The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 12/04/2000 Present: Tom C, Stone Johnnette Phillips Michael Gallagher James R. Fritze Jack Ingstad Earlene Roach DECEMBER 4, 2000 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner County Attorney County Administrator Deputy Clerk to the Board This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of County Commissioners for their consideration: GENERAL FUND 3CMA A & H GRAPHICS AAA COLLECTORS AAAA SEPTIC PUMPING PORTA ACZ LABORATORY INC ADVANTAGENEnNORKSYSTEMS AFFORDABLE PORTABLE AGNES MCLAREN ALLlANT FOOD SERVICE AMERICAN INCOME LIFE AMERICAN TOWER CORP AMERICINN LODGE & SUITES ANDREW MONTOYA ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMENT AND ANN LOPER ANN MUNCASTER APA COLORADO, DENVER REG. APEX SECURITY API FUND FOR PAYROLL ED AQUA TEC SYSTEMS ASCOM ASISTENCIA PARA LATINOS ASPEN BASALT CARE CLINIC ASPEN CTR FOR WOMENS HL TH ASPEN PUBLISHERS INC AV TECH ELECTRONICS INC AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS B & B ELECTRIC INC BARTELL & BARTELL BASALT SANITATION DIST BATTLE MOUNTAIN HIGH SCHO BEllA RAMIREZ BENCHMARK ENGINEERING SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES 1 420.00 70.60 38.02 600.00 165.00 95,66 440.00 37.80 1,347.16 40.71 875.00 423.39 70.40 90.93 60,00 70,20 55.00 314.88 319.00 100.00 127.50 375.00 1,350,00 2,575,00 125.00 901.12 2,010.24 2,630.00 429,50 103.50 760.00 14.30 500,00 12-04-2000 BERT BRATTON BEST FRIENDS MONOGRAMMING BEST WESTERN EAGLE LODGE BFI STERICYCLE INC BLACK BOX CORPORATION BLUE LAKE OWNERS ASSN , BOB BARKER COMPANY BOB'S PLACE BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO BRC/HARRIS INC BROOKSIE SHULL BRUCE CAMPBELL CAD-1 CALOIA & HOUPT PC CAMBRIA COFFEE CAPITOL ADVANTAGE PUB, CAROL PRATER CARTER & SANDS P.C, CATERINA GIBSON CCO AND ERA CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL CHANNING L BETE CO, INC CHEMATOX INC, CHESS CHILD CARE CONNECTIONS CITY MARKET #34 CLERK RECORDER AVON ANNEX CO ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION CO BUREAU INVESTIGATION CO COUNTIES INCORPORATED CO COUNTY ATTORNEY ASSOC CO DEPT OF HEALTH CO WEST MENTAL HEALTH COLORADO COUNTIES INC COLORADO MUNICIPAL LEAGUE COLORADO WEST MENTAL COLUMBIA PROPANE COM-LINK CONTINENTAL COLLECTION COpy PLUS CORDILLERA CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING CORRA COUNTY SHERIFFS COLORADO CSU COOPERATIVE EXTENSION REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL EXPD SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 22,18 2,480.00 1,053,00 94,00 326,17 1,800,39 178,80 1,500,00 256,25 3,595,00 32,18 75,90 1,390.00 979,65 24,00 29.90 4.40 432.25 13,35 54,140.30 586,89 9,335.30 123.59 300,00 467,00 45,00 580.76 80.37 240.00 66.24 300,00 450,00 57,00 3,350,00 600,00 45,00 1,139,50 611.37 46.79 14.88 48,64 2,469.40 444,15 2,342.20 45,00 75.00 32.00 2 12-04-2000 DATA COMM WAREHOUSE DATA GENERAL CORPORATION DAVE LUSSIER DAVID GUINNEE, DVM DAYS INN GRAND JUNCTION DDM, INC. DEBRA BROWN DECKER CELLULAR DEEP ROCK WEST DENVER HEALTH DENVER POST CORPORATION T DIANA JOHNSON DIV PROPERTY TAXATION DOCTORS OFFICE THE DOCTORS ON CALL DONNA BARNES, CORONER DOUBLE Q ELECTRIC DUNN ABPLANALP AND EAGLE AUTO PARTS EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS EAGLE COUNTY CHARTER EAGLE COUNTY CLERK EAGLE COUNTY HEALTH AND EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF EAGLE EYE PHOTO EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE VAIL ANIMAL HOSPITA EAGLE VALLEY CHAMBER COMM EAGLE VALLEY ENTERPRISE EAGLE VALLEY PET HOSPITAL EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EAGLE VALLEY TILE CARPET EAST WEST RESORTS ELAINE WOLF ELDA HERNANDEZ ELECTRONIC DEVICES INC ELMERS GLASS ESRI ETHEL BORGEN EVES PRINT SHOP FACTORY SURPLUS FAMILY LEARNING CENTER FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FARMER BROTHERS FARRELL, GOLDSTEIN, FEDERAL EXPRESS SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES REFUND SERVICES 5,429.48 1,043.63 109.85 2,595.00 820.00 1,140.50 52.60 200.00 396.06 1,220.00 754.50 19,50 290.00 220.00 180,00 38.54 128.00 12.40 35.28 681, SO 1,560.00 8,S5 3,415,00 55.54 81,55 148.38 110,31 10.00 500,00 1,003.38 69.00 5,998,60 30,169,50 1,708,63 75.90 50.00 5.10 80.00 823.93 85.15 932.44 49.96 320.00 749,14 553.36 25.00 374,36 3 12-04-2000 FIESTAS CAFE FILE FINDERS L TD FIRST BANKS FIRST LUTHERAN CHURCH OF FITZSIMMONS MOTOR COMPANY FLORENTINE COMPANY, THE FLOYD SIMPSON FORINASH KATHLEEN FOX & COMPANY FRANK J BALL FRANKLIN COVEY FRENCH WEST WOOD & BROWN FRITZE JAMES R FRONTIER PRECISION INC GALLS INCORPORATED GATES MARGE PHN GEORGE HOYT GLENDA WENlWORTH GLENN M, HEELAN GLENWOOD SHOE SERVICE GLORIA REED GRACE FINNEY GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND GREATER EAGLE FIRE PROTEC GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES GREGG ROSSI GUADALUPETARRAZAS GUTTERMAN CARLTON GYPSUM FIRE DEPT AUX HART INFORMATION SERVICES HEAD START REGION VII HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HELEN MIGCHELBRINK HELLO DIRECT INC HERMAN MILLER WORKPLACE HIGH COUNTRY NEWS HOGAN & HARTSON HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HOLY CROSS ENERGY HYATT REGENCY DENVER ICMA IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS INTEGRITY PLUMBING AND INTERMOUNTAIN LANDSCAPING INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REFUND SERVICES REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES 55,00 30.00 16,007.53 250,00 30.00 39,30 4,20 265,87 2,620,00 25.00 22.11 91.98 52,98 800.00 321,21 525,00 22.72 298.02 85,00 36.00 88.15 64.35 168.32 66,13 250.00 25,00 86.74 250.00 25.00 1,800.00 85.43 105.00 100,838,46 147.23 56.98 2,067,82 32.00 750.00 136.26 11,093.72 1,923,14 338.00 49.45 282.56 1,952,24 25.00 198.48 4 12-04-2000 IPMP JACQUELINE ALLEN JANET BAILEY JASON CHICOINE JEAN NUNN JEANETTE BLANKENSHIP JENNIFER FISCHER, RN JENNY WAHRER JERRI A MAYER JOANIE HAGGERTY JOBS AVAILABLE JOHN WILEY AND SONS INC JOHNNETTE PHILLIPS JOHNSON AND HELD L TO JOHNSON CONTROLS JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC JOSEPH H STRIEFEL JULIA BARNETT JUNIPER VALLEY PRODUCTS K N ENERGY INC KAPLAN KATHY ROSS KELLEY BLUE BOOK KEYE PRODUCTIVITY CENTER KRIS WHITTAKER KSKE/KZYR RADIO KSKE/ROBERTS RADIO LAB SAFETY SUPPLY LABELS DIRECT INC LANDS END INCORPORATED LAW ENFORCEMENT RESOURCE LAWRENCE RAGAN LEDERHAUSE EDITH LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC LEGAL DIRECTORIES LESLIE KEHMEIER LETN LEWAN AND ASSOCIATES L1L JOHNS WATER TREATMENT LOIS INC M KELLY L1EKIS RN MACHOL & JOHANNES MAE PITTMAN MARK CHAPIN MARTYE MCGINNIS MARY JANE GONZALES MARY KRAFT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES 3,910.44 159.63 107.25 218.53 22,50 22.00 51,77 720.00 6,50 122.20 174,80 47.70 153,16 1,583,00 1,040.80 2,229,99 85.00 394.20 50.00 1,011.96 11,885.13 75,90 90.00 50,00 206.38 250.00 460,00 1,678.62 132.00 2,550.45 415.00 89,00 14,70 635,00 36,50 27,06 388.00 1,200,00 330.00 759,24 22.00 109,92 4.42 7.48 75.90 26.40 198.61 5 12-04-2000 MATT ROYER MAULDIN BROTHERS PLUMBING MBIA MCCAULLEY REBECCA T MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS MCI WORLDCOM MCKESSON GENERAL MEDICAL MEGAN GROSS MEGAN HAMMER MERCK A TL MEYER LAND SYSTEMS MICROWAREHOUSE MID VALLEY KENNEL MIGHTY RAPID BARREL MIGUEL BLANCO MIKE GALLAGHER MILLAR ELEVATOR SERVICE MOORE BUSINESS SOLUTIONS MOORE MEDICAL CORP MOTOR POOL FUND MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS MOUNTAIN TEMP SERVICES MOUNTAIN VALLEY NANCY BUSCH NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION NATIONAL GRAPHICS COMPANY NCR CORPORATION NELSON TRAINING & NETTIE REYNOLDS NEVES UNIFORMS NEWARK ELECTRONICS NOBEL SYSCO FOOD SERVICES NORDIC REFRIGERATION NORMAN MARTINEZ NORTHWEST COLORADO NORWEST BANK ORACLE CORPORATION OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OVERLAND AND EXPRESS COMP PAPER DIRECT PATRICK & COMPANY PETTY CASH PITNEY BOWES POSTMASTER EAGLE BRANCH PRECISION SERVICE PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATES PROFESSIONAL PROCESS SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES PAYROLL EXPD SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REFUND REFUND REFUND 195.00 386,00 4,078,55 125,35 3,718,23 4,122.42 138.92 237.24 15,72 2,798,50 2,593.75 1,622.76 3,408.00 250,00 250.00 100.00 611,19 382.70 62.42 2224,04 366.70 2,184,38 6,750.00 310,76 655.00 165.48 380.20 9,333.26 270.00 6,847.75 49,08 1,945.45 112.00 14.30 600,00 117,828.04 2,294.79 361,08 230.00 424,63 659,97 55,95 327.30 17,850.42 35.00 2.40 25.00 6 12-04-2000 PROFESSIONAL TREE & TURF PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY QUALITY QUICK PRINT QUEST DIAGNOSTICS QUILL CORPORATION RAMADA INN RANDY ARNOLD RENTXlEZ WAY RENZELMAN JANET RHETA STRONG RITA WOODS ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT ROBERT H WINTER ROBERT LOEFFLER ROBIN BURGDORF RUSTY WILLIAMS SAWATCH SUMMITNAIL SYMP SCHUMACHER & MCALLISTER SCOTT N MILLER SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SEAN KOENIG SECURUS, INC SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SHAINHOL TZ TODD HODS SHARON SMITH SHEAFFER KAREN SHEILA VIGIL SHELLEY STARK SHERATON STEAMBOAT RESORT SILVER CREEK LODGING SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SKILLPATH SEMINAR SNOWHITE LINEN SOUTHERN STEEL COMPANY SPECIAL PROTECTION INC SPIECKER HANLON & GORMLEY STARBUCK SURVEYORS & ENGI STATE FORMS CENTER STEPHEN 0 FOSTER STEVES BARBQUE STOUTS ELECTRICAL MOTOR SUMMIT COUNTY SENIORS SUMMIT LUMBER SUSPENSE FUND SUZANNE BERG MSW SYDNEY SUMMERS SYLVIA SALAZAR SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REFUND REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES PAYROLL EXPO SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES 205.51 101.83 216.30 474,25 682,88 432.00 100,00 26,00 10.33 85.48 11.80 2,236,88 25.00 3.99 41.62 54.60 2,500.00 200,00 285,80 2,472.14 15.49 23.10 27,300.41 100,00 34.13 191.75 75,90 29.90 5,660.28 360,00 152.46 149.00 166.44 138,17 3,641,88 63.02 4,975,00 18.00 25.00 1,064.00 1,225.61 1,311.36 649.36 3,562.67 75.00 8.40 13,65 7 12-04-2000 TAP ENTERPRISES INC TEE'S PLUS TERRI ALLENDER TOM DEVEREAUX TOP DRAWER OFFICE SUPPLY TOWN OF BASALT TOWN OF EAGLE TOX TRAPS INCORPORATED TRANE COMPANY TRANSCOR AMERICA INC UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNIV COLORADO AT BOULDER UNIVERSTIY PHYSICIANS INC URBAN AND REGIONAL US WEST COMMUNICATIONS VAIL DAILY THE VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL VAILNET INC VALLEY ELECTRIC SUPPLY VALLEY LUMBER VALLEY MOBILE VETERINARY VALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY VERIZON WIRELESS, VICKIE BURROWS VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS VIRGINIA CERISE WADE JUSTIN HALVERSON WALMART AVON WALMART GLENWOOD WELLS FARGO WENDY BOGNER WENDY GRIFFITH PHOTOGRAPH WEST PUBLISHING WESTERN EAGLE COUNTY WESTERN PAGING WESTERN SLOPE PUBLICATION WILLIAM LOPER WOLCOTT MARKET WOOD ASSOCIATES INC WRIGHT WATER ENGINEERS WYNDAHM GARDEN CENTER XEROX CORPORATION YAMPA VALLEY ELECTRIC Z DELI ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY REFUND SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL EXPO SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 460,00 78.62 50.00 47.42 94.35 51,00 5,661,00 380.00 1,526,25 1,020,63 439,09 120,00 49.40 132,00 3,413.06 2,012.72 626.00 2,015,00 101,70 502.4 7 33.08 20.00 60.00 882,20 4,332.41 500.00 181,33 32.50 8.68 50.44 1,023,68 120,046.37 31.25 317.50 1,486,89 132,58 36.00 1,446,33 58.50 1,204.00 3,994.92 1,452.66 161,00 4,878,39 51.06 750,00 114,90 8 12-04-2000 ZIP TUBE SYSTEMS, INC. SERVICES 220.96 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER PAYROLL 20 & 21 518,037.20 1,291,426.51 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND BEDROCK CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 250.00 BOGUE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 9,102.77 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPO 4,442.08 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICES 12.77 CLIFFORD ALLEN REIMBURSEMENT 75,00 COLORADO L TAP SERVICES 40.00 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICES 13,90 DIVISION OF LABOR SERVICES 25.00 DOLAN CONSTRUCTION INC SERVICES 2,000.00 EAGLE PHARMACY SUPPLIES 32,60 EBY CREEK MESA L TO, SERVICES 2,000.00 ELAM CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 1,604.00 ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPO SERVICES 543,255.60 HARRYS HEAVY HAULERS SERVICES 5,450,52 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 10,713.40 HELLERSTEIN & SHORE PC SERVICES 536.97 K C BUILDERS G C INC SERVICES 2,000.00 KURT BROSIG SERVICES 250.00 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPO 9,460.57 RANDY & SHERRIE SCHLEGEL SERVICES 450.00 RAY VAN NATTA REIMBURSEMENT 53.59 ROARING FORK SAND AND GRA SERVICES 782,99 ROBERT BORNE SERVICES 2,000,00 SHERATON COLORADO SPRINGS SERVICES 177.00 SIERRA CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 2,000.00 SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLIES 20,33 SUSPENSE FUND PAYROLL EXPO 200.00 VANDERWALKER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 250.00 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 11,257,56 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 8.84 XPECT FIRST AID SUPPLIES 54.15 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER PAYROLL 20 & 21 46,277,51 654,797,15 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND 9 12-04-2000 ARLlSS SIMS BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO CALENDARS CAMP CHIP-A-TOOTH CAROL PRATER CATHERINE CRAIG CCO AND ERA CENTRAL SERVICES/EC CSED CWLA PERIODICALS CENTER EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF FORINASH KATHLEEN FRANKLIN COVEY HART INFORMATION SERVICES HEALTH INSURANCE FUND INTEGRITY PLUMBING AND ISABEL SANCHEZ JEANETTE BLANKENSHIP JERRI OLSON LYONS KATHLEEN M KELLY L1EKIS RN MARY JANE GONZALES MCCAULLEY REBECCA T MESA COUNTY SHERIFF NORWEST BANK QUILL CORPORATION RITA WOODS ROCHELLE A BOWER ROCKY MOUNTAIN KIDS KLUB SANDY ALFRED SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SUSPENSE FUND SUZANNE SMITH TERRI ALLENDER TOWN OF AVON US WEST COMMUNICATIONS VERIZON WIRELESS, WALMART AVON WELLS FARGO XEROX CORPORATION REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT PAYROLL EXPO SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES PAYROLL EXPD SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES PAYROLL EXPO REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES PAYROLL EXPD SERVICES 10.65 98,00 22,35 1,084,00 3,60 120,05 4,446,01 369,92 309.12 131.00 114.84 380.19 18,09 192.50 8,304,93 1,597,28 10,65 32.66 227,63 9,85 18,00 48,74 18,00 11,72 8,105.80 13.98 86.00 281.53 121.00 125.64 25.48 194,22 186.49 150,00 60,00 199,57 140.40 71.57 9,218.49 657,30 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER PAYROLL 20 & 21 30,410,60 67,627.85 WRAP FUND 10 12-04-2000 CO WEST MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES 145,00 KIM HURST SERVICES 400.00 PUEBLO MONTESSORI CENTER SERVICES 300,00 ROCKY MOUNTAIN KIDS KLUB SERVICES 321.00 TERRI ALLENDER SERVICES 250,00 1,416.00 RETIREMENT FUND CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPO 46,120,18 46,120.18 INSURANCE RESERVE FUND EAGLE RIVER AUTO BODY SERVICES 3,887,69 GYPSUM AUTO BODY SERVICES 1,805,96 TRI PHASE ELECTRIC SERVICES 235.00 5,928.65 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICES SERVICES 707.75 GIBSON RENO ARCHITECTS SERVICES 30,543.93 JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC SERVICES 9,341,62 MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN SERVICES 110,916.00 ROARING FORK FENCING SERVICES 2,344.00 SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLIES 535.47 WESTON CONSULTANTS SERVICES 900.00 155,288,77 SALES TAX E.V. TRANSP. AIR TOUCH CELLULAR SERVICES 37,98 ANNETTE PRESSLEY SERVICES 1,360.00 ASPEN DAILY NEWS SERVICES 128,75 BERTHODS, INC SERVICES 1,250.00 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 245,54 CITY MARKET #34 SUPPLIES 11.13 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICES 259.70 COPY COPY SERVICES 371,10 COPY PLUS SERVICES 164.34 11 12-04-2000 D & M MAINTENANCE SERVICE SERVICES 150.00 DON BUTTS REIMBURSEMENT 2,263.68 EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICES 23,393.00 EAGLE VALLEY ENTERPRISE SERVICES 132.00 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,128.64 HILL & TASHIRO MARKETING SERVICES 3,067,20 HOL Y CROSS ENERGY SERVICES 2.30 JIM LAIR REIMBURSEMENT 48.72 LAKE CREEK VILLAGE SERVICES 23,905,00 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 25.01 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPD 1,344,58 PUBLIC SERVICE SERVICES 47.37 SLIFER MANAGEMENT SERVICES 965,36 SUSPENSE FUND PAYROLL EXPD 78.34 TOWN OF AVON SERVICES 317,074,64 US WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 780.93 W. DEL PRESSLEY SERVICES 30,941,70 WALMART AVON SUPPLIES 90.71 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 1,715.05 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER PAYROLL 20 & 21 7,615,60 418,598.37 SALES TAX E.V. TRAILS CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 113.80 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICES 381.63 COPY COPY SERVICES 86,83 EAGLE VALLEY ENTERPRISE SERVICES 40.00 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 103,64 HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNI SERVICES 807.50 IMPACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS SERVICES 50,00 JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC SERVICES 5,773,80 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPD 357.25 SEARL CONSTRUCTION LLC SERVICES 28,829.00 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 357.25 36,900.70 AIRPORT FUND ADB ALNACO SUPPLIES 608,01 AFFLECK PHOTOGRAPHY SERVICES 7,500.00 ALLISON SYSTEMS INC SERVICES 153,89 AMERICAN ASSOC AIRPORT SERVICES 150.00 12 12-04-2000 AMERICINN LODGE & SUITES ASMI BERTHOD MOTORS BOWMONK BRENT SERVICES BROWNING FERRIS IND CCO AND ERA CENTURYTEL CITY MARKET #34 CLERK EAGLE COUNTY COURT CO AIRPORT OPERATORS ASSN CO DEPT HEALTH ENVIRONMENT COLLETTS COLUMBINE MARKET CURTIS INDUSTRIES INC DAY TIMERS INCORPORATED DEEP ROCK WEST DIVISION MINERALS GEOLOGY EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EDDIE STORER GALLS INCORPORATED GYPSUM TOWN OF HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HERTZ CORPORATION HIGH COUNTRY SHIRTWORKS HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC IDEAL FENCING CORP JAMES P ELWOOD KN ENERGY INC LAWSON PRODUCTS MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING MARKOS PIZZERIA MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC NORWEST BANK ONE OF A KIND DESIGN PRECISION PAINTING PRECISION WEST SIGNS RAYTHEON ENGINEERS & RENTXlEZ WAY ROARING FORK RESOURCES ROBERT B JONES & CO SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SETON NAME PLATE COMPANY SUMMIT LUMBER TRI PHASE ELECTRIC SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL EXPO SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PAYROLL EXPO SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES 82.00 8,055.00 118,64 332.54 289,04 199.58 2,296,98 2,180.82 44.70 471.52 250.00 159,00 253.05 233.96 180,65 148.44 46.90 281,00 84.88 22.50 32.46 148.95 190.85 3,909,67 60.98 1,312,50 2,660.71 4,200.00 847.20 334.45 82.09 1,446.54 39.98 176,64 52,104,00 4.892,72 4,431.00 9,300.00 10,000,00 21,827.38 15.25 332.32 10,000,00 101.40 504.95 17.83 1,413.28 13 12-04-2000 UNISOURCE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 55.25 VAIL BROCHURE DELIVERY SERVICES 850,00 VAIL ELECTRONICS SERVICES 525.00 VAIL VALLEY JET CENTER SERVICES 25,63 VAN SANT GROUP SERVICES 662,27 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICES 492,23 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 5,146,69 WESTERN IMPLEMENTS SERVICES 54,73 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICES 559,85 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER PAYROLL 20 & 21 22,217,54 185,115.44 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FUND CHOICE SOLUTIONS, LLC SERVICES 860,00 ELECTRONIC DEVICES INC SERVICES 805.00 GALLS INCORPORATED SERVICES 199.99 HERMAN MILLER WORKPLACE SERVICES 2,032.00 RAYMONDS OFFICE MACHINES SERVICES 725.00 4,621.99 HOUSING FUND CO HOUSING ASSISTANCE SERVICES 125,000,00 125,000,00 LANDFILL FUND CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPO 1,179.68 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICES 62.50 CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH & SERVICES 16,257,90 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICES 83.40 DOWN VALLEY SEPTIC SERVICES 424,00 GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND SERVICES 31.61 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,689,50 HELLERSTEIN & SHORE PC SERVICES 12,62 KRW CONSULTING INC SERVICES 6,046.89 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPO 2,345,90 QUILL CORPORATION SUPPLIES 399.90 ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMENT SERVICES 46,757.96 SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SUPPLIES 78,54 SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SERVICES 1,599,28 14 12-04-2000 SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLIES 51,95 SUSPENSE FUND PAYROLL EXPD 38.46 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 2,602.32 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 373.30 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICES 105,00 XPECT FIRST AID SUPPLIES 36,30 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER PAYROLL 20 & 21 11,788.17 93,965.18 MOTOR POOL FUND AGENCY AUTO GLASS SERVICES 205.64 BOYZ TOYZ & SONZ SERVICES 6,269,00 BRAD RAGAN INC SERVICES 740.96 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS SERVICES 309,64 CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE SERVICES 53,80 CCG SYSTEMS SERVICES 1,750.00 CCOAND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 995.48 COLLETTS SERVICES 37,928.44 COUNTRY GENERAL SERVICES 209.86 EAGLE AMOCO SERVICES 45.00 EAGLE AUTO PARTS SERVICES 2,804,86 FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY SERVICES 505.38 GAY JOHNSONS INC SERVICES 9,875.10 GLENWOOD SPRINGS FORD SERVICES 18.40 HANSON EQUIPMENT SERVICES 684,07 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,195.90 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE SERVICES 71,52 JAY MAX SALES SERVICES 177.70 KAR PRODUCTS INCORPORATED SERVICES 6.64 LEATRICE VASTEN SERVICES 19.25 M & M AUTO PARTS SERVICES 566.42 MARY JANE GONZALES REIMBURSEMENT 35.77 NORWEST BANK PAYROLL EXPD 3,071.39 POWER MOTIVE SERVICES 18,227.72 SAFETY KLEEN SERVICES 157,20 SNAP ON TOOLS SERVICES 1,865.75 SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLIES 13,23 SUZANNE SMITH REIMBURSEMENT 55.45 UNITED STATE WELDING INC, SERVICES 156.20 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICES 2,850.03 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 3,072.36 WRIDGHT'S WELDING SUPPLY SERVICES 964.40 XPECT FIRST AID SUPPLIES 30.30 15 12-04-2000 PAYROLL FOR OCTOBER PAYROLL 20 & 21 14,303.60 111,236.46 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND AIRPORT PFC FUND ALPINE BANK GENERAL FUND LANDFILL FUND MOTOR POOL FUND ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND SOCIAL SERVICES FUND TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY UNITED STATES LIFE INS VISION SERVICE PLAN - CO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 111,78 150,000.00 5,947.86 111,84 176.08 111.78 394,47 12.42 76.98 1,572,19 158,515.40 ENHANCED E911 FUND AT & T LANGUAGE LINE JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC US WEST COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 50.00 1,020,75 4,419.14 5,489,89 REPORT TOTAL 3,362,048.54 Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the first item was an "Executive Session". Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn into "Executive Session" to discuss the following: 1) To receive advice regarding pending litigation with claimants regarding mining claims deeded to the Forest Service or relating to the Sopris Tree Farm acquisition 2) To receive legal advice regarding Section 6-120 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations 3) To receive legal advice regarding the use of9ll fees for reverse 911 4) To receive legal advice regarding proposed Red Mountain annexation 5) Report on litigation on Kummer Development verses Town of Eagle verses Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn from "Executive Session" and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 9:37 a.m. 16 12-04-2000 Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item on the agenda was the consent agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of December 4,2000, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of October 24,2000 C) Assignment of Certificate of Deposit No. 0263283343 for $1,900.00 of Continental West Constructors, Inc., new pipeline installations, Road Cut Permit No 2798 D) Intergovernmental Agreement between the Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority and Eagle County RE FT A Grant Application and Administration E) FTA 5309 Discretionary Capital Assistance Grant, Roaring Fork Railroad Holding Authority F) Resolution 2000-170, concerning appointments to the Roaring Fork Transit Agency G) Resolution 2000- 171, concerning appointments to the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority H) Waiver of Direct Subgrant Award Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) for the Federal Fiscal Year 1999 Award I) Agreement for Professional Services for the preparation of the State Highway 82 Access Control Plan J) Request for uncollectible taxes to be written off K) Investment Policy L) Third Quarter Interest Report M) Meldor Construction Change Order for highway improvements at Highway 82 and Valley Road intersection N) Addendum to schedule a Equipment Lease - Purchase Agreement #21073, dated 9-13- 99 between Eagle County and Motorola, Inc. 0) Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and Town of Basalt for Animal Control Services P) Agreement between the County of Eagle and the County of Summit for the Retired and, Senior Volunteer Program Q) Change Order number 1 to the Seventh Amendment to Agreement for Professional Services Number U0212 between Convergent Group Corporation and the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County. Commissioner Phillips asked the Treasurer to explain the uncollectible taxes to the Board. Karen Sheaffer, Eagle County Treasurer, stated the uncollectible taxes are broken out into mobile homes, personal and real property. She stated they have a write off procedure in her office that they follow before they add those to the list. She stated on the mobile home those taxes were pro-rated and can be written off. Some of the property is owned by Eagle County which will not be collected. She stated some of this are no longer in Eagle County. Ms. Sheaffer stated there have been no changes in the investment policy but because they moved from using the financial management guide she determined the financial policy needed to be approved by the Board as she bases on of her financial decisions on that policy. Ms. Sheaffer spoke to the 3rd quarter interest report. She stated it is pretty much on track with other quarters. Commissioner Phillips stated she has corrections to the minutes. On page 4, right before Red Sky Ranch, she wondered why there was no motion. Chairman Stone stated the Board did not make a motion. 17 12-04-2000 Commissioner Phillips stated on page 17 she felt there should have been a motion. Chairman Stone stated the Board had to break to hear another file and they did not need a motion. Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney, stated there is a motion on page 25. Commissioner Phillips stated on page 19, 10 paragraphs down it reads "Mr. Powell stated no not in it current plan," it should be "its". On the 6th line up from the bottom it reads "Commissioner Gallagher asked if there was anything the Town Manger" and should be "Manager". On page 49, 8 lines it reads "Chairman Stone stated the normal course of business it for them to take public comment" and it should be "is" rather than if. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the consent agenda as presented with the changes to the minutes as stated. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett; Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: AFP-00105, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No.9, Lot 18. He stated this was an amended final plat the intent of which is to relocate and reconfigure the platted building envelope. He stated the request will place the house in a more favorable location in terms of access, view, solar power, separation and privacy and preservation of existing vegetation. This has been approved by the Cordillera Review Board. 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-00I05, Cordillera Subdivision, Filing No 9, Lot lB, incorporating staff findings. The Chairman shall be authorized to sign the plat. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2000-172, To Approve the Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan for the Berry Creek sth, Miller Ranch PUD, PDS-00022. The Board originally heard this file on November 13,2000. Commissioner Gallagher asked on the map of parcel number 3 is obvious but the parcel above it does not seem to be numbered. He asked if that was the parcel for the school. Joe Forinash, Planner, stated this was the site plan that was brought in at the original hearing. This plan represents what came out of the community hearing concerning the layout of the site. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve Resolution 2000-172, approving the PUD Sketch Plan for the Berry Creek Sth, Miller Ranch PUD, file number PDS-00022l. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and 18 12-04-2000 reconvene as the Eagle County Air Terminal Board. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Air Terminal Corporation and reconvene as the Board of County. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Final Settlement, Elam Construction Bob Loeffler presented final settlement for Elam Construction, for the Landfill Road overlay project. This matter was published and no claims have been received. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve final settlement for Elam Construction for the Landfill Road overlay project. 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 Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda for December 4, 2000 as follows: A) Buxman Enterprises dbaNillage Market This is a renewal of a 3.2% Off Premise Beer License. This establishment is located at 34275 Highway 6, Edwards, (Riverwalk). There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Vail Food Services, Inc. dba/Game Creek Club This is a renewal of a private hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located on Vail Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Stop and Save Earlene Roach presented a transfer of ownership of a 3.2% Off Premise Beer License for Feather Petroleum dba/Stop and Save. This application is in order and all fees have been paid. All applicants are reported to be of good moral character. Kent Frieling, applicant, was present for the hearing. Commissioner Gallagher asked who was the previous owner and the new owner are. Ms. Roach stated the previous owner was S & M Petroleum, Inc. now it is Feather Petroleum. She stated most of the officers are the same. She stated if there were not so many changes this applicant would have been able to do a change in corporate structure. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there will be any change in employees on site. Mr. Frieling stated there has not been. Commissioner Gallagher asked if there were a change, are they familiar that the Board would like to have them TIPS trained. 19 12-04-2000 Mr. Frieling stated it is a policy of the applicant that all employees be TIPS trained. Commissioner Phillips asked if the applicant was aware that sting operations also affect convenience stores that sell 3.2% beer. Mr. Frieling stated they are. Commissioner Gallagher stated on item C indicates they will not sell to those who appear to be intoxicated. He encouraged the applicant to have all employees be TIPS trained as there are many more areas of intoxication. Having things listed on paper is not the same as having training. Mr. Frieling stated he agreed and will work on the manual and on TIPS training. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the transfer of ownership of a 3.2% Off Premise Beer License for Feather Petroleum dba/Stop and Save. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Rendezvous Bar & Grill Earlene Roach presented a managers registration for Micah Wells, Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., dbalRendezvous Bar & Grill. She stated this matter was tabled from the last hearing as Mr. Wells could not be present. He is reported to be of good moral character. Commissioner Gallagher asked Mr. Wells to give the Board a brief rundown on his experience on managing a liquor establishment. Mr. Wells stated he has just over 20 years of experience starting in Texas, Washington D.C., California and recently in Colorado. Commissioner Gallagher asked if he had the opportunity to familiarize himself with the Colorado Liquor Code. Mr. Wells stated yes he has. Commissioner Phillips moved to approve a managers registration for Micah Wells, Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., dba/Rendezvous Bar & Grill. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Red Tape Merchants Association Earlene Roach presented a Special Events Permit for Red Tape Merchants Association, dba/Beaver Creek Culinary Council. This event is scheduled for December 21,22 & 23, 2000 from noon to 7:00 p.m in the Beaver Creek Plaza. She stated Barbara Andrews is present for the hearing. Ms. Andrews stated this event will benefit the literacy projects within the schools, the literacy project, the drop out recovery program and Colorado Mountain College. She stated they are transforming Beaver Creek into the 1800's England with full scale double story movie sets. She stated they will hold all of the merchants and pubs rather than the tents. She stated they are flying in actors from California to play Dickens, Scrooge, Father Christmas, street performers, mimes, puppeteers. Commissioner Gallagher asked what experience does she have in events such as this. Ms. Andrews stated 26 years in California, she started the Octoberfest, the Beaver Creek Arts Festival, Pastry Competition and numerous pastry events. Commissioner Gallagher asked what is Red Tape Merchants Assn. Ms. Andrews stated that is the dba for the Culinary Council. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the special events permit for Red Tape Merchants Association dbalBeaver Creek Culinary Council for December 21,22 & 23, 2000 from noon to 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 20 12-04-2000 Champions Grill Commissioner Gallagher asked for a progress report on the up coming show cause hearing for Champions Grill. Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, stated they are in the process of obtaining a prosecuting attorney. Commissioner Gallagher stated if there was a decision to take disciplinary action, this establishment is continuing to be open and serving alcohol and they do not know how it is being served. Ms. Black stated she anticipates it being final within the next month. Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Public Hearing, Adams Rib Metropolitan District 1 & 2 Jim Fritze, County Attorney, stated with the on-going litigation, the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to December 18, 2000. Charlie Wick, representing Adams Rib, stated they would agree to the tabling. Commissioner Phillips moved the public hearing for Adams Rib Metropolitan District 1 & 2 be continued to December 18, 2000, at the applicants request. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0032, SSA-00007, Mid-Valley Metropolitan District Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, presented file number 1041-0032 and SSA-00007, Mid-Valley Metropolitan District. He stated t heMid Valley Metropolitan District (District) is currently operating under an existing 1041 permit that was approved by the Eagle County Permit Authority in 1983 (Resolution No. 83-67). The District proposes to attain new tertiary wastewater treatment by making modifications to the existing facilities while removing their lagoons. At this time the District wastewater treatment plant is close to capacity and an expansion is required. During the original District formation, 25 land parcels were either excepted or not included in the District's 1041 coverage area. The District, in this application, proposes to include these parcels in their coverage area. Two development applications currently in process (Valley View Homes and Mt. Sopris Tree Farm) have been analyzed based on their proposed zoning EQRs. The remaining exclusions will be permitted to connect to the District's water and sewer infrastructure based on their current zoning density EQRs. The District is applying for one 1041 to include the exception parcels, rather than burden individual land owners with the 1041 permitting process. The exception parcels or parcels not currently included in the 1041 Permit coverage area affected in this application, along with their current or proposed zoning are listed below. Name CDOT CDOT Boyd, Van't Hoff Walsh Napolitano Eagle / Pitkin County Tree Farm Zone District PUD PUD RSM RSM RSM PUD 21 12-04-2000 Sopris Village Subdivision RSM Hurst PUD Foster (already included in District) CL Philips CL Smith CL Patten CL CDOT CL Shook CL D~~ I CDOT CL Basalt Church of Christ RR Dills RSL Dillion RSL Bosshard RSL Wilson RSL Bellevue RSL CDOT PUD Dunning (already included in District) RSM Mid Valley WWTP Site R The 1041 coverage area identified in their original permit (Resolution 83-67) will remain in tact and unchanged by this application. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineer: No Comment Eagle County Housing Department: It has been Eagle County's policy that housing for a minimum of20% of new employees generated by development should be provided by the developer. It is not known how many new employees the Metro District as a organization may need as a result of this expansion. The following adopted Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan "Vision Statement" components are applicable to this application: Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county. Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated for other infrastructure needs The following Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan goals are applicable to this application. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some...should be for households with an income equivalent to or less that one average wage job. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. (Comments Attached) Colorado Geological Survey: The application did not include construction plans or a geotechnical report of the proposed modifications to the existing plant. If the footprint(s) of the treatment facilities are being expanded or if additional facilities are being added, it will be necessary for the applicant to submit a geotechnical report and construction plans for the expansion are or additional facilities. The application cannot be reviewed without additional information. (Comments Attached) NWCOGG: No Comment Town of Basalt: 22 12-04-2000 The Town's Master Plan along with existing development review approvals within the town reflect the demand for service from the District that will require some expansion of the sewer treatment plant. The proposed expanded plant is located within the Urban Services Boundary and is well positioned to meet future needs of the Town and unincorporated mid valley. Inclusion of properties is consistent with exception of the Mt. Sopris Tree Farm, the Guy Property, and the Kodiak Park Parcel. Population projections contained in the application significantly underestimate the Town 0 f Basalt's population. Updated numbers would be appropriate prior to consideration of second phase expansIOn. The upgrade to tertiary treatment is strongly supported by the town. Requests additional documentation regarding demand for second phase expansion. Town would like to be a referral agency prior to second phase expansion. (Comments Attached) Mr. Merry reviewed the discussions at the Planning Commission as follows: Section 6.04 of the Eagle County 1041 regulations deals with major extensions of existing water and sewer treatment systems being extended to serve a minimum development density of 10 EQR. This section of the 1041 regulations is being applied to this application so potential developers of the excepted parcels may connect to the Mid Valley water and sewer infrastructure in the future without having to obtain 1041 approval, so long as the development densities allowed within their respective zone districts are not exceeded beyond 9 EQR. With the exception of the Valley View Homes and Mt. Sopris Tree Farm PUDs, no physical water or sewer line construction is proposed for the exception parcels at this time. Again, the 1041 coverage area identified in their original permit (Resolution 83-67) will remain in tact and unchanged by this application. The Roaring Fork Planning Commission recommended approval of the 1041 application but did ' express concern about the visual impact of the new wastewater treatment plant. The application does not have a visual representation or drawing of the new plant. Eagle County's Location and Extent process is the appropriate venue to address the Roaring Fork Planning Commission's concern regarding visual impacts of the new wastewater treatment plant. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: In accordance with Section 6.03.15 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Mid Valley Metropolitan (District) Sewage Treatment Systems: This section addresses the new wastewater treatment plant. 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 expansions or construction of new sewage treatment facilities associated with this application are being 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. The existing wastewater treatment facilities are nearing operational capacity and there are no existing facilities in the area that can accept the projected wastewater treatment needs for the source development area. 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 an approved local master plan or 23 12-04-2000 other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan. The proposed expansion and construction of new wastewater treatment facilities is consistent with the Mid Valley Community Plan and the planning objectives and population projections of the regional 208 water quality plan. c) The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. This section of the application deals with the new wastewater treatment plant. Water rights are not at issue. d) Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. This section ofthe 1041 application is for construction of a new wastewater treatment facility and does not involve potable water supplies. e) Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. This section of the 1041 application is for the expansion and construction of new wastewater treatment facilities and does not include a potable water system. t) Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; (+ )Finding: The existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area are at eighty seven percent (87%) of operational capacity. g) The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewer service or create duplicate services; (+ )Finding: The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewer service or create duplicate services. Sopris Village subdivision has similar services on a small scale designed to serve only the Sopris Village subdivision. h) Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; (+)Finding: Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted. The existing sewer system was built in 1984 and is operating at 87% of capacity. The plant expansion or replacement proposed in this application also improves the level of treatment. i) Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; (+)Finding: The population projections ofthe regional 208 water quality plan as well as the anticipated growth described in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development. j) Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. (+ )Finding: Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Division. This permit contemplates upgrading and expansion specifically to meet anticipated, more restrictive, wastewater discharge permit requirements. k) Appropriate easement can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; + )Finding: No easements are required for this application-all easements are in place. 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; 24 12-04-2000 (+)Finding: No losses of natural resources or agricultural lands are anticipated. Facilities are in place and positioned to serve the excepted parcels associated with 6.04.15 (Major Extensions) of this application. 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 established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted. Water quality will most likely improve as the new sewer plant comes on line. 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. 0) 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 is in place and will not deteriorate existing ecosystems. Water resources will be protected by the proposed plant expansion and new construction. Best management practices (BMP's) will be employed to control, sediment transportation during construction. 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 expansion and construction will take place at the existing facility location the activities under this application will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors. The expanded capacity of the plant will decrease the possibility of 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; (+ )Finding: 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 2000 proposed budget for tap fees do not reflect any increase to new residential or commercial users. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents is not a consideration of this section of this 1041 application. This section of the application deals with the wastewater treatment plant. 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. 25 12-04-2000 (NA)Finding: Salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsection 6.03.13(7)b)6) and 6.03.13(8)e) have, thus far, not been required of the District in association with its operation of the existing wastewater treatment plant. Salinity is monitored on a quarterly basis under the terms of the CPDES discharge permit. The discharge monitoring report states that "compliance has been excellent." No violations have been noted or are anticipated. 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 new facilities will be integrated into the existing plant and will change the footprint of the existing structures but essentially will not alter impacts to the area. t) The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snow slides, landslides, avalanches, rockslides or other disasters which could cause a system operational breakdown. (+)Finding: The associated collector/distribution system is in place and functioning properly. No geologic risk has effected the operation of the system to date the expansion proposed or construction of the new plant and expansion of the existing plant will take place at the existing location and significant geological hazards are not anticipated which would cause an operational breakdown. In accordance with Section 6.04.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Mid Valley Metropolitan (District) Major Extensions of Water and Wastewater Treatment Systems: This section applies to future service to the exception parcels. 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 major extensions proposed in this application are located in areas that anticipate future growth and development. The extensions will not create growth but will make services available to make anticipated growth possible. The growth 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. 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 an approved local master plan or other applicable regional, state or federal land use or water plan. The proposed expansion and construction of new wastewater treatment facilities is consistent with the Mid Valley Community Plan and the planning objectives and population projections ofthe regional 208 water quality plan. 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 either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users. No new utility construction is proposed. The excepted parcels that are included in these extensions will be confined considered to be "in district" with regard to planning for future development. 26 12-04-2000 d) Adequate water supplies as determined by the Colorado Department of Health are available for efficient operational needs; (+)Finding: Adequate water supplies are available. The excepted parcels (that will be included by granting the 1041 permitted associated with this application) will be considered "in district" with regard to planning for future development. e) Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable: Additional water treatment capacity is not contemplated by this application. f) Existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area must be at or greater than eighty percent (80%) of operational capacity; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. This section of the application is to extend lines to previously excepted parcels. Nevertheless, the existing domestic sewage treatment facilities servicing the area are at eighty seven percent (87%) of operational capacity and new plant construction is proposed in 6.03.15 of 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 scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewer service or create duplicate services. Sopris Village subdivision has similar services on a small scale and will not connect to this regional facility until such time as they determine it as a benefit to their users. This application includes the future extension to the Sopris Village subdivision. h) Age of existing water and sewage systems, operational efficiency, state of repair, or level of treatment is such that replacement is warranted; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. This section of the application does not contemplate replacement of a water treatment or sewage treatment system. i) Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; (+ )Finding: The population projections of the regional 208 water quality plan as well as the anticipated growth described in the Mid Valley Community Master Plan and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development. j) Existing facilities cannot be upgraded or expanded to meet waste discharge permit conditions of the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. This section of the application is to include lands previously excepted from the 1041 permit that the District is currently operating under. The wastewater treatment plant expansion addressed in 6.03.15 and 6.03.13 can be upgraded and now meets its waste discharge permit conditions. k) Appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; (+ )Finding: Appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; easements can be obtained by condemnation to serve exceptions. 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; (+)Finding: No losses of natural resources or agricultural lands are anticipated. Facilities are in place and positioned to serve the excepted parcels associated with 6.04.15 of this application. m) The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream 27 12-04-2000 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; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable this section of the application deals with the inclusion of parcels previously excepted from the 1041 permit currently in effect for the District. Nevertheless, 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. The water quality will most likely improve as the new sewer plant (addressed in Section 6.03.15) comes on line. 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. 0) 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 is in place and will not deteriorate existing ecosystems. Water resources will be protected by the proposed plant expansion and new treatment technology proposed in section 6.03.15 of this application. 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, 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; (+ )Finding: 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 2000 proposed budget for tap fees do not reflect any increase to new residential or commercial users. The cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents is not a consideration of this section of this 1041 application. This section of the application is to include lands previously excepted from the 1041 permit that the District is currently operating under. 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, snow slides, landslides, avalanches, rockslides or other disasters which would cause a system operational breakdown; (+ )Finding: The development site of a proposed major extension of an existing domestic water or 28 12-04-2000 sewage treatment system is not subject to significant hazards. The associated collector/distribution system is in place and functioning properly. No geologic risk has effected the operation of the system to, date the expansion proposed or construction ofthe new plant and expansion of the existing plant will take place at the existing location and significant geological hazards are not anticipated which would cause an 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. (+ )Finding: The proposed domestic water treatment and distribution system is capable of providing, and currently provides, 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. (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. No construction is associated with this section of this 1041 application. This section of the application is to include land parcels previously excepted from the 1041 permit that the District is currently operating under. In accordance with Section 6.05.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the 1041 application for the Mid Valley Metropolitan (District) Efficient Utilization of Municipal and Industrial Water Projects: This section is to demonstrate efficient utilization of a municipal water project. a) The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated; (+ )Finding: The major extensions and expansions to the wastewater treatment plant proposed in this application are located in areas that anticipate future growth and development. The need for the proposed water projects can clearly be substantiated. 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 relevant local and regional planning policy and water quality control documents. The proposed expansion and construction of new wastewater treatment facilities are consistent with the Mid Valley Community Master Plan; the planning objectives and population projections of the regional 208 water quality plan and the Town of Basalt's Master plan. 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: This municipal water project utilizes the latest technology in the use of the most efficient water transmission pipe. In addition, the District uses meters and a progressive rate structure to encourage efficient use of water resources. d) Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources; (+ )Finding: The plant expansion proposed will increase treatment capacity insuring that surface water resources will not be contaminated. e) The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health; (+)Finding: Adequate water supplies are available. The excepted parcels (that will be included 29 12-04-2000 by granting the 1041 permitted associated with this application) will be considered "in district" with regard to planning for future development. 1) 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; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. This application does not contemplate a water diversion. 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: No diversion is proposed. The proposed wastewater treatment expansion and the District's associated collector and distribution systems are in place and will not deteriorate existing ecosystems. Water resources will be protected by the tertiary treatment proposed with the new plant expansion. Surface and groundwater sources, and associated habitats, will be protected through the use of Best Management Practices (BMP's) to mitigate sediment transportation during the construction phases of the new plant construction. 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; (NA)Finding: Salinity and advanced wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsection 6.03.13(7)b)6) and 6.03. 13 (8)e) have, thus far, not been required of the District in association with its operation of the existing wastewater treatment plant. Salinity is monitored on a quarterly basis under the terms of the CPDES permit. The discharge monitoring report states that "compliance has been excellent." No violations have been noted or are anticipated. 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. The new facilities will be integrated into the new plant and will change the footprint of the existing structures but essentially will not alter impacts to the area. Lee Levenworth, Attorney representing the applicant, and Louis Meyer, Schmeiser, Gordon, Meyer & Associates, were present for the hearing. He reviewed prior events of the District. He stated they are seeking to include the property excluded previously, with the exception of the Crawford property. Mr. Meyer stated the reason they are doing this is the 1041 and to include those properties excluded. He showed the current boundary of the district and spoke to the larger projects, Blue Lake, Tree Farm and Town of Basalt. He stated over the years they have had an encroachment around the site. The district has been in a regional planning phase for the past couple of years. The District submitted a service plan to Garfield County. He stated the plan was denied by Garfield County, thus the idea of expanding into Garfield County was abandoned. Mr. Meyer stated this site has always been planned to be expanded. One of the options was to continue with the lagoon option but that does not allow the 30 12-04-2000 district any flexibility. He stated the standards will change in the future. The district wanted fflexibility. He stated they decided to go with a mechanical plan due to the land considerations, land use has occurred to the North, East and West, and water quality is the third reason. Mr. Meyer explained the proposed plant and explained the proposal to the Board. He spoke to landscaping. Mr. Meyer spoke to the inclusion of properties previously excluded. He stated they would like their boundaries expanded. These are relatively small parcels. The district currently has contiguous lines next to all of those parcels being requested for inclusion. Mr. Meyer stated there is a need for the wastewater treatment plan and it is consistent with the Master Plan. Mr. Levenworth questioned the "Guy parcel and the Kodiak parcel?" Mr. Meyer explained the parcels to the Board. Mr. Levenworth explained the District Board decided to include all the parcels at one time due to expenses. He stated they included Sopris Village only when they decided to hook onto the districts lines. He stated they have submitted a large portfolio of water rights and augmentation water. He stated they are not seeking to include the Crawford property. He stated staffwas concerned with a portion of the Crawford property as they did not believe the Board could make positive findings. Chairman Stone asked if there was going to be encouragement for the Crawfords to join with the district. Mr. Merry stated they are currently at 63% capacity and eventually will be at capacity and will be hooking to the district. Mr. Levenworth stated the district has worked with the Crawfords. Mr. Meyer stated when the district is at build out they will be including the Crawford properties. Ted Guy, Chairman of the Board for the Metropolitan District, stated they will be considering wildlife in this proposal. This plan also has a recreational portion in perhaps expanding the park around Blue Lake. They have spoken about a site for affordable housing or selling to developers to do a free market development. He stated they have made no choice. He stated they also have a three acre parcel across the Highway. He stated they believe they need to take the initiative with water quality. Mr. Levenworth stated the district assessed valuation is in excess of $35,000,000.00 with a very reasonable mill levy. Commissioner Phillips asked about comments from surrounding land owners. Mr. Levenworth stated the southern boundary is the Roaring Fork River. He stated to the west there was development that prompted development, which was the Cerise Ranch. That has now been approved in Garfield County with two acre lots with septic tanks. Mr. Merry stated individual septic systems are not what he recommends. Commissioner Phillips asked about landscaping. Chairman Stone asked about the future of their current lagoons. Mr. Guy stated part of this expansion is a far more landscape buffer between the Highway and the plant. He stated they be considering wildlife, park and recreation use and affordable housing for those lagoon sites. He stated one of their charges is recreation. Mr. Meyer stated once the new plant is functional the lagoons can be taken offline. They are required to remove all the sludge, pump the liquid through the new plant, let the bottom dry out and take it to a Landfill. Commissioner Phillips asked what they will be doing with the sludge. Mr. Meyer stated they will be letting it dry out for about a year and haul it off. The slime will be treated with lime as to not create any odors. 31 12-04-2000 Commissioner Gallagher asked about the location of the new plant on the map and the treatment of one mega day. Do they have enough land to build onto the plant. Mr. Meyer stated they went through an extensive build out through the valley. They clearly have the foot print for a 1MGD plant and have the ability to expand if that is necessary. Commissioner Gallagher asked about odor control. Mr. Meyer showed on a map the location of the odor plant. He stated it will be vented and allow additional odor control in the future if necessary. Commissioner Gallagher asked the solid matter. Mr. Meyer explained the process for eliminating sludge. Commissioner Gallagher asked about number of additional employees. Mr. Meyer stated one of the reasons they choose this plant is because it is the lease labor intensive plant they have ever seen. There is very little in the way of pumps and blowers. It will require, more labor than they currently have. He guessed the lagoon may take them up to a full time operator. Commissioner Gallagher asked about those properties to be included. Mr. Levenworth explained those properties not in the district are not in the district because of the landowners request. He explained the process to the Board. Commissioner Phillips asked about material representations which is a condition of approval. Mr. Levenworth stated it is everything included in the application and relayed to the Board today. Commissioner Phillips moved the Eagle County Permit Authority approve file number 1041- 0032 incorporating staff findings with the following condition: All material representations made by the applicant during the conduct of the permit hearing become conditions of approval. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved that the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approve file SAA-0007, State Site Application for modification/expansion of an existing wastewater treatment plant. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Eagle County Board of Health. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Eagle County Board of Health approve file SSA-0007 as the local Health Authority. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Phillips moved to adjourn as the Eagle County Board of Health and reconvene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SDP-00002, Valley View Homes Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number SUP-00002, Valley View Homes. Mr. Forinash stated he received a memo from Adams Summers in which he agrees with the Planning Commission's condition on the cul-de-sac. The other item received was a letter from Smith and Smith Enterprises, Paula Smith, property owner in Summit Vista. He read the letter for the record as follows: "Dear County Commissioners, I own the property in Summit Vista Subdivision which is adjacent to three of the lots, number 5,6 & 7, in the proposed Valley View Homes Subdivision. There is at least 32 12-04-2000 one point I would like the Commissioners to keep in mind and include with any final approval of this subdivision. At the November 16th meeting with the Roaring Fork Planning Commission, the developers offered to include an additional five feet to the required setback of 20 feet rear lot lines for a new setback of 25 feet. I respectively request that this setback of 25 feet be included in any final approval of the Valley View Homes Subdivision. Thank you, Paula J. Smith." Mr. Forinash stated the applicant needs to address the following: II Layout of lots around cul-de-sac on Valley Court, especially with respect to access to lots which do not front onto a public street, especially Lots 4, 5 and 6. II Cul-de-sac on Easy Street, including the desirability of curb, gutter and sidewalks. Feasibility of collateralization of improvements after Easy Street is extended through to the east. II Location of proposed pocket park. This is a proposed development for a subdivision consisting of 17 single family residential lots ranging in size from 8,025 square feet (0.184 acres) to 28,500 square feet (0.656 acres), and a 0.121 acres pocket park. Access to individual lots would be by internal streets which provide access from Valley Road. Water and sewer services would be provided by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District. Mr. Forinash reviewed the chronology of the property as follows: 1977 - The Board of County Commissioners approved the McCune Subdivision, which consists ofthe eastern 2.46 acre portion of the 5.876 acre parcel which is the subject of this Subdivision Preliminary Plan. 1980 - The Board of County Commissioners approved the Jacobi Minor Subdivision, which consists of the western 3.42 acre portion of the parcel which is the subject of this Subdivision Preliminary Plan. 1996 - McCune Subdivision was rezoned from Resource (R) to Residential Suburban Low Density (RSL). 1998 - The Board of County Commissioners approved a Sketch Plan for the Valley View Homes Subdivision and a zone change for the entire site to Residential Suburban Medium Density (RSM). Referral responses are as shown on staffs report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering Department Response dated October 10, 2000 · Numerous comments (See attached) Response dated October 25,2000 · Only outstanding issue related to cul-de-sac at east end of Easy Street · Engineering Department recommends finished cul-de-sac be constructed within a publicly dedicated right-of-way Eagle County Housing Department · Comments regarding affordability of the proposed development · Recommendations regarding: · Deed restrictions on two of the lots or houses · Not excluding manufactured housing from the subdivision Mid Valley Metropolitan District · A pre-inclusion agreement and system development fee agreement for the east portion of the site is current and in full force and effect. · An inclusion petition for the west portion of the site has been filed but never proceeded to finalization. 33 12-04-2000 The District has indicated that it can and will serve the development subject to conditions relating to [1] approval of a 1041 permit, [2] finalization of an inclusion process for the west portion of the site, [3] execution of a pre-inclusion agreement and system development fee purchase agreement for the west portion of the site, and [4] at or prior to final plat, execution of a line extension agreement Colorado State Forest Service · With smaller parcels, risk of wildfire is greater. Fire resistant roofing materials and siding would increase the chance of a structure surviving a forest fire. The fuels on the property are light to medium. No unusually hazardous topographic conditions exist. · Access is adequate. Fire hydrants and water supply, fire flows/pressures are adequate. Colorado Geological Survey · Drainage Plan shows that the onsite runoff will flow to the west and will be collected in detention ponds A2, B 1, and B2. Calculations and graphic representations are not entirely complete or in sufficient detail. As stated in the geotechnical report in the application, subsurface drains should be included with subgrade construction as a mitigation against perched water, which can be damaging to basements. The geotechnical report is accurate regarding soils and bedrock on the site, and the recommendations of that report should be followed. The potential for sinkhole development can be minimized by educating future homeowners against over watering their lawns. A number of piles of fill dirt exist on the site, and should be thoroughly compacted if it is to be used in any grading operations. · There are no geologic conditions that would preclude development of the site. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Road and Bridge, Roaring Fork School District, US West, Holy Cross Energy, K.N Energy, Basalt and Rural Fire Protection District, Mr. Forinash stated the discussions have indicated the applicant should grant the right-of-way. He showed option 1, and pointed out the Planning Commission approved option 1. Staff findings are as shown on staffs report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Preliminary Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with 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. 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. Conformance . . . . . EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN x x x 34 12-04-2000 x x x x 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: · 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 · Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of . government, there will be only limited success · It is important to preserve existing local residents housing · Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county · Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing 35 12-04-2000 should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM I YES I NO IN/A I 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities, . , 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some,., should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of . . . employers. . . New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents x 4. x 5. x 6, x 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . x 8. The County will seek to make land available for local residents housing in proximity to community centers 9. Mixed use developments in appropriate locations are encouraged x 10, Factory-built housing is an important part of Eagle County's housing stock x 11, There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements x 12, Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue Overall, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] 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 Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts The provisions of Article 3 have been satisfied. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) 36 12-04-2000 Principal uses proposed are single family residences, although duplexes and certain uses are also permitted as uses by right or uses subject to limited review. Owners of property within the subdivision will be required to conform to the provisions of this Division. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) A conceptual landscape plan is required with a preliminary plan for subdivision, illustrating the overall intent of the Applicant with regard to landscaping of the development. The conceptual landscape plan provided does show proposed landscaped areas, with type, number and size indicated, and is sufficient for this subdivision. [+] Signs (Division 4-3) No unusual signs are contemplated in this subdivision. Owners of property within the subdivision will be required to conform to the provisions of this Division. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - There appear to be no conflicts with wildlife or wildlife habitat. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has concluded that there are no geology related problems that would preclude development of this site. CGS has also acknowledged certain recommendations of H-P Geotechnical, Inc. As a condition of approval, the recommendation of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., (March 2000) regarding certain subsurface drainage improvements and soils conditions should be followed. [Condition # 1] With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) has indicated that fuels on the property are light to medium, and that no unusually hazardous topographic conditions exist. Further, the proposed development provides adequate access, and fire hydrants and water supply is adequate. CSFS also emphasizes the importance of the cul-de-sac until such time as Easy Street is connected through to the east. A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that "protective covenants shall require that roofing materials be non-flammable and non-combustible", as recommended by CSFS. The application includes a commitment that this requirement will be a part of the protective covenants. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - Wood burning devices are apparently not addressed in the application. Property owners will be required to comply with the provisions of this Section of the Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-4S0) - There are no significant ridge-line considerations associated with this application. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - Staff makes a favorable finding. [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-S) There are no commercial or industrial operations on the proposed site which would subject this application to the provisions of this Division. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that "all subdivision lots shall be accessed from internal roads". A commitment to this effect has been made in the application, along with commitment to include a restrictive note on the plat. No such note occurs on the preliminary plat. As a condition of approval, the plat should be required to include a restrictive note prohibiting direct access to individual lots from Valley Road and otherwise requiring conformance with provisions of Section 4-620.J.9., Access Approaches and Driveways, of the Land Use Regulations. 37 12-04-2000 [Condition # 2] It is intended that the proposed Easy Street ultimately continue to the east to connect with an existing segment of Easy Street. In the meantime, a cul-de-sac should be required at the east end of this street segment. To accommodate a cul-de-sac, sufficient dedicated right-of-way with a radius of 45 feet . should be provided, portions of which could be vacated after Easy Street is extended to the east. The Applicant has proposed the creation of Parcels A and B to accommodate the cul-de-sac until such time as Easy Street is continued on to the east, but these parcels will apparently not be dedicated rights-of- way. As a condition of approval, a dedicated right-of-way, including a bulb with a 45 foot radius, should be provided at the east end of Easy Street to accommodate a cul-de-sac. [Condition # 3] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is the provision of sidewalks along each side of all subdivision roads. Sidewalks are reflected in this application. Construction of sidewalks will be required to be made subject to a Subdivision Improvements Agreement and collateralized. As noted above, it is intended that the proposed Easy Street ultimately continue to the east to connect with an existing segment of Easy Street, with sidewalks along a finished street where the cul-de- sac is now proposed. However, it is not known when the connection will occur, and any collateral which might be provided to extend sidewalks would have to be refunded to the Applicant no later than five years after approval of the final plat. The Applicant has proposed to pave the cul-de-sac but omit curb, gutter and sidewalks around the cul-de-sac. Given the indefinite time period that may elapse before this proposed segment of Easy Street is extended to the east, a cul-de-sac finished with pavement, curb, gutter and sidewalk is appropriate. Consequently, as a condition of approval, an adequate easement and the construction of a finished cul-de-sac, with a continuation of sidewalks, curb and gutter, which conform to the requirements of the Land Use Regulations should be required at the east end of the proposed Easy Street. [Condition # 3] Certain "soft" trails are proposed along the irrigation ditch to the west and along Valley Road to the south. A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that paved trails are required in an easement along Valley Road, along the irrigation ditch and along the western portion of Lot 6. Another condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that an attempt be made to secure an easement near the northwest corner of the site to permit a trail along the irrigation ditch to connect with the internal road system of the Summit Vista Subdivision, and to extend the trail along Valley Road through the Summit Vista Subdivision. The Applicant indicates that adjacent property owners have been unwilling to grant such an easement. The Applicant has proposed that the path along the irrigation ditch does not make sense without the connection into Summit Vista, and that the trail along Valley Road be delayed until such a path can connect with adjacent properties and become part of the County path system. Staff agrees that a path near the western boundary is not necessary at this point. However, an easement should be required. A 15 foot drainage and pedestrian easement is proposed along Valley Road. It should be noted that the Planning Commission has recommended the construction of an asphalt trail within the easement along Valley Road, although the width has not been specified. The Applicant has also expressed a willingness to construct such an asphalt trail. Further discussions with the ECO Trails Coordinator confirm the desirability of an 8 foot wide trail paved trail along Valley Road. A required trailless than 8 feet in width would entail a variance. As a condition of approval, the pedestrian easement should be required along the irrigation ditch to preserve the option of a connecting trail, but that construction of that trail should not be required; and that an adequate pedestrian easement and 8 foot asphalt trail, built to standards approved by the County 38 12-04-2000 Engineer, should be required along Valley Road which conforms to the standards ofthe Land Use Regulations. [Condition # 4] With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) -Provisions of this Section will be satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The County Engineer has indicated that the requirements of this Section have been met. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - It appears that the requirements of this Section have been satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - A condition of approval ofthe Sketch Plan is [1] a 1041 permit application be made prior to or concurrent with the preliminary plan application and [2] the applicants execute an agreement for water and wastewater service with the Mid Valley Metropolitan District prior to submission of a preliminary plan. A 1041 permit application which has been submitted by the Mid Valley Metropolitan District satisfies the first requirement. Attorneys for the Mid Valley Metropolitan District report that a pre-inclusion agreement, initially entered into with Mr. McCune, exists for the east portion of the site. However, although an inclusion petition was filed by Adrian Can't Hoff for the west portion of the site, the petition has not proceeded to finalization. Finalization is scheduled for public hearing at the District's November meeting. As a condition of approval, evidence of all necessary agreements between the applicants and the Mid Valley Metropolitan District regarding the provision of water and sewer services, including the execution of a line extension agreement, should be provided to County staff at or prior to approval of a final plat for the subdivision. [Condition # 5] With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - See the discussion regarding Water Supply Standards, immediately above. The same comments and Staff recommendations are applicable to this Section. With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) The Roaring Fork School District (RE-1) responded to referral of the Sketch Plan application in July 1998 and indicated its preference for a payment of cash-in-lieu of a land dedication. It is apparently the intent of the Applicant to make such a payment. The Applicant will be required to make an appropriate payment to satisfy this requirement at or prior to approval of a final plat for this subdivision. As noted by the County Engineer, an off-site road impact fee of$17,000, based on 17 proposed dwellings at $1,000 per unit, would normally be paid to Eagle County at or prior to approval of the final plat for this subdivision. However, there are presently 3 dwelling units on this site. Consequently, a condition of approval should be that an off-site road impact fee of $14,000 be paid to Eagle County at or prior to approval of the final plat for this subdivision. [Condition # 6] With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] With the recommended conditions, the proposed subdivision DOES comply with all ofthe 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 39 12-04-2000 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 ImDrovements Plan. (v) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoidfuture land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (w) 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. Utility and road extensions appear to be consistent with existing plans and capabilities. Other than Mid Valley Metropolitan District, no indication of other utilities' abilities to provide service to this site have been provided. However, given the nature of the development in the immediate vicinity, no problem with extension of service is anticipated. As noted above regarding Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670), letters from proposed utility providers indicating that the proposed utility easements are acceptable and in compliance with their respective design standards will provide sufficient assurance that the entire range of facilities can be provided. There appears to be no duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or a "leapfrog" pattern of development. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] 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. Most of that portion of the site on which development is to occur is relatively flat. The Preliminary Geotechnical Study indicates that there are no significant geotechnical hazards. There appears to be no other natural or man-made hazards that would substantially affect the development of the property. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] 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. Development to the west, north and east of the proposed development is residential, and of a similar density to that proposed. Development immediately to the south, across Valley Road, is likely to a regional recreational facility. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] 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. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION: Housing 40 12-04-2000 The Eagle County Housing Department has noted the obvious need for affordable housing in this area, and suggested recommendations which would ensure a limited number of affordable housing units in this subdivision. As a condition of approval, no subdivision documents should exclude manufactured housing from the subdivision. [Condition # 7] Addresses Addresses proposed for the subdivision are inconsistent with that required by Eagle County and the E-9-1-1 Coordinators for the area. Among other things, odd and even addresses are not unique to certain sides of the streets, and when Easy Street is connected through to the existing Easy Street in the Parkside at El lebel Subdivision to the east, the proposed address will be inconsistent with the existing addresses. As a condition of approval, addresses included on the final plat should be subject to approval by the Eagle County Address Coordinator. [Condition # 8] Lot Configuration The Roaring Fork Valley Regional Planning Commission expressed some concern with the lot configuration presented in the preliminary plat initially provided with this application, especially with respect to access and buildable area exclusive of easements on lots in the vicinity of the cul-de-sac on Valley Court and Lot 17 south of Easy Street. At a continued hearing, the Applicant presented alternative lot configurations on sheets titled Valley View Homes Subdivision, Proposed Mapping, dated November 15,2000, and labeled Option 1 and Option 2, respectively. The approval by the Planning Commission was with respect to Option 1, although some planning commissioners expressed reservations that neither Option 1 nor Option 2 were ideal. The location of the pocket park was an additional consideration. Subsequently, the Applicant provided a revised preliminary plat dated November 17,2000, which is intended to respond to the concerns expressed by individual planning commissioners. The County Engineer has reviewed the revised plat and is satisfied that no engineering problems have been created by the revisions. It is the opinion of Planning Staff that the latest preliminary plat represents an appropriate refinement of the lot configuration and recommends its approval. Chairman Stone asked if this revised preliminary plat is different than what the Planning Commission reviewed. Mr. Forinash answered yes. Tom Born, Knight Planning, stated when they went to the Roaring Fork Planning Commission they had already seen a similar plan. He stated they had to wait until today to know how the 1041 went. He stated the only difference is the pocket park. He stated the Planning Commission had concerns with the lots at the end ofthe cul-de-sac. He stated the Planning Commission like option 1 but still had problems with the pocket part being located along Valley Road. He stated they looked at that situation and in trying to address the Planning Commission they came up with option 2. Chairman Stone stated in an effort to work with the RFV Planning Commission, they chose option 1, and now have come to the Board with another option. He stated this is the second time a planner has come before the Board and shown something different than what was presented at the RFV Planning Commission. He stated he does not have a problem with looking at a better plan than what was presented to the Planning Commission. He stated this subject needs to be discussed, the proposed cul- de-sac and Easy Street and he would like the applicant to address the letter from Paula Smith. Commissioner Phillips stated she would like to discuss condition 3 and determine if it is acceptable. Mr. Fritze read section 5-21.G (3) (a) of County Regulations as follows: "submittal to the Planning Commission/public hearing, substantial change from Planning Commission recommendation. If after the initial public hearing on an application for an amendment to the official zone district map, or texts to these Land Use Regulations, or an application for Preliminary 41 12-04-2000 Plan for PUD, the Board of County Commissioners proposes to consider approval of an application that considers a substantial change or departure from the initial application recommended by the Planning Commission, which is not made solely to satisfy Planning Commission recommendations or consideration, the matter shall be submitted back to the Planning Commission for consideration and public hearing." In other words if the Board determines this change is substantial, which he believes it is under the Regulations, but if it is made solely to satisfy Planning Commission recommendations or conditions then it does not have to be submitted back. Chairman Stone stated they did not give the Board any formal recommendations or conditions. He stated it sounds like it was a verbal suggestion by one or more of the Planning Commission members. Mr. Forinash stated what Mr. Fritze read applies to changes in the zone district map, changes in the text of the application or changes in a Preliminary Plan for a PUD. This application is Preliminary Plan for a traditional subdivision. He questioned if that is applicable. He stated he also looked at the definition of substantial change and it is not clear what in this application would represent substantial change. Mr. Boni stated the applicant looked at substantial change with the Planning Department before proposing this and felt it included changes as the number of lots and such but not what they have proposed. Chairman Stone stated he wants to agree with the spirit of the LUR. Mr. Fritze stated he would like to see what the Planning Commissions decision and recommendation was before rendering a decision. Commissioner Phillips stated they approved option 1 but did not like the area of the pocket park on Valley Road. Adrian VanDuff, part owner of Valley Homes, stated they did not want the park on Valley Road. He stated the Planning Commissioner felt Valley Road was too busy. Mr. Fritze stated it is up to the Board ifthey would like to hear this application or send it back to the Planning Commission. Commissioner Phillips stated they could either hear option 3 or go back Commissioner Gallagher asked how many Planning Commission members reviewed this file. Mr. Forinash stated they did not see the current plan. Commissioner Gallagher stated he is looking at the difference between option 1 and the November 17th plat. He stated he does not see the rearrangements. Jason Seagall, part owner of Valley View Homes, stated by putting a park next to a main road makes no sense. They then made the park accessible from three sides and it breaks up the neighborhood a little and makes the park a little bit safer. Chairman Stone stated sometimes this Board does disagree with the Planning Commission recommendation. Mr. Fritze stated he does not think there is anything in the regulation that requires the Board to send this application back to the Planning Commission. Mr. Boni showed the original plan and option 2.. Alternative 1 was recommended by the Planning Commission as they liked the four lots at the end of the cul-de-sac. He stated they have not changed the number of lots and by moving the park have addressed the areas of concern. The question of a temporary turn around, there are two parts to that problem, what will it look like and how is the land ownership going to be. Mr. Boni stated there is a 12 and a half foot setback requirement. He stated they have a 20 foot wide set back. He stated Ms. Smith was concerned that the homes would be too close together. He stated utimately the cul-de-sac will be part of those properties. The owners requested the road be paved with curb and gutter, and the pavement have a an edge. The four foot sidewalk would not serve a 42 12-04-2000 purpose at this time. The asphalt will be edged with curb and cutter. Del Craig" EI Jebel resident, he stated he has been following the process and each time it comes back it is a lot better. He stated they have been trying very hard to come up with a good plan. He stated he does not see a reason for the sidewalk. Chairman Stone asked what he thinks about the current location of the park. Mr. Craig stated it makes more sense. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the access for lots 1 and 17. Mr. Boni stated there will be a plat restriction and lot 17 will have a shared driveway. He stated the Eagle County Driveway Standards do allow for a maximum of three lots accessed from common driveways. Commissioner Gallagher questioned the side walk around the cul-de-sac. Mr. Boni stated when the cul-de-sac goes away there will be a sidewalk. Commissioner Gallagher asked if taxpayers pay taxes on property they do not own. Mr. Craig stated it appears there is a missed property line there. Mr. Boni stated it makes no sense to have it as part ofthe lot, it makes more sense to make it a part of the right-of-way. Mr. Fritze stated it would not change the value of the property to remove it. Commissioner Phillips asked the reason for the cul-de-sac. Chairman Stone stated it is for emergency vehicles. Adams Summers, Engineering Department, stated the cul-de-sac is a requirement of the LUR. He stated the process to revert the parcels of land back to the landowners would be the same whether an easement or a right-of-way. Mr. Forinash stated with respect to an easement or a right of way, it is about 20 feet. Ifthis were an easement the setback would be about 5 five from the cul-de-sac and a right-of-way it would be 25 feet from the cul-de-sac. Commissioner Phillips asked about the $17,000 versus $14,000 for off-site improvements. Mr. Boni stated this is redevelopment. It has been a problem property for Eagle County over the history ofthe property. He stated normally they pay for the additional units not units currently in existence. Chairman Stone stated the Board is in agreement the layout of the park is appropriate. The applicant is agreeable with a 25 foot setback with the exception of lot 12. The nature of the cul-de-sac is the only question. The Board concurred a sidewalk is not necessary. Chairman Stone stated the only other issue is whether it is an easement or a right of way. He reviewed three options. Mr. Fritze stated the difference between a public right of way and easement is not much. If the setback is from the lot line an easement could be granted and accomplish what they want to. He stated the down side to that is the owner now has a road on his lot. Mr. Boni stated the owner is willing to live with the 20 feet in the back of the lot 12. Mr. Craig stated he is the owner oflot 12. When the cul-de-sac is gone there will be one house that is set back more than the others. Chairman Stone stated the Board has the ability to adjust the rear set backs. Mr. Fritze stated the County would be best served by having the cul-de-sac as a right of way. Mr. Boni stated they are talking about expanding the easement rather than having a set back. Commissioner Phillips moved the Board approve File No. SUP-00002, Valley View Homes, including the revised preliminary plat dated November 17,2000, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 43 12-04-2000 1. The recommendation of Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., (March 2000) regarding certain subsurface drainage improvements and soils conditions be followed. 2. The plat include a restrictive note prohibiting direct access to individual lots from Valley Road and otherwise requiring conformance with provisions of Section 4-620.J.9., Access Approaches and Driveways, of the Land Use Regulations. 3. An adequate easement and the construction of a finished cul-de-sac, with a continuation of curb and gutter, which conform to the requirements of the Land Use Regulations, be completed at the east end of the proposed Easy Street. That portion of the right-ol-way easement to accommodate the cul-de-sac at the east end of Easy Street shall include a 45 foot radius bulb. 4. A pedestrian easement be provided along the irrigation ditch to preserve the option of afuture connecting trail; and an adequate pedestrian easement and an asphalt sidewalk/trail, built to standards which conform to the standards of the Land Use Regulations, be provided along Valley Road. The asphalt trail along Valley Road shall be 8 feet in width. 5. Evidence of all necessary agreements between the applicants and the Mid Valley Metropolitan District regarding the provision of water and sewer services, including the execution of a line extension agreement, be provided prior to approval of a final plat for the subdivision. 6. An off-site road impact fee of $14, 000 be paid to Eagle County prior to approval of the final plat for this subdivision. 7. No subdivision documents should exclude manufactured housing from the subdivision. 8. Addresses included on the final plat be to subject to approval by the Eagle County Address Coordinator. 9. All oral and written representations by the Applicant in materials submitted in connection with this application and/or in one or more public hearings shall be binding. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Gallagher asked about a condition for a remedy of bringing Easy Street through. Chairman Stone stated he believes it should be part of the motion. If and when Easy Street becomes a continuous street, the bulbs of the cul-de-sac could be removed. They would have to be replaced with a sidewalk. Commissioner Gallagher stated also the effect of the cul-de-sac on Lot 12 should be included in the motion. Chairman Stone stated the rear setback of Lot 12 shall be reduced to 20 feet Commissioner Phillips stated the setbacks shall all be 25 feet on the rear lot lines with the exception of Lot 12. Chairman Stone stated there shall be a 25 foot rear lot line setback on lots 5, 4, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and a 20 foot setback on Lot 12. Commissioner Phillips stated that was correct. She questioned lots 1,2, 18, 15, 14, 13, & 17. Chairman Stone stated those are included as well. Mr. Fritze stated there is not a practical way to make an enforceable provision that provides for a vacation in advance nor to hold those people liable in the future for a sidewalk. He suggested when the individuals come in for a vacation that would be instituted at that time. Chairman Stone stated the Board can consider that and make a recommendation to the future Board. Commissioner Phillips moved to amend her motion to include the cul-de-sac and the vacation thereof. She also included there shall be 20 foot setback on lot 12 and the rest will remain 25 feet. This will be condition number 10. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the amendment. The vote was declared unanimous. 44 12-04-2000 Chairman Stone called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. SMA-OOOll, Lake Creek Farm, Minor Type A Subdivision. Matt Gennett presented file number SMA-OOOll, Lake Creek Farm, a Minor Type A Subdivision.. He stated the proposed subdivision will create three (3) lots from an existing 42.72 acre parcel. The gross density ofthe proposed subdivision is one (1) unit per 14.24 acres. The existing parcel is located at 1001 Lake Creek Road and is currently zoned Agricultural Limited (AL). The proposed three (3) lot subdivision is consistent with the purpose and intent of the AL zone district. Referrals for this application were sent to: · Eagle County Assessor · Eagle County Engineer · Meyer Land Systems · The Upper Eagle River Valley Water Authority · Avon Fire Protection District · The Town of Avon · Colorado Division of Wildlife Any and all comments from the above referenced agencies have been sufficiently addressed. Referrals received by Community Development have been attached. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Section 5-290.G.l, Standards for Type A and Type B subdivision: The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director shall consider the following: STANDARD: 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 Lake Creek Road and access easements have been obtained for each ofthe proposed lots. The Applicant has obtained the necessary ISDS permits for on-site, private sewage disposal. Water shall be provided by individual wells and the applicant has the necessary water rights, as well as a sufficient supply, to provide water to the proposed lots. FINDING: Access, Water, and Sewage [Section 5-290.G.1.a] - The access, potable water, and sewage on the land to be subdivided are shown as adequate. STANDARD: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-290.G.l.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 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 is within an Agricultural Limited (AL) zone and the proposed, lot sizes are consistent with the standards of that zone. The Master Plan analysis below considers the proposal as submitted. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN 45 12-04-2000 Eagle County Master Plan. Environmental Quality - Proposed development is not within any critical wildlife areas, floodplain 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 of compatibility with surrounding uses and avoidance of sensitive lands. 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, 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 Develovment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts [+] The proposed lot is zoned Agricultural Limited. Zone district standard for minimum lot size' is in conformance with applicable standards. Article 4, Site Standards (N/A) - No development plans are associated with this application. All standards shall he adhered to if and when any future development occurs. Of/site road impactfees and school land dedication (cash in lieu oj) are due upon approval of this Final Plat. 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. 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. 46 12-04-2000 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 necessarily be other than suitable 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 effect the future development of the surrounding area. The existing land uses in the area are similar to that proposed for this development. 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. FINDING: Conformance with Final Plat Requirements [Section 5-290.G.l.b] - The Applicant HAS fully demonstrated that the proposed development complies with all of the standards of this Section. STANDARD: Improvements Agreements [Section 5-290.G.1.c] The Board of County Commissioners shall consider the adequacy of the proposed Improvements Agreement, where applicable. No improvements are proposed by this project that require collateralization. FINDING: Improvements Agreements [] - A Subdivision Section 5-290.G.I.c Improvements Agreement is not applicable for this project. Sid Fox, Fox & Associates, representing the applicant, stated there are proposing three lots, lot one is the largest lot, lot two is a little over 14 acres and lot 3 which is a smaller lot along Lake Creek proper and is 5 1/4 acres. Wright Water Engineers did assist the applicant with their water augmentation plan. He stated this file has been tabled in response to concerns of the neighbors but they believe those concerns have been taken care of. Mr. Fox showed the landscaping plan. They agreed to beef up the landscaping plan, adding 12 to 15 trees along the driveway and 70% of those to be evergreens. They have reviewed the staff report and are in agreement. Laurie Satterfield, attorney representing the neighbors, stated they are in agreement with the proposal. Mr. Fritze stated they normally do not have a resolution and do not know how this would be enforceable. He had suggested the Board approve and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat once the landscaping agreement has bee signed and submitted. Chairman Stone questioned the collateral. Ms. Satterfield stated they have agreed with the terms of the landscaping plan, which is an 47 12-04-2000 exhibit to this agreement. Mr. Fritze stated the Board might want to provide a continuance date in the case there was disagreement with the agreement. Mr. Fox stated they are not asking the Board to be a party to the landscaping agreement Chairman Stone asked if the private agreement is the same thing as a landscaping plan. Ms. Satterfield stated it incorporates the landscaping plan but only that plan. Mr. Fritze stated what happens if the Board signs the plat and the agreement never becomes written on paper. Mr. Fox stated they have complied with every standard the County has with Minor Type A Subdivision. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the material representations as a condition would work. Mr. Fritze stated if the lots are sold what would they do if the landscaping plan was not done. Commissioner Phillips asked if the landscaping plan was included in the application they would have to comply. Mr. Gennett stated it is included but not the recent amendment. Diane Larson, Attorney representing the owner, stated they have worked very hard to come up with an agreement that satisfys everyone. She stated she does not think it is necessary to hold this plat up. She stated they do have the agreement, it could be changed and initialled and recorded that way. Chairman Stone stated they are not speaking about a long delay. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. SMA-000l1, Lake Creek Farm, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat upon completion of a landscaping agreement between the applicant and the Palmarosa. Commissioner Phillips seconded the motion. The vote was declraed unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until December 11 ,2000. Ch~'~ 48 12-04-2000