirements X5 X6 Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Xl X2 X3 X4 X7 X8 X9 XIO Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Reauirements Is Not Applicable X X (1) Generally, the proposed location of plantings is appropriate for the site and the uses proposed. As the plans are further developed and prior to any submittal of Preliminary Plans, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans and specifications regarding the location, installation and irrigation details demonstrating conformance with ECLUR standards. (2) Plans generally depict the types and locations of proposed 'living cover' - as re-vegetation materials and methods as well as permanent landscape treatments. as the plans are further developed and prior to any submittal of Preliminary Plans, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans and specifications regarding the location, installation and irrigation details demonstrating conformance with ECLUR standards. (3) Plans submitted specify the use of native and/or compatible plant species. Specifically, tree, shrub and grass species proposed are either native, naturally occurring species in the region, or are proposed to blend with those species found on the subject property (wetland and/or riparian species) or immediate vicinity which have been planted or imported to the area as successful plant species. As the plans are further developed and prior to any submittal of Preliminary Plans, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans and specifications regarding the location, installation and irrigation details demonstrating conformance with ECLUR standards. Specifically, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that species proposed, locations and maintenance requirements will reduce overall resource use and result in an environmentally neutral landscape plan. (4) The plans submitted depict proposed limits of disturbance for the site. Large portions of the site (the boundary running from the south, around the eastern boarder to the north) are surrounded by the 'Robinson Ditch' and associated riparian vegetation such as mature Cottonwood trees. At certain limited areas at the southern edge and northern boundaries of the PUD, trees are proposed to be removed to facilitate development of access roads and, in some instances, buildings. Removal of significant existing vegetation is minimal, therefore the plan meets this standard. However, as plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide site specific tree removal and preservation plans depicting which existing trees are proposed to be removed and which are to be preserved. Plans will be required showing proper tree protection specifications. (5) Plans submitted generally depict tree and shrub sizes to meet or exceed the minimum standards of the ECLURs. In several instances (evergreen trees, deciduous trees and shrubs), the sizes proposed will exceed minimum standards and will provide variety in age, size and cover (canopy) within the overall plan. As well, the applicant proposes to exceed the required amount of landscaping (p1antings). This exemplifies the applicant's commitment toward creating a more sustainable and 'net-nuetral' development. As plans are further developed, site specific details and plan legends will be required specifically calling out the location 78 09/01/09 and size of individual trees and shrubs; in the case of large areas of similar p1antings, plans shall specify the range of sizes in a particular plant grouping. (6) See above comment No.5 (7) The plans submitted are conceptual in nature and are meant to provide general information as to the types, sizes, amounts and locations of proposed plantings and other landscape treatments. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide detailed landscaping plans and calculations demonstrating conformance with Section 4-230.B.ll- Trees within a Paved Area. ECLURs (8) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to meet or, in many cases, exceed the minimum standards for plantings within parking and storage areas. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide detailed landscaping plans and calculations demonstrating conformance with Section 4-23 O. B. 12 - Parking and Storage Prohibited. (9) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to be in non-conformance in several areas of the plan. Specifically, proposed deciduous tree plantings are shown within or close to "clear vision areas" at the comer of certain intersections; in other instances, trees are shown close to curbs or edges of internal streets. As this is a conceptual level of detail, staff encourages the applicant to maintain the overall number and general location of proposed plantings, but to revise the plans as necessary to meet the requirements of Section 4-230.B.13- Obstructions Prohibited. ECLURs (10) The Conceptual Landscape Plan appears to meet or, in many cases, exceed the minimum standards for plantings within required off-street parking areas. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to provide detailed landscaping plans and calculations demonstrating conformance with Section 4- 230. C - Landscaing Standards within Off-Street Parking Areas. ECLURs. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., ~5 Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD). 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. Comprehensive Sign Plan Provided? No A detailed comprehensive sign plan, including signage for all internal building and way-finding signage will be required as part of any Preliminary Plan submittal. The sign plan shall be included within the PUD Control Document (pUD Guide) and shall include details of proposed locations, sizes (dimensioned), materials, color schemes lighting and installation specifications to be permitted or prohibited within all planning areas of the PUD. See Condition(s): 11 STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the (Sketch) Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 79 09/01109 Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements Not ApplicableJNo ECLUR Requirements Does Not Satisfy ECLUR uirements DeviatiooNIS Requested I ! g ~ .~ J!~ tl :21 11 ~ ~g: jj J - '" .g G)'- 0'- Q.,rIl rIlQ rIlQ u:lrll p., Xl X2 X3 X X4 X5 --------~ Yes In proximity to schools, police & fire protection, & emergency medical services No (1) Potable water for the project will be provided by the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District (see attached "Will Serve" letter from the District dated June 23, 2008). The District's commitment to serve, however, is conditional on the provision of additional water storage within the scope of the PUD project. The District and the applicant are currently in negotiation and ongoing discussion regarding the final design related elements of a new water tank or other such improvement (see attached letters dated September 25, 2008, and October 2, 2008, from Leavenworth & Karp, P.C., representing the District's position in the negotiations). As well, the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District response dated January 9, 2009, indicates its general support of the proposed PUD. Specifically, District expresses support for the provision of additional, gravity fed water supply (as is being contemplated) and fire flow capacity improvements associated with the proposed development - a positive for the project and the surrounding area from a fire protection and service standpoint. (2) Sewage disposal for the project will be provided by Mid-Valley Metropolitan District (see attached "Will Serve" letter from the District dated June 23, 2008). A pump and lift station to serve certain portions of the site will be required. (3) The applicant has not provided evidence of solid waste disposal (service) for the project. Proof of adequate facilities for solid waste disposal will be required prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. (4) Although road networks proposed within the PUD are generally acceptable and provide adequate circulation within and through the development (new through road, and completed intersection serving the area), issues related to conformance with the roadway standards of the ECLURs and the requirements of the Fire District remain. The Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District response dated January 9, 2009, indicates its general support of the proposed PUD and the proposed circulation plan. Specifically, District representatives reference the benefit provided to emergency service providers and the general public by the proposed connection of Tree Farm Drive to the CDOT "Frontage Road" (and Original Road intersection) as a secondary access route through the site. However, the District also expresses specific concerns regarding the project design as it relates to roadway widths, access and maneuverability standards - as provided for in the ECLURs. Several meetings have been held involving the applicant, the Fire District and Eagle County to discuss specific areas of non-conformance and optional means available to the applicant to address such issues. As plans are further developed for any Preliminary Plan submittal, the applicant will be required to either redesign the project to meet the prescriptive code requirements outlined in the International Fire Code and the ECLURs, or; pursue a performance based approach to conformance by consulting with a qualified, registered fITe protection engineer to aid in subsequent design of the project - to specifically ensure compliance of the plans with applicable fITe and engineering codes relative to access, roadway standards, building design and construction and the like. (5) See above comments regarding access and roadway standards. 80 09/01/09 See Condition(s): 8, 13 STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - 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 infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, 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-o.f-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 ofroadway. (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 granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. 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 PUD, 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 MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Safe, Efficient Internal Emergency Principal Snow Storage Access Pathways Vehicles Access Pts Exceeds ECLUR Requirements Satisfies ECLUR Requirements X X3 X Does Not Satisfy ECLUR X2 ~itetnet1t Not ApplicableINo ECLUR ReqjJirement DeviationlVIS Requested Xl (1) The circulation system is generally designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. However, because the plans are based on requested deviations (variances) to roadway standards, the applicant will be required to address Fire District and Eagle County Engineering comments specific to roadway widths as well as clearances (access) for emergency response vehicles (aerial apparatus). As plans are further developed for any Preliminary Plan submittal, the applicant will be required to either redesign the 81 09/01/09 project to meet the prescriptive code requirements outlined in the International Fire Code and the ECLURs, or; pursue a performance based approach to demonstrate conformance by consulting with a qualified, registered fire protection engineer to aid in subsequent design of the project - to specifically ensure compliance of the plans with applicable fire and engineering codes relative to access, roadway standards, building design and construction and the like. As well, the plans should be re-designed to the extent possible to reduce the overall amount (length) of roadways and associated areas of pavement (driveways) proposed - concurrent with reevaluating the compactness of the overall land plan - to ensure the development achieves the stated environmental sustainability and walkability goals. (2) See above comment No.1. (3) Access and circulation has have generally been designed to provide for smooth traffic flow which minimizes hazards to vehicular, pedestrian and bicycle traffic. Three points of access are proposed for the site. Primary access will be via the existing and recently completed full movement intersection at State Highway 82 and Willits Lane. Tree Farm Drive currently extends northwest from this intersection through the site and connects through the Shadowrock subdivision to EI Jebel Road as a secondary access. A third access point is proposed at the southwest end of the project, using an existing uncontrolled access with Hwy 82. This uncontrolled access point is identified in the 2002 State Highway 82 Access Control Plan as "to be closed" in the future. The applicant proposes to use this uncontrolled access for the primary purpose of maintaining direct access from Hwy. 82 to Wind River Trees nursery and tree farm (to be relocated to the south end of the subject property) until such time the Colorado Division of Transportation (CDOT) acts to close the access in favor of other controlled access points (Willits Lane and Original Road intersesctions). The applicant has included correspondence from Dan Roussin, CDOT Region 3, indicating CDOT's general acceptance of the applicant's proposal to maintain the uncontrolled access in the near term with the express understanding that such uncontrolled access point(s) may be closed in the future. As well, it appears CDOT has endorsed the creation of a connection from Tree Farm Drive with the existing Frontage Road to the south of the subject property - to create a continuous local connection and alternative (emergency) access and travel routes through the project and paralleling Hwy. 82, to connect with Original Road, in the event of a closure on Hwy. 82 (see letter under Appendix G in the application from William Fox, Fox Higgins Transporation Group, dated September 12,2008, regarding Hwy. 82 access and the extension of Tree Farm Drive). Given plans calling for the eventual closure of certain uncontrolled access points and the creation of a 'through road' connecting the east Frontage Road with Tree Farm Drive, Staff suggests the applicant will need to examine and potentially re-design the circulation plan and associated land plan - to accommodate potentially high volumes of local traffic through the center of the live/work and convenience commercial portions of the proj ect - to ensure safety of pedestrians and bikers along and within the Tree Farm Drive roadway system (with specific reference to "Woonerf' design principles per recommendations of the Eagle County Sustainable Communities Index). See Condition(s}: 8, 14 STANDARD: Compatibility 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS I ~~~bility Issues .~ II SurrouncliDg IAmd Uses I ZoolDg 82 09/01/09 Yes No North: Residential! 'R' BLM I Resource 'R' Xt Motorcross Track South: Single-Family Residential 'R' State Highway 82 'R' X R.O.W. East: Residential 'RR' Christine State Wildlife 'RP' X2 Area Commerical and 'C3/PUD' West: Residential (mixed use) in (Town) X Town of Basalt (1) The proposed PUD development plan calls for the creation of residential dwelling units in the northern portions of the subject property and in close proximity with a private motor cross track developed by the applicant on an adjacent tract of private land previously included in Kodiak Park PUD plans. Such recreation use, although private in nature, may present compatibility issues with proposed residential development within the PUD. Understanding the importance of this recreational use to the property owner/applicant, it may be in the best interest of the applicant to proactively address any potential conflicts that may arise by proposing self imposed controls and/or improvement standards (significant re-vegetation/landscaping and/or sound attenuation measures) to effectively mitigate potential nuisance issues associated with dust or noise. (2) Uses for the wholesale nursery located on the south eastern portion of the PUD may produce noise and/or other potential nuisances to residential uses located to the south/east; specific provisions within the PUD Guide and/or protective covenants will be required to ensure compatibility of uses. See Condition(s): 15 STANDARD: Consistency with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its coriformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS , u '6 J.! ] 1 i: ! CJ ~ ~ ~ ~ .1 FLUM .~: ~ co Ii II ~ Designation .. .S 'a ~ J ! '" ~':.~ 'liiI := c3 S i ~ ..s~ ~&! rn &i Exceeds Xl X2 R~ions IncorpOrates Ma.iority of X3 X4 X5 X6 X7 X8 X9 RecomntendatioD.$,",.'>. Does not satiSfY Majority of Recommendations Not APPlicable - Below are the Recommended Strategies to accomplish each of the stated Comprehensive Plan Policies: 83 09/01/09 (1) Develooment . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to preserve the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County". The proposed mixed-use development has been specifically designed to reduce or, in certain instances, eliminate development in unsuitable or undesirable areas of the previously approved PUD Preliminary Plans for this area. Specifically, the reduced PUD footprint (71.71 acres vs. 199 acres previously approved) eliminates any further residential development of hillsides surrounding the proposed PUD. In addition, the proposed development plan calls for preservation and/or creation of open space totaling approximately 51 %, or 37 acres of the overall 71.71 acre site. Such open space is proposed to include passive, active (recreational) and agricultural uses, including the existing Wind River Tree Farm operations. The ECLURs recommend a minimum of 25% of the total open space provide to be "usable". As well, the applicant is required to provide 10 acres of "common recreation and usable open space" for every 1000 persons residing in a development. At 319 units, and 2.63 persons per dwelling unit (per the ECLUR's), the applicant is required to provide approximately 8.39 acres of recreation and usable open space. Currently, the applicant proposes 17.2 acres, or nearly 24% of the site as usable open space. Although this amount exceeds the requirement, this figure could easily be increased through slight modifications in the overall design. Staff has discussed the possibility of further enhancing the land plan to include areas for neighborhood gardens and local food production. As well, the plans generally propose clustering of residential building footprints, minimizing paved areas by seeking design variations from Eagle County Land Use Regulation design standards for road widths and concentrating the most intense concentrations of residential, commercial and civic uses at or near the Highway 82 corridor. Such design attributes, in combination with maintaining large portions of existing irrigated agricultural lands for continued nursery (agricultural) uses and avoiding development on steep hillsides previously contemplated for development demonstrate conformance with this master plan goal. The project introduces compact, transit oriented and walkable design attributes, resource efficient building design, construction and operational practices and active (alternative) energy production (200 KW solar farm and micro-hydropower stations) as a means to significantly reduce the development's environmental footprint over a conventional subdivision of similar size. Such project features specifically support the environmental goals and policies of Eagle County. The plans were evaluated against the Sustainable Communities Index (SCI). Preliminary scoring indicated approximately 109 points out of a possible 228 points. As a reference, 70 points are typically considered a minimum threshold, while 136 points in this case would exceed compliance. As proposed, the application meets the requirements, however as indicated throughout this section, there remain opportunities to either re-design or enhance the development (land plan) to better achieve the goals and policies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan and, specifically, the requirements of SCI. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan for the North Meadow Residential Area to: · Improve the design of proposed roadways and increase clustering of building footprints, and otherwise "pull-in" the proposed limits of disturbance to reduce the overall development impact (footprint); · Reduce the amount of paved areas by re-designing the roadway network, and reducing the amount of individual driveways by creating shared driveways and/or parking areas serving more than one unit; · Provide a larger setback (buffer) to the existing wetland areas to the south of this planning area - to protect water quality and wildlife populations (migratory bird species) and to ensure compliance with ECLURs, and; · Provide neighborhood or community-scale gardens and areas for local food production. 84 09/01109 · Revising the land plan for the LivelW ork area located along the Highway 82 right of way to specifically reduce the amount of surface parking areas adjacent to the existing ski lake and providing an enhanced landscape buffer between hardscape improvements and the lake; consider re-designing this area of the land plan to relocate parking areas and building footprints to allow buildings to front on the ski lake as well as Tree Farm Drive. · Revising the land plan to enhance the functional (horizontal and vertical) integration of the parking garage, Convenience Service Commercial/Residential and LivelW ork planning areas located along Tree Farm Drive and the Highway 82 right of way - to create a more compact, walkable and/or pedestrian friendly design to further support the viability of transit oriented real estate development. . "Work to identify and preserve quality of life characteristics like outstanding recreational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services ". The proposed development is generally consistent with this policy and/or enhances the existing quality of life characteristics of the surrounding vicinity. Although the proposed mixed-use development Will impact local roads by introducing approximately 3,729 additional vehicles trips per day (3,390 originally calculated plus 10% to account for 70 additional dwelling units added per the Housing Plan), the design of the project goes a long way towards the creation of compact, transit oriented and energy efficient development in the Mid Valley region. The applicant proposes energy efficient design and construction to reduce the development's environmental footprint and to reduce overall energy and maintenance costs to future residents and commercial operators. Additionally, the applicant has worked proactively with the Roaring Fork Regional Transportation Authority (RFTA), the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Town of Basalt to coordinate and plan for the location and design of a regional, multi-modal transit stop, park-n-ride facility (parking garage) pedestrian underpass and associated improvements within and without the Tree Farm PUD to support regional mass-transit (ERT) and the creation of a true transit oriented development. Proposed "Convenience and Service" commercial uses located within walking distance to planned regional transit stops and existing population centers; the preservation of productive agricultural lands; the preservation of unique, active recreational uses such as the ski lake, and; the potential for alternative energy production on-site support the provision of "quality of life characteristics like outstanding reaeational facilities, open space, clean air and water, uncrowded roads, quiet neighborhoods, unique cultural events and quality services". Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to include more areas of 'active recreation; although this project is located within close proximity to planned or existing regional (recreation) amenities such as the Mt. Sopris Tree Fann/Crown Mountain Park, residents within the development and those living or working in nearby population centers may benefit from additional active recreation opportunities. Consider expanding proposed lakeside park areas, use of the lake facility when not in use by water ski club use groups, and/or providing unique offerings to compliment pedestrian oriented commercial core plaza areas. · Consider maintaining/preserving the historic cabin structure located at the northwest corner of the subject property for use as a regional trail information center and/or cultural center to educate local residents and visitors about area history, wildlife, culture and alternative energy produced on-site. · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate early childhood education and daycare facilities for local residents and local workforce; · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate seniors services industry and retail opportunities. · Integrate an on-site recycling program for the PUD. 85 09/01/09 . "Incorporate population and job growth data compiled by the State Demographer into development decisions and long range planning objectives". The Mid- Valley Community Master Plan is currently in the process of being updated wherein; the most current population and job growth data available will be incorporated into long range planning objectives. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live/work land uses. . "Promote compact, mixed-use development within or adjacent to existing community centers". The proposed project is specifically designed as a mixed-use development and is adjacent to, or included within exiting community center designations containing higher residential densities, commercial (mixed use), recreational opportunities and existing and or planned civic facilities. The project location is identified within the Town of Basalt's Three Mile Plan and is specifically located within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan for the North Meadow Residential Area to: · Improve the design of proposed roadways and increase clustering of building footprints, and otherwise "pull-in" the proposed limits of disturbance to reduce the overall development impact (footprint); · Reduce the amount of paved areas by re-designing the roadway network, and reducing the amount of individual driveways by creating shared driveways and/or parking areas serving more than one unit; · Provide a larger setback (buffer) to the existing wetland areas to the south of this planning area to protect water quality and wildlife populations (migratory bird species) and to ensure compliance with ECLURs, and; · Provide neighborhood or community-scale gardens and areas for local food production. · Revising the land plan for the Live/W ork area located along the Highway 82 right of way to specifically reduce the amount of surface parking areas adjacent to the existing ski lake and providing an enhanced landscape buffer between hardscape improvements and the lake; consider re-designing this area of the land plan to relocate parking areas and building footprints to allow buildings to front on the ski lake as well as Tree Farm Drive. · Revising the land plan to enhance the functional (horizontal and vertical) integration of the parking garage, Convenience Service CommerciaVResidential and Live/W ork planning areas located along Tree Farm Drive and the Highway 82 right of way; to create a more compact, walkable and/or pedestrian friendly design to further support the viability of transit oriented real estate development. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to improve social equity". In that the proposal meets the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines by providing 169 new, deed restricted and/or Local-Resident Occupied dwelling units of varying sizes, types and price points within an existing community center and within walking distance to regional transit, shopping, employment, civic and recreational uses; social equity may be improved. 86 09/01109 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise the land plan where needed and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department in pursuit of a public/private partnership to potentially increase the total number and type of deed restricted and local resident occupied dwelling units within the project and specifically within walking distance to regional transit; · Revise the land plan to include provisions for "affordable commercial" space. Similar to proposed affordable and resident occupied housing, the applicant may gain credits for meeting the Eagle County Affordable and Resident Housing requirements by introducing affordable, deed restricted and/or resident occupied commercial and/or live/work space within the development to attract local buyers and entrepreneurs. · Revising the land plan prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local "Jobs to Housing" ratios; ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live/work land uses. · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate early childhood education and daycare facilities for local residents and local workforce. · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate seniors services industry and retail opportunities. . "Ensure that all plans for development recognize the need to maintain a healthy economy: The applicant has provided a financial analysis by Stan Bernstein, Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. This report generally describes how the proposed development will positively impact the local economy and local taxing jurisdictions through the introduction of additional property tax valuations and sales tax generation. The analysis provided by Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. generally asserts that there will most likely not be additional (incremental) costs or impacts on Eagle County personnel and equipment. Further, the applicant has spent considerable time working with Staff to implement "Site Stats"- a fiscal and economic impact modeling tool being used for the first time by the County to provide enhanced (internal) analysis of "incremental" project costs and benefits to the County. Despite the applicant's assertions that the project will most likely not be cost implications to Eagle County, the Site Stats model will be used in more depth to review any Preliminary Plan submittal to better assess the incremental impacts (capital costs and general operational and/or administration costs) to Eagle County. One aspect of the project's influence on the local economy that may need further analysis as plans and project pro-forma are further developed, is how this development will compliment the existing and/or planned (but not yet built) commercial land uses in the immediate vicinity (Willits Town Center). The project differentiates itself by introducing a mix of convenience, service and "live/work" commercial, office and light industrial uses that are 'for-sale'. Nearby developments such as the Willits Bend live/work real estate offerings have proven popular and indicate additional market demand for such 'for-sale' Light Industrial and residential spaces which are intended to promote investment by locals in the business community and to create further diversification of the local economy. The project has been specifically designed to serve the local population by proposing to meet or exceed the County's affordable housing requirements, providing sustainable design and active alternative energy solutions to reduce environmental impacts associated with the development and to reduce long-term operating and maintenance costs for residents of the development, thus providing additional means to perhaps keep a higher percentage of personal income within the community and within the local economy. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: 87 09/01/09 · Revising the land plan to include provisions for "affordable commercial" space. Similar to proposed affordable and resident occupied housing, the applicant may gain credits for meeting the Eagle County Affordable Housing and Resident Housing requirements by introducing commercial and/or live/work space within the development that is deed restricted to attract local buyers and entrepreneurs. · Integrate information gained from using the 'Site Stats' modeling tool to re-design the project, where applicable, and to reduce any potential burden on Eagle County Government or other local jurisdictions that may be financial impacted by the development, and; to increase the long-term economic benefits generated by the development to bolster a sustainable and diversified local economy. · Revising the land plan prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local jobs to housing ratios; ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live/work land uses. . "Intersperse parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development". The project is generally designed to incorporate parks and properly scaled public spaces within and throughout areas of higher-density development, such as residential cluster neighborhoods and commercial and/or entertainment-commercial areas. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to provide neighborhood or community-scale gardens and areas for local food production; · Revising the land plan to include more areas of active recreation; although this project is located within close proximity to planned or existing regional (recreation) amenities such as the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm/Crown Mountain Park, residents within the development and those living or working in nearby population centers may benefit from additional active recreation opportunities. Consider expanding proposed lakeside park areas and/or providing unique offerings to compliment pedestrian oriented commercial core plaza areas. . "Consistently apply and enforce Eagle County Land Use Regulation development standards". This is the purpose of this PUD Sketch Plan evaluation process. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to meet ECLURs as they specifically relate to roadway standards and fire code standards. · Re-design and/or enhance the development (land plan) to achieve better conformance with the requirements of SCI. . "Analyze development applicationsfor conformance to the County's Future Land Use Map". The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Mid Valley Community Master Plan. This document was adopted in 1991 and is currently being updated to reflect current conditions of the Mid-Valley and the current values and goals of the citizens. The proposed project meets the majority of the goals and policies of the Plan by focusing growth service commercial and medium to high density residential uses near existing developed areas. However, two areas of non-conformance relate to the preservation a 200-foot buffer along Hwy. 82 for agricultural uses or as recreational trail corridors. The 88 09/01109 Master Plan specifically identifies the Hwy. 82 frontage and existing irrigated pasture lands on the Tree Farm property as being preserved as open lands; it shows the surrounding Juniper/Pinyon hillsides to the north and east as being residential development of between 4-8 units per acre. For several reasons, including conflicts with current provisions of the ECLURs and other planning principles and policies of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan, these two elements of the 1991 Mid- Valley Master Plan (Future Land Use Map) run counter to contemporary concepts of development within Eagle County. First, encouraging development of highly visible and geologically sensitive hillsides is generally not supported by other applicable regulations and master plan documents. As well, other applicable sections of the Mid- Valley Master Plan would suggest directing development within community centers and encouraging a higher density than is proposed in the Tree Farm application. Lastly, although the update to the Mid-Valley Master Plan is not complete, the updated document - reflecting community input and clarification of goals and policies for the area - will most likely support a future land use map that more closely aligns with the proposed land plan for the Tree Farm and surrounding areas that have developed since adoption of the original Master Plan document in 1991. . "Continue to allow variations from underlying zoning standards to be obtained through a Planned Unit Development but require clustering within the PUD to the benefit of the surrounding community". The proposed development requests variations from dimensional and development standards via the PUD process. The plan groups duplex, three and four-plex home sites generally within a limited portion of irrigated pasture land on the northern portion of the PUD and concentrates the remainder of the development along the western portion of the property between the ski lake and the Hwy. 82 right-of-way. Approximately 51 % of the site is preserved as open space and/or productive agricultural lands. Overall, such an approach will create a reduced development footprint, increase efficiency in service proVIsion and increase the livability of the area by producing walkable residential and commercial development within a community center and in close proximity to planned mass transit. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan for the North Meadow residential cluster area to be more compact and reduce the overall footprint of buildings and paved areas - "pull-in" limits of disturbance away from existing wetland boundary. . "Require new commercial development to provide workforce housing or to provide land for workforce housing". The project is specifically designed to provide workforce housing and live/work opportunities to the local population; the project meets the minimum requirements of the County's Housing Guidelines. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: . Revising the land plan to increase opportunities to incorporate more deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to explore potential public-private partnerships to increase the affordable housing stock. . "Design and locate development to minimize and / or mitigate identified impacts'~ The project has been designed as a compact, clustered development located in close proximity to planned regional mass transit hubs. It has been designed as an energy efficient, pedestrian friendly project serving local populations through the creation of significant amounts of deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing options to specifically minimize and otherwise mitigate impacts from development. 89 09/01/09 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan for the North Meadow residential cluster area to be more compact and reduce the overall footprint of buildings and paved areas - "pull-in" limits of disturbance away from existing wetland boundary. · Integrate information gained from using the 'Site Stats' modeling tool to re-design the project, where applicable, and to reduce any potential burden on Eagle County Government or other local jurisdictions that may be financial impacted by the development, and; to increase the long-term economic benefits generated by the development to bolster a sustainable and diversified local economy. · Revising the land plan prior to any Preliminary Plan submittal to reflect the most recently completed demographic information available from the State, and/or Eagle County to enhance the project's ability to positively influence local jobs to housing ratios; ensure targets for affordability and living wage job creation are matched with introduction of additional commercial, office and live/work land uses. (2) Economic Resources . "Ensure that commercial/retail development occurs in locations that are compatible with surrounding uses". The project is specifically designed as a transit oriented, mixed use development supplying "community scaled" commercial and office uses for the local community and to compliment existing retail and service commercial uses in the surrounding area. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Perform a detailed market analysis to test certain assumptions made and to specifically address potential, negative impacts resulting from unsupported competition for specific retail commercial uses in the immediate area (Willits Town Center and Orchard Plaza). . "Consider the impact of each second home development on the jobs to housing balance. " The proposal is not intended to be a second home development. . "Develop the services and businesses that will benefit a growing senior population". Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to ensure appropriate, adequate (ADA compliant) and efficient access at the ground or pedestrian level of commercial buildings for such "services and businesses" benefiting a growing senior population. · Work with senior or elder-care service providers in the Mid-Valley area, as well as with Eagle County Health and Human Services Department staff to identify those "services and business" needed in the Mid-Valley region. And, to the extent practical within the over all land plan and commercial real estate pro-forma, designate or reserve certain commercial spaces and locations to accommodate businesses aimed at serving senior populations. . "Encourage retirement housing as part of mixed-use developments in existing towns and unincorporated communities". 90 09/01/09 The plans do not specifically anticipate creation of "retirement housing"; however, the nature of this pedestrian friendly, transit oriented design may be complimentary to this particular master plan goal. Proposed affordable and deed restricted housing will be available to those segments of the population approaching or at retirement age. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department, as well as with the Eagle County Health and Human Services Department to further identify rental and 'for-sale' housing price points (thresholds) that may be attractive and/or attainable for a growing segment of Eagle County's population living on fixed incomes. · Identify those housing and/or amenity features designed specifically for aging populations and consider incorporating those features into overall project plans and individual building design. . . "Select sites for retirement housing that are suitable in regards to local support services, emergency services and transportation ". See above comments. In addition, the proposed development is in close proximity to emergency services providers. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · See above comments and strategies. . "Apply Workforce Housing Guidelines and require commercial developers to mitigate their project's impact on the jobs to housing balance of the area". The project's affordable housing plan has been reviewed by the Eagle County Housing and Development Director for compliance with the Guidelines. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise the Housing Plan to adjust AMI target to 100% (rather than 105% proposed by applicant) for deed restricted units. . "Limit the expansion of commercial zoning in unincorporated Eagle County to that necessary to serve the needs of the immediate local population". Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the proposal to include a detailed market study for the immediate trade area. Staff believes the applicant's proposal, when submitted for review in August of 2088, was based on the best available market data at that time. The application included preliminary financial analysis to support the proposed mix, types and sizes of retail, service and entertainment commercial uses. However, national, regional and local economic conditions have changed in considerable and profound ways since the completion of any initial financial feasibility and market studies. Therefore, Staff suggests that as the project moves forward to Preliminary Plan design, a detailed market analysis should be performed to test certain assumptions made and to specifically address potential, negative impacts resulting from unsupported competition for specific retail commercial uses in the immediate area (Willits Town Center and Orchard Plaza). 91 09/01/09 · Revising the proposed Phasing Plan to allow flexibility in the design, construction and marketing of commercial, office and residential real estate offerings. Phasing should be structured and timed to respond appropriately to potentially unpredictable market conditions in the future. · Work with the Town of Basalt, to the extent practical, to ensure that any proposed commercial and/or light industrial development best serves the immediate local population and compliments existing commercial and/or light industrial development in the area. . "Allow the development of new service commercial and industrial uses in suitable locations provided such uses are properly buffered from surrounding properties". Service and convenience commercial uses as well as office and live/work uses have been primarily concentrated around a planned regional mass transit stop and directly adjacent to the Hwy. 82 right-of-way. Light industrial, wholesale nursery and/or agricultural uses associated with the relocated Wind River Tree Fann operations will be located on the southeastern portion of the PUD and in relatively close proximity to an existing, low to medium density residential neighborhood (Laura J. Estates). The PUD Guide included in the application allows for certain uses that are likely to generate noise and other potential nuisances. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan and site specific development plans to ensure particular light industrial, agricultural and/or wholesale nursery uses and business operations are contained within properly designed and constructed buildings - to include architecture and building materials (construction techniques) that specifically provide sound attenuating properties and which meet all applicable building code requirements for venting, hazardous materials storage and lighting standards. · Provide protective covenants that specifically control and otherwise limit 1) hours of operation for certain outdoor activities; 2) permissible noise levels; and 3) lighting standards. . "Encourage but limit commercial development in residential neighborhoods to local businesses that serve the basic needs of nearby residents". The project has been specifically designed to provide commercial buildings of certain, limited (gross) square footage to be attractive to local businesses and entrepreneurs. Cortunercial, office and light industrial uses are integrated within the residential fabric of the development to create a mixed use, pedestrian friendly environment. Live/work and other 'for-sale' commercial real estate is to be offered to local businesses. No medium or large format "box" stores are proposed and the commercial core of the project is geared towards providing convenience and service commercial uses to serve the needs of local residents and commuters. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Work with senior or elder-care service providers in the Mid-Valley area, as well as with Eagle County Health and Human Services Department staff to identify those "services and business" needed in the Mid-Valley region. And, to the extent practical within the over all land plan and commercial real estate pro-forma, designate or reserve certain commercial spaces and locations to accommodate businesses aimed at serving senior populations. · Perform a detailed market analysis prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. · Work with the Town of Basalt, to the extent practical, to ensure that any proposed commercial and/or light industrial development best serves the needs of nearby residents and compliments existing commercial and/or light industrial development in the area. . "Encourage live-work arrangements within community centers by promoting compact mixed-use development, pedestrian scaled retail areas and intercommunity public transportation". 92 09/01/09 The project has been designed in strict conformance with this policy. (3) Housim! . "Affordable workforce housing should be located near job centers". The subject property is located within the main EI Jebel community center area and is identified in the Town of Basalt Master Plan as being within the Town's Urban Growth Boundary. The subject property is located within walking distance to the main commercial areas of E1 Jebel and includes a new BR T stop - providing direct access to regional mass transit routes connecting future populations to job centers outside the immediate planning area. As well, the proposal seeks to provide deed restricted affordable and workforce (resident occupied) housing along side 'for-sale' commercial spaces and Li ve/W ork opportunities for locals, thus striving to meet the goal of providing "affordable workforce housing" near job centers. And, as a matter of course for satisfying the Eagle County Housing Guidelines, aJIordable workforce housing will result and the applicant has submitted a revised housing plan as a result of feedback from the Eagle County Housing and Development Department. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to increase opportunities to incorporate more deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Devdopment Department to explore potential public-private partnerships to increase the affordable housing stock. · Revise the Housing Plan to adjust AMI target to 100% (rather than 105% proposed by applicant) for deed restricted units. . "Provide incentives to developers who develop workforce housing". Although the property is currently zoned PUD, there is no approved site specific development plan approved; any vested rights associated with PUD development plans previously approved have expired. Therefore, the proposal represents a substantial up-zoning of the subject property based on the proposal to construct a total of 319 residential dwelling units (392,819 sq. ft.); 35% of which are proposed to meet the minimum requirements of the Eagle County Housing Guidelines. If this Planned Unit Development (as proposed) is ultimately approved, the incentive to the developer will be the ability to develop 150 free-market units; 128 deed restricted units averaging 100% AMI, and; 41 "resident occupied" units priced at or above 160% AMI. In addition, 96,375 sq. ft. of commercial development is proposed. The applicant recently amended the Housing Plan for the development to reduce the size (gross square feet) of certain residential unit types and to subsequently increase the total number of dwelling units (total gross residential square footage was not increased). This resulted in seventy (70) additional dwelling units which are subject to the Eagle County Housing Guideline requirements, but which also factor (significantly) into the applicant's pro-forma. Staffis in general support of the increased density on this transit-oriented, mixed use development; density and TOD are inextricably linked. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise the Housing Plan to adjust the AMI target to 100% (rather than 105% proposed by applicant) for deed restricted units. · Revising the land plan to increase opportunities to incorporate more deed restricted and/or resident occupied housing and continue to work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to explore potential public-private partnerships to increase the affordable housing stock. 93 09/01/09 · Revising the proposed Phasing Plan to allow flexibility in the design, construction and marketing of commercial, office and residential real estate offerings - timed to respond appropriately to potentially unpredictable market conditions in the future. · Work with the Eagle County Housing and Development Department to quantify actual savings to residents of the development through energy efficiency and on-site energy production measures. Staff is willing to work with the applicant to quantify such real (actual) savings in order to potentially allow the purchase price for some of the required deed restricted units to be raised. While ensuring that savings to residents are real and ongoing over the life of the project, such a scenario may allow the developer to realize higher up-front returns. Higher up-front returns could equate to additional investment by the developer in energy efficient building techniques and technology. . "Continue to require a Local Resident Housing Plan for all new development applications as required by the Local Resident Housing Guidelines". The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. Pursuant to the attached e-mail from the Director of Housing and Development dated January 14, 2009, the Housing Plan meets the minimum requirements of the Guidelines, and could be modified concurrent with Preliminary Plan submittal to exceed the Guidelines for the purpose of increasing the public benefit of the project. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · See above comments. . "Mandate that attainable workforce housing be considered part of the required infrastructure for all new development applications. " The project is designed specifically to provided "attainable workforce housing" as part of the project infrastructure (per the Local Resident Housing Guidelines) for this development plan and is specifically provided for as a key component to the overall objective of the development proposal. . "Continue to utilize Inclusionary Housing and Employee Housing Linkage as defined in the Local Resident Housing Guidelines in the review of development applications". See above comments. (4) Infrastructure and Services . "Locate new development in areas served by adequate roads and paths, and within reasonable distance to a mass transit hub'~ The subject property is served by adequate public roads and has specifically been designed, working in collaboration with multiple agencies to provide appropriate residential density, park-n-ride facilities and commercial uses directly adjacent to a planned BRT. In addition, the project incorporates a regional trail connection running parallel to Hwy. 82 (please reference attached correspondence from RFTA, CDOT, Eagle County and the applicant regarding transit and roadway improvements, design, and funding solutions). Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revising the land plan to address outstanding issues related to roadway and access standards per the ECLURs and applicable fire codes. 94 09/01/09 · Revise the land plan to ensure proposed pedestrian circulation (paths) that serve outlying parts of the project (North Meadow residential) promote efficient and safe pedestrian travel routes. · Work with the Mid-Valley Trails Committee and the Town of Basalt to ensure trails through the project meet the design standards and needs of regional trail connectivity. . "Assure that road and trail improvements are completed concurrent to the completion of new development". If this PUD proposal is ultimately approved, at Final Plat a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateral will be required to ensure that all necessary infrastructure improvements are installed cOITectly in a timely manner. . "Ensure appropriate transportation considerations are included in subdivision improvement agreements". This is the primary purpose of subdivision improvement agreements. . "Work with mass transit providers to expand service". The proposed plans respond to and at the same time support RFT A plans to expand regional bus service (please refer to attached correspondence from RFTA, CDOT, Eagle County and the applicant regarding transit and roadway improvements, design, and funding solutions). . "Encourage transit oriented development". The project is specifically designed as a transit oriented development. . "Promote pedestrian malls and provide adequate parking on the perimeter of shopping areas to encourage walking". The land plan incorporates mixed-use development around a pedestrian mall strategically located in relation to a planned pedestrian underpass and in proximity to a planned BR T station and parking. . "Encourage a network of walking trails within towns and community centers that connect typical community destinations (bus stops, schools, businesses, parks, playgrounds, etc.) with seamless pedestrian infrastructure". The project includes pedestrian connections and incorporates new regional trails through the subject property, connecting the site with the larger community center. The proposed plans add significantly to the "seamless pedestrian infrastructure". Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: o Work with the Mid-Valley Trails Committee and the Town of Basalt to ensure trails through the project meet the design standards and needs of regional trail connectivity. . "Within towns and community centers, retrofit public roads with parallel pedestrian routes and marked street crossings". The project includes the provision of Tree Farm Drive and associated sidewalk and/or pedestrian pathways running parallel to Hwy. 82. Pedestrian paths generally run parallel to Tree Farm Drive and will include marked street crossings at certain intersections and road segments. 95 09/01/09 Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Work with the Mid-Valley Trails Committee and the Town of Basalt to ensure trails through the project meet the design standards and needs of regional trail connectivity. . "Design streetscapes to include pedestrian friendly amenities like window spaces, store fronts, landscaping, plaza areas, marked cross walks and traffic speed controls". Not applicable. . "Promote the use of Planned Unit Developments to increase flexibility in planning and design". This is a PUD Sketch Plan application. . "Promote live-work arrangements where appropriate'~ The project includes a significant live/work component. . "Encourage an appropriate mix of retail and office locations in new neighborhoods to reduce reliance on personal cars". This mixed use project incorporates convenience and service retail commercial uses as well as office uses. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Perform a detailed market analysis prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal to determine the appropriate mix of uses. . "Evaluate all development proposals using Eagle County Land Use Regulation Road Standards". The proposal does not comply with the ECLUR roadway standards for access width. . "Assure adequate access for emergency responders". See comments from Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Engineering Department regarding access and requested variances by the applicant. . "Require demonstration that all new developments will be adequately served by emergency and community services". Refer to the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District response dated January 9,2009. . "Encourage new commercial development to provide childcare as an amenity". At this level of review, specific plans (programming) for service or other commercial spaces have not been developed. The applicant is aware of this master plan goal. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Consider integrating uses and specific building/commercial space design to facilitate early childhood education and daycare facilities for local residents and local workforce. 96 09/01/09 . "Use House Bill 1041 powers tofully evaluate proposals for new water and sewer lines and proposalsfor new or expanded water or sewer treatment plants". Not applicable. . "Require the installation of water and sewer service infrastructure concurrent to development". This proposal entails installation of new public water and sewer infrastructure. 12" main lines arc already installed and stubbed out at existing (completed) sections of Tree Farm Drive - running from the Shadowrock Townhomes development to the project boundary. The applicant has a reimbursement agreement with the Shadowrock developer/owner for such improvements benefiting the Tree Farm. . "Require detailed transportation analysis at the preliminary approval". The applicant has provided traffic generation analysis for the Sketch Plan submittal. Such analysis was further revised to reflect recent changes (increased number of dwelling units) made to the Housing Plan for the development. Analysis provided to date indicates that approximately 3,729 additional vehicles per day (3,390 originally calculated plus 10% to account for additional dwelling units added per the Housing Plan) will be added to local roads. A detailed analysis will be required with any Preliminary Plan submittal. . "Provide a diversity of housing choices and prices throughout the entire county". The proposal will provide a mix of free market, deed restricted and resident occupied housing options of varying sizes, types, locations and price points throughout the development. (5) Water Resources . "Require developers to demonstrate that a legal and physical water supply exists for their development". The Mid-Valley Metropolitan District has provided written evidence ("Can and Will Serve" letter) demonstrating the District's legal and physical ability to serve the development; with conditions to provide additional water storage as part of the project. . "Use a standard of extended drought conditions to determine the viability of the physical water supply proposed for a new development". See above comments. . "Utilize current water quantity information in all development applications and planning reviews". Staff suggests that the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District would not have entered into a contract ("Can and Will Serve") with the applicant to serve the subject property if the District could not provide a sufficient quantity of water to support the proposed development. However, the intent to serve is conditional upon the applicant fulfilling certain water storage/augmentation requirements. . "Protect source water areas and reduce the potential for source water contamination". During site construction, Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be employed for stonn water management, erosion control and dust suppression. · "Use pervious surfaces instead of impermeable surfaces when possible". The application does not preclude the use of pervious surfaces. Such design and construction related details should be examined further during any Preliminary Plan level of design and development. 97 09/01/09 . "Ensure that development does not adversely affect the recharge of groundwater resources". The project generally includes provisions for the capture and treatment (on-site) of storm water runoff using bio-swaleslbio-filtration islands throughout parking areas and other hardscape areas. In addition, the development seeks to cluster as much density as possible; to limit overall (total) building footprints, and; to preserve large portions of the site as irrigated pasture and/or agricultural production. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise the land plan to further cluster development and reduce the amount of paved areas (roadways, individual driveways) to reduce the total amount of building footprint and/or impervious surfaces - to increase or preserve groundwater recharge capabilities within the site. · Include controls with PUD and/or protective covenants that limit and/or require monitoring and reporting of any chemicals (pesticides, herbicides) used in proposed agricultural (nursery) operations. · Require ground water monitoring stations within the PUD boundaries. · Consider building designs that incorporate "green roofs" and water re-capture/treatment within roof design and materials. . "Encourage the use of water efficient landscape materials and landscape irrigation methods". The proposal does incorporate low water consumptive/Firewise landscape materials and treatments. At the time of Preliminary Plan application, a detailed landscape and irrigation plan will be required. . "Evaluate efficiencies of non-potable water usage for golf courses and other landscaped areas". The proposed plans include provisions for the use of non-potable irrigation for all outdoor irrigation needs/requirements. . "Implement water reuse and recycling systems". The application does not address water reuse at this time. Reuse options should be examined further with any Preliminary Plan level of design and development pursuant to the most current State legislation on water storage and re-capture. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Consider integrating water reuse and recycling components into the building, landscape and irrigation plans. . "Support the implementation of voluntary and mandatory water conservation measures". The application proposes to limit the total amount of spray irrigated area; no specific (maximum) square footages are proposed. Also, the use of xeric plant materials, conservation of native vegetation and drip irrigation techniques are to be applied. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Consider incorporating specific limits and/or controls regarding the maximum areas per lot to be irrigated within PUD Guide documents and/or within protective covenants. 98 09/01/09 . "Require the demonstration of the availability of real (wet) water supply at Sketch Plan stage of development application". Staff suggests that the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District would not have entered into a contract ("Can and Will Serve letter) with the applicant to serve the subject property if the District could not provide a sufficient quantity of water to support the proposed development. . "Participate in water quality monitoring efforts". No provisions or proposals for water quality monitoring were included within the application. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Include controls with POD and/or protective covenants that limit and/or require monitoring and reporting of any chemicals (pesticides, herbicides) used in proposed agricultural (nursery) operations. · Require ground water monitoring stations within the POD boundaries. . "Follow the recommendations of the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Regional 208 Water Quality Management Plan". The use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for on-site storm water management will be required. . "Follow the recommendations of the Eagle River Watershed Plan". The subject property is not located within the Eagle River Watershed. . "Promote the appropriate best management practices for the control of storm water runoff and work to identifY and treat other non-point sources of pollution". Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required with regard to storm water management and grading activities. . "Require an effective water quality management plan be implemented with new development". Such plan is not proposed at this time. . "Adhere to established Land Use Regulations and implement appropriate water quality best management practices (BMP's) on all development proposals". Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required with all final construction documents and plans. . "Require buffer areas of natural vegetation between new developments and created or natural drainage ways". Development is proposed near the 'Robinson Ditch' which runs from south to northwest around the eastern border of the POD boundary. The Ditch is located at a higher elevation and is surrounded by existing, mature riparian vegetation such as Cottonwood trees. As well, development is proposed near existing (created) wetlands located adjacent to the ski lake. Lastly, the plan contemplates creation of drainage ways and pond features to run through the North Meadow residential neighborhood to serve as storm water detention and treatment and as natural amenities for residents. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: 99 09/01/09 · Revise land plan to "pull-in" proposed North Meadow residential neighborhood further away from existing wetlands to provide a larger buffer. · Ensure proposed residential structures near the Robinson Ditch are located and/or designed to withstand any potential hydrologic events (high water tables, storm water runoff during significant events). . "Minimize the extent of impervious surfaces within new developments and encourage the use of pervious paving systems". The development seeks to cluster as much density as possible; to limit overall (total) building footprints, and; to preserve large portions of the site as irrigated pasture and/or agricultural production. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise land the land plan to further cluster development and reduce the amount of paved areas (roadways, individual driveways) to reduce the total amount of building footprint and/or impervious surfaces - to increase or preserve groundwater recharge capabilities within the site. (6) Wildlife Resources . "Support projects intent on removing or minimizing human-made barriers to wildlife migration". As of this writing, the Colorado State Division of Wildlife had not yet responded. According to a report submitted by Richard Thompson, Western Ecosystems, Inc., the project boundary located generally along the Robinson Ditch does not overlap with Elk migration routes which are located outside project boundaries and within the surrounding Juniper/Pinyon hillsides boarding the State Wildlife Area. Mule Deer migration routes also do not overlap the PUD. . "Develop and implement projects that enhance existing wildlife habitat". The project generally avoids development impacts to high value habitats contained within and along the Robinson Ditch and around the existing wetland. However, no specific programs or projects are proposed to enhance existing wildlife habitat. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Revise land plan to "pull-in" proposed North Meadow residential neighborhood further away from existing wetlands to provide a larger buffer (50-100 feet recommended by the consulting wildlife biologist). · Incorporate specific controls or standards within the PUD Guide document restricting the total amount and height of fencing allowed. · Consider maintaining/preserving historic cabin structure located at the northwest comer of the subject property for use as a regional trail information center and/or cultural center to educate local residents and visitors about area history, wildlife, culture and alternative energy produced on-site. . "Prevent contaminants from entering local streams and rivers". Although the project is not located along or in close proximity to area streams or rivers, the use of Best Management Practices for on-site storm water management will be required. . "Direct development away from areas of critical wildlife habitat". 100 09/01109 With the exception of a planned solar farm/array to be located outside of the proposed PUD boundary, development is contained within PUD boundary which is generally delineated by the Robinson Ditch. According to a report by Richard Thompson, Western Ecosystems, Inc., "... the current Tree Farm proposal would avoid the most sensitive wildlife issue associated with prior proposals by limiting development to the area below the irrigation ditch, thereby avoiding mule deer and elk winter range associated with the juniper forest above the ditch." . "Implement and enforce referral recommendations of local wildlife officials". All comments/recommendations provided by the consulting wildlife biologist will be conditions of approval. included as . "Consider the impacts of each new development proposal in context with other existing or potential developments". This is the intent of the PUD Sketch Plan process. . "Encourage high-density development within existing community centers". The project is designed to focus high-density/high-intensity development within the existing community center and within the urban growth boundary of the Town of Basalt. . "Minimize site disturbance during construction ". A construction management plan, dust suppression plan and other Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be required as part of any development approvals. . "If ornamental landscape plants are used, encourage species that are unpalatable to wildlife". Ornamental tree species are proposed as part of the conceptual landscape plan for the development. This issue, in sufficient detail should be addressed with the submittal of any Preliminary Plan. . "Require wildlife-proof refuse containers for all new and existing subdivisions". The application is required to adhere to the ECLUR standards for wildlife refuse containment. (7) Sensitive Lands . "Require the evaluation of all geologic hazards and constraints as related to new land use". The attached Colorado Geological Survey response dated November 12, 2008, references geologic reports by the applicant indicating that the subject property is encumbered by "numerous geologic hazards that will significantly effect all proposed development." Such hazards or general conditions include sinkholes, landslide deposits, evaporate subsidence potential debris flow hazard, and the potential for construction- related instability. The CGS response further notes that all of the identified geologic hazards will require special consideration and mitigation. Additional evaluation and investigation will be required with application for PUD Preliminary Plan. All recommendations of the Colorado Geological Survey have been made conditions of approval. (please refer to attached CGS letter and follow-up letter from the applicant regarding further geologic investigation and exploration that is proposed prior to or concurrent with Preliminary Plan submittal). · "Minimize alteration of the natural landform by new development improvements to the greatest extent possible". 101 09/01109 Site disturbance is to be minimized to the greatest extent feasible and is concentrated entirely within areas previously disturbed by human activity. Surrounding hillsides containing geologically sensitive areas, as well as Juniper/Pinyon forest were avoided with this application. . "Avoid the aggravation or acceleration of existing potential hazards through land form or vegetation modification '~ All CGS recommendations encouraging further site-specific investigations and studies will be made conditions of approval. . Continue to refer all development plans to the Colorado Geological Survey for comment". Referral to CGS completed. . "Require the incorporation of all recommendations of CGS and other hazards experts into development plans ". All CGS recommendations encouraging further site-specific investigations and studies will be made conditions of approval. . "Consider the cumulative impact of incremental development on landscapes that include visual, historic, and archeological value during the decision making process". The project concentrates all development along the Hwy. 82 corridor or generally within the valley floor of the subject property which is generally situated at a lower elevation than the Hwy. 82 road platform. Overall, this proposal achieves a higher level of visual protection than previous proposals as no development (other than the proposed location of a solar farm/array to the north of the PUD boundary and situated within an area of hillside with maximum solar access and minimal visibility from off-site) is proposed to encroach on adjacent Juniper/Pinyon hillsides. Staff is not aware of any historic and/or archeological sites on the subject property. No referral responses were received from either the State Historical Society or the Eagle County Historical Society. . "Determine the features that make a particular open space parcel valuable given its intended use as open space and ensure that these features are preserved". Open spaces of different kinds and values (active, passive, conservation/environmental- oriented) are proposed throughout the development. Overall, the open space plan serves many different purposes appropriate to a mixed use development which includes commercial, residential, and agricultural uses. "Usable" open space percentages proposed will need to be studied (potentially increased) to meet the intent and minimum requirements of the ECLURs. (8) Environmental Quality . ~~Assure access to multi-modal transportation options for all residents, second home owners and visitors". The project is specifically designed to "assure access to multi-modal transportation options".; the property and proposed residential and commercial development is situated within wa1kable (within y.; mile; 10- minute walk) proximity to planned transit service, provides intermodal connections to regional and local bike and pedestrian networks. . "Provide affordable housing opportunities in close proximity to job centers to reduce personal vehicle trips". 102 09/01/09 See previous comments regarding affordable housing and the transit oriented development (TaD) nature of this proj ect. . "Focus development within towns and communities to reduce the need for daily commuting". The project is located within an existing community center and within the Urban Growth Boundary of the Town of Basalt. . "Set limits for construction site disturbance, require temporary revegetation of stockpiles and permanent revegetation of all disturbed areas once final grades have been established". Site-specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes and with each building permit. . "Require periodic watering and track-out control devices at all construction site access points". Site specific grading and erosion control plans will be required with the PUD Preliminary Plan and Final Plat processes. . "Utilize motion detectors to minimize the duration of security lighting". Detailed lighting standards will be reviewed with any Preliminary Plan submittal for conformance with ECLUR's and applicable master plan goals and policies. . "Ensure that noise levels are safe for residents, visitors and employees". Other than temporary auditory impacts during construction, light industrial uses may have some impact on noise levels within the development. Overall, it is not anticipated that the proposed development will generate undue impacts. Strategies to improve or enhance the project's conformance to the stated Comprehensive Plan policy include: · Incorporate appropriate controls within the PUD Guide document and/or protective covenants to regulate hours of operation and permissible noise levels within the live/work and other light industrial areas of the plan. . "Include an analysis of potential noise when making the finding of compatibility with surrounding uses for all new development proposals". See previous comments regarding noise and other potential impacts associated with Wind River Tree Farm uses proposed adjacent to Laura 1. Estates. Appropriate measures must be included within PUD Guide documents and/or protective covenants. . "Promote transit-oriented development, and encourage plans that minimize reliance on personal motorized vehicles". See previous comments regarding the project design and TaD. . "Design communities in a way that reduces fossil fuel consumption for heating or cooling". See previous comments regarding TaD, energy efficiency and on-site alternative energy production proposed. The project is specifically designed to provide residential development that significantly increases energy efficiency through sustainable building design and construction practices. In addition, all new construction is required to meet EcoBuild and Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) regulations. 103 09/01/09 . Implement energy efficiency guidelines. See previous comment regarding the design of the project and internal project goals to meet or exceed the EcoBuild/Sustainable Communities Index (SCI) criteria. Each habitable structure in the subdivision is required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. . Implement energy saving techniques. Each habitable structure in the subdivision is required to satisfy the County's EcoBuild regulations. Additional ideas: 1. Community-based agriculture and composting on-site for yard and kitchen waste; 2. Community-based recycling program and facilities on-site. Future Land Use Map Designation The Eagle County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map defers to the Mid Valley Community Master Plan, which incorrectly identifies the subject property as being located within the Town of Basalt. The development proposed; however, is generally consistent with existing development in all directions from the subject property. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 8 i8 aJ ij ~.- ~<n ::>1 fIj '!iJ ~ 1$ J ~ ~8 !~ ~G ;a ~ ~~ !! := ~ Exceeds Recommendation x. Satisfies Recommendation Xl x3 x4 x5 x. x7 Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable (1) To the extent the applicant has collaborated with the State (CDOT) and other, regional entities this land use proposal as it relates to land use decisions, regional transit and pedestrian improvements, the project meets the master plan policy of cooperating with other agencies. regarding circulation (2) The project exceeds the minimum requirement for open space and recreation land within the based on the uniform standards of the ECLURs. PUD (3) The plan defines Unique Land Forms as "Lands having unique or outstanding characteristics." As well, definitions provided by the State Historical Commission provide that "unique geological or ecological systems that have historic or prehistoric associations and that have not been disturbed. . . natural features having a historic or aesthetic and visually pleasing characteristic." The subject property has been previously disturbed by historic human activities. To the extent the project clusters development on the site, specifically avoids highly visible adjacent hillsides and 104 09/01/09 protects/preserves relatively signficant portions of existing, productive agriculture lands as a the development and surrounding State Wildlife areas, the policy is met. buffer between (4) See above comment No.3. (5) To the extent the project avoids development on slopes exceeding 40 percent and focuses development within and around existing community (centers) in order to enhance open space values in the outlying areas (of Eagle County), the policy is met. (6) To the extent the project avoids development on steep slopes, the policy is met. identified natural hazards on the subject property with the exception of those identified Geological Survey; to the extent the recommendations of the CGS are adequately Preliminary Plan submittal, the policy is met. There are no by the addressed other Colorado with any MID VALLEY COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Communi Open Space / EI Lower Ruedi Missouri Housing Transportation ty Environment Jebel! Frying Reservoir Heights Facilities Basalt Pan Conformance Xl X2 X3 X4 XS Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X Applicable (1) The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. Pursuant to the attached e-mail fi'om the Director of Housing dated January 14, 2009, the Housing Plan meets the minimum requirements of the Guidelines and should be revised to adjust the Average Median Income (AMI) target for deed restricted units. The project proposes a diversity of housing types in a clustered/transit oriented design within proximity to services. The plan preserves existing agricultural lands, focuses development within existing community center and (voluntarily) incorporates sustainable design and construction techniques to reduce utility costs. (2) The project is specifically designed to accommodate mass transportation based on a valley wide (RFT A) plan. The project incorporates bicycle and pedestrian systems and connections and utilizes the recently completed Willits Lane intersection with Hwy. 82 while providing additional collector road connections between E1 Jebel Road and the Frontage Road. Additional parking facilities have been incorporated in the land plan as have plans for a pedestrian underpass to connect the development (and the east side of the EI Jebe1 community center) to Willits Town Center. (3) The project incorporates "community scale" commercial development in traditional small town patterns (pedestrian oriented) within an existing community center and with direct access to a new mass transit facility. 105 09/01/09 The project is not considered "strip commercial" development, but is The project includes provisions for "clean" light industrial uses. proposed as a mixed use development. (4) Although development is proposed on portions of irrigated agricultural lands, the project is clustered to preserve significant portions of the site as productive agricultural lands in an area of the development most visible from the Hwy. 82 corridor. This area also provides an open space buffer between proposed development and State Wildlife areas located to the east of the project site. The project maintains and makes use of the historic 'Robinson Ditch' to produce 'micro-hydro' power generation on-site. Development is generally located at the toe of slopes and specifically to avoid development on adjacent hillsides. (5) The proposal is consistent with the EI JebeVBasalt Area policies set forth in the Plan given the property's proximity to the Town of Basalt services. Recommended density for this area is 4-8 units per acre; the project proposes an average density of between 3-4 units per acre. Although the project does not propose to preserve thirty (30) or more acres of agricultural land, approximately 51 % of the total site area included in the PUD is preserved or created as open space. A 200 foot building setback from Highway 82 (and other plan goals related to preserving the Hwy. 82 corridor as a "parkway") would render development of the subject property or other properties in proximity to the community center unpractical; such constraint would otherwise preclude any development on the subject property from meeting or exceeding other master plan goals related to land use and development patterns, resource protection, housing and the economy. BASALT MASTER PLAN ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ~ i;ii ] is iJ ellS 5] ~ ~ e'~ -> -;1 ~! Exceeds Recommendation Incorporates Majority of Recommendations Does Not Incorporate Recommendations Not Applicable Xl X2 X3 ellS ij S FWM ..2 Q'- .~ ~ j.i .~ ~ ~..2 1~ Designation ~~ If: 6 u~ <::z:: XS x7 x4 x6 l~ ~a uellS (1) The Community Size and Character goal directs the town to: "[TJake advantage of community assets, (particularly the Roaring Fork and Fryingpan Rivers, small-town character and the architectural character of the Midland Avenue business district) in the design and implementation of new projects, both private and public to foster a balanced community made up mostly of year-round residents with a broad mix of income, age and ethnic backgrounds. " Two objectives stated in the plan to achieve the goal encourage: "Acknowledging the separate and distinct characters of East Basalt and West Basalt, develop and improve linkages between the two areas with trails, transit, and river corridor open space, and develop strategies to foster a stronger sense of a common community ", and to; 106 09/01109 "Examine land use and physical planning concepts and other possible improvements along and adjacent to Highway 82 to ensure that the Highway 82 Corridor complements, and does not detract from, the Town's existing small-town qualities" The proposed project, while not proposed to be annexed into the town at this time, is located within the town's urban growth boundary. The project has been designed, in part, to incorporate the objectives stated in the Town of Basalt Master Plan and Future Land Use Map. Goals and objectives related to maintaining small town character by introducing mostly two and three story commercial and residential development along and adjacent to the Hwy. 82 corridor and within an existing community center. Also, the project will support the creation of a more balanced community by providing additional deed restricted and resident occupied housing opportunities of varying types, sizes and price points - to attract mostly year-round residents of varied income, age and ethnic backgrounds. The project is specifically designed to support (and be supported by) regional mass transit. As well, it provides additional trail segments and a new 'through road' connecting the project with the Frontage Road. Such design elements support the objective of improving linkages with trials and transit and may have a positive impact on fostering "a stronger sense of a common community". (2) The Open Space and Recreation goals and objectives encourage the creation of additional trail linkages between East and West Basalt and across Hwy. 82 using grade separated crossings. In addition, th{: plan seeks to "[PJrovide diverse, year-round recreational opportunities for persons of all ages and abilities. ", and to: "Require active recreational facilities from developers as part of parks and recreation mitigation when such facilities are identified on the Master Plan for the property being considered for development" The project has been designed with usable open space, but not specifically to provide active recreational activities beyond the ski lake uses which are based on club membership. Staff is not aware of any designation for the requirement of active recreational facilities for the subject property on Town of Basalt Maps. (3) Environmental goals and objectives set forth seek to "protect and enhance the natural environment", and to: "Maintain the ecological integrity of the natural landscape, streams, surface waters and wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, big game migration corridors and critical habitats such as critical winter range and production areas. " Objective number 4.8.13 states: "Strictly enforce the UGB identified in this master plan which was, in part, established in response to the desire to preserve wildlife habitat areas and migration routes; " The subject property is located within the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) for the Town of Basalt and has been designed, in part, to avoid high quality wildlife habitat and migration corridors located outside the PUD boundaries. Furthermore, one of the primary goals of the project is to create a truly sustainable development using energy efficient building design and construction techniques, resource efficient land use patterns (clustering and transit oriented design) and to conserve large areas of existing irrigated agricultural lands for continued agricultural and open space values. (4) The Economic Development goals of the Plan seek to create a balanced and sustainable economy in character with the Town which provides a "broad range of job opportunities and goods and services for local residents and visitors..." An implementing action item is to: 107 09/01/09 "Support existing local business and small-town business character and encourage local ownership of business properties and facilities. " The project is designed to create live/work and other 'for-sale' commercial real estate opportunities - to support and encourage local ownership of business properties and facilities. Such opportunities are in relatively high demand based on recent, similar real estate offerings in the nearby Willits Bend live/work project. In addition, additional job opportunities will be created in connection with proposed commercial, live/work, restaurant and wholesale nursery uses (although further analysis of jobs to housing ratios and 'living wage' information relative to proposed commercial uses will need to be provided with any Preliminary Plan submittal). (5) The Affordable Housing goal promotes "the development of a diversity of housing close to existing and planned commercial and transit centers, thus providing for residents with different economic and housing needs and giving mid-valley employees the opportunity to live affordably and close to where they work." An objective of the Plan states: "Seek to attract and encourage developers to produce local resident housing. Bring together cooperative partners and consider public-private and public-nonprofit partnerships. Encourage developers to build smaller homes on smaller lots. Publicize good local resident housing solutions by local builders. Encourage developers and land owners to pursue innovative approaches in the pursuit of developing affordable housing. " The Plan also speaks to requiring those developments "outside of town boundaries where annexation is requested" to provide a minimum of 50% of the total residential dwelling units to be deed restricted, with 30% fully deed restricted and the remaining 20% restricted to resident occupied housing. The proposed development will meet the Eagle County Housing Guidelines by providing 35% of the total residential square footage in deed restricted and resident occupied housing. However, when considering the proposal based on number of units provided as either deed restricted or resident occupied, 52% of the total residential dwelling units proposed fit those two categories. (6) The Transportation goals and objectives of the Plan clearly support the creation of a multi-modal system and the integration of park-n-ride facilities in conjunction with transit oriented communities. An objective is to plan developments so that 80% of residences are within ~ mile of transit stops in close proximity to "convenience and service commercial" uses. The proposed project is specifically designed to incorporate these goals and objectives. (7) The Future Land Use Map clearly shows the subject property as being with the Urban Growth Boundary for the town and depicts land uses within the subject property that very closely match those proposed by this development plan. The Plan states the following regarding the "Lane Property" under Section 5.2 - Future Land Use Map: "The UGB has been expanded to include a significant portion the of the Lane property on the north side of Highway 82. The recommended land uses for the area within the UGB are primarily Medium Density Residential (MDR) and Light Industrial (IND) with small areas of Community Facilities (CF), Service commercial (SERV) and Open Space. The Light Industrial designation is intended for live/work, mixed-use development. The Light Industrial designated area on the Lane Property in combination with inclusion of Light Industrial on the Stott North property would provide an equivalent amount of job-generating commercial use as was shown on the Grange property in the 1999 FLUM While the acreage of the Light Industrial area on the Lane and Stott properties is not as large as was depicted for the Grange property, the amount of square footage would be roughly the same due to an increase in the floor area ratio for the Light Industrial land use category. The Medium Density Residential category would provide a significant number of residential dwelling units which should comply with this master plan's policies regarding affordable housing (See Sections 4 and 7 of this document). The recommended land use pattern for the Lane property also includes an area of Community Facilities. This designation is located 108 09/01/09 in this vicinity to correspond to a planned pedestrian connection (either an underpass or an overpass) to the future transit station in the Willits development as shown on the Transportation Network Map for West Basalt (Figure 3c). The pedestrian connection would provide safe access for transit users and residents on the north side of Highway 82 to and from the commercial and residential development at Willits. At the time this master plan was being prepared the location of the pedestrian connection had not been determined. The intent here is to reserve the necessary land for transit facilities including parking to support the transit station. The Service Commercial area would allow other convenience-oriented service commercial uses for transit users and residents on the north side of Highway 82, including residents of the Medium Density Residential area on the Lane property. " The above narrative clearly supports the proposed Sketch Plan in several aspects. Specifically, each of the preferred land use categories called out for the Lane Property are provided for in the proposed development plan. The project proposes an overall density of approximately 4.5 units per acre (gross). Convenience and service commercial, light industrial, live/work, open space and community facilities (pedestrian underpass and associated plaza areas) are proposed, and; a park-n-ride facility is proposed to support a transit station. While the final location of the pedestrian underpass is still to be determined, the land plan for the proposed project follows the recommendations of the Future Land Use Map almost without exception. 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 PUD 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 10 Phasing Plan Provided? !Xl Yes L:I No II The developer has provided details related to proposed phasing of the development. Staff anticipates that such phasing plan will be revised to reflect current market conditions and provide greater flexibility to the developer relative to the timing, financing, marketing and construction of the development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [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 of25% 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 calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied 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 Comprehensive Plan. (b) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-o.fways, 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 critical 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, even 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. 109 09/01109 (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 established for 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 Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (j) 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Total Subject Land Area: 71.71 ac. 3,123,687.60 square feet Recommended 25% of Total Land Area as 17.92 ac. =25 % 7,805,952 square feet Usable Open Space Additional Amount of Open Space Required 319 DU x 2.63 persons/WOO population = 839 new 8.39 acres residents x 10 acres/WOO population = 8.39 acres = Per I ()()() Persons = 365,468 square feet Total Open Space Required and Provided 8.39 acres 36.7 acres provided (17.21 acres usable) Public, Quasi-Public or Private? Public and Quasi- Describe: Usable; Wetlands/Ski Lake; and Public Quasi-Public Restrictions on Open Space: TBD Deseribe: Note: The Open Space Plan for the project delineates the following breakdown in open space provided within the PUD: Usable Open Space: 17.2 Ac. Quasi-Public Open Space: 11.8 Ac. 'Resource' Open Space (wetlands): 7.7 Ac. Total 36.7 Ac. As plans are further developed, the applicant will be required to analyze the project's conformance with the intent of the Regulations. Although the overall amount of open space exceeds the requirements in the ECLURs, the plan should respond appropriately to the amount of usable open space provided to ensure daily needs (active and passive recreation, community gardens, etc.) can be met while providing for conservation and environmental goals and objectives of applicable master plans. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS 110 09/01/09 .~ = 0 = 0 OIl -- ...... .a .- - .S j -lj! =11 ~ -1:: iji'= i%l ~8. [.g ::r: G.l.g::t: ~ {Il U [(Il g '" G.l 15 ~~ o ';' 81 .S .~ ~ 'Q);..9 ~ !€ 'i gts ~~~ >J- "CIo '> 8.. ~ ~ ~ ~u ii:ct &J.@ Exceeds ECLUR Requirements. Satisfies ECLUR Requirement X Xl X2 X3 X4 Does Not Satisfy ECLUR Requirement Not Applicable/No ECLUR Requirement X (1) The comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey's response dated November 12, 2008 must be adhered to prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. (2) Development of the site must comply with all applicable ECLUR wildfIre regulations and the recommendations of the Basalt & Rural FPD, as conditioned. (3) The PUD Guide states that wood burning devices are to comply with the provisions of the ECLURs. The Guide should be revised to specifIcally restrict wood burning fIreplaces within the proposed development. At a minimum, the provisions of the ECLUR's should apply limiting each residence to only one EP A approved new technology wood burning device. (4) The Environmental Impact Report submitted with the application satisfIes the ECLUR Sketch Plan for PUD requirements; however the comments from the Department of Environmental Health, the Colorado Geologic Survey and any other applicable responding agency shall be made conditions of approval to ensure minimized environmental impact. OTHER APPLICABLE STANDARD(S) FOR PUD SKETCH/PRELIMINARY PLAN: The fInding from the Eagle County Land Use Regulations is as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-240.F.2.a.(l5): 15. (a) (d) Supporting data to justify any proposed commercial and industrial elements in an area not so zoned (e.g. market study); A fInancial analysis was provided for this PUD Sketch Plan; a detailed analysis and market study will be required for any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. (b) Proposed schedule of development phasing; the proposal includes details regarding phasing; a detailed phasing plan will be required for any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal. (c) Statement as to the impact of the proposed PUD upon the County school system; The RE-1 School District has esponded and has estimated the projected impact upon the school system. Pursuant to the ECLUR's, the total amount of school land dedication required for this development is .7975 acres. The fee-in-lieu amount will be determined based upon a summary appraisal report at the time of Final Plat application. Statement of estimated demands for County services; See report by Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. Also, Eagle County will be completing further analysis of the incremental benefIts and costs to Eagle County using "Site Stats" fmancia1 impact modeling tool. 111 09/01/09 (e) Statement of projected County tax revenue based upon the previous year's County tax levy and a schedule of projected receipts of that revenue; See report by Stan Bernstein and Associates, Inc. Also, Eagle County will be completing further analysis of the incremental benefits and costs to Eagle County using "Site Stats" financial impact modeling tool. (f) Conceptual site plans, and conceptual architectural plans; A conceptual site plan, landscape plans, circulation plans, and architectural renderings have been provided. At the time of Preliminary Plan application greater detail and typical renderings of site and architectural design, mass and bulk will be required. (g) Proposed method of fire protection. Including information demonstrating a legal, adequate water supply for fIl'e fighting purposes; See previous comments regarding Mid- Valley Metropolitan District capacity and intent to serve and letter from the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District. (h) Employee housing plan. The Local Resident Housing Guidelines have been applied. Pursuant to the attached e-mail from the Director of Housing and Development dated January 14, 2009, the Housing Plan meets the minimum standard of the Guidelines with one correction needed to Average Monthly Income (AMI) levels proposed for deed restricted dwelling units. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Comprehensive Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] B The 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 MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its coriformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. Please reference the Comprehensive Plan evaluation detailed above. 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. n EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS D MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS 112 09/01109 rxJ MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS D DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS ~ ~ ~ >> ~~ .' 'G) ;:l~ 8~ :is ...Jij .~ a frl! tIS. ~.~ ~.i 1 .>> >AWlcle 4; Site De'telop.....mfStancJ.rds Conditions 1::1 ti '::1 z~ <( ,.,~ y~ .~J 88 ~ )> ~ Cf.l frl , X Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) X Landscaoing and lllumination Standards (Division 4-2) X Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) X Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) X Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) X Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) X Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) X Ridgeline 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 Inteiference (Section 4-540) X Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) X Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) Variation from X Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) Standards required X Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) X Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) X Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) X Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) X Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) X Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) X Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) X Imoact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Applicable (1) Refer to attached letter from the Colorado Geological Survey (and previous comments regarding further geologic analysis that will be required by the applicant. (2) Refer to attached letters/memos from the Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Engineering Department regarding ECLRs and National Fire Code compliance related to proposed roadway standards. 113 09/01109 STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] B 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 Eal!le Countv Road Caoital Imorovements Plan. (2) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS The project is located such that it would not result in a 'leapfrog' pattern of development and the site is already served with electric, natural gas, cable and telephone. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] B The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or human-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS No natural or human-made hazards have been identified at this level of review that would absolutely preclude successful development of the subject property as proposed if properly mitigated pursuant to the recommendations of the Eagle County Engineering Department, Basalt & Rural FPD, The Town of Basalt, the Colorado Geological Survey, Colorado Division of Wildlife, etc. STANDARD: Compatible with Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] B 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. ~ EXCEEDS MINIMUM STANDARDS X MEETS MINIMUM STANDARDS MEETS THE MAJORITY OF MINIMUM STANDARDS DOES NOT MEET MINIMUM STANDARDS Please refer to the Compatibility discussion above. Additional controls and potential revisions to the site and landscape plans may be necessary to prevent any potential nuisances occurring from proposed wholesale nursery and light industrial activities. Nothing is proposed that would preclude or adversely affect the development of the surrounding area in the future. c. SUMMARY ANALYSIS: Benefits/Disadvantages Benefits: 114 09/01/09 . The subject property is located immediately adjacent to a community center and a major transportation corridor - it is designed to integrate, facilitate and otherwise maximize the opportunity to create a transit oriented development with in "walkable" proximity to planned multi- modal, mass transit service, commercial, civic and housing uses. The project will provide planning, design and funding feasibility to create a much needed pedestrian underpass under State Highway 82; this benefits the applicant, the developers of the Willits Town Center, RFTA, the Town of Basalt and the residents of Eagle County. The project is compatible with existing development in the immediate surrounding vicinity and would provide a logical transitional land use radiating out, away from the community center and major transportation corridor. It is designed to compliment to existing community center uses such as the Willits Town Center, Old Orchard Plaza, and medium density residential uses found in surrounding subdivisions. The Basalt & Rural FPD has been provided better access to existing and proposed development in the immediate vicinity via the recently constructed intersection and access road (Tree Farm Drive) running through the subject property; as well, the District will be provided additional capacity (water storage and fire flows) to serve the needs of the Tree Farm development and surrounding developments. Substantial amounts of attainable, deed restricted and resident occupied residential units will become available within an existing community center; specifically, appropriate levels of transit oriented density is proposed to be located within walking distance to multi-modal, mass transit facilities as well as existing and proposed commercial and civic uses and public amenities. In addition, future plans could include "affordable" or deed restricted commercial space to serve local business and the local economy. The proposal includes protecting large portions of the existing "Wind River Tree Farm" in a state of active or productive agricultural use; as well, a highly visible natural hillside boarding the PUD and providing a buffer between the POD and the Christine State Wildlife Area will be re-zoned in the future under a separate application to 'Resource' (R) Zone District, thus aiding in the preservation of the natural beauty and environmental integrity of Eagle County. . . . . . Disadvanta2es: . Any additional development will produce additional traffic on local roadways. Any additional development may incrementally degrade environmental integrity in this vicinity of Eagle County. Development of this site will create more exposure to geologic natural hazards than what exists currently. Additional commercial uses, unless appropriately designed, located and marketed - per the recommendations of a detailed market analysis - could produce competition with other, approved (built and un-built) commercial and service uses existing in the surrounding area. Potential conflicts could occur between planned residential development on the subject property and existing recreational (motor cross track) uses and activities located in the immediate vicinity. . . . . D. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OPTIONS: 5. Approve the [PDS-1567] 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). 6. Deny the [PDS-1567] 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 115 09/01/09 County Land Use Regulations and with the guidelines of the Eagle County Comprehensive Plan (and/or other applicable master plans). 7. Table the [PDS-1567] request if additional information is required to fully evaluate the petition. Give specific direction to the petitioner and staff. 8. Approve the [PDS-1567] 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: Mr. HUIlll introduced the file. He stated that the applicant would be speaking about public benefit and rationale for the number presented, traffic impact from commercial development, school impacts, phasing plans for the project, deed restrictions and affordable housing information, adjacent Lane property, contributions to the recreation district, transit station location and finally the CDOT access control plan. He spoke about looking forward to the preliminary plan and some of the information that would be provided at that point. He stated there have been emai1s received in opposition to the project. He presented a PowerPoint slide show with some highlights of the file. The applicant representative, John Fredericks spoke to the board along with Dave Mars, and Michael Hoffman, Bill Fox, Stan Bernstein, and several others were present. Mr. Fredericks presented a PowerPoint slide show to explain previously stated questions. He spoke about revenue generation to support the PUD and local community. The goal was to provide ongoing funding for operating and capital budgets within and outside of the PUD and to close the gap in taxation rates between the county and the town. This would be accomplished through a special improvement district and associated property taxes and a public improvement district on retail sales. He spoke about recreation benefits which included 2.75 miles of public trails, interconnectivity with the mid valley trail system, the potential for public access trailhead to federal lands, 50% passive open space a 2 acre park and the potential for small scale active recreation. He spoke about Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District, which was within walking distance from the Tree Farm. The estimated project tax revenues to the district were $62,366 annually. In April of2009, a contribution was made on behalf of the Tree Farm to the Friends of Crown Mountain Recreation Center for $6000. There were options for further revenue streams to the district including a public improvement fee and a special improvement district. He spoke about replacement housing. The town of Basalt recently requested replacement of 32 units within the project for the mobile home parks currently in the floodplain. They believed there were opportunities to provide these replacements but there were challenges to figuring out how to accomplish this and how to ensure that people move from the flood plain into the new housing and insure the removal of the existing units from the flood plain. He spoke about the impact on the school district. They projected that the project would generate 110 students and this number could be accommodated by the current schools in the district. The district has already identified the need to increase capacity in the mid-valley area. The school district indicated that they would like the project to provide 2 to 3 acres for relocation of the district's bus facility. The applicant would look into this possibility both on and off site. The revenues from the project to the district would be just under $1 million at full build out. He spoke about commercial uses intended for the project. They project 96,000 square feet, which was 20% of the project. There was already a demonstrated interest in about 50% of the project. They would work with the county and business community to determine the best types, mix, and sizes of future commercial development. The final commercial program should be supported by demand. Bill Fox spoke about commercial traffic. The level of traffic had already been included in the preliminary traffic study. Of the approximately 3700 new trips per day, 43% would be from residential units and 2100 from commercial use. The commercial use mix would minimize traffic increases by serving traffic already on the 116 09/01/09 highway, serving residents of the site and adjacent areas, serving transit users, and providing live / work opportunities. He spoke about CDOT access. CDOT supported the extension of the East Frontage road through the Tree Farm site to the Willits Lane traffic signal. There would be no change to the 2002 SH 82 access control plan. This allowed local traffic to access the highway with an internal connection. The intermediate access points could go away in the future. Commissioner Stavney asked if the developer would pay for modifications to these access points in the future. Mr. Fox stated that they had not discussed this possibility, but they would consider it. Commissioner Runyon asked about the vehicle trips per residential units. Mr. Fox stated that it would be 5.9 trips per dwelling unit anticipating all units using cars. Dave Mars spoke about the project phasing. He stated that excessive restriction on free market sales removes or severely affects the economics, which allowed private investment to pay for the community benefits. He stated that phasing would be substantiated by consumer demand and professional market studies to be reviewed by the county staff prior to each phase of construction. They would build it if demand were there. They bt:'lieved there was a county control-phasing plan in place. Commissioner Stavney asked if both commercial and residential would be phased. He wondered if the intention would be to not outpace demand in either situation. Mr. Mars stated that this was correct in today's economic environment. The free market average per year would be 25 units. Chairman Fisher asked about affordable housing coming in phases. Mr. Mars stated that the first phase would include 103 affordable housing units, 13 resident occupied and 54 free market units. He spoke about the project financing which would be predicated on presales, lower loan to cost ration and the bank will be the first to receive sales proceeds. The investor will need to put more cash into the project with an increased risk and lower return expectations. Commissioner Stavney asked for information about the parking structure, commercial core, and affordable units. He wondered if the deed-restricted units were largely 10ft units. Mr. Mars stated that this was correct. He spoke about the variables of market timing, quantity, sales subject to market, financing, and product offering. Mr. Fredericks spoke about the location of the transit station. He stated that they had done a lot of work with RFTA and the Willits Town Centers. Since the last hearing, they achieved agreement for a location called 2.5 between the three entities. They were currently in the process of drafting a Memorandum of Understanding. This memo would include financial commitments. Chairman Fisher asked about the lake and the connection. She wondered about the location of the public parking. Mr. Fredericks indicated that with the location of the transit station there would be some re-design involved in that area of the site plan. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the frontage on Highway 82 and the re-shuffling of the four or five pods. Mr. Fredericks stated that there would need to be some re-adjustment. He spoke about the adjacent Lane property, which would be re-zoned, to resource zone district with 35-acre parcels implementing the county's conservation subdivision guidelines for all remaining property. This would include 3 family home sites, 1 solar farm parcel and the remainder in a conservation tract - approximately 70 acres. Commissioner Stavney stated that the conservation land guidelines were fairly new and he wondered if the developer would be asking for more density. Mr. Fredericks indicated that the applicant would like to secure three future home sites for his children within the conservation subdivision. They sites would be no more than 5000 square feet on 3-5 acres each. The balance of the property would be placed in a conservation land tract. Chairman Fisher asked about the Wind River Farm. Mr. Fredericks stated that they had not thought of this issue. Commissioner Stavney asked whether the current PUD and conservation subdivision related to this process. Bob Morris indicated that the conservation subdivision would be a separate proceeding with density influenced by the PUD portion of the approval. Commissioner Stavney wondered if the applicant would have to go back through the process. Mr. Morris indicated that they would. 117 09/01/09 Mr. Fredericks acknowledge that it would be a three-part application. They believed this model solved many problems and alleviated fears of the community. Chairman Fisher asked if the conservation easement would be conserved in perpetuity. Mr. Morris stated that this type of easement would require that the conserved portion be maintained in perpetuity, but that it would not need to go into a land trust. Chairman Fisher wondered about public access. Mr. Fredericks indicated that they had not yet considered this. Commissioner Stavney asked about the proposed BLM access point. Mr. Fredericks showed the location on the western property boundary and stated that the mid-valley trails committee would manage it. Mr. Fredericks summed up that he felt they had adequately addressed all question from staff, the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. They asked for approval. Mike Coffman spoke about the Intergovernmental agreement between the county and the town of Basalt. He reminded the board that it is their decision and the decision should be based on the county land use regulations. The fiscal impacts had been quantified and they have identified creative programs to generate additional revenue. Integration of the town's affordable housing regulations was important to the applicant. The phasing issue was a big deal due to the Town's growth plan. During phase-one, there would be a tremendous amount of infrastructure as well as the majority of the affordable housing. Mr. Fredericks stated that in early 2008 an aggressive approach was anticipated, however this approach had changed due to the timing of the process. The current reality was that it would take longer than expected. Chairman Fisher wondered when the applicant anticipated kicking into gear. Mr. Fredericks stated that phase one would take several years and kick off for construction would take place approximately three years from now. Mr. Coffman stated that the applicant would work with staff prior to commencing each future phase. Mr. Mars stated that substantial market studies and analysis would need to occur and pre-sales would have to happen. He stated that it would be one final plat. Mr. Coffman stated that they acknowledge the opposition due to impacts on the quality of life in the Roaring Fork Valley. People wanted to live here, and the Eagle County land use and master plans recognized this reality. To promote legitimate goals of the county this project fit the plan. He felt this was a model project in terms of energy conservation and open space conservation. Finally, he reminded everyone that this was a sketch plan approval request. Alex Potente spoke to the board. He felt that the applicant had met the Eagle County guidelines. He explained that deed restricted housing in the Roaring fork and Eagle Valley was something that development pressure has exacerbated over the last five plus years. Families whose income was tied to the valley working in public service or managerial jobs including fire fighters, school teachers, etc. had a hard time fmding affordable for sale properties, which allowed them to stay in the valleys. This type of housing prevented the creation of communities without a middle class. If these workers move down-valley, it denigrates the sense of community, increases traffic and influences sustainable community infrastructure. Eagle and Pitkin County had taken an aggressive approach. The idea that the second homes competed directly with local resident housing was a big issue. The City of Aspen had been a leader on this issue. The mid-valley had faced similar price pressures. The inclusionary requirement with up zoning required a trade of 35% of the total square footage of the development to be price capped and affordable. An example of this type of program was Miller Ranch in Edwards. That property comprised 20% of the sales year to date in the county this year. Demand for well-designed product was well established in the county. Resident occupied property was allowed to a smaller degree. He believed the site plan would provide more details and things would change slightly. He expected to work closely with the applicant to insure in demand and marketable products. Chairman Fisher wondered about the adjusted minimum income. Mr. Potente stated that the units would be at 100% of the AMI. In a mixed use property there would be an obligation to satisfY on of two obligations, commercial mitigation, or inclusionary zoning requirements. However, you have to meet those requirements at the lowest price point. The inclusionary requirement was at 105% AMI, meaning 30% of ones income goes to pay mortgage and associated expenses. He indicated that in the private housing market this percent is higher. The applicant has proposed meeting the affordability requirements at 100% of the median income. Commissioner Runyon wondered who determines how the units would be divided. 118 09/01/09 Mr. Potente stated that this would be established as part of the preliminary approval. They tried to make sure they were not saturating demand at any level. The replacement housing units for the mobile homes in the flood plain would be a tricky. Mr. Fredericks indicated that the spread would be achieved using the housing guideline recommendations. Mr. Potente stated that the spread would be determined based on a market analysis. Commissioner Stavney spoke about workforce housing and recent studies identifying the incredible need for this type of housing. The Town of Aspen has over 2000 deed restricted affordable units. He provided some perspective about adjacent communities and the number of affordable units Chairman Fisher opened public comment. Bill Kane, Town Manager of Basalt spoke. He was present on behalf of the town council. They have reservations about a development of this density on unincorporated land so close to a municipal boundary. They were grateful for the commissioner's efforts to serve the Roaring Fork Valley citizens. Their positions were not personal but were related to the future of their community. They believed the density was inappropriate. The fIrst inconsistency was the notion of the growth management strategy. They disagreed with the scope of commercial planning. If this project were within the town boundaries, a sensible phasing plan would be required, a reduction in commercial units would be a requirement, a requirement of a conservation easement for the lands outside the scope of this development, a fiscal impact analysis for both sides of the equation including costs would be required and lastly, the issue of replacement housing. He hoped the board would consider these conditions. George Newman, Pitkin County Commissioner spoke to the board. He read some comments from the day's paper. He provided a similar example in Pitkin County. There was a property within Pitkin County and within the Town of Basalt's urban growth boundary and Pitkin County was a referral agency for this development. He spoke about the impacts on the school system, which could require an increase in the mill levy. He wondered about the impact on social services. A project this size would create greater demand on public safety. Developers could not truly mitigate the impacts of development. The need for deed-restricted housing was overrated - the need was for rental units, one, and two bedroom units. Resident occupied units worked for the fIrst buyer but not subsequent buyers. He suggested 50% affordable units in this project. He agreed that a conservation easement would be helpful. He did not see the real community benefit at this point. He asked that the board deny the sketch plan and ask the applicant to come up with a better project. Ken Ransford spoke to the board. He was opposed to the project because he believed it was too large. He recommended that the board include the condition to hire an independent green analyst, traffIc analyst and market analyst. He also recommended phasing the project in a manner that would pay heed to the Town of Basalt' s needs for 32 units per year. He also recommended asking the applicant to meet with the school district to put a school on the site. If there were a charter school at that location, all of those families would be kept off the road. For future projects, he asked that the board authorize a mid-valley community caucus to weigh in on these applications. This provided a more informal way for citizens to be heard. He also recommended completing the Eagle County mid valley master plan to determine a reasonable growth rate. Chairman Fisher wondered how long the growth rate had been in effect. Mr. Ransford stated that the rate had been in effect since May of 2009 and that the Town of Basalt was addressing affordable housing. Mark Cole spoke to the board as a resident of Willits. He had heard quality of life and traffIc concerns. In late fall of 2004 the project through Snowmass Canyon was completed and it made an incredible difference in his commute. However, gradually the traffIc increased again. In the summer of 2009, the trucks were no longer an issue. His quality of life was worse. Commissioner Stavney asked ifMr. Cole thought a caucus would be a good idea. Mr. Cole stated that he felt it would be a good idea because the 2% growth was skewed toward the Old Town Basalt. A caucus might enable those who did not agree with this mandate to have more of a voice. CatWeen Krahe spoke to the board. She was concerned about the quality of the affordable units. She hoped these units would not be built in a substandard manner. She wondered if there would be a liability for Eagle County in this case. Chairman Fisher closed public comment. 119 09/01109 Scott Hunn presented a PowerPoint slide show including the purpose of sketch plan review, sketch plan purpose, the effect of a sketch plan, the standards of the land use regulations that were applied, and whether or not they had been met including associated conditions. The applicant was asking for dimensional limitations to setbacks. The applicant had spoken at great length with the Fire Department regarding road widths, access to buildings and set backs. The applicant has hired a third party expert at this stage to meet the fIre standards. The applicant has submitted phasing plans, but there was a question of whether additional conditions related to phasing should be included. The development met or exceeded open space recommendations. He spoke about other applicable standards including supporting data, schedules, impact statements statement of demands, projected tax revenue, site, and architectural plans, proposed methods of fIfe protection and employee housing plan requirements at preliminary plan. He provided the board options and details on the suggested conditions. Mr. Fredericks showed the location of the motocross track. There was 500 feet between the motocross track and the existing PUD. The intent would be to re-plat the parcel including the motocross track outside of the conservation subdivision. Chairman Fisher asked about phasing, reduction in commercial, a green independent audit, market and traffIc analysis, the conservation easement and the replacement-housing component. She wondered how these concerns could be incorporated into the conditions. Mr. Hunn stated that phasing was already required as part of the preliminary plan, Chairman Fisher asked for a reminder about the growth management plan and how the 32-unit determination came about. She wondered if it had been put into play this year. Susan Philp, planning director for the Town of Basalt spoke. The town included previously approved development and development already in the pipeline. The growth management did not address deed restricted affordable housing. Conditions might include letters from Mayor Duroux and the town of Basalt. Chairman Fisher wondered about the restricted amount of 32 units. Ms. Philp stated that this requirement was part of the growth management and replacement housing efforts. Mr. Hunn spoke about the reduction of commercial space and that it could be addressed through the applicant's commitment to work with the community. He agreed that the green audit could be added as a condition. He asked Bob Morris, Assistant County Attorney if it would be possible to condition this fIle by requiring the applicant to move forward with the conservation easement or a conservation subdivision. Mr. Morris indicated that this could be done. Mr. Hunn spoke about the fIscal impact and the fact that he had worked with the applicant on this issue. He felt this could be dialed in prior to preliminary plan approval. He agreed that potential costs should be determined in addition to the revenues. Mr. Potente stated that the site stats model was intended to account for all costs related to the development including school, police, governmental, planning, fIre, road maintenance, traffIc impacts costs etc. They attempted to create some standard values to provide a good rough cut to know costs versus revenues. The idea was to have development pay for itself. Commissioner Stavney asked if this related to condition number 16. Mr. Hunn stated that it could, but this condition put the onus on the applicant to provide a market analysis. Mr. Potente discussed Eagle County providing this analysis. Commissioner Runyon wondered who would pay for it. Mr. Potente indicated that this has been done in house. Commissioner Runyon suggested a comparison to a previously completed project and wondered if this had been done. Mr. Potente stated that once the cost of service inputs become comfortable it would be fairly easy to apply it to existing developments. Current developments had lots of hidden costs that were not easily identifIed. This model should capture these costs. He suggested more control over the market third party analysis. Mr. Hunn discussed the issue of replacement housing and indicated that the applicant has met with the Town to understand this issue and try to address it. Commissioner Stavney spoke about the June 29th letter from the Town. He was pleased that both parcels were now included in the proposal. He felt that the Highway 82 underpass was being discussed and resolved. The fIscal impacts to the Town were being addressed through evolving conversations including the difference between sales tax being made up with a Public Improvements Fund. He stated that the concerns about competition between commercial interests could be argued both ways. The Town of Basalt recommended a maximum annual growth rate. He believed the real issue was that the project would absorb all of the growth, but the difference between the 2007 growth rate and the new 2009 rate was the quantity of units in this project. The project was not necessarily in 120 09/01/09 conflict with the Mid Valley master plan. He stated that the IGA had been met in the spirit of negotiations and the conditions applied. There were new points brought up at this meeting, and he was not sure that all of these could be met. He believed it was important to note there had been a lot of public input about the IGA, but he thought the spirit of this agreement had been met. He did not want to demand that housing for childcare and seniors be included. He wanted to note in condition number 4 the retirement or senior housing should be in addition to the deed restricted housing requirement. Mr. Potente indicated that over saturation of this type of product could detrimentally affect the use of the property. Commissioner Stavney suggested the addition of condition 22 for a concurrent application process for the conservation easement. He spoke about the underpass design and the fact that there would be a lot of expectations about the pedestrian friendliness of this underpass. He asked that condition 24 include the Public Improvement Fund would match the Willits tax rate, the revenue being used for public benefIt. He asked that if the live / work units were not going to be owned by the same person they should be renamed. He also asked that the developer continue good faith efforts towards replacement housing. He asked for expansion on the green audit concept. Mr. Fredericks stated that they would agree to a green audit by a third party and some agreement te:rms would need to be worked out. Commissioner Stavney stated that the homes would have energy audits done anyway. Mr. Potente indicated that there would be rigorous qualifIcation of energy ratings. Mr. Fredericks indicated that they would work with staff to develop the parameters of a third party audit. Mr. Hunn suggested including the special improvement district as a mechanism. Commissioner Runyon thanked his fellow commissioners and staff for the conditions. He was concerned about the traffIc study based on urban models for a rural mountain resort community. He spoke about the difference between the 4.8% and 2% growth models for the Town of Basalt. Even though this looked like draconian measures, there were units in the pipeline already. He thought the process leads towards an approval. The applicant has addressed so many of the county standards, which were written for growth and approval. He did not think that growth was inevitable, sustainable, or even benefIcial. However, he wanted to take a 20-year view. Missouri Heights would continue to grow in the long term. He liked the Routt County model, which required developers to go to the towns. He would respectfully not vote for approval. Chairman Fisher asked to review the purpose of sketch plan approval, which did not vest rights to the applicant but allowed more negotiation. She heard the message from the public about approvals already in the pipeline. She appreciated that concern but three years ago, she heard a resounding cry for obtainable housing. The biggest outcry was related to the Town of Basalt's issue. The board was not in a position to force the applicant to allow annexation into the town. Up until recently, the plans in place in the area indicated that this was the appropriate use for this location. She hoped for some price caps in the future. She believed the down swing in the economy was temporary. If this were not the case, the development would not go forward in any event. Residential and work force housing was fIrst and foremost. The phasing plan should show that the housing was prompting the development and commercial to compliment it. She was inclined to approve this on sketch plan. Commissioner Stavney indicated the primary concerns he heard were about market viability today. He reserved the right to say no at the next level. He believed the applicant should have the opportunity to address the conditions. TraffIc was an issue in the entire corridor and he did not believe 319 additional units would affect anyone's quality oflife. He ran on a cornerstone that people working in our communities should be able to afford to live here, but there tends to be a NIMBY mentality when it comes time to fInd a location for these developments. He felt that the public input helped craft a better project. Chairman Fisher spoke about the 319 units being the maximum allowed and could be lower. She believed the market would dictate the number of appropriate units. Commissioner Runyon asked about the number of commercial properties and the residential units would mitigate the percentage of the jobs created. He wondered if there would be an excess of work force housing over the jobs created for the commercial development. Mr. Potente stated that all the jobs that were created that pay less than less than 140% AMI would have to mitigate housing. In this case because of the amount of commercial housing square footage, the amount of housing required for the inclusionary portion was 35% of the total square footage. Commissioner Runyon wondered what the total number of jobs created compared to the housing provided would be. Mr. Potente stated that the long-term jobs would be less than the generation of housing stock. 121 09/01/09 Commissioner Runyon asked about the affordable housing guidelines and if the workforce would be required to work in certain areas to qualify. Mr. Potente stated that people could work in other counties. SUGGESTED CONDITIONS: 1. Except as otherwise modifIed by this development permit, all material representations made by the Applicant in this application and in public meeting shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Engineering Department memorandum dated November 24, 2008, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 3. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Environmental Health Department dated November 12, 2008, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 4. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Housing and Development Department memorandum dated January 14, 2009, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. In addition, the applicant shall work with the Housing and Development Department to explore opportunities and options to integrate housing for retirees/seniors, where appropriate, and to include provisions for "affordable commercial" space aimed at local businesses and entrepreneurs. 5. All comments set forth in the Eagle County Pest Management Program memorandum dated November 5, 2008, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 6. All comments set forth in the Eagle County WildfIre Mitigation Specialist memorandum dated January 14, 2009, shall be adequately addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 7. All comments set forth in the Colorado Geological Survey response dated November 12, 2008, must be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application. 8. All comments set forth in the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District letter dated January 9, 2009, must be adequately addressed - working in coordination with the Fire District and the Eagle County Engineering Department - prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan application; specifIcally, all issues requiring compliance (either prescriptive or performance based) with all applicable roadway standards and other applicable codes shall be addressed to the satisfaction of the Fire Marshal and the Eagle County Engineering Department. The applicant shall be required to employ the services of a qualifIed, professional fIre engineering consultant to aid in the response to all issues specifIed in the aforementioned memorandum. 9. Comments set forth by the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) in a memorandum dated November 17, 2008, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; specifIcally, issues related to the fInal location of the grade separated pedestrian crossing and timing of proposed 'park-n-ride' parking facilities dedicated or allocated to RFT A uses shall be substantially resolved and specifIcally addressed within subsequent applications. 10. Recommendations set forth in the Mid-Valley Trails Committee memorandum dated October 29, 2008, shall be addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal - to the extent such recommendations can be achieved without compromising other, potentially competing master plan goals or other specifIc recommendations set forth in a report by Richard Thompson, 122 09/01/09 Western Ecological Systems, Inc., with regard to limiting additional trails or access within wildlife habitat and migration routes adjacent to the subject property. 11. The PUD Guide shall be revised to include more specifIc provisions, language and limits on all proposed uses within each planning area and to introduce additional controls such as prohibition of wood burning fIreplaces, use standards (nuisance controls) and seasonal closures of the wetland area; the document shall be further revised to include a master (comprehensive) sign program for the development, as well as provisions for a defInitions section, amendments provisions. 12. The plans shall be revised to the extent necessary to provide a minimum 50 foot buffer or setback from the boundary/extent of existing wetland areas and to specifIcally limit human activities and other disturbances (seasonally if applicable) around and within the wetlands to ensure continued viability and health of wildlife populations observed and documented to use said wetlands. 13. The applicant shall provide written evidence and design information (site plans, technical drawings, etc.) demonstrating that all conditions applied by the Mid-Valley Metropolitan District with regard to the District's "Can and Will Serve" commitments have been addressed prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; specifIcally, the applicant shall be required to submit evidence of a proposed water tank location and design, or other water storage solution as may be approved by the District prior to submittal of subsequent applications. 14. The applicant shall examine and potentially re-design the circulation plan and associated land plan - to accommodate potentially high volumes of local traffIc through the center of the live/work and convenience commercial portions of the project - to ensure safety of pedestrians and bikers along and within the Tree Farm Drive roadway system (with specifIc reference to "Woonerf' street design principles per recommendations of the Eagle County Sustainable Communities Index). 15. The applicant shall be required to address any potential conflicts that may arise with the proximity of the existing "motor cross" track located on the Lane Property, and the proposed PUD. Mitigation may be demonstrated by proposing self imposed controls and/or improvement standards (signifIcant re-vegetationllandscaping and/or sound attenuation measures) to effectively mitigate potential nuisance issues associated with dust or noise. Additionally, such issues may be addressed through the re-design of certain elements of the proposed PUD such as the location and design of residential structures, revisions to landscape plans, or revisions to the PUD Guide. 16. The applicant is required to perform a detailed market analysis demonstrating the financial viability and compatibility of the project within the local conditions prior to or concurrent with any PUD Preliminary Plan submittal; such analysis will be undertaken to test previous market assumptions and financial information used in the Sketch Plan submittal and will aid the applicant, other local jurisdictions and Eagle County accurately assess market viability and phasing plans necessary to ensure the continued enhancement of the local economy and to mitigate any potential (adverse) fIscal impacts to existing businesses. 17. The applicant shall revise the land plan as necessary to provide or specifIcally defIne additional locations or areas within the PUD to provide active recreational uses, where appropriate, and to include provisions for community gardens and composting sites. 18. Revise the plans to include provisions for an on-site recycling program for the PUD. 19. Revise the plans as necessary to include specifIc provisions within the retail and servICe commercial areas to provide opportunities for senior services and day care. 20. The applicant shall submit a detailed traffIc study, inclusive of a sensitivity analysis to determine appropriate trip reduction factors specifIc to the Mid- Valley region. Any traffIc study submitted will contain separate analysis of residential and commercial trip generation factors. 123 09/01/09 21. The applicant shall submit written documentation (memos of understanding, preliminary agreements) suffIcient to adequately demonstrate resolution of Highway 82 Access Control issues, fInal highway underpass location as well as preliminary cost estimates and cost sharing commitments by and between the developer and applicable funding partners prior to or concurrent with any Preliminary Plan submittal. 22. "The applicant shall work with Eagle County and the Town of Basalt to create a Public Improvement Fee (pIP), Special Improvement District (SID), Local Improvement District (LID) or the like, within the PUD boundaries, for the express purpose of equalizing or otherwise mitigating any discrepancy or disparity in taxation between Eagle County and the Town of Basalt, as created by the project, which is located within the Town of Basalt Urban Growth Boundary (UGB). Funds generated by such fee or district shall be created and distributed for the sole purpose of offsetting or otherwise mitigating public service impacts quantified by the Town of Basalt and related to municipal services that may benefIt the future residents of the PUD." Commissioner Stavney moved to close the public hearing and direct staff to prepare a resolution approving fIle PDS-1567 The Tree Farm Sketch Plan for PUD including the conditions as discussed within the coarse of the hearing today. Commissioner Fisher seconded the motion for discussion. The vote was called. Commissioner Runyon voted against the motion. The motion carried by a 2 to 1 margin. Commissioner Fisher spoke about the additional of a condition that would solidify the relationship with the school district. ,2009. Chairman 124 09/01/09