HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 04/17/2001
PUBLIC HEARING
APRIL 17,2001
Present:
Michael Gallagher
Arn Menconi
Renee Black
Jack Ingstad
Sara J. Fisher
Commissioner
Commissioner
Acting County Attorney
County Administrator
Clerk to the Board
Absent:
Tom Stone
Chairman
This being a scheduled Public Hearing the following items were presented to the Board of
County Commissioners for their consideration:
Executive Session
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated the first item before the Board was an Executive Session.
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn into an Executive Session to discuss water litigation,
Case No. 96CW373.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous. Chairman Stone was not present at this meeting.
The time was noted at 9:00 a.m.
Commissioner Menconi moved to adjourn from the Executive Session and reconvene as the
Board of County Commissioners.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
The time was noted at 9:07 a.m. Commissioner Stone was not present for the hearing.
Consent Agenda
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated the next matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as
follows:
A) Approval of bill paying for the week of April 16, 2001, subject to review by County
Administrator
B) Approval of payroll for April 19, 2001, subject to review by County Administrator
C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of April 3,
2001
D) Agreement with Robert Durham for TANFIChild Welfare Services
E) Agreement with Colorado West Mental Health for TANFIChild Welfare Services
F) Agreement between Eagle County and Columbine Home Health Services
G) Agreement with the Family Visitor Program for TANFIChild Welfare Services
H) Agreement between Eagle County and Valley Partnership for Drug Prevention
I) Second Amendment to Subdivision and Off Site Improvements Agreement for
Bachelor Gulch, Filing No.2
J) Lease Extension between Eagle county and the Federal Aviation Administration for
RCO Facility at the Eagle County Regional Airport
K) Resolution 2001-050, Order of Cancellation of certain uncollectible taxes
L) Resolution 2001-051, transferring and distributing revenues from the County Forest
1
04-17-2001
Reserve Fund, fiscal Year 2000
M) Resolution 2001-052, Amending Resolution 96-22, to remove the Town of Basalt
from the Regional Transportation Authority
N) Resolution 2001-053, authorizing the Chairman of the Board of County
Commissioners to change letter allowing architectural services to also be paid from Community
Development Block Grant
0) Umbrella Contract between State of Colorado, Office of Emergency Management and
Eagle County
P) Resolution 2001-054, Appointment of John C. Collins as Special County Attorney
Q) Purchase of Service Contract, Special County Attorney and fee establishment.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the
Consent Agenda.
Renee Black, Acting County Attorney, stated there are were changes.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
Plat & Resolution Signing
Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's
consideration:
5MB-00236. First Amendment to the Final Plat and Condominium Map. The
Beaver Creek Lod2e Condominiums. The intent of this Minor Type B Subdivision is to expand the
floor area of two (2) individual condominium units into a portion of the General Common Element.
Staff findings are as follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-290 (G) (1) of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
5-290 (G) (1) Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision
(G) Standards. The Board of County Commissioners and the Community Development Director
shall consider the following in the review of a Type A Subdivision, a Type B Subdivision, and an
Amended Final Plat.
Standards for Type A and Type B Subdivision.
a) Access, potable water, and sewage disposal on the land to be subdivided are adequate;
b. The plat does conform to Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations,
policies, standards, and guidelines; and
c. No Improvement Agreement is applicable.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00236, First Amendment
to the Final Plat and Condominium Map, Beaver Creek Lodge Condominiums, incorporating staff
findings.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
Resolution 2001-055, First Supplementary Budget
Mike Roeper, Finance Director, presented Resolution 2001-055, adopting a First Supplementary
Budget and appropriation of unanticipated revenues for fiscal year 2001, and authorizing the transfer of
budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies. He explained there were two
additional items he is asking be included. One is for $15,000 for Eagle River Hydrological Study. The
other is an option for purchase of the Airport Commercial Passenger Business. That is $4.5 million.
2
04-17-2001
They are asking them to consider paying cash for this purchase at this time. It is an option to consider
rather than waiting to June 15, 2001 for the bond issuance. There is some interest savings.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked about pay back after the bond issuance.
Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated this is an option. They could then save the interest
they will be paying. It is the only opportunity between now and the closing. The savings is probably
small, but as asked by Chairman Stone, they have researched the options.
Mr. Roeper stated there is a director present who has not had a couple of their requests included.
He suggested they might want to take time to hear from that director.
Commissioner Menconi thanked them for their efforts.
Jim Lair, ECO, stated he is coming with hat in hand. The ECO Board has approved the funding
requests. He spoke to the radio system in the busses. He stated they were in a consortium with the
Town of Avon to purchase these radios. He stated they learned ofthe overrun when the bill came in
January. In order to have the radios they need this funding. They are also requesting $5000 for 40
passenger counters. It gives them the demographics of their rider-ship. They are requesting $15,000 to
purchase two mini-busses from Beaver Creek Resort. These are 1997 and have about 70,000 miles.
They are practically in mint condition. The final amount is about $6,400 for the director's move from
the state of Washington. The total they are seeking is $47,572.86.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked for the reference.
Mr. Roeper stated it is Eagle Valley Transportation and is the line items starting at 85.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked if the additional expenses were unknown.
Mr. Roeper stated they did not want to include something that had not been seen.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked if the ECO Board has approved these.
Mr. Roeper stated they have.
Commissioner Menconi reviewed the requested items. He stated he questions what happens if
they postpone this to next year's budget being the radios, the two busses and the forty counters.
Mr. Lair explained the radios have been delivered to the Town of Avon who has paid and is
asking for reimbursement. He stated they have a chance to buy the busses now. If they don't pick them
up they will be auctioned through a dealer.
Commissioner Menconi asked if they would sell the other two busses.
Mr. Lair stated yes but probably only for scrap value.
Commissioner Menconi spoke to the reimbursement.
Jack Ingstad stated he would recommend approval and that they are staying true to their
procedures. He has no problem with the request.
Michael Cacioppo asked if the ECO Board is funded by its own revenue fund.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher explained it is the County that signs the check.
Mr. Cacioppo asked ifthere is not a revenue stream for ECO.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher explained. He stated he agrees with Mr. Ingstad. Reimbursement
is necessary as it was agreed. The radios are essential.
Mr. Ingstad spoke to the general fund and the option of the purchase of the jet center. He stated
all of these requests or carry forwards have come in from other agencies. He stated there will be
$300,000 plus in the general fund.
Mr. Cacioppo asked if they pay cash for the first month what savings will they see.
Mr. Roeper stated about $10,000 in interest earned rather than interest paid.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2001-055, adopting a First Supplementary
Budget and appropriation of unanticipated revenues for fiscal year 2001, and authorizing the transfer of
budgeted and appropriated moneys between various spending agencies. Including the $4,250,000 for
purchase of the commercial jet center business and $15,000 for the Eagle River Hydrological Study and
$47,000 to the Eco Transit Authority.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
3
04-17-2001
was declared unanimous.
Resolution 2001-056, Earth Awareness Week
Ray Merry, Environmental Health Officer, presented Resolution 2001-056, declaring April 15 -
22,2001 as Earth Awareness Week. He stated this is the 3 pt anniversary of Earth Day. He explained
the programs they offer to 3rd, 4th and 5th graders. He stated they have visited eight different classes.
They are also working at developing a riparian corridor with 4th and 5th graders. The changes in
environmental excellence comes from the youth. He stated it is fun to work with them and get their
minds thinking in environmentally friendly ways.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher read the resolution into the record as follows:
Whereas, There has been an increased awareness of actions having direct and indirect impacts on
our local environment, and
Whereas, the citizens of Eagle county and the surrounding areas are concerned that steps be taken
to preserve the quality of the environment for present and future generations, and
Whereas, April 22, 2001 marks the thirty first anniversary of the first Earth Day, a day
established to increase people's awareness oftheir environment and the effect their actions have on the
environment, and
Whereas, there is an international, national and local effort to involve as many entities as possible
in this anniversary celebration of earth Day through special events, media coverage and local efforts, and
Whereas, the purpose of Earth Awareness Week is to bring into focus within Eagle County the
understanding that the preservation and improvement of our environment is the responsibility of each
individual, and
Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County recognizes the importance of
addressing environmental issues.
Now, therefore, be it resolved, that the Board of Commissioners, Eagle, County, State of
Colorado, do hereby designate the week of April 15 - 22, 2001 as Earth Awareness Week.
Moved, read and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State
of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 17th day of April, 2001.
Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2001-056, declaring April 15 - 22, 2001 as
Earth Awareness Week.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
Commissioner Menconi stated the County Commissioners will be taking part in the I-70 cleanup
on the 28th of this month.
Mr. Merry spoke to the celebration and culmination of the Earth Day poster contest and
explained the program. Every kid gets a certificate and winners get awards.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher stated they would not be meeting as the Eagle County Air Terminal
Board today.
PDS-00028, Woodland Hills PUD Sketch Plan
Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file number PDS-00028, Woodland Hills PUD Sketch Plan.
She stated the applicant wishes to obtain approval for a residential, PUD (Sketch Plan) including the
following:
88 multifamily units consisting of76, two bedroom / 2 car garage units, and 12, one bedroom /1
car garage units, open / recreation space, and a new bus stop.
The one bedroom units will be deed restricted; i.e. would only be allowed to appreciate 3% per
4
04-17-2001
year at a maximum based on the original purchase price; 10, two bedroom units will also be deed
restricted, with the remaining units to be "free market" units.
The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows:
1997: DRT discussed a pre-application proposal for 40 single family homes, 24 town homes,
and 30 cluster homes (10.7 units per acre). DRT did not respond favorably toward the proposal. They
felt that the density was too high; 6-7 units per acre would have been more favorable.
1998 (July): DRT reviewed another pre-application proposal for this property. Once again, Staff
felt that the density was too high.
1998 (September): An application for a PUD Sketch plan (Deer Park PUD) was submitted to the
County. 106 town homes and condominium units (12 units per acre) were proposed, along with a bus
stop, trails and open space.
The Eagle County Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions, however, the
Board of County Commissioners denied the proposal. They felt that the density was too high.
The Planning Commission deliberated, at length, over issues regarding: Density; master
planning; the broader need for affordable housing throughout the Eagle County; the proposed sale price;
price per square foot and; whether or not approval of this proposal would be precedent setting. Each
Planning Commissioner expressed a great deal of difficulty in rendering a recommendation.
Ultimately, by a vote of3 to 2, the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project
for the following reasons: 1) That this proposal would result in much needed affordable housing; 2)
Affordable one bedroom units with garages are a desirable, unique product; 3) Density for this project
(10 du/acre) is off-set by the relative smaller size ofthe individual units thereby leaving more of the site
open resulting in overall less visual impact. Several Commissioners suggested that due to the actual
square footage of the units proposed, the overall density is more akin to six or seven dwelling units per
acre as opposed to ten.
The Planning Commissioner recommended approval of file PDS-00028, incorporating all Staff
findings and condition, with the addition of conditions 7, 8 and 9.
Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report:
Engineering Memo dated March 7th, 2001:
This application is in substantial compliance with the PUD Sketch Plan Requirements of the
Land Use Regulations.
Colorado Division of Wildlife, State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources, dated
February 26th, 2001:
The adjacent areas contain both elk and deer winter range, as well as bear habitat.
Dogs:
Each residential unit may have one dog.
Dogs should be contained (see memo).
Visitors shall be prohibited from bringing dogs onsite.
Fencing:
Shall be restricted throughout the development.
Bears/Trash removal:
There shall be no outside storage of trash; collection bins are O.K. the morning of collection.
All outside trash containers must be bear-proof.
Pets shall not be fed outside.
Contractors must use bear-proof containers or haul trash offsite.
Mountain Lions:
All residents and perspective residents shall receive a copy of the CDOW's brochure "Living
with Wildlife in Mountain Lion Country."
It shall be the developer's responsibility to acquire and distribute these materials.
5
04-17-2001
Additional Commitments:
The primary responsibility for enforcement (of the wildlife covenants) lies with the Woodland
Hills Homeowners Association.
It is recommended that all wildlife related mitigation measures are incorporated into a separate
Mitigation Plan document. The Mitigation Plan should be incorporated into the covenants.
Enforcement Provisions for Covenants & or PUD Guidelines:
see attached memo for recommendation on how the applicant might incorporate into covenants
or PUD Guide.
Colorado Geological Survey, State of Colorado Department of Natural Resources, dated March
5,2001
Topography and drainage:
A submitted drainage report indicates that detention storage of 11,200 cubic feet will be required
to detain the 25 year peak flow emanating from a 12.6 acre drainage basin to the south.
The drainage basin is neither shown on the site plan, nor does it appear that there is room for it as
the site is currently planned.
Soils and Bedrock:
The site is underlain by Eagle Valley Evaporite.
Subsidence due to collapsible soils, hydro compaction, existing sinkholes, and formation of
solution cavities are a serious concern in this formation, as is corrosive soils.
Six test boring's were performed; all encountered "refusal on gravel' I sandy soils.
Its suitability for foundation bearing material should be defined with more certainty.
The (submitted) LKP Engineering's report makes very general foundation recommendations, and
does not address methods for mitigating the risk of structural damage due to collapsible or corrosive
soils, with the exception that a type II cement is recommended for substances in contact with corrosive
soils.
Staff concurs with their recommendation for additional site-specific investigations and analysis
to develop final design criteria for individual foundations.
Groundwater:
Staff concurs with the application consultants' recommendation for foundation perimeter drains
to help prevent infiltration and to control wetting of potential expansive or collapsible soils in the
immediate vicinity of the substructure.
The systems should be sloped to discharge to a gravity outlet or sump pump location.
Grading:
The proposed final grading contours are not shown on the site plans.
Staff recommends analysis to determine the need for berms or drainages to divert runoff from the
slopes to the south of the property away from the proposed development, and that retaining walls, if
used, be evaluated to determine the need for drains to reduce hydrostatic pressure.
Erosion and sedimentation control methods should be designed and in place prior to the start of
grading.
Once grading is complete: additional geotechnical investigations be performed to establish
alluvium thickness or depth to competent bedrock, density and bearing capacity, and depth to
groundwater.
Prior to construction, any adverse conditions encountered need to be mitigated if necessary and
incorporated into the final design of foundations.
Staff recommends that approval of this proposed development be contingent upon assurances
that this requirement will be met.
Existing structures:
There are existing septic tanks, leach fields, buried utilities, foundations and likely debris from
6
04-17-2001
past and existing uses. These must be excavated and disposed of offsite, not graded into the fill.
Colorado State Forest Service, dated March 9th, 2001
The wildfire hazard is moderate.
The parking lots provide adequate emergency vehicle turnaround.
Recommendations:
Implement defensible space around all structures.
Require class A roof and fire resistive construction.
Trees and shrubs should be planted at least 15 feet away from structures. Non flammable
landscaping such as flagstone should be placed under decks and porches that are at ground level.
Holy Cross Energy, dated February 21 st, 2001
The development is within the certified service area of Holy Cross Energy.
They have the capacity to provide electric power to this development.
They wish to be contacted when plans move forward.
Edwards Metropolitan District, dated February 21 st, 2001:
Residents in the past have relied on the Edwards Sub-Area Master Plan from 1985.
In that document the density is low density- approx. 2 dwelling units per acre.
They believe that the Edwards Committee has reaffirmed that the residents want to keep higher
densities closer to the "core area" of Edwards, and lower further away.
Environmental Health Department, memo dated March 7t\ 2001:
The applicant must seek approval of a 1041 permit for water/wastewater extensions.
The permit must be in place prior to Preliminary Plan approval.
An Environmental Impact Report will be required.
Storm water runoff from the proposed development must be designed to meet the drainage
standards of the Land Use Regulations.
Lake Creek Meadows Homeowners Association memo dated March 7t\ 2001.
Lake Creek Homeowners will be affected by the Woodland Hills development because of
increased traffic on Hwy 6.
Also will add increased traffic to Edwards Interchange to and from I-70.
Would suggest planning for an additional interchange at the West end of Edwards.
Adjacent Property Owners
There are numerous adjacent property owner letters in support of this project attached to this
Staff Report.
1) They feel that the density is appropriate, and that this project will help elevate some of the
affordable housing woes of this valley.
2) They also feel that if this density is denied, that it would lessen the value of their land; their
land would be down zoned.
Other (General Public in support, and against this project)- see attached
Additional Referrals were sent to the following with no response received:
Eagle County Attorney, Sheriff
The School District
Fire District
Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows:
FILE PDS-00028
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F .3.e Standards for the
review of a Sketch Plan for PUD:
STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land
that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to
control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land
7
04-17-2001
that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD.
The Applicant has demonstrated that the entire site is owned in fee simple.
[+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)]
The title to all land that is part ofthis PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person.
STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD
shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as
a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule': or
Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation
in effectfor the property at the time of the applicationfor PUD. Variations of these use designations
may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3.f, Variations Authorized.
This is a residential use development. Use of the PUD is necessary as this property shall be
comprised of one lot and open space. The PUD guide should be written to properly address and
acknowledge all extraneous, residential uses ofthe site including specific details pertaining to such
things as pets, trash, recreation, open space, etc.
[+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)]
The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE NOT uses that are designated as uses that are
allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural
and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at
the time of the application for PUD. However, variations MAY be granted along with approval of the
Sketch and/or Preliminary Plan.
STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional
limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of
Dimensional Limitations ': for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the
application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to
Section 5-240 F. 3.f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between
buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snow
melt between buildings.
The current zone district is RSL. This project could be possible without a PUD in that RSL
allows multi-family dwellings (3 or more dwelling units in one building) on 15,000 sf, as a use by right.
8.8 acres would allow approximately 22 lots of 15,000 sf each, therefore, allowing a possible 88
dwelling units, if they were constructed as fourplexes. (This calculation does take into account the road
as proposed as well).
[+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)]
The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3-
340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at
the time of the application for PUD as the property is not being subdivided into 15,000 sflots. However,
variations MAY be granted along with approval of the Sketch and/or Preliminary Plan.
STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Offstreet parking
and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, O(f-Street
Parking and Loadinf? Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant
demonstrates that:
(a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that
do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking 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, O(f-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may
commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus
passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard.
8
04-17-2001
The Eagle County Land Use Regulations' parking standards dictate that there should be 2
parking spaces for a 1 bedroom, and 2.5 per 2-3 bedroom units. Parking, as proposed, currently exceeds
that amount. According to the plans, there exist 3.6 spaces per unit, for all the units.
[+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)]
It HAS been demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD complies with
the standards of Article 4, Division 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 PUD 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.
Landscaping is a major component ofthis development. Staff can make a favorable finding. A
more detailed landscaping plan will be required at Preliminary Plan, with a Detail Landscaping Plan to
be submitted at Final Plat.
[+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)]
Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2,
Landscaping and Illumination Standards.
STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD
shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Rezulations, unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D.,
Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan
for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area
necessary to direct users to and within the P UD.
The Woodland Hills PUD guide limits the size of the entrance sign only, with all other signs to
adhere to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for standards.
[+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)]
The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign
Regulations. The draft Woodland Hills PUD guide will use the Eagle County comprehensive sign plan,
as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), that IS suitable
for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD.
STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate
that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for
potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire roads and will be
conveniently located in relation to schools, police andfire protection, and emergency medical services.
The applicant has provided evidence that all facilities will connect to Woodland Hills PUD,
however, a 1041 permit is required prior to Preliminary Plan approval, as this hook up would constitute
as an extension.
[+] FINDING: as conditioned Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)]
The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Sketch Plan for
PUD will be provided adequate facilities for sewage disposal, electrical supply, and roads; the applicant
HAS clearly demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will
be(subject to 1041 review and approval) provided adequate facilities for potable water, solid waste
disposal and fire protection. In addition, the Applicant HAS demonstrated that the proposed PUD will
be conveniently located in 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.
9
04-17-2001
Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development
achieves greater efjiciency 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 Ofjicials (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 trafjicflow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts
a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots,
units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected
with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to
maintain the County's road network.
(e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removedfrom the internal
street network and from off-street parking areas.
A highway access permit will be required prior to Preliminary Plan approval.
[+] FINDING: as conditioned Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)]
AS CONDITIONED It HAS been clearly demonstrated that the improvements standards
applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards
regarding:
(a) Safe, Efficient Access.
(b) Internal Pathways.
(c) Emergency Vehicles
(d) Principal Access Points.
(e) Snow Storage.
STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The
development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.
Currently, other PUD developments exist in the near vicinity of the Woodland Hills property, as
well as the Eagle River Village Mobile Home Park. Lake Creek Village is in the line of site of
Woodland Hills, as well as the Villas at Bret Ranch. The subject property is located on the most western
edge of the Edwards community. Given the density of the multi-family developments in the immediate
vicinity, the Eagle River Mobile Home Park, the current RSL zoning designation to the east, west and
north ofthe site, and the numerous letters of support for this project, this proposal may be considered
compatible and in character with the majority of neighboring uses.
[+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)]
The development proposed for the PUD MAY BE considered compatible with the character of
surrounding land uses.
STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be
10
04-17-2001
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
CONSIDERS THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED.
EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN
x
x
x
x
x
x
Community
Centerl
Community Center has a suggested density of3-12 dwelling units per acre, in designated areas
typically found along major transportation routes which have public water and sewer, and have not been
designated as sensitive lands. This designation promotes Community Centers as appropriate locations
for affordable housing, with cluster and Planned Unit Developments being encouraged.
EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN
x
x
x
Xl
X1_ Concerns related to pets (feeding, housing, other restrictions), or bear proof trash containers
have not been addressed as of yet within the draft PUD guide, but shall be a condition for the applicant
to do so as part of Preliminary Plan.
EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN
VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There
should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior
citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are:
NOTE: (plus or minus' are added before the elements to show the conformance of the proposal
in relation to the vision statement)
[+] Housing is a community-wide issue.
[+] Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the
Eagle County master plan.
11
04-17-2001
[+] Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing transit routes.
Although near a transportation route, a new, designated transit stop is not indicated on the plans.
[n/a] Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] without the active participation of
government, there will be only limited success
[n/a] It is important to preserve existing local residents housing.
[+] Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the
county
[ +] Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing
should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they
are evaluated for other infrastructure needs
EDWARDS SUB-AREA COMMUNITY PLAN
XI
x
x
Xl- The Edwards Sub Area Master Plan states that the people of Edwards who live in Edwards (
at the "present time" of 1985) shall work elsewhere. Staff does not feel that this statement is still valid.
It is unclear if the proposed site is located on the associated, 1985 Edwards Sub-Area planning
map (Staff can find only a draft version of the Development Intensity map). There are considerations of
both the Lake Creek and Squaw Creek valleys in the text, however, this site lies in between those valleys
(Squaw Creek is not depicted on the associated Development Intensity map). The map also uses general
overlays, which determine where the Development Intensities lie. Due to the poor quality of the
Edwards Sub-Area Development Intensity Map, it is difficult for Staff to determine if the High Density
area on the draft version of the map is intended to represent only the Eagle River Mobile Home Park or
if property in the immediately vicinity around the mobile home park was intended to be included within
the High Density area as well.
[+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]
The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use
Map (FLUM).
STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfor PUD shall
include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the P UD is proposed to occur in phases,
then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and
desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public
improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as
early in the project as is reasonable.
A phasing plan has not been presented as part of this application, except that actual construction
shall be completed in two phases.
[+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)
A phasing plan IS NOT necessary for this development at this time, however, should be a
component of the Preliminary Plan.
12
04-17-2001
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 everyone 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.
(I) 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.
(ii) Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas,
riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that
are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable
by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently
accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD.
(a) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown
on the Preliminary Planfor PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the
development schedule establishedfor each development phase of the PUD.
(b) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue
to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Planfor 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.
(c) 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.
Maintenance responsibilities have been identified within the Woodland Hills Sketch Plan,
however, not within the draft PUD plan. Staff recommends that any associations/people responsible for
park maintenance be identified within the Preliminary Plan PUD guide.
[+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)]
The PUD HAS demonstrated that the proposed development will comply with the common
recreation and open space standards with respect to:
(a) Minimum area;
(b) Improvements required;
(c) Continuing use and maintenance; or
(d) Organization.
However, the Applicant MAY be able to demonstrate in the Preliminary Plan that the proposed
development will comply with the common recreation and open space standards.
STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall
consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the
recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection
Standards.
All referral comments shall be adhered to as conditions of either Sketch and/or Preliminary Plan
13
04-17-2001
approval.
[+] FINDING as conditioned: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)]
The PUD DOES demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis
documents available at the time the application was submitted, as well as the recommendations of
referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been
considered.
Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the
review of both a Sketch Plan, and Preliminary Plan for Subdivision:
STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.BJ.e (1)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan.
See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)]
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)]
The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, and it IS consistent with the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM).
STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The
proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of
these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone
Districts. and Article 4, Site Develovment Standards.
Article 4, Site Development Standards
[+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1)
[+] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4-2)
[+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3)
[+] as conditioned Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4)
[+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) -
[+] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) -
[+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430)-
[+ ] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440)
[+] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450)
[+] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460)
[+] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5)
[+] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6)
[+] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620)
[+] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630)
[+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640)
[+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650)
[+] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660)
[+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670)
[+] as conditioned Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680)
[+] as conditioned Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690)
[+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Fees will be collected
prior to Final Plat approval.
All findings under this standard are either favorable, favorable as conditioned, or do not apply to
this project. The Woodland Hills PUD will be subject to all of the requirements of a final PUD guide or
the Eagle County Land Use Regulations.
[+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)]
The Applicant HAS fully demonstrated that the proposed subdivision complies with all of the
standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not
limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development
14
04-17-2001
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.
(e) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the
entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service
into an otherwise un-served area.
By connecting to the existing infrastructure, this proposal will not cause inefficiencies, nor will it
be a leapfrog pattern of development. This application has also proposed future connections to adjacent
properties in that they have designed internal roadway connection stub outs to which future
developments can hook up to.
[+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)]
The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause
inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public
facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed
to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources
and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and
existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
[+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)]
The property proposed to be subdivided IS suitable for development, considering its topography,
environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of
the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area.
STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed
subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not
adversely affict the future development of the surrounding area.
The proposed development area is compatible with the majority of surrounding developments in
the area. See previous discussion.
[+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)]
The proposed subdivision IS compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and
SHALL NOT adversely affect the future development ofthe surrounding area.
Tom Boni, Knight Planning Services, was present for the hearing along with David Nudell, the
prime developer. He handed out an outline of the comments this afternoon.
David Nudell, a realtor with Prudential Gore Range Properties, stated he works primarily with
first time home buyers. He stated they are looking for ways to attract developers to affordable home
building sites. He stated they had used this property for a case study and has taken on this project. He
hired Peak Engineering and Knight Planning to help him craft this project to make it affordable.
Mr. Boni spoke first to the compatibility with the neighborhood. The intention is to try to bring
affordable housing to first time home owners. Firstly, he referred to an areal photo and showed the
Eagle River Mobile Home Park which has 380 mobile homes. It was first approved in 1970 or so. Since
then a lot has happened in Edwards. The treatment plant was constructed in 1983 and upgraded in 2000.
Cordillera started in 1987, Lake Creek Village came on line in 1992, St Clare' Parish Center became a
15
04-17-2001
reality in 1996 including affordable housing and a day care center. They have recently constructed an
elementary school and they have plans for a full parish and additional classrooms. Brett Ranch Villas
were constructed in 1997. Compliance with the Master Plans is another item to consider. He spoke to
the Eagle County Task Force and the Comprehensive Master Plan. In this case, the Master Plan shows
that this land is included within the Edwards Community center and the density is appropriate with that
outlined in the Master Plan. Environmental Quality is a part of the Master Plan and refers to the desire
to protect, maintain and enhance critical wildlife habitat. He spoke to the open space and recreation and
suggested this proposal is in accordance with those desires.
Development and Transportation were discussed and Mr. Boni spoke to the bus route on
Highway 6. He stated the service provided is frequent and in the peak hours there is ample service. He
spoke to the Edwards Area Community Plan of 1985 and showed the FLUM, Future Land Use Map and
the area adjacent to high density. He then referred to the sub-area planning for the Edwards area. The
map produced was a bubble diagram identifying concepts for different types of density. He showed the
I -70 corridor, the Spur Road connection and the Highway 6 corridor. This project lies adjacent to the
multi family designation. He spoke to the protection of certain resources within the valley, those being
the Eagle River corridor and terraces, the Lake Creek and Squaw Creek drainage as rural. He spoke to
the housing aimed at local residents which was a major component of the plan as well as the pedestrian
path system which has been partially implemented. He spoke to the Eagle County Comprehensive
Master Plan which comes into play. He spoke to some of the points of the housing plan. Under policies
it goes on to speak to collaboration and steps that should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership
by local residents and workers in Eagle County. The Open Space Plan is another plan to look at. This
plan includes within it the recommended allowance for active recreation. Lastly were points on smart
growth characteristics. He spoke to some of the articles written about smart growth. One thing that
came across was that transit oriented development is an important component. He spoke to the
environmentally conscientious development and the compact nature of the development. He stated there
is no need to extend water and sewer roads as they exist. This would provide attainable housing and is
pedestrian friendly. He then referred to the Edwards Access Control Plan and the Revised Site Plan.
The property is relatively sloped. Highway 6 currently has numerous access points and there are
recommendations to consolidate the access points. Full accell/decelllanes would be required. In the
future as development occurs to the east and west it could tie into the access points. Another feature is
the bike path connection and a health and jogging trail throughout the property. Since they initially
presented the plan they have worked with staff and the Planning Commission to address concerns. He
stated they have talked about various accesses which allowed them to change the orientation to some of
the buildings. Each of the buildings were located to maximize the views for privacy. Some of the units
are fourplexes maximizing the livability of the units. They propose 12 one bedroom units at 560 square
feet and 76 two bedroom units at 1050 square feet. Smaller size of units translates to fewer impacts.
One Planning Commission member suggested it is the equivalent to approximately a 6 dwelling unit per
acre size. He spoke to open spaces and pocket parks for toddlers as well as a central ballfield area for
pre-teens and informal recreation activities and a health trail system for adults. He spoke to the
Coordinated Access Plan used to eliminate driveway cuts. They feel the visual image of the frontage
road is less desirable than what they are proposing. He spoke to off site road impacts. Three parts
would take place. There is an overall obligation from the developer to contribute. 1) dedicating the
right of way to connect with adjacent properties to the east and west; 2) full compliance with off site
road impact fees and 3) contribution of an additional $1,000 per unit earmarked for Edwards Spur Road
Intersection. In any event, they are willing to participate in an area wide solution to address problems in
the future.
David Nudell spoke to a description of the product and market objective. He stated the one bed
room one car units at $136,000 are very unique to the valley. Two bedroom/two bath/two car garage
16
04-17-2001
units are unheard of in the valley. What exists today, there is one 1 bedroom/one bath on the market
East of Eagle. There are about 78 two bedrooms in the price range of $250,000 or less. There are a few
with garages, but they are small. He is trying to do an affordable project but also appropriate housing.
People need the space of garages for cars and storage. These units were designed to comply with the
housing guidelines and to work with the down payment and mortgage assistance programs. He read
from his handout, "local residents include those who live or work in Eagle County. Housing for local
residents is housing which serves the needs of three categories of households. These categories are
based on the earnings from average wage jobs in Eagle County. The first ofthe categories is households
with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job. The second is households with an
income equivalent to one to two average wage jobs. The last category is households with an income
equivalent to two to three average wage jobs. Local residents rental housing will have gross rents (rents
plus utilities) not exceeding 33% of gross income. Local residents for sale housing will have prices that
result in housing payments and homeowners association/condominium dues not totaling more than 33%
of gross household income, with a 5% down payment and a 30 year mortgage and the homes should be
built to an 80 rating on the Energy Rated Homes Scale. According to the Colorado Department of Labor
and employment, for the year 1999, the average wage earner in Eagle county brought home $28,854.00.
The figures for 2000 and of course 2001 are not out yet, but historically, these figures have risen
approximately 5.8% per year. Extrapolating in this way, the current average wage earner at the earliest
time these units can close (2002) should be bringing home approximately $34,171.00. He spoke to the
concern the Boards have had with approving developments of this sort. He is going to offer initial price
guarantees with permanent deed restrictions. The whole reason for deed restrictions for five years is to
avoid the quick flip of sales. He stated he is deed restricting 1/4 ofthe entire project. If the cost of
lumber or concrete goes up substantially or if there are restrictions placed before final plat he cannot
guarantee the prices. These are factory built units.
Mr. Boni asked to reserve final comments but if the Board has questions, they have finished their
first part of the presentation.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked for the sign up sheet for public comment. He stated there are
fifteen people to speak and they will make an effort to stay on schedule. He asked people to stay within
three minutes and not to reiterate items that have been discussed.
Steve Ruder, a valley resident his whole life and who owns the land to the west of this project,
stated he is absolutely for the project. All of the utilities are in with Highway 6 in place. He feels this is
the perfect area for this kind of a project. He has been an employer since 1966 and the toughest thing to
find are good employees. We need affordable housing that is good housing. Giving people a chance to
have that first time house, first property. He has looked at the situation where he has horses and runs his
excavating business from there. The biggest percentage of traffic on Highway 6 is construction traffic
for Cordillera. That will hopefully go away in time. He has looked at this project and thinks it is good
looking. 8 units per acre is fine and is less than what was proposed before. He feels something needs to
be done for the working people here.
Elizabeth Myers, a homeowner in Homestead and administrator for the Homestead Homeowners
Association, stated she has concerns with the affordabilty and questions the number per square foot. She
questions one bedroom units being starter homes. One very big concern is the congestion on Highway 6.
She stated she doesn't see the Cordillera traffic but that from the trailer park. All those extra cars
without a plan to change the Highway has her very concerned. She is concerned with precedence of high
density in Edwards.
Jeannie Hauff, a Homestead owner, asked ifthey can really afford to put 88 more units in this
location at this time for infrastructure. The schools, the roads and day cares are full. She suggested the
infrastructure needs to be there first. She spoke to Berry Creek 5th. To line up affordable housing and
increase the traffic and demands on the infrastructure must be considered before additional housing.
Lisa Carnes, a resident of 17 years, stated she doesn't understand the deed restrictions and
17
04-17-2001
questions the number of one bedrooms being deed restricted. She suggested she wouldn't want to
compete.
Bill Sepmeier, a valley resident for 16 years, stated he has followed this project since the
developer came to them. He is also on the Board of Berry Creek. They do not feel that this is an
appropriate plan. He stated it would make River Pines look good, and that's bad. He spoke to the traffic
problem and does not feel it appropriate to green light 200 more cars until they figure out what they are
going to do with traffic. He stated their job is not to green light every strip developer that comes along
with the inability to solve the traffic problems. He suggested people will boycott their tax payments
until something gets done.
Bobby Warner, an Edwards resident, stated this is a difficult project for him to complain about
considering his background and knowledge of the developers. He stated affordabilty is the question.
This property is $18,000,000 worth of sales with $1,000,000 in commissions. Today in the Vail Daily a
Vail Commons unit sells for $244,000. He explained how it must be done. The neighbors are going to
be in favor of it. This plan does not have cul-du-sacs. He handed out a sheet on the trailer park which is
119 acres. He thinks it is good that the hills are not littered with roads and houses. If you put 10 acres
per unit, the trailer park may do the same. If you do this project, you'll see the trailer park leave. He
spoke to density and the handouts he gave. He spoke to flood plain. Staff report says the density could
handle a 15,000 foot lot. That is erroneous. The minimum is 15,000 per unit not building. He stated
Knight Planning is here as hired guns. He questioned the Master Plan map and that it does not include
this plan. He spoke to increasing the density as they move away. He thinks this is a bad project, the
affordabilty and the tax figures being misleading.
Matt Lindvall, a resident for 30 years, stated the biggest complaint is traffic and the second being
affordabilty. He stated the roads are the same since he built his development. He doesn't think the
traffic will reduce when Cordillera is finished. There is a congestion problem and a service problem. To
continue to approve projects without addressing the concerns is tragic. He stated $240.00 per square
foot is expensive. He stated they can make housing affordable by making it truly affordable. Deed
restrictions mayor may not be helpful. The average American keeps their job for less than five years.
He doesn't think deed restriction is the answer. He spoke to his nephew who visited and questioned that
he used to live in the County. He asked they not increase the density.
Doris Dewton, president of Singletree Homeowners, stated Singletree's density is one unit per
acre. Three primary issues are affordabilty, traffic and density. First is affordabilty and with
appreciation at 3% per year, you'll have a hard time ever getting your next house. It will go up with the
general rate of inflation. She suggested the problem is the underlying land cost. The selling price of the
land is $3.2 million. Berry Creek 5th filing offers more diversity and more affordabilty. $214.00 per
square foot is beyond affordabilty. Traffic is an issue and the study done was pretty much outdated
before finished. That problem is not going away. She spoke to waiting at the exit ramp at I-70 for left
turns and that situation will only get worse. She spoke to density and the Edwards Area Sub Master
Plan. That plan should be respected. The 1980 Edwards development plan showed 3 units per acre.
She reviewed the other proposals on this land. She asked the Commissioners to look at the land use and
the work done by the Master Plan Committee and turn this plan down.
George Gregory, one of the Chairman of the Edwards Area Sub Area Plan, explained who those
people are that make up this committee. Bill Hoop, who is an owner ofthis subject property, Tom
Counter, Rick Mueller, Stan Anderson, Fritze Schmidt, Tony Barns, Patty Dorf, etc. etc. etc. He stated
they worked on this project for close to 19 months. Through evolution they have adopted, affirmed and
reiterated the 1988 plan which stops midway through the trailer park. The density out there was to be
rural. The update Task Force is opposed to this because of density and density alone. Ifthis project was
consistent with the plan, they would be endorsing it. The Master Plan is subservient to the Sub Area
Plan. He spoke to the campaign visions. A vision must have a plan. Without that they will have a
18
04-17-2001
valley that becomes undesirable. He stated 10 units to an acre is too much. He spoke to their request for
a meeting with the Board but they have been denied. He suggested had they been able to meet with the
Board and Staff they would be aware of the work they have done. This task force for density reasons
strongly recommend denial of the project.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked if the Sub Area Plan is part of the sketch.
Mr. Gregory stated this is a community core where the highest density is to occur and not to
increase like it would with ten units to the acre.
James Gilbert, a member of the task force, understands the need for low income housing in the
valley. As pointed out, the task force has spent the last year and a half approving a plan for
development. They include Cordillera, Lake Creek Singletree and Edwards Village. It is a premature
plan and may be needed. Whether this is right or it should be someplace else, $240.00 per square foot is
expensive. This is premature and it should be tabled or denied until the new plan for Edwards has been
approved.
John McCaulley, a citizen of Earth, stated he would like to talk about a plan and a greater future
for the Edwards area. They must stick to a plan. The former traffic plan done does need to be updated
and that by 2005 the intersection at Highway 6 and the Spur will be in a dangerous situation. He spoke
to Amendment 24 and the great debates. The current amendment is leaving the growth and sprawl
problems to the County Commissioners. He explained what sprawl is as being high density growth
continuing outside of the centers. He spoke to the egress on Highway 6 and the need to stick to the plan.
He spoke to water and the environment and the water system being designed to accommodate the
systems. The water treatment facility will provide as much water as it is capable of. He spoke to the
fishing habitat. He stated there must be a greater plan that identifies the future.
Jerry Tytuh, a developer and builder, stated he is concerned about employee housing and
understands the costs in trying to build affordable housing. He spoke to the architectural designs and the
associated costs and no consideration to keep the costs low. He sees that it is very difficult if not
impossible to get affordable housing. He suggested the location is in favor with this development. He
has the same problem with traffic in Eagle-Vail. Why put the employees way in Dotsero. He is in favor
with having higher density if it can be affordable. Traffic, traveling and schools are an issue.
Cheryl Sawtelle, a resident for 14 years, stated she has found that service is really lacking in our
community and some of her clients won't be returning. With affordable housing so close, it should be
approved. We have skier guests that won't come back because ofthe lack of service and it needs to be
addressed immediately.
Dave Lach, resident for 23 years and in Edwards for 18, stated he is in agreement with the
opposition with one being quality of life. Every day it diminishes. The infrastructure is failing as is the
sewer system. He spoke to an article in the Denver Post regarding polluters, Upper Eagle Valley is the
number one violator. He thinks the infrastructure isn't there and it is important if affordable projects are
approved they must remain affordable. He also believes that the Edwards Area Sub-Master Plan should
be followed. The core is the Spur Road. He spoke to the vacant land between the core and the trailer
park. He stated they need to look at the problems. Come up with a plan for the roads to handle the
traffic before increasing density away from the core area.
Mike Claymon, an Edwards resident for twelve years, stated this is the first hearing he has
attended. He spoke to the dog fight to get the kids into school and the traffic to and from. He stated he
can not imagine more traffic coming from the west. He is opposed to this project and supports the points
previously made. The density is to high, there is a lack of infrastructure on Highway 6 and in the
schools.
Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, responded to some ofthe statements made. He spoke to the bus
stops and the services that exists. He spoke to the cul-de-sacs and the desire to minimize the traffic.
With the onsite improvements they have handled the traffic issues. There are problems anticipated by
19
04-17-2001
2015 or 2020 whether they are here or not. Traffic studies have been done and improvements are
necessary. They tend to be a part of the solution. He spoke to area wide traffic mitigation. An overall
improvement plan is being studied and they want to be part of the solution. The problems are not
specific to this project, they are area wide. Peak area traffic they suggest they'd increase around 50 cars
per day during peak hours. They are not negatively effecting the traffic. Density has been discussed and
one thing they did with the site plan was staggering the units, providing view corridors, locating each
building in respect with the others. They took great care to do that and were complimented by the
Planning Commission for the new design. He stated they ultimately voted to approve this. Concerning
the Master Plan, they have heard many statements. They believe they fully conform. People rely on the
plan that fits the argument the best. They could have added more units physically but didn't feel that
appropriate. They feel they have addressed the issues and this is in compliance. Concerning the
precedence, they do conform with the Master Plan and if it were a precedence, it would be a good one.
They have spent considerable time working with staff and some of the changes have been implemented.
There is a great diversity in densities, housing types and neighborhoods. They think they are an
important part of the diversity in the Edwards area. He suggested they are a part of the neighborhood. If
not here, where? Utilities are in place, it is compatible with the neighborhood and they meet the site
issues. The logical place for this type of housing is near a community center. It is a feasible project and
it is doable. It is very difficult to put these together and come in with one that is doable. They have
taken care with the building design. It is his view that is the wave of the future. He stated it is quite easy
to object to a plan. He respects the neighbors who don't want this here. They will continue to meet with
the neighbors. They are requesting approval of the plan. He spoke to affordabilty and how much
restriction is enough. Some say deed restriction is a problem, others think it is the solution. They have a
mix as well as parks, bus stops, trails, etc. This is sketch plan and they do believe they meet the
standards.
Staff had no comments at this time.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher clarified the County is not in charge of setting water rates.
Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, spoke to the intersection failing in 2005. She stated that
was the Frederick R. Harris plan done last year. One is more updated than the next.
Commissioner Menconi asked for elaboration on that and since traffic was brought up, can Ms.
Migchelbrink address the grading's of the traffic levels. He stated he is concerned about the frontage
road on Highway 6 and I-70.
George Roussos, Asst. County Administrator, stated level of service is a standard form A to F. A
is free flowing. As people have to slow down, the can't get where they want, service is worse if you are
at level of service F. He stated they addressed the levels about four years ago. The County
Commissioners established a level of service C for roadways and D for intersections. He stated when
you fall below those standards you want to bring the infrastructure on line. There is a plan for the
Edwards area and they have been working to obtain a bridge grant for Cemetery Bridge. He spoke to the
State Access Code and the piecemeal of infrastructure. They have participated in the statewide planning
process. CDOT has not allocated as the funding pot is not big enough. The Edwards Spur Road is the
number two priority in the mountain region and is tied to an impact study to be completed in two years.
The situation gets worse for the Highway 6 project but there is no money to even address it. The
situation will get worse and will continue on this path. They may find themselves in a situation like I-
25.
Commissioner Menconi asked if people who are hearing the rumor that the traffic is horrible now
and is going to get worse are they going to ask people to leave the area. He spoke to the discussions of it
should have been stopped years ago and we wouldn't have what we have now. The other side is what
CDOT is proposing and he'd like a gauge as to where they are now. He asked if there is another way of
looking at it.
20
04-17-2001
Mr. Roussos suggested they can continue to try to become a higher priority as well as looking at
other possible solutions. One of the things they are looking at is a public improvement process and the
residents taking the matters and addressing them themselves.
Commissioner Menconi asked how they grade the level of use at the Edwards intersection.
Mr. Roussos stated at times it can go down to level of service E.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated they have not done a recent study. She stated except for peak time they
are operating at a functional level. It is functioning at a level of service that is adequate. There are
traffic problems and there are perceived traffic problems. Even if they shut the door or remove citizens,
the traffic will get worse. To say it is the worse right now, it is overstating the problems.
Commissioner Menconi asked if they can rate any other intersections that are similar.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated the intersection in El Jebel is equivalent.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked David Carter, Director of Housing, to speak and address the
affordabilty.
Mr. Carter stated first of all he wanted to express his compliments to David Nudell and to Knight
Planning for their presentation. In terms of the affordabilty there has been good discussion in the
audience. While the total unit price is an attractive number for the units, members have spoken well and
that because these are very small units there will be a high cost per square foot. In terms of the total cost
for the unit, it used to be when people talked about affordable housing there is no way to know what that
meant. The task force appointed by the Board of County Commissioners was to find what affordable
housing means. Tom Boni was part of the task force. He stated it is tied to the wages paid in this
County. This pretty much gives a way to knock out a number but leaves room for debate. Mr. Nudell
has a lower figure for taxes and homeowner fees for $50.00 per unit. There is a range. Although it is
possible to bring in good management for adequate reserves for repairs, it could be the $50.00 figure
might cover those costs. He suggested they would have to think closely about that. When a person goes
to the mortgage lender to get a loan, the lender will look at what they can comply with. If the fees are
higher, less can go to fees and interest. In the numbers he has with the one bedroom units being
affordable, they are high for one average wage household. The question that arises if one bedroom will
be defined for one person or two. The two bedrooms units are right on the edge and if homeowner fees
are higher they will be above what a two wage household can afford. He stated there has been a good
discussion about the capping of prices. A way to address this is the continuum housing. If that
continuum of housing is an alternative of renting, they become even less well off than units with price
cap. For a person who is a renter it starts them on the path. A concern that he has is one developer
coming to the County but then life can change. The person here today may not be the person that
ultimately builds. Whatever restrictions are in there must be locked in and become part of the PUD
agreement. Nobody knows the future and if the market turns down, the subsequent applicants must be
bound by the same agreements. That is very difficult to do and there is quite a risk, but there is return
for accepting the risk. The short term nature of the deeds from three years to five, he thinks they all tend
to think in a relatively short time frame. He thinks it is a concern when the developer builds a project
and then it flips. He thinks the restrictions should be indefinite for future home ownership.
Commissioner Menconi asked Ms. Migchelbrink if given the conversation they have had on
traffic what type of impact will this development have on the Edwards area.
Ms. Migchelbrink stated she has not seen a traffic study and though she knows what the numbers
are on Highway 6,880 trips would add less than 10% of the current traffic load. She stated they have
not completed the traffic plan.
Mr. Roussos stated this is more like 5.74 trips per unit.
Commissioner Menconi asked about responses to the Master Plan or any of the Edwards Sub
Area Master Plans. The findings are that it is in compliance. He asked Mr. Narracci to speak to that.
Mr. Narracci stated the Edwards plan, which is the 1985 plan, was adopted 16years ago. There
has been an ongoing effort to update the plan but it has not been approved. They were given the
21
04-17-2001
direction to hold off until the legislation is determined. They do have the draft working maps but they
were never signed by the Planning Commission. It is also missing some density figures. He stated the
Master Plan does address and identify this area with a density of 3 to 12 dwelling units per acre. They
did believe the compatibility already exists due to the other multi-family projects and the trailer park.
He spoke to the RSL zoning and the table of clustering. They believe the table is misprinted and that if
you read it as Mr. Warner does, it amounts to a penalty of using the clustering process. Further in the
regulation it states when there is a difference of opinion between the text and table, the text overrides.
He spoke to the calculation for road area and converted the acres into square feet which turn out one
getting 22 to 23 15,000 square foot lots. That would be the same 88 units that are being proposed.
Commissioner Menconi asked on affordabilty he referred to Avon Crossing and the sale prices
from $190,000 to $220,000. He stated the homeowners dues there are approximately $275.00 per
month. He stated he is not sure how they are coming up with the $50.00 per month.
David Nudell stated the $50.00 would be for one bedroom and $100 for two bedroom units.
Each unit would pay for their own gas. The vinyl siding will last 30 years or more so monies can be put
aside for when improvements are necessary. They have found that dues have increased with the older
projects when they have not put the money aside resulting is special assessments or raised dues. They
would agree to have capital assessment from the beginning.
Commissioner Menconi suggested backing out the gas prices, he still doesn't see the $100.00 per
month but more around $200.00. He doesn't understand how this can be called affordable when Brett
Ranch had sales of $220,000 and $230,000 when they have greater square footage. They do have more
garage space, but when you do a conservative estimate you are getting $20,000 more or less of profit.
He asked what they see as the profit being netted on the project.
Mr. Nudell stated that is a hard question to answer. He spoke to cost overruns and expenses
coming into play. He stated because they have the sewer that will cost them as will the accellldecell. He
would like to be able to build the thing to come out whole.
Commissioner Menconi asked if he owns the property.
Mr. Nudell stated he has a contract.
Commissioner Menconi asked if he has done a proforma.
Mr. Nudell stated he has and the optimistic ones show a profit and the not so optimistic show a
break even.
Commissioner Menconi suggested to make this project work, they have tried to plan
conservatively to come in under and create an affordable development. He asked what the cost per
square foot will be for the building.
Mr. Nudell suggested $65.00 to $75.00 just for the building. That is not counting all of the extra
things. Not the garages, the dormers, the stairwells, the decks. Those are all extras.
Commissioner Menconi stated they are trying to create some sort of distinction. He has
experienced a number of units coming in lower than what he is proposing and they weren't sold or
represented as affordable housing units. He spoke to the letters and those wanting a development for
their employees, but those have been on the market for some time and are waiting to be sold. They
might be proposing a development that might be priced out of the market.
Mr. Nudell stated representing first time home buyers people want a two car garage. He would
say at Avon Crossing where Mr. Menconi lives, the garages are packed with stuff and the parking is
outside. He is building 27 foot long two car garages for those units and he doesn't believe they will sit
on the market.
Commissioner Menconi spoke to Mountain Glen and asked if there is a distinction.
Mr. Nudell stated he came into this wanting to build something that is affordable for Eagle
County. Those were the Eagle County Housing Department's figures and took the statistics of what
people make. He used those numbers to price this accordingly. These are affordable within the
guidelines of the definition. It is also private sector housing. He is coming in here not asking for the
22
04-17-2001
land or breaks on soft costs. He is doing the whole thing and it is a different animal.
Commissioner Menconi asked the location of those priced at $220,000. He spoke to the deed
restricted units and the affordabilty down the road. He stated 10 units of the 76 are going off the
$225,000.
Mr. Nudell stated that average price would be $235,000. He stated the deed restriction was a
suggestion of the Planning Commission to avoid the quick flip phenomenon. At $135,000 deed
restriction makes sense over renting. He spoke to the benefits at the $135,000 level. At $200,000 or
above, the permanent may not make sense but would discourage the quick flip.
Commissioner Menconi spoke to the Planning Commission vote and he understood from Mr.
Warner the people in favor were not so confident of the project. One from Mr. Warner about the future
and no obligation the mobile home park will stay as a mobile home park. He reviewed some ofthe other
comments, one being a fix to the traffic problem. One wanting to see an increase in the time limits on
deed restrictions. One against was density and that being a factor and concern with the domino effect of
density.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked when that was.
Commissioner Menconi stated April 4, 2001.
Tom Boni stated in comments regarding traffic, they would like to recommend a tabling to come
up with additional material on housing and on traffic.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked if they should add to the list of questions. He asked about the
size of the park.
Mr. Boni stated about 'li acre. It would be informal pre-teen recreation.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked about adult recreation.
Mr. Boni stated there will be a path and the interconnection with the parks.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked about the trail and that it appears to dead end. He spoke to
the comment in the presentation about the side roads serving the neighborhood without getting on
Highway 6. He asked where those will be.
Mr. Boni suggested time will move along and other developments will occur. The idea was to
pick a central location as the neighbors don't have plans at this stage. There is movement from the west
to the east and a concept of bringing in limited access from other developments. He showed the
connections.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked if there are any provisions in the Master Plan that address this
area.
Ms. Skinner stated the Master Plan is very brief and speaks to populations in the area. The
density speaks to Lake Creek and Squaw Creek.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked ifthere are other provisions that apply to this lot. He
reminded the applicant about the 1041 permit that would be required and the Master Plans are regulatory
not advisory. He stated he would like to understand the deed restriction and the ease of the quick flip.
What he hears about the market that is not likely. He asked if in three or five years it is sold at market.
Mr. Nudell stated the explosion of the price is not one of his major concerns as he believes a two
bedroom unit will have a limited price. fhe deed restriction was offered to address the concerns the
Planning Commission had. He thinks is offering a better project.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher po nted out he could not afford a two bedroom on his salary as a
Commissioner. He asked if there is ad te to table this to.
Commissioner Menconi stated e will not be here on the 8th and asked for the 15th to be
considered.
Commissioner Menconi moved hat the Board of County Commissioners table File No. PDS-
00028, Woodland Hills PUD Sketch Pl n, until May 15,2001.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher se. onded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
23
04-17-2001
PDS-00023, Vail Christian High School
Matt Gennett presented file number PDS-00023, Vail Christian High School. They asked that
this item be tabled indefinitely.
Commissioner Menconi moved to table file PDS-00023 Vail Christian High School to a date to
be determined by the applicant.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
SE-00024, Fields Parcel Exemption Plat
Peter Boyer, Planner, presented file number SE-00024, Fields Parcel Exemption Plat. He stated
the intent of this Plat is to exempt the Fields Parcel from the Subdivision Regulations.
The chronology of this application is as shown on staff report and as follows:
The parcel was created by deed and recorded in 1973, and there was a house built upon the parcel
in 1983.
Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows:
Pursuant to Section 5-270, Subdivision Exemption, ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations:
1. This parcel was created and established in the records of the Clerk and Recorder prior to
August 22, 1984 notwithstanding compliance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations in existence at
the time of the creation of the parcel.
2. A certified survey of the parcel has been submitted which includes a legal description meeting
the minimum requirements of a Land Survey Plat pursuant to 38-51-106 C.R.S., and all record and
apparent rights of way, easements and monumentation are indicated on the Plat.
3. Legal and physical access to a public right of way by a conventional vehicle has been
demonstrated.
4. The land proposed for exemption has a legal, physical, adequate, and dependable potable
water supply.
5. The land proposed for exemption has a waste water disposal system, or other lawful means of
disposing of human wastes that complies with all public health laws.
6. Satisfactory evidence has been provided demonstrating that the exemption will not create
hazards, and the lot does contain a safe, adequate building site.
Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. SE-00024, Fields Parcel Exemption
Plat, incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the Plat.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
PDF-00067, Snowberry Subdivision Final Plat
Peter Boyer presented file number PDF-00067, Snowberry Subdivision Final Plat. He stated the
intent of this Final Plat is to subdivide Tract K-M (Bachelor Gulch Village Filing No.3) into two single
family lots, six duplex lots, and a common area.
Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.5.b(3), Final Plat for Subdivision, of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations:
1. This final plat does conform with the approved Preliminary Plan for Subdivision. No
outstanding issues remain.
2. A Subdivision Improvements Agreement for improvements associated with this Final Plat was
entered into on July 26, 1999.
24
04-17-2001
3. Areas dedicated for public use and easements are acceptable and;
Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3(e), Subdivision Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use
Regulations:
Consistent with the Master plan. The proposed subdivision is consistent with the Eagle County
Master Plan and the Future Land Use Map of the Master Plan.
Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision does comply with all
applicable standards and provisions of the Land Use Regulations, including but not limited to, the
applicable standards of Article 3, Zone D~stricts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards.
Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. The proposed subdivision is located and designed to avoid
creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, require duplication or
premature extension of public facilities, err result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development.
Utility and Road Extensions. Prqposed utility extensions are consistent with the utility's service
plan or shall be required prior to County approval of an amendment to the service plan.
Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines are sized to serve the planned ultimate population of
r
the service area to avoid future land disrUption which would occur if under-sized lines had to be
upgraded.
Coordinate Utility Extensions. 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.
Suitability for Development. The property proposed to be subdivided is suitable for
development, considering its topography~ environmental resources and natural, or human-made hazards
that may effect the potential development of the property, as well as existing and probable future public
improvements to the area.
Compatible with Surrounding Uses. The proposed subdivision is compatible with the character
of existing land uses in the area and does not adversely effect the future development of the surrounding
area.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher asked if it is typical of a developer to come in piece meal.
Mr. N arracci stated his suggestio is that they get more detail in a site plan to show how a parcel
will be laid out. They are coming in aft r the fact to develop the lots lines.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher as d if everything not in the lot is open space.
Mr. Narracci stated that is the ca e.
Commissioner Menconi moved e Board approve File No. PDF-00067 incorporating the
findings and authorize the Chairman to ign the plat.
Chairman Pro-tern Gallagher se nded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote
was declared unanimous.
I
There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until
April 24, 2001.
Attest:
Clerk to the Boa a
~c~
Chairman
25
04-17-2001