HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 01/18/2000
PUBLIC HEARING
JANUARY 18,2000
Present:
Torn Stone
James Johnson, Jr.
Johnnette Phillips
James R. Fritze
Jack Ingstad
Sara J. Fisher
Chairman
Commissioner
Commissioner
County Attorney
County Administrator
Clerk to the Board
This being a scheduled Public Meeting the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
Consent Agenda
Chairman Stone stated the next item before the Board was the consent agenda as follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for week of January 18,2000, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Agreement between Eagle County and the Mid-Valley Buddies Program for the
purchase ofTANF/CHILD Welfare Services
C) Memorandum of Understanding between Valley Pines, Eagle County Government and
Northwest Colorado Council on Governments concerning the Roaring Fork Senior Center
D) Resolution 2000-014 to recognize and support the 2000 Census
E) Approve and sign the contract with Norris Dullea for development planning services at
the Eagle County Fairgrounds.
Commissioner Johnson thanked staff for the changes made to items C and D.
Commissioner Phillips questioned item C and the Mid-Valley Buddies Program.
Kathleen Forinash, Director of Health and Human Services, explained an adult is matched with a
youth and meet with the youth on a weekly basis and become their buddy. This agreement is to stabilize
the youths family life.
Commissioner Phillips asked how many youths were to be under this program.
Ms. Forinash stated they have estimated approximately 40 youths and this agreement will not
cover all of those.
Commissioner Johnson stated it will only serve approximately 3 and ~ youths.
Commissioner Phillips questioned the new senior center.
Ms. Forinash stated they are moved in and the Board is invited to the grand opening later in the
month.
Chairman Stone questioned the contract for Norris Dullea, item E. He stated he would like the
Commissioners to meet with Norris Dullea in a work session so that everyone is on the right foot as far
as what direction to head in.
Rich Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, agreed to schedule a work session.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the consent calendar as presented.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
1
01-18-2000
Plat & Resolution Signing
Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's
consideration:
5MB-00208. Berry Creek Ranch. Filinl! No.3. A Resubdivision of Lot 14. Block 1.
Countv of Ea2le. State of Colorado. He stated this was a Minor Type B Subdivision that will
subdivide Lot 14 to create Lot 14A and Lot 14B, and an access easement for Lot 14A and Lot 14B. He
read staff findings as follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision
(G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director
shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an
Amended Final Plat.
1. Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision.
a. Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are
adequate;
b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable
regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and
c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00208, Berry Creek Ranch,
Filing No.3, a resubdivision of Lot 14, Block 1, County of Eagle, incorporating staff findings.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Final Settlement, Warning Lites & Equipment
Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, presented final settlement for Warning Lites &
Equipment, Inc. for the centerline marking project for 1999. He stated this matter was published and no
claims have been received. Staff recommended approval.
Commissioner Johnson moved to approve final settlement for Warning Lites & Equipment, Inc.,
for the 1999 centerline marking project for 1999.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
County Auditor Fiscal Year Ending 12-31-99
Terry Lowell, Finance Director, presented the County Auditor for fiscal year ending 12-31-99.
He stated staff did further research on the selection of auditors and choose to change the auditor for
fiscal year ending 12-31-99. After research they are recommending the Board approve the selection of
Chadwick Stein, Kirschner.
Commissioner Johnson noted under basis for recommendation, that should read reconsideration
of the initial award to Johnson, Holshire & Company, due to a lack of disclosure of prior dealings with
Eagle County.
Mr. Lowell stated next week he will be presenting a change in the budget as this bid was $3,000
higher than originally budgeted.
Chairman Stone stated if staff were to re-negotiate with this bidder they would have to re-
negotiate with all bidders.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Stein, Kirschner, Davis & Company as the County
Auditor for fiscal year ending 12-31-99.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
2
01-18-2000
PDF -00039, Cordillera Filing 36
Chairman Stone stated that he understood this next item has been requested to be tabled by the
applicant.
Jean Garren, Planner, explained the applicant sent a fax letter requesting the tabling as their letter
of credit had not been submitted as planned.
Commissioner Phillips moved to table PDF-00039 until January 31, 2000 at the applicants
request.
Commissioner Johnson seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
1041-0023, Beaver Creek Resort
Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, presented file number 1041-0023, Beaver
Creek Resort. He stated Vail Associates, Inc. is proposing to make a series of improvements to the
existing water storage and distribution system at Beaver Creek Resort. These proposed improvements
are specific to providing a reliable domestic fire-flow water supply to three restaurants at the resort:
Spruce Saddle, Red-Tail Camp, and Beano's Cabin. The permit application proposes the following
improvements/expansions: 113,000 gallons of new storage capacity, one new 60 gallon per minute
(gpm) lift station, approximately 2,500 feet of new 8 inch water line to connect the new storage tank to
the existing water supply system, modification to pressure reduction valves, and additional new fire
hydrants at Red-Tail Camp and Beano's Cabin.
The applicant proposes that these series of improvements are necessary to enhance fire protection
capabilities and reduce the system's operating pressures to address safety concerns. Additionally, it is
proposed that the project will reduce or eliminate operating and maintenance problems associated with
high pressure conditions in the existing system. This project is not associated with any currently
anticipated expansion of facilities or extension of service to new facilities. In any case, the applicant
proposes that no increase in water utilization or consumption will occur.
Currently, these facilities are supplied with water by the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority.
All water supply facilities including those proposed and those currently existing are owned, operated,
and maintained by Vail Associates, Inc. Additionally, the site of all proposed improvements is on
National Forest System land, and the applicant has already received approval for the requested
improvements from the local USFS district office.
Referrals were sent to the County Engineer, Colorado Department of Public Health, Colorado
Division of Water Resources, Colorado Department of Natural Resources, Colorado Division of
Wildlife, NWCCOG, and the local fire district. Those responses received are summarized below.
Eagle County Engineer: No comments on application as proposed.
Colorado Geological Survey: Concerns over tank site selection and purported geologic setting.
The effects of water existing in this unstable geologic setting may destabilize it to a further degree when
magnified by the placement of the tank. Would like to conduct a more site specific field observation at
the selected tank site immediately following spring thaw. Otherwise, no objections to moving forward
with the permit at this time.
NWCCOG: (Verbal) Concern over timing of disturbance on riparian and wetland areas near
Ford's Way. Though regulated by the USACE, NWCCOG recommends that the work done is timed to
minimize wetland impacts (ie. post-August). Also, ensure that the applicant has properly installed Best
Management Practices (BMP's) on site.
Mr. Montag reviewed staffs concerns and issues indicating staff has no major concerns or
outstanding issues with the application as proposed. Initial concerns, such as geology at the site, sizing
of the proposed tank, and the USACE wetlands permitting requirements cited to the applicant have been
3
01-18-2000
adequately addressed.
Mr. Montag stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval with two
conditions. There were some concerns with the wetlands near Beano's Cabin. Those concerns have
been addressed.
Bob Weaver, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, and responsible for putting together the 1041
proposal, was present for the hearing. He referred to the map they presented showing Arrowhead and
Avon. He showed the area within Beaver Creek Resort outlined with a red border. He stated there are
no changes anticipated as far as service by this system. He showed a larger scale map bordered by the
red line. The facilities will be the construction of a 113,000 water tank south of Beano's Cabin. About
2,500 feet of pipeline will be built and connect at Beanos to the existing system. In addition there is a
pressure reduction valve that will be removed and two sixty gallon pumps installed. Within the areas
that have previously been disturbed, they have no existing issues. He stated the pipeline will cross some
wetlands. He spoke to the ski way called Ford's Way and the bench has caused a small wetland. The
impact is less than 2/1 Oths of an acre. Under the Corps of Engineers Regulations, no permit is required.
He stated they have reviewed the findings and concur with all those findings and those of the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the sizing of the tank itself and the request of Mountain
Track who have requested a tank size of250,000 gallons but it will serve a number of homes. He asked
if the size of the tank is for fire flow issues. He read they needed 96,000 gallons to pump for two hours.
Mr Weaver stated the demands that will be met by this tank are an estimated 10,000 gallons daily
usage at Red Tail Camp and 5,000 gallons at Beano's Cabin for a total domestic use of 15,000 gallons.
The fire flow requirement is based on a flow of 870 gallons per minute for a duration of two hours, for a
total of 96,840 gallons. Those added together comes up to 111,840 gallons. They rounded off the tank
dimensions resulting in a total capacity of 113,000 gallons.
Commissioner Johnson spoke to the letter from the Colorado Geological Society and their
concerns with the location. He read from the letter indicating concerns regarding the siting of the tank
and reference to adverse ground conditions as well as the exploratory work being done during a dry time,
November 1998. Commissioner Johnson asked if they have done further testing.
Mr. Weaver stated they do not believe anyone from the Colorado Geological Society has been to
the site. He stated the response surprised them as the information came to them through the study that
the applicant had done as per the geotechnical report prepared by CTL Thompson. He stated all those
items have been mitigated.
Commissioner Johnson spoke to their request to visit the site and asked if they had been supplied
with all of the application information.
Mr. Montag confirmed they had received that information.
Commissioner Johnson asked if they were given the opportunity to visit the site.
Mr. Montag stated staff believes the information provided by the applicant adequately addressed
all of the concerns voiced by CGS.
Mr. Weaver stated the letter signed by Jeff Hines concluded they didn't feel the project should be
delayed. He stated they would be happy to have them visit the site, but that will have to wait until
springtime. They feel confident that Alpine Engineering has addressed all the issues in their project
design.
Chairman Stone spoke to the drainage and the engineering concerns.
Torn Allender, Vail Associates, stated the steepest grade around the tank is 3 to 1. He stated they
will ski over this. Sub-drains will be installed around the tank to take care of the ground water issue.
Chairman Stone questioned whether they were looking to have input into the location or just that
it stay where placed.
Mr. Weaver referred to the letter from Alpine Engineering and the recommendations that were
accepted by them.
4
01-18-2000
Chairman Stone suggested to Commissioner Johnson that CGS may have a problem in theory but
they are not planning to sign off on this.
Commissioner Johnson voiced concern that CGS may corne back and indicate they didn't really
have a chance to respond. He asked when they plan on doing this.
Mr. Allender stated after July 1 due to the Elk calving area.
Commissioner Johnson suggested they may want to approve this conditionally allowing them to
visit the site.
Mr. Allender suggested they would not want to wait until September.
Commissioner Johnson stated they would then be putting the owness on them.
Chairman Stone spoke to the work to be done in August. He suggested they should have a drop
dead date for the Geographical Survey folks to respond.
Mr. Allender stated they have people in there.
Commissioner Johnson suggested he would like to see a condition that they would have to make
comment by July 1.
Mr. Loeffler stated he was reviewing the regulations to determine if they can make the approval
with the issues not yet resolved. He stated his concern under 604.13 and the deterioration ofterrain.
Chairman Stone asked if all the findings are necessary for the approval.
Mr. Loeffler stated the Board must reach an affirmative finding on every one of the applicable
regulations in order to grant a permit. If the Board wants the CGS to corne in that is the same as saying
the Board is not satisfied with the evidence on this issue. They either have to conclude that the evidence
is satisfactory and grant the permit or conclude that it is not and have the applicant corne back later with
the missing evidence. He does not believe that the proposed condition complies with the 1041
regulations system.
Commissioner Phillips asked since the Engineer is saying they don't see any reason to delay the
1041 as they have completed all the requirements, she sees no reason to delay this process.
Commissioner Johnson stated the rock and the hard place they are in is that these applications are
sent out to referral agencies and ifthey do not comment affirmatively, he doesn't see how they can make
the finding.
Mr. Allender stated the letter from the CGS was answered by their engineer and in great detail.
He feels uncomfortable delaying this until July because they were ambiguous in their approval.
Chairman Stone asked about the date of the letter from the CGS indicating they generally agree
with the proposal.
Mr. Allender stated November 10 & 18.
Chairman Stone stated the answer from Alpine Engineering was December 13. He suggested
they do not have a letter back from CGS regarding Alpine Engineering's answer to their concerns. He
suggested the applicant ask for a response from CGS.
Commissioner Johnson suggested the Planning Department should be asking for that response.
Chairman Stone stated the one piece they are missing is that letter.
Mr. Weaver referred to the memo prepared by Vicki Cawert. He stated those issues were all
raised in the geotechnical report done by CTL Thompson.
Mr. Loeffler suggested the Board is being asked to resolve a question that should be addressed by
the experts.
Mr. Weaver stated he thinks the staff did go through the details and did ask whether they were
satisfied in their design by the engineer and CTL Thompson. He believes that staff felt the issues had
been addressed.
Mr. Montag stated they have a letter from CGS showing some concern and they would like
another letter saying the concerns have been satisfied.
Commissioner Johnson asked how long it may take to receive that letter.
Mr. Montag stated a typical referred is about 21 days.
5
01-18-2000
Commissioner Johnson stated they have already seen the application and made remarks. The
letter ofthe 13th is in response to the comments CGS made.
Mr. Loeffler stated it is the applicant who has the burden to produce the evidence to persuade the
Board, not the staff.
Commissioner Johnson suggested staff may have a good enough relationship with CGS to hurry
them along.
Mr. Montag stated they will refer this back to CGS and ask that they respond within fourteen
days.
Commissioner Johnson moved to table file number 1041-0023, Beaver Creek Resort to January
31,2000.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Mr. Montag stated he will contact CGS. He clarified they may take the full two weeks.
Mr. Weaver stated the applicant will contact CGS as well.
SDS-00006, Castle Ridge
Chairman Stone stated Castle Ridge is the next item on the agenda and was tabled from
December 13.
Bob Loeffler spoke to a fax just received from Bob and Kathy Johnson. He gave the letter to the
Board.
Joe Forinash, Planner, presented file number SUS-00006, Castle Ridge. He stated at the
Planning Commission meeting the discussion included the following points:
The access road (Knight Road and Castle Lane) needs to be improved to some standard, with or
without variances; applicant needs to work with other users to propose appropriate standards to County
staff and decision makers.
Water supply may be a major problem. Rational water plan, which may include a central supply
and storage system, is necessary.
Fire protection and suppression is a problem - water flows from wells will not be sufficient.
Impacts on wildlife are a major concern - no mitigation is proposed.
Planning Commission was generally not concerned with traffic impacts on Frying Pan Road.
Building envelopes are too far to the east.
Public access to Stage Coach Road should be maintained.
Supports staff recommendation for an independent Environmental Impact Report.
Members of the Planning Commission indicated a willingness to consider revisions to the Sketch
Plan to develop something the Commission could support with a conditional recommendation for
approval. The applicant declined, indicating that he preferred to go first to the Board of County
Commissioners to seek direction on how he might proceed.
Mr. Forinash reviewed staffs concerns and issues as follows and related the Board requested the
applicant to provide additional information regarding the following items:
Roadway Standards He suggested the information has just now been presented to the Board.
The applicant was asked to provide more detailed information regarding how the roadway (i.e., Knight
Road and Castle Lane) would be improved to County standards, including but not limited to surface
type, width, grade and turn radii. Applicant has advised staff that the engineering detail will not be
available until after this staff report will have been finalized.
Water Supply - The applicant has provided a letter (copy attached) from Wayne Shelton (Shelton
Drilling Corp.) indicating his opinion that "there is a good chance of obtaining a good water source" at
the site. There is no indication regarding adequacy of the water supply for the proposed domestic use or
for fire suppression, or information regarding proposed restrictions on water use.
Wildlife Impact Mitigation - The applicant has provided a letter (copy attached) from Michael
6
01-18-2000
Villa (NatureTech Consultant Services Corp.) with proposed measures to mitigate the impacts of the
proposed development on the site. The recommended measures largely parallel those provided in the
referral response from Kevin Wright of the Colorado Division of Wildlife, dated October 27, 1999. Mr.
Villa and Mr. Wright differ in their respective opinions as to whether a significant negative impact on
wildlife due to loss of habitat and feeding areas would occur. It appears that while some mitigation is
possible, some negative impact will occur.
Ridgeline Impacts - The applicant has provided a drawing titled "Frying Pan River Valley
Viewshed / Castle Ridge". During a site visit prior to this matter being heard by the Planning
Commission, staff determined that the site slopes from a ridge near the eastern edge of the site to lower
elevations to the west to an extent that the portion of Frying Pan Road east of Castle View Ranch is
clearly visible from the site, and conversely, buildings in the proposed building envelopes would be
clearly visible from Frying Pan Road.
Based on the site visit and contour information provided by the applicant, it appears that the
vertical depiction of view lines is not an accurate representation of what is actually the case. The
proposed building envelopes are very near the ridge along the eastern portion of the site. The elevation
on the site drops off from east to west as much as 40 feet across most of the site, as opposed to what
appears to be a much lesser change in elevation of 5-10 feet depicted in the vertical profile provided. In
addition, the height of the structures is likely to be greater than the apparent 20 j: feet depicted. Further,
if the view line to the west were rotated 10-15 degrees clockwise, the unobstructed view of/from the
Frying Pan Road would be obvious.
Mr. Forinash stated the additional information provided by the applicant is not sufficient to cause
staff to revise its recommended findings or recommendation for denial of the application. Aside from
Master Plan issues and the traffic impact on Frying Pan Road, the proposed development would result in
significant adverse impacts on:
Wildlife habitat and feeding areas, and
Views along the ridge line from Frying Pan Road.
In addition, the applicant has failed to demonstrate that:
A sufficient and reliable water supply exists to serve the proposed development, or
Road improvements would be made to meet County standards.
Steve Isom, Isom & Associates, apologized for the lateness in getting the letter to the Board. He
related they had Sopris Engineering shoot in the center line of the road. He stated they also looked at
what they could build in there. There are things they can change and he didn't realize the whole road
was a public right-of-way. He spoke to the corner that does not meet County standards. He suggested
the recommendation from the wildlife officer was to move the building site to the west as there is
currently an existing house in the immediate area. He suggested by moving the building site that would
take care of the impacted areas. He spoke to dog control and lighting addressed in the last meeting. He
stated they were using the photography used at the last meeting. When they tried to draw this, it became
almost a straight line. He stated from the aerial photography they could not see the Frying Pan Road.
Commissioner Johnson asked for a copy ofthe Land Use Regulations before the changes.
Mr. Isom continued and explained the line of site was based on the areal photography. He
suggested those were the four outstanding questions. He stated Shelton Wells has done most of the
wells in the area.
Commissioner Phillips asked about fire protection and if it was referred to the fire department.
Mr. Isom stated it was sent on to them but they didn't get a response.
Commissioner Phillips asked about the location of the building envelopes.
Mr. Isom explained they wanted to keep them offthe ridge and not disturb the existing housing.
He stated they are 10 to 15 feet below the ridge.
Chairman Stone stated he is generally uncomfortable with the somewhat cavalier approach Mr.
Isom has taken with this file. He asked to talk about the road. He spoke to the letter from Sopris
7
01-18-2000
Engineering. He stated he would appreciate having this information in a more timely manner in the
future. He asked what they are actually proposing to do as far as improving the road.
Mr. Isom stated they would re-grade the road to a maximum of 10% and build the platform to the
24 feet. They have asked that the road remain a gravel road to a level of four inches. He stated there is
really nothing they can do about the switchback.
Chairman Stone reviewed the letter and suggested there is nothing they can do about item #1
even though the County would require it be paved. #3 they would widen from the current 14 to 24. #4
they would re-grade the road to a maximum grade of 10% and #5 they don't feel there is anything they
can do, leaving it at its current radius. He asked ifhe presented that correctly.
Mr. Isom stated they would prefer it being left as gravel but it could be paved. He is not sure that
is what the adjacent property owners would like.
Commissioner Johnson shared the same concerns that this was tabled a month ago and staff
didn't have time to respond.
Mr. Isom apologized again and suggested it could be tabled as it is his fault.
Commissioner Stone spoke to just the verbal comments from the DOW and asked for those in
writing.
Mr. Isom stated they have a letter from them and on the water.
Commissioner Johnson stated the letter is fairly vague. He asked about the variance and the need
for that as this proposal will not meet the road standards.
Mr. Forinash stated that would follow this process.
Commissioner Phillips suggested this is just four lots and there are still questions that have not
been answered. She suggested this be remanded back to the Planning Commission for further review.
Mr. Isom stated he thinks the Planning Commission believes three lots work better than four. He
stated they changed their recommendation. He read from the Planning Commission findings. He stated
the project is not financially feasible with three lots. He stated this is not high density.
Commissioner Phillips suggested if the present zoning allows for seven, if all these questions
were answered, there shouldn't be a problem with approval. She asked Mr. Isom ifhe can do that.
Mr. Isom stated if this road condition with a 40 foot right of way and graveled, or whatever, they
would like to see approval with this density and then resolve the issues.
Chairman Stone opened the hearing to public comment.
Lucy Jukes, an adjacent property owner, and the house referred to, spoke to the road, the water,
the ridge line issue. She stated returning this to the Planning Commission would be a good idea so they
can attend the meetings and help resolve this. She stated she spoke to the Fire District, Steve Howard,
who stated he has received no information on this and is out of town this week.
Roger Jukes, owner to the west of this property, believes there will be impacts on his property
and the others. He spoke to the ridge view and the damage this will do.
Dave Clark, owner of the first house going up the road, stated he is not an adjacent property
owner. He stated a lot has to be done to achieve what the developer wants. His property will be greatly
effected. If the road is altered significantly, the traffic will be increased and it will be a different place.
He questioned why his right to build the house supercedes their desires. He spoke to the improvements
and questions the willingness to work with the property owners. He stated they gravel the road year after
year. He stated he doesn't know any property owner up there with less than two vehicles. He stated
another thing mentioned was the effect on wildlife. As a person that lives there, it is full of deer, elk and
other animals. His personal feeling is if any changes are going to be made it needs to be discussed with
all of the residents. He agrees if this goes back to the Planning Commission it would be a much more
reasonable approach.
Commissioner Johnson asked when Mr. Clark bought his home.
Mr. Clark stated he has lived there for twelve years.
Commissioner Johnson asked ifMr. Clark had asked what the property was zoned before he
8
01-18-2000
purchased it.
Mr. Clark stated he did not.
Kevin Lindahl, present on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Wells, referred to the issues the applicant was
asked to address. Road standards, the developers' engineer has said there are significant inferiorities to
the road and most of the deficiencies will only be resolved with variances. He spoke to the issue of only
getting the information today. He stated the variances are significant and questioned construction and
maintenance. He stated to his knowledge the developer has not spoken to the residents. He stated that
seems to be what is needed. If the developer is going to develop this he should attempt to work things
out with them before corning to the Board. He suggested they should send a message that those things
should be done before corning to the Board. Water supply, basically they got a letter that says there is
good water, which really doesn't say anything. He spoke to previous concerns. He spoke to the Fire
Department having or not having been contacted. The issue with wildlife he isn't sure on. Ridgeline
development, staff has said they are not convinced. He suggested the information is overstated. He
stated he believes this should be denied. The Planning Commission tried to work with the land owner,
but the developer chose to corne to the Board and refused to do what was needed.
Chairman Stone closed public comment. He asked if Commissioner Phillips had made a motion.
Commissioner Phillips suggested that one more chance should be given to answer the questions
with the Planning Commission.
Mr. Isom asked if it is sent back to the Planning Commission if it has to be republished and re-
advertised.
Mr. Loeffler stated any hearing with have to be published and noticed. He stated the problem is
they were given an opportunity to continue the hearing. There isn't any provision for the remand.
Mr. Isom questioned it being remanded back.
Commissioner Johnson stated that is only ifthere is a substantial change. Ifthat is not the case
the Board can only approve, deny, or table. He suggested that a reduction of one of the units would be a
substantial change and it would need to go back to the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Phillips stated she believes there will be substantial change just by the questions
that have corne up. She stated they can deny it but it will have to corne back. She stated the Planning
Commission did voice a desire to hear it.
Commissioner Johnson stated he understands the Planning Commissions willingness to work
with the applicant was to reduce it from four to three lots. He doesn't see where there is a substantial
change and he didn't hear testimony that the Planning Commission would consider four lots.
Mr. Isom stated that is what was said.
Commissioner Johnson spoke to the findings and read from them.
Chairman Stone asked Mr. Loeffler to reference the part that speaks to remanding it back to the
Planning Commission and asked what substantial change is. He questioned if the applicant can do that
at his own request. If their only option is to approve or deny, they must have some questions answered
fully and in a timely manner.
Mr. Isom stated they would request a tabling for a period of time so that it could be further
reviewed by the Planning Commission. He stated it would not have to go back and be republished. He
implied it would take two to three months.
Mr. Loeffler stated he doesn't believe that anything takes months. He suggested the point of the
public notice is to give the public notice. He disagrees that notice is not required. He referred to the
provision regarding substantial change. He stated it has no application to this situation. It relates to
amending the zone map, the land use regulations, and preliminary plan for a PUD. 5-210-G-3-A does
not apply. 5-280-D gives the choice to approve, approve with conditions or disapprove. He stated if the
applicant wants to go back to the Planning Commission he may wish to withdraw from this and then go
back and after that he can corne back before the Board again. .
Commissioner Phillips asked if he requests it go back to the Planning Commission if that can
9
01-18-2000
happen in a specific time frame, preferably within the next two weeks.
Mr. Forinash stated staff would need to advertise before it goes back before the Planning
Commission.
Commissioner Johnson stated the Planning Commission has heard this and have made
recommendations. He stated the applicant could have gone back and worked with them earlier. He
stated they are here today as a result of the lack of information not submitted by the applicant. He stated
as mentioned by Chairman Stone, there has been a cavalier attitude towards the planning process as well
as the regulations. He stated he does not know how they can re-open a hearing without a re-submital of
an application.
Commissioner Phillips moved to approve file number SUS-00006, Castle Ridge, with the
following conditions. She referred to a letter from Steve Atkins at Sopris Engineering:
1) All of the road questions and concerns shall be answered to the approval of County
Engineering Staff.
a) The existing right-of-way is 40 feet and County standard is 50 feet. There must
be a consensus on the width of right-of-way with approval of County Engineering Staff.
b) The existing road is gravel but the County standard is paved. There shall be a
consensus and approval from County Engineering Staff.
c) The existing road is approximately 14 feet in width and the County standard is
24 feet. There must be a consensus and approval from County Engineering Staff.
d) The road grade is 13% and County standard is 8% with a minimum of 10%.
There shall be a consensus and approval of County Engineering Staff.
e) The switchback radius is approximately 30 feet and the County standard is 80
feet. There must be a consensus and approval of County Engineering Staff.
f) Traffic impacts to Frying Pan Road shall be mitigated to address local residents
concerns before preliminary plan.
2) The central water supply and water storage questions shall be answered at preliminary
plan to the satisfaction of County staff.
3) Fire protection shall be mitigated and approved by preliminary plan. The Fire
Department shall be contacted as to their requirements.
4) Wildlife impacts shall be addressed at preliminary plan.
5) Consensus of location of building envelopes shall be reached at preliminary plan. This
pertains to Ridgeline development and wildlife impacts.
Chairman Stone asked if that is in regard to the Ridgeline.
Commissioner Phillips stated it is.
Commissioner Johnson questioned if the ridge line is for building or wildlife.
Commissioner Phillips stated it is for building.
Commissioner Johnson stated he is not going to second the motion as it does not meet the
requirements nor does it meet Land Use Regulations.
Chairman Stone seconded for discussion.
Mr. Isom stated they can agree to disagree, but if the staff does not approve the roadway, they are
stuck.
Chairman Stone asked what the process would be if this were approved for Sketch Plan.
Mr. Loeffler stated they would then submit a preliminary plan addressing those specific issues
and other development issues. All issues are addressed in a more detailed fashion. At that time it is
evaluated for compliance and whether the conditions have been satisfied.
Chairman Stone asked who hears it first.
Mr. Loeffler stated the Roaring Fork Planning Commission.
Chairman Stone stated that would give the public another opportunity to comment on those items
being addressed.
10
01-18-2000
Ms. Jukes asked what is the difference between sending it back now or approving it with
conditions and it still going back.
Mr. Loeffler explained the three step plan. He stated the concept level goes first to the Planning
Commission and then to the Board. The preliminary plan goes first to the Planning Commission and
then to the Board.
Mr. Clark asked if those would be public meetings.
Mr. Loeffler stated they all are.
Commissioner Phillips stated this is less density than it is zoned for and if they can make this
work it may be a better project.
Chairman Stone stated it may in fact not be approved further along.
Chairman Stone stated the motion is to approve this file with the conditions formally defined by
Commissioner Phillips.
Mr. Isom asked if the word approval by staff could be changed to recommendations of staff.
Commissioner Johnson asked if these conditions must be met before it be considered by the
Planning Commission.
Commissioner Phillips stated these must be met before being considered for preliminary plan.
Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. Commissioners Stone and Phillips voting
aye and Commissioner Johnson voting no.
Commissioner Stone stated the difference is minor about remanding it back to the Planning
Commission. He stated the primary reason he voted for approval is because he does not believe it is the
applicants fault the Board did not have the answers to the questions from the previous meeting. He
stated it will cause an undue burden on the applicant not to approve. In the future he suggested the
applicant corne to the hearings with more complete files.
SMA-OOOIO, Lazie R Ranch
Paul Clarkson, Senior Planner, presented file number SMA-000I0, Lazie R Ranch. He stated he
spoke with the applicant earlier today, Scot Nichols, and believes he can fill the Board in on the
situation.
Scot Nichols, applicant, was present for the hearing stating they have proved that they do have
water. He was asked to bring a plan for the storage facility, but it has not yet been reviewed. He
requested this matter be tabled.
Commissioner Johnson asked how long this should be tabled for.
Mr. Nichols asked if it could be approved conditionally on the information.
Commissioner Johnson stated that won't happen. They asked how long it should be tabled for.
Mr. Nichols responded two weeks.
Mr. Loeffler clarified this is not a multi step process.
Mr. Clarkson stated they will need a couple of weeks.
Mr. Nichols stated he would like it tabled to the 7th of February.
Mr. Clarkson stated that presumes they get the information by the 31 st.
Commissioner Johnson suggested it be tabled to February 14th.
Mr. Nichols agreed.
Commissioner Johnson moved to table SMA-000I0, Lazie R Ranch to February 14,2000
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
PDS-00018, Adams Rib, Frost Creek
Commissioner Johnson asked to speak for a moment and thanked Fred Kummer for putting
together the East/West Brush Creek deal.
11
01-18-2000
Commissioner Johnson asked that Commissioner Phillips not participate in this file regarding her
acceptance of a gratuity in St. Louis in regards to room upgrades, in the amount of nearly $5000.00.
Commissioner Phillips responded she paid exactly the same for her room in St. Louis as
Commissioner Johnson did. She stated that was also done because they also had CCI meetings. She
believes it was out of order for Commissioner Johnson to bring that up. The answer is no. She will be
hearing this file.
Keith Montag presented file number PDS-OOO 18, Adams Rib, Frost Creek. He stated at its
public hearing held on January 5, 2000, the Eagle County Planning Commission recommended denial of
this project by a 4-2 vote.
The Planning Commission heard additional testimony from the applicant's representatives
regarding issues the Commission raised at its hearing of December 1, 1999, particularly (1) the removal
or reconfiguration of lots to avoid wetlands and wildlife habitat; (2) the economics of the golf course and
its related density; and (3) affordable housing. Although the applicant had attempted to obtain a "water
agreement" from the Town of Eagle, it had not been successful.
He commended the applicant for a very well thought out and well put together sketch plan
application. He stated though they might disagree, it was a very well thought out application. He stated
this is an 18 hole golf course community with about 3.7 acres per unit. There is a commercial
component, and industrial component for waste water treatment. There is open space designated at just
over 644 acres. The water service proposed is from water taps from the town of Eagle. The applicant
will apply to the town in excess of the EQRs. He stated non-potable water will be used for irrigation.
Access is off Brush Creek Road at two sites with a path on the northern boundary. There is a 1 % real
estate transfer fee proposed to be dedicated to the County for housing, recreation and wildlife. He stated
they did sent out referrals and the staff report summarizes those comments. He spoke to the intensity
and land use patterns associated with this development. The biggest concern is the intensity. He stated
the gross density is 3.7 acres per unit. The application indicates the residential lots are predominately
rural in nature. He spoke to the ranch site and the fact it already has sketch plan approval. They do not
believe the density is rural and they would suggest it is more of a transition area. Staff feels this
proposal would not be compatible with the surrounding zoning. He stated there are pockets of
agricultural residential zoning. He stated AR does allow for a ten acre minimum size. They are
concerned with the precedent this may set. He stated they recognize the applicant may do 35 acre lots on
the 11,000 acres. He stated they would strongly urge the applicant to reconsider the density. He stated
this could be accomplished by using the PUD process and clustering the density. He stated through
clustering the applicant should be considered for a bonus. He stated they would suggest a gross density
of somewhere around 8 acres per unit and 140 units on the site. Given the Master Plan and the land use
patterns they feel this would be more compatible.
Paul Clarkson stated the Planning Commission, on the general overall plan and its compliance
with the plan and how it fits in over the County, did not find this proposal in conformance with the
Master Plans. Generally speaking the Planning Commission did not see this as a logical, rational
development. They suggested ifthis was immediately adjacent to the town it would be a slam dunk.
They spoke to the piece meal development. He stated there were a couple of Commission members who
did see a reasonable relation with the Ranch Site. Two of them felt the ranch site wouldn't happen
without the approval of this proposal. The leap frogging is not necessarily the fault of the developer. A
Planning Commission member suggested there may be no winners. Most of the Planning Commission
were uncomfortable with the position they were in and disappointed that the Town and the applicant
were unable to work out their differences.
Golf course in this location. There were mixed feelings on the need for golf at this location.
Some members felt there already was enough golf approved in the Brush Creek Valley; others had no
problem with it. One member suggested that 72 holes of golf in the Valley was too much (54 already
approved) and that if this proposal were approved that the "Ranch Site" be reduced by 18 holes.
12
01-18-2000
Mr. Clarkson stated the Planning Commission was also quick to thank Mr. Kummer on the
East/West Brush Creek deal.
Excessive density. While the Commission found that CDOW's recommendation that 50 lots and
several golf course holes be removed or relocated was perhaps too much, they found the applicant's
suggested six or seven far too little. The Commission was concerned about elimination of critical
wildlife habitat, impacts to riparian/wetlands habitat, and visual impacts. The Commission also found
little merit in applicant's assertion that 300 lots were necessary for economic reasons, arguing that if the
numbers didn't work then perhaps the project should not be built as proposed: surrounding zoning was
10-acre zoning and there was little to justify much greater density on the Subject Property. Precedent
was very much a concern as this is recommended by both Master Plans of being rural in nature. He
spoke to the transfer fee and though that may provide resource it may not address the concerns of
employee housing.
Wildlife concerns were an issue.
There were a couple of the Commission members concerned with the finance. The fact that the
golf couldn't happen without the additional units.
Lack of concrete resolution to the problem of adequate water supply. The Commission, in its
review of the question of density/economics, found that even if 300 lots were appropriate in this location
some ofthe economic need for 300 lots stemmed from the need for a water treatment facility to
compensate for the lack of water taps from the Town of Eagle. The Town has been unresponsive in
applicant's request for more. The Commission found that a lower density could be accommodated by
existing water taps, would not proliferate special districts, and could possibly produce a more favorable
economic situation for the applicant. One Commission member commented on a degree of discomfort
with the use of the golf course as justification for the density.
Mr. Clarkson stated there was a motion to deny which passed on a 4 to 2 vote. One member
wanted to approve as is and the other to perhaps approve with conditions.
Mr. Montag pointed out when they get to the point to discuss the housing, David Carter can be
available. He stated a representative from the DOW will try to be here and Willy Powell from the Town
of Eagle is present to answer any questions.
Chairman Stone stated he would like to set a different tone for this meeting having attended some
ofthe meetings with the town. He spoke to Commissioner Johnson's comments which he found self
serving and political grandstanding. He stated he would like to keep the emotions to a minimum. He
suggested they probably won't corne to a conclusion today as it may require a site visit. He asked they
work through the process as adults.
Fred Kummer, applicant, thanked everyone for the opportunity to present the project. They
believe it is a good project and he stated it is exactly what they presented to the Town of Eagle. He does
not want to imply they want to rush and thinks that a site visit is appropriate as is the input from the
broad array of citizens.
Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, asked to use the map and the slides. He explained the first
picture as being that of the south east corner of the Brush Creek drainage. He stated the proposed low
density residential project is located approximately two miles south of the Town of Eagle. He showed it
on the map and in relationship to the Town of Eagle boundary. He suggested a site visit would be
useful. Existing view corridors through the site have been respected. Stream corridors, wetlands and
other sensitive lands have been preserved. Amenities include golf course, bike paths, nature trails, The
property contains 1,109 acres with 300 homes. Most of these 248 homes are on 1 and 1/4 to 1 and 3/4
acre lots. 52 ofthese homes are similar to the Greens at Arrowhead and are located on 7,000 square feet
cluster single family lots. An additional 15 homes are accessory dwelling units or caretakers.
He stated the golf course was a principal determinate to the design. He showed a photo of the
main entrance of the southern part of the property. Of the total projects 1,109 acres, 638 acres is open
space and golf course. Of the 638 acres, 475 is open space or 42%. 163 acres or 15% is golf course.
13
01-18-2000
259 acres or 23% is in residential yards. The net effect is 86% is undeveloped, therefore only 14% is
development. The appearance is a great deal of open space. The project entrance will be off of Brush
Creek Road which will connect to Highway 6 through Eagle Ranch and connects currently through the
Town of Eagle. Pedestrian circulation will include a walking trail system along with a Bike Path located
in the Brush Creek road right of way along the project.
He showed another photo from Brush Creek Road and the gypsum type hills. The streets in the
project will be private. The street system was designed using a curvilinear approach that minimizes
traffic speeds and fits the contours of the land. Visual impact at night will be minimized by utilization of
proper street light components and proper spacing.
The PUD will be served by central water and wastewater treatment systems. The PUD has 200
water taps previously purchased from the Town of Eagle. The PUD has asked the Town of Eagle to
serve the remaining 115 homes and the clubhouse
The administration office of the project will be a part of the wastewater treatment plant building
similar to what was done in Vail. Town water will be used for the golf course and some residential
irrigation. He showed a map which depicted those areas.
Design Guidelines have been developed by Zehren and Associates. Building envelops have been
located on each lot in order to minimize the amount of grading to establish the best building area and to
control the effects of the homes as they relate to all of the other homes.
Another view was shown from the southern entrance. He spoke to the project team using Pitman
Poe & Associates Inc. Surveying and Civil engineering was by Johnson & Kunkel, Landscape Architect
by Greg Mozian, Land Use and Water Rights, Holland and Harbaugh, Wildlife Biotec Resource by
Schafer and Associates, Geologic Report by Heworth-Pawlak.
He stated the visual impacts of the project will be minimized as viewed from the Brush Creek
Road using the buffer areas east and west of the road. There will be no residential development between
the Brush Creek Road and Brush Creek. The large cottonwoods will not be removed.
He showed another shot looking down into the valley and into the rear of the project.
The PUD will require a 1 % real estate transfer fee in perpetuity for housing, recreation and
wildlife. 80% will be dedicated to Eagle County for recreation and housing, 20% will be dedicated for
wildlife habitat enhancement. A wildlife mitigation plan was developed with the Division of Wildlife.
To summarize, this is the right project for this location. He again referred to the map
demonstrating the way they fit into the valley and show compatibility of the neighborhood.
Dr. Allen Crocket, Shaffer and Associates, was introduced to make a presentation on wildlife.
Mr. Crocket stated the studies were quantitative with field crews doing vegetation mapping. He looked
at the native habitats, at the amount of wildlife use, especially at deer and elk tracks, condition of the
range and amount of use. He prepared a wildlife map showing all ofthe habitats to be sensitive to. He
stated there was a narrow zone of basin big sage brush transitioning from the higher slopes. He stated it
is heavily grazed. He suggested that should not be considered critical habitat for this project. The winter
range habitat has been almost completely avoided. He stated the area at issue is that in the southwestern
portion of the property. It is on a bench area where they want to have some units. He stated that is the
issue that remains in question, that is 11 to 14 lots that the DOW considers critical. Balancing the desire
of Adam's Rib to put units there can be done through mitigation with the trust fund. They could either
move the units or use the trust fund money and spend it elsewhere within the development. He thinks
the latter is the better idea. He stated to look at the project site relative to adjacent use on public lands.
He stated the area is a very thin.
Mr. Crocket spoke to the golf and the work he has done on the front range. He stated he is
surprised by the use of the deer and elk on the golf course as they consider it a safe place to be. He
stated in an area where there is pasture present the creation of golf can be an improvement.
Commissioner Johnson asked if it is better to ask questions of Mr. Crocket today.
Mr. Knight stated they were happy to respond either way.
14
01-18-2000
Commissioner Johnson asked if Dr Crocket had put together the wildlife mitigation plan.
Dr. Crocket responded that was Charlie Wick with Adams Rib.
Charlie Wick referred to the wildlife mitigation plan and the first document being the relative
changes to the mitigation plan. He stated it was originally developed with Bill Andre working with the
Town of Eagle. He stated the language is generic in nature and was of the greater project. He referred to
dogs, fencing, horses and other livestock, indemnification issues, enforcement issues, specific issues in
the mitigation plan. He stated they took the mitigation plan and took out reference for the ranch site and
left in the finite information for the golf course site. That was then submitted to Bill Andre. He
responded that the number one policy was still total avoidance and proceeding with their plan proposed
mitigation language. He referred to the letter stating Mr. Andre had proposed some changes to the
mitigation plan. He stated there are some issues that were not changed. He referred to page one and the
statement of the scope of the project the 2% fee may be inadequate. They responded this site has its own
impact issues. He stated the fees are proportionately the same. The second issue was the riparian
impacts. He stated there may be some specific changes to holes 3, 4, and 6 in the riparian plan. They
put specific language in the enhancement plan for management over the long term. The relationship to
the other holes where they can avoid some riparian and winter range. There are portions of 20%
residential lots in the riparian habitat. He stated they are limiting themselves to access the building
envelope otherwise the rest will have to be in the natural state. They agreed that no bridge construction
should occur other than July through September. The DOW suggested that should be applied to utilities
as well. They are not in agreement with that recommendation. Lastly, it they are not in riparian, they
will maintain the sensitivity when developing the holes.
Commissioner Johnson spoke to the bridge construction and that applied not just to Brush Creek
but to all creeks and streams.
Mr. Wick stated the other waterways are minimal and showed the only two they have. He said in
practical terms they are talking about Brush Creek.
Commissioner Johnson referred to the dates from July 15 to October 1. He suggested the runoff
happens before July 15 and questions the ending date.
Mr. Wick stated they don't have a problem with the restriction. Mr. Andre wanted that extended
to utility lines, but they don't want to do that.
Commissioner Johnson questioned why they have that ending date.
Boots Ferguson stated generally they conclude in the water world that low flow period begins in
the October, after the irrigation season is ended and after the benefit of return flows.
Commissioner Johnson commended them on the work they did with the DOW. He stated in the
mitigation plan on page 1 it refers to the homeowner's association proposed to commit, he asked they
change that to read commit to the following, eliminating the word proposed.
Mr. Wick stated he doesn't see why not.
Commissioner Johnson referred as well to the third line down and prohibiting them to harbor
dogs on their PUD. He asked if that should read property.
Mr. Wick agreed it should read property.
Commissioner Johnson stated in the same paragraph, second line from the bottom, if facilities
are inadequate to contain the dogs they will be immediately removed from the property until approved an
adequate structure is built". He suggested changing the word "they" to "dogs". A couple lines down, it
talks about an authorized representative. He asked for a definition of authorized representative. He
stated the next line down, it talks about the dogs being on the leash unless the dog is legally hunting. He
questioned hunting being allowed and that sentence should be stricken. He stated on the very last line on
that page, the dogs may be off the leashes, he doesn't believe that should be allowed unless they are in
the contained area. He suggested you don't have the same concerns in Eagle-Vail. He questions dogs
being off their leashes in this area.
Mr. Wick suggested he may agree but does not want to take it out at this time as within certain
15
01-18-2000
areas it may be appropriate.
Commissioner Johnson referred to the fencing and questioned what they are getting at when they
talk about the Adams Rib Design Review Board.
Mr. Wick stated since these lots are so large, someone may want a larger dog area. They want a
standard if they own the right lot to allow them to corne into the Design Review Board to do that. He
stated it would still be adjacent to the homes and within the building envelope.
Commissioner Johnson stated on page three, when talking about the .02% real estate transfer fee,
he asked what the amount would be for a similar size project.
Mr. Wick explained there is not a project in Eagle County except for Eagle Ranch now, where
you have a fee in perturity. He stated Bachelor Gulch had $140,000 fee, Cordillera's Valley Club had
around a $40,000 or $50,000 fee. He stated this is precedent setting for Brush Creek and Eagle Valley.
Commissioner Johnson asked that someone do the calculations so they will know what they are
getting. He stated under section 5, when talking about mountain lions and bears, on the third line from
the bottom, it speaks to the feeding habits, he stated on page number 5 under 7, number 2, he doesn't
understand why if they know that the nectar and bird seed attract bears, why let them be an exception to
the rule.
Mr. Wick stated there are certain lots the DOW was concerned about but they will look at that.
Commissioner Johnson spoke to page 4 and the trash and garbage storage. He suggested that
sentence read "there shall be no overnight storage of trash and garbage".
Jim Fritze, County Attorney, questioned this comment.
Mr. Wick clarified that it was left outside.
Commissioner Johnson stated also on page 5, under #6, about the carrying of diseases, he
suggested they add "being fatal to pets and human". He thanked them again for their efforts in working
with the DOW.
Mr. Wick stated this has a dual purpose and will be an educational tool for the public.
Commissioner Johnson spoke to the short term rentals and suggested if there are going to be
short term rentals that the information be in a conspicuous area regarding the wildlife.
Terrill Knight stated that is a very good suggestion.
Commissioner Johnson questioned on page 9, under #5, and the violations being considered a
separate offense. He asked if that means you start all over again.
Mr. Wick stated no, it is cumulative.
Chairman Stone suggested that could be cleaned up a little. He stated he believes their intent is
to have multiple high level of fines.
Commissioner Johnson asked them to look at that, with the second offence being $100, plus
$150 for a fine of $250.00. He stated the third offense would be $300.00. Then they looked at the
owner not paying the fine within thirty days, it would be doubled.
Mr. Wick stated not paying it within thirty days is an offense itself.
Commissioner Johnson asked if then on the 35th day the fine could be $9600.00.
Mr. Wick stated the DOW wanted to put some muscle in the agreement because of the lack of
enforcement in previous subdivisions.
Commissioner Phillips asked who will be in charge of the collection.
Mr. Wick responded the Homeowner's Association.
Mr. Ferguson asked since there are members of the public here, whether they should be given an
opportunity to speak.
Chairman Stone asked how much longer was the applicants presentation.
Mr. Knight responded at least an hour.
Boots Ferguson, Holland and Hart, stated he has been involved with the water management on
this project for over twenty years. He stated one of the key components of their was service started in
1983, when Mr. Kummer signed an agreement with the Town of Eagle for 200 taps to be allocated on
16
01-18-2000
this project. The basis for that service in that agreement provides the legal source of supply for the 200
taps. He stated the basis for that service in the agreement was a portion of a plan for augmentation that
was filed in 1981 and approved in 1989. He stated this is an important plan as it dictates some of the
limitations and opportunities for water service and wastewater treatment service. He stated the 1983
agreement provided in the event additional service was desired by the applicant, a request could be made
to the Town and the Town could consider it based upon its capabilities. In September they made a
written request to the Town of Eagle to service the additional 115 residential units of the subdivision and
the golf course clubhouse and attendant wastewater service building. Not receiving a response from the
Town, they decided to proceed with separate plans for augmentation to provide a legal source of supply,
to insure they had a legal source supply of water. He stated the plans for augmentation is currently
pending in the water court. He stated the additional plans for augmentation do not include any water to
be used for raw water augmentation.
Mr. Ferguson showed where the waste water treatment facility will be. They will not have pipe
connections. He stated the site was conveyed to the town in the 1983 agreement. Their desire is to
enhance the in-stream flows. It is a way for them to satisfy some of the goals and objectives for master
plans. Two of the major ditches to be used for the raw water diversion have been diverted out of Brush
Creek and go through the property of others. Those ditches have corne in at two different levels. They
have committed to leaving those waters in the stream at the original points of diversion and then take the
water out in the upper portions of the project, pumping it up to the irrigation facilities, enhancing the in-
stream flows.
The wastewater treatment facility they are designing will be on site because of the original plan
for augmentation that supports the 200 taps obtained from the Town. For any central water service
supplied to this project, the treated wastewater must be put back in the stream below the Town's intake
system and above the Lovewhite Ditch head gate. Accordingly, to meet the requirements, their return
flow has to be discharged into Brush Creek on the site. They have included a pump back to the upstream
end of the property to insure that 5% depletion is taken care of. He stated they are trying to enhance the
in-stream flows on the project site. He stated their pending plans have incorporated the same comments.
Mr. Ferguson spoke to the 208 plan and the consolidation. At this point because ofthe water
court decree the only place they can place the a wastewater facility is on the project site. The site was
selected to protect the in-stream flows. He stated there was a question on whether to provide a land
treatment process. He stated the Town of Eagle would not agree with their land treatment process so
they decided not to include it.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the 200 taps with possibility of 43 additional taps.
Mr. Ferguson discussed the 1983 agreement actually covered a total of 440 taps, 200 were
allocated to the golf course, 240 were allocated to what was known as Mill Park, which is now known as
the Bluffs in Eagle. The Mill Park Bluffs has been approved for 198 units, which results in 42 taps still
unused but being allocated to Mill Park. He stated the time to apply for a transfer of taps from Mill Park
to the golf course has expired. He related those additional 42 taps have been paid for in 1983.
Commissioner Johnson asked about the development being located in an over appropriated
stream system. He stated the applicant is actually putting the water back in the stream system in an area
where the water has been over appropriated. He asked if that was correct.
Mr. Ferguson stated the plan for augmentation was designed to make sure there is not an increase
in the depletion of the stream. He stated they want to maintain the current stream flow and also enhance
the stream flows. He related the court decrees have satisfied the State Engineer regarding water usage.
Chairman Stone suggested another major issue is going to be with the Eagle Area Plans and the
Master Plans. He asked how long it will take to review those.
Mr. Knight stated they have a summary of their comments in writing and some other map
information for the Board. He suggested they would present those this evening, for the Board to review
and then they will give their presentation at the next meeting.
17
01-18-2000
Chairman Stone stated the first person on the list is John Swanson. He suggested that if there are
people who want to be present at the next hearing they may want to wait to comment.
John Swanson, a resident of Eagle County, stated he was at the Planning Commission meeting.
He questioned what is logical rational development. He made the correlation between Mr. Kummer
having a child and raising it to an adult. He spoke to the child in the ocean. He stated Mr. Kummer has
tried to do the logical thing, giving up the ski area. He commended him for giving the land to the
County. He spoke to Mr. Kummer's desire for the rest ofthe land, it going to the Town of Eagle and
now is corning back. He suggested if they spent the next ten years they won't have a plan that everyone
agrees to. It is logical that the Brush Creek area will be developed. He stated there is some tweaking
that may need to be done and hopes the Board will approve it. He spoke to the Planning Commissions
question of how much golf does the community need. He doesn't believe that is for us to decide. Mr.
Kummer will have to pay the price. He thinks there are a lot of things the development team has done to
bring this to the Board and they have listened with an open mind. It will boil down to emotions. He
spoke to the subdivision in Gypsum being closer to Eagle than this one.
Anne Egan, area resident, asked to address some of the same things as addressed by Mr.
Swanson. She stated she has an opposite view point and believes it is unrealistic to leap frog up the
valley. She stated they have described this as low density but it is zoned resource which would be 31
houses and is now being proposed as 315 units. That is a ten fold increase. She stated she does not
consider that low density. She stated the main thing she wants to address tonight is asking the Board
deny approval of a project for Mr. Kummer because it was not presented all at once. She questioned
why are we here for a partial proposal for all of his land holdings.
Commissioner Johnson stated that was not the only reason the proposal was turned down and
asked that the next time Mr. Kummer carne in with that proposal he was to show the entire proposal.
Ms. Egan asked how it was turned down.
Jim Fritze suggested it was turned down as the Board believed the proposal did not conform to
the approval criteria.
Willie Powell, Eagle Town Manager, stated he would wait until the next hearing to make his
comments.
Rosie Sherwood, area resident, stated she would like to speak again to the Master Plan issues.
She stated she has some issues with the Master Plan and the Eagle Area Community Plan. She believes
this proposal does not conform to those plans and is anxious to hear about those. She thanked the Board
for their participation in acquiring the East/West Brush Creek and believes we will all see the benefit
fifty years down the road. She suggested we need to pay close attention to the property development in
the next fifty years. She stated this is a prime area and the first one for this corridor. She asked when
the Board does the site visit, one of the Planning Commission members expressed concern with the
visual aspects on the southwest portion. She asked they look at the density and see how that will fit in
there. She spoke to the bear habitat and Frost Creek. She stated she agrees with staff that this could
have been developed with less density and not around a golf course. She suggested perhaps an
equestrian development.
Christi Banowitz, not a resident of the Eagle proper area, has decided that every project in this
County effects her personally in her life. She has visited this land, gone to the meetings and read the
staff report and reviewed the sketch plan. She believes this project fits the land and the land fits the
project. She recommends they approve the project knowing that development is corning. She thinks it
would be sad if this does not go forward. She stated she has been watching this valley since 1983 and
believes that the County has done a good job in its development approval.
Chairman Stone stated he would like to have a site visit.
Mr. Fritze stated a site visit is a continuation and that should be continued to the date and time so
the public can be present. Testimony will not be taken but it will be open to the public. He suggested
they should then also set the date of the continued hearing.
18
01-18-2000
Commissioner Johnson asked what makes sense as far as the site visit.
Paul Clarkson suggested the site visit can be on any day the Board chooses.
Commissioner Johnson suggested there is an opening at 3:30 next Monday.
Mr. Clarkson suggested allowing 2 hours for the site visit.
Mr. Fritze voiced a concern with the day light.
Mr. Clarkson stated on Monday, the 31 st, there are two planning files scheduled and Ute Creek
may be as well.
Commissioner Johnson suggested they do a brown bag lunch and return by about 2:30. That
would be on the 31 st and then the meeting would be on the 7th.
Mr. Knight suggested the sooner the better.
Commissioner Johnson stated if they do the site visit, came back to open the hearing only to set
the date ofthe next hearing would that meet the letter and spirit of the law.
Mr. Fritze stated that would be appropriate. He explained that after the conclusion of the site
visit the Board will set the date for the continuation of the hearing.
Commissioner Johnson suggested they could set the date at the meeting of the 24th.
Mr. Fritze stated they should continue it to the 31 st.
Commissioner Johnson moved the Board continue file PDS-00018, Adams Rib, Frost Creek, for
a site visit at approximately noon on January 31, 2000, and set the hearing date for approximately 3 :00
p.m. that same afternoon.
Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous.
Chairman Stone suggested unless the Commissioners see otherwise, he doesn't believe it would
be necessary to have the wildlife consultant present.
Mr. Knight stated he has the hand out for the Board.
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
January 24, 2000.
Attest: d~Q
Clerk to the Boa d
~e.~
19
01-18-2000