The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 10/02/2000 Present: Tom C. Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher James R. Fritze Jack Ingstad Sara Fisher GENERAL FUND 2000 CPHAlPHNAC CONF 4 EAGLE RANCH A 1 COLLECTION AGENCY AAA COLLECTORS AAAA SEPTIC PUMPING PORTA ABEL BAND RUSSELL COLLIER ABELMAN LAW OFFICES ADAM SOMMERS AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INC ALEX CUNNINGHAM ALLlANT FOOD SERVICE ALLISON WRIGHT ALMA VARELA ALPHA INTERACTIVE GROUP ALPINE MEADOWS ANIMAL AMAIKEYE PRODUCTIVITY CTR AMADEO GONZALES AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY AMERICAN FURNITURE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC AMERICAN TOWER CORP AMERICINN LODGE & SUITES ANGELA WURTSMITH ANN FEDEROWICZ ANN LOPER APEX SECURITY APPRAISAL INSTITUTE ARCH PAGING ARLISS SIMS ARTWORKS, THE ASPEN BUDDY PROGRAM ASSOCIA TION FOR QUALITY AT&T AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES A V TECH ELECTRONICS INC AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS PUBLIC HEARING OCTOBER 2, 2000 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Clerk to the Board SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND REFUND REFUND REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 75.00 7,338.78 66.12 97.94 600.00 50.00 25.00 905.25 36.55 142.00 1,891.74 16.20 55.20 380.00 10.00 4,862.00 55.25 250.00 1,015.24 1,736.90 875.00 538.12 74.43 150.00 196.50 355.50 83.50 96.08 4.95 1,044.00 250.00 150.00 132.88 139.53 7,274.70 2,593.24 1 10-02-2000 AVON FIRE DEPARTMENT BJROWE BAILEY FUNERAL HOME BARTELL & BARTELL BARTON PINNEY BECKNER ACHZIGER MCGINNIS BEN GALLOWAY MD BENCHMARK ENGINEERING BERNICE WHITE BERT BRATTON BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS BEST WESTERN EAGLE LODGE BEST WESTERN LANDMARK INN BEVERLY KUNKEL BFI STERICYCLE INC BILL LOPEZ BLUE LAKE OWNERS ASSN BLUE OCEAN SOFTWARE BOB BARKER COMPANY BOSSOW RITA R BRATWEAR BRC/HARRlS INC BRIAN O'REILLY BROENING OBERG WOODS BRYAN JEFFERY STONE BUCHHOLZ F AMIL Y BUCK BRANNERMAN CLINIC BUDDIES PROGRAM, THE C SANDERS EMBLEMS CA DEPT OF EDUCATION CALOIA & HOUPT PC CANTAFIO HARDY MOORE CARLA BUDD CARLSON MEISSNER GURLEY CAROLYN HELTZEL CARTER & ALTERMAN CARTER & SANDS P.C. CASA OF THE CONTINENTAL CASTLE PEAK VETERINARY CCO AND ERA CDW COMPUTER CENTERS CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL FIRE PROTECTION CENTRAL V ALLEY PROFESSION CENTURYTEL CGAIT CHARLIE PORTER SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND REFUND SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL EXPD SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 2160.00 57.73 175.00 449.18 11.01 37.42 665.00 4,687.50 134.40 33.83 8.12 1,415.00 770.00 173.40 2,217.34 100.00 1,788.00 1,250.00 406.82 477.54 1,920.00 144.05 1.24 43.02 49.22 1,823.26 250.00 780.00 380.00 5.95 1,181.70 15.02 172.24 10.00 1,000.00 6.75 80.50 500.00 389.12 52,950.72 324.98 1,461.96 1,154.59 875.61 7,349.38 250.00 100.00 2 10-02-2000 CHECKroTERECOVERYSERV CHEMA TOX INC. CHESS CHILD CARE CONNECTIONS CHILD SUPPORT ENFORCEMENT CINDA RAU CIT GROUP CITY MARKET #26 CITY MARKET #34 CLE INTERNATIONAL CLINTON WEHL CO ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION CO ASSOCIATION OF CO AUTO THEFT INESTIGATOR CO BUREAU INVESTIGATION CO DEPT OF HEALTH CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH AND CO PUBLIC HEALTH ASSOC CO STATE SHEroFF'S POSE CO WEST MENTAL HEALTH COLORADO CORONERS COLORADOCOUNTIESINC COLUMBIA PROPANE COM-LINK CONCEPT MEDIA CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING CONTINENTAL COLLECTION CORA THOMPSON CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING CRAWFORD PROPERTIES CREDIT BUREAU ROCKIES CRYSTAL CLEAR SPA POOL DANA SPIGENER DATA TRANSMISSIONS DAVE MOTT DAVID A BAUER DAVID A HOLMGREN DA VID C ADDISON DAVID C JOHNSTON DAVID GUINNEE, DVM DA VID MALDONADO DAYS INN GRAND JUNCTION DDM, INC. DECKER CELLULAR DEENA EZZELL DEEP ROCK WEST REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES REFUND REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REFUND REFUND SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES 5.78 75.00 467.00 55.00 14.88 189.75 4,978.00 6.19 656.63 990.00 117.00 2,515.00 110.00 70.00 66.24 56.00 60.00 410.00 175.00 1,355.00 50.00 900.00 57.95 46.79 486.00 306.96 43.02 25.77 761.86 593.16 2,322.00 25.00 3.72 100.00 279.00 37.50 50.00 589.27 25.00 18.06 1,944.03 4.96 410.00 1,140.50 70.00 192.49 188.28 3 10-02-2000 DELL INC DERRINGER DIANA JOHNSON DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE DOC ON CALL DOCTORS ON CALL DOGS OUTFITTERS DOLORES PEREZ DOLPHIN CAPITAL CORP DOMONIC MEYERS-SCHREINER DON OLSEN DONNA BARNES CORONER DOSIA LAEYENDECKER DOUBLETREE HOTEL DOUG TRAVIS EAGLE AMOCO EAGLE AUTO PARTS EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS EAGLE COUNTY CHARTER EAGLE COUNTY HEALTH AND EAGLE DIRECT EAGLE EYE PHOTO EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE VAIL ANIMAL HOSPITA EAGLE V ALLEY ENTERPRISE EAGLE VALLEY EVENTS EAGLE VALLEY GLASS AND EAGLE VALLEY HS ART DEPT EAGLE VALLEY PET HOSPITAL EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING EAGLEBEND HOUSING EAST WEST RESORTS EBY CREEK ROAD ELAINE WOLF ELEMENT K JOURNALS ELIZABETH ARMBRUSTMACHER ELIZABETH HIMMES ELMO ALVIS EMILIA GONZALEZ EMMA JEAN MADER EMP AMERICA INC EMPLOYERS COUNCIL SERVICE EVES PRINT SHOP EXTENSION PROGRAM FUND FAEGRE & BENSON SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PARTS SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REFUND SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND 2,980.00 800.00 58.50 190,754.00 35.00 555.00 238.34 189.75 137.08 81.90 11.50 16.80 23.40 720.00 185.75 22.78 32.88 4,500.00 8,198.29 2,080.00 500.00 3,274.64 108.20 989.97 101.00 20.00 3,922.76 1,840.33 114.50 500.00 40.13 10,657.75 2.48 1,708.63 1,100.00 71.90 99.00 43.02 58.80 26.61 62.55 51.60 15.00 2,906.92 3,816.47 1,014.50 8.68 4 10-02-2000 F AMIL Y SUPPORT REGISTRY FARMER BROTHERS FARRELL, GOLDSTEIN, FEDER MARCH STUART FEDERAL EXPRESS FILE FINDERS L TD FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICES FIRST BANKS FITZSIMMONS MOTOR COMPANY FLO HABENICHT FOTO FINISH FOX & COMPANY FRANCES TREVIZO FRANK J BALL FRANKLIN COVEY FRANKLIN COVEY CAT SALES FRANZISKA CLEM FRED PRYOR SEMINARS FRENCH WEST WOOD & BROWN GALLS INCORPORATED GARFIELD YOUTH SERVICES GARY ALLAN KRAMER GATES MARGE PHN GENERAL BINDING CORP GIRARD THOMAS A GLENN PADGETT GLENWOOD INDEPENDENT GLENWOOD POST THE GLOBAL COMPUTER SUPPLIES GRACE FINNEY GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND GRAY-STONE CONSTURCTION GREATER EAGLE FIRE PROTEC GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES GRIFFIN FENCE GUARD ALASKA GYPSUM FIRE PROTECTION HANSEN STEVE R HARCOURT HEALTH SCIENCES HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HELEN MIGCHELBRINK HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HILL & TASHIRO MARKETING HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HOLYCROSS ENERGY IBI SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS REIMBURSMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 1,084.86 538.92 8.68 25.00 760.02 30.00 1,650.00 4,943.16 10.00 62.40 63.82 2,375.00 59.98 107.28 114.70 690.47 91.20 374.00 4.96 519.34 375.00 30.62 2,325.00 81.68 5,000.00 75.00 58.00 115.30 63.58 78.00 950.75 114.02 394.20 2,040.00 28.10 990.00 54.41 6,802.50 903.34 23.66 101,099.44 121.26 250.00 800.00 14,355.53 2,908.65 199.00 5 10-02-2000 ICBO IFMA IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS IMPACT PROMOTIONAL PROD. INCENTIVE MARKETING INC INTEGRITY PLUMBING AND INTERMOUNTAIN LANDSCAPING INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL DRUG ISABEL SANCHEZ J A SEXAUER JACQUELINE ALLEN JAMES A BAGLEY JANET BAILEY JEAN NUNN JEANETTE BLANKENSHIP JEFF HUFF JILL BARON JO ANN ALBERTSON JOAN M MAXWELL RN JOBS AVAILABLE JODY CARUTHERS JOHN ARTMAN JOHN ELKINS JOHN ELLIOTT REARDON JOHNRBEATTY JOHN VENGRIN JOHNNETTE PHILLIPS JOHNSON AND HELD L TD JOHNSTONE SUPPLY JOLPHIN CAPITAL CORP JON HARRISON JOSEPH SCHMITT JOSPEH STAIR JOY OF WINNING THE JUNE HICKS K & K LUMBER KARA BETTIS, DEPUTY KAREN LEAVITT KATHERINE PETERSON KA THLEEN SCHMITT KATHY REED KA TRINA L THERNELL KAZ MARKETING INC KELLER WAHLBERG & MORRA TO KEN CARPENTER SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REFUND SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES REFUND SERVICES 875.30 146.45 392.85 7,480.30 529.58 1,963.35 3.72 270.00 8,400.00 1,918.00 4.40 175.44 40.15 79.22 185.90 405.06 4.40 472.47 50.00 133.20 27.71 147.20 135.05 62.78 200.00 25.00 25.00 59.70 500.74 4,856.00 345.29 224.16 275.87 159.60 25.00 95.00 25.00 474.00 102.48 39.33 132.00 84.00 102.16 30.62 1,234.57 1.24 100.00 6 10-02-2000 KENNETH D ROBINSON KENNETH E DAVIDSON KENNETH ROGER WHITE KEVIN CASSIDY KING CAMPBELL DDS KN ENERGY INC KSKE!KZYR RADIO LA QUINT A LAF ARGE CORPORATION LANA ROCHE LARSEN & LYNCH LA~NCEROTENBERG LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC LESLIE KEHMEIER LESLIE VAUGHT D.O. LETN LEWAN AND ASSOCIATES LIL JOHNS WATER TREATMENT LINDA MAGGIORE LKP ENGINEERING INC LONG'S EXCA V A TION INC. LORIS & ASSOCIATES INC LOWEN CORPORATION LYNN PERKINS LYONS KATHLEEN M KELLY LIEKIS RN MACHOL & JOHANNES MAE PITTMAN MAINTENANCE WAREHOUSE MARGIE EPPERSON MARGO PAINTER MARILYN RICE MARK 0 TIDWELL MARLENE MC CAFFERTY MASON CO MATT ROYER MAURI NOTTINGHAM MCCOLLUM PATRICIA MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS MCI WORLDCOM MCKESSON GENERAL MEDICAL MEGAN GROSS MEGAN HAMMER MESA COUNTY HEALTH DEPT METRO CALL MICHELE BASS NELSON MICHELE R COUCH SERVICES REFUND REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND 30.62 49.96 52.32 133.25 469.00 1,364.71 540.00 80.14 772.47 29.82 31.20 29.88 855.79 450.00 638.00 388.00 1,326.00 330.00 37.51 1.24 500.00 630.00 7.59 67.20 11.00 116.03 54.56 328.18 235.08 126.00 54.20 13.00 29.06 269.73 43.75 75.00 156.00 14.38 3,793.75 2,576.18 181.60 98.76 22.30 10.50 377.90 33.72 25.00 7 10-02-2000 MICRO WAREHOUSE MIKE GALLAGHER MILDRED WURTSMITH MILLAR ELEVATOR SERVICE MONSTER.COM MONTAG KEITH P MOORE MEDICAL CORP MOTHERNET AMERICA MOTOR POOL FUND MOTOROLA INCORPORATED MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN PEDDLER MOUNTAIN RADIOLOGY MOUNTAIN STEEL & WELDING MOUNTAIN TEMP SERVICES MOUNTAIN V ALLEY LUTHERAN NATIONAL 4H SUPPLY NATIONAL BUSINESS NATIONAL CREDIT NATIONAL EVIRONMENTAL NATIONAL INFORMATION DATA NETTIE REYNOLDS NEVES UNIFORMS NEW MEXICO EDUCATIONAL NEWARK ELECTRONICS NOBEL SYSCO FOOD SERVICES NORTH SUBURBAN NORTHWEST COLORADO NORWESTBANK NOVELL, INC. NW CO LEGAL SERVICE PROJ OSI COLLECTION SERVICES OTTO, PORTERFIELD, POST OVERLAND AND EXPRESS COMP PALMER COMMUNICATIONS PAPER THERMOMETER COMPANY PARAMOUNT DISTRIBUTORS PATRICIA ANDERSON-HAND PAUL SCOTT PC GUIDES PDS INCORPORATED PETER A RACJESKY PETER SULMEISTERS PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PITNEY BOWES PRECINCT POLICE PRODUCTS PROFESSIONAL FINANCE SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL EXPD SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REFUND 2,812.21 942.83 133.20 611.19 550.00 84.50 171.15 188.80 55,456.52 100.00 408.00 100.00 156.00 340.00 1,193.08 250.00 291.20 1,284.95 50.00 75.00 46.90 266.35 969.20 30.00 40.96 2,756.70 179.77 239.10 230,906.32 2,700.00 125.00 50.00 1.24 812.00 2,675.00 95.00 423.25 49.22 100.00 127.50 8.68 3.10 75.00 488.54 91.25 42.85 25.00 8 10-02-2000 PROTECTORSLTD PSS, INC PUBLIC SERVICE QUALITY INN AT THE MART QUEST DIAGNOSTICS QUILL CORPORATION R L POLK & COMPANY RAUL MUNOZ REDDEN MILLS & CLARK RENTX/EZ WAY IDCHARD COWELL COMPANY IDCHARD J MAHONEY IDCHMOND NEILEY & SPOUSE IDTA PRICKETT ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMEN ROARING FORK KENNEL CLUB ROBERT KURTZMAN DO ROBERT NARRACCI ROCKY MOUNTAIN ROCKY MOUNTAIN TACTICAL ROSIE REYES ROY W PENNY RSC RURAL RESORT REGION RUTH LENZ SACHS LAWLOR SAFE SYSTEMS SALVATION ARMY SAM CARTER SANDYS OFFICE SUPPLY SARA J FISHER SAWAYA AND ROSE SCHUTZMAN NBS INC SCHW AAB SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SHARON SMITH SHELLEY STARK SHERATON COLORADO SPRINGS SHERATON STEAMBOAT RESORT SHE SHUN OFF INFORMATION SHRM SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SKI TALK RADIOS INC DBA SNOWHITE LINEN SONSHINE WINDOW CLEANING SPECIAL PROTECTION INC SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES REFUND REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND REFUND SERVICES REFUND SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 600.00 468.70 67.86 138.00 323.35 771.21 387.00 25.00 10.00 26.00 366.00 8.68 1.24 38.68 1,174.56 175.00 1,432.00 78.33 300.00 600.00 14.95 34.22 88.50 1,000.00 72.00 12.35 92.91 1,000.00 20.40 35.40 148.30 16.98 214.30 30.80 4,099.33 28,810.41 83.82 135.23 450.00 816.00 322.95 160.00 393.02 1,937.00 130.23 1,690.00 680.00 9 10-02-2000 SPIECKER HANLON & GORMLEY SPRINGMAN BRADEN WILSON ST MARYS HOSPITAL STARBUCK SURVEYORS & ENGI STATE FORMS PUBLICATIONS STEPHEN D FOSTER STEVENS HOME CARE INC STONE SHEEHY ROSEN BYRNE STRA WBERRY PATCH SUCCESS IN RECRUITING & SUE MOTT SUMMIT COUNTY SENIORS SUMMIT LUMBER SUSPENSE FUND TEMPLE LAW OFFICES THE DUSTY ROSE THOMAS J MILLER TIMBERLINE A VIA TION TINA BURKEY TITO PENA TOWN OF EAGLE TOWN OF VAIL TOY A LUTZ TRANSCOR AMERICA INC TRI COUNTY FIRE UNISOURCE MAINTENANCE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED REPROGRAPHIC UNIV COLORADO AT BOULDER UNIVERSAL DEFENSE UNIVERSITY OF MISSOURI UNIVERSTIY PHYSICIANS INC US LATEX PRODUCTS US WEST COMMUNICATIONS VAIL ASSOCIATES VAIL DAILY THE VAIL ELECTRONICS V AIL MOUNTAIN RESCUE GROU VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL V AIL TRAIL THE VAIL VALLEY EMERGENCY V AIL V ALLEY GARAGE DOOR VAIL VALLEY JET CENTER VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTR V AILNET INC VALASKAREN VALLEY LUMBER REFUND REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES PAYROLL EXPD REFUND SERVICES REFUND REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES 15.00 9.46 44.00 568.00 106.86 22.52 1,480.00 18.42 139.00 96.00 330.00 2,196.00 287.40 4,224.24 109.22 40.00 25.00 9,261.37 490.92 500.00 20,795.50 86,500.00 25.00 1,513.34 485.00 195.80 351.39 450.99 80.00 127.36 900.00 61.75 552.00 4,448.71 500.00 8,031.88 317.90 379.45 2,080.00 1,003.00 990.00 1,560.98 559.35 2,099.21 649.10 13.98 85.22 10 10-02-2000 V ALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL SERVICES 75.00 V AN DlEST SUPPLY COMPANY SERVICES 1,732.70 VERBAL JUDO INSTITUTE SERVICES 173.95 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICES 2,822.10 VI BROWN SERVICES 159.60 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS SUPPLIES 20.75 VILLAGE AT BRECKENRIDGE SERVICES 216.00 VIRGINIA CERISE SERVICES 26.00 VOLUNTEER SOFTWARE SERVICES 550.00 WAKEFIELD & ASSOCIATES REFUND 2.48 WALMART AVON SUPPLIES 7.50 WALMART GLENWOOD SUPPLIES 240.10 WARD BUILDERS INC REFUND 25.00 WAYNE CARLEY SERVICES 2,238.00 WEAR GUARD CORPORATION SERVICES 591.43 WENDY BOGNER SERVICES 25.00 WEST PUBLISHING SERVICES 518.00 WESTERN MOUNTAIN ROOFING SERVICES 400.00 WESTERN SLOPE PUBLICATION SERVICES 1,342.07 WESTWORLD SERVICES 1,250.00 WHITE RIVER INSTITUTE SERVICES 750.00 WILLIAM CLEM SERVICES 14.40 WILLIAM LOPER SERVICES 61.80 WINTER PARK MOUNTAIN LDGE SERVICES 165.00 WINTERSET AGENCY SERVICES 750.00 WISHES TOY STORE SERVICES 3,342.61 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 88.07 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICES 3,215.10 Y AMP A V ALLEY ELECTRIC SERVICES 37.12 YOUR PERSONAL CHEF SERVICES 419.25 ZARLENGO, MOTT & ZARLENGO REFUND 40.54 ZERO TO THREE SERVICES 60.00 ZUKOWSKI ROGERS FLOOD REFUND 25.00 PAYROLL FOR SEPTEMBER PAYROLL 18 & 19 512,801.14 1,642,668.20 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND BOGUE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 35,214.73 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 4,542.01 CENTRAL SERVICESIEC SERVICES 71.39 COLORADO COUNTIES INC SERVICES 300.00 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICES 10.75 EAGLE PHARMACY SUPPLIES 4.49 EAGLE V ALLEY ENTERPRISE SERVICES 35.00 11 10-02-2000 GONZALES CONSTRUCTION CO. SERVICES 68,024.00 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND SERVICES 111.00 HARRYS HEAVY HAULERS SERVICES 34,876.21 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 10,998.47 HELLERSTEIN & SHORE PC SERVICES 549.29 JAMES K FITTS SERVICES 250.00 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICES 95.00 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 154,185.30 NORTHWEST PIPE COMPANY PARTS 1,305.50 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPD 21,285.83 RANDY SCHLEGEL SERVICES 2,912.50 ROTO-ROOTER SERVICES 111.03 SUSPENSE FUND PAYROLL EXPD 200.00 V ALLEY LUMBER SERVICES 6.48 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 5,073.86 PAYROLL FOR SEPTEMBER PAYROLL 18 & 19 48,666.45 388,829.29 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND ARLISS SIMS REIMBURSEMENT 4.05 CAROL PROFFITT SERVICES 29.00 CATHERINE CRAIG SERVICES 119.00 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 4,311.86 CENTRAL SERVICESIEC SERVICES 366.14 CSED SERVICES 309.36 EAGLE COUNTY ATTORNEY SERVICES 1,597.75 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 363.59 EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF SERVICES 67.94 EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING SERVICES 821.25 FRANKLIN COVEY SERVICES 39.07 GILLILAND COUNSELING SERVICES 210.00 HEAL TH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 8,279.69 INDRA KIRSTEIN SERVICES 41.60 INTEGRITY PLUMBING AND SERVICES 1,532.01 ISABEL SANCHEZ SERVICES 3.60 JANICE K OKELLEY REIMBURSEMENT 29.90 JEANETTE BLANKENSHIP REIMBURSEMENT 3.60 JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFFS SERVICES 34.65 JERRI OLSON SERVICES 73.13 JOSE BANUELOS SERVICES 1,050.00 KAREN LAJOY SMITH MA LPC SERVICES 250.00 KATHY REED SERVICES 187.85 LABORATORY CORPORATION OF SERVICES 171. 00 LYONS KATHLEEN REIMBURSEMENT 66.80 12 10-02-2000 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 1,269.84 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPD 15,791.03 QUILL CORPORA nON SUPPLIES 231.56 RENEE FIELDS SERVICES 351.33 RITA WOODS ADVANCE 67.85 ROSIE REYES REIMBURSEMENT 9.45 SANDY ALFRED SERVICES 38.85 SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SUPPLIES 14.26 SSTABS CONFERENCE SERVICES 190.00 SUSPENSE FUND PAYROLL EXPD 194.22 TERRYL L DONOVAN SERVICES 75.40 VANASK WAREHOUSE COMPANY SERVICES 142.20 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICES 157.06 WRAP FUND SERVICES 10,000.00 PAYROLL FOR SEPTEMBER PAYROLL 18 & 19 30,350.05 78,845.94 WRAP FUND CITY MARKET #34 SUPPLIES 400.00 CO WEST MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 172.50 LUZFORD SERVICES 350.00 THE LEARNING CAMP SERVICES 2,400.00 WALMART AVON SUPPLIES 200.00 WECMRD SERVICES 104.00 3,626.50 RETIREMENT FUND CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 46,323.38 46,323.38 INSURANCE RESERVE FUND AUSTIN PEIRCE SMITH SERVICES 423.00 COUNTY TECHNICAL SERVICES SERVICES 5,213.00 CTSI VOLUNTEER INSURANCE SERVICES 1,849.10 7,485.10 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND ABC SIGN WORKS SERVICES 27.00 13 10-02-2000 BAI/BRAUN ASSOCIATES INC SERVICES 22,252.28 EAGLE SUMMIT NEWSPAPERS SERVICES 249.20 EAGLE V ALLEY ENTERPRISE SERVICES 309.78 FULLER CONSULTING SERVICE SERVICES 1,820.70 GIBSON RENO ARCHITECTS SERVICES 18,559.74 JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC SERVICES 7,519.98 MARCIN ENGINEERING INC SERVICES 33,282.15 MKK CONSULTING ENGINEERS SERVICES 460.00 NORRIS DULLEA COMPANY SERVICES 27,062.58 ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMEN SERVICES 2,205.27 TOWN OF VAIL SERVICES 1,323.29 VAIL DAILY THE SERVICES 249.20 WESTON SERVICES 600.00 115,921.17 SALES TAX E.V. TRANSP. AIR TOUCH CELLULAR SERVICES 53.20 AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES 256.00 ANNETTE PRESSLEY SERVICES 1,360.00 BERTHODS, INC SERVICES 1,250.00 CARTER & ALTERMAN SERVICES 1,675.00 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 245.48 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICES 63.60 COPY COpy SERVICES 135.70 D & M MAINTENANCE SERVICE SERVICES 120.00 EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICES 852.75 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SERVICES 10.80 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,128.58 HILL & TASHIRO MARKETING SERVICES 6,474.55 HOLYCROSS ENERGY SERVICES 2.30 JANET FIELD REIMBURSEMENT 100.80 JIM LAIR REIMBURSEMENT 605.47 MCI TELECOMMUNICA nONS SERVICES 38.02 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 1,411.83 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPD 3,429.71 PUBLIC SERVICE SERVICES 34.80 QUILL CORPORA nON SUPPLIES 266.48 SUSPENSE FUND PAYROLL EXPD 78.34 TOWN OF AVON SERVICES 151,354.85 US WEST COMMUNICA nONS SERVICES 278.37 PAYROLL FOR SEPTEMBER PAYROLL 18 & 19 7,615.60 178,842.23 14 10-02-2000 SALES TAX E.V. TRAILS CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 113.86 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICES 317.20 COPY COpy SERVICES 154.76 EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICES 183.93 FEDERAL EXPRESS SERVICES 7.80 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 103.70 HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNI SERVICES 1,692.90 IMPACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS SERVICES 998.00 MARCIN ENGINEERING INC SERVICES 7,349.00 MONROE & NEWELL SERVICES 90.00 NOBEL SYSCO FOOD SERVICES SUPPLIES 364.74 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPD 714.89 SEARL CONSTRUCTION LLC SERVICES 73,836.19 85,926.97 SALES TAX R.F.V. TRANSP. ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGEN SERVICES 58,500.00 58,500.00 AIRPORT FUND ACE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY SERVICES 466.80 AIRPORT REVENUE FUND SERVICES 1,500.00 ALL PHASE SERVICES 211.91 ALLISON SYSTEMS INC SERVICES 1,090.00 AMERICAN ASSOC AIRPORT SERVICES 1,475.00 AMERICINN LODGE & SUITES SERVICES 92.46 BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS SERVICES 912.50 BRENT SERVICES SERVICES 23.09 BRINKLEY ELECTRIC INC SERVICES 686.75 BROWNING FERRIS IND SERVICES 290.58 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 2,296.97 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICES 205.74 CENTURYTEL SERVICES 2,933.53 CHIEF SUPPLY SERVICES 214.95 CLERK EAGLE COUNTY COURT SERVICES 471.52 CO AIRPORT OPERATORS ASSN SERVICES 175.00 COLLETTS SERVICES 1,510.40 COLUMBINE MARKET SUPPLIES 100.56 DAY TIMERS INCORPORATED SERVICES 344.49 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICES 41.90 DOMINIQUE FURGUSON REIMBURSEMENT 227.50 15 10-02-2000 EAGLE AUTO PARTS EAGLECOUNTYPURCHASmG EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE V ALLEY ENTERPRISE EAGLE VALLEY HARDWARE EDDIE STORER FOX VALLEY SYSTEMS mc GALLSmCORPORATED GRANITE CONSTRUCTION GYPSUM TOWN OF HEALTH mSURANCE FUND HERTZ CORPORATION HOLIDAY INN I CASPER HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC INTERMOUNTAIN SWEEPER JAMES P ELWOOD JAY MAX SALES KN ENERGY mc LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS mc M&MAUTOPARTS MARKOS PIZZERIA MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC MIKE KERST MOTOR POOL FUND MUL TI ELECTRIC MFG mc NATRONA COUNTY AIRPORT NORWEST BANK OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION OVERLAND AND EXPRESS COMP PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & SCOTT GRIFFIN SEARS SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY SNOW KING INN STEWART & STEVENSON POWER UNISOURCE MAINTENANCE VAIL VALLEY JET CENTER V AN SANT GROUP VERIZON WIRELESS, WAGNER RENTS WESTERN SLOPE PUBLICATION WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XEROX CORPORATION PARTS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL EXPD SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES 3.84 324.48 27.00 51.30 12.48 980.95 390.10 1,367.08 282,375.95 259.65 3,806.02 660.82 80.75 5.88 905.00 187.34 1,176.00 43.91 607.34 648.14 29.18 238.43 25,744.00 64.85 1,367.10 345.00 3,199.14 9,235.66 271.41 583.80 64.07 152,201.31 69.55 177.97 1,105.95 125.35 8,965.93 25.00 9,075.21 2,402.99 145.81 110.40 24.00 302.95 108.15 PAYROLL FOR SEPTEMBER PAYROLL 18 & 19 21,639.46 16 10-02-2000 546,808.35 MICROWAVE MAINTENANCE FUND LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICES 1,125.00 1,125.00 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FUND CHOICE SOLUTIONS SERVICES 36,165.00 DELL INC SERVICES 3,115.00 OFFICE SCAPES SERVICES 955.48 40,235.48 HOUSING FUND EAGLE EYE PHOTO SERVICES 18.07 18.07 LANDFILL FUND BROWNING FERRIS IND SERVICES 34,300.00 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 1,184.41 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICES 52.60 CO DEPT HEALTH SERVICES 185.00 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICES 125.60 DOWN V ALLEY SEPTIC SERVICES 350.00 EAGLE AUTO PARTS PARTS 6.78 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 44.71 GONZALES CONSTRUCTION CO. SERVICES 6,915.80 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,635.73 KRW CONSULTING INC SERVICES 4,464.90 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 74,117.89 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPD 4,816.26 ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMEN SERVICES 13,715.77 SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SERVICES 1,599.28 SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLIES 18.98 SUSPENSE FUND PA YROLL EXPD 38.46 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICES 569.00 YARGER SERVICES LLC SERVICES 125.00 PAYROLL FOR SEPTEMBER PAYROLL 18 & 19 11,921.12 158,187.29 17 10-02-2000 MOTOR POOL FUND CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS SERVICES 368.70 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 992.41 CENTURY EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICES 111.60 COLLETTS SERVICES 32,464.97 EAGLE AUTO PARTS PARTS 2,670.68 ELLEN EQUIPMENT CORP SERVICES 523.58 FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY SERVICES 230.76 FARIS MACHINERY CO SERVICES 570.00 FITZSIMMONS MOTOR COMPANY SERVICES 10.00 GAY JOHN SONS INC SERVICES 2,044.79 GLENWOOD SPRINGS FORD SERVICES 18.40 HANSON EQUIPMENT SERVICES 401.16 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,302.37 HONNEN EQUIPMENT SERVICES 12,878.54 JAY MAX SALES SERVICES 135.54 KAR PRODUCTS INCORPORATED SERVICES 18.40 LEATRICE VASTEN SERVICES 19.25 MAACO AUTO PAINTING SERVICES 1,150.00 MAC TOOLS SERVICES 1,274.95 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 8,610.41 NORWESTBANK PAYROLL EXPD 6,476.13 OVERLAND AND EXPRESS COMP SERVICES 828.00 POWER MOTIVE SERVICES 420.51 REY MOTORS INCORPORATED SERVICES 145.60 SAFETY KLEEN SERVICES 122.94 SNAP ON TOOLS SERVICES 4,796.00 TWO RIVERS CHEVROLET SERVICES 185.40 UNITED STATE WELDING INC. SERVICES 271.04 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICES 3,543.90 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 11. 79 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY SERVICES 51.41 PAYROLL FOR SEPTEMBER PAYROLL 18 & 19 15,104.78 99,754.01 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND ALPINE BANK EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 154,000.00 DENMAN GREY AND COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 19,707.24 PROVIDENT LIFE/ACCIDENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,654.00 UNITED STATES LIFE INS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,230.00 179,591.24 18 10-02-2000 ENHANCED E911 FUND AT & T LANGUAGE LINE CENTURYTEL JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC US WEST COMMUNICA nONS SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 50.00 342.70 1,717.50 4,824.59 6,934.79 $3,639,623.01 This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the first item is an "Executive Session". The time was noted at 8:37 a.m. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn in an "Executive Session" to discuss the following: I) Discuss litigation regarding the Allen Estate. 2) Receive legal advice regarding releases for participation in Airport emergency exercise. 3) Receive legal advice regarding Adam's Rib Frost Creek special district service plan hearings. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Pro-tem Phillips reconvened the meeting. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from the "Executive Session" and reconvene into the regular meeting. The time was noted at 9:09 a.m. Chairman Pro-tern Phillips seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone was not present at this time. Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the first item on the agenda was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of October 2, 2000, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for October 5, 2000, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of September 18, 2000 D) Phase I Enhanced 911 Service Agreement E) Memorandum of Understanding between BLM and Eagle County for clean-up of illegal dump sites on BLM property F) Agreement for bus shelter solar lighting. Chairman Stone asked the Attorney's Office if everything was in order. Robert Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, stated it is. Commissioner Phillips stated she had corrections to the minutes of the September 18, 2000 minutes, on page 6, it states "in lieu payment" and it should read in "lieu of payment". Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent calendar as presented with the changes to the minutes as stated. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion for discussion. He stated he disagrees with the 19 1 0-02- 2000 correction to the minutes. He asks it read "payment in lieu of'. Commissioner Phillips concurred with the change in the correction to the minutes. Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Chairman Stone asked if it is possible to list the plats and resolutions to be signed so that they will appear on the regular agenda and be on the web. Mr. Gennett stated he doesn't know why they can't, but that there is occasionally one that comes in at the last minute. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated they certainly can, but there are times that items get added in late or deleted at the last minute. All agreed to list those on the agendas. Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: AFP-OOI04. Cordillera Subdivision. Filing No. 29. He stated this was an Amended Final Plat, the intent of which is to enlarge the building envelope to accommodate an existing overhang. Staff findings are as show on staff report and 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. 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 Gallagher moved to approve final plat file number AFP-00104, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No. 29, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-137. Approving An Amendment To The Red Rock Ranch Planned Unit Development - Eagle County File No. PDA-00029. The Board considered the PUD Amendment application and associated plans at its public meeting on September 18th, 2000. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-137, approving an amendment to the Red Rock Ranch PUD, File Number PDA-00029. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-138, Mountain Glen Housing Revenue Bond David Carter, Housing Director and Jack Gardner, Bond Counsel, presented Resolution 2000- 138, approving the issuance by Mountain Glen Housing Corporation of Multifamily Housing Project Revenue Bonds (GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Program) Series 2000, in an aggregate principal amount of $10,165,000, authorizing a Project Agreement, a Financing Agreement, a Mortgage, a Mortgage Note and a Residual Receipts Note, and authorizing incidental action. 20 10-02-2000 Mr. Carter stated this project is ready to move forward. There are some issues that require follow-up action at the Board meeting later today. There are certain actions the County needs to take, but these are not County bonds. The only obligation for repayment is for the corporation itself and the bonds are their responsibility. He introduced Jack Gardner, Bond Counsel, to explain the resolution. Mr. Gardner stated the resolution approves three debt instruments, the majority of them the bonds. Payments on the mortgage will pay the bonds. He stated the residual receipts note will be delivered to the developer with the maximum amount being $550,000. The closing will occur by the end of the year and the actual amount then determined. He stated the Board is also asked to approve the project agreement between the County and the project so that when the debt is paid, title will come back to the County free of all encumbrances. He spoke to the financing agreement and the mortgage note and explained the trust indenture between the corporation and the Bank of Cherry Creek. He pointed to section 5 which is the County determination required by the Federal Tax laws regarding acceptance of the title when it is paid off. Chairman Stone questioned the difficulties with this coming forward. Because Mr. Carter brought before them some information for future 6320 approvals, he asked for direction and asked if they can have written up guidelines that will make it easier. Mr. Carter responded saying the short answer is this is the first the County has done. There has been no equity or no supported debt. If there is default, HUD will guarantee the bonds and that has been a long and extended process. He stated the developer had worked with HUD and thought it would happen more quickly. He stated there have been other issues to resolve. Chairman Stone asked how this compares with the Lake Creek Village equity. Mr. Carter stated he has been hassling with the fees involved and those who want to charge the fees. He stated Lake Creek was the first one the County did. For the apartment projects, the County has required employee housing of the developers, and because they had the additional commitment, they got the developers to buy the junior debt. He stated the advantage is its lowest on the totem pole and allowed the bonds to be sold out on the open market. He suggested this was a degree of protection which took the place of the equity. Mr. Gardner stated with the junior debt the senior bonds were more available. The HUD way has brought a lot to the project and gives a AAA guarantee. Even though the Lake Creek structure is more complicated in terms of possible risk, it can be done more quickly and more controlled. There was no waiting for approval which held them up about eight weeks. Mr. Loeffler stated he wants to be sure that everyone understands they are approving the sale of the bonds, but it doesn't mean that they'll be on the job site in two weeks building apartments. He stated another difficulty is that HUD has committed to support the insurance of the bonds and until that happens, nothing will be done. If it gets approved it will move forward but the mortgage may not close until December. There will be some time before the work starts. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve Resolution 2000-138, approving the issuance by Mountain Glen Housing Corporation of Multifamily Housing Project Revenue Bonds (GNMA Mortgage Backed Securities Program) Series 2000, in an aggregate principal amount of$10,165,000, authorizing a Project Agreement, a Financing Agreement, a Mortgage, a Mortgage Note and a Residual Receipts Note, and authorizing incidental action. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-139, Amendment 21, Tax Cut Chairman Stone stated the next item is Resolution 2000-139, opposition to Amendment 21 Tax Cut. He spoke to the meeting held last Tuesday regarding this issue and the opportunity for public comment. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the updated resolution and the addition of the finance 21 10-02-2000 departments information regarding the impacts to Eagle County. Chairman Stone asked for further public comment. Steve Morris, area resident, stated he has been very quite during the last few months and he is not here to tell the Board what he thinks as he is here to learn from them. He stated he voices his concerns and beliefs via the newspaper. He stated in this instance he would like to voice that he is against the proposed Amendment. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-139, expressing the Board's opposition to Amendment 21, Tax Cut. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution, Amendment 24 Chairman Stone spoke to Amendment 24 and the meeting they had this morning regarding this issue. He spoke to CCI and their desire to have a vote from the Counties on their position. He stated they can make a decision as a group or individually to support, oppose, or remain neutral. He stated they can also make a determination as to whether they want their position to be made public. Chairman Stone asked the Board for their positions. Commissioner Gallagher stated he believes they should make a public statement as a group to oppose Amendment 24. Commissioner Phillips stated she thinks this is the right problem but the wrong solution and opposes the Amendment. She stated she would like to vote as a unit. Chairman Stone stated he agrees and believes this is too restrictive an action to be taken. He asked if they should take action today. Mr. Ingstad stated he would like to see them take formal action today with the resolution to come before the Board in a week and reflect their position and concerns. Commissioner Phillips moved to oppose Amendment 24, as a Board of County Commissioners, to make that position known, and to vote as a Board on Friday, October 6th accordingly with CCI, while directing staff to draft a resolution incorporating the Board's comments and opposition of Amendment 24. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item is the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows explaining the change in procedures that does not require all license holders to be present for the hearings: A) Troon, Inc. dbalBristol at Arrowhead Renewal of a hotel and restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located along Highway 6 in Arrowhead, Edwards. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Gashouse, Inc. dba/Gashouse Restaurant Renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located along Highway 6 in Edwards. There have been no complaints or 22 10-02-2000 disturbances during the past year. C) Vail Food Services, Inc. dba/Eagle's Nest Restaurant Renewal of a hotel & restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located on Vail Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. D) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. dbalInn at Beaver Creek Renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located At 10 Elk Track Road in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. E) Golden Eagle Inn, Inc. dba/Golden Eagle Inn Renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located at 50 Promenade along the plaza at Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. F) Kotobuki, Inc. dba/Sushi Ya Go Go Renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located at 60 EI Jebel Road, along Highway 82. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Gallagher pointed out that these are renewals of the hotel restaurant licenses. Commissioner Phillips suggested separate motions might be helpful as some do have optional premises. Ms. Roach stated the consent agenda is a published item. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for October 2, 2000, as presented. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mid-Vail Restaurant Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented a modification of premises for Vail Food Services, Inc., dba/Mid- Vail Restaurant. She stated the applicant proposed to delete the optional premise known as the Dog Haus. This application is in order and all fees have been paid. Julie Papangelis, applicant, was present for the hearing on behalf of Vail Food Services. She stated they wish to delete the Dog Haus because of staffing issues. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the sketches and related he is not familiar with the location of the restaurants on the mountain. He asked if there was a map of the mountain showing the mountain, the restaurants and the optionals. There was discussion about the location in relation to the mountain. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve a modification of premises for Vail Food Services, Inc., dba/Mid Vail Restaurant, deleting the optional premise known as the Dog Haus. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Two Elk Restaurant Earlene Roach presented a modification of premises for Vail Food Services, Inc., dba/Two Elk Restaurant. The applicant proposes to delete the optional premise known as the Wok-n-Roll from their licensed premises. This application is in order and all fees have been paid. 23 10-02-2000 Ms. Papangelis stated there will no longer be food or drink service. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the modification of premises for Vail Food Services, Inc., dba/Two Elk Restaurant, deleting the optional premise known as Wok-n-Roll. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. South Forty Liquors Earlene Roach presented a transfer of ownership of a retail liquor store license for Edwards Discount Liquors, Inc., dba/South Forty Liquors. She stated this application is in order and all fees have been paid. The applicants are reported to be of good moral character. Larry Eskwith, applicant, was present for the hearing. Commissioner Phillips asked if there have been any additional problems since the sting applications. Ms. Roach explained that Cindy Eskwith and Carl Deitz were the previous owners and that does not pertain to the new owners. Mr. Eskwith stated that they are actually trying to sell the liquor store and that his wife no longer wants to be associated with the liquor business. He stated they sold Edwards Liquors and were never stung. He stated he has advised the Town of Vail regarding liquor licenses for the past 15 years. He spoke to the TIPS classes and additional classes he has taken regarding serving responsibility. He spoke to his meetings with employees regarding carding for liquor sales. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the transfer of ownership of a retail liquor store license for Edwards Discount Liquors, Inc., dba/South Forty Liquors. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Wild Horse Bistro Catering Earlene Roach presented a new application for a new PRIVATE hotel and restaurant license for Wild Horse Bistro, Inc., dba/Wild Horse Catering. The applicants are reported to be of good moral character. The first order of business is to establish the neighborhood. The applicant used the Edwards area, so from the establishment in a two mile radius would be appropriate. Sandy Treat, Bill McFarlane and Dan Seifers, applicants, were present for the hearing. Sandy Treat explained they have the restaurant located in the Inn at Riverwalk. He explained there are suites available for business meetings and group functions and they would like to handle the service next door. He stated that is why they are looking for a new license for the area next door. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the maps. Mr. Treat stated they are looking to license the third floor and then parts of the second floor. He explained the requirement to license the hallways, elevator and storage closet. Commissioner Gallagher asked how close the building is to the current restaurant. Mr. Treat explained it is right next door. They use the basement entrance. Commissioner Gallagher asked if every caterer has to have a liquor license for every place they intend on serving alcohol. Ms. Roach stated this applicant could not obtain an optional premise as their premise does not relate to recreation. In the State of Colorado there is no alcohol catering license. Therefore this applicant had to apply for a new license in order to serve in the meeting rooms and in the suites. Commissioner Phillips asked about the names on the petition. Ms. Roach stated the petition has approximately 100 signatures. All 100 signatures are from Edwards, 10 of those are businesses, Gorsuch Outfitters, San Isabel Telecom, Axis Salon, Abode, National Velvet, Alpine Ambiance, Riverwalk Theater, Mega Star, B & B and Summit Habitats. Commissioner Phillips asked what makes this a good thing for them. 24 10-02-2000 Mr. McFarlane explained there is often a desire for private functions such as weddings and this will allow them to provide that service along with service for conventions and hotel guests. Mr. Treat stated it is an incentive for the hotel as well as many guests want to have accommodations with food and beverage service and places for meetings. Commissioner Phillips moved to establish the neighborhood as from the establishment as the Edwards PUD, for Wild Horse Bistro, Inc., dba/Wild Horse Bistro Catering. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to establish the needs of the neighborhood as evidenced by testimony and the submitted petition. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips asked if all three will be involved with operating the establishment. Mr. McFarlane explained that Dan Seifers will be the day to day manager. He expalined they have been catering food for about six to seven months. He stated he has been in the food service business since he was sixteen and he was the manager at the Inn at Beaver Creek before he started with Wild Horse Bistro. Commissioner Gallagher asked about staffing for catering services. He asked what they will do about training those people in TIPS. Mr. McFarlane stated right now they use the staff they have from the Bistro and will schedule them for catering hours. He stated in the future they might have to hire additional employees. Commissioner Gallagher stated he wants to emphacise the importance of TIPS training. Mr. Treat stated they will use their additional staff for these functions. Mr. McFarlane stated they will make sure that all employees are TIPS trained. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve a new PRIV A TE hotel and restaurant license for Wild Horse Bistro, Inc., dba/Wild Horse Bistro Catering. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. AFP-00099, Mountain Meadow Ranch, Second Filing, Lot 34 Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number AFP-00099, Mountain Meadow Ranch, Second Filing, Lot 34 stating the applicant has withdrawn this application. Chairman Stone stated they will not open the file nor take any action at this time. SMA-00012, Valley View Clinic Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented file number SMA-00012, Valley View Clinic. He stated Crawford Properties, LLC, is applying for a Minor Type A Subdivision to create a lot on a previously unplatted parcel for the purpose of constructing a Medical Clinic in the unincorporated community of EI Jebel. The first phase of the project will involve the construction of a 10,000 square foot building and two parking lots with a total of forty one (41) vehicle spaces. A second phase will add an additional 10,000 square feet and another twenty four (24) parking spaces. Parking lots will be accessed from Farve Lane, a private road that currently runs through the proposed site. The Valley View Clinic will replace an existing facility that has operated nearby on El Jebel Road for the past 10 years. He showed a photo by air. Eagle County's Minor Type A Subdivision process allows for the subdivision of previously unplatted land into three or fewer lots. The Crawfords have elected to pursue this process to provide a 25 10-02-2000 site where the new Clinic can be built.. The Crawford family intends to incorporate this lot and the new Medical Clinic into a future Planned Unit Development for the EI Jebel Commercial Center. The land in question has been owned by the Crawford Family (Crawford Properties, LLC) since 1961. Zoning on the effected parcel was changed from Residential Medium Density to Commercial General in April of 1980 (Zc-124-80). No other significant events have been identified that predate this application. Referral responses are as follows: The Assessor responded with no comment. Issues identified by the County Engineer and the outside surveyor (Johnson and Kunkel) were addressed, and corrected material was resubmitted to the satisfaction of Community Development on July 14th, 2000. Issues identified by Mid Valley Metropolitan District (please see attached letters) have been duly noted by Community Development and the applicant. Pursuant to this application, however, domestic water and sewer service both exist and are adequate to serve the needs of the proposed Clinic. The Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District responded with concerns regarding adequacy of water for fire fighting and access for emergency equipment. These issues have been addressed by the applicant (see attached letters) to the satisfaction of the Fire District and Community Development. Staff findings are as found on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-290.G.1, Standards for Tvpe A and Type B subdivision: 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: a. Access, Water and Sewage. The adequacy of access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided; b. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. Its conformance with the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies, standards, and guidelines; and c. Improvements Agreements. The adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement where applicable. STANDARD a: Access, Water, and Sewage [Section 5-290.G.1.a] The Board of County Commissioners shall determine whether access, potable water, and sewage on the land to be subdivided is adequate. The site proposed for development is accessed from Gillespi Avenue to the north and El Jebel Road to the east via Farve Lane, an existing private drive owned and maintained by Crawford Properties. The new lot bisects Farve Lane, which will now cul-de-sac from both the north and the east at the two new parking lots for the clinic. This new configuration will actually improve queuing on nearby EI Jebel Road. Water and sewer is available through private systems owned and operated by Crawford Properties, LLC. Reports submitted by Mr. Peter Belau of Enartech, Inc. certify that both systems have the capacity to adequately serve the new Medical Clinic. Based on information submitted regarding anticipated water usage and sewage discharge, a 1041 permit is not required. Discussions are ongoing as to the eventual serving of this area by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. For the present, the Crawfords plan to use their existing systems. Finding a: Access, Water & Sewage [Section 5-290.G.1.a] - The access, potable water and sewage on the land to be subdivided are shown as adequate. STANDARD b: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-290.G.1.b] The Board of County Commissioners shall determine whether the submitted plans are in conformance with Section 5- 280.B.3.e., Standards for Final Plat for Subdivision. asfollows; Standard: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision 26 10-02-2000 shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the Master Plan. The Land proposed for subdivision falls within a parcel that has been targeted as a future commercial center. It is appropriately zoned Commercial General, and is located near existing commercial facilities. The Master Plan analysis below considers the proposal as submitted. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space! Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Quality Recreation Housing Services Conformance x x X x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Quality Patterns Conformance x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x x x x Applicable MID V ALLEY COMMUNITY PLAN Housing Transportation Community Facilities Environment EI Jebel! Basalt Lower Frying Pan Ruedi Reservoir Missouri Heights Conformance X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable x x x x x Environmental Ouality - Proposed development is not within any critical wildlife areas, flood plain hazard area, or likely to impact surface or groundwater quality/quantity of air quality. Open Space/Recreation - Proposed development is in an area suitable for development in terms 27 10-02-2000 of compatibility with surrounding uses and avoidance of sensitive lands. However, no common recreation and open space is proposed. Development - Proposed development satisfies Guiding Polices in this regard. FLUM - The Future Land Use Map shows this area to be "Community Center". The proposed development is consistent with the parameters of that use Finding: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e(1)] The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan, the Mid Valley Master Plan and with the Future Land Use Map (Flum). Standard: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts [+] The proposed lot is zoned Commercial General. Zone district standards for minimum lot size, maximum lot coverage, maximum floor area ratios, setbacks and building height have been checked and are in conformance with applicable standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Parking is provided on site in two designated lots. Thirty three (33) spaces are required for the proposed 10,000 sq ft facility, forty three (43) are provided by this plan, including four (4) handicap spaces. The parking lots will be paved. Drainage and dimensioning of lots is in compliance with applicable regulations. Adequate consideration has been given to access, landscaping, snow storage and pedestrian circulation. The plan as presented complies with applicable standards for parking and loading. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) The landscape plan that accompanies a proposed commercial development is intended to address issues such as how areas not treated by impervious surfaces are to be treated and how the development will be buffered from surrounding land uses and major streets. The number, size and location of trees and shrubs, as detailed by the applicant's conceptual landscape plan, are sufficient and adequately address these issues. Details regarding exterior illumination were not provided as a part of this plan. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that these standards have been met prior to the issuance of a building permit. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Details regarding site signage were not provided as a part of this plan. The applicant will be required to obtain the necessary sign permits (Section 4-350) and demonstrate that these standards have been met prior to the issuance of a building permit. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified at the writing of this staff report regarding wildlife. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - No geologic hazards have been identified on this site. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The absence of fuel, existence of fire hydrants and excellent access would indicate that wildfire protection is not an issue on this site. [n/a] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - No wood burning devise is proposed for this development. [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not in an area designated on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [n/a] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was not required for this application. 28 10-02-2000 [+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Noise and Vibration (Section 4-520) - No noise or vibration is anticipated from this proposal. [+] Smoke and Particulates (Sestion 4-530) Smoke and/or particulates are not anticipated as a result of this development. [+] Heat Glare Radiation and Electrical Interference (Section 4-540) Heat, glare, radiation and/or electrical interference are not expected to originate from this development. [+] Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials (Section 4-550) Details on the storage of materials were not submitted with this plan. The applicant is expected to conform to local, state and federal regulations and laws regarding the storage and disposal of all hazardous materials. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that standards for on site waste storage have been met prior to the issuance of a building permit. [+] Water Quality Standards (Section 4-560) No discharge of surface or ground water pollutants are anticipated from this project. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - The applicant has provided the required amount of detail regarding proposed roadway standards, as noted by the County Engineer. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - Internal sidewalks proposed to allow circulation from parking lots to the Clinic are adequate and were found in compliance with applicable standards by the County Engineer. [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - The landscape plan submitted did not include details for site irrigation on areas scheduled for landscaping.. Adequate water is available. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that standards for irrigation have been met prior to the issuance of a building permit. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The County Engineer reviewed and approved specifications related to site drainage and flood control. [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The County Engineer reviewed and approved specifications related to grading and erosion control for this plan.. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - Details for utility and lighting of roads and parking lots were not included. The applicant will be required to demonstrate that these standards have been met prior to the issuance of a building permit. [+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - Potable water is supplied to the site by an existing private treatment system, operated by the applicant, which is adequate for the proposed improvements. Water supply for fire fighting, as reviewed and approved by the Basalt & Rural Fire Protection District, has been determined adequate. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - The proposed site is adequately served by a private waste water treatment system operated by the applicant which is adequate. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) [+] No dwelling units are contemplated by this application, and Impact Fees and Cash-in-lieu of School Land Dedication is not required. FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the Medical Clinic proposed for construction complies with all of the standards of this Section. However, the applicable standards MAY BE met at the time of building permit application. Standard: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's 29 10-02-2000 service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. Proposed utility and road extensions are consistent with the utility service plan, are appropriately sized for the ultimate population of the area, and should coordinate well with future utility extensions. The plan adequately avoids the kind of inefficiencies contemplated by this standard. FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. Standard: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. No features or characteristics have been identified to this point which would cause this site to be unsuitable for development. FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. Standard: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely effict the future development of the surrounding area. The existing land use in the area is similar to that proposed for this development and is consistent with current zoning. It appears unlikely that the future development of the surrounding area would not be adversely affected by the proposed subdivision. FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5) The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Standard C: STANDARD c: Improvements Agreements [Section 5-290.G.1.c] The Board of County Commissioners shall consider the adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement, where applicable. All properties adjacent to this site are owned by Crawford Properties. As such, no improvements are proposed by this project that require collateralization. FINDING b: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-290.G.1.b] - The applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the proposed Medical Clinic complies with all of the standards of this Section. However, the applicable standards MAY BE met at the time an application for building permit is submitted. Mr. Simonton showed photos of the site and pointed out Favor Lane. He showed a power pole with the building sitting to the west ofthe pole. He stated the site sits on top of Favor Lane. He explained the different phases of the building. He showed a conceptual landscape plan. Doug Pratte, planner for the project, was present with Raul Gauries, Architect, and Oz Mueller, Chief Operating Officer of Valley View Hospital. He stated this is Valley View clinic which is now on the Crawford property. They would be relocating and expanding their services to the new facility when 30 10-02-2000 complete. He stated they are available for questions regarding the site, the use and the architecture. Chairman Stone stated in general terms they already have a building they are using but would like to expand from the modular to a new facility. He asked for public comment. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the lot lines and the fact it encroaches the EI Jebowl parking lot. He asked what happens to the parking and the access to the areas. Mr. Pratt stated they will place a radius for parking to the EI Jebowl. He stated the Crawfords are not planning on selling the property. They will build the building and lease it to the Clinic. He stated there has never been an official site review. Commissioner Gallagher asked about public transportation access to the clinic. Mr. Pratt stated there is a park and ride in EI Jebel and it will stay in its current location which is fairly close to the facility. He showed the area on an aerial photograph. Commissioner Phillips questioned the cul-de-sac. Mr. Pratt showed the route of Favor Lane and that it will be terminated. The existing buildings will maintain their parking with Favor Lane terminating from the north. Chairman Stone asked if this will stop the drive through traffic. Mr. Pratt stated it will. He explained the discussions they have had with Engineering. He stated the Fire District has asked for an emergency access through the parking lot. They will provide that. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the local Planning Commissions deliberation. Mr. Simonton stated there was a volunteer session regarding this file with the Mid-Valley Planning Commission but because it is a minor subdivision change a full hearing is not required. Commissioner Gallagher asked how this is considered in light of a recent action before this Board which was denied. He spoke to the mining law applied. Ms. Black suggested this may have been the exemption because it proceeded zoning. She stated this particular piece of property was zoned but it was never platted. However it is a legal lot. Commissioner Phillips questioned the black lines on the aerial map. She asked about access. Mr. Pratt stated those are irrigation ditches. Commissioner Phillips asked Bonnie Williams, owner of the property, to come to the microphone. She questioned previous hearings on other property and the connecting roads. She asked if that was Gillespie Avenue. She questioned having a frontage road. Ms. Williams stated the bike path goes down J.W. Drive and through the baseball park. She related this property is all on the North side of Highway 82. Commissioner Phillips questioned the connection with Blue Lake. Chairman Stone stated there is a connection with Gillespie Avenue. Ms. Williams stated JW Drive is about 'l2 mile north and the bike path is there as well. She stated in the Master Plan, which will be introduced later, there will be bike paths. Chairman Stone reviewed the items the Commissioners will need to address. He spoke to access, water and sewage. He indicated the access proposed will be an improvement. He asked about the water and sewage and if it will go on to the existing system. Mr. Merry affirmed that. Chairman Stone spoke to the conformance being in line. He stated they have found that it meets with the Mid-Valley community plan as well and the findings are positive. He stated there are all positive check marks regarding the other standards and it is consistent with the Land Use Regulations. The spacial pattern is found to be positive, it is suitable for development and compatible with other existing uses. The applicant has not demonstrated that the applicable standards are being met, but that can be determined when the building permit is requested. Chairman Stone directed the clerk to include the findings as listed above. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. SMA-00012, Valley View Clinic, incorporating staff findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 31 10-02-2000 ZC-00036, PDSP-OOOll, LUR-0031, Oleson Property, Eagle-Vail Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number ZC-00036, PDSP-OOOll, LUR-003l, Oleson Property, Eagle-Vail. She stated the original application was to: a) subdivide a 5 acre parcel ofland into 3 single family lots and one open space parcel (at hearing, applicant received approval from the Planning Commission to alter their request to: subdivide a 5 acre parcel of land into 3 single family lots with deed restricted open space); b) incorporate the parcel into the Eagle-Vail PUD (which encompasses the property) and; c) change the zoning from resource to PUD. The Oleson Property is the remaining 5 acre home site of an original ranch which was sold and developed as the Eagle-Vail PUD and known as the Exception. 1995 - The Planning Commission recommended denial of an application for 13 single family and a bed and breakfast. The file was withdrawn. 1997 - A proposal for 8 lots containing a total of 10 dwelling units was denied by the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. 1999 - The Planning Commission and Staff reviewed an application for 8 lots containing a total of 10 dwelling units. The file was subsequently withdrawn prior to hearings. 2000 - The property was purchased by the Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District proposing 3 single family units, and one open space parcel. At the hearing, the applicant received approval form the Planning Commission to alter their request. The Eagle County Planning Commission had no real issues with this project. One issue, raised by the applicant, pertained to condition number 3. The applicant did not wish the condition to enforce the owners to use bear proof trash receptacles. The Planning Commission agreed with Staff, and maintained the condition. The applicant also asked for the Planning Commission's opinion on the ownership structure of the open space parcel, Tract A. The applicant would like to modify the lot lines to allow each lot to include / encompass part of the proposed open space parcel, and deed restrict the uses in each lot's section of the open space area. The total open space acreage would remain the same, however, the Eagle-Vail Metro District would not own the land anymore. The Planning Commission had no opposition with this idea, and added condition number 6 to address this issue. The Planning Commission voted to approve file PDSP-OOOll with the following conditions. 1) Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2) Locations of snow and trash storage areas shall be identified on any building permit application. 3) Dogs, when outside, shall be leashed at all times or be kept in an outside kennel with a roof that can contain a dog. All garbage receptacles shall be bear proof, as deemed necessary by the Division of Wildlife memo dated August 31, 2000. 4) The erosion control plan shall be revised to reflect comments by the Geological Survey memo dated September 5, 2000 prior to Final Plat submittal. A slope stability analysis shall be included in the soils and foundation investigation for any permanent cut or fill greater than 5 feet in height prior to the approval of any building permit as per the same memo. 5) All engineering requirements as per a memo dated August 31, 2000 must be satisfied prior to Final Plat submittal. 6) The proposed property lines shall be amended to encompass the open space parcel (Tract A) with a Plat restriction (on the Final Plat) to include "no structures or storage." Verbiage to be worked out at the Eagle County Board of County Commissioner hearing. LUR-0031- Approval, [5:0] incorporating all Staff findings. ZC-00036- Approval, [5:0] incorporating all Staff findings. 32 10-02-2000 Staff findings are shown on the staff report and are as follows: FILE PDSP-OOOll Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch and Preliminary plan for PUD: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire site is owned in fee simple by the Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part ofthis PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effectfor the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. Generally, only one single family home would be allowed on the Oleson property if it were to remain in the Resource zoning; the lot is currently of a legal non-conforming status. By incorporating it into the Eagle-Vail PUD, the lot may be subdivided smaller. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time ofthe application for PUD. However, variations MAY be granted along with approval of the combined Sketch and Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations'~for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The current zone district is Resource with a 35 acre minimum. The current parcel is only 5 acres, creating a parcel of non-conforming status. The lot size is also much larger, and out of context with the surrounding PUD lot sizes. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3- 340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations MAYbe granted along with approval of the combined Sketch and Preliminary Plan. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parkingfor those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, 33 10-02-2000 guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. With each lot having a garage and a small driveway, parking standards will conform to the requirements of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4) It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with the standards of Article 4, Division I, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the P UD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. As one of the lots has an existing home with established landscaping, and the other two proposed lots shall be subject to the Eagle-Vail Design and Review Board standards, a concept landscaping plan is not necessary. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Si$!ns Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the P UD. No signs are proposed as part ofthis application; any future signs shall be subject to those found in the Eagle-Vail PUD. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE NOT as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. However, the current Eagle-Vail PUD has a comprehensive sign plan, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), that IS suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Planfor PUD will be provided adequatefacilitiesfor potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. All the existing facilities (water, sewer, electricity, telephone, etc) currently servicing the Eagle- Vail PUD will be connected to the Oleson property. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for sewage disposal, electrical supply, and roads; the applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water, solid waste disposal and fire protection. In addition, the Applicant HAS demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in 34 10-02-2000 relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. As almost all of the infrastructure of the Eagle-Vail PUD is established, few improvements will be made. All improvements necessary for the new driveway shall be constructed according to the Final Plat. Included on this plat will be locations for snow storage and trash, turning areas, driveway access points, etc. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] AS CONDITIONED It HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. ( c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Currently, the 5 acre parcel is larger than adjacent and surrounding lot dimensions. By subdividing this parcel into the 3 lots, the site will be more compatible with the character of the surrounding uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land 35 10-02-2000 uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environment Open Space/ a1 Quality Recreation Development Affordable Housing Transportation Community FLUM Services Conformance x x x x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not Applicable x EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Cooperation Open Space Provision Unique Char. Preservation Visual Quality Development Patterns Hazards Wildlife Conformance x x x x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: NOTE: (plus or minus' are added before the elements to show the conformance of the proposal in relation to the vision statement) [+] Housing is a community-wide issue. [+] Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. [+] Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing transit routes. [nla] Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success [nla] It is important to preserve existing local residents housing. [+] Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county 36 10-02-2000 [n/a] Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs As this proposal will be part of an existing subdivision, Staff can make a favorable finding based on the fact Eagle-Vail PUD is currently consistent with the Master Plans, and that the Oleson property is surrounded by the PUD and will become part of it as well. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. Not applicable / necessary. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT necessary for this development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (1) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. (a) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (2) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Planfor PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. (3) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Planfor PUn. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (4) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or 37 10-02-2000 nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. With the extremely close proximately to the Eagle-Vail Golf course, trails, and other Eagle-Vail recreation facilities, and that the Oleson property will be included within the Eagle-Vail PUD, Staff can make a favorable finding [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. However, the Applicant MAYbe able to demonstrate in the Preliminary Plan that the proposed development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. Being surrounded by an existing PUD, the site adequately addresses this section. FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of both a Sketch Plan, and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts. and Article 4, Site Develooment Standards. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) [+] Landscaping: and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) [n/a] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430)- [+ ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) [+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) 38 10-02-2000 [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) [+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) All findings under this standard are either favorable or do not apply to this project. The Oleson property will be subject to all of the requirements of the Eagle-Vail PUD, and have adequately addressed those found within the Eagle County Land Use Regulations as well. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. By connecting to the existing infrastructure, this proposal will not cause inefficiencies, nor will it be a leapfrog pattern of development. In fact, this application will enhance the connectivity of the property's immediate area. FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The proposed development area is very compatible with the surrounding homes in the area. 39 10-02-2000 Although many of the lots allow duplexes, in that area, almost all of the neighbors live in single family residencies. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.a.(3) Preliminary Plan for PUD Application Contents: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions and standards of development." A draft Planned Unit Development Guide is provided as Section 5 of the application which appears to be sufficient for this Sketch / Preliminary Plan. Staff makes a favorable finding in this regard. [+] FINDING: Preliminary Plan for PUD Application contents [Section 5-240.F.3.a.(3)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD guide that demonstrates that the requirements of this Section HA VE been fully met. FILE ZC-00036 Requirements for a Zone Chan~e - Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards for Amendment to the Official Zone District Map: STANDARD: Consistency with the Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l] Whether and extent to which the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan. The current zoning maps presently show the Oleson property as part of the Eagle-Vail PUD. On approval, this proposal will be part of the existing subdivision which already is in conformance with the Master Plans. Staff can make a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Plan. [Section 5-230.D.l] The proposed zone change designation IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Eagle County Master Plan. STANDARD: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment is compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and is the appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; By changing the zoning from Resource to that of the Eagle-Vail PUD, the property would be brought into conformity with the surrounding zoning, and cease to be of a non-conforming status (5 acre parcel with Resource zoning). [+] FINDING: Compatible with surrounding uses. [Section 5-230.D.2] The zone amendment IS compatible with the uses that surround the applicant's property, and IS the appropriate zone district for the land. STANDARD: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] Whether and the extent to which there are changed conditions that require an amendment to modifY the use or density/intensity; Since the time of the original Oleson Ranch, the Eagle-Vail PUD (which now sits on all of the original ranch property except for the present day 5 acre parcel), has grown all around the remaining Oleson homestead site creating an island of Resource zoning in the Eagle-Vail PUD. This 5 acre parcel is now out of context with rest of the community. To be more compatible, the density should increase. [+] FINDING: Changed conditions. [Section 5-230.D.3] There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the density and intensity. STANDARD: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment, including but not limited to water, air, noise, storm water management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands; This proposal intends to preserve the natural environment surrounding the new development as 40 10-02-2000 much as possible. This is one of the reasons that there will be building envelopes. By siting the homes in the most suitable locations (considering drainage, amount of vegetation which will be disturbed, etc), using building envelopes, the development minimizes environmental impacts. [+] FINDING: Effect on natural environment. [Section 5-230.D.4] The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts to the natural environment. STANDARD: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment addresses a demonstrated community need; Housing demands in this valley are ever present, and are therefore a community need. [+] FINDING: Community need. [Section 5-230.D.5] The proposed amendment DOES address a community need. STANDARD: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning, and whether the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; and As this property is surrounded by the existing Eagle-Vail PUD, the incorporation of this development would be much more logical than having a "spot" zoning of the Resource district in the middle of Eagle- Vail. [+] FINDING: Development patterns. [Section 5-230.D.6] The proposed amendment WILL result in a logical and orderly development pattern and not constitute spot zoning. Further, the resulting development can logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. STANDARD: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] Whether and the extent to which the area to which the proposed amendment would apply has changed or is changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. [+] FINDING: Public interest. [Section 5-230.D.7] The extent to which the area to which the amendment would apply HAS changed and continues to change is such that it is in the public interest to encourage a new density in the area. FILE LUR-0031 This file is associated to that of ZC-00036, and was created because the Eagle-Vail PUD is part ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations. There are no standards related to this LUR file, but is subject to the same standards in Section 5-230. D Requirements for a Zone Change - Standards for Amendment to the Text of These Land Use Regulations or the Official Zone District Map. Staff finds the amendment to the PUD acceptable, and has no issues with the changes. Ms. Skinner showed views from the lots and the entrances into the lots and the view to the 18th fairway. Rick Plyman, Peter Jamar Associates, and Bruce Mielke, Eagle- Vail Metropolitan District, were present for the hearing. Mr. Plyman stated this property has always been an exception to the Eagle-Vail PUD. The previous applications have all been presented as a separate PUD. He stated a big difference is that this development is met to become part of the Eagle-Vail PUD. He stated the density has been lowered quite a bit. The property was purchased as a defensive move and did so by purchasing the property and doing a low density development. He explained the previous applications were met with staff and neighborhood opposition. He stated they have good neighborhood support for this plan. He stated one issue that came up in discussion with the Planning Commission was when this was first submitted to the County, they showed the existing house as one lot and two additional lots. Through input from the neighbors and the Metropolitan District. rather than the Metro District owning the land, to include it in the single family lots and deed restrict it. It is visual open space and isn't meant to be used as a public park. They talked about that with the Planning Commission who supported the idea so they have amended the drawings of the lots. He showed an original map showing the lots. They would propose to 41 10-02-2000 amend that with the property lines extending to the corner of the property with part of the open space going with lots 3 and 2 and plat note restrictions for development of the open space. He stated at final plat they would create the adjusted property lines. He stated they are in agreement with staff conditions and they have no issues. They will be the only three lots in Eagle-Vail with bear proof trash cans. He stated they probably will put those out on the street. They will satisfy all concerns of the Engineering Department. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. There was none. He asked why the three different files and what those mean. Ms. Skinner explained this has never been subdivided so they must use the Preliminary Plan process combined with Sketch Plan. She stated the LUR file is a separate file to monitor the Land Use Regulation amendments. Ms. Black stated the Eagle-Vail PUD is unique and has been adopted is part of the Land Use Regulations. Ms. Skinner stated because this has never been included in the Eagle-Vail PUD they are now asking for a zone change to be incorporated into that PUD. Commissioner Phillips asked about the driveway and asked if they will be requesting the County maintain the road. Mr. Plyman stated that will be a private driveway. Chairman Stone stated he is glad to see this property find an eventual home. He sees this as a good final destination. He asked the findings be included in the minutes. Ms. Skinner stated condition number 6 can have the verbiage altered if required. Chairman Stone read the conditions for PDSP-OOOll, as follows: 1) Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2) Locations of snow and trash storage areas shall be identified on any building permit application. 3) Dogs, when outside, shall be leashed at all times or be kept in an outside kennel with a roof that can contain a dog. All garbage receptacles shall be bear proof, as deemed necessary by the Division of Wildlife memo dated August 31, 2000. 4) The erosion control plan shall be revised to reflect comments by the Geological Survey memo dated September 5, 2000 prior to Final Plat submittal. A slope stability analysis shall be included in the soils and foundation investigation for any permanent cut or fill greater than 5 feet in height prior to the approval of any building permit as per the same memo. 5) All engineering requirements as per a memo dated August 31, 2000 must be satisfied prior to Final Plat submittal. 6) The proposed property lines of lots shall be amended to encompass the open space parcel (Tract A) with a plat restriction on the Final Plat stating that "no structures or storage shall be located on the designated open space area." Chairman Stone asked if on #6 they can wordsmith this accordingly. Mr. Loeffler stated they can just use the last sentence of #6. Chairman Stone asked if the plat they are signing is the amended plat. Mr. Loeffler stated they should refer to it as the site plan designated in the master plan as figure #4. Mr. Plyman stated they can add that. Mr. Loeffler reiterated that #6 should read "the plan approved as per the Master Plan, Eagle-Vail PUD amendment, figure 4, submitted October 2, 2000, there shall be a plat restriction on the Final Plat for lots 2 and 3 stating that no structures or storage shall be located on the designated open space area." Chairman Stone stated condition 6 shall read as indicated by Mr. Loeffler. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. PDSP-00011, Oleson Property, 42 10-02-2000 incorporating Staff findings and the following six conditions: 1) Except as otherwise modified by this Permit, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval. 2) Locations of snow and trash storage areas shall be identified on any building permit application. 3) Dogs, when outside, shall be leashed at all times or be kept in an outside kennel with a roof that can contain a dog. All garbage receptacles shall be bear proof, as deemed necessary by the Division of Wildlife memo dated August 31, 2000. 4) The erosion control plan shall be revised to reflect comments by the Geological Survey memo dated September 5, 2000 prior to Final Plat submittal. A slope stability analysis shall be included in the soils and foundation investigation for any permanent cut or fill greater than 5 feet in height prior to the approval of any building permit as per the same memo. 5) All engineering requirements as per a memo dated August 31, 2000 must be satisfied prior to Final Plat submittal. 6) The plan approved as per the Master Plan, Eagle-Vail PUD amendment, figure 4, submitted October 2,2000, there shall be a plat restriction on the Final Plat for lots 2 and 3 stating that no structures or storage shall be located on the designated open space area. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approval of L UR -0031, Oleson Property, incorporating all Staff findings. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. ZC-00036, Oleson Property, incorporating all Staff findings. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0029, Edwards Drinking Water Facility Ray Merry, presented 1041-0029, Edwards Drinking Water Facility. He stated this was a 1041 Permit Application for the Site Selection and Construction of Major New Domestic Water Treatment System; a Major Extension of an Existing Domestic Water System and Efficient Utilization of a Municipal Water Project. The Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority proposes to construct a new 10 million gallon per day (MGD) water treatment plant to serve an area currently being served by the low pressure zone ofthe Avon Water Treatment Plant. This service area includes Arrowhead, Berry Creek, Edwards and Cordillera/Squaw Creek Metropolitan districts. The proposed facility would consist of a raw water intake structure in the Eagle River, gravity feeding raw water to a wet well containing pumps to convey water to a new water treatment plant. Treated water will be introduced into the existing distribution system at an existing 12-inch water main located within The Reserve PUD. The treatment capacity of the plant would initially be 5 MGD. The building footprint and most of the interior infrastructure would be built initially to accommodate future incremental expansions of capacity up to 10 MGD. Capacity increases from 5 MGD to 10 MGD would be accomplished by the addition of 0.75 MGD treatment units and can be done more than one at a time. Staff recommended approval with the following conditions: a. All material representations presented by applicant will become conditions of the application. b. The Regional Water Authority shall adhere to all conditions outlined in the letter from the Water Quality Control Division, dated September 8, 2000 regarding 401 certification BMPs. c. Final construction plans shall conform to geotechnical recommendations contained in the April 12,2000 Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical report. 43 10-02-2000 d. Construction activities in the Eagle River shall be coordinated with the Division of Wildlife to avoid impacts to fish spawning cycles. The applicant should provide additional evidence and testimony regarding the need for a 10 MGD water treatment plant along with discussion about what triggers capacity increases. The applicant should discuss the capacity experienced on a peak day at the Avon Water Treatment Plant and the need to design based on 100% occupancy of existing commercial and residential uses. The applicant should explain their secured water rights and augmentation plans to demonstrate how the application can move forward without the Water Court approved change in the diversion point. Staff findings are shown on staff report and as follows: In accordance with Section 6.03.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Edwards Drinking Water Facility. a. New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of communities within this County within the development area and source development area; Finding: The new domestic water treatment system is being constructed in an area which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and orderly development of domestic water treatment systems of communities within the development area and source development area. The service area of the proposed drinking water facility is currently being served by the Avon Drinking Water Facility. The applicant has projected that with expected build-out of currently platted areas, the entire water treatment capacity of the Avon facility will be required to serve the Eagle-Vail, Avon, Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch/Smith Creek Metropolitan Districts. A new facility is needed to serve the remainder of the service area (Arrowhead, Berry Creek, Edwards, and Cordillera/Squaw Creek Metropolitan Districts). b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan; Finding: The proposed development does not conflict with the Eagle County Master Plan, the 208 Regional Water Quality Plan, and the policies contained therein. c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users; Finding: The proposed development does not adversely affect surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users. The proposed intake structure will function as an alternative point of diversion for water rights. No action is necessary by the Water Court to change the diversion point since the river can be used to convey water downstream to another diversion point, however the Regional Water Authority is seeking a formal change to the new location. d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs; Finding: Adequate water supplies are available for efficient operational needs. The Colorado Department of Public Health inspects the existing water supply system operated by the applicant on and annual basis and has found that the water is adequate in terms of quality and quantity. The proposed expansion will allow the applicant to continue to provide high quality domestic water and fire protection to the service area. e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; Finding: The Avon Drinking Water Facility currently serving the area is near 90% of its capacity on a peak day. The new facility to provide treated water is needed. f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; 44 10-02-2000 Finding: This finding is not applicable. No wastewater treatment facilities are proposed in this application. g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewer service or create duplicate services; Finding: The proposed development will not compete with existing water service or create duplicate services. The new facility will serve Arrowhead, Berry Creek, Edwards and Cordillera/Squaw Creek Metropolitan Districts and allow the existing facility in Avon to efficiently serve upper pressure zones. h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; Finding: This finding is not applicable. This application does not contemplate replacement of a water treatment system. i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; Finding: The growth projections ofthe Eagle County Master Plan (2% per year for the next 10 years) coupled with actual trends provided by the applicant demonstrate clearly a need for the project. Existing platted lots and future development in the Berry Creek 5th Filing also represent a future need for the project. j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. Finding: This finding is not applicable. This application does not contemplate any activities that would require a wastewater discharge permit. k. Appropriate easement can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; Finding: The appropriate easement can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs. The proposed drinking water facility will be located on property owned by the applicant. l. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development; Finding: The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development. No agricultural lands will be rendered unavailable. The Berry Creek 5th Filing Tract D is currently a vacant parcel used intermittently for recreation purposes by trespassing fishermen and pedestrians. The recreational amenity will be enhanced with the proposed development through the granting of an easement for a bike path. m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; Finding: The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as evidenced in the 410 certification letter dated September 8, 2000. Potential impacts to the river water quality during construction will be minimized through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) required in the 410 certification. These BMPs will be enforced by the Eagle County Department of Community Development and by the Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit requirements. The site will be landscaped and designed to protect the facility from the erosive forces of the river. n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new 45 10-02-2000 service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards; Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards. Operation of the facility will have no significant impact on air quality. o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance; Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance. p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors. The site plan of the proposed development indicates that the facility will be set into the stream bank and effectively screened from view. The site will be landscaped to protect the view from the south side of the river with spruce trees and other vegetation similar to the existing stream side landscape. q. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result; Finding: The proposed development will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of the development is not expected to significantly increase the fees of the current or future customers served by the service districts associated with this project. The applicant is being fiscally responsible in saving costs associated with upgrades by building a facility which can easily accommodate expansions. r. The salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsection 6.03.13(7)b)6) and 6.03.13(8)e) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith, if any, have been paid. Finding: This finding is not applicable. No wastewater treatment is associated with or proposed by this application. s. The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. Finding: The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. The proposed development will benefit communities within the development area and source development area by improving fire fighting capabilities, improving water pressure consistency and by providing redundancy in the existing system. t. The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not 46 10-02-2000 subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snowslides, landslides, avalanches, rockslides or other disasters which could cause a system operational breakdown. Finding: Wildfire is not anticipated to be an issue in this development. The development area is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes or other natural hazards. All designs within the development area will be earthquake resistant in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Seismic Risk Zone 1 and will follow the geotechnical recommendations outlined in the April 12, 2000 Hepworth - Pawlak report. In accordance with Section 6.04.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Edwards Drinking Water Facility. a. Major extensions of domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the development area and source development area to sustain such growth and development; Finding: The new domestic water treatment system is being constructed in an area which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and orderly development of domestic water treatment systems of communities within the development area and source development area. The service area of the proposed drinking water facility is currently being served by the Avon Drinking Water Facility. The applicant has projected that with expected build-out of currently platted areas, the entire water treatment capacity of the Avon facility will be required to serve the Eagle-Vail, Avon, Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch/Smith Creek Metropolitan Districts. A new facility is needed to serve the remainder ofthe service area (Arrowhead, Berry Creek, Edwards, and Cordillera/Squaw Creek Metropolitan Districts). b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan; Finding: The proposed development does not conflict with the Eagle County Master Plan, the 208 Regional Water Quality Plan, and the policies contained therein. c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or sub-surface water rights of upstream or downstream users within the development area and source development area; Finding: The proposed development does not adversely affect surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users. The proposed intake structure will function as an alternative point of diversion for water rights. No action is necessary by the Water Court to change the diversion point since the river can be used to convey water downstream to another diversion point, however the Regional Water Authority is seeking a formal change to the new location. d. Adequate water supplies as determined by the Colorado Department of Health are available for efficient operational needs; Finding: Adequate water supplies are available for efficient operational needs. The Colorado Department of Public Health inspects the existing water supply system operated by the applicant on and annual basis and has found that the water is adequate in terms of quality and quantity. The proposed facility and the extension thereof will allow the applicant to continue to provide high quality domestic water and fire protection to the service area. e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; Finding: The Avon Drinking Water Facility currently serving the area is near 90% of its capacity on a peak day. The new facility to provide treated water is needed. f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; Finding: This finding is not applicable. The expansion or replacement of domestic sewage 47 10-02-2000 treatment facilities are not contemplated by this application. g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewage services or create duplicate services: Finding: The proposed development will not compete with existing water service or create duplicate services. The new facility will serve Arrowhead, Berry Creek, Edwards and Cordillera/Squaw Creek Metropolitan Districts and allow the existing facility in Avon to efficiently serve upper pressure zones. h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair, or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; Finding: This finding is not applicable. This application does not contemplate replacement of a water or sewage treatment system. i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; Finding: The growth projections of the Eagle County Master Plan (2% per year for the next 10 years) coupled with actual trends provided by the applicant demonstrate clearly a need for the project. Existing platted lots and future development in the Berry Creek sth Filing also represent a future need for the project. j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission; Finding: This finding is not applicable. This application does not contemplate any activities that would require a waste discharge permit. k. Appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; Finding: The appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs. The proposed drinking water facility will be located on property owned by the Applicant. The transmission line and connection to the existing domestic water distribution system will be placed entirely within property owned by the Applicant or utility easements through The Reserve. 1. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development; Finding: The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development. No agricultural lands will be rendered unavailable. The Berry Creek Sth Filing Tract D is currently a vacant parcel used intermittently for recreation purposes by trespassing fishermen and pedestrians. The recreational amenity will be enhanced with the proposed development through the granting of an easement for a bike path. m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; Finding: The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as evidenced in the 410 certification letter dated September 8, 2000. Potential impacts to the river water quality during construction will be minimized through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) required in the 410 certification. These BMPs will be enforced by the Eagle County Department of Community Development and by the Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit requirements. The site will be landscaped and designed to protect the facility from the erosive forces of the river. 48 10-02-2000 n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards; Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards. Operation of the facility will have no significant impact on air quality. o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance. p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, or cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors. The site plan of the proposed development indicates that the facility will be set into the stream bank and effectively screened from view. The site will be landscaped to protect the view from the south side of the river with spruce trees and other vegetation similar to the existing stream side landscape. q. The proposed development or its associated collection or distribution system will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result; Finding: The proposed development will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of the development is not expected to significantly increase the fees of the current or future customers served by the service districts associated with this project. The applicant is being fiscally responsible in saving costs associated with upgrades by building a facility which can easily accommodate expansions. r. The development site of a proposed major extension of an existing domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snowslides, landslides, avalanches, rockslides or other disasters which would cause a system operational breakdown; Finding: Wildfire is not anticipated to be an issue in this development. The development area is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes or other natural hazards. All designs within the development area will be earthquake resistant in accordance with the Uniform Building Code Seismic Risk Zone 1 and will follow the geotechnical recommendations outlined in the April 12, 2000 Hepworth - Pawlak report. s. Any proposed domestic water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health. Finding: The proposed extensions of the domestic water treatment facility to the existing distribution system is capable of providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department 49 10-02-2000 of Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. The Water Quality Control Division has the responsibility of approving water treatment plant designs to assure compatibility with the existing water quality, allowing an extension into the existing system. They also have the responsibility of assuring the water provided meets the Safe Drinking water Act requirements. They inspect water systems annually. t. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. Finding: The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. The proposed extension will benefit communities within the development area and source development area by improving fire fighting capabilities, improving water pressure consistency and by providing redundancy in the existing system. In accordance with Section 6.05.15 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Edwards Drinking Water Facility. a. The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated; Finding: The need for the proposed water project is substantiated because the service area ofthe proposed drinking water facility is currently being served by the Avon Drinking Water Facility which on a peak day operates at 90% capacity. The applicant has projected that with expected build-out of currently platted areas, the entire water treatment capacity of the Avon facility will be required to serve the Eagle-Vail, Avon, Beaver Creek and Bachelor Gulch/Smith Creek Metropolitan Districts. A new facility is needed to serve the remainder ofthe service area (Arrowhead, Berry Creek, Edwards, and Cordillera/Squaw Creek Metropolitan Districts). b. Assurances of compatibility of the proposed water project with federal, state, regional and County planning policies regarding land use and water resources; Finding:The proposed development is compatible with the Eagle County Master Plan, the 208 Regional Water Quality Plan and the policies contained therein. c. Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas; Finding: Methods of ensuring efficient use of water resources within the service area of the proposed drinking water facility are currently implemented throughout the system and includes: a) Metering of all water users b) Efficiency standards for fixtures imposed by Eagle County building codes c) leak detection program, which includes auditing of monthly metered water uses, scheduled sounding of mainlines and leak repair d) The water conservation master Plan (Attachment F of application) is designed to encourage increased efficiency in the residential, commercial and public sectors e) A rate structure that deters unnecessary use of water Site layout and design of storm water control will prevent pollution of aquifer recharge areas as required in the 401 certification letter dated April 12, 2000, implementing the BMPs. d. Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources; Finding: The proposed development will not contaminate surface water resources as evidenced in the 410 certification letter dated September 8, 2000. Potential impacts to the river water quality during construction will be minimized through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) required in the 410 certification. These BMPs will be enforced by the Eagle County Department so 1 0-02~2000 of Community Development and by the Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit requirements. The site will be landscaped and designed to protect the facility from the erosive forces of the river. e. The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health; Finding: The proposed extensions of the domestic water treatment facility to the existing distribution system is capable of providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health & Environment, Water Quality Control Division. The Water Quality Control Division has the responsibility of approving water treatment plant designs to assure that water provided meets the Safe Drinking water Act requirements. They inspect water systems annually. f. The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface and subsurface water resources in the source development area below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; Finding: The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as evidenced in the 410 certification letter dated September 8, 2000. Potential impacts to the river water quality during construction will be minimized through the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) required in the 410 certification. These BMPs will be enforced by the Eagle County Department of Community Development and by the Corps of Engineers Section 404 permit requirements. The site will be landscaped and designed to protect the facility from the erosive forces ofthe river. g. The proposed development and the potential diversions of water from the source development area will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitats, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance. h. The salinity and advance wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsections 6.05.13(16) and (17) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith, if any, have been paid; Finding: This finding is not applicable. No wastewater treatment is associated or proposed by this application. i. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. Finding: The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. Mr. Merry explained that the original staff report conflicts with the conclusions that have now been found in support of the 1041 application. Mr. Merry suggested he wanted the applicant to provide the information to the Board. He stated he asked for a demonstration of the need for a 10 million gallon a day plan. He stated the information came forward at the Planning Commission. The other issue was one concerning water rights. He stated Glen Porzak explained the secured water rights, but as a water Sl 10-02-2000 district they can draw the water out in one location and re-enter at another. After hearing this information the Planning Commission changed their stand and then approved the file. He spoke to the changes. He read from staffs report, Staffs recommendation to the Planning Commission as follows: "Staff s recommendation to the Planning Commission was to deny the application based primarily on insufficient evidence justifying the need for a water treatment plant of 10 MGD capacity. In addition, they needed to have the issue of secured water rights for a facility that size better explained. The applicant submitted a rebuttal letter addressing staffs negative findings along with additional testimony from their consultants. Staff was convinced that all approval criteria were adequately addressed to support approval but requests that the Permit Authority receive similar information provided to the Planning Commission in order to approve the permit application. The Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project stating additional rationale regarding improved fire fighting capabilities, improved water pressure consistency, increased capacity to improve overall system performance and backup support in the event of system failure. The Planning Commission also received additional information and testimony from the applicant's consultants justifying the need for a 10 MGD facility and agreed with their assertion that the population projections of the Eagle County Master Plan do not mirror actual growth trends or reflect seasonal demands on the system. Glenn Porzak described water rights and approved augmentation secured by the Regional Water Authority and stated that they have the right to divert 20 MGD. Mr. Porzak concluded that the issue before the Water Courts is to simply move the diversion point downstream and is merely a formality. In regard to water conservation, the applicant pointed out that the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority's conservation efforts are focused on education, metering and rate structures. Thirty two copies of the application were sent to referral agencies for assistance in making the specific findings, or approval criteria, in the 1041 regulations. Two referral responses for this application were received. One response from the Colorado Water Conservation Board came via voice mail. A summary of this referral response follows below. The respondent, Baham Hatami of the CWCB, was unable to evaluate the stream depletion for the project without a court approved augmentation plan that specified the diversion point associated with this project. According to the preliminary geotechnical report done by Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical ground water was measured in one boring at a depth of 40 feet. Other borings were relatively shallow and testing was done before spring runoff. Ground water levels can be expected to rise causing seeps that could affect the performance of the fill and structures placed on the fill. In addition, it may be necessary to place drains beneath deep fills. It would be prudent for the County to require that the geotechnical engineer review the final construction plans for conformance with the recommendations contained in the April 12, 2000 preliminary geotechnical report. (Comments Attached) Chairman Stone asked if this is the same file there was a location and extent that was denied. Mr. Merry stated this is the same property and is not sure of the land use status. Chairman Stone asked Jim Fritze what connection there is with building this facility and the Land Use Regulations. Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated those are two different actions and here they have satisfied the location and extent by overruling the Planning Commission. They have an obligation pursuant to the deed to bring plans and drawings to the County, which approval shall not be unreasonably denied. Chairman Stone asked iftoday's action is on the 1041 only but there may very well be other processes they have to go through before building the facility. Mr. Fritze asked when they might be building the facility. He stated they have some questions from ECO as well. Dennis Galvin, General Manger of the Upper Eagle Valley Water Authority, stated they have work to do with the County pursuant to the contract for purchase. They have obligations they must meet 52 10-02-2000 and will come back to the County for a location and extent permit. He understands they have that obligation before beginning construction. All this will happen as soon as possible once the 1041 has been approved. Mr. Merry stated another thing is to establish a record with the exhibits with A being that provided by the applicant. AI, Edwards Drinking Water Facility, A2, general site plan, A3, landscape and site plan, A4, building front, A5 building floor plan, A6 letter written in rebuttal to the Planning Commission, but since the findings have changed this is no longer relevant, A 7 is the Water Quality Certification from the Water Quality Control indicating there will be no surface water degradation. Bob Weaver, Hydrosphere Resource Consultants, introduced himself, Glen Shore, Dennis Gelvin Gary Fuller, the project manager, Glen Prozak, Water Counsel, and Anna Olivera, from Hydrosphere. He stated they would like to make a brief presentation that outlines the project, site selection and then review the staff findings. Chairman Stone asked them to address why they chose to move the facility to this site. He stated he would like to make sure they go through the 1041 process completely and don't want to short change the process. Mr. Merry suggested the applicant go through the findings for the approval criteria and provide testimony and evidence to meet that criteria. Mr. Weaver stated the service area for the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority encompasses an area from Eagle Vail down the Eagle River to Edwards and Cordillera. Currently this service area receives treated water from the plant in Avon. He stated this plant was the subject of the 1041 approved three to four years ago to expand the plant to 10 million gallons per day. Mr. Merry stated the 1041 Permit was for the diversion point and not for the expansion as it is the Town of Avon. Mr. Weaver stated the facility being proposed is located in Edwards just to the east of the CDOT rest area. Immediately adjacent to that and downstream from the bike path bridge is where the intake will be located. The new plant will have the treatment capacity of 5 million gallons per day serving everything to the east. About 1/3 ofthe area now being treated by Avon will be moved to this plant. The purpose is to meet growing demands at build out of the previously approved developments. They believe this plan is needed to increase the overall reliability of the system. He stated the existing system is totally reliant on the Avon system. This plant could meet the demands of the whole service area if there is a temporary reduction of Avon's ability to treat the water. This provides some system redundance and backup capability. It enables the water authority to meet growing demands without having to make major improvements to the existing distribution system. The three primary purposes of this plant are to meet growing demands, increase system reliability and make better utilization of the distribution system. Gary Fuller stated the authority has conducted a study of the possible locations and narrowed those to two. One location is this site and the other near the Brett Ranch area. The Edwards site was preferred for several reasons, the Brett Ranch site would have required 100 feet more pumping energy which causes unnecessary pressure zones. This is located more in the center of the usage area. This location has easy access into the distribution system and into storage tanks. It has a number of existing components making this the better site for this project. Once selected they looked at location of intake facilities and plant location. He showed the area on a map. He pointed out the bike path and the new bridge. Along the front side it is heavily covered. They looked at the plant site location and the intake being near the bridge. They wanted to avoid wet lands and the heavily vegetated area. They also wanted to avoid a higher intake. The facilities proposed are river bed rock creating the shallow pool that will meet the need of the intake facility. They coordinated this with the existing users. He explained the pumping back to the plant which will be buried and the facility itself which will be underground. He showed the landscaping plan and the wetlands. He showed the area they want to avoid disturbing. Only the front face of the facility will be exposed. He showed the access road and that being obstructed by the 53 10-02-2000 existing trees. He showed the front elevation of the building and the transition of the grade. He stated the interior is fairly complex and showed the various intake membranes. He showed the pumping equipment and the space for future growth. He explained the front side is office area. The facility uses very efficient water use. He showed the front access corridor, minimizing the visibility. Mr. Weaver stated there are lots of approval criteria and they can go through each individually. He stated the water authority concurs with the findings made by staff in their report and concur with the recommended conditions. They can either go through these individually or discuss them as needed. Mr. Fritze stated the Board is looking for a record that will show all proof required. He stated they are looking for the applicant to put on a case that will be sustained by the Court. Mr. Weaver referred to 6.03.15 for site selection as follows: a. New domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be constructed in areas which will result in the proper utilization of existing treatment plants and the orderly development of domestic water and sewage treatment systems of communities within this County within the development area and source development area; He stated the testimony presented earlier and the description of this facility and how it fits into this system, provides the evidence needed to make this finding. The treatment plant will provide the capacity for incremental expansion and meets the needs of the system as they evolve, in a very cost effective manner. The applicant believes with expected buildout of current platted areas, the entire water treatment capacity of the Avon facility, will be required to serve the high zone service area. A new facility is needed for the low zone service area, which is needed to meet the expected demands and project it to double over the next twenty years, providing more reliability and improvements. b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan; Mr. Weaver stated there was some concern originally that growth and demand that were associated with this plan were inconsistent with the Eagle County Master Plan. Exhibit A6 provides a detailed discussion of the growth rate figures and growth and demand of the water authority. He stated the 2% population projections are for resident permanent population. The growth and demand they use is not only for full time but part time population and non resident population associated with tourism and second homes. The water demands are far more than the permanent population and growth trends within the County have been consistently higher than projected. Based on these considerations they feel this plan is in conformance with the existing local and regional plans. c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or sub-surface water rights of upstream or downstream users within the development area and source development area; Mr. Prozak spoke to section 6.013.15 and the related finding of 6.04. 15(c) as well. He spoke to the history of the Upper Eagle Valley Water Authority and explained the contracts for the various Metropolitan Districts. He stated they all adjudicated their individual plans from the base augmentation plans to what is existing today. The water authority is the entity that provides the service. The authority introduced two augmentation plans including the Green Mountain Reservoir and the Eagle River Augmentation Plan. He spoke to the Metcalf Ditch and the raw water booster station. Under existing Colorado law, the authority could take the water out and put it back in at the Edwards facility. Rather than go through that, it has initiated a third diversion point at the Edwards facility. He stated the alternate point of diversion has a positive effect leaving the water in the river for additional milage. They have filed that request. They don't believe that should be a basis for denial as they have approved augmentation plans and have the river to use. They can not measure the depletion resulting from this plan. The question is where is the point of depletion, which is up stream ofthe facility or further down river. He suggests that this proposed plan will best demonstrate what the authority has been involved in with the Eagle Park Reservoir. That did not exist heretofore with the Green Mountain Reservoir. He 54 10-02-2000 explained the in house and irrigation waters. He stated all those depletions are augmented. With the Eagle Park Reservoir, the depletion is zero. The point of impact would be further down river but it all gets augmented and the final depletion is zero. They feel the findings submitted by staff are accurate. Mr. Weaver continued with staff findings: d. Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs; Mr. Weaver stated they concur with staffs findings and that adequate water supplies are available. The Colorado Department of Health and Environment inspects the existing water system on a regular basis and have found the water is adequate in terms of quality and quantity. The proposed expansion will increase the capacity of the water authority to provide reliable high quality service to its customers. e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; Mr. Weaver stated they concur with staff that the Avon Drinking Water Facility currently serving the areas is near 90% of its capacity on a peak day. f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; Mr. Weaver stated they concur with staff this is not applicable. g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewer service or create duplicate services; Mr. Weaver stated the only water service provider in the service area is the Upper Eagle Water Authority and they are the authority. There is no competition. h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair, or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; Mr. Weaver stated they are not replacing an existing facility but expanding the capacity of existing facilities, making better utilization of existing systems and providing greater reliability to the current system. i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; Mr. Weaver stated Mr. Merry distributed a letter form Hydrosphere dated September 20,2000. If the Board would look on the last page at the graph concerning population growth tends and has projections for the year 2018. The growth has consistently been well above 5% per year over the last ten years. The growth has been associated with the build out of previously approved subdivisions. The projections are at lower growth rates. They feel these projections are pretty conservative. He stated you can see the growth trends are projected to continue. Chairman Stone suggested the unprojected growth rates peaked out in 1993. Mr. Weaver stated it is all over the place. In 1991 they had about an 8% growth, 1993 there was a 5 lf2 %, 1994 it jumped to 13%, and in 1995 it was down at about 6%. It has to do with development and when those projects come on line. Chairman Stone asked why the graph shows it going down and then back up in 2016. Mr. Weaver stated the projections were developed by Stan Bernstein and what happens is when you get out beyond a few years it is hard to project the economic and develop trends. The uncertainty becomes greater the farther out you project. This is one ofthe reasons for designing the plant with 5 million gallons initially and the ability to increase that incrementally. If they have a situation where the growth is more rapid, the plant can efficiently be expanded. Likewise if the growth does not materialize, they don't have to plug in the additional modules. j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. 55 10-02-2000 Mr. Weaver stated this criteria is not applicable because they are not doing a wastewater treatment plant. k. Appropriate easement can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; Mr. Weaver stated the authority has received a letter of agreement from CDOT regarding the existing facility. He believes the only needed easement is on private land on the southwest side of the river and they are in the process of negotiating that easement. They do have condemnation power but hope they can successfully obtain that easement. l. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development; Mr. Weaver stated there are no agricultural lands that will be rendered unavailable as a result of this proposal. He spoke to the recreation trail which will be maintain and continue to be available for public use. m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22,1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; Mr. Weaver stated the Board has received a letter from the State of Colorado including best management practices. With that they believe they demonstrate conformance with the approval criteria. n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards; Mr. Weaver stated they will not have any discharges of pollutants to the atmosphere that will conflict with federal or state laws. o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance; Mr. Weaver stated the application includes a hydrology report dealing with the operational impacts on in-stream flows. The conclusion of that report, being Glen Porzaks presentation on water rights, they find the district being able to sustain stream flows at levels that are at or above the water rights that have been established by the Colorado Conservation Board for protection of in-stream flows and aquatic life. They feel the Eagle River is well protected. It has been designed and sited to minimize impacts to riparian areas and wildlife habitat in this area. The disturbance will be temporary and there will be no permanent damage. They have included in the application a survey of plants and didn't find any that will be impacted by this development. Jim Fritze stated everyone in the room has staffs report, so if they are talking about item q you do not have to re-read the finding. With regard of items that do not apply they can be skipped. Chairman Stone suggested if they have already talked about those items just indicate those have been previously addressed. Commissioner Phillips stated she appreciates the efforts and usually staff points out those that are in conformance or not. p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; Mr . Weaver stated they concur with staff findings that the proposed development will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics. They believe this will actually improve the appearance of this site and be beneficial to aquatic habitat. There will not be any nuisance factors such 56 10-02-2000 as excessive noise or obnoxious odors. q. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and the source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result; They have included information in the application and a detailed financial analysis. He stated they have used the 3% increase in usage and the costs are entirely justified and in capacity with the area. r. The salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsection 6.03.13(7)b)6) and 6.03.13(8)e) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith, if any, have been paid. This finding is not applicable. s. The construction of structures, buildings and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. The structures associated will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities. t. The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snowslides, landslides, avalanches, rockslides or other disasters which could cause a system operational breakdown. Mr. Weaver stated wildlife habitat is avoided as are the areas along the river. He reviewed the findings for section 6.04.15 as follows: a. Major extensions of domestic water and sewage treatment systems shall be permitted in those areas in which the anticipated growth and development that may occur as a result of such extension can be accommodated within the financial and environmental capacity of the development area and source development area to sustain such growth and development; Mr. Weaver stated the testimony and documentation submitted address the issues and they concur with staff findings. b. The proposed development does not conflict with an approved local master plan or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan; Mr. Weaver stated they have submitted testimony they are in conformance and concur with staff finding. c. The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or sub-surface water rights of upstream or downstream users within the development area and source development area; Mr. Weaver stated they have addressed this under section 6.03.15. d. Adequate water supplies as determined by the Colorado Department of Health are available for efficient operational needs; Mr. Weaver stated they concur with staff findings. e. Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; Mr. Weaver stated again this is redundant and they concur with staff findings. f. Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; Mr. Weaver stated this finding is not applicable g. The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewage services or create duplicate services: Mr. Weaver stated there is no competition with other sewage treatment systems. h. Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair, or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; 57 10-02-2000 Mr. Weaver stated this is not applicable. i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; Mr. Weaver stated they have submitted testimony and concur with staff findings. j. Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission; Mr. Weaver stated this approval criteria deals with waste water and is not applicable. k. Appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; Mr. Weaver stated the issues have been addressed and they concur with staff findings. I. The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricultural lands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development; Mr. Weaver stated this approval criteria has been addressed. m. The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; n. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system or new service areas will not violate federal or state air quality standards; o. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; p. The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, or cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; q. The proposed development or its associated collection or distribution system will not create an undue financial burden on existing or future residents within the development area and source development area. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result; r. The development site of a proposed major extension of an existing domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snowslides, landslides, avalanches, rockslides or other disasters which would cause a system operational breakdown; s. Any proposed domestic water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing water meeting the requirements of the Colorado Department of Health. t. The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. Mr. Weaver stated m through t are all approval criteria they have addressed and they concur with staff findings. Mr. Merry asked they review approval criteria r. in 6.03 and 6.04. Mr. Weaver stated the application contains a report by Geotechnical Engineers, Hepworth Pawlak, and the condition for review is something they concur with. The site has been deemed satisfactory. He continued with section 6.05.15. c. Municipal and industrial water projects shall emphasize the most efficient use of water, 58 10-02-2000 including, to the extent permissible under existing law, the recycling and reuse of water. Urban development, population densities, and site layout and design of storm water and sanitation systems shall be accomplished in a manner that will prevent the pollution of aquifer recharge areas; Mr. Weaver stated the Water Authority has a Water Conservation Master Plan that provides for metering within the service area. Efficiency standards for fixtures to be used within the building occur and they have a leak detection program for monitoring the use or water losses which are prevented through leaks or unauthorized usage, by being repaired on a regular basis. He spoke to the rate structure and the incentive to be efficient. He stated all uses will be metered. One ofthe things the Water Authority focuses on is outdoor water use promoting the more indigenous vegetation. One of the greatest demands is outdoor water use. He stated all of the other approval criteria have been addressed in previous testimony for findings in 6.03 and 6.04. Concluding he would like to incorporate the record ofthe Planning Commission for these proceedings. Mr. Fritze stated the application and the documents introduced can be incorporated in the record, but the minutes of those meetings can not be incorporated as the Board has not read the record or the transcript. He suggested the Board accept the rest into the record. Chairman Stone stated the Board will accept everything into the record with the exception of the meeting minutes of the Planning Commission meeting. Chairman Stone stated they will take a quick break and reconvene at 4:00. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. Bill Williams, representing the Riverwalk Development, apologized for his appearance. He stated he wasn't notified about this meeting and asked ifthere is a requirement to make notification to the neighbors. Mr. Fritze stated it is by public notice in the paper for a 1041. Mr. Williams stated he was on the Water Authority Board and the Chairman for a number of years. He has opposed this site since the beginning. There is no question that the need for a new plant is there and the size proposed is right. The type of plant they are proposing is great. He asked when the Avon plant came about they were dumping into the sewer system, some of the affluent out of the water treatment system, which affected the quality of the sewer system. What do they do with the filters and how are they disposed of. The reasons he opposes this is that he questions the access permit. He stated the applicant has related they have an access permit but the State Highway Department has stated they will not be giving an access permit for this location. He has been told that they don't have access from CDOT or from the Reserve. He stated he has concerns with the easements for the water lines and how they are going to go out of this site. He stated the design ofthe building is a fine job. He stated he asked for and has received color pictures of some of the site. He spoke to the point made of there being no effect on the next door neighbors. He stated there is an effect. He has lost one contract already and may loose more. He stated once this is built he thinks the devaluation probably won't occur but it is right now. An industrial site in an area that is not zoned industrial is a conflict. He stated it may be they can change the zoning but it is not now designated as industrial. Accesses, easement to get the water out, and the easement is on his property is a big concern. He stated he would consider an easement but wants more information. He stated there are errors in the hydrology report. He is concerned with minimum stream flows. He asked how they will turn that on when it is needed. Right now there is not enough water in the river to take out the amount of water this plant will need. He stated in the hydrology study he sees no reference to the minimum stream flows. He stated the errors he found were where they showed increased use of the water into the plant but it also increased the stream flow. He stated he was unable to contact the author. He has a real problem when they say they will put the flow from the river into the plant without disturbing the trees. He stated the trees are along the steep bank and below. He doesn't know how they can to that without tearing up the trees. He stated he is upset because the County 59 10-02-2000 had to sell them the land to begin with as it was the only access to the river that the 5th Filing had. He does not believe it was a legal subdivision, but sees it as being past history. The minimum stream flows and how they are going to handle that is his biggest concern. He spoke to the pipeline from Lake Creek to the plant. He was part of the site selection group. He now understands they are not going to do that. The site selection is based on economics and they will not have to pump the water up to the Arrowhead area or new lines into Berry Creek. It is a totally economic thing. None of the special districts are hurting financially and he believes the selection is based on economics. He stated he understood the site to be that which would be closer to the major tank which is now at Cordillera Valley Club. He suggested this would save on the cost of pumping to the upper Arrowhead area. He stated there are large problems with the pressure in the Edwards area. They now have to put PRV valves on the fire sprinkler system throughout Riverwalk. He stated he has argued about the pressures and they have water spiked pressures in excess of 250 pounds. He stated this plant will not help the problem and it is not going to make it better. He suggested these issues must be addressed more completely. Chairman Stone asked for additional public comment. There was none. Glen Porzak spoke regarding the impact on the river. Currently the impact exists because there is still an amount of diversion from the Avon Treatment Plant further up river. Chairman Stone suggested they are building this plant for additional capacity. Mr. Prozak stated some of the demand is currently being served out of the Avon plant. Chairman Stone suggested they are building this for future capacity. Mr. Prozak stated one of the advantages of the Edwards facility is that more water will be in the river for a greater distance. He stated with Eagle Park Reservoir Water and Homestake Reservoir they are fully augmenting their depletions up river. He stated there are measuring devises on the Eagle River which are monitored by the Colorado Water Conservation District and the Upper Eagle Valley Water Authority. He stated that information is on the internet and they are very congnasent of the river flows. On a daily and sometime hourly basis there is a group of three that watch those numbers. They will make the determinations as to where the water should be diverted from. He stated the technology is there so they know what the flows are at any given point in time. Mr. Prozak stated with the water rights they have at their disposal they can and will maintain the minimum stream flows. Mr. Williams asked where the measuring devices are. Mr. Weaver stated the key device is the UDGF gage and it is just below the treatment facility in Avon. Mr. Prozak stated they also know what it is at the diversion location. Mr. Weaver stated the hydrology report contained in the application does have a detailed description of the water rights and flows. All the graphs and tables in the report use the instream flow as a reference point for the water impacts. Their conclusion was that with the inbasin augmentation they can sustain the instream flows. It has been reviewed by the Colorado Division of Wildlife and to move the point of diversion downstream will be favorable to the stream. Dennis Galvin spoke to the disposal of the residue and this plant will use very few chemicles and this plant design will allow them to minimize the residue. He stated they have received a letter from CDOT indicating they intend to approve an access permit off the Spur Road through the rest area. He stated they had an agreement with the recreation authority and their's will be as well. He spoke to the acquisition of easements and the negotiations with the Reserve. He referred to the request for an easment from Mr. Williams and they are optimistic that will be successful. He stated they can require them if necessary through condemnation. He spoke to the allegations of impact on property value. He stated having a high quality water plant will likely enhance property values. He spoke to preserving access to the river and they have conveyed back to the County enough access. They have an obligation to convey back any land not used for the plant. He spoke to the site selection and economics being part of it but more so the functions of the system. He spoke to the pressure spikes and stated they will always exist. 60 10-02-2000 Chairman Stone asked if there was anything else that had not been addressed. Gary Fuller stated one of the attractive features of the Edwards site is the close proximity to the tank at Arrowhead. This site, because it has a tank at Arrowhead is close enough to allow them to further reduce the footprint. They are able to minimize the construction. Mr. Williams stated he is glad to hear they have something from CDOT. George Roussos, Asst. County Administrator, stated the truth of the matter is Eagle County is the issuing authority. They would look to see that they have the right to cross the Spur Road but the issuance is not the right of CDOT. Mr. Williams stated he knows they have the ability to release water into the river and that is a result of them not bringing it out of Lake Creek. He stated most of his concerns have been addressed and he thinks they have done a good job of trying to camouflage the plant. Commissioner Gallagher asked if right now when there are minimum stream flow drops is the applicant augmenting. Mr. Fuller stated they are in deed. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the levels of depletion, one being at the Edwards Water Treatment Plant and the Edwards Waste Water Treatment Plant. He asked where they replace it. He asked how much water do they have available for augmentation. Mr. Fuller stated the only factor is the amount of consumptive use. He stated they have enough for 20 MGD. Beyond that, they have enough to provide water service to all the member districts at full build out. Commissioner Gallagher asked how they get water from Eagle Park at 2:00 a.m. Mr. Fuller stated they have a contract with Climax Molybdenum Company and they are the ones that actually turn the value. He stated hopefully it will not be at 2:00 a.m. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the actual use of the plant. He stated right now Avon gets up to 900,000 on a good day. At this point they are talking 500,000 at Edwards with moving some from Avon which is about 1/3 oftheir usage. Mr. Weaver suggested that will be about 1/3. Mr. Fuller stated in the event the Avon plant is inoperable, they feel they need to have adequate size to compensate for the loss of one plant, providing enough to respond to catastrophes. He stated the plants operate better full time than taking them on or off line. Commissioner Gallagher asked when they will use up the 500,000. Denis Galvin stated the expansion will be based on the demand. He stated the other elements are economic factors and the bonding capability will playa part. Commissioner Gallagher asked if that is unpredictable. Mr. Galvin stated the rate structure is also to be taken into consideration. Commissioner Gallagher asked what is the predictable life of the Avon plant. Mr. Gelvin stated the life is forever and the utilization will be able to serve at full buildout. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they have the ability to put pressure reducing valves as needed. Mr. Gelvin stated they do and they have those valves. Spikes will occur regardless. Commissioner Gallagher spoke to the diversion ground pump stations. Mr. Fuller stated those are diversion pumps that are almost like a sewage pump. He stated the intent is a low maintenance pump. They are fifty horse power units. Commissioner Gallagher asked where they are located. Mr. Fuller explained there are two cells which are located underground. Commissioner Phillips spoke to the minimum stream flows and asked if that flow will be maintained. Mr. Weaver stated if you look at the hydrology report one of the things you'll see is there are occasions where the flow fell below the in-stream water right. There are natural situations where the flow, without any diversions, is below the CWBC flow right. With those kind of situations, the 61 10-02-2000 augmentation from Eagle Park Reservoir is sufficient to maintain a flow level that corrects for the impacts being caused by the water authorities diversions. There are dry year situations where you could have flows below the CWBC. Commissioner Phillips stated the discussion with the Eagle Park Reservoir they believed there would be enough water to augment. Now they are making room to take out more water. Mr. Merry stated staff is making a recommendation for approval with conditions. He stated access to the site is not part of their criteria. Commissioner Phillips spoke to the requests for referrals and suggested Northwest COG was not a referral. She questioned not having the input from Robert Ray. Mr. Merry stated the burden of providing evidence is on the applicant. He stated the 208 plan is more focused on sewage than on water production. Chairman Stone stated one ofthe comments was about access to the river. He asked the applicant to speak to keeping access to the river for fisherman and secondly a question to Mr. Fritze and the requirement for any property not being used to be deeded back to the County. Mr. Fritze stated the languge is in the deed that any property not being used after construction, the grantee must convey to the grantor that portion of the property not used as a water treatment plant. Mr. Gelvin stated they have an obligation to provide an easement to the river and they foresee some of the property being deeded back. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve file number 1041-0029, Edwards Drinking Water Facility, incorporating staff findings and with four conditions as follows: 1) All material representation presented by the applicant will become conditions of the application. 2) the Regional Water Authority shall adhere to all conditions outlined in the letter from the Water Quality Control Division, dated September 8, 2000, regarding 401 certification BMP's. 3) Final construction plans shall conform to geotechnical recommendations contained in the April 12, 2000 Hepworth -Pawlak Geotechnical report. 4) Construction activities in the Eagle River shall be coordinated with the Division of Wildlife to avoid impacts to fish spawning cycles. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Mr. Merry concluded the last official act of the Board will be the resolution. 1041-0031, Red Sky Ranch Ray Merry presented file number 1041-0031, Red Sky Ranch. He stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to a date specific. This will allow the Board to review all files at the same time. The applicant is requesting a variance which needed to be advertised. The files would all be heard in conjunction with one another and the date for tabling is October 24,2000. Commissioner Phillips asked if they are going to be hearing three files Mr. Merry stated they will hear the 1041, the SSA file is the state site application, and the variance which will accompany the Preliminary Plan file. The zone change would be heard at the same time. Commissioner Phillips moved to table file number 1041-0031, Red Sky Ranch to October 24, 2000 at the applicants request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDP-00016, ZC-00039, Red Sky Ranch Joseph Forinash, Planner, requested file numbers PDP-00016 and ZC-00039, Red Sky Ranch be tabled to October 24, 2000. 62 10-02-2000 Commissioner Gallagher moved to table PDP-00016 and ZC-00039, Red Sky Ranch to October 24, 2000. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDP-OOOI5 & ZC-00035, Frost Creek-Adams Rib Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, presented file numbers PDP-00015 and ZC-00035, Frost Creek - Adams Rib. He stated the 1041 file is scheduled for deliberation on October 30. The intent is to place all the pertinent files on the same day. Commissioner Phillips moved to table PDP-00015 and ZC-00035 to October 30, 2000. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until October 10,2000. Attest: Clerk to the Bo ~~ 63 10-02-2000