The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 03/13/2001 Present: Tom C. Stone Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Robert Loeffler Jack Ingstad Sara Fisher PUBLIC HEARING MARCH 13,2001 Commissioner Commissioner Commissioner Acting County Attorney County Administrator 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 21ST CENTURY PHOTO SUPPLY 4 EAGLE RANCH A & H GRAPHICS A.c.E.O. ABC LEGAL MESSENGERS ABLEMAN LAW OFFICE ACE EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY ADL AFFORDABLE PORTABLE AlA COLORADO ALDA L WHITE, ESQ ALEXANDER HAMIL TON ALL PRO FORMS INC ALLlANT FOOD SERVICE ALPHA INTERACTIVE GROUP ALPINE BANK ALPINE SIGN & GRAPHICS AMADEO GONZALES AMERICAN PAYROLL AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR LAW AMERICAN TOWER CORP AMERICINN LODGE & SUITES ANN LOPER ANN MUNCASTER ANTHONY TECHNOLOGY APEX II APEX SECURITY AQUA TEC SYSTEMS ARCH WIRELESS ARN MENCONI ARNOLD AND ARNOLD ASPEN BASALT CARE CLINIC SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT HHSGRANT 109.87 500.00 174.65 80.00 98.26 25.00 73.83 47.75 1,236.89 800.00 50.00 34.50 1,443.90 1,969.85 65.00 200.00 11.00 32.40 484.00 795.00 69.94 875.00 969.75 31.50 58.80 1,700.00 2,625.00 637.43 365.50 53.84 262.10 25.00 1,350.00 1 03-13-2001 ASPEN BOARD OF REAL TORS ASPEN TIMES THE AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS B J ROWE BAILEY FUNERAL HOME BANKIMAGE.COM BASALT SANITATION DIST BECKNER ACHZIGER MCGINNIS BEN GALLOWAY MD BERLITZ LANGUAGE CENTER BERT BRATTON BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS BEST WESTERN EAGLE LODGE BEVERLY KUNKEL BFI BFI WASTE SYSTEMS INC BLAS OTERO BLUE LAKE OWNERS ASSN BOB BARKER COMPANY BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO BRADS ELECTRICAL SERVICE BRIAN O'REILLY BRUCE CAMPBELL BUREAU OF BUSINESS CAACO CALOIA & HOUPT PC CAPITAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS CAREY GONN HELM CCCMA CCO AND ERA CCTA CDPHE C/O ANNE CROUSE CENTRAL CREDIT CORP CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTURYTEL CGFOA CHARTER SPORTS CHECKJUTERECOVERYSERV CHEMA TOX INC. CHESS CHILDBIRTH GRAPHICS CHOICE SOLUTIONS, LLC CIRCUS CIRCUS LAS VEGAS CITY MARKET CITY MARKET #34 CLERK SUPREME COURT SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES PAYROLL EXPD SERVICES SERVICES REFUND SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES 6.65 177.28 93.52 4,051.16 16.56 525.00 1,140.00 103.50 7.44 5,320.00 50.00 17.70 1,196.09 683.60 14.40 90.25 1,481.91 425.00 3,846.72 866.35 592.00 2,234.12 73.02 100.00 168.95 150.00 250.00 3,327.50 46.98 120.00 60,157.20 900.00 23.01 25.00 889.30 16,969.80 90.00 1.24 82.44 400.00 467.00 46.71 1,499.00 392.40 11.22 286.41 585.00 2 03-13-2001 CLIFTON HOOK & BOV ARNICK CO BUREAU INVESTIGATION CO CORONERS ASSOCIATION CO DEPT AGRICULTURE CO DEPT OF HEALTH CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH & CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH AND CO DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S CO ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH CO STATE TREASURER COLLECTO COLLEEN WIRTH COLORADO CRIME ANAL YSIS COLORADO CRIMINAL COLORADO FASTENERS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO WEST MENTAL COLORADO WEST REGIONAL COLUMBIA PROPANE COMED MEDICAL SPECIAL TIES CONVERGENT GROUP CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING CORRA COUNTY SHERIFFS COLORADO CPW-CENTRAL PARTS WAREHSE CRA WFORD PROPERTIES CREDIT BUREAU ROCKIES CSU COOPERATIVE EXTENSION DAILY JOURNAL CORPORATION DAILY JOURNAL THE DAILY SENTINEL THE DARK ROOM THE DA T A STREAM DAVE LUSSIER DAVID A BAUER DAVID GUlNNEE, DVM DA VID LUNG & ASSOCIATES DA VID S HOOVER DAVID SEPP DEARBORN PUBLISHING DEEP ROCK WEST DENVER POST CORPORATION T DIANA JOHNSON DIGITAL BIOMETRICS DIRECT DATA CORPORATION DOCTORS ON CALL REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERIVCES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES REFUND SERVICES SERVICES SERVCIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES 13.76 66.24 400.00 250.00 23.01 147.50 12.00 8.98 60.00 360.43 40.50 124.98 25.00 650.00 59.20 477.55 2,133.60 585.00 3,225.26 468.02 85,087.52 3,587.84 4,600.60 50.00 2,646.00 96.02 2,322.00 25.00 6,825.06 637.00 98.70 594.62 633.85 3,350.00 371.63 25.00 1,250.00 30.00 26.24 35.00 169.83 228.40 632.48 36.00 5,536.36 1.98 1,170.00 3 03-13-2001 DODSON ENGINEERED DOMONIC MEYERS-SCHREINER DONALD R WREN, AS TRUSTEE DOSIA LAEYENDECKER DUSTY ROSE EAGLE AMOCO EAGLE AUTO PARTS EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS EAGLE EYE PHOTO EAGLE INDUSTRIES UNLIMITD EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE V ALLEY CHAMBER COMM EAGLE V ALLEY ENTERPRISE EAGLE VALLEY EVENTS EAGLE V ALLEY GLASS AND EAGLE V ALLEY HARDWARE EAGLE V ALLEY HIGH SCHOOL EAGLE VALLEY PET HOSPITAL EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING EAGLE V ALLEY TILE CARPET EAST WEST RESORTS EASTER OWENS EMC2 EMILIA GONZALEZ ERIC WWALTER FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FARMER BROTHERS FARRELL, GOLDSTEIN, FEA THER LEGAL SERVICES FEDERAL EXPRESS FEDERAL LABORATORIES FIDELITY CREDIT SERVICES FILE FINDERS LTD FINANCIAL EQUIPMENT COMPA FIREBUSTER SOLUTIONS FIRST BANKS FITZSIMMONS MOTOR COMPANY FRANK J BALL FRUIT A CONSUMER COOP ASSN GARFIELD COUNTY HOUSING GA TES MARGE PHN GEORGE ROUSSOS GFOA GLENWOOD SHOE SERVICE GRAINGER INCORPORATED GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REFUND REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SUPPLIES PARTS SERVICES SERVICES PARTS SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES 302.10 31.74 917.23 99.00 65.00 5.47 173.26 15,529.06 1.09 56.72 2,519.60 83.98 475.00 53.49 3,489.00 739.46 5.38 250.00 201.62 2,025.50 430.00 3,589.50 806.25 1,687.95 166.80 3.72 1,033.86 1,529.00 27.48 13.64 277.59 285.00 25.00 30.00 234.50 517.45 18,026.57 52.35 16.32 214.00 825.00 1,275.00 95.22 687.00 1,092.00 292.82 366.68 4 03-13-2001 GREENHALGH BECKWITH GYPSUM ASSOC PUBLICA nON H20 POWER EQUIPMENT INC HALL AND EVANS HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HELEN MIGCHELBRINK HELLO DIRECT INC HILL & TASHIRO MARKETING HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HOLY CROSS ENERGY HOTEL COLORADO HUGHES SUPPLY, INC. HUMAN RESOURCES COUNCIL HYATT REGENCY TECH CENTER IAAO IFMA INSTITUTE INTERNA nONAL INTEGRITY PLUMBING AND INTEGRITY RESEARCH INTELLINET LLC INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE INTERNA TIONAL ASSOCIA nON INTERNA nONAL CITY/COUNTY IRVIN BORENSTEIN JACQUELINE ALLEN JAMES DUNCAN & ASSOC INC JAMES J STANDLEY JAMES STRYKET JANET BAILEY JJ GEMMELL JOAN M MAXWELL RN JOBS AVAILABLE JOHN A CANNING JOHN E REID & ASSOCIATES JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC JOSE CRUZ JULIE SNYDER-EATON JUSTIN V ALAS KAREN LEAVITT KELLEY BLUE BOOK KEVIN KONICEK KN ENERGY INC LABELS DIRECT INC LAB SAFETY SUPPLY LAS VEGAS TROPICANA LAURETTA WOLTER LEDERHAUSE EDITH REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES TAXES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 18.60 159.95 167.00 527.74 160,537.10 84.53 950.99 600.00 6,398.73 11,586.48 154.60 728.70 399.00 500.00 130.00 275.00 1,295.00 2,210.91 15.00 5,000.00 270.00 100.00 294.35 3.98 287.56 4,460.00 25.00 100.00 341.55 125.00 32.43 119.60 2.48 1,980.00 387.50 25.00 16.75 200.00 49.40 54.00 8.68 24,302.49 531.00 1411.66 300.84 8.58324.00 5 03-13-2001 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC LESLIE KEHMEIER LETN LIL JOHNS WATER TREATMENT LIND ELECTRONICS LINDA MAGGIORE LK SURVEY INSTRUMENTS LRP PUBLICATIONS LUKE A BRENNAN LYONS KATHLEEN M KELLY LIEKIS RN M. MATHIS MACHOL & JOHANNES MAE PITTMAN MARIL YN RICE MARSHALL SWIFT MARY K LOVE MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS MCI WORLDCOM MEGAN GROSS MERCK A TL MEYER LAND SYSTEMS MICRO WAREHOUSE MIKE GALLAGHER MIKES CAMERA INe. MILLAR ELEVATOR SERVICE MOORE MEDICAL CORP MOTOR POOL FUND MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN MOBILE VETERINAR MR BONES MSEC MANAGEMENT DEV CENTR NANCY ANN BRUEN NA THAN MEINHARDT NA TIONAL 4H SUPPLY NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NA TIONAL COMMISSION ON NATIONAL EVIRONMENTAL NATIONAL FLARE COMPANY NA TIONAL WILD TURKEY NOBEL SYSCO FOOD SERVICES NORDIC REFRIGERATION NORTHWCSTCOLORADO NOVELL SALES NOVELL, INe. OFFICE TEC KNOWLEDGY OSI COLLECTION SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES PARTS SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT 7,722.66 9.08 388.00 315.00 164.13 106.26 99.26 217.50 25.00 1,170.00 41.75 28.02 31.12 557.50 23.73 140.95 2.00 3,653.82 3,389.98 23.35 490.80 3,400.00 3,900.96 200.00 29.60 611.19 626.57 57741.58 2,476.58 179.00 1,837.50 400.00 2.48 25.00 310.14 20.00 820.00 75.00 100.00 500.00 2,556.40 56.96 2,500.00 9,550.50 12,797.10 1,400.00 3.10 6 03-13-2001 OVERHEAD DOOR COMPANY OVERLAND AND EXPRESS COMP PAINT BUCKET THE PAPER WISE PARICIA CASEY PAT MAGDZIUK PAUL GREGG PAULA J BAJZA PC CONNECTION PEAK LAND CONSULTANTS INC PEARSON, MILLIGAN, AND PEGASUS SATELLITE PERFORMANCE ENHANCEMENTS PHILLIPS 66 COMPANY PHOTOKARDS ID SYSTEMS POLICY STUDIES INC POSTMASTER EAGLE BRANCH POWERWARE GLOBAL SERVICES PRECINCT POLICE PRODUCTS PROTECTORS L TD PSS, INC PUBLIC SERVICE PUBLIC TRUSTEES ASSOC QUALITY QUICK PRINT QUEST DIAGNOSTICS QUILL CORPORATION QWEST QWEST INTERPRISE NETWRKNG RADISSON HOTEL SOUTH RAGAN COMMUNICATIONS INC RES SUPPLY COMPANY REGINA ERLANDSON RESPONSE RICHARD KESLER RICHMOND NEILEY & SPROUSE RICK D WAGNER RIFLE PERFORMANCE ROACH EARLENE ROBERT B EMERSON ROBERT E HOLMAN ROBERT NARRACCI ROCKY MTN PIONEER PACKING ROGER MOORE ROGER WILKINSON ROPIR CABLE VISION RUTH LENZ SALVADOR BALDERAS-PUENT AS SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES 146.86 8,190.50 46.11 2,460.00 599.00 10.00 425.00 200.00 1,541.48 5,720.00 35.32 37.98 49.95 31.52 394.50 25.00 11,769.22 1,368.00 660.65 375.00 173.83 968.37 300.00 287.00 37.80 213.16 4,109.97 1,502.30 590.65 99.00 600.26 260.40 375.00 8,683.26 1.24 10.48 71.04 10.35 999.77 13.02 18.80 13.02 25.00 60.00 40.06 60.00 250.00 7 03-13-2001 SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SECURlTAS, INC. SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SHAINHOL TZ TODD H DDS SHEAFFER KAREN SHELLEY STARK SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SNOWHITE LINEN SOFTMART INC SOS STAFFING SERVICES SRT SUPPLY, INC. STEPHEN D FOSTER STEPHEN HOBBS STEVE KIRKPATRICK STOCK POT PUBLISHING STRAWBERRY PATCH SULLIVAN GREEN LLC SUMMIT LUMBER SUSPENSE FUND TERRI ALLENDER TERRI BIERSDORFER THINK FIRST CENTRAL MTN THOMAS E CAMPBELL THORPE HATCHER & TOM TALBOT, DEPUTY TOSHIBA SHOP SALES TOWN OF BASALT TOWN OF EAGLE TOWN OF GYPSUM TRANE COMPANY TRANSCOR AMERICA INC UNIFORM KINGDOM UNISOURCE MAINTENANCE UNITED PARCEL SERVICE UNITED REPROGRAPHIC UNIV COLORADO AT BOULDER UNIVERSAL LIGHTING UNIVERSTIY PHYSICIANS INC UW MADISON VAIL DAILY THE V AIL ELECTRONICS VAIL NET VAIL VALLEY JET CENTER V AIL V ALLEY MEDICAL CENTR VALLEY JOURNAL V ALLEY LUMBER VALLEY PINES HOMEOWNERS SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES SUPPLIES SERVICES 653.30 282.66 29,861.19 223.00 74.00 56.66 332.38 36.21 695.09 8.68 174.85 2.48 26.24 2,047.00 26.99 140.45 4,447.80 1,155.99 3,088.88 50.00 35.00 3,388.00 25.00 30.00 108.28 79.00 55.35 1,843.85 955.34 1,197.23 2,481.11 327.20 104.66 172.01 147.64 160.00 229.59 65.50 1,095.00 6,316.53 752.05 1,772.80 148.32 325.60 25.00 9.99 425.70 8 03-13-2001 VALLEY SIGNS SERVICES 162.70 V ALLEY VIEW HOSPITAL SERVICES 60.00 VERIZON SELECT SERVICES SERVICES 2,706.90 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICES 15,131.57 VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS SUPPLIES 337.37 VISIBLE COMPUTER SUPPLY C SUPPLIES 398.11 WARWICK HOTEL SERVICES 430.00 WEARGUARD SERVICES 775.95 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 249,309.93 WELLS FARGO BANK SERVICES 12.00 WEST PUBLISHING SERVICES 1,462.59 WESTED SERVICES 1,680.00 WESTERN ACOUSTICS & SERVICES 235.30 WILLIAM LOPER REIMBURSEMENT 36.00 WOODWORKERS SUPPLY INC. SUPPLIES 43.45 WYETH A YERST LABORATORIES SERVICES 449.35 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 10.00 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICES 5,883.33 Y AMPA V ALLEY ELECTRIC SERVICES 151.42 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES 660.93 PAYROLL FORFEBUARY PAYROLL 3 & 4 534,394.78 1,598,851.65 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 155.40 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 4,399.58 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICES 10.45 COLORADO LTAP SERVICES 320.00 COUNTY TECHNICAL SERVICES SERVICES 42,272.00 DEEP ROCK WEST SUPPLIES 37.25 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 374.95 EAGLE PHARMACY SUPPLIES 235.98 ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPO SERVICES 61.75 FABIAN LOPEZ REIMBURSEMENT 11.39 GORDON ADAMS REIMBURSEMENT 8.00 HARRIS JOHN T REIMBURSEMENT 75.00 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 16,136.52 HELLERSTEIN & SHORE PC SERVICES 604.62 INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY SUPPLIES 581.05 M & M AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES 188.96 MICRO WAREHOUSE SERVICES 432.89 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 93,791.91 NAPA AUTO PARTS-VAIL SUPPLIES 20.77 NAPA AUTO PARTS-CARBONDLE SUPPLIES 55.95 9 03-13-2001 RHONDAPARKER REIMBURSEMENT 44.87 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF THE SERVICES 110.76 SERVICEMASTER OF V AIL SERVICES 1,181.19 SIGNATURE SIGNS SUPPLIES 64.50 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICES 76.92 VAIL DAILY THE SERVICES 55.52 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 25,268.65 WESTERN IMPLEMENTS SUPPLIES 2,260.06 WESTERN PAGING SUPPLIES 300.00 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 2,276.00 PAYROLL FORFEBUARY PAYROLL 3 & 4 52,601.40 244,014.29 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND ARAPAHOE COUNTY SHERIFF SERVICES 22.00 BACK ALLEY PIZZA SERVICES 45.00 CATHERINE CRAIG REIMBURSEMENT 148.09 CEl LEGAL DEPARTMENT SERVICES 28.00 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 5,045.78 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICES 232.35 CITY MARKET #34 SUPPLIES 57.34 CORPORA TE EXPRESS SERVICES 38.51 CSED SERVICES 309.36 EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF SERVICES 34.34 EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING SUPPLIES 49.50 EDWARD GILLILAND REIMBURSEMENT 140.00 EL PASO COUNTY SHERIFF SERVICES 12.65 HART INTERCIVIC SERVICES 109.21 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 12,544.40 INDRA BRIEDIS SERVICES 369.40 INTEGRITY PLUMBING AND SERVICES 1,808.92 JERRI OLSON SERVICES 294.40 JUNIPER V ALLEY PRODUCTS SERVICES 57.16 KATHY REED REIMBURSEMENT 99.36 LYONS KATHLEEN REIMBURSEMENT 33.85 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 1,391.17 PITKIN COUNTY DSS SERVICES 580.00 QUILL CORPORATION SUPPLIES 80.88 QWEST SERVICES 197.80 RENEE FIELDS REIMBURSEMENT 596.27 ROCHELLE A BOWER REIMBURSEMENT 181.57 SANDY ALFRED REIMBURSEMENT 23.46 STATE OF COLORADO SERVICES 66.57 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICES 721.54 SUZANNE SMITH REIMBURSEMENT 426.10 10 03-13-2001 TERRI ALLENDER REIMBURSEMENT 100.00 VAIL DAILY THE SERVICES 67.00 VERlZON WIRELESS, SERVICES 403.72 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 14,503.66 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICES 76.95 PAYROLL FORFEBUARY PAYROLL 3 &4 32,135.26 73,031.57 WRAP FUND MEET THE WILDERNESS SERVICES 750.00 TOTAL 750.00 RETIREMENT FUND CCO AND ERA PA YROLL EXPD 48,357.60 TOTAL 48,357.60 INSURANCE RESERVE FUND AGENCY AUTO GLASS SERVICES 2,421.37 COUNTY TECHNICAL SERVICES SERVICES 249,765.00 JANET KOHL SERVICES 100.00 252,286.37 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND BENCHMARK ENGINEERING SERVICES 1,050.00 HEPWORTH PAWLAK GEOTECHNI SERVICES 296.25 MARCIN ENGINEERING INC SERVICES 147.83 MORTER ARCHITECTS SERVICES 3,060.00 NORTHWEST COLORADO SERVICES 192.50 VERlZON WIRELESS, SERVICES 46,000.00 WESTON SERVICES 1,300.00 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICES 8.841.00 60,887.58 SALES TAX E.V. TRANSP. ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 50.22 AMERICAN PUBLIC TRANSIT SERVICES 48.00 11 03-13-2001 ANNETTE PRESSLEY SERVICES 1,485.00 ASCOM HASLER SERVICES 127.50 BERTHODS INC SERVICES 1,250.00 CASTA SERVICES 5,665.83 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 364.32 CITY MARKET #34 SUPPLIES 208.24 COpy PLUS SERVICES 225.44 COUNTY TECHNICAL SERVICES SERVICES 42,328.00 DELL INC SUPPLIES 1,391.00 EAGLE PHARMACY SERVICES 3.49 FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY REIMBURSEMENT 57.69 FEDERAL EXPRESS SERVICES 7.05 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,465.15 HIGH COUNTRY LOCK & KEY SUPPLIES 25.00 HILL & COMPANY SERVICES 800.00 JIM LAIR SERVICES 2,367.05 KTUN-FM RADIO SERVICES 100.00 LAKE CREEK VILLAGE SERVICES 7,520.00 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 1,667.96 NATIONAL BUSINESS SERVICES 171.95 QUILL CORPORATION SUPPLIES 192.92 QWEST DEX SERVICES 21.90 SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SERVICES 1,598.97 SILVER WHEELS INC. SERVICES 1,396.00 SPECIAL TY INCENTIVES INC SUPPLIES 71.16 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICES 78.34 TOWN OF AVON SERVICES 708,614.65 VAIL DAIL Y THE SERVICES 18.00 VERENA MA YR REIMBURSEMENT 30.00 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICES 11.60 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 6,328.60 PAYROLL FORFEBUARY PAYROLL 3 & 4 13,396.19 800,087.22 SALES TAX E. V. TRAILS BICYCLE COLORADO SERVICES 100.00 CCO AND ERA PA YROLL EXPD 136.41 CITY MARKET #34 SUPPLIES 25.90 COpy PLUS SERVICES 28.89 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 404.30 EAGLE PHARMACY SERVICES 11.12 ELLIE CARYL REIMBURSEMENT 36.15 HEAL TH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 165.62 HIGH COUNTRY SHIRTWORKS SUPPLIES 598.50 12 03-13-2001 TOWN OF V AIL SERVICES 9,000.00 VAIL DAILY THE SERVICES 108.16 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 894.54 11,509.59 AIRPORT FUND ACE EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY SUPPLIES 1,151.61 ALLISON SYSTEMS INC SERVICES 965.40 ALPHA MIRROR & GLASS INC SERVICES 29.30 AMERICAN AVIONICS INC SUPPLIES 1,109.00 AMERICAN CONCRETE PAVING SERVICES 60.00 BERTHOD MOTORS SUPPLIES 14.98 BEST ACCESS SYSTEMS SUPPLIES 329.87 BROWNING FERRIS IND SERVICES 702.16 BUREAU OF LAND MANAGMENT SERVICES 141.41 CARE EXPRESS SERVICES 500.00 CARL WALKER, INC SERVICES 2,003.00 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 2,358.10 CENTENNIAL FIRE & SAFETY SERVICES 58.25 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICES 27.09 CENTURY EQUIPMENT COMPANY SUPPLIES 117.05 CENTURYTEL SERVICES 2,159.91 CLIMA TE CONTROL SERVICES 657.03 CO AIRPORT OPERA TORS ASSN SERVICES 475.00 COLLETTS SUPPLIES 2,365.78 COLORADO ACTIVITY CTR INC SERVICES 2,092.50 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICES 21.09 COLORADOPROffiCTCONTROL SERVICES 7,882.24 COLUMBINE MARKET SUPPLIES 105.50 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES 70.68 COUNTY TECHNICAL SERVICES SERVICES 127,440.00 CRYOTECH DEICING TECH SERVICES 6,258.50 DA Y TIMERS INCORPORATED SUPPLIES 92.79 DEEP ROCK WEST SUPPLIES 83.70 DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES SUPPLIES 85.28 EAGLE AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES 235.64 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 107.10 EAGLE COUNTY TREASURER SUPPLIES 2,529.02 EAGLE V ALLEY HARDWARE SUPPLIES 34.05 EDDIE STORER REIMBURSEMENT 83.47 FORCE AMERICA SUPPLIES 351.92 GYPSUM TOWN OF SERVICES 192.78 H & H HYDRAULICS INC. SERVICES 56.40 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 5,933.24 HELEN M LINDOW REIMBURSEMENT 43.01 13 03-13-2001 HERTZ CORPORATION SERVICES 467.19 HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICES 4,767.59 HURD HARRY SERVICES 1,382.24 INSIDE EDGE SUPPLIES 401.25 JAMES P ELWOOD SERVICES 610.91 JIM JACKSON REIMBURSEMENT 8.23 JKJ DISTRIBUTING, INe. SUPPLIES 197.78 KN ENERGY INC SERVICES 5,458.21 LA WSON PRODUCTS SUPPLIES 124.53 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICES 1,429.40 LEIBOWITZ AIRPORT MGT CON SERVICES 4,754.73 M & M AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES 24.40 MACDONALD EQUIPMENT CO SUPPLIES 1,145.09 MAIN STREET GALLERY AND SERVICES 137.60 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICES 358.48 MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES 54,301.00 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 1,404.34 ONE OF A KIND DESIGN SUPPLIES 25,071.41 OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION SUPPLIES 1,512.21 PAINT BUCKET THE SUPPLIES 95.38 PRECISION WEST SIGNS SERVICES 5,535.00 PRO SPORTS POLARIS SUPPLIES 209.95 REO WELDING SERVICES 220.00 RHOMAR INDUSTRIES, INC SUPPLIES 455.75 ROAD AND BRIDGE DEPARTMEN SERVICES 817.77 SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SUPPLIES 34.87 SEARS INDUSTRIAL SALES SUPPLIES 737.40 STEWART & STEVENSON POWER SUPPLIES 178.23 UNISOURCE MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES 50.83 V AIL ELECTRONICS SERVICES 385.00 V AIL V ALLEY PLUMBING AND SERVICES 201.84 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICES 752.86 WAGNER RENTS SERVICES 277.60 WELLS FARGO PA YROLL EXPD 17,780.91 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 119.78 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY SERVICES 94.23 PAYROLL FORFEBUARY PAYROLL 3 & 4 42,938.46 343,366.30 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FUND DELL INC SUPPLIES 1,449.00 EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS SUPPLIES 4,242.00 HELLO DIRECT INC SUPPLIES 922.00 14 03-13-2001 6,613.00 LANDFILL FUND BRADS ELECTRICAL SERVICE SERVICES 772.27 CARDINAL SCALE MFG CO SERVICES 6,180.00 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 1,166.58 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICES 62.95 CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH AND SERVICES 309.50 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICES 76.45 EAGLE AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES 57.28 HEALD HEA TING & AIR COND SUPPLIES 5,950.00 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,593.17 KRW CONSULTING INC SERVICES 2,263.88 MILLER WATER MONITOR SERVICES 600.00 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 79,639.26 SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SUPPLIES 31.93 SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SERVICES 1,599.28 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICES 65.38 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 5,445.19 PAYROLL FORFEBUARY PAYROLL3&4 14,207.11 123,020.23 MOTOR POOL FUND Al AUTO ELECTRIC COMPANY PARTS 320.34 ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SUPPLIES 51.80 AGENCY AUTO GLASS SERVICES 227.15 ARMADILLO IRON WORKS PARTS 15.00 BERTHOD MOTORS PARTS 161.10 BOWMAN DISTRIBUTING PARTS 308.67 BRODY CHEMICAL SUPPLIES 547.72 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS SUPPLIES 117.25 CCO AND ERA PAYROLL EXPD 820.57 COLLETTS SUPPLIES 11,857.85 COLORADO KENWORTH INC SUPPLIES 839.57 COLORADO MOTOR PARTS SUPPLIES 50.10 DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES SERVICES 1,355.24 EAGLE AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES 777.05 EAGLE PHARMACY SUPPLIES 10.97 EDDIE VELASQUES REMBURSEMENT 75.00 FAMIL Y SUPPORT REGISTRY SERVICES 173.07 GLENWOOD RADIATOR REPAIR SERVICES 35.00 ./ GLENWOOD SPRINGS FORD PARTS 281.54 HANSON EQUIPMENT PARTS 1,016.43 15 03-13-2001 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 5,134.35 HICKEY MOTORS SERVICES 24,385.00 JA Y MAX SALES PARTS 382.54 JJ KELLER AND ASSOCIATES SERVICES 522.40 KOIS BROTHERS PARTS 309.00 M & M AUTO PARTS PARTS 4,460.62 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICES 6,119.14 NAPA AUTO PARTS-CARBONDLE PARTS 20.54 QUALITY STORES INC SUPPLIES 11.99 REY MOTORS INCORPORATED PARTS 133.60 RHONDAPARKER SUPPLIES 9.99 ROCHELLE A BOWER REIMBURSEMENT 7.00 SAFETY KLEEN (WHICITA) SERVICES 142.71 SERVICEMASTER OF V AIL SERVICES 3,053.84 SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLIES 15.32 TERRI VROMAN REIMBURSEMENT 24.53 UNITED STATE WELDING INC. SERVICES 228.96 UNITED STATES WELDING SUPPLIES 97.98 V ALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES 4.48 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICES 1,044.86 WEAR PARTS EQUIPMENT PARTS 13,930.70 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPD 7,925.87 WESTERN IMPLEMENTS SUPPLIES 400.00 WESTERN PAGING SERVICES 300.00 WESTERN SLOPE CHRYSLER SERVICES 21,435.00 WHITEALLS ALPINE SUPPLIES 176.55 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 905.91 PAYROLL FORFEBUARY PAYROLL 3 &4 16,888.22 127,112.52 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND AIRPORT REVENUE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 130.35 ALPINE BANK EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 200,000.00 DENMAN GREY AND COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 975.00 GENERAL FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,205.49 LANDFILL FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 41.29 MOTOR POOL FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 220.31 MOUNTAIN STATES ADMIN. EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 34,889.70 PROVIDENT LIFE/ACCIDENT EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,707.47 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 130.35 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,488.58 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 294.39 UNITED STATES LIFE INS EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,249.00 '- VISION SERVICE PLAN - CO EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 10,265.53 16 03-13-2001 256,597.46 ENHANCED E911 FUND JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES QWEST SERVICES SERVICES SERVICES 1,275.00 50.00 3,695.08 5,020.08 GRAND TOTAL $3,951,505.46 Executive Session Chairman Stone stated the first matter was an Executive Session. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn into Executive Session to discuss the following: 1) Receive legal advice regarding potential code enforcement litigation. 2) Discuss negotiations for fill dirt for the airport, determine position and give directions to negotiators. 3) Receive legal advice regarding notice of claim against the County. 4) Receive legal advice regarding County Attorney's Office applications. 5) Discuss Airport Negotiations and give guidance to negotiators. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 09:10 a.m. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 09:50 a.m. Consent Agenda Chairman Stone stated the next item before the Board is the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for week of March 12,2001, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meetings for February 13 & 20.2001 C) Resolution conferring Power of Attorney upon the Attorney's Office to draw on Letter of Credit No. 808-5137 in the amount of $2,000.00 for the account of Cindy and Charles Prey tis, drawn on 1 st Bank of Avon, Letter of Credit to expire March 17, 2001 D) Consent to Assignment and Assumption of Subdivision Improvements Agreement for Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 37, Phase 2 E) Lease Agreement between Board of County Commissioners and J. Craig Butters and M. Brunilda Butters F) Resolution 2001-036 Adoption of an Investment Policy G) Fourth Quarter Interest Report, 2000 summary of interest earned H) Resolution 2001-037 notifying the State Treasurer to distribute Federal Mineral Leasing Funds in accord with the provisions of 34-63-102, C.R.S. 17 03-13-2001 I) Professional Services Agreement with Good Turns Software J) Resolution 2001-038, final release of collateral and termination of the warranty period for Northstar Center K) Resolution 2001-039, final release of collateral and termination ofthe warranty period for Cordillera Valley Club, Phase 2 L) Intergovernmental Agreement between the County of Eagle and the Town of Red Cliff, Dump and Plow Truck Agreement. Chairman Stone asked the County Attorney's office ifthere are any additions or changes to the Consent Agenda. Renee Black, Asst. County Attorney, stated item C is to be pulled. A new Letter of Credit has been received. Commissioner Gallagher asked about item 1. Bill Lopez, Director ofInformation Technologies, stated that is a one time expense. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented excluding item C which has been withdrawn. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Chairman Stone stated there are no plats or resolutions today. Resolution 2001-040 Legal Newspaper Bid Kathryn Heider, Asst. County Administrator, presented the next item on the agenda, consideration of the legal newspaper bid. She stated there were two bids that were received. They were discussed at Board update this morning. She explained the Eagle Valley Enterprise has successfully met the criteria. She explained that the Vail Trail does not have the required mailing permit. There was discussion about publication of the legal notices in the Vail Daily as well as in the Roaring Pork Journal. Chairman Stone asked for input from the Eagle Valley Enterprise and asked for the relationship between the two papers. Don Rogers, publisher of the Enterprise and managing editor of the Vail Daily, spoke to the asterisks. He explained the free public pick up is all notices, first and second, daily. He stated the second issue is the pick up by the Aspen Times Weekly. He explained that has great circulation. He explained the first pick up would be $.40 a line, the same price as the Daily and the second pick up would be $.20. Chairman Stone stated then he understands they do give Eagle County electronic delivery of the legals and because of that the legal notices will appear in the Vail Daily just like they appear in the Eagle Valley Enterprise and secondly, the intent would be to not include it any newspaper in the Roaring Pork Valley Journal unless additional payment was made. Mr. Rogers stated at a favorable rate. Chairman Stone stated he understood instead of the Roaring Fork Valley Journal that it will be in the Aspen Times. Mr. Rogers stated if they do it within the whole County, the pick up rate would be $.20. It isn't free, but it is a good rate. Commissioner Menconi stated they are really trying to get the notices out to the entire County to bring the communities together. He suggested they would like to see lowering the rate with the Aspen Times and need to expand the readership. Chairman Stone asked if there is sharing of news articles between the Eagle Valley Enterprise 18 03-13-2001 and the sister newspapers. Mr. Rogers stated it is basically up to each editor. He stated his paper is the largest page wise. He stated the other papers are smaller and tend to go with their local stuff first and then reach out. There j is some sharing, but not to the degree that he borrows from them. He stated in the future, they will see a much closer tie with the Enterprise and the Vail Daily. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, pointed out that after the rejection of the bids, Don Rogers has done an exceptional job in lowering the bids and providing greater quality of distribution. He stated they did not have to do that. Chairman Stone concurred and stated they appreciate their support as they have the largest influence in the public relations process and the collaborative nature with which they have worked together. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2001-040 accepting the bid ofthe Eagle Valley Enterprise as the County's legal newspaper. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2001-041 Appointing Emergency Management Director Chairman Stone stated the next item on the agenda was appointment of the Emergency Management Director. He stated Sheriff Johnson, for the last calendar year, was the Emergency Manager Director. This was an appointment that was not changed in January and allowed for the current manager to serve until a different designation was made. The Board has agreed to change that appointment to Jack Ingstad. Commissioner Gallagher moved approve Resolution 2001-041 appointing Jack Ingstad as the Emergency Management Director. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Panda City Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented a new application for a hotel & restaurant license for Duong, Inc., dba/Panda City. She stated this application is in order and all fees have been paid. This applicant currently has a Panda City in Gypsum and one in Georgetown. The first order of business is to establish the neighborhood and the needs of the neighborhood. Ms. Roach suggested the neighborhood be from the establishment in a two mile radius. Commissioner Gallagher moved to establish the neighborhood as from the establishment in a two mile radius. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone stated the next item is to establish the needs of the neighborhood. Than Duong, applicant, was present for the hearing. He stated they would very much like approval of this license. Chairman Stone asked where this is located. Mr. Duong stated it is in the Diamond building across from the cinema on the river side of Riverwalk in Edwards. Chairman Stone asked what kind of consideration do they make to establish the needs of the neighborhood. Ms. Roach stated by the petition they surmise from the signatures on the petition that there is in 19 03-13-2001 fact a need. Commissioner Menconi moved to establish the needs of the neighborhood as evidenced by testimony and the submitted petition. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. C Ms. Roach stated this building is not complete and has not had a final inspection from Environmental Health. She stated they could approve the license conditionally or approve it as is because they can not open until they have received approval from Environmental Health. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they have a liquor license in their other establishments. Mr. Duong replied they do. Chairman Stone asked what considerations they may want to review. Ms. Roach stated they could question them as to the number of employees, TIPS training, previous problems. Mr. Duong stated they have three wait persons and five cooks. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they are familiar with TIPS training. Mr. Duong stated he is not. Commissioner Gallagher explained his strong recommendation that they discuss the TIPS training program with Ms. Roach and that the employees become knowledgeable about the TIPS program. Chairman Stone suggested that other applicants have come forward and have submitted an alcohol management plan. He suggested that provides the guidelines and rules for employees to follow. He spoke to the hearing later this afternoon where an owner has three different licenses and there was a tragic accident. He stated it raises the Board's level of concern about the liquor license holders and that they have proper management. He suggested in this other issue if there had been better management, the accident mayor may not have happened. He stated they take it very seriously. Commissioner Gallagher stated if they are visibly intoxicated it is against the law to give them any more alcohol. He stated it is imperative they read and become familiar with the Colorado Liquor Code, and that they have their employees TIPS trained. Commissioner Gallagher asked when they will open. Mr. Duong stated he hopes on the 20th of this month. Ms. Roach suggested if they open on the 20th they will open without liquor as they will not have their license back from State. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Duong if he is the manager of all three establishments. Mr. Duong stated he is. Chairman Stone stated it is then even more important that they have an Alcohol Management Plan in place and that they place importance on training the employees. Commissioner Gallagher asked if they have a bar. Mr. Duong stated they have a serving area, but it is not a bar. Commissioner Gallagher stated he is concerned, but because there have been no previous problems he will agree to support this at this time. He asked that Mr. Duong receive his strong recommendation for TIPS training and understanding the liquor code. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve a new Hotel & Restaurant license for Duong, Inc., dba/Panda City. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone asked if there is a way of communicating to the applicants the kinds of things the Board is interested in. Ms. Roach stated she did and she does. She gave them a sample plan. Chairman Stone suggested she come up with a list of standards and the questions they may be ; asked. Ms. Roach stated she does do that and explains the process. She suggested there may have been 20 03-13-2001 a language barrier. Commissioner Menconi stated it is obvious that things are getting more scrutinized by this Board and that those that have had TIPS training have received good recommendations. He stated there has got to be a way of getting the message out there regarding the Board's concerns. Ms. Roach stated they used to have a trainer out of the Sheriff s office that was very good but she does not do it any longer. She will send this applicant a letter with names of various TIPS trainers. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Abatement, Box Office Video Max Schflaley, Appraiser, presented a petition for abatement for Box Office Video, schedule number P022536. The Assessor stated this was tabled from a previous hearing. He stated they have received the owner's depreciation schedule and the Assessor is recommending an abatement for 1999 in the amount of$568.82 and corrections have been made for 1999. Mr. Benson was not present for the hearing. Chairman Stone asked if Mr. Benson was in agreement. Mr. Schflaley stated they have not heard from him and believe he is in agreement. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve schedule number P022536, as recommended by the Assessor . Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0034, SSA-00012, Colorado River Ranch Chairman Stone stated these files had been tabled from February 13,2001. Joe Forinash stated that staff has no additional information to present at this time. He understands that the applicant is going to address the issues of concern that were previously noted. Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, presented file numbers 1041-0034 and SSA-00012, Colorado River Ranch. This memo is being provided as backup material regarding the aforementioned files to remind the Board where staff is at with the Colorado River Ranch 1041 permit application including the State Site Application process for siting new domestic wastewater treatment systems. This file was introduced on February 20, 2001 with a brief project overview of the Planned Unit Development which depends upon the approval of the 1041 permit. The Board asked the applicant to provide additional evidence regarding several approval criteria as outlined in the staff report, specifically as it relates to the following findings: 6.03.15, 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 - the Board was most interested in hearing more information about local master plan coriformity. Regional 208 water quality plan issues have been resolved i. Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development - this is self explanatory. 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 as "undue financial burden" will result - the Board was not comfortable dealing with this issue by imposing the condition suggested by the applicant as it felt too close to conditioning a finding. The board suggested that the applicant 21 03-13-2001 develop a proposal which described ownership structure and probable rates. 6.05.15, a. The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated - again, self explanatory. b. Assurances of compatibility of the proposed water project with federal, state, regional and County planning policies regarding land use and water resources - same discussion as outlined in finding 6.03.15, b) e. The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health - this finding relates to long term operation of water treatment facilities and assurance that a responsible entity will be created to provide safe drinking water and maintain the system, related to (6.03.15, q). This is my recollection of what needs to be addressed by the applicant. The Board may elect to review all of the approval criteria. Staff received no additional information from the applicant. The Colorado River Ranch PUD is essentially a guest ranch which incorporates golf, fishing, equestrian and other recreation and leisure activities in the setting of the former Nottingham Ranch. The development proposal includes 25 cabins, 2 guest bunkhouses one ranch manager residence and a maintenance facility with housing for 10 employees. The clubhouse associated with the golf course has a 75 seat restaurant and a bar and grill. Potable Water Water will be diverted from the Colorado River via an infiltration gallery with a capacity of 120gpm. Water is then delivered to a pond for potable and nonpotable uses. Domestic water will be filtered and discharged into the chlorine contact tank. The water treatment system will be capable of treating 20,000gpd with a peak output of 50,000gpd. Treated water will then be pumped up to a 200,000-gallon capacity water holding tank for eventual distribution throughout the site. The water distribution system for the Colorado River Ranch is designed in accordance with the Town of Gypsum's Public Works Manual (dated May, 1998). All water lines are 8" ductile iron pipe. Wastewater Wastewater will be collected via 4" laterals from each cabin and the clubhouse facilities to the sanitary lines. The system consists of two force mains, two lift stations, and gravity sewer, all connected to a central sewage treatment plant. The wastewater will be treated at the package treatment plant using an activated sludge-extended aeration treatment system. Effluent will be discharged into two absorption fields. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineer: No comments at this time. USDA: Natural Resources Conservation Service: No comments. Water Quality Control Division: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment: 1. The potable water system will be classified as a "public water system" under the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations. Plans and specifications for the proposed system must be submitted for review and approval. 2. The development is subject to the Regulations for the Site Application Process. The applicant must obtain approval ofthe wastewater treatment works. 3. The applicant may be required to obtain CDPS/NPDES stormwater discharge permits for various proposed activities that disturb more that 5 acres. (Comments Attached) Colorado Geological Survey: The Geologic Hazard Review found concerns with sinkholes, collapsible soils and hydrocompactive soils that if adversely wetted can collapse and rupture lines. The developer has assured the Colorado Geological Survey that site specific investigations will be performed by a geotechnical engineer (HP Geotech) prior to locating infrastructure and the wastewater treatment plant. (Comments 22 03-13-2001 Attached) NWCCOG: The NWCCOG's review found concern in the following general areas: Wastewater Management and Siting Issues: It appears that the site location and management is appropriate for the proposed development. NWCCOG will request that up and down-gradient groundwater monitoring wells and a monitoring program be established as part of the site application approval. Impacts to Instream Water Quality from Nonpoint Sources: It appears that most ofNWCCOG's concerns regarding stormwater runoff have been addressed through the preliminary drainage study. NWCCOG's notes that the hydrology that is being planned for includes the 2, 10,25,50 and 100 year events. NWCCOG's water quality protection standards detention criteria include 40-hour detention of the 0.5 inch in 24-hour event with no more than 50% ofthe stored volume being released in 12 hours. NWCCOG recommends that this detention criteria be applied to the detention ponds proposed for the ranch. The NWCCOG expressed concerns regarding the Colorado River flooding of the golf course and potential water quality impacts associated with fertilizer and pesticide applications. NWCCOG would appreciate more substantial water quality protection than the statement that "the operators will take into consideration the seasonal high flow periods which occur on the Colorado River and Willow Creek, when deciding to apply various chemicals to the golf course turf." This issue should be thoroughly examined and resolved in the Golf Course Management Plan which is currently notably lacking. NWCCOG commends the applicant's commitments to developing an Integrated Golf Course Management Plan and the adherence to agricultural "best management practices." NWCCOG has reviewed the Golf Course Management Plan and although it is a start, significant work on the plan is needed to provide adequate water quality protection from golf course management practices. Policy 5, Chemical Management, of the 208 Plan addresses the need to provide adequate planning regarding the use and handling of fertilizers, pesticides, and hazardous chemicals to protect water quality. Impact to Wetlands and Aquatic Resources: It does not appear that the Colorado River Ranch 1041 Application is providing soil disturbance setbacks from wetlands, floodplains, or riparian areas. The Planning Commission wanted a better understanding of the logic that drove the project toward centralized systems, especially the more sophisticated wastewater treatment system that required private operation and maintenance oflift stations. The Planning Commission's discussion of the water and sewer infrastructure for the project ranged from consideration of alternatives, long term operation and maintenance of the water and wastewater treatment plants to a discussion of the practicality of a centralized wastewater treatment system that requires 2 lift stations. The long-term operation of the water and wastewater treatment plants was a concern of the Commission since the project and associated infrastructure is privately owned. Normally the types of systems associated with this project are operated by districts. The applicant suggested that the homeowners association manage the systems but staff objected due to the complexity of the systems. The Commission agreed that some kind of financing mechanism should be required to insure the long- term operation of the systems. Staff explained to the Commission that under the direction of the Attorney's office it is possible to recommend approval, pending receipt of an executed Water Supply Contract, findings regarding adequate water supply and non-injury to downstream users. The applicant appears to have more than ample water rights to satisfy the supply needs of the development, but since the augmentation plan is pending in district court the applicant has purchased adjudicated water from Wolford Mountain Reservoir. The Department of Community Development received a copy ofthe executed Water Supply Agreement on February 6, 2001. The applicant stated that they intend to continue pursuit of the 23 03-13-2001 augmentation plan. The Planning Commission recommended approval of the following conditions: 1. Prior to approval of the 1041, a permanent program for the operation, maintenance and replacement of the water treatment facility and the sewage treatment facility be in place and be presented for approval by staff. 2. The contract for adjudicated water from Wolford Mountain Reservoir be executed and provided to the Staff and the Permit Authority prior to adoption of final findings. Efficient Utilization The agricultural (irrigation) water uses for this project such as, the golf course, hay meadows and alfalfa production, are not subject to the efficient utilization requirements of this 1041 application but the applicant's water conservation techniques for this project are worthy of note. The applicant's plan for integrating golf course irrigation with lands historically irrigated with the ranch operations represents an efficient utilization of non-potable water. In addition, the applicant has committed to a computerized and radio controlled irrigation system that will be connected to a weather station that will feed weather data, such as evapotranspiration rates, to the system 24 hours a day. The applicant has represented that this system will include landscaping that is not part of the golf course. Staff would like to see the "efficient utilization" portion of the 1041 application bolstered to include grass seed specifications and a plant palette that includes primarily drought resistant native species. Environmental Management The NWCCOG's description of the Golf Course Management Plan as "a start" raises concern of staff considering pesticide application to the golf course and the proximity of the golf course to the Colorado River and flood plain. Staff would also like for the applicant to address, for the record, concerns raised by the NWCCOG regarding stormwater detention, pesticide application, and impacts to riparian areas. Staff has developed conditions of approval to address this issue. Long Term Operation and Maintenance Staff is concerned that the wastewater collection and treatment system requires 2 lift stations. Lift stations represent a continuous risk and expense that could be avoided if the wastewater treatment plant were located to accept all raw sewage via gravity flow. Staff would recommend additional evidence be provided to address long term operation and maintenance. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: In accordance with Section 6.03.15 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Colorado River Ranch Water and Sewage Treatment Systems: 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; (+)Pinding: There are no existing water or wastewater treatment systems on or near the development capable of providing wastewater or potable water service. The 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. 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; (+)Pinding: 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 Eagle County Board of County Commissioners granted sketch plan approval for the PUD on July 31, 2000. In addition, the NWCCOG stated that it appears that the site location and management is appropriate for the proposed development. 24 03-13-2001 c) The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users; (+ )Finding: The proposed development does not adversely affect either surface or subsurface water rights of upstream or downstream users. d) Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of Health, are available for efficient operational needs; (+)Finding: Adequate water supplies, as determined by the Colorado Department of HeaIth, are available for efficient operational needs. e) Existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area must be at or near operational capacity; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. There are no existing domestic water treatment systems servicing the area. 1) 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. There are no existing sewage treatment systems servicing the area. g) The scope and nature of the proposed development will not compete with existing water and sewer service or create duplicate services; (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. There are no existing water or sewer services in the area. 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. There are no existing water or sewer services in the area. i) Area and community development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development; (+ )Finding: The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners granting sketch plan approval for the PUD indicates that 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. (NA)Finding: This finding is not applicable. There are no existing facilities in the area. k) Appropriate easement can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs; (+)Finding: The appropriate easements can be obtained for any associated collector or distribution system that will serve existing and proposed needs of the infrastructure proposed. The proposed private water distribution ans wastewater collection systems will be placed within utility easements of road rights-of-way to be created by the owner as appropriate. 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: The benefits of the proposed development outweigh the losses of any natural resources or agricuIturallands rendered unavailable as a result of the proposed development. The agricultural enterprise associated with the ranch is not economically viable. The PUD proposes to keep the agricultural character of the area by continuing some of the agricultural uses and incorporating recreation and leisure activities. 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 25 03-13-2001 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. 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 will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance. p) The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors; (+ )Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly degrade existing natural scenic characteristics, create blight, nor cause other nuisance factors such as excessive noise or obnoxious odors 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 cost of securing an adequate supply of water for existing and future needs of the residents of the County shall be considered in determining whether an "undue financial burden" will result. r) The 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. (NA)Pinding: This approval criteria is not applicable. No salinity offset plan for this project is required. The wastewater treated in the plant will be returned to the land and ground via absorption fields. 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 26 03-13-2001 t) The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from earthquakes, floods, fires, snowslides, landslides, avalanches, rockslides or other disasters which could cause a system operational breakdown. (+ )Finding: The development site of a major new domestic water or sewage treatment system is not subject to significant risk from geologic hazards which could cause a system operational breakdown. The Colorado Geological Survey's Geologic Hazard Review found concerns with sinkholes, collapsible soils and hydrocompactive soils that if adversely wetted can collapse and rupture lines. In accordance with Section 6.05.15 (Efficient Utilization of Municipal and Industrial Water Projects) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, and as more specifically described in the application for the Colorado River Ranch Water and Sewage Treatment Systems: a) The need for the proposed water project can be substantiated; (+ )Finding: The Eagle County Board of County Commissioners granting sketch plan approval for the PUD indicates that development and population trends demonstrate clearly a need for such development. There are no existing water or wastewater treatment systems available in the area capable of serving the project. 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 PUD will maintain the agricultural character of the current zoning of the area. 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 Eagle County Board of County Commissioners granted sketch plan approval for the PUD on July 31, 2000. The NWCCOG stated that it appears that the site location and management is appropriate for the proposed development. 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: 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. d) Provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources; (+)Finding: The application contains provisions to insure that the proposed water project will not contaminate surface water resources. e) The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health; (+)Finding: The proposed water project is capable of providing water pursuant to standards of the Colorado Department of Health. t) The proposed diversion of water from the source development area will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface and subsurface water resources in the source development area below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Division on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; (+)Finding: The proposed development will not decrease the quality of peripheral or downstream surface or subsurface water resources below that designated by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission as established on May 22, 1979, and effective July 10, 1979, or more stringent standards subsequently adopted; 27 03-13-2001 g) The proposed development and the potential diversions of water from the source development area will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitats, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreational areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic or archaeological importance; (+)Finding: The proposed development or its associated collector or distribution system will not significantly deteriorate aquatic habitats, marshlands and wetlands, groundwater recharge areas, steeply sloping or unstable terrain, forests and woodlands, critical wildlife habitat, big game migratory routes, calving grounds, migratory ponds, nesting areas and the habitats of rare and endangered species, public outdoor recreation areas, and unique areas of geologic, historic, or archaeological importance. h) The salinity and advance wastewater treatment offset plans required by Subsections 6.05.13(16) and (17) have been approved by the Permit Authority and required fees associated therewith, if any, have been paid; (NA)Finding: This approval criteria is not applicable. No salinity offset plan for this project is required. The wastewater treated in the plant will be returned to the land and ground via absorption fields. i) The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. (+ )Finding: The construction of structures, buildings, and improvements associated with the proposed development will not significantly impact existing or proposed communities within the development area and source development area. Mr. Merry stated they discussed in length the benefits of having water and waste water treatment. He stated the discussion was centered around the finding regarding the analysis of undue burden. He suggested the applicant may want to address the Board and present their information. He stated the applicant has additional information to be considered and they should submit the additional evidence they may want incorporated into the record. Lance Badger, representing the applicant Colorado River Ranch, stated he has many issues to address and will do so as outlined in Mr. Merry's Memorandum. Chairman Stone referred to the Memo and the sections specified in 6.03.15. He asked that information be addressed specifically. Mr. Badger stated the three items of concern are needed analysis of the water and waste water operation plan. He reviewed the chronology from 1997 forward. He spoke to the five Planning Commission hearings stating the Planning Commission was supportive but wanted the whole ranch brought into the application. In April 2000 they did that. The sketch plan was approved last summer. He stated the applicant is not the sole author of this project. He stated they have listened to the ideas of staff, the referral agencies, the Planning Commission, staff and the previous Board. He stated what is before them today is a collaborative effort. He stated there has been time, money and energy put toward this project. He spoke to the needs analysis and how it relates to the entire development. He spoke of their sensitivity to the environmental impacts. He spoke to the desire for the club and its makeup, the fire station with two bays and the housing. Most important is the ranch operation with about 75% being agriculture and open space. He showed where the property is on the map and it's relation to the already developed areas. He stated in general terms the surrounding uses are agricultural, industrial, resort and residential. He spoke to consistency with the Master Plan. They believe that the proposal is consistent with the Master Plan. He spoke to three alternatives. One, thirty-five acre lots. He spoke to the down side. The second alternative is to leave it as a working ranch. The third alternative is the development proposal before them today. He stated the development plan will preserve an open corridor between 28 03-13-2001 Dotsero and Bond. This they believe this does that. The clustered, low density development is their goal. He spoke to the outdoor recreational facilities and maintaining the working ranch operation. He stated this is not just another golf course project taking into account the community needs. He spoke to the other community needs being fire control and safety with the fire station. He spoke to the discussion with Dave Vroman, Gypsum Fire Chief, and the need for fire safety. He spoke to the need for river access for public access for fishing. They plan to dedicate approximately 14 acres to accommodate this. The family oriented club facility is a product of this plan. Golf is only one of the amenities taking into account the other opportunities such as horse back riding, fishing and hiking. He stated this allows the families to stay on site and fills an unmet need in Eagle County. Mr. Badger spoke to the needs analysis. Mr. Merry asked if there is any submitted information to provide the Board. Mr. Badger stated the season is from March and runs through November. He spoke to the guest bunk house, the cabins and the accommodations. He addressed the other amenities and the dining that will be available. Occupancy will range with the season, with summer being the peak season. He stated given the extended season, golf rounds will be less per day. Peak season will be 70 to 100 rounds per day. The plan is for water and waste water system operation and maintenance. He stated they have listened closely to this Board and have created Plan A and Plan B. Chairman Stone asked if there is another portion to the speech. Mr. Badger handed out the Cost Analysis which is titled Exhibit 7 A. Chairman Stone stated they will accept Exhibit A 7 which is the Cost Analysis. A8 is the River Ranch Water Demand and A9 is the Rate Analysis. Mr. Badger explained the water treatment and supply as outlined in the handout. The total cost is $4,438 per month for waster supply and water treatment. On Exhibit A8, he explained the water demand and the costs associated with that. He explained the breakdown of those figures. The third Exhibit, A9, is a community comparison. He stated all of the communities except for the Ranch have potable water for irrigation. He explained they will be at an average of $74.23 per unit. He stated the fourth hand out is a description from the water attorney which is identified as A10 and is the Colorado River Ranch Water Company Ownership and Operation of Water and Wastewater Systems including the Articles ofIncorporation and the Bylaws. He stated they intend to create a Revised Nonprofit Corporation which will be owned by the company. The stock will be distributed to the 25 owners. 60 shares of stock will be authorized for issue or 41.7% of the stock. 58.3% will be issued to the commercial facility. He read the summary. Only the actual costs incurred by the Company may be assessed to the shareholders under the Bylaws. He suggested having listened to what the Board said at the last hearing that this covers what they directed them to do giving the owners representation and control of the costs. Plan B is similar with one change. That is they would remove the waste water service to the cabins and place them on individual sewage disposal systems. They had concerns with this idea, but had their engineer look at placing the ISDS to the west in an area designated as golf course avoiding any impacts to wetlands and riparian areas. He referred to the chart, A8. Chairman Stone stated the first item on the list is 6.03.15 (b). He asked the Board if they are satisfied this proposal meets this criteria. Commissioner Menconi stated in regards to b, he is satisfied with the discussion. Commissioner Gallagher concurred. Chairman Stone spoke to item (1). Commissioner Menconi stated he would like to hear more discussion on this item. He stated the main points he has written down is their feeling this satisfies the needs of families to participate in activities at one location. Mr. Badger stated there are many needs being satisfied, and not just the club facility. He spoke to the need to preserve the lands of the Colorado River Road. He stated this design allows for that to happen. The other two alternatives don't work. The 35 acres parcels will not preserve agricultural lands 29 03-13-2001 in that corridor. He stated the need of protecting the ranching heritage is important. The needs are identified in the Master Plan as maintaining the character, preserving open space, and ensuring that appropriate forms of access are provided to public lands. The are dedicating the right of way, creating a public trail easement along the railroad, creating a public part for fly fishing, developing land for use as open space, locating development to avoid critical habitat. He stated that has been a driving force behind this project and they have located development accordingly. He stated pretty much everything from the railroad to the road is protected. The need to preserve agricultural lands along this corridor is critical. The other needs are the fire station and further access for public fishing. He stated that is a need identified by the Planning Commission. The need for a family oriented club facility is just one need on the list. Given that we are a resort community, there is no other facility that offers this. He stated that has been addressed previously by the Planning Commission and the previous Board. Commissioner Menconi suggested in order to try to preserve the land as much as possible this is the highest and best use for the property. He asked him to speak to the community need for the golf course and asked for the size of the development and the percentage used for the golf course, for the land and for the open space. Mr. Badger stated it is approximately 1,045 acres. The development is less than 200 acres including the club house facility and the cabins. 104 acres is in irrigation on the golf course. The remaining area, approximately 870 acres will remain agriculture or open space. There is a lot of open space on the hillside that is not used for grazing. A little less than 25% of the property is being developed. Regarding the golf, the strongest markets are in Naples, Florida, the Colorado mountains and South Carolina. They believe that there is a demand which is supported by other communities. Golf is only a small component of this area, one piece of the puzzle. Commissioner Menconi suggested that golf isn't the main driver. Mr. Badger stated this plan can not work without the golf component. Economically it can not work. Commissioner Menconi asked if the golf courses in the community have reached capacity? Mr. Badger stated in context of this overall County, a destination for second homes and recreation, there is a strong demand for golf. He stated 90% of their owners are not full time and come to enjoy golf and the outdoors. That is true throughout the County. Commissioner Menconi suggested that this will not support the needs of someone living and working here. Mr. Badger suggested those that will use the facility and stay in the cabins will be the main users of the facility. Commissioner Menconi asked from the companies standpoint where does the interest level come in order to develop more golf. He asked if there is any information that supports the need for private golf. Mr. Badger stated the same way you look at commercial space. You develop in Eagle, you develop in Edwards. There are different dynamics here. They are trying to create a nice product for the family. He stated family visits to this valley are enormous and they are trying to cater to that unmet need. It is not just another golf course and is more fine tuned than that. Commissioner Menconi questioned how will they know that they will meet that need. He asked if there is not some type of framework that would identify the needs. Mr. Badger stated he is suggesting a market analysis. He suggested that is hard to do in an emerging type of market. He stated it is not like putting a Block Buster on a corner. A lot of this is based on the market data, real estate sales, the visitor increase. The demand has been strong and continues to be strong for their products. He stated they do not have a specific market analysis. There are no comparables to this particular market. What they are doing is trying to extrapolate what is happening elsewhere into a product line. He stated it is a great project. He doesn't know of anyone else that has done this. Commissioner Menconi suggested in the statements made to meet a community need in order to preserve the land they have made a good case. He'd like to hear more discussion. 30 03-13-2001 Commissioner Gallagher suggested there is not a dude ranch with a golf course anywhere else that he is aware of. He stated this does provide an opportunity for everyone to participate and is satisfied there is a demonstrated need. Chairman Stone stated he was looking for a demonstrated need and that this is more of a gut feeling than a pen and paper analysis. If this were a normal front range residential community it would be easier to find a clear need. In the case of more resort oriented real estate it is more difficult to demonstrate that trend. They are trying to create something new. They believe as a company that this is a unique development that will fill a nitch. He would appreciate more of a pencil and paper demonstration of need. He spoke to Red Sky Ranch and their demonstration of need by using figures and analysis. He suggested the question is where is the need for another golf course. He suggested the fire station is a secondary benefit. He stated he discounts them when it comes to verifying this particular finding. Absent of pencil and paper analysis, they are lacking the supporting information. He suggested they move on to (q) and read that item. Chairman Stone asked the County Attorney to review the articles of incorporation noting it is difficult to make a decision without having the opportunity for review. He asked what they modeled this after. Barney White, Water Attorney for the project, stated this is a fairly common system and is modeled after similar developments. He stated he used a Durango organization as his model and one at the base of Wolf Creek. He spoke to the consolidated mutual water company. He stated the bylaws are typical. The essential business terms are outlined in the cover memo, providing representation to all the water users. Bob Loeffler, Acting County Attorney, asked if there is more information on the water in the covenants. Mr. White stated the water company will be a stand alone entity and governed by the bylaws. The irrigation around the cabins will be with raw and untreated water and provided separately. Mr. Loeffler questioned when the water rights are defined, the individual names don't mean anything. He asked if there is something left that is used for irrigation. Mr. White stated Exhibit A is the 22 acre feet ofthe Wolford Mountain Reservoir contract which is all that is needed to provide potable water supply. The others are future water sources. The long term objective is to use the existing water rights on the property to help provide the legal water supply. As of today, that is just a possible future addition. Mr. Loeffler stated the list of water rights mayor may not be obtained because they have the Wolford contract. Mr. White stated they are required to list the sources of water they might need. Mr. Merry spoke to the fact they did not initially have the adjudicated water. Now they do. He asked if it was the applicants intent to monitor the waste water quality in perpetuity. Mr. Badger stated the monitoring is in accordance with statutory requirements. Mr. Merry spoke to the perpetuity and the concern with a sunset before it becomes the problem. He suggested that might be a reasonable condition. He stated that would be in the condition to satisfy and is reasonable to add it to the approval. Chairman Stone asked where that would occur. Mr. Loeffler stated in the permit. Mr. Merry suggested when they get to that point he will identify it. Mr. Loeffler stated in response to the inquiry he has read, to page 13, that it really does look vanilla. As he understands it, this will always be controlled by the resort. That is not necessarily a bad thing. If they do sell the lands, the owners may not want to be the directors of the ditch company. Chairman Stone suggest if they did sell the lots, the maximum ownership would be only 41.7% and there is no controlling ownership. Mr. White suggested the super majority is a natural provision. The way the math works out, the 31 03-13-2001 homeowners have some control. Chairman Stone stated that number 6 suggests that regardless of who has control, this is a non profit organization and the owners can only be required to pay what the actual costs are. Mr. White stated that is why they went to the non profit structure. Mr. Loeffler stated that everyone gets an equal share of the water that is available or not. Chairman Stone asked if that is correct or incorrect. Mr. White stated the potable uses at the commercial facility will suffer evenly. The irrigation is a totally separate system. The link is the Wolford Reservoir. If there is a shortage at Wolford, everyone will be short. Chairman Stone asked on (q) if the Board can make a positive finding on Alternative A. Commissioner Gallagher stated he can find a positive finding on Alternative A (q). Commissioner Menconi asked Mr. Merry ifhe thinks this is adequate. Mr. Merry stated he is. Commissioner Menconi stated he is satisfied. Chairman Stone concurred. He stated that was section 6.05.15 (a) and they all agreed. Same on item (b). On item (e) Mr. Merry has stated this finding relates to long term operation of water treatment facilities and assurances that a responsible entity will be created to provide safe drinking water and maintain the system related to 6.03.15 (q). He asked if there is any additional information that must be provided. Mr. Merry stated these are the only outstanding issues to be discussed. Chairman Stone stated he would have appreciated more paper analysis but his feeling is this probably works. Commissioner Menconi stated the more he thinks about it, being a recovering golfer, the time he has spent contemplating this, is boiling down to the preservation. He suggested private verses public. He questions ifthis will be a course that will be prohibitive for the majority of people to be able to play. He questions the developer making the decision between public and private. He is satisfied with this type of use and the ability to preserve a great deal of land but there is also an opportunity to provide a public course. Chairman Stone suggested they can discuss this further in the PUD plan. A lot of the findings are similar, but there will be an opportunity to discuss that again. Mr. Loeffler suggested there is overlap. Mr. Merry suggested that looking at the overall scope it is shifted more to the need for water and sewer. Chairman Stone suggested that discussion may be more appropriate for the land use. Mr. Merry referred to page twelve of staff s report. Chairman Stone asked if there are any other items to be discussed. Mr. Merry asked if they may want to take any additional comment. Chairman Stone stated they did close public comment on the 1041 but there will be opportunity for further discussion. He asked if this is were the additional condition would be included. Mr. Merry stated yes, and it would read ground water monitoring shall continue in perpetuity so long as wastewater system remains in operation. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Eagle County Permit Authority approve file number 1041-0034 incorporating staff findings with the following conditions: 1. All material representations made by the applicant during the conduct of the permit hearing become conditions of approval. 2. Lift stations associated with the sewage collection shall be equipped with dual pumps, alarms, and backup generators. 3. Site specific geotechnical investigations that coincide with and refer to construction drawings associated with this infrastructure be performed by HP Geotech, or a qualified geotechnical engineer, 32 03-13-2001 prior to construction of the sewage collection system, the wastewater treatment plant, water distribution system, water treatment facility, and potable water storage tank. 4. A Stormwater Management/Erosion Control Plan be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to issuance of any building or grading permit associated with this development. The detention standards criteria for the storm water management plan must include 40-hour detention ofthe 0.5 inch in 24-hour event with no more than 50% of the stored volume being released in 12 hours. 5. A Dust Suppression Plan be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to receipt of any building or grading permit associated with this development. 6. A Golf Course Management Plan, which includes an Integrated Pest Management Plan, be submitted to and approved by the Department of Community Development prior to receipt of any building or grading permit associated with this development. 7. Ground water monitoring shall continue in perpetuity so long as wastewater system remains in operation. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi move the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners approve file SAA- 0012: Application for Site Approval for Construction of Lift Stations and Interceptor Sewers. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners adjourn and convene as the Eagle County Board of Health. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved the Eagle County Board of Health approve file SSA-0012 as the Local Health Authority. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Eagle County Board of Health adjourn and convene as the Eagle County Board of County Commissioners. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDP-00018, ZC-00042, Colorado River Ranch PUD Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file numbers PDP-00018 and ZC-00042, Colorado River Ranch PUD Preliminary Plan and Zone Change. Topics discussed by the Eagle County Planning Commission included the following: Consideration of well water vs. surface water as a source. Reasons for central wastewater treatment vs. individual septic systems. Need for two lift stations; adequacy of back-up systems. Proposed use of water from Wolford Mountain Reservoir; consumptive use. Length of lease for Wolford Mountain Reservoir water. Impact of Wolford Mountain Reservoir lease on current uses of water on the site. Desirability of dedication of a fishing parcel vs. public play on the golf course. How preservation of agricultural use on Parcel is to be achieved. The site for the proposed Colorado River Ranch consists of 1,045 acres located approximately 10.5 miles northeast of Dotsero, along and on either side of the Colorado River. Willow Creek flows through the property and into the Colorado River. In addition to the Colorado River, the property is bisected by Union Pacific railroad tracks and Colorado River Road. What is proposed is: A club facility that would consist of: 18 hole golf course; Clubhouse facility with a pro shop, cart storage, restaurant and 16 overnight rooms; 33 03-13-2001 25 small ranch homesteads, most with building envelopes of I::!: acres, and a few with building envelopes of 6::!: acres, the latter allowing for horses; A Children's pavilion; Maintenance facility with an employee dorm; Pool(s), tennis court(s), sporting clays, etc.; and Related facilities including comfort stations, range building, pump-houses. Fire station with two bays and an employee unit housing up to 4 employees. Agricultural uses (a ranch operation) and open space, covering approximately 872 acres. Access would be via three access points on Colorado River Road. The main access to the site would include a separated grade crossing over the railroad tracks. Wastewater treatment for most purposes would be by a central collection and treatment facility. Treatment of wastewater from golf course comfort stations would be by individual septic systems. Water, both potable and non-potable, was originally proposed to be from new and/or existing wells and surface water diversions. However, subsequent to the initial application, the Applicant has proposed to provide an adjudicated source for potable water by means of a 40 year lease for adjudicated water, with a 35 year option, from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. As an alternative to limited public play on the golf course, the Applicant proposed to the Planning Commission to develop and dedicate to an appropriate public entity a fishing parcel at the south end of the property, providing parking and fly fishing opportunity to the public and access to adjacent BLM land. The chronology is as shown on staff report and as follows: June 1998 - Cordillera submitted an application for a Special Use Permit for an 18 hole golf course and related support services on this parcel. The application was subsequently withdrawn prior to action by the Board of County Commissioners. August 2000 - Board of County Commissioners approved the PUD Sketch Plan for this development. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering Department Traffic on all internal roads justifies a functional classification assignment of Rural Residential Internal. Additional design detail is required for bridge design. Design is required for pedestrian bridge over Colorado River. Drainage report is incomplete. Recommended geotechnical mitigation measures such as flood and debris retention basins, channel improvements, deflection structures, and direct building site protection against potential geotechnical hazards need to be incorporated into the site plan. A grading plan showing preliminary level of detail should be provided. Preliminary plan level of detail is missing for sewage treatment, water treatment, water tank, and water intake plans, as well as water distribution, sanitary sewer, shallow utility, and detention pond plans. Other technical comments (see attached) Additional response dated November 27,2000: Technical comments (copy attached) Additional response dated December 13,2000: Has reviewed preliminary and all outstanding issues have been addressed For the pedestrian bridges across the Colorado River, Engineering prefers a free span design rather than a design that puts piers in the River. [Note: Engineering Staff has subsequently met with the Applicant and agreed on a design with no more than two piers in the Colorado River.] 34 03-13-2001 Additional response dated February 5, 2001: Applicant has requested a deviation from certain road standards to increase the grade for a portion of Willow Creek Road to 10%. The deviation is consistent with the applicable section of the Land Use Regulations. Eagle County Housing Department Comments regarding: Impact of distance from existing population, housing or job center on ability to attract employees Adequacy and appropriateness of "bunkhouse rooms" for much of staff Employee needs to support resort activities other than golf Need to complete employee housing prior to opening of resort Other related employee housing issues Recommendations regarding Housing should be provided for more than 20 % of employees At 20 % mitigation, Applicant should provide 16 rather than 14 employee units Applicant should consider alternatives to bunkhouse rooms for employee housing All employee housing should be completed prior to opening of resort PUD Guide should permit single family residence for ranch manager as a permitted use, and establish number of bedrooms in the employee bunkhouse Employee shuttles up valley should be provided for employees Employee car pooling program should be created, facilitated and promoted Provisions should be provided for on-site housing of construction workers Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority (ECO) A permanent access easement for Big McClosky Road should be documented on the final plat. A dedicated trails easement 15 feet wide should be provided on the west side of the Colorado River Road to accommodate the possible future construction of a separated trail along the roadway. Additional response dated November 14,2000: Recommends a 25 foot trail easement on the east side of Colorado River Road. Eagle County Address Coordinator Proposed street names Willow Creek Road and Trail Gulch Road duplicate existing streets elsewhere in Eagle County and alternatives should be provided. Eagle County School District (RE50J) District will accept the cash in lieu ofland payment estimated to be $4,505. The fee should be recalculated at the time of approval of the final plat. Requests that the Commissioners consider updating the land values so the School District does not continue to lose value. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments Issues of concern in the general areas of wastewater treatment and monitoring, impacts to in-stream water quality form non-point sources, and impacts to wetland and other setback recommendations. It appears that the site location and management for the proposed wastewater treatment facility is appropriate for the proposed development. NWCCOG will contact the applicant's representative to request additional information and additional monitoring. Most ofNWCCOG's concerns regarding stormwater runoff have been addressed through the preliminary drainage study. The Golf Course Management Plan is lacking in several areas and NWCCOG is concerned with potential water quality impacts associated with fertilizer and pesticide applications during periods of flooding during seasonal high flow periods of the Colorado River and Willow Creek. It does not appear that this Preliminary Plan is providing soil disturbance setbacks from wetlands, floodplains, or riparian areas. Colorado Geological Survey 35 03-13-2001 Initial response dated October 4,2000: The recommendations and observations stated in the CGS response to the Sketch Plan are still applicable. CGS questions Applicant's statement that recommended debris flow mitigation measures are being evaluated, and either Flood and Debris Retention Basins or Deflections Structures will be used. In fact, no site specific designs have been included in the Preliminary Plan, and some of the homes shown on the Willow Creek alluvial fan have been located even closer to the existing channel compared to the locations shown in the sketch plan. The County should review all alluvial fan flooding and debris flow hazard reports and mitigation designs prior to final plan approval. CGS questions Applicant's statement that soil piping areas have been avoided entirely. Many ofthe residential sites shown now have been grouped along the banks of the Colorado River in areas that HP Geotech has mapped as soil piping areas. Many of these building locations are more problematic than those originally shown on the sketch plan. CGS questions Applicant's statement that collapsible soils have been avoided. Most of the homes and cabin facilities are located on alluvial fan deposits where collapsible soils (and piping soils) commonly occur. CGS questions whether the applicant has retained a consultant to assist in locating building footprints, foundations, water management practices, and debris flow/alluvial fan flooding recommendations. In conversations with HP Geotech, CGS has learned that HP Geotech had not been retained to review revisions in the Preliminary Plan. Storm, water, and sanitation details are not included in the preliminary plan. Such studies must also be completed before final plat approval. A supplemental response (dated November 3,2000) includes the following: CGS has discussed with the Applicant certain changes in the Preliminary Plan that have addressed concerns addressed by CGS. The geologic hazards previously noted have either been avoided or addressed, including: Lack of review of the preliminary plan by a geotechnic consultant - HP Geotech will be consulted regarding siting of structures and other geotechnical aspects of the development plan. Alluvial fan flooding - All residential development and the water storage tank will be mQved from the vicinity of Willow Creek and the associated alluvial fan. Placement of all residential lots on the east side of the Colorado River - some problems may exist in the vicinity of certain piping areas, and additional avoidance or mitigation will be required. Site specific investigations and excavation inspections will be required for all residential structures. Sinkholes - Applicant and his civil engineer have assured CGS that the water treatment tank will be relocated, thus avoiding the sinkhole hazard. Assurances by the developer concerning site specificity of investigations should be included in plat notes. CGS should be allowed to review final plans for thoroughness concerning the hazards when it is presented for approval. Colorado Division of Water Resources An amended augmentation plan was filed with the water court on September 11, 2000. There is no indication that the plan has been approved. Due to a lack of a water court approved augmentation plan for the development, the State Engineer finds that the proposed water supply will cause material injury to decreed water rights and is inadequate. USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service No comments. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Surveyor, Eagle County Road and Bridge, Eagle County Sheriff, Colorado Department of Transportation, Colorado Division of 36 03-13-2001 Wildlife, Colorado State Forest Service, Water Conservation Board, Bureau of Land Management, Army Corps of Engineers, Gypsum Fire Protection District, Western Eagle County Ambulance District. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. The Applicant demonstrated that the entire site was owned in fee simple by Falcon Realty, LLC. Since the initial application, the Applicant has advised that Falcon Realty, LLC, has transferred its interests in the subject real property to three Colorado corporations, White Hawk Investments, Inc., White Hawk Company, Inc., and White Hawk Properties, Inc. All three corporations are now parties to the application. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorizedpursuantto Section 5-240 F.3.j, Variations Authorized Proposed uses in the PUD include: An 18 hole golf course, along with a clubhouse facility with a pro shop and cart storage; Pool(s), tennis court(s), and sporting clays; Trails for hiking, biking, nature study, equestrian use and multi-use; Recreation uses, including hunting, fishing, equestrian and camping; Restaurant; 16 over night rooms; 25 small ranch homestecrls; Children's pavilion; Maintenance facility wi:h an employee dorm; Related facilities including comfort stations, a range building, pump-houses; Fire station with housiIJg for 4 employees; and Ranch operation. The site is zoned Resollrce (R). Of these, uses by right in the R zone district include only the ranch operation. The 25 small rmch homesteads are not permitted. All other proposed uses are uses permitted by Special Review. Section 5-240.F.3.f., variations Authorized, of the Land Use Regulations, provides that variations may be granted by the Boa-d of County Commissioners if it finds that the Preliminary Plan achieves one or more of several specificl purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved. Those pUDoses include [1] obtaining desired design qualities, [2] avoiding environmental resources ald natural hazards, [3] providing incentives for water augmentation, [4] providing incentives for inprovements to the Eagle County trails system, [5] providing incentives to assure long term affordablthousing, or [6] providing incentives to develop public facilities. It appears that the first lurpose noted above, i.e., to obtain desired design qualities, would be satisfied by allowing the UStS otherwise not allowed in these zone districts. Under this purpose, a variation is allowed which Iermits the integration of mixed uses. The uses not otherwise allowed in these zone districts are consstent with the overall proposed development. Consequently, Staff makes a 37 03-13-2001 qualified favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations of these use designations MAY BE authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only oe authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F. 3./, Variations Authorized, provided variations shallleaVt! fJdequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper venfil,'7.tion, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. Certain dimensional limitations are proposed in the PUD Guide. It appears that some variations will be required. As noted above, variations may be granted by the B'1,lfd of County Commissioners if it finds that the Preliminary Plan achieves one or more of several spel.ified purposes and that the granting of the variation is necessary for that purpose to be achieved. The pmposed dimensional limitations appear to be necessary to achieve the purpose if obtaining desired de;;ign qualities. With the variations pursuant to Section 5-240.F.3.f., Variations Anthorized, ofthe Land Use Regulations, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT r},ose specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation 1\1 effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. However, variations MAY BE authorize\l.pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f., Variations Authorized. STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e '~)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Dlvision 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized Ilhere the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among wtis within the PUD that do not require peak parkingfor those uses to occur at the same time, the parkin<~\needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parkinf! and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. Information regarding parking which was provided in the Sketch Plan waiHletermined to be less than complete. Consequently, a condition of approval of the Sketch Plan was that the Applicant provide an adequate parking plan in the Preliminary Plan based on detailed documentatim and rationale for the parking spaces necessary to accommodate all of the proposed uses in the dev(lopment, along with comprehensive information depicting adequate parking for all users of the decelopment, including locations, numbers, and dimensions. That information has been provided in a quantitative format and also depCted graphically in the Landscape Improvements Plan submitted as part of the application. The pro}osed parking appears to be reasonable for the uses proposed. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.ei4)] 38 03-13-2001 Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the P UD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streetscapes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. The Applicant has provided a Conceptual Landscape Plan and asserted that design of the development has not progressed enough to permit the Detailed Landscape Plan required in Section 4- 220.C. ofthe Land Use Regulations. Such a detailed Landscape Plan is required, in part, to permit collateralization of the landscape improvements. As a condition of approval, a Detailed Landscape Plan, as provided in Section 4-220.A., Landscape Plan Required, should be provided, prior to approval of each final plat, for the entrance and common areas located within that filing, which the Director of Community Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division 4-2 of the Land Use Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted and other commitments made by the Applicant. [Condition # 1] [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] With the recommended condition, landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Develovment (PUD). the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. The provisions for signs within the PUD are reflected in the proposed PUD Guide as Section 1.10, Signs. The PUD will rely in large part on the provisions of Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE NOT as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. However, the sign provisions of the PUD Guide, along with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations, constitute a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), that IS suitable for the PUD and DOES provide the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Planfor PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, .fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and.fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] Potable water SUVJJlv. - The development is proposed to be served by both potable and non- potable water. Potable water will be treated in a central treatment facility. A 1041 permit is required and an application is pending. The Applicant maintains that a sufficient legal water supply exists to support the proposed water uses. In addition, an augmentation plan has been filed with the water court which would provide for additional rights for the development at new and existing structures. However, the Colorado Division of Water Resources notes that while an application for an amended augmentation plan is pending with the Water Court, there is no record that the plan has been approved. 39 03-13-2001 As an alternative to providing a water court approved amended augmentation plan, the Applicant has opted to provide an adjudicated source for potable water by means of a 40 year lease for adjudicated water, with a 35 year option, from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. The County Attorney has agreed that an appropriate contract for leased water, fully executed prior to approval of this Preliminary Plan, will satisfy this Standard. The Applicant has stated its intent to continue to pursue water court approved amended augmentation plan. As a condition of approval, an adequate water supply, by means of a contract for sufficient water from an adjudicated supply or some other means, should be demonstrated. [Condition # 19] Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sewage disposal. - Sewage disposal is proposed to be accomplished by means of a central wastewater collection and treatment facility, with individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) for certain golf course comfort stations. A 1041 permit is required and an application is pending. The ISDSs will be required to meet the regulatory requirements of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. However, as a condition of approval, a restrictive note should be required on each final plat for this development requiring that all infiltration septic disposal systems be designed by a civil engineer, as recommended by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study (dated January 17,2000). [Condition # 2] As an additional condition of approval, and consistent with a condition of approval of the Sketch Plan, the PUD Guide should be revised to provide that all ISDS components be outside the 100 year floodplain, and a minimum of 50 feet from wetlands, streams and rivers (high water mark). [Condition # 15] With the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Solid waste disvosal. - It appears that solid waste disposal services will be available to the site. [+] Electrical supplv. - The Applicant has provided a letter from Holy Cross Energy indicating that it has adequate resources to provide electric power to the development, subject to completion of appropriate contractual agreements. [+] Fire vrotection. - The conditions of approval of the Sketch Plan for this PUD included the following: Install adequate fire sprinkler systems in all habitable structures or provide an alternative type of fire protection acceptable to the Gypsum Fire District. (10) Provide in the Preliminary Plan a detailed fire protection plan, with input from the Gypsum Fire Protection District, which [1] demonstrates that the Gypsum Fire Protection District has the ability and willingness to provide fire protection services for the development, [2] demonstrates the ability to adequately fight fires at any location within the development, especially at all of the habitable structures, [3} incorporates all of the suggested wildfire protection measures of the Colorado State Forest Service (Referral response dated June 12,2000), and [4} identifies the means available to enhance the ability of personnel on-site to respond immediately to fire emergencies until Gypsum Fire Protection District crews arrive. (11) It was not clear initially how the application is responsive to those portions of these conditions requiring response from the Gypsum Fire Protection District. Most obviously missing is any response or input regarding fire protection systems in habitable buildings, and its ability to provide fire protection services to all areas of the development. However, the Applicant has provided a letter from Lance Badger dated November 14,2000, regarding "Colorado River Ranch Fire Protection" which details a response to Staff concerns included in the Staff Report. Staff has c.onfirmed by telephone conversation with Dave Vroman, Gypsum Fire Chief, that he is in agreement with all of the information provided by the Applicant. The requirements of this Section have been satisfied. [+] Roads. - The Applicant has indicated that all roads will be designed in accordance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. In addition, the Applicant has demonstrated that the Union Pacific 40 03-13-2001 Railroad expects to be able to enter into an agreement for the proposed railroad crossings once the Preliminary Plan is approved. A condition of Sketch Plan approval was demonstration that all necessary permits have been obtained for the construction and re-construction ofthe bridges across the Colorado River. However, such permits will not be issued until by the Corps of Engineers until a Preliminary Plan is approved. With a condition of approval that prior to approval of the initial final plat for this PUD that the Applicant demonstrate that all necessary permits have been obtained for the construction and re-construction of the bridges across the Colorado River, Staff makes a favorable finding. [Condition #5] Staff makes an favorable finding. [+] Proximity to Schools - The Applicant has demonstrated that the children living in the proposed development will be conveniently transported to and from schools. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Proximitv to Police and Fire Protection. and Emergencv Medical Services.- Law enforcement will be provided by the Eagle County Sheriff. In addition, the Applicant will maintain an on-site public safety staff trained in public safety, roving patrol and first responder capabilities. Fire protection services are proposed to be provided by the Gypsum Fire Protection District (GFPD). Based on testimony by the Chief ofthe Gypsum Fire Protection District, it appears that the site is in reasonable proximity of fire protection services. Emergency medical services would be provided by the Western Eagle County Ambulance District (WECAD). As noted above, the Applicant will maintain an on-site public safety stafftrained in public safety, roving patrol and first responder capabilities. With respect to proximity to emergency services, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection, and roads, and HAS demonstrated that the proposed PUD will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be grantedfor emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, 41 03-13-2001 units or buildings shall not be permitted Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network andfrom off-street parking areas. [+] Safe, Efficient Access - The internal road system appears to provide access to all areas with habitable structures. The Applicant has committed to design and build internal roads and the access from Colorado River Road in conformance with the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, with the following exception: The grade for Willow Creek Road from Station 10+00 to Station 19+00 may exceed the County Standard of 8% to a proposed maximum grade of 10%. The County Engineer has determined that this deviation from the improvement standards is consistent with Section 5-240.F.3.e (8), Improvements, ofthe Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Internal Pathways - A graphic trails plan has been provided which includes, in addition to trails around the valley floor portion of the development, trails up Willow Creek to the west, and along McClosky Road to the east and beyond to BLM land. However, the detail provided regarding trails is limited. Nonetheless, in the absence of one or more variances from site development standards, the trails will be required to be constructed in accordance with applicable sections of the Land Use Regulations. The Applicant has indicated no intent to seek such variances from the applicable site development standards. The application includes a commitment to provide a proposed public access easement along Big McClosky Road to the BLM property line, as recommended by the Eagle County Trails Coordinator at Sketch Plan Review. A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that the Applicant dedicate a sufficient public trails easement along the entire length of Colorado River Road as it crosses this site. The condition of approval initially recommended, at the encouragement ofECO, was that a 15 foot dedicated trails easement should be required along the west side of the Colorado River Road right-of-way to accommodate the possible future construction of a separated trail along the roadway. Discussions between the Applicant and the ECO Trails Coordinator have resulted in an alternative whereby a 25 foot dedicated trails easement would be granted on the east side of Colorado River Road. Staff concurs and the recommended condition of approval has been changed accordingly. [Condition # 3] As a condition of approval of the Sketch Plan, the Applicant is required to demonstrate that any trail in the vicinity of Willow Creek will not directly, or indirectly through use by residents and visitors, materially harm the Willow Creek system. The Applicant has committed to improve and not materially harm the Willow Creek system. With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Emer!2:encv Vehicles - A condition of approval of Sketch Plan is that the Applicant, with input from appropriate emergency service providers, make adequate provisions to accommodate emergency vehicles within the development, specifically addressing the suggestions of the Colorado State Forest Service (Referral response dated June 12, 2000). The County Engineer has determined that roadways have been designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units, and that an access easement will be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. The Gypsum Fire Chief has verbally confirmed to Staff that the vehicles of the Fire Protection District will be provided with adequate access. This Standard also requires that certain access easements be granted for emergency and utility vehicles. It is not clear that such easement( s) are proposed. As a condition of approval, one or more 42 03-13-2001 access easements should be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services should be reflected on all final plats. [Condition # 4] Staff makes an favorable finding. [+] Principal Access Points - The access road to the main portion of the development will require crossings ofthe Union Pacific (UPRR) railroad tracks. Evidence has been provided from UPRR that necessary permits may be granted. As a condition of approval, evidence of final approval by the Union Pacific Railroad of improvements to the railroad crossings should be provided prior to approval of the first final plat for this development. [Condition # 5] Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Snow Storage - The requirements of this provision must be satisfied in the final engineering drawings and with building permit applications for non residential buildings. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] With the recommended conditions, it HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles (d) Principal Access Points. (e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the P UD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The area surrounding the proposed development is primarily agricultural and residential, and public lands (Bureau of Land Management). In addition to continuing existing agricultural and residential uses, new uses will include the golf course; other recreation (swimming pool, tennis, fishing, etc.); the clubhouse, restaurant and temporary lodging; and employee housing. Given the size of the proposed development (1,024 acres) and the nature of the proposed uses, the increased intensity of uses is not troublesome. Certain commitments have been made to avoid unauthorized use of public lands and potential conflicts with uses which may occur on adjacent public lands.. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i.e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN Environmental Open Space/ Development Quality Recreation Affordable Housing Transportation Community Services FLUM Conformance x x x x x 43 03-13-2001 Non Conformance Mixed Conformance x Not Applicable x Environmental Quality. It appears that the proposed development would protect, maintain, and enhance critical wildlife areas; and preserve and enhance surface and ground water quality/quantity. Open Space / Recreation. The proposed development represents a beneficial means of preserving land as open space. Development. The proposed development encourages diversity of the economic base; fosters balance between environmental protection and economic development; and improves the balance between winter and summer activities. Affordable Housing. The proposed development locates affordable (in this instance, employee) housing close to jobs. Transportation. The proposed development would not promote or expand public transportation, but does tend to preserve rural road character. Future Land Use Mav (FLUM). The FLUM indicates a Rural land use designation for this site, and identifies zone districts which may fit these uses as Resource (R), Resource Limited (RL), and Agricultural Residential (AR). PUD zoning is not contemplated in this area. However, the Master Plan does contemplate, in areas designated "Rural", relatively low density single family residential uses on larger lots, or small concentrations of homes surrounded by relatively large tracts of undeveloped land. Development in these areas is expected to occur at densities of one unit per 35 or more acres. The overall density of the permanent residential units within the proposed PUD is about one per 40 acres (1,045 acres / 25 home sites + 1 ranch house). The Master Plan encourages continuation of the existing small recreation areas which are scattered throughout the County, such as State Bridge, Anderson Camp, Rancho Del Rio and Piney Lake. These are compatible with the County's recreational and rural character and are enjoyed by both residents of and visitors to Eagle County. Establishment of new small recreation areas of this type are to be considered on a case-by-case basis, considering suitability of the land for development, whether necessary services can be provided to the development and whether the development is in character with surrounding rural land. Staff has determined that the proposed Colorado River Ranch is consistent with these criteria, and is consistent with the Future Land Use Map. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Cooperation Open Space Provision Unique Char. Preservation Visual Quality Development Patterns Hazards Wildlife Conformance x x x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance x Not Applicable x Oven Space Provision. The proposed development includes some improvements (such as trails, fishing, and other recreation) in areas along Willow Creek and the Colorado River. The Applicant 44 03-13-2001 proposes to improve these areas by stabilizing banks, eliminating cattle grazing in riparian corridors, and re-establishing and re-vegetating degraded areas along the creeks and channels. Development Patterns. A stated policy is "to encourage development to occur in and around existing communities in order to enhance open space values in outlying areas." However, the Master Plan also recognizes that small recreation areas which are scattered throughout the County are compatible with the County's recreational and rural character, and encourages continuation of such existing small recreation areas and the establishment of new small recreation areas of this type when appropriate, considering suitability of the land for development, whether necessary services can be provided to the development, and whether the development is in character with surrounding rural land. Staff has determined that the proposal is in conformance. EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x x x x x Applicable The Eagle River Watershed Plan is not directly applicable to the proposed Colorado River Ranch since the development is in the Colorado River watershed, and lies outside the geographic scope of the Plan. However, the following represent comments based on the principles established in the Eagle River Watershed Plan. Water Quantity. The Applicant has proposed to provide an adjudicated source for potable water by means of a 40 year lease for adjudicated water, with a 35 year option, from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. Water Quality. The Applicant proposes to utilize practices that will not adversely impact water quality in and downstream of the proposed development. Wildlife. The Applicant proposes to maintain and improve aquatic and riparian habitat. Recreation. As proposed, the development will provide a limited amount of improvement of public access for recreation, primarily in access to BLM lands to the east of the site. 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 45 03-13-2001 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 as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM YES NO N/A 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 x 4. 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 x 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . x 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local residents 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 Seasonal Housing (5). Housing is proposed for up to 22 employees. Housing for Local Residents (6). Of the 25 residences proposed on the site, none is proposed for local residents, outside of managers of the development. Staff finds that the proposal is in sufficient conformance with the Master Plan to make a favorable finding. However, the Board of County Commissioners may independently determine that the proposed development does not conform to the Master Plan, including the Future Land Use Map. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the P UD is proposed to occur in phases, then 46 03-13-2001 guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. All public improvements will be collateralized prior to approval of the first final plat for this development. The detailed list of public improvements, along with cost estimates, satisfactory to the County Engineer, which are to be included in a Subdivision Improvements Agreement will required at that time. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A sufficient phasing plan HAS been provided for this development. All public improvements will be collateralized prior to approval of the first final plat for this development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. 1. Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. 2. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year floodplains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD. (c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned. and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. Sufficient detail and commitments have been provided in the application. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD HAS been demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common 47 03-13-2001 recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; ( c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. A condition of Sketch Plan approval is that the Applicant provide an adequate identification of the proposed wetland impacts and mitigation and demonstrate how disturbance of wetlands and riparian areas will be minimized. Prior to action by the Planning Commission, additional information was provided indicating impacts and mitigation to wetlands and riparian areas. Certain permits are required from the Army Corps of Engineers regarding impacts and required mitigation. As a condition of approval, it should be demonstrated, by permits from the Army Corps of Engineers or otherwise, prior to approval of the first final plat for this PUD that all impacts to wetlands and riparian areas will be satisfactorily mitigated. [Condition # 8] Staff makes an favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of 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. See discussion above under Consistency with Master Plan [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1) The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts It appears that the proposed development may be consistent with the zone district standards, once appropriate variations and variances have been approved. Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) Provisions have been demonstrated for adequate parking within the development. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2) The Applicant has provided a Landscape Plan in sufficient detail for this Preliminary Plan. Defensible space provisions around habitable structures have been incorporated. The provisions of this Section will be required to be followed throughout the development of this site. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Adequate provisions regarding the regulation of signs has been provided. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) 48 03-13-2001 [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - A Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan has been submitted with the application. As a condition of approval, the Wildlife Mitigation and Enhancement Plan submitted with the application should be binding and recorded as an attachment to the Board Resolution approving this Preliminary Plan. [Condition # 16] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that the Applicant incorporate in the Preliminary Plan all of the suggestions and recommendations of the Geologic Site Assessment and Preliminary Geotechnical Study (Hepworth-Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., submitted with the Sketch Plan application), and the Colorado Geological Survey (Referral response dated June 12,2000) with respect to geologic hazards and their mitigation, and to provide the additional information requested by the Eagle County Engineer (Referral response dated May 8, 2000). The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) indicated in its letter of October 4, 2000, that significant geological problems continue to exist on the site. CGS has subsequently indicated that its concerns have now been addressed, but does recommend that it be allowed to review final plans with respect to civil engineering changes, re-Iocations, and mitigation designs. As a condition of approval, the recommendation of the Colorado Geological Survey (letter dated November 3,2000) should be satisfied, and final plans for the PUD be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey for additional review and comment, prior to approval of any final plat. [Condition # 6] With the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that adequate fire sprinkler systems, or alternative type of fire protection acceptable to the Gypsum Fire District, be installed in all habitable structures. The application itself does not indicate what systems will be acceptable by the Gypsum Fire Protection District. However, based on information provided by the Applicant and confirmed by the Gypsum Fire Chief (as noted above), this condition has been satisfied. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - The Applicant proposes that the use of all wood burning devices conform to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [n/a] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - This site is not located in an area identified for protection on the Ridgeline Protection Map referred to in the Land Use Regulations. Consequently, this Section is not applicable to this application. [+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - The required components of the Environmental Impact Report for this application are found in separate sections throughout the application. Staff finds that, taken together, the components of the Environmental Impact Report provide the information required in the Land Use Regulations, and makes a favorable finding. [n/a] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) There are no significant commercial or industrial operation on the proposed site which would subject this application to the provisions ofthis Division. [+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) [+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - The Applicant has committed to design the roadway system within the development in conformance with the Land Use Regulations, with a few exceptions noted in the application. A Variance from Improvement Standards is to be submitted prior to approval. No application has been received. Absent the approval of specific variances or variations, the entire roadway system will be required to conform with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - All trails will be required to be built in conformance with applicable provisions of the Land Use Regulations. Staffmakes a favorable finding. [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - A condition of approval of the Sketch Plan is that the Applicant incorporate in the Preliminary Plan the suggestions and recommendations noted in the 49 03-13-2001 Colorado Geological Survey (Referral response dated June 12,2000) regarding retention of a geotechnic consultant in locating precise building footprints and for additional studies, adequate water management provisions, and hydrology for certain drainage ways. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has indicated in its letter of October 4, 2000, that significant geological problems continue to exist on the site. Based on another CGS letter of November 3,2000, certain changes and assurances by the Applicant have satisfied CGS regarding its earlier concerns. Based on additional information provided by the Applicant and the referral response by the Colorado Geological Survey, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - The County Engineer has indicated that the drainage report submitted by the Applicant satisfies the standards of this Section. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The Applicant has committed to complete all grading and erosion control in conformance with the standards of the Land Use Regulations. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - The Applicant will be required to meet the standards of this Section. Staff makes a favorable finding. [+ ] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - As initially proposed, the development would rely primarily on surface water diversions for potable water. As discussed above, the Colorado Division of Water Resources notes that while an application for an amended augmentation plan is pending with the Water Court, there is no record that the plan has been approved. As noted above under Adequate Facilities, [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)], the Applicant is now proposing to provide an adjudicated source for potable water by means of a lease for adjudicated water from the Wolford Mountain Reservoir. In any event, a central water treatment facility is proposed. A 1041 permit is required and an application is pending. Based on the additional information and subject to approval of a 1041 permit, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sewage disposal is proposed to be accomplished by means of a central wastewater collection and treatment facility, with individual sewage disposal systems (ISDS) for certain golf course comfort stations. As discussed above, a 1041 permit is required and an application is pending. In addition, as a condition of approval, a restrictive note should be required on each final plat for this development requiring that all infiltration septic disposal systems be designed by a civil engineer, as recommended by Hepworth - Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study (dated January 17,2000). [Condition # 2] Subject to approval of a 1041 permit and with the recommended condition, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) The Applicant proposes to pay cash in lieu of a land dedication as the more practical alternative. The Eagle County School District (RES OJ) agrees. In addition, an off-site road impact fee in an amount determined by the Board of County Commissioners, is customary. It has been noted in the Staff Report to the Planning Commission that this off-site road impact fee would be required and the requirement was not questioned or discussed. To make explicit the requirement, Staff has added a condition of approval to those approved by the Planning Commission to require payment of an off-site road impact fee, in an amount determined by the Board of County Commissioners, prior to approval of the first final plat. [Condition #13] Staff makes a favorable finding. Other Standards in the Land Use Regulations Other Standards - It appears that all other standards of the Land Use Regulations will be met, except as discussed elsewhere in this Staff Report. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] 50 03-13-2001 The Applicant HAS demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. It appears that the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided and sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area. Limited off-site road improvements appear to be necessary. 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 indicated that those portions of the site where development is proposed are buildable and that individual sewage disposal systems, where proposed, appear to be feasible. Sources of potable and non-potable water appear to be available. The Colorado Geological Survey (CGS) has indicated in its letter of October 4, 2000, that significant geological problems continue to exist on the site. However, based on another CGS letter of November 3,2000, certain changes and assurances by the Applicant have satisfied CGS regarding its earlier concerns. Based on additional information provided by the Applicant and the referral response by the Colorado Geological Survey, 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. The area surrounding the proposed development is primarily agricultural and residential, and public lands (Bureau of Land Management). In addition to continuing existing agricultural and residential uses, new uses will include the golf course; other recreation (swimming pool, tennis, fishing, etc.); the clubhouse, restaurant and temporary lodging; and employee housing. Given the size of the proposed development (1,024 acres) and the nature of the proposed uses, the increased intensity of uses is not troublesome. 51 03-13-2001 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 WILL NOT adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." A draft Planned Unit Development Guide is provided as Section 8 of the application. Staff makes a favorable finding in this regard. The PUD Guide provides certain procedures for making modifications to the PUD Guide and the Preliminary Plan which appear to be virtually identical with procedures in the Cordillera PUD. These procedures are primarily intended to abbreviate the process of changing building envelopes, making minor modifications that may not warrant a complete PUD amendment, and so on. However, the County Attorney's office has become concerned with what has the potential of becoming a proliferation of procedures for modifying PUD Guides and Preliminary Plan which differ from those in the Land Use Regulations and from each other. Staff is now recommending that, while abbreviated means to amend the PUD Guide and the Preliminary are not in and ofthemselves problematic, the procedures to be used should be those already incorporated in the Land Use Regulations. For example, the simpler procedure associated with a Minor B Subdivision might be used in a PUD for building envelope adjustments, rather than the procedure for an Amended Final Plat. While an amended final plat would be required, the processing of the plat would follow the simpler procedure of a Minor B Subdivision. As another example, minor modifications, generally as defined in the proposed PUD Guide, might be processed as a Limited Review, as provided in the Land Use Regulations. The Applicant has agreed to modify the PUD Guide in response to Staff comments, including changes with respect to procedures to modify the Preliminary Plan which utilize procedures set forth in the Land Use Regulations, such as PUD Amendment, Limited Review and Minor B Subdivision for what the PUD refers to as Major Modifications, Minor Modifications and Building Envelope Adjustments, respectively. Certain other technical changes will also be made. As a condition of approval, the PUD Guide should be revised to reflect the use of existing procedures in the Land Use Regulations for all modifications for which abbreviated procedures are being sought. [Condition # 17] Throughout the draft PUD Guide, references are made to Sections of the Land Use Regulations which appear to be obsolete. As a condition of approval, all references in the PUD Guide to the Land Use Regulations should be current and correct. [Condition # 18] As approved in the Sketch Plan, the PUD Guide initially submitted included certain provisions for limited public play on the golf course. As an alternative to limited public play on the golf course, the Applicant proposed to the Planning Commission to develop and dedicate to an appropriate public entity a fishing parcel at the south end of the property, providing parking and fly fishing opportunity to the public and access to adjacent BLM land. The Planning Commission has recommended approval of the fishing proposal in lieu of required public play on the golf course. With the Applicant's agreement to these changes and the recommended conditions, Staff makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide that satisfies the requirements of this Section. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D, Standards for the review of an Amendment to the Official Zone District Map: The Land Use Regulations provide that the wisdom of amending. . . the Official Zone District Map is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not 52 03-13-2001 controlled by anyone factor. In determining whether to adopt, adopt with modifications, or disapprove the proposed amendment, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider certain Standards. Staff offers the following proposed Findings for the Board's consideration: (1) [+] Consistency With Master Plan. With proposed conditions of approval, the proposed PUD IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM of the Master Plan; (2) [+] Compatible with surrounding uses. The proposed amendment IS compatible with existing and proposed uses surrounding the subject land, and, with proposed conditions of approval, it IS an appropriate zone district for the land, considering its consistency with the purpose and standards of the proposed zone district; (3) [+] Changed conditions. There ARE changed conditions that require an amendment to modify the present zone district and/or its density/intensity; (4) [+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment WILL NOT result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment [beyond those resulting from development under current zoning], including but not limited to water, air, noise, stormwater management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. (5) [+] Community need. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a community need. (6) [+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment DOES result in a logical and orderly development pattern, DOES NOT constitute spot zoning, and MAY logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services; and (7) [+] Public interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAS changed or IS changing to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Mr. Forinash stated all staffs findings have been found positive and that items 15 - 19 have been addressed in the PUD document. He stated there are 14 conditions in bold face and those are staff's recommended conditions. Mr. Badger stated during the sketch plan hearings there were comments from the Board asking them to look at some access for fly fishing. There are all these golf courses in the valley, but little attention is paid to other activities. They had said they would return to the Planning Commission with some alternatives. They proposed public play for golf or access for fly fishing. Fly fishing had a greater response. He suggested they are proposing to create an improved trail to the river and an improved parking area for four cars. He stated this piece of property opens up 1,700 lineal feet of river frontage. The Planning Commission loved the idea and it is condition # 11. In lieu of that, they did not want to include public play for golf. They considered that a fair trade off and believe this is a great opportunity for the public. Commissioner Menconi asked what the public play for golf is and what that entails. Mr. Badger stated that is very similar to Red Sky. He stated at the time, prior to the fishing alternative, they had proposed shoulder times of three tee times reserved to Eagle County residents, Monday through Thursday, subject to scheduled activities and they would be charged 60% of the rate charged to member unaccompanied guests and to host two charity events. He stated they can still do the charity events, but think the fishing component is a greater benefit. Chairman Stone asked for public comment. A few hands were raised. He asked Mr. Badger for further presentation. Mr. Badger suggested he can answer those questions as they come. Andy W ock, who has leased this land for three years, stated he thinks that this is a great opportunity to keep agriculture in the community. He suggested this is a good plan and is grateful for the opportunity to keep doing what he loves. Patty Haefelli, local resident ofthe area and former County Planner, stated she is speaking in favor of the proposed project, that it is in conformance with the Master Plan and Community Plan and is meeting 53 03-13-2001 a need in the community. She suggested it is a sensitive and caring plan. She spoke to the economic diversity and the clustering preserving open space and wildlife habitat. One of the guiding policies is to protect and maintain critical wildlife habitat. She spoke to the positives of this proposal and the preservation of the migration corridors. She spoke to the enhancement of the water quality and the preservation of open ranch lands and agricultural endeavors. She suggested it preserves the history by allowing this ranch as an entire piece of property giving a wonderful visual. She stated another guiding policy is to ensure public access to public lands. She suggested this proposal is providing that. She stated the Planning Commission was very acceptable to the fishing access. Most developments do not have the fishing access and it is a valuable trade off. Access is fairly limited. There is also a guiding policy that supports the improvement of summer and winter activities. She suggested besides focusing on skiing, this provides economic diversity. She spoke to the clustering and leaving much of the land as open space. She stated this project is creating compatible recreational uses. Although this particular site is not a unique land designation, it is a unique piece of property given its location. The open space plan speaks to preserving ranching and farming, preserving the resources we have. She stated as an aside, the fire station that will be there will be a very valuable resource. She spoke to a fire and Gypsum being the nearest resource. Chairman Stone asked for further public comment. There was none. Commissioner Gallagher stated he has a concern with the impact on the Colorado River Road during construction. He understands the impact fee but wonders what mitigation they intend to do during construction. Mr. Badger stated they are improving the Colorado River Road at the entrance during construction. Chairman Stone asked how many feet and how far they are from 1-70. Mr. Badger stated 1000 linear feet and 10.5 miles. He explained they will bring the vehicles into the area for the immediate construction. There may be an opportunity to bring some of the equipment and provisions in by rail. Commissioner Gallagher suggested those items should be addressed with the Engineering Department. Chairman Stone asked if that would be an additional condition. Commissioner Gallagher stated it is the intention of the Gypsum Fire Department to place one engine at that location and to have it manned during hours of operation, expanding that as possible. Commissioner Menconi asked to be advised about the work that has been done on the riparian area and the work done around the rivers. Mr. Forinash suggested it may be useful to have Mr. Badger describe the construction. The permitting form the Core of Engineers must be done and addresses the construction and the preservation of the riparian areas. Commissioner Menconi stated he would like to know about the set backs and what is acceptable. Mr. Badger handed out a letter he wrote to Mr. Forinash following a meeting with Robert Ray of NWCOG who edited the letter. He stated it is with his blessing. He stated when they started this project they involved the Army Corps of Engineers right a way. They have visited the site and offered their input. Robert Ray has been involved with the process. This property has been ranched for many years and the cattle have degraded much of the land. The roots are undermined, there is no vegetation, the stream banks are destroyed. The river has changed its course over many years. One of the things they have tried to do is recreate a more stable river bank. That has involved going into the riparian areas, but for restoration. They have moved the hay and cattle operation east of the railroad. The golf holes are in the riparian areas today, but they intend to move those. They will create fish habitat by channeling the river through the habitat. They have addressed all ofMr. Ray's concerns and have been diligent in that regard. Chairman Stone asked about the minimum set back for the homes. Mr. Forinash stated 50 feet from high water mark or outside the 100 year flood plain. 54 03-13-2001 Chairman Stone suggested it is 75 feet in the Eagle River Water Shed Plan and asked what it is for the buildings in the PUD. Mr. Badger stated outside the 100 year flood plain or 50 feet back whichever is more restrictive. Commissioner Menconi asked for the difference with the Eagle River Water Shed plan and what are the concerns. Mr. Forinash stated the consideration is to leave the land as undisturbed as possible. He stated the agencies they rely upon are Environmental Health and the NWCOG and both seem to be satisfied with the mitigation submitted. Commissioner Menconi asked ifMr. Forinash has reviewed the information with NWCOG. Mr. Forinash stated he has. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the concerns with the Eby Creek development that they have been hearing. He asked how this relates to that file and the amount of units that will be close to it. Mr. Forinash stated this proposed development is less constrained than the other file and much of the riparian area has been reduced because of the ranching that has taken place. Commissioner Menconi asked if he thinks this development will improve the area. Mr. Forinash stated it will certainly not make it worse. The houses will be along the river area, reducing the haying in those areas. Mr. Badger spoke to the Mr. Ray's letter and him liking the plan as it sculpts the area. Commissioner Menconi made an assertion that there is a need in the community for recreation and for public courses. He questions how one evaluates that need and it being superceded by a private course. He suggested there could be a win win situation. If they have it as a private course it limits itself to public access. Mr. Badger stated they approached it assuming that public access was a component. He stated at the urging of the Planning Commission they responded by providing the public access. Golf is just one recreational activity in this community providing you are willing to pay. He stated there is less opportunity to fish than there was ten years ago. Chairman Stone asked if Mr. Badger is familiar with Cordillera and asked what public play is allowed on which courses and how much is used. Mr. Badger stated the Mountain Course had a requirement to offer some public play. That being undefined they allowed the developer to define the terms. The Valley Club was 100% private in its approval as was the short course. When the Summit course was approved there were tee times available at a discounted rate in the shoulder seasons. He stated on the Mountain Course, they have never filled that. He stated if anyone wants to play golf in this County there are tee times available. He listed the various courses and the opportunity is there today. Commissioner Menconi suggested that anyone coming into Eagle County has more golf opportunities in the last five years be it public or private. He stated ten years ago there were three golf courses and now there are seventeen. He stated we have seen a 400 to 500% growth in golf courses in the last decade. When a golf course is decided upon by the Commissioners either a public or private golf course was approved. There is never really a discussion about there needing to bemore private as opposed to public perception. He spoke to the perception. Mr. Badger stated golf courses are an expensive improvement. You will have to be able to charge a significant amount to pay for the construction. The bottom line is it is a very expensive commodity. A course like Eagle Ranch was funded through bond issuance. That is a different structure and product. In this particular location and what they are trying to create, a private course is really the only economical value to make this project work. The concept of creating a public access component, to which they are not opposed, they changed it to the fishing access. He stated the developer is paying for the fire station, the road improvements, the public park, etc. This is a pretty good package for the public. There is a public benefit in terms of the open space and agricultural use. Commissioner Menconi stated he agrees with the statements being made but it must become clear in 55 03-13-2001 what is discussed. He is hearing that it is not economically feasible to do a public course compared to a private course. Mr. Badger stated regarding this development, that is correct. You are talking about limited development and part of keeping it minimalized, is the cost. The value has a great deal to do with the golf component. Commissioner Menconi asked if that can be backed up. He stated if he is in agreement that this is the only course that can be taken because of economics, then they have to go with the private course to save the open space. Mr. Badger stated there are land costs, development costs, site considerations. If you look at other projects they are not done in the context that they are presenting. If they added many more units and changed the design, it might work. It is just not that generic. Commissioner Menconi asked if they would be opposed to offering public play for golf in addition to the fishing access they are agreeing to provide, being three tee times per day, Monday through Thursday. Mr. Badger stated in addition to, he doesn't think that is fair. He stated they are being asked to do more than anyone else. He stated the fly fishing component wasn't part of the original scope. To ask for both, nobody else has to do this. He stated we are all tax payers and they are giving a lot. If the Commissioners would like them to put that same component back in they can't do the public fishing. He stated it is not a level playing field and changes everything. Chairman Stone stated there are new Boards and new Commissions. They appreciate the work the Planning Commission does for them, but they need to be responsive to the Board. Mr. Badger suggested there may be a combination by doing the fly fishing and the tournaments. To open up the shoulder season is too great a compromise. They would do the fishing as proposed and do the local benefits for two local charities like Habitat for Humanity, Meet the Wilderness, like that. Commissioner Menconi suggested he will need some time to consider this and to understand what has been done with other developments. He stated he wants to get a better understanding. This is a golf course community in many ways and how is the community need is being assessed and why the decision is being made to have one course over another. He understands the economics and the discussion of Eagle Ranch. He stated he would like to request more time to get into the specifics of the trade off and the two public components being proposed. Them saying it has to be one or the other, they are both going to cost the developer something. What are the alternatives if they don't have the fishing. Mr. Badger stated the land itself and the cost of the County acquiring 14 acres of public land is nearly impossible. He stated if they do not dedicate the parcel it will remain part ofthe open space of the property. Chairman Stone asked what the cost is to them for giving up the tee times. Is it a dollar cost or an image cost. Mr. Badger stated they put this plan together, presented it through the public process. They came back with alternatives A and B. The Planning Commission made a recommendation. It changes the public process and changes the playing field. Chairman Stone reminded Mr. Badger that the Planning Commission is a referral agency that does hard work for the Board. However, the ultimate approval comes from the Board. He asked why they are hesitant to give up the tee times. Mr. Badger stated there is definitely a perception that a facility has more value being private. They would love to have it 100% private as it would make the economics better. He stated it goes back to perception. Chairman Stone asked if they can get more for their memberships if it is private. There is limited cost for the tee times. They must have some main reason for not wanting to give up the public tee times. Mr. Badger stated they are willing to have the public play. He stated that opportunity is at a cost of the 14 acres they are giving up. Chairman Stone stated if they give public access the amount of private play will be more limited. He 56 03-13-2001 suggested he could argue they would be getting more money for it as they would have public and private. Mr. Badger spoke to the 40% discount. He stated the perception of private versus public. He stated it is hard to quantify. If you have 100% private course and there are only three or four in the County, the perceived value is different. He stated they were willing to do that but to give 14 acres on the river is a premium value. Both those things together add up to more and are being excessive. Chairman Stone asked Mr. Menconi if he is requesting a tabling ofthis until they can get more information. Commissioner Menconi stated if they were to chose to go with the public play, the 14 acres would be used as ranching. The trade off is which does he see is more important. The choices are public play, fishing or agricultural. Mr. Badger stated it would give the County an opportunity to do something special with the 14 acres as a public amenity. Commissioner Menconi stated there are merits in the work and the benefits they have offered. The main one is creating this development as an agriculturally historic community with a golf course. He stated he would like to get more with staff in looking at private and public courses. He believes they could do both. Chairman Stone asked if Commissioner Gallagher is interested in tabling this for more information on the one item. Commissioner Gallagher stated he respectfully disagrees with his colleague. The applicant has not submitted the public play. He stated the idea of public golf is not an issue in as much that there is some available and not used at other courses. Chairman Stone stated he agrees with Commissioner Gallagher but would like to take them up on the play for the charity tournaments. Commissioner Menconi suggested that the charity events would be that the developer would provide play for two charitable events for local charities and one national charity. Mr. Badger stated there are so many charitable events and courses. Commissioner Menconi stated he would like an opportunity to better understand this. Chairman Stone stated on the list of conditions and the second one, does that go away from the proposal. Mr. Badger stated there is an existing ISDS at the northern ranch house and a couple of others that are necessary. Chairman Stone suggested they should have talked to this during the 1041 hearing. He stated that he was under the impression that all would be covered under the 1041 application. Number 2 would remam. Chairman Stone stated he would like to make a general statement before calling for a motion and vote. He stated his biggest dilemma is that this is opening up a new area for development and wrestles with whether that is good or bad. He spoke to maintaining open space and agriculture. He stated he has been trying to weigh, separate from the specifics, what is this going to do to the development of this area and the remainder of the Colorado River Road. He stated he is a strong advocate of private property rights and one of the ways for those in agriculture to live is to develop their land. Ranchers and farmers are going to be hard pressed. He suggested he doesn't know the final answer. He stated he thinks he is favor of the development taking all those things into consideration. He doesn't think it is healthy to open up new areas for development. He questions if people will want to travel this far. He doesn't know that this is the best solution. He spoke to the letter from Susan Nottingham Albertson who spoke to both sides of this. He suggested that she and the ranching communities look to this as being one of the last options left. He took her comments as being sincere. Commissioner Gallagher stated one part of him hopes this project fails for them and that would discourage any others to do the same. As a result of probable legislation, they will be looking at the Master Plan again and he encourages those who are part of this to look at ways to protect what is there. 57 03-13-2001 If it is going to develop, this is better than 35 acres. Commissioner Menconi stated he feels they have a lost opportunity here and that given a little more time, it would be a better project. He suggested in always using the default position that it could be 35 acre lots is an excuse of the past. He suggested they have proposed a family oriented community that provides fishing, golf and preservation of the historic community. He suggested they have also indicated that this is cache if it is opened to the public. He suggested the possibility is in creating more recreation for the people of this community. Chairman Stone spoke to the number of public courses and private courses and he understands and respects what Commissioner Menconi is saying. Commissioner Menconi stated this is day one of a public process. He stated he is not in favor of approving this because he is in favor of spending more time. He thinks by looking at it harder there would be more opportunities for the people of Eagle County. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. ZC-00042, Colorado River Ranch, incorporating staff findings and asking the clerk to incorporate them in the minutes. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. Commissioners Gallagher and Stone voting aye, Commissioner Menconi voting no. Commissioner Gallagher moved the Board approve File No. PDP-00018, Colorado River Ranch, incorporating the staff findings and with the following conditions: 1) A Detailed Landscape Plan, as provided in Section 4-220.A., Landscape Plan Required, should be provided prior to approval of each final plat, for the entrance and common areas located within that filing, which the Director of Community Development determines is consistent with the provisions and intent of Division 4-2 of the Land Use Regulations, and the conceptual site landscape plans submitted and other commitments made by the Applicant. 2) A restrictive note should be required on each final plat for this development requiring that all infiltration septic disposal systems be designed by a civil engineer, as recommended by Hepworth- Pawlak Geotechnical, Inc., in the Preliminary Geotechnical Study (dated January 17,2000) and that all disposal systems shall be monitored in perpetuity. 3) At the time of final plat approval, a 25 foot trails easement east ofthe Colorado River Road shall be dedicated to Eagle County to accommodate the possible future construction of a separated trail along the Colorado River Road. 4) At the time of final plat approval, one or more access easements shall be granted for emergency and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for purposes of providing emergency servIce. 5) Evidence of final approval by the Union Pacific Railroad of improvements to the railroad crossings should be provided prior to approval of the first final plat for this development. 6) The recommendation of the Colorado Geological Survey (letter dated November 3,2000) be satisfied, and final plans for the PUD be referred to the Colorado Geological Survey for additional review and comment, prior to approval of any final plat. 7) Prior to approval of the final plat, the applicant shall provide satisfactory evidence to Eagle County that all the necessary and required permits have been obtained from the US Army Corps of Engineers and any other Federal or State authorities with regard to designed impacts to wetlands and nparIan areas. 8) It should be demonstrated, by permits from the Army Corps of Engineers or otherwise, prior to approval of the first final plat for this PUD that all impacts to wetlands and riparian areas have been satisfactorily mitigated. 9) Prior to approval of a final plat for the Colorado River Ranch, the owner agrees, as a condition to the final plat, to submit a petition for inclusion into the Gypsum Fire District. 10) Prior to approval of a final plat for the Colorado River Ranch, a Golf Course Management Plan must be submitted to NWCCOG and Eagle County and be approved by the Board of County 58 03-13-2001 Commissioners. 11) At the time of final plat approval, the applicant shall dedicate that portion of land to the south of Trail Gulch consisting of approximately i 14 acres to Eagle County, Colorado, or another public entity acceptable to Eagle County, for purposes of constructing a public fly fishing park. The applicant will be responsible for constructing a graveled parking area for a minimum of four cars and a pedestrian trail to the river and along the river to the adjacent BLM property, subject to obtaining the required permit from Union Pacific Railroad and the Public Utilities Commission of Colorado. 12) Adequate operation, maintenance and financial plan be in place for water and wastewater systems. 13) Payoff-site road impact fee, in an amount determined by the Board of County Commissioners, prior to approval of the first final plat. 14) 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 and considered conditions of approval of this PUD Preliminary Plan. 15) Prior to final plat approval, the applicant shall coordinate with and obtain approvals for mitigation measures to be taken during project construction on the Colorado River Road, with the Eagle County Road & Bridge Director and the Eagle County Engineer. 16) The Colorado River Ranch shall host a minimum of three charity tournaments during the golfing season at no charge to the charities for greens fees, cart fees or service fees. The Colorado River Ranch reserves the right to select the charity groups but at least two groups will be a local charity or foundation serving Eagle County Residents. The Colorado River Ranch reserves the right to set the dates, times and formats of the tournaments. The two tournaments will be selected and announced no later than opening day of each golf season. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. Commissioners Gallagher and Stone voting aye, Commissioner Menconi voting no. Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn and the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Champions Grill, Continuation of Hearing Chairman Stone stated this is the continuation of the hearing for Monet's Tavern, Inc. doing business as Champions Grill. Robert Emerson, Attorney on behalf of Eagle County, stated at the conclusion of the last hearing the Board found that there was a violation of over service of alcohol. He stated the Board asked that the proposed findings of fact that were submitted at that hearing be revised to reflect the witnesses and documentary evidence as well as a written findings and proposed sanctions be provided. He stated he submitted that documentation to the County Attorney but did so in an alternative way so there could be a different penalty if the Board so chose. Renee Black, Assistant County Attorney, stated those were the documents that were discussed in the legal meeting this morning and are in the front of the Board's books. Mr. Emerson stated where they are procedurally is, given those findings, to make a determination of the sanctions. Those options are granting the renewal application without conditions, granting the renewal application with conditions provided the applicant is in agreement, or denial of the renewal application. He suggested Mr. O'Reilly may have a statement as to the conditions proposed. He was told the applicant would not voluntarily agree to the conditions as submitted. Chairman Stone stated they did offer at the last meeting for both Attorney's to provide information regarding proposed sanctions to the Board. 59 03-13-2001 Mr. O'Reilly stated he submitted his today. Mr. Emerson stated in the proposed findings he gave them he mis-named one of the witnesses and has provided a corrected page 3. He stated it is identical except for that. Brian O'Reilly summarized the package consists of a four page typed document, three letters from the Dockery's, copies of police reports with Mr. Dockery's comments. He stated without dealing with those documents his proposed findings and decisions are somewhat similar with Mr. Emerson's. He stated with respect to the exhibits there is one material difference. He stated they are essentially similar and the exhibits were the exhibits. He agreed that Rebecca's last name should be corrected. He stated he added Mr. Campbell's name to his documentation as he did testify as Deputy Coroner. The essential difference, in his opinion, are a number of incorrect or gratuitous findings that the Board has no need to make. They have already found that violations have occurred and rather than go on with a several page narration is for the authority to find that it did occur on a date certain at a licensed premise. He suggested the Board has made their finding which eliminates the need to find what a reasonable person would conclude. They would like to find the violation and be done with it. He spoke to the conclusions testified to by Deputy Hunter. He stated it seems the authority can edit out those items not needed. He reviewed those stipulations they are in disagreement with being payment of attorney fees and waiving the right to appeal. Mr. Emerson stated the issue with how the Board constructs their findings and the contents ofthose findings are entirely up to the Board. The importance of the findings are if this matter is appealed the reviewing court will review those findings. He stated he does not think editing out the "gratuitous findings" is appropriate. The Board should make the findings exactly as the evidence showed. He tried to take the comments of the Board members and incorporated them into the findings. The test on appeal is whether they have abused their discretion in their findings. It is not an abusive discretion if there is evidence in the record to support their findings. He stated there is no reference to the time of death in the proposed findings. As far as the conditions, he was trying to propose alternatives that the applicant would agree to as a way of avoiding the worst case scenario of non-renewal. The Board does not have the right to order the applicant to pay his attorney fees. However, they can make that a condition of some punishment less than non renewal and the applicant would have to agree. The same is true with waiving the right to appeal. It gives the applicant a chance to correct a wrong without the ultimate penalty. He spoke to similar cases and plea bargains. He stated the real issue is whether or not the Board wants to give this applicant another chance. He stated there is merit to giving someone a chance to correct the problem. However, he believes the evidence shows this to be a problem bar. He stated Ms. Barton was allowed to drink enough alcohol, based on the testimony, that she died. It is his opinion the reason was is that she had too much to drink and it caused her death. The evidence clearly shows the Board can take the staunchest action and not renew the license. There is aggravation. Commissioner Gallagher asked about the cap on the fines. Mr. Emerson stated there is no cap by statute. Ralph Dockery, husband to the owner, stated he would disagree, there is a $5,000.00 cap. He stated it is 20% ofthe gross revenues for the suspension period with a cap of $5,000.00. Ms. Black stated that is only if it is a fee in lieu of suspension. Chairman Stone asked if there is a cap on suspension and a fine. Can they do both. Ms. Black stated what is on the table is a proposed stipulation and that would be something that is agreed to. There is no prohibition against having both a fine and a suspension. Commissioner Gallagher stated he finds the proposed conditions to be totally unacceptable. They are basically what is required to run a liquor establishment anyway and are not appropriate. If there were to be a suspension or other punitive action these conditions go without saying. He stated he is not inclined to assess a suspension but is inclined to not renew the license for the reason they came to at the end of the last hearing. This is not a single incident before them, it is one incident that is a pattern of operating this establishment with little regard to the rules and regulations and the safety, peace and quite 60 03-13-2001 _J ofthe neighborhood. He agrees with Mr. Emerson's stated that this is a problem bar. It has been a problem bar to which the Sheriffs Deputy testified to. They have to dedicate much more effort to this place than all the other places in Edwards. Having a liquor license in Colorado is not a right. It is a privilege. Along with that privilege goes a whole lot of requirements to do it right. The requirement to be right in the operation of a liquor licensed establishment is more stringent than a restaurant or any other business they may be involved in. These folks have not done it for awhile. Unfortunately it has culminated and come before the Board because of the latest incident. He is not inclined to suspend. Chairman Stone stated he agrees with Commissioner Gallagher. He added he believes that the reason the applicant has not been before the Board previously is that they have been lucky. He was surprised that he readily admitted that Ms. Dockery, the licensee and registered manager, does not manage there at all. In the job of being County Commissioner, they spend a lot of time and money trying to save people's lives. For someone to have actions that are just the opposite, he finds reprehensible. Commissioner Menconi stated he believes they have seen a lot of evidence, it could create a great deal of vagueness as to what happened to cause the death of this woman. He believes this would probably be a first violation in coming before the Board. He believes looking at some type of suspension would be appropriate for the evidence presented. Ralph Dockery stated they operate as a team. As a team we delegate the duties. Management includes a lot of different duties, including the front ofthe house, the back of the house, the bar, etc. and to do that properly you have to split up the duties. He believes they have done that properly based on their strengths and interests. He stated he has no problem with admitting they have a personal responsibility for contributing to Carolyn Barton's death in this case and they should be punished for it. They believe in personal responsibility for everyone. That is especially true for them. Suspension or fine or a combination of that they do not have a problem with. As for non-renewal, they have been doing business for 20 years. They have been at Champions for twelve years. They have never appeared before this Board and he does not believe that has anything to do with being lucky. Every year the complaint list is pulled from the Sheriffs Department and gone over and if there are any problems those have been discussed. He stated he received the contact list two weeks ago and met with the Sheriff. He stated they went through all fourteen of those from last year. Seven or eight of them have nothing to do with Champions in a negligent or criminal manner. He stated some ofthem are mistakes on their part. He stated if they received those complaints when they came in, they could take remedial action immediately. He stated walk through's and bar checks are extremely important to the Sheriff's Office and the licensee to avoid problems and preventing escalation of problems. He stated the general population and the general public are extremely sensitive to the problems with over service of alcohol in the County and rightfully so. He stated they do not want to give up their rights. They have admitted their responsibility and are willing to pay the price but would like to have the licensed renewed. He stated they have put the place up for sale and legitimately it will close within sixty days. They will ask for even a faster closing. The financing will be the only contingency and transfer of the liquor license. He stated they would like to move on. Mr. Dockery stated they assume personal responsibility for it. He does not believe they deserve to have their license not renewed. Commissioner Gallagher asked if the liquor license for Champions would not be renewed, would it be eligible under a new owner to reapply. Ms. Roach stated anyone can apply for a liquor license at that establishment whether there is a current license on the wall or not. Chairman Stone stated if this license was not renewed, someone else could purchase the establishment and apply for their own license. Ms. Roach stated they would not be able to apply for a transfer of ownership as there would be no current license on the wall, but they could apply for a new one. Commissioner Menconi stated he agrees with a lot of what Mr. Dockery has related. He stated he 61 03-13-2001 sees a lot of ownership being taken. In looking through the statements provided he has seen several different opinions. They are all very sensitive to the death of the young lady. He also sees a lot of the merits in Mr. Emerson's case and what has been provided. It is the job of this Board to find the balance in all of the different opinions that are in front of them. He stated he would hate to see a penalty that is not equal to what has happened. He recommended the Board make a motion to suspend the liquor license for Champions. Chairman Stone stated he has done a little research on various cases, not referencing this particular case, but found that Douglas County places a thirty day suspension on selling alcohol to an underage person, a first offense, two weeks being served and two weeks being held in abeyance. Commissioner Menconi stated it appears that the Dockery's may not have their liquor license after today. He suggested that perhaps they may want to surrender their liquor license in consideration of what is being proposed. Mr. Dockery stated unfortunately they don't know how long it will take them to sell and they will be losing a large sum of money during that time period. He stated that is not to say if they revoke the license that they will not be in the same situation. He stated they are trying to move as fast as they can, save their employees jobs and not go out with a tremendous debt on their head. Commissioner Menconi suggested they might take a brief recess to discuss the possibility of surrendering the license. Mr. Dockery asked what is the advantage of that. Commissioner Menconi suggested if they go to a vote, there is a strong possibility of the license not being renewed today. It may be advantageous for the owner to surrender their license. Mr. Dockery stated they are between a rock and a hard place. They have been in business for twenty years and he does not like being in this situation. He stated he is also a realist. He asked if they did surrender their license there would be no negative impact on a new applicant. Chairman Stone stated he would not look upon a new applicant any different that anyone else. Commissioner Gallagher stated he would not have any prejudice against a new applicant. Mr. Emerson stated the new applicant would have to provide evidence of the needs of the neighborhood. Mr. Dockery asked if they were to surrender the license would that be in lieu of any additional penalty. Chairman Stone stated he would not be in favor of additional penalties. Commissioner Gallagher concurred. Mr. O'Reilly stated he had discussed withdrawing the application but surrender would be a better way to handle it. Chairman Stone stated the applicant owns a couple of other bars currently, and ifthey were to surrender this license and got into trouble with one of the other licenses, he would have a much better recollection of this process if the license had been surrendered. Mr. Dockery stated they will surrender the liquor license for Champions Grill in lieu of any penalties. Mr. Emerson stated they have the right to reduce the findings. Commissioner Gallagher moved to approve the findings as prepared by Mr. Emerson including pages 1, 2, 3 and page 4 to paragraph C, excluding paragraph C, substituting the acceptance of the surrender of the license of Monet's Tavern doing business as Champions Grill as follows: 1. A license was last issued to Licensee on January 18, 2000 for the operation ofthe licensed Premises. 2. At lease ninety (90) days prior to expiration of the license, the Licensing Authority mailed a written notice, via first class mail, to the Licensee at the Licensee's's last know address. Such notice informed the Licensee of the expiration date of the existing license. 3. The Licensee submitted an application to the Licensing Authority for the renewal of the existing 62 03-13-2001 license more than forty-five (45) days prior to the license expiration date. C.R.S. 12-47-302(1). 4. The Licensing Authority finds that it has jurisdiction regarding the requested license renewal pursuant to C.R.S. 12-47-302 and that the Licensed Premises is within Eagle County, Colorado. 5. The existing license expired on January 18,2001. However, the Licensee is permitted to continue operating under the expired license pending a decision regarding the Licensee's request for renewal pursuant to C.R.S. 12-47-302(2) (a). 6. The Licensing Authority elected to hold a hearing on the application for renewal, which hearing was held on February 27, 2001. Notice of the date and time of the hearing was provided to the Licensee by certified mail at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing. C.R.S. 12-47-302 (1). Notice of the date and time of the hearing was conspicuously posted on the licensed premised for a period of not less than ten (10) days prior to the hearing. C.R.S. 12-47-302 (1). In addition, the Licensing Authority finds that the Licensee had actual notice from early December, 2000, that employees of the Licensing Authority were conducting an investigation of a potential liquor license violation stemming from the events occurring prior to Carolyn Barton's death and that a representative was provided with copies of police reports in the possession of Earlene Roach, Eagle county Liquor Enforcement Officer. 7. The Licensing Authority received, accepted, and considered the following exhibits: a. Application for License Renewal. b. Notice of Hearing. c. Death Certificate. d. Autopsy final anatomic diagnosis, Dr. Galloway. e. A report from Chemtox Laboratories showing that Carolyn Barton's blood a1cohollevel at the time of her death was .216 f/l00ml. f. Credit card receipt showing amount of purchases made by Carolyn Barton at Champions Grill on October 9, 2000, and bar tab from Champions Grill showing the number of drinks purchased by Carolyn Barton at Champions Grill on the evening of October 9,2000. g. Sheriff s office list of contacts and reports of recent law enforcement contact at Champions Grill. h. Alcohol Intoxication Evaluation Chart. i. Brian Turner - interview notes - Rebecca Maas. j. Brian Turner - interview notes - Andrea Sanchez. k. Drawing of area where Carolyn Barton died. 1. Document labeled, "Responsible Alcohol Service/Server Study Guide". m. Credit Card receipts of Carolyn Barton from September 22,2000 to October 9, 2000. n. Unsigned statement from Ralph Dockery. 8. The following persons appeared and testified at the hearing concerning the application for renewal: a. Earlene Roach, Eagle County Liquor Enforcement Officer. b. Scott Hunter, Deputy Eagle County Sheriff's Officer, who investigated Carolyn Barton's death and alleged Liquor Code Violation. c. Brian Turner, Enforcement Officer for the Colorado Department of Revenue, Liquor Enforcement Division, who investigated the allegation of a Liquor Code violation. d. Rebecca Maas, a friend of Carolyn Barton, who was present with Carolyn Barton at champions grill on the evening of October 9, 2000. e. Bruce Campbell, Deputy Eagle County Coroner, who testified about his observations of the scene where Carolyn Barton died and gave his opinion of the time of her death. f. Bridget Semple, an off-duty bartender who was present at Champions Grill on the evening of October 9, 2000. g. Theresa Firkins, the bartender on duty at Champions Grill on the evening of 63 03-13-2001 October 9, 2000. h. Andrew Byrne, an off-duty bartender who was present at Champions Grill on the evening of October 9, 2000. i. Ralph Dockery, husband of the majority stockholder of the license. 9. Based upon the evidence presented, the Licensing Authority hereby finds that good cause exists to refuse to renew the Licensee's license pursuant to C.R.S. 12-47-302 and 12-47-103 (9) (a) and (d). Such finding of good cause is based upon the following which was established by a preponderance of evidence: The Licensee has violated C.R.S. 12-47-901 (1) (a) and Liquor Regulations 47- 900 by selling and serving an alcoholic beverage to Carolyn Barton, a visibly intoxicated person, on the evening of October 9, 2000. In addition, the Licensing Authority further finds that evidence was presented to the Licensing Authority which demonstrates that the Licensee has operated its Licensed Premises in a manner that adversely affects the public health, welfare and safety of the immediate neighborhood in which the Licensed Premises is located in violation ofC.R.S. 12-47-103 (9) (d) and in violation of Liquor Regulation 47-900. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Executive Session Commissioner Gallagher moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners and go into Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding a transportation contract.. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The time was noted at 6:35 p.m. Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from Executive Session and reconvene into the regular meeting. Chairman Stone seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi had to leave the meeting. The time was noted at 6:35 p.m. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until March 20, 2001. ~~ Chairman e 64 03-13-2001