Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/16/96 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 PUBLIC HEARING APRIL 16, 1996 Present: Johnnette Phillips James Johnson, Jr. Sara J. Fisher Corrmissioner corrmissioner Clerk to the Board Absent: George "Bud" Gates Chairman This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Corrmissioners for their consideration: Plat & Resolution Signing Kathy Eastley, Planning Technician, stated the first item on the agenda was plat and resolution signing as follows: SM-1032-96 Stoney Meadows, Phase 2. This is a Minor Type B subdivision, a resubdivision of Tract A, Stoney Meadows, Phase 1. The current zoning is PUD multi-family. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number SM-1032-96. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Corrmissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gates was out of town. Resolution 96-31, ZC-271-95 Spring Creek Ranches. This is a zone change from Resource to Agricultural Residential. This application was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on March 19, 1996. corrmissioner Johnson moved to approve ZC-271-95. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 96-32, PD-345-95-S/P and ZC-270-95 Nottingham Cottages. This is a Minor PUD and Zone Change to allow for five short-term cottages, a single family home with caretaker unit, and an antique/craft store. This application was presented to the Board of County Commissioners on April 2, 1996. Ms. Eastley explained there are two items being removed from the PUD at this time and she explained those changes being the parking and employee housing. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve PD-345-95-S/P and ZC-270-95. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. ZS-362-95, Eagle Wings Property Paul Clarkson, Planner, presented file number ZS-362-95, Eagle Wings Property, Cooley Mesa. He stated this file was previously tabled by the applicant. He understands the applicant would like to table again to May 14, 1996. Mary Kay Ewing, applicant, reviewed the issues and the request for the tabling and believes they will have all of their information available for the next hearing. Mr. Clarkson stated there are neighbors who would like this to be resolved. Karen Carter, area resident, stated they would prefer trucking rather than storage. The dust issue, they believe has not been addressed to solve the problem. There are severe problems and every time it is tabled they have to continue living with the problem. Ms. Ewing stated they are trying to resolve the issue. They are down to the last thirty days and will address it. 1 Commissioner Johnson asked the Board receive a full packet to review prior to the next hearing. Commissioner Johnson moved to table file number ZS-362-95, Eagle Wings Property until May 3, 1996 and asked they have enough time on the agenda to review the file. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. In discussion, Karen Carter expressed concerns with the dust and maintenance of the road. Corrmissioner Johnson stated the road must be maintained. Chairman Pro-tern called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Z-342-96-A, Daniels Special Use Per.mit Ellie Caryl, Planning Technician, presented file number Z-342-96-A, Daniels Special Use Permit. She stated this was a request to amend the existing Special Use Permit for a contractors yard. The Board considered this amendment request on March 12, 1996 in conjunction with the hearing for revocation of the original special use permit. The Board voted to not revoke the existing special use permit and tabled the amendment request to a future date. Since that meeting, the ap~licant has submitted revisions to his amendment request. Ms. Caryl revlewed the comparison of the approved special use to the proposed amendments. Ellie submitted copies to the Board for their review as this proposal compares to the Town of Gypsum master plan, the Airport Master Plan and the Ea;Jle County Master Plan. The bottom line of comparlng the master plans shows the existing use does not conform with the master plans. Ms. Caryl referred to an existing site plan and explained to the Board what was and has been apI;>roved. Ms. Caryl explained the requested revisions which were dlscussed at the last hearing. Ms. Caryl explained the desires from the latest amendment request found of page 5 of staff's presentation. Ms. Caryl stated they have reviewed the latest request and it appears in concept there are some thlngs that are very acceptable but there are other items that are still in conflict with Staff's opinion. She stated the applicant is now requesting the use be intensified. While staff agrees that certain conditions of the existing special use permit could be amended to allow flexibility, there are also the issues of: -lack of conformance with three master plans -setting ~recedent for industrial and commercial land uses -maintainlng the integrity of the resource zone -allowing land uses in inappropriate areas In regards to the existing proposal, Staff finds the required findings cannot be met and is recorrmending denial as it exists. Ms. Caryl referred to the attachment A, Conditions of Amended Approval for Daniels Special Use Permit. The issues of concern are still the number of contractors and the storage yard. Commissioner Johnson suggested at the last meeting it was suggested the applicant come in with a PUD to rezone the property in question. Ms. Caryl stated that is an option for the applicant. George Daniels, the applicant, thanked the Board and Ms. Caryl for their efforts. He explained his desire is to improve on the original permit. The Avis issue came about as a method to reduce the impact on the airport. His site has provided a successful operation for Avis and seems to have come across negatively only because of a competitor. Mr. Knight, Knight Planning, stated the original permit that was issued and the thinking at the time was the nursery and housing of nursery employees was an acceptable use. The requirement for permanent landscaping has gone well. The basic permit remains valid and there are good uses to work together. Mr. Knight further explained the applicant's request. They feel this is a supporting use for the airport. He referred to other uses permitted in a resource zone. Mr. Knight stated they have made an attempt to meet the staff on their issues. He referred to staff's report beginnin;J on page 11 and gave an explanation of their proposal as he addressed each ltem. Rick Poffenberger, attorney for Mr. Daniels, referred to the original permit. He stated in the original permit, the findings included conformance with the land use regulations. His client's position is they are not changing the use in a dramatic way. The impacts of the character of the 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 nelghborhood are no different than those approved. Regarding the numbers of vehicles, they have made the appropriate studies. Consistency with the master plan was considered prior to the approval of the original special use permit. Mr. Poffenberger referred to Corrmissioner Johnson's suggestion regarding rezoning. They have requested meetings which have not occurred to his satisfaction. Commissioner Johnson asked who the meetings were requested with. Ms. Caryl responded she received a letter from Mr. Poffenberger yesterday which was hand delivered and in which he made personal accusations. Ms. Caryl stated a meeting was requested after the outline was received and though they could not schedule it immediately, Mr. Daniel's went out of town. Corrmissioner Johnson stated there has been a lack of meetings then because of conflicts in schedules. Mr. Poffenberger stated there have been some other issues as well. Mr. Daniels stated they were looking for some help but feel they are being stonewalled to a certain extent. Mr. Daniels stated he has trled to show his compliance and it is difficult when staff is tied and they must come before the Board. He stated he did have a good conversation with Ms. Caryl yesterday after she had received the letter. Corrmissioner Johnson stated the findings were made and the original approval by the County was based on what was submitted by the applicant. Those conditions made it so the Board was able to approve it. When they changed the type of use, the findings could not be met. During the revocation hearing, there had been violations but the desire was to fix what was wrong. He does not agree there would be no change in the appearance of the land or the use. There may be a case of the fact there may be no provision in our regulations that allow for the rental car storage yard. Mr. Daniels stated creating additional storage does not mean it will be filled up. The screening and the enclosure of the property keeps the area from being an eye sore. He referred to the green space and disagrees with the use of the parking lot. Mr. Poffenberger stated the term parking lot may be a little misleading. He discussed the peak day flow. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked where they stand now. Ms. Caryl stated the items still of concern are #9, regarding the height of the piles of dirt, #12, #19 and the number of contractors, #20 and the need for an approved site plan, #25 regarding on going monitoring of wildlife impacts. Ms. Berenato stated as #26 the attorney's office is recommending a required yearly review for compliance. Mr. Knight responded stating #12 is not a problem. He suggests it is in the Board's hand regarding the height of piles and the number of contractors. Regarding #20, they will submit a site plan. Mr. Daniels stated he is trying to find a way to allow him to minimize the impact at this level so they can work some of these things out. He would like to make an amendment and it is not unreasonable for him to comply. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked if there was additional information to be presented. She sees there being three items that are still in issue and those being #9, #19 and #20 (partially). She asked for any public input. Commissioner Johnson stated he believes #19 and the llmiting to four contractors is appropriate. For staff to be able to review this on an annual basis would be impossible. Ms. Berenato asked if that is four in addition to Avis because staff has recorrmended that it be construction only. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips concurred that four is appropriate. Mr. Daniels stated that is acceptable. Corrmissioner Johnson asked if the concern was the height or the number of piles and the height. He suggested that moving the piles to the back of the lot is a reasonable request so there is not the visual impact. Mr. Daniels responded that is not a very convenient thing because all of the irrigation is layed out in the back for the plant and nursery. He does not believe what he has there is bad looking. He would like to attempt to maintain that kind of compost. 3 Corrmissioner Johnson reminded Mr. Daniels the zoning goes with the land as does the special use unless it is revoked. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated she feels it's not anything that causes a problem with the area and putting it back further will not hide it any better. Corrmissioner Johnson stated without moving them to the back of the yard six feet is better. Commissioner Phillips stated staff's recommendation of eight feet was appropriate. Ms. Caryl responded eight feet is appropriate if they are moved to the back. Ms. Berenato clarified that #19 would allow for four contractor's but they do not have to be in the construction business. Regarding #20, Commissioner Johnson stated the site plan must be submitted for approval. Ms. Caryl stated the revised site plan will not include the second storage yard. Mr. Knight stated the proposal is for two fenced storage yards. Mr. Daniels stated he will compromise on storage space. corrmissioner Johnson stated if they are going to do the additional fencing, they are really subdividing the land. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated the more fencing the better to provide coverage. Commissioner Johnson suggested a site plan be presented as one contractor storage yard. Mr. Daniels stated they already have the green houses on-site. corrmissioner Johnson reminded Mr. Daniels why we are here. There was testimony of violations of the special use permit and they are attempting to assist him into compliance. Mr. Daniels stated if the two contractors are going to use the original yard, there will be additional space needed to accommodate them. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips suggested the yard be presented as one big storage yard. Ms. Caryl asked for clarification and wonders if the applicant must come back. Ms. Caryl stated they are suggesting it be the site plan submitted except for the additional storage yard of 40,000 square feet. Commissioner Johnson stated if they include expansion they are looking at a commercial zoning rather than resource. Mr. Daniels stated he would want to have the storage area open for the green houses. Mr. Daniels asked about resubmitting a plan. Ms. Caryl stated if Mr. Daniels wants to build green houses, that's great because that was what was approved. If he does not intend to build them perhaps additional storage could be added on to the existing storage area. Ms. Caryl stated currently the applicant has the right to build four to six small green houses. If the Board feels additional storage is fair or necessary, there is the option of removing the larger structure and adding on to the green house space. Commissioner Johnson moved to table file number ZS-342-96-A, Daniels Special Use Permit to April 30, 1996. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Corrmissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-141-94-F, Homestead, Filing 2 Kathy Eastley presented file number PD-141-94-F, Homestead, Filing 2, Blocks 13 - 16, and the Homestead Open Space Map. She stated this was a request to consider Final Plat, POD Guide, Open Space Map and POD Guide. Staff recommended approval. This is a final plat application for Blocks 13 through 16 of The Homestead Planned Unit Development. The applicant is seeking to plat 101 lots for a total of 156 dwelling units within the 138 acre area of Filing 2. Staff is recorrmending approval upon receipt of the collateral and the required fees, submittal of the SIA, and receipt of signature on the Open Space POD Guide. Ms. Berenato stated they also must receive proof the notice of lis pendens has been removed. Ms. Berenato stated they must have a copy of the notice to be recorded. Kevin Lindahl on behalf of Warner Development suggested the remaining 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 lssues are administrative in nature and can be approved today. Kurt Acre, a resident of South Forty, stated they sent a memo to the Corrmissioners re;Jarding some issues they have. One has been addressed. He referred to the lmpact of the incompatible lot sizes. He showed the Board the lots they are talking about. They would like consideration because the lots are not buildable. They are concerned with those lots. He stated there were also technical concerns which have been addressed. He discussed the run off at the base of development and stated there has been quite a bit of erosion. Corrmissioner Johnson asked if he knows the maintenance schedule of the culvert. Mr. Acre responded he thinks two years. Mr. Acre referred to the dust, trash, traffic, they experienced during the last big development. They do not feel they got a good response. South Forty has no desire to allow that to happen again. South Fork is not willing to provide access. They are concerned about access through Mr. Williams land to Homestead. He asked about the storage area on the southeast end. Ms. Berenato responded the storage area is gone. Ms. Eastley responded the sizes of the lots were approved with preliminary plan approval. As far as access, there are some access easements already in place. Ms. Berenato asked if Mr. Warner had vacated the access easement and allow for emergency access only. Mr. Warner stated the lots are duplex but they are primary/secondary and not mirror images. The issue of size, South Forty is on septic and they are on sewer. Mr. Eastley clarified the primary/secondary issue. She stated individual ownership of these units is possible. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked about the other property owners In the area and access to other lots. Mr. Warner stated they would not want to provide additional access. Corrmissioner Johnson reminded Mr. Warner of the regulations regarding watering and maintenance. corrmissioner Johnson moved to ap~rove file number PD-141-94-F, Homestead, Filing 2 with the stipulatlon the Chairman will sign the plat after they receive the required documentation as stated above. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PD-139-95-F2, Bachelor Gulch Village, Filing 3 Kathy Eastley presented file number PD-139-95-F2, Bachelor Gulch Village, Filing 3. She stated this was a request to consider a final plat on 444 acres to contain 330 of open space and 538 dwelling units. Staff recorrmended approval. Corrmissioner Johnson moved to approve file number PD-139-95-F2, Bachelor Gulch Village, Filing 3. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Corrmissioners the vote was declared unanimous. ZS-48-96-A, Elam Construction Staging Area Kathy Eastley presented file number Z-48-96-A, Elam Construction Staging Area. She stated this was a request for a temporary pennit for a portable asphalt plant and staging area. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: a) hours of operation and lighting standards from the original permit apply to this amendment b) this amendment to the Special Use Permit will terminate upon expiration of the amended State Highway Access Permit, but in no case later than September 1, 1996. Corrmissioner Johnson moved to approve file number Z-48-96-A, Elam Construction Staging Area, incorporating Staff findings and conditions. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Corrmissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 5 ZS-334-95-A, Shrine Mountain Inn Kathy Eastley presented file number Z-334-95-A, Shrine Mountain Inn. She stated this was a request to a Special Use Permit for Phase II of the Shrine Mountain Cemetery. Staff recommended approval with conditions. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number Z-334-95-A, Shrine Mountain Inn, incorporating Staff findings and conditions. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. corrmissioner Johnson moved to approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the cemetery plat. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Corrmissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Roaring Fork Valley Draft Transit Dev. Plan George Roussos, County Engineer, presented the Roaring Fork Valley Draft Transit Develo~ment Plan. He reminded the Board that Eagle County has been participating In this plan. Dan Blankenship, corrmittee member, stated they have been working on the development of this plan for a number of years. He discussed the various meetings that have taken place thus far and the plans to be developed over the next five years. He introduced the consultant from Lee, Scott and Cleary who handed out to the Board the plan they have come up with. Gordon Shaw stated he does have a good background in transportation issues and especially so in the Roaring Fork Valley and RFTA. He reviewed the operating cost per vehicle-hour of RFTA and showed a overhead comparing it to other entities. He discussed the challenges of RFTA and the seasonality. He referred to a sumnary chart of the financials of RITA and pointed those out to the Board. He discussed the problems with developing a capital plan and the concern with numbers in 1999 with the existing funding. He showed an overhead of the service plan sumnary for Aspen and showed some of the commute times from various areas. He discussed the need for service to Redstone and plans to replace the Glenwood Trolly. He discussed a danger of mixing the local servlce into the express service. It was taking one and three quarters hours to get from Aspen to Carbondale. The ~lan is to keep the express service express and do some local service durlng non-peak hours. They've reviewed the efficiency of the service runs. They have ideas for the Aspen area with more door to door, demand response. These are all improvements they would like to see as the funds warrant. Mr. Shaw referred to TABLE H: Armual Subsidy Impact of TDP Operating elements by Jurisdiction. The price tag falls to those areas that want more advanced service. Right now they are going to all of the jurisdictions effected and they are reviewing for their input. This is in the draft stage and has been pretty much a pitkin County issue to date. The capital shortfall is developing over a period of time assuming there will be no federal funding. He referred to what some other areas have done. He then referred to Table A, 1996 Estimated Transit Subsidy by Service. They have identified the factors to be focused on by reviewing the regional ridership and sales. He then referred to the many options of figuring the monies to be char;Jed. He reviewed the current transit funding report. 95% of the total subsldy is coming from Pitkin County. The bottom line was depicted with the three options suggested. The process now is for pi tkin County and the other jurisdictions to come together to see how the costs can be covered. They've done projections based on different fare increases. Dan Blankenship stated they recognize this is pretty new material for the Eagle County Commissioners. He asked about the contract for Eagle County for $75,000 and questioned its still being viable although the sales tax passed. He would like partnership with the various local governments that will bring them the needed funds to sustain the level of service they now have. About 45 busses must be replaced in the next two to three years. They would like to start the discussion and determine if the facilities are valuable to the constituents. 6 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEL'S 387869 Commissioner Johnson stated Eagle County has shown its commitment to RFTA and the up valley corrmunities. He stated Eagle County has corrmitted monies from its general fund. He stated the formulas being used bother him as there is no allocation for those entities up valley who benefit from the sales, etc. that take place up valley and the riders living down valley. He reminded the Board Aspen imports 60% of its workers. They are also grappling with the congestion problem and are looking at the rail plan. Most of the sales tax that funds RFTA comes from Aspen. The discussion is how can we do this better? Aspen is contributing the ;Jreatest amount of money. They would like to meet with this body to further dlscuss the issues. Mr. Shaw stated the formulas may differ and the negotiation should start over again. Mr. Blankenship stated they are meeting with Glenwood Springs tomorrow night and sees them as not being overly enthusiastic in supporting further. Glenwood Sprin;Js does see they have a huge congestion problem and know they must do somethlng about it. Perhaps there will be more subsidized ridership. The problem is here, and who is at fault remains to be determined. Mr. Shaw stated there are more and more people going down valley too. There is benefit flowing both directions. corrmissioner Johnson stated they are not in a position to give money anyway as it is the responsibility of the Transit Authority. Applying some of the tax revenues to those concerns is important. Mr. Blankenship stated Basalt would like to make their developments more transit friendly without the greater contribution. He believes the trunkline service with ridership from Basalt and El Jebel is a priority. It is a valley wide issue and they need to get all the players to the table. He asked the Board to make time to come to some of their meetings and offer their opinions. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips thanked Mr. Blankenship for his assistance and willingness to help her out when she has had questions. PD-347-95-S, Two Rivers Park Paul Clarkson presented file number PD-347-95-S, Two Rivers Park. He stated this was a request to consider a 310 space camper park, 12,000 square feet of Commercial buildings/gas station/convenience store/rental office, 8,000 square feet of restaurant, 208 unit motel, water ski lake, fishing and recreational boating facility, 10 employee units and single family units. Steve Isom, representing Two Rivers LCI, stated the original land use map of 1973 showed the Dotsero area as being a rural development center and a supporting industrial center. He referred to the map. He showed Dotsero on a more recent land use map. The area they are showing in their proposal was pointed out on another map. Mr. Isom showed the perspective and the pond configuration. He explained the proposal and the layout. Lake 1 is a five horse motor lake. Lake 2 is for water skiing and recreation. The main RV site is west of the entrance. Lake 3 is the main treatment facility. Using the wetlands for filtration is an ideal situation and the DOW is strongly recorrmending this. The well field would be in the northeastern part of the property. Commissioner Johnson asked about existing wetlands. Mr. Isom responded there are about three acres. They are seeing this as a recreation center with both summer and winter use with access to all the different ski areas. They have had a lot of interest in the development. One example they've been looking at is an RV park in Golden. Their density is 141 units on 12 acres. This projects density is roughly six units per acre which is about half. The overall density is about three units per acre. The site plan better depicts the open space, walking areas, tent camping to the east. On the individual sites, every unit faces south so you're looking at the back side of the next unit and have grass and privacy. Mr. Isom then referred to the north side of the road and they are proposing five different building sites on the benches. The larger bench would have some clustering. They would retain the existing tree nursery which provides for diversity in housing in the area. They are in agreement with the conditions of the DOW. He showed an area on the map where the fire 7 department has shown interest in having a station. Mr. Isom stated they will have 20 employee housing units on site that will be inco~orated into the project. There will be two major shower facilities, a bUllding for fishing supplies, a clubhouse for the RV park. Paul Clarkson stated much of what Mr. Isom presented is in conformance with the relative master ~lans. There are a couple of issues of concern. The site for the RV park lS designated as rural in the Eagle County Master Plan. Much of the proposal is in conformance. The intent of the designations is to direct commercial activities to the rural center. Development on this site is really a matter of reclamation. There is potential of flooding on this site but the applicant can certainly mitigate those concerns. There is a half acre of BLM land which should be able to be exchanged. An augmentation plan will be required but Mr. Stephens has the first water right on that area. site specific plans for the areas north of the road will be required. There is also a need for a traffic study as there will be a great deal of traffic on highway six. The hundred year flood plain will need to be identified. A municipal type of water system will be required. The grades on the north side are a concern. Commissioner Johnson asked about that issue. Mr. Clarkson stated adjacent property owners have shown concern about traffic on highway 6. A requirement for employee housing should allow for a 20% minimum on site. Staff believes the applicant will provide for more than a 20% minimum. The major concern for this project is re;Jarding the conformance with the Eagle County Master Plan. The appllcant will be preparing an environmental impact report. The main issue will show that development of this size, intensity and scope, may not be relevant. The rural designation does not support the five units to the north, the hotel or the restaurant. A proposal of this type did receive approval back in 1985 but has changed somewhat to now. The water system will be a community system. A 1041 review will be required. While there may be some non conformance to the Eagle River Watershed Plan, the information should be considered at prelimina~ plan. Mr. Clarkson referred to page 12 and Staff's recommendations. He indlcated there was no room for passive open space within the park. Mr. Clarkson read staff's recommendations. corrmissioner Johnson asked where the heron rookery was? Larry Green stated when Mr. Stephens first put in for a RV park he misunderstood there was to be a rookery there, but that was incorrect information. Commissioner Johnson asked about the helicopter pad. Mr. Isom stated it was recommended but is not required. He stated the approval in 1985 was for privately owned lots. Commissioner Johnson stated he has some concerns with gas stations being that close to the water stora;Je. Mr. Isom stated the requlrements for the system are very strict. He stated they had 125 year flood in 1983 and 1984. There was no flooding in this project except for the far end. Mr. Isom stated the density of the project is only six units per acre. They agree when this is seen in preliminary plan, the dog runs, etc. will be seen. They do not object to the 100 room hotel but if it makes sense to the county and in the future, they would like to be able to expand it. They would prefer 6,000 square feet for commercial space. The fifty foot right of way is a difficult thing. They have asked for a twenty five foot ROW which is easier to maintain. They have no exterior drainage, it all goes back into the lakes so they have no direct discharge into the river. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips stated she has no problem with the 100 room hotel and allowing for expansion. She asked about the quality of water for drinking. Mr. Isom responded they have just completed tests and the well tests came out excellent. Mr. Isom stated those on the north side are on septic and may want to hook on as well as to the water. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked about the wildlife impact. Mr. Isom stated they asked for a waiver but that was not given. Commissioner Johnson questioned the clustering and the five single family units on the north side and the desire to cluster as tightly as possible. Mr. Isom showed the roadway on the map. They would also impose a 8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS EAGLE, COLORADO RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS FORM 50 HOECKEt:S 387869 maxlrnum bUllding envelope. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips asked what types of wildlife are there and how severe the mitigation will be. Larry Green stated they have no exact numbers but pointed out it is a valley floor and there will be concentration. When the interstate was built, they recorrmended fencing part of the area. It is the valley floor and during the hardest part of the winter there is road kill. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve file number PD-347-95-S, Two Rivers Park, incorporating Staff findings and conditions as well as the planning commissions recommendations as presented to the Board. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. In discussion, Mr. Clarkson questioned the number of hotel rooms being limited to 100. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to see it as recommended and a PUD amendment applied for as needed. Mr. Isom stated he still has a concern with the 50 foot set back. That will remain. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips called for the question on the motion. Of the two voting commissioners, the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board, the meeting was adjourned until April 22, 1996. Attest: L 9. hk...- Clerk to the Board ~~+dAk) C al 9