Loading...
Minutes 05/28/2002 PUBLIC HEARING MAY 28, 2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone T om Moorhead Jack Ingstad Sara 1. Fisher Chairman Commissioner Commissioner 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: Executive Session Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was an Executive Session. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn into an Executive Session for the purpose of receiving legal advice on real property acquisition which is an appropriate topic for discussion pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4 )(b), Colorado Revised Statutes. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Roaring Fork Housing Authority Initiative Chairman Gallagher stated the next item on this mornings agenda is the Roaring Fork Housing Authority Initiative update. Colin Laird, Healthy Mountain Communities, spoke to a letter on the creation of a Regional Housing Authority. He stated they are working to create an Intergovernmental Agreement and are attempting to obtain an elected official to sit on the steering committee. He stated the steering committee would focus on creating a multi-jurisdictional entity that would administer deed restricted affordable housing in the Roaring Fork Valley. There is new legislation passed last year that does allow for multi-jurisdictional authorities. There are some organizations that are working on the affordable housing issue. He related he is available for questions. Commissioner Stone stated he would volunteer himself to be on that committee as he is Commissioner for that district and he believes this is a great effort and would like to see it move forward. He stated the Board may find consistency in both valleys. Chairman Gallagher thanked Commissioner Stone and stated they will take care of that at their next meeting by resolution. He commended Mr. Laird on his efforts. Eagle-Vail Half Diamond Interchange Chairman Gallagher stated the next item on the agenda is a discussion of the Eagle-Vail Half Diamond Interchange. He explained this is a proposal by CDOT to build a half of an interchange in the Eagle-Vail business area. They have asked the Commissioners for their comments. He stated since none of the Commissioners are highway engineers, nor do they live in Eagle Vail. They are asking those who it concerns to comment. He stated CDOT is here today and they will first be given an opportunity to share why this should happen. He would then like the public to share their input. He stated later today they will have the opportunity to review a resolution concerning this matter. Commissioner Stone thanked everyone for coming. He stated this is an unusual situation for 1 05-28-2002 them and for CDOT. He stated he would like to thank Tom Norton and his crowd for slowing this down and hearing it at the 11 th hour. He spoke to this being an emotional issue but asked that they have a good civil discourse today. Commissioner Menconi asked the record show that he was just informed over the weekend that they would be looking at three different resolutions which are not in their packet. He stated it was his understanding that this started last week between Mr. Stone and Eagle-Vail Homeowners Association at their meeting. He spoke to events that took place over the weekend. He stated only until this weekend was he notified that his opinion was necessary to CDOT. Chairman Gallagher stated it came as a surprise to all of them and they all received the same notice. It came as a surprise to them that CDOT chose to listen. He stated he spoke with Mr. Norton last Tuesday concerning the Edwards problem. Commissioner Menconi asked if the Commissioners will have an opportunity during this forum to question Mr. Trapani and others. Chairman Gallagher stated of course they will. He stated he questioned Mr. Norton about having a half diamond one place and a full diamond elsewhere. He asked CDOT to come forward. Ralph Trapani, Program Engineer with CDOT in Glenwood Springs, stated he was asked to attend this meeting on Friday afternoon. He stated this project was created in the early 80's and in 1991 they identified the Eagle-Vail area. In 1994 the full diamond and half diamond were recommended. In 1996 this plan also appeared in the Town of Avon's transportation plan update. He spoke to the plan created by Eagle County, which is where the interchanges were identified and done so to improve the infrastructure. He read from the report which stated it was the best access and would provide the best overall service. He spoke to the benefits being the reduction of traffic in Dowd Junction, improved access and it will distribute traffic from the Avon and Eagle-Vail areas. He spoke to providing a reduction in traffic on the sub-standard Dowd Junction Interchange, which is probably decades away from any improvements. It will improve operation and safety along Avon Road by allowing another interchange to allow distribution of traffic to 1-70. It will allow reduced congestion. He stated it does have some environmental benefits by reducing air pollution. In addition to the project itself, they worked with the Eagle-Vail Community last summer and last fall. He spoke to the bus pullouts, new traffic signals, crosswalk improvements, all timed to maintain a high level of service and improve drainage. He spoke to the history of the traffic analysis. He stated there were some arguments about the time span. He spoke to the work they did in 2001 to validate the analysis of traffic patterns. It is believed the travel patterns previously done were valid in 2001. He spoke to the public outreach campaign. He spoke to the concerns that the half diamond is not needed with the full diamond being one mile away. He stated the projects are put together because they work together. He stated there are a lot of improvements that need to be made. He stated this is just one part of the network. He spoke to the NIP A documentation and did include all the environmental receptors that are normally considered. He stated their evaluation is that there are no significant impacts. He spoke to the concern with increased traffic on Highway 6. He stated there will indeed be an increase, but that will happen with or without the interchange. He spoke to the proposed Village at Avon. He stated Highway 6 will have traffic based on the land use approvals and developments. He stated provisions are being made to provide additional capacity and flow problems to Highway 6. He spoke to a new signal and wider pavement at Stone Creek Drive and the widening of the golf cart underpass. He spoke to the noise analysis and that they are all below what they can mitigate. He stated there will be a lot of other points. He stated this is the 11 th hour and the project is to go to bid this Thursday. He stated he has followed this for a long time and has seen no new information to kill the project. He suggested if this project is killed, many of these folks will be looking for it in five years. He stated the traffic is going to increase on Highway 6 with or without it. He spoke to the improvements and the mitigation on Highway 6. He stated the accessability to the Eagle-Vail neighborhood will improve that neighborhood. He stated he has been with CDOT for 26 2 05-28-2002 e years. He stated he did not survive in this business by building projects that are turkeys. He stated this is a necessary project. He spoke to the Wal-Mart and Home Depot which are happening and on their way. He stated without this project, the community will be kicking itself for not opening this half diamond. He stated it is an opportunity to mitigate the congestion that will follow. Chairman Gallagher thanked Mr. Trapani for his time today and for his dedication to CDOT and to Eagle County. He asked for some explanation of the half diamond. Mr. Trapani stated the full diamond and the travel demand associated with that at Nottingham, is a mitigation measure for the construction of that project. He stated they need to look at these as a system offering additional access to 1-70. He suggested someone going from Eagle-Vail to Vail will not go to the full interchange, nor do they want to go to Dowd Junction, which is substandard. He stated it is in rough shape. To reconstruct it they have the railroad, the river, two major land slides, etc. He stated the half diamond is more of a reliever for the community. The full diamond at Nottingham will service that new development. Commissioner Stone noted that they not only appreciate Mr. Trapani's work but they have a Resolution commending his efforts to consider today. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the 1997 report. He stated the issues that he has been trying to figure out begin on page 28 of the report. He is assuming they make assumptions based on traffic patterns and growth. With that, they determine the priority of the need for a project. He asked him to explain how supportive is a half diamond interchange in relationship to a full diamond interchange. Mr. Trapani stated he is looking at the year 2020 projections for the various alternatives. He spoke to the travel demand in the year 2020. He stated if you just build the full diamond the traffic on the Nottingham interchange will be about 7000 cars per day more than it would be if the half diamond was built. On Dowd Junction, with construction of the full diamond, there would be approximately 20,900 vehicles per day. If both diamonds are constructed, that number will be dropped to 14,500 vehicles per day. He stated with the construction of both the full and half diamonds they will see less traffic on the full diamond and the Dowd Junction interchange. The Avon Road interchange, with construction of the full diamond, they are looking at about 24,000 vehicles everyday. He stated what happens when you build both, it relieves a small amount oftraffic at Avon and particularly at Down Junction. He stated these figures have been validated recently. Commissioner Menconi asked if that is the process they start to take when validating a change to any road. He stated he is unclear as how the numbers get developed nor is he clear on the level of benefit. He spoke to the 35% growth on Highway 6 in 2020. He asked what that looks like. Mr. Trapani stated that looks like unacceptable levels of service. He spoke to how they do their analysis. He stated they measure the function to the level of service. A level of service F is bumper to bumper. A level of service C is a pretty good flow. He stated his recollection is the level of service on Highway 6 without the half diamond will be at level of service E in 2020. If both are constructed it will be more around a D. Commissioner Menconi asked what would it be ifthere is less than 35% increase with the half diamond being built. Mr. Trapani stated it will be a slight decrease, but not enough to kick it back into a level of service C. Commissioner Menconi suggested according to Mr. Trapani this has to be looked at as a system. He spoke to the benefits for each and questioned how these came about, State Government or County Commissioners. He stated on the transportation planning region there are elected officials and staff and through that process they vie for which projects to put into the stiff. Mr. Trapani stated the needs are always way more than the budgets allow. Commissioner Menconi stated the negotiations move through the steps and the committees review the proposals. This has now reached the top of the stiff. 3 05-28-2002 Mr. Trapani stated this project actually went to bid last fall. Commissioner Menconi asked if it is common knowledge that the monies can not be earmarked for elsewhere. Mr. Trapani stated the half diamond was funded out of the Strategic Corridor program. If this project were to be killed it would go back into a pot to be used elsewhere. He stated as the project engineer, there are no other projects for Eagle County on line. He stated it is very hard to resurrect another project once one has been killed. He stated it is always CDOT's desire to put the money where it can be used. He spoke to Highway 82 and the difficulties they have had there. He stated there have been tens of millions dollars that have gone away. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the meeting with Jack Taylor and the Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District. He stated Senator Taylor spoke to an agreement worked out with CDOT and the Metro District to do some improvements on Highway 6. Mr. Trapani stated they did some ofthose improvements last year. He read what those improvements were. He stated those agreements were made and he applauds Senator Taylor for coming m. Commissioner Menconi asked approximately how many dollars have been spent Keith Powers, Engineer with Colorado Department of Transportation, stated they have spent about $350,000 on improvements thus far and are about $700,000 invested in Engineering as well as $600,000 in various studies. Mr. Trapani stated that's about $1.5 million so far. He stated that money is spent, it is gone. Commissioner Stone asked if accidents are associated with interchanges. He asked could additional traffic accidents happen because of the changes. Mr. Trapani stated in his experience no. He stated if anything, it is usually at the end of the ramps, but in general he has not seen increases in accidents. He thinks Dowd Junction will see a decrease. Commissioner Stone questioned increases where the off ramp meets up with Highway 6. Mr. Trapani stated the question was asked in a broad range and was answered that way. He stated with the traffic signals being installed, it should reduce the number of accidents. He stated when you put in a signal you see a sometime increase. Commissioner Stone asked where the accidents are located at Down Junction. Mr. Powers stated the eastbound on ramp and west bound off ramp at Highway 6. He stated the east bound off ramp has some conflicts as well. Chairman Gallagher asked, given the time limits, if they could begin with a representatives from bodies politic. He asked if any are here to speak for those entities if he could see a show of hands. Mayor Judy Yoder, Town of Avon, stated she does support the half diamond and they believe that it is the right thing. She stated the biggest thing they have is a concern for their relationship with CDOT. She asked they consider that injury Ralph Dockery, President of the Eagle-Vail Properties Owners Association, spoke to the comments by Tom Norton and that he has some concerns. He stated Eagle-Vail is at build out. He stated another quote is the traffic increasing 35% by 2020. He believes it will increase sooner than later if the half diamond is built. He spoke to the traffic accidents on 1-70 and that those on the off and on ramps are far fewer than on the Interstate. He doesn't see those being eliminated by the half diamond. He does not see how this eleviates any problems and what the full interchange in Avon will do. He stated with the buildout of Avon Village and the commercial and residential units, the full diamond will service that. He stated he does not believe a cost benefit analysis justifies this. He thinks the $6,000,000 could be better spent else where in Colorado. Commissioner Gallagher asked Mr. Dockery to speak to the agreement with Eagle-Vail and CDOT. 4 05-28-2002 o Mr. Dockery stated he was not present and he believes they met with CDOT understanding that this was a done deal. He was told the $350,000 came out of the general fund, but actually it comes from the maintenance fund. Jay Halbert, Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District, stated he went door to door on his campaign and the majority of the people of Eagle-Vail do not want this interchange. He stated all this is, is a shortcut from the east into Avon Village. He stated it is going to increase traffic in their neighborhood. They only have a handful of lots left for sale. He stated he doesn't think it is their problem that Dowd Junction was built poorly. He believes this will bring more traffic to their residential area. Chairman Gallagher asked about the injury to Eagle-Vail from more traffic. Mr. Halbert stated they have heard that they will widen Highway 6 to four lanes eventually. He stated if they put the half diamond in, they will increase the traffic traveling to Eagle-Vail. Chairman Gallagher asked again what is the injury. Mr. Halbert stated the injury is the increase in traffic of 35% almost immediately. He stated it will bring that much more traffic. Trucia Lucero-Blakie, Eagle-Vail Homeowners Association, stated they have fourteen bus stops between Dowd Junction and Edwards. She stated those individuals are encouraged to use public transportation. She stated it is difficult enough to get to the bus stops. She spoke to the tourists that are using the rental properties. She stated you can't get across Highway 6 as it is. She stated there are currently 9,900 vehicles going through Eagle-Vail right now. She stated the statistics said in 2020 without either ofthe interchanges the increase will be 14,400. With both ofthose the numbers it will be 26,000 per day. She stated as a homeowner, to get out of the neighborhood, she will have to challenge another 7,000 vehicles everyday. She stated when they have the half diamond they will be in their neighborhood. She suggested it will cut off the businesses from traffic. She asked how the kids will get across the road. Who will protect those who use it. She spoke to reading in the paper that they will loose the bike paths. She stated they have been told from the beginning that there is nothing they can do. She stated no one has ever asked for their opinion. 68% of the homeowners do not want this proposal. Chairman Gallagher stated they have about twenty minutes left. Commissioner Menconi asked about Mr. Dockery indicating the studies were done in the early 1990's. Mr. Trapani stated he found documents dating back to the early 1990 then again in 1997 and 1998. In 2001 they reviewed the studies and applied current trends to find they are the same. Commissioner Menconi suggested with the full diamond and the half diamond it appears to him it will increase the traffic. Mr. Trapani stated the full diamond is under construction and the development is a done deal. He stated with or without the half diamond you see minimal differences on Highway 6 in 2020. Commissioner Menconi asked when the Town of Avon approved Avon Village, and was that contingent on the half diamond. Mr. Trapani stated he is not aware of what contingencies were placed. He stated when CDOT approached Washington, they understood that the half and full diamonds were a system. Commissioner Stone spoke on behalf of Tom Backhas who is an Eagle-Vail resident and in support of the half diamond. Art Alplanalp, property owner and resident of Eagle-Vail, stated he was on the Board of Directors when this was requested from the State of Colorado. He stated at the time, the full diamond interchange was that with which they had concerns. He stated it was deemed proper at the time, ten years ago. He spoke to Highway 6 being a Federal Highway. He stated they chose to live next to this. Eagle- Vail went in well after this was designated as a Highway. He stated the accidents at Dowd Junction happen and it is a death trap. He stated this proposal has two important safety components. 5 05-28-2002 One is taking the traffic out of Dowd Junction and two, getting traffic controls in Eagle-Vail and Highway 6. He stated if you are sitting in Eagle-Vail during busy traffic periods you know what the issues are. He stated when this was advertised it was done to stop the interchange. Jim Potter, a Eagle-Vail resident for twenty four years, spoke to discussions with Ralph Trapani and Keith Powers. He stated Keith spoke mainly to the transportation needs, reducing congestion and improving safety. He suggested a compromise would be a 1/4 interchange with an on ramp. He stated he had this conversation a couple of weeks ago because if they find in the future an off ramp is needed, it should be done at the same time they widen Highway 6. He stated it is a shame that the Mayor of Avon and the people of Colorado have to be concerned about the relationship with CDOT. He stated he sometimes wonders if CDOT forgets the taxpayers are the Board of Directors. Charlie Penwill, resident of Eagle County for thirty years, stated he was in Eagle County when I -70 came over the pass. He spoke to the benefits and the baggage. He spoke to the urbanization and suburbanization. He stated the solutions of common place are not appropriate for Eagle County. He spoke to the people who come here to escape the urban environments in which they lived. He spoke to the roundabouts. He stated to put in a half diamond, it is there forever and very hard to make beautiful. He stated the full diamond needs to be built and evaluated for effectiveness. Second, they need to solve the problem in Dowd Junction and third to find unique and suitable solutions to our traffic problems and do not drive away the people who are the life blood ofthis County. If those things don't work, go back to the half diamond. Betsy Foley, Eagle-Vail resident and mother of two small children, stated she is concerned about the extra traffic and accessability. She spoke to fixing Dowd Junction and flashing lights. Kent Mason, homeowner in Eagle-Vail, stated he does travel Dowd Junction and speed is the number one factor through there. He stated he thinks the attitude of CDOT is a shame. He is concerned that the Mayor of Avon is concerned with future projects. Brian Wodell, Edwards residents, voiced his support. He stated whatever happens with the outcome today, the Board will not allow this to be a divided solution. He supported what Mr. Penwill had to say. Linda Miller, county resident for twenty two years, stated she is in support of the full and half diamond interchange. She stated that this is not just an Eagle-Vail issue. She stated she is concerned with the way the meeting has come about. She stated adding another interchange will help take some of the gridlock out of some ofthe other areas. She spoke to the coming of! -70 and the survival of those who did not want it at the time. Growth is here to stay even with well intentioned growth plans. She questioned turning something down at this time which will be more difficult and more expensive later on. Buz Reynolds, Avon Town Board, stated he is in favor ofthe interchange. He stated this provides additional options and will give them another avenue to make the traffic flow better. Larry Brooks, Assistant Town Manager, Town of Avon, stated he has known Ralph Trapani for more than the twelve years they have been talking about. He stated mobility will be our next greatest challenge. Affordable housing is secondary. He stated the options and the corridors they have available to them will either make or break them. Chairman Gallagher asked Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, how they might be able to amend the agenda. Mr. Ingstatd recommended they rearrange the rest of the agenda to try and hear as many of the public as they can. Commissioner Stone moved to amend the Board of County Commissioners Agenda to continue the discussion on the Interchange until 11 :40 a.m. at which time the Board would take up 9A and 9B, Liquor License items, followed by lOA and lOB. The Board will postpone the remainder of the agenda to 1 :00 p.m. and take up the consent agenda. 6 05-28-2002 Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. In discussion, Michael Jewitt, area resident, stated he has a concern with cutting off public comment. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Steve Sheldon, an urbanite that relocated here a year ago, stated they chose Eagle County as it appears to put people first. He spoke to the dumping of an interchange on top of these peoples homes. Scott Smith, a resident of Eagle-Vail, stated the map, if enlarged, shows disproportionate distances in the project. He questioned why they need to break from the norm and direct traffic in a disproportionate level. He spoke to the routing of commercial traffic away from the area. He stated he takes offense to the statement that improvements will not be made to Highway 6 if the interchange is not made. He suggested 1-70 was not built to supplement Highway 6 but to replace it. He stated Highway 6 is a catalyst to local home access in Eagle-Vail. Starla Lipman, area resident, stated she appreciates CDOT's perspective of this regarding the Highway. She stated she also appreciates the Mayor's political perspective. She stated she has lived in Eagle-Vail for three years. She is the mother of two teenagers who like to drive. She moved here from Boulder, ten digit dialing and stop signals. She stated the additional traffic signals are not a good thing. She stated she does not believe this is a case of not in my backyard. She spoke to living in Eagle-Vail and west Eagle-Vail and the noise from Highway 6. She now lives in east Eagle-Vail, not far from where this is proposed. She stated she can live with the noise for three more years. The noises from 1- 70 are incredible. She stated twenty years ago, noise was not such an issue. Brian Donaldson, Eagle-Vail Property Owners Association, stated he is sorry this discussion didn't happen before now. He stated the traffic on Highway 6 creates noise and other polutants. He stated he lives next to Highway 6. He stated increasing the traffic will make living there less enjoyable. He spoke to his three children and the youngest trying to cross Highway 6. He stated had CDOT and the County come to Eagle-Vail with mitigation in place, they would try to find compromise. He stated he adamently opposes the interchange. He welcomed anyone and everyone to come to his home and see the impacts. He spoke to the speed limits through the area and that it is unacceptable and unsafe. He stated if you dehumanize this and only look at vehicles it is an unacceptable solution. He stated people will be adversely effected by the traffic. Ken Marchetti, Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District, spoke to the studies performed and how they all relate to 1-70. He stated they need to figure out the solution to Highway 6 before building the interchange. He stated though it is a US Highway, it is a main thoroughfare for local traffic. He suggested they could get the Highway 6 study completed and then look at the access to 1-70. They would then have the data and the full diamond will have been constructed. Bruce Beckwith, a resident of Eagle-Vail, stated he has five points. He spoke to the full diamond at Avon Village. He stated the traffic increase will not only be from Vail going west but from down valley going east. He stated when they talk of safety on 1-70 it seems disconcerting they will have four acelleration lanes and four decelleration lanes. Traffic moving to the right and slowing down and trying to get off the Interstate creates a hazard. He thinks it is proper to take into consideration the human residential safety concerns. He stated the real solution is to address the problem at Dowd Junction and not merely create additional exits and entrances to the Interstate. Helen Beckwith, resident of Eagle- Vail and a nurse at Vail Valley Medical Center, spoke to her use of the bus and that it is very dangerous to cross Highway 6 to the bus stops. Mike Matsco, a resident of Eagle-Vail, first of all thanked CDOT for completing the improvements thus far. He stated mention has been made of access to Vail. He stated it would be interesting to know what portion of the people will be for Beaver Creek and the Confluence. He stated if Dowd is substandard today, it has only recently been considered for future improvements. He doesn't doubt that Dowd Junction will take more time and money than this interchange. He questioned the 7 05-28-2002 improvements not happening if the interchange is not built. He stated quality of life is what most people are here for. He wonders what the County gains overall. He asked that they consider alternatives. He stated it is the local trips and the use that will reduce the traffic. Elliot Mason, a resident of Eagle- Vail, stated he has followed this for a long time. He stated he is an engineer and has a few alternative suggestions. He suggested they look at a full diamond interchange at Metcalf and Nottingham Road. He suggested that would divert both east and west traffic around Avon Road. He suggested they could connect east Beaver Creek Road with a traffic circle south ofthe Avon interchange. The question was asked, "what is the injury to Eagle-Vail?" He stated the injury, and he is quoting Ralph Trapani, "removal of homes, businesses, bike and pedestrian space, the half diamond will accommodate 70% of future traffic demands for Avon and surrounding areas." He does not think that should be up to Eagle-Vail. Walter Allen, Board Member of the Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District, stated he was present at the meeting with CDOT and the Board of County Commissioners. He stated the repaving of Highway 6 was a response to a poor job having been done previously. He asked them to focus on mitigation for the Eagle-Vail residents. Julie Newlan, resident of Eagle-Vail, stated they are talking about four exits in four miles. She is against the half diamond and if as reported this morning, it minimally addresses safety concerns. Kathleen Walsh, area resident, is in full support of the half diamond. She stated there has never been input from people in support. Crossing Highway 6 is a problem, but that has nothing to do with the half diamond. She spoke to underpasses/overpasses being created. She stated it has been presented as a diamond and a half. She stated it is considering what is best for Eagle County. She questioned why Tom Stone supported the half diamond and is now changing his tune. Bruce Milke, a resident of Eagle-Vail for twenty-eight years, stated he has attended all of the meetings that have been held. He stated there was definately an agreement between the Eagle-Vail Metropolitan District, CDOT, Jack Taylor, Eagle County and representatives of the Homeowners Association. He stated he is neither for or against the half diamond. He stated at first he was against it, but now understands more of what is going on. He stated he started a lobbying effort with Eagle County and when he could not get a response, he contacted Jack Taylor and got action. He spoke to the agreed upon interim improvements that have been made. He thanked CDOT for having done what they agreed to do. He questions where they are going to go with Highway 6. He does not believe that the four lanes will happen. He thinks the Highway 6 corridor study needs to happen. He read an article of May 17th in the Rocky Mountain News. It says that CDOT decided to issue a maximum of 220 million in construction bonds instead of 400 million. That will force six projects this year to be delayed. It refers to the delayed projects and construction of a half diamond interchange on 1-70. He asked if they were dealing with a mute point. Ralph Trapani stated the article was inaccurate and was actually put on track as a result of the bonds being available. Jennifer McCorkel, area resident, stated after Highway 6 was widened, she started to exit from Mountain Stream, and saw a no left turn indicator to go east. She stated she spoke with Mr. Trapani who indicated that with increased traffic on Highway 6 it may be that no one will be able to exit onto Highway 6. Mr. Trapani suggested that eventually with the traffic she would have to drive to the roundabout at Beaver Creek to go east. She stated that is not satisfactory. She will not be able to cross Highway 6 to go to the market. That is a concern to her. She takes offense with this. Anyone who does not want it built, gets the no turning signs. She stated Mr. Trapani made the comment is that if the full and half diamond were built there would be less traffic at Dowd Junction. She stated it is beyond her how they will not go through Dowd Junction anyway. She has lived on Highway 6 for ten years in Eagle-Vail and she can not talk on the phone and be heard. She spoke to the busses having enormous difficulty merging back into traffic. She questions if there is increased traffic how will they manage to 8 05-28-2002 do that. She questioned since they widened Highway 6, why they couldn't put a middle turn lane in all the way down the road, allowing people entering Highway 6 to merge into the center lane and then merge into the traffic in the direction they are going. She stated Mr. Trapani's response was people don't know how to use a turn lane. She suggested if people aren't taught, maybe they can't learn. Chairman Gallagher thanked everyone. He stated they have three minutes for Mr. Trapani to reply. He asked him to focus on the safety issues. Jamie Humpfre, homeowner in Eagle-Vail, stated she is opposed to the half diamond interchange. She pointed out her home on the map. She stated she works in Eagle and she will still have to drive to Avon to get on 1-70. She stated she has an issue with the noise and she has not heard of anything such as a noise barrier. Commissioner Gallagher closed public comment. Mr. Trapani stated he to has some ofthe same concerns that people of Eagle-Vail have voiced. He spoke to this development addressing some of the safety issues. He stated as part of the mitigation procedures, traffic lights were added. Commissioner Gallagher closed the hearing on the Eagle-Vail Half Diamond Interchange. He asked for a show of hands on who is in favor and opposed to the proposed interchange. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first matter before the Board was the Liquor License Consent Agenda for May 28, 2002, as follows: A) Gloria J. Deschamp EIJebel Liquors This is a renewal of a retail liquor store. This establishment is located at 60 El Jebel Road #104, El Jebel. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. B) Diamond Five, Ltd. Coyote Cafe This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is located at 210 The Plaza, Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) Wolcott Yacht Club Grill LLC Wolcott Yacht Club This is a renewal of a tavern license. This establishment is located along Highway 6 in Wolcott. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. D) Summit Food and Beverage LLC The Summit This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located in Cordillera at the top of the mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. E) Eagle-Vail Restaurant Group, Ltd. Paddy's This is a renewal of a hotel and restaurant license. This establishment is 9 05-28-2002 located along Highway 6 in Eagle-Vail. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for May 28, 2002, as presented. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Wolcott Yacht Club Sara Fisher, Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, presented a managers registration for Gregg Haggen, Wolcott Yacht Club LLC, d/b/a Wolcott Yacht Club. This application is in order and Mr. Haggen is reported to be of good moral character. She stated Mr. Haggen is not present at this time and requested this matter be tabled. Commissioner Stone moved to table the managers registration for Gregg Haggen, Wolcott Yacht Club LLC, d/b/a Wolcott Yacht Club. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. The Shortstop Sara Fisher presented a renewal of a tavern license for Stasmore, Inc., d/b/a The Shortstop. She stated due to the complaint and disturbance report from the Sheriff s Office, Mr. Stascavage has signed a stipulation indicating the following: 1) The applicant shall observe the room maximum occupancy load of 205 persons at all times. 2) The applicant shall have a doorman / bouncer 3) The applicant will require that all employees complete a TIPS class within 3 months of employment of the date hereof. 4) The applicant shall at all times operate the licensed premises in compliance with the Colorado Liquor Code and Regulations and in a manner that does not adversely affect the public health, welfare or safety of the immediate neighborhood in which the establishment is located. It shall be deemed a violation of this condition if evidence of a continuing pattern of fights, violent activity, disorderly conduct, or illegal drug transactions in the premises is established. 5) The applicant will cooperate with police / sheriffs officers at all times, including bar checks and to assure compliance with the conditions of the Stipulation. 6) The applicant will place special emphasis in the operation of the tavern to assure that no alcohol is served to underage persons or persons who are visibly intoxicated. 7) No personnel of the Shortstop Tavern shall be allowed to consume alcohol while on duty. 8) Any violation of this Stipulation shall constitute grounds for suspension / revocation / non- renewal of said license. 9) the applicant will reimburse Eagle County for attorney's fees incurred in connection with this renewal application within fifteen days of invoice. The Stipulation further indicates that in the event of violation of any of the conditions set forth above, the applicant stipulates and agrees that the County shall have all the rights and remedies available at law including the right to conduct a hearing to determine if suspension of the applicant's license for violation of these conditions is appropriate. The applicant agrees that a violation of any condition shall constitute adequate grounds for immediate suspension ofthe applicant's license. Mike Stascavage, owner, stated the maximum occupancy load he now has posted at the front door. A doorman and / or bouncer is on duty during peak times. TIPS class has been attended by everyone except himself. He stated he has two letters, one from his landlord Adele Hubbell and one from Michael Miskel, owner of Atlas Pizza. He read the letters into the record as follows: 10 05-28-2002 "To Whom It May Concern, Stasmore, Inc., doing business as The Shortstop, began leasing from us on August 22, 1989. We were very pleased that Michael P. Stascavage, President, is a hands on owner. He does not tolerate abusive behavior in his establishment. Sense he took over the business, we have not had to deal with some of the problems that we had to deal with in the past. The Shortstop is a working mans bar where the working people can go (in their work cloths). They are able to go for a beer, a round of pool and socialize with friends before going home after a hard day's work. Mr. Stascavage has a very good rapport with his customers and we appreciate all his hard work in keeping a respectable working mans establishment. Sincerely, Adele Hubbell." "To Whom It May Concern, I have operated Atlas Pizza in EI Jebel for over five years. The Shortstop has been our neighbor the whole time. We have had a very good working relationship with Mike and his staff throughout this time. The Shortstop has always taken an aggressive stance on controlling the problems that can be associated with a bar. They give the hard working people of this area a place to congregate in a community for longer than I have been here, and in my opinion, they do their best to keep the bar and the surrounding area safe and free of problems. Not only do they watch out for themselves, but they have also called to let us know that a situation may be heading our way. We are glad that there is an establishment so committed to helping their neighbors to keep the area safe. Thank, You, Michael Miskel." Mr. Stascavage stated they already work closely with the Sheriff's Office. He stated they are monitoring how much alcohol people are consuming. He spoke to "on-duty" alcohol consumption. He stated as an owner he often times come to the bar to watch hockey and have a drink. He asked the Board to make this stipulation workable. He questioned why he is paying the Attorney fees? Chairman Gallagher stated he is not sure he is inclined to renew this license at this time. He stated the applicant has agreed to these items in writing. He stated he believes the applicant now wishes he had not signed that stipulation. All items set forth in the stipulation lead him to believe that the applicant finds no problem with the way things are going now, and is only doing this because it is something Eagle County wants him to do. He hopes the applicant understands he appears not because of the thickness of the Sheriff's report but the contents. He stated as he reviewed those reports he could very easily distinguish between when there was a walk through and when there was a problem. He stated he is inclined to not have any variation to the stipulation. If there is an opportunity a year from now, and not having any problems within that year, he would reconsider the stipulation. He stated to think that they cannot have a bartender unless he drinks at the beginning or at the end of his shift is not something that he would consider in an establishment with the microscopic view of the Local Liquor Authority. Commissioner Menconi stated he has no comments but is ready for a motion to approve the renewal. Mrs. Fisher stated Ms. Roach is concerned with this establishment due to the problems over the past three years. She stated in some ways this is the same type of establishment as Champions. She stated this is an establishment where problems are more of a concern. This is a place where people go to get a buzz. The requirements and responsibility he and his servers have need to be reinforced. The shift drinks are a sort of tradition and maybe they need to be put on hold for awhile. She stated she does not . believe the charges are severe enough to not renew the license. She stated this is a continuation of Ms. Roach's efforts to promote the safe serving of alcohol. Commissioner Stone stated he has the same comparison as Ms. Fisher with Champions Grill. He stated at that time the bar was considered to be a problem bar and there are a lot of similarities with the Shortstop. He stated he wants to take the necessary action to prevent a death. He stated Ms. Roach appears to be recommending approval as well. He stated he does not want to hurt the business owner but also does not want any deaths. He stated he would not change the stipulation at all. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like an alcohol management plan submitted by the applicant 11 05-28-2002 within 60 days. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the renewal of a tavern license for Stasmore, Inc., d/b/a the Shortstop, incorporating the stipulation signed by the applicant on May 13,2002. The applicant shall submit an alcohol management plan within 60 days. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. In discussion, Commissioner Menconi, asked if all applicants are required to submit an alcohol management plan. Ms. Fisher stated it is now a requirement of all new licenses but it did not start until recently. Mr. Stascavage has not had to submit one. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone 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. Resolution 2002-070, Commendation for Arlene Quenon Chairman Gallagher stated the next item was Resolution 2002-070, commendation and recognition of public service for Arlene Quenon. Commissioner Menconi read the resolution for the record as follows: Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado (hereinafter the "Board"), on behalf of the citizens of Eagle County, county officials and employees, wish to express to Mrs. Arlene Quenon, their acknowledgment and appreciation for a job well done; and Whereas, Mrs. Quenon has served both the Eagle County Planning Commission and the citizens of Eagle County in the finest tradition of public service; and Whereas, Mrs. Quenon has shown exceptional allegiance, diplomacy and commitment to Eagle County and its citizens. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: That, Mrs. Quenon is hereby commended for her years of loyal public service and for her contributions to the citizens of Eagle County and to the Eagle County Planning Commission. That, best wishes are extended to her for good health, prosperity and happiness in the years to come. Be it further resolved, that this Resolution be preserved within the public records of the official proceedings of this Board, and that the original hereof shall be presented to Mrs. Arlene Quenon in acknowledgment and gratitude for her ten years of outstanding service. Moved, read and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 28th day of June, 2002. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-070, commendation and recognition of public service for Arlene Quenon. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-071, Commendation for Ron Brave Chairman Gallagher stated the next item is Resolution 2002-071, commendation and recognition of public service for Ron Brave. Commissioner Menconi read Resolution 2002-071 into the record as follows: "Whereas, the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado 12 05-28-2002 (hereinafter the "Board"), on behalf of the citizens of Eagle County, county officials and employees, wish to express to Mr. Ron Brave, their acknowledgment and appreciation for a job well done; and Whereas, Mr. Brave has served both the Eagle County Planning Commission and the citizens of Eagle County in the finest tradition of public service; and Whereas, Mr. Brave has shown exceptional allegiance, diplomacy and commitment to Eagle County and its citizens. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: That, Mr. Brave is hereby commended for his years of loyal public service and for his contributions to the citizens of Eagle County and to the Eagle County Planning Commission. That, best wishes are extended to his for good health, prosperity and happiness in the years to come. Be it further resolved, that this Resolution be preserved within the public records of the official proceedings ofthis Board, and that the original hereof shall be presented to Mr. Ron Brave in acknowledgment and gratitude for his seven years of outstanding service. Moved, read and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, at its regular meeting held the 28th day of May, 2002. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-071, commendation and recognition of public service for Ron Brave. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher stated the Planning Commission members are leaving their seats. He reviewed some ofthe accomplishments of Mrs. Quenon and Mr. Brave. He spoke to the various hearings in which they had participated. He stated the work they have done is very valuable to Eagle County. The Board presented Ms. Quenon and Mr. Brave with plaques of appreciation. Resolution 2002-072, Appreciation for Ralph Trapani Chairman Gallagher stated the next Resolution was of appreciation for Ralph Trapani. Commissioner Stone read Resolution 2002-072 into the record as follows: "Whereas, Ralph Trapani has served as a Regional Construction Engineer for Region 3 of the Colorado Department of Transportation working on may key projects affecting Eagle County, and Whereas, Ralph Trapani has worked on the construction of Interstate 70 near Vail Pass; Whereas, Ralph Trapani was responsible for construction of Interstate 70 through Glenwood Canyon, a portion of which is in Eagle County, and Whereas, the construction of Interstate 70 in Glenwood Canyon received numerous accolades including being named as the outstanding Civil Engineering Achievement from the American Society of Civil Engineers; and Whereas, Ralph Trapani has been instrumental in transportation planning for Eagle County including the development of a Comprehensive Management Plan for the Roaring Fork Valley, the 1-70 Mountain Corridor Major Investment Study, the Intermountain Connection, the Eagle County Regional Airport Interchange, the State Highway 6 Corridor Feasibility Study and the 1-70 Mountain Corridor Programmatic Environmental Impact Study; and Whereas, Ralph Trapani has ably served the State of Colorado, the Colorado Department of Transportation and been a friend to Eagle County. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado: That, the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County expresses its sincere appreciation to 13 05-28-2002 Ralph Trapani for his continued and outstanding support of Eagle County and its transportation objectives. Moved, read and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of the County of Eagle, State of Colorado, this 28th day of May, 2002." Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-072, appreciation for Ralph Trapani for his work with CDOT in Eagle County. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone thanked Ms. Quenon and Mr. Brave and Mr. Trapani for all their efforts. Commissioner Menconi stated he also appreciates their sacrifices during the growth of Eagle County and thanked them for their efforts. Consent Agenda Chairman Gallagher stated the first item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of May 27,2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for May 30,2002, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting for May 7, 2002 D) Notice of Award to Gonzales Construction Company for the 2002 Guardrail Contract E) Water Lease between Eagle County and J. Craig and M. Brunilda Butters F) Lease Amendment between Eagle County and Geno's Italian Sandwiches of a portion of condominium 107 in the Avon Commercial Center G) Interflight Services, Inc., proposal to Eagle County Regional Airport H) EPSDT Change Order No.4, Early Periodic, Screening, Diagnosis and Treatment I) Contract Renewal Letter with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment for the State Tobacco Education Prevention Partnership J) Contract between the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and Eagle County K) Lease Agreement between Eagle County and the American Red Cross for the former Road & Bridge Facility L) Lease Agreement between Eagle County and the Resource Center for the former Road & Bridge Facility M) Lease Agreement between Eagle County and Vail Mountain Rescue for the former Road & Bridge Facility N) Amendment No. Six to the Contract between Washington Infrastructure and Eagle County for preparation of apron joint sealantand spall repair, Request for Proposal 0) Agreement with Holy Cross Electric to provide utilities to Berry Creek 5th P) Resolution of appreciation for Ralph Trapani, CDOT. Chairman Gallagher asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Tom Moorhead, County Attorney, stated item D, Notice of Award to Gonzales Construction, is to be pulled and Item P has already been addressed. Commissioner Stone asked about item F, the Water Lease between Eagle County and the Butter's. He asked if there is any water available. Rich Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, stated there currently is water but he is unsure how long it will last. Chairman Gallagher asked if $400 is a common and equitable amount to pay. 14 05-28-2002 Mr. Cunningham stated that rate was set some years ago and it hasn't been revisited for a number of years. Chairman Gallagher stated on the minutes on page 6, the change of authority should be from the Liquor Board to the Commissioners. He spoke to item H, the proposal for Interflight Services, to reflect the Study of the extension ofthe 1,000 foot runway in both directions. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented being items A through P, pulling item D and eliminating item Q, with the changes to the minutes as stated by Chairman Gallagher. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Matt Gennett, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: 5MB-00297. Snow Cloud. A Resubdivision of Bachelor Gulch Village Filing No.3. Lot Dl. A Type B Minor Subdivision, the intent of which is to create 28 residential condominium units and associated common elements. 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 Stone moved to approve final plat file number 5MB-00297, Snow Cloud, a resubdivision of Bachelor Gulch Village, Filing No.3, Lot D1, incorporating staff findings. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-073. to Approve an Amendment to the East Squaw Creek Minor PUD Guide (Eagle County File No. PDA-00037). The Board considered the applicant's request at its regularly scheduled hearing held on April 30th, 2002. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-073, to Approve an Amendment to the East Squaw Creek Minor PUD Guide (Eagle County File No. PDA-00037). Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002- 074, to Approve A Site Specific Development Plan for Housing Tract D of the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch Planned Unit Development (Eagle County File No. PR-00018). The Board considered the applicant's request at its regularly scheduled hearing held on April 30th, 2002. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-074, to approve a site specific development plan for Housing Tract D of Berry Creek / Miller Ranch Planned Unit Development, Eagle County file number PR-00018. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-075, Release of Collateral, Cordillera Sub, Filing 28 Tom Moorhead presented Resolution 2002-075, regarding the final release of collateral and termination of the warranty period for the Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 28. He stated the Engineering 15 05-28-2002 Department has recommended release of the collateral in the amount of$31,338.60. This matter was published and no claims have been received. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-075, regarding the final release of collateral and termination of the warranty period for the Cordillera Subdivision, Filing 28. He stated this matter was published and no claims have been received. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Change Order No.3, Granite Construction Eddie Storer, Airport Manager, presented Change Order No.3 to Granite Construction Company Agreement in conjunction with AIP 3-08-0020-26 & 27. He stated this was necessary to adjust the quantities within the contract. Chairman Gallagher asked if the Board dealt with this previously. Tom Moorhead stated there have been some additional issues to contemplate and this is just formalizing prior approvals. They had to wait until the Courts advised them on how to proceed. Chairman Gallagher asked about a disagreement with one of the subcontractors. Mr. Moorhead stated he believes they are still moving forward but a bond has been posted. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Change Order No.3 to the Granite Construction Company Agreement in conjunction with AlP 3-08-0020-26 & 27. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle County Regional Airport Master Plan Chairman Gallagher stated the next item was the Eagle County Regional Airport Master Plan. He stated there was discussion earlier in the day about tabling this matter for a week. He asked for comments from the Commissioners. Commissioner Stone stated it appears there are individuals in the audience who would like to comment on this matter. He stated there is a part of the Master Plan that would benefit the County to adopt it today. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. He closed public comment. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, spoke to the revised development plan for the next six years for the Airport. He stated this is in anticipation of applying for a grant for the control tower. In lieu of the fact they received this morning, he asked the Commissioners to amend the existing Master Plan and replace it with the amended Phase I, Zero Through Six Year Development Plan Project Costs for the Eagle County Regional Airport. This reflects the design and Air Traffic Control Tower in 2002, and actual construction of said tower and parking in 2003. The other projects will be moved down the list. He stated this will help them meet the deadline at the end of the month. Chairman Gallagher stated the motion would be to amend the current Airport Master Plan and replace it with Table G 1 in the proposed Master Plan. Jack Ingstad stated it is the Six Year Development Plan. Eddie Storer, Airport Manager, stated as a matter of course, the Board can adopt an amendment at any time they choose. Commissioner Stone asked if they need to officially table this file or if there are any notice requirements. Commissioner Stone moved to update the Capital Improvements Plan that is in the current Airport Master Plan by inserting the new tables G I, G2 and G3 as the new Capital Improvement Plan for the Eagle County Regional Airport. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 16 05-28-2002 Commissioner Stone moved to table the Draft Eagle County Regional Airport Master Plan, as presented to an unspecified date in the future. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-076, Minimum Standards, Eagle County Regional Airport Tom Moorhead presented Resolution 2002-076, enacting the Minimum Standards and requirements for the conduct of commercial aeronautical service and activities at the Eagle County Airport. He stated also included in the Resolution were the Rules and Regulations of the Eagle County Regional Airport. He stated the only changes from the April 1 sl draft, were those changes that appeared on the matrix as recommended actions by himself and Mr. Storer. Those changes were made at the request ofthe Vail Valley Jet Center and by Highline Aviation. He stated the only comments he has received have come by way of Brian Burns at Vail Valley Jet Center. He stated under section 3, Minimum Land and Improvements, there has been a provision that paved aircraft area and the principal building area should occupy at least six acres for FBO operations. Completion of all paving can be completed in a phasing plan not to exceed 3 years. Commissioner Stone stated he can understands where the VVJC could have that concern, but in looking at the aprons that have been installed adjacent to the VVJC, those were not there originally. He asked what "all" means. Mr. Storer stated they believe there would be phased construction. Of that, they believe there would be other buildings that would go along on the six acres. They determined it was not fair to have all paving done and then the applicant would have to tear up the pavement to place another building on that site. Commissioner Stone suggested the word all seems too expansive and inclusive. He read from the proposed Master Plan concerning the paving and six acres. Mr. Moorhead suggested it is vague and could be misinterpreted. He suggested it could be addressed in a building plan that is entered into at the time, or if another lease is entered into. He recommended the Board delete the sentence "completion of all paving can be accomplished in a phased plan to be completed in three years. " Commissioner Stone asked if someone comes in and presents a new FBO they could decide at that time based on that plan when the paving would be complete. Mr. Moorhead stated whoever comes in will have to meet the minimum standards. The will be the guiding basis. Chairman Gallagher asked if they sayan FBO will be six acres, but in fact they don't have to do six acres for three years, he doesn't understand that. Mr. Storer stated they would initially have to lease six acres and start their development. The controlling document will be the final lease approved by the Board. He stated he understands the question but they would have control of the situation by lease. Commissioner Stone spoke to the VVJC leasing a number of acres on which they have not built buildings. He questioned whether leasing and developing should happen at one time. He asked why the six acres and what is the intent. Mr. Storer stated they believe the six acre site is the minimum that a FBO would be able to conduct their business on. He stated he believes it is a phased build up of the entire six acres. Commissioner Stone asked if they would be requiring they build 17,500 in the first phase and if they do that there will still be space left over for other buildings. They are actually leasing land that their minimum building requirement would not cover. Mr. Storer stated the phased plan for the FBO does cover the entire six acres. Chairman Gallagher stated they set six acres as a minimum as they hope to serve the capacity. 17 05-28-2002 He is hearing they have to lease six acres but they only have to use 1;2 an acre to accommodate the building for three years. He suggested if they set the six acre minimum, they want that FBO full strength and running in a timely manner and not wait for three years. Commissioner Stone stated if they took out the entire sentence, that does not give them the leeway to not build in three years. Mr. Storer stated it takes a tremendous amount of land to maneuver aircraft and such. He spoke to parking lots and land for aircrafts to maneuver on. Chairman Gallagher asked if they can put that in such a way that the entire development must progress in a timely manner. He stated that still gives the Airport Manager some flexibility. Tom Moorhead recommended they take that out and these are what will be stated as minimum standards. Lease negotiation may involve a phasing plan. This is the minimum that is required. Commissioner Stone stated to date, the majority of the paving has been done by the County using airport improvement funds. He wanted it to be understood that the County will not be under any obligation to provide paving within any short period of time. Commissioner Menconi moved to approve Resolution 2002-076, enacting the Minimum Standards and requirements for the conduct of commercial aeronautical service and activities at the Eagle County Airport, including the Rules and Regulations for the Eagle County Regional Airport with the changes as discussed, page 13, item 3b, with removal ofthe sentence "completion of all paving can be accomplished with a phasing plan, not to exceed three years." Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Eagle-Vail Half Diamond Interchange, cont. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like to now reconvene the meeting regarding the Eagle-Vail 1-70 Half-Diamond Interchange. Commissioner Stone referred to the letters they received via fax and e-mail from Art Abplanalp, Bill Reed, Craig Snowden, a letter opposing the project signed by several Eagle-Vail residents. Ralph Trapani, Colorado Department of Transportation, spoke to the safety study that was done in February 2000. As part of the study there was work done to look at the accidents. He stated the accident rate and severity is consistently below average compared to comparable areas. He stated the larger numbers are intersection related. One of the things they plan on doing as they build this interchange, is to take care of some of the issues. He stated there is not the significant accidents that would involve some of the types of improvements some have anticipated. Chairman Gallagher asked about pedestrian crossings and bike paths. Mr. Trapani stated the only way for people to cross right now is the signal placed in Eagle-Vail. He stated millions of people cross with traffic signals and the incorporation of signals with this diamond will add additional opportunities for safe crossing. He stated he. thinks this will help mitigate some of the crossing problems. He stated this project will allow the creation of gaps with the traffic signals. There may not be as many gaps east bound, but there will be gaps to run through. He stated when you have a traffic signal, it does create a gap in traffic. He stated the gaps will be enhanced. He asked Keith Powers to speak to the bike paths. Chairman Gallagher asked if the entrance and exit ramps will have pedestrian crosses. Mr. Powers stated the west bound off ramp will have an east/west crossing. He stated the east bound on ramp is unsignalized. He stated there are enough gaps through the lights in that location. He stated the Eagle-Vail stop will be changed with a crosswalk. The same will happen in Stone Creek. He spoke to the bus stops being relocated so the buses will not interfere. He spoke to the bike paths and the primary bike path for this area to be on the other side of the river. He stated the bike path will exist on the north side. He stated as for future growth, they have seen the proposed bike path proposals. He 18 05-28-2002 stated if there are four lanes the bike path would most likely be located on private easements. Chairman Gallagher asked about CDOT's contribution to the second bike path. Mr. Trapani stated they have supported it. He stated Ellie Caryl, Trails Coordinator, and her staff do a very good job in representing the County's interest in the enhancement project. He stated they will have six foot shoulders on this project. He stated part of the project is to build structures and widen the roadway. Mr. Powers stated there are narrow sections of six feet and then some sections of eight feet. He stated there are two distinct riders in the valley. He stated his standards are minimum standards. With eight feet, a significant portion is in the CDOT right of way. He stated with the half diamond they have widened out as far as they can go. Mr. Trapani addressed speed and suggested he does not know of any changes planned for the speed limit. Mr. Powers stated ifthey went out today and did a speed study they would probably increase the speed because people drive faster. He stated when Avon Center comes in, the speeds will come down as there will be increased congestion. He spoke to the factors used in determining the speeds. Mr. Trapani spoke to the noise and the uprising. He stated he understands the issues as he hears the noise himself. He spoke to the new noise and mainline 1-70. Using the most modern noise monitoring techniques, they did not find a condition where they could meet a reasonableness test of mitigating noise of that area. Chairman Gallagher asked if the noise levels don't justify noise attenuation because they do not meet a certain level. Mr. Trapani stated they have predicted an increase ofthree to four decibels between now and 2020. They evaluated a method to reduce the noise, and they are not able to reasonably decrease the noise by at least five decibels based on the way they analyze things. He stated the bottom line is the berming and the wall mitigation do not give enough of a noise reduction to the neighborhoods. He stated the noise increases are really rather modest at this point in time. Chairman Gallagher asked where they would be on the A scale now. Mr. Trapani stated he doesn't have the environmental document with him but chances are they are in the 60 to 70 decibel level. Chairman Gallagher suggested that folks don't want to see the Highway 6 improvements tied to the Half-Diamond construction. He asked if they are tied together. Mr. Trapani stated they are tied together. He stated that was part of the negotiated agreement. The way they were able to finance the project was because the half diamond created impacts that would need to be mitigated. He stated when and if the project goes away, it was decided without a half diamond there is not a reason to do the projects. He stated this Board understands that ifthey can't tie the impacts of an 1-70 project to something on Highway 6, they can't use the money. He stated they would have to find other funding and a way to finance the improvements. Commissioner Stone spoke to Mayor Yoder's fears of potential retribution. Mr. Trapani stated what is at risk here is the partnership and credibility that has been built between the various agencies. He stated the danger is in terms of the partnership. CDOT and Eagle County have been working on this project for over ten years. The loss of this project and the loss of the money is a very real thing. If this project can't be supported by the County Commissioners, the money will go elsewhere. He spoke to Pitkin County and Highway 82. He spoke to the funds lost by Pitkin County. He suggested the partnerships take a long time to form and they are based on an understanding that the County would commit some money. What is at risk is the partnership. He and Keith Powers have worked hard at this. They didn't always have a resident engineer. He spoke to retribution, relating he hasn't seen it, it is just very hard to put the pieces back together when they fall apart. Commissioner Stone stated he wanted this on record because he does not see this as a part of the 19 05-28-2002 Colorado Department of Transportation. He suggested that none of this is meant personally and whatever the Commissioners suggest today, it is CDOT who are the decision makers. Commissioner Menconi stated there are some concerns in his mind that fall between partnership and retribution. He spoke to the partnership with the federal government, state government, local communities and the Regional TPR He suggested that by the time it gets to this point it has gone through the TPR standards and whatever background the local governments require. He stated there is a process involved. He questioned when it gets to this point and there is a change of heart, it would seem to him that it would have to say something. He spoke of the community leaders who have been part of the discussion. He suggested with a change of decision after the hard work, what would happen in the future. The only history he has been able to see is with regards to the traffic lights. He stated the money was set aside for traffic lights and when those didn't take place, he questioned where the money went. Mr. Trapani stated he believes it goes away. Commissioner Menconi asked Chairman Gallagher about the STIP meetings. He spoke to letters about the TPR meetings and discussions he has had with former community leaders. Chairman Gallagher stated they are discovering the other side of the tree farm. He stated the previous Boards have supported this and here they are looking at it again. He compared this to the Tree Farm and the 11 th hour opposition. He stated Commissioner Menconi is right, the Board of Commissioners did support this proposal. Commissioner Stone said he agrees to that. He spoke to Kathleen Walch's comments. He stated he was in favor of this originally and did so out of respect to the positions of the previous Board of County Commissioners. As time has gone on, he has listened to a number of area residents in Eagle Vail and has come to change his mind. He stated they are not bound by a previous Board's decision. He stated it was more a matter of respect. He stated he has come to learn the human side of this story. He spoke to the two positions an elected official has. As a delegate and as a trustee. He stated even though he may have changed his mind over time, a lot of the people in the Eagle-Vail area have not changed their minds. He related it takes so long for an issue to move forward, that sometimes priorities change and the projects are either more or less pronounced than anticipated. He stated this is a project of trying to do things in advance and not in arrears. He spoke to previous Boards issues with the Edwards Spur Road and it being an example that was neglected in the past. Instead of building this in advance, the money could be put on the shelf. If at some point in time it is needed, maybe it could be used then. He stated he doesn't know if it is necessary right now. Mr. Trapani asked what in fact has changed. He stated they did validate the old assumptions to make sure they were correct. He stated he appreciated the time and energy the homeowners put into coming today. He spoke to the meetings oflast summer and that there were a few monsters left. They agreed to out and out concessions. He stated he did not hear anything today that was new. He stated the traffic on Highway 6 is coming with or without the interchange. Commissioner Menconi spoke to the traffic studies notincluding the big box stores. Mr. Powers stated he does not believe the report is accurate to the draw of the big boxes. He stated the numbers from Minturn and from the eastern valley don't change. He stated their type of store will have a very big draw. He spoke to Home Depot and Super Wal-Mart. He stated they draw a large amount of vehicles all day long. He stated his gut feeling, coming down Highway 6, people will take that route. They will take the interstate when the traffic gets too congested. He stated the road is currently running at a level D and it is not going to take much to drive them over the edge. His gut feeling is that it will be worse than what the report says. He spoke to Castle Rock and the improper design. The planning had to be there and it took a lot of local lobbying. He spoke to Park County and Highway 285. He stated Park County fought the widening and now they are asking for it again. He stated there is nothing in the STIP plans for widening Highway 6. He stated he doesn't know what the scenario is going to be when Highway 6 goes to level of service F. 20 05-28-2002 Mr. Trapani stated when they talk about putting projects on the shelf they are not putting actual money on the shelf. He spoke to the previous bid process which was challenging. He spoke to the utility plans and that has changed. If this project goes away the money will be used elsewhere. Commissioner Menconi asked Commissioner Stone about the facts that came to his mind that made him decide to change his position regarding the half diamond interchange last week. Commissioner Stone stated as he has studied this for the last year or so, it is more a question of listening to the people. He related he thinks it would be arrogant in this particular situation to continue to believe that they know better than the residents do about their feelings on the traffic. He stated if the traffic does get bad in the next few years, he will remind people they were forewarned. He stated at some point and time, the people do not work for the Commissioners nor do they work for Engineers. He stated there may be times when they may have information the people do not have. He stated they are trying to solve problems outside of Eagle-Vail by putting the solutions in Eagle-Vail. He suggested if you put people on 1-70 in Eagle-Vail, they are still going through Dowd Junction. He stated he understands that is a difficult intersection to be resolved, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be. He stated he made the decision in this situation to change his mind as the people are speaking very loudly and very clearly and that this project shouldn't go forward at this time. Commissioner Menconi stated he has done some sort of a survey in the last three days and has talked only to two business owners who said they are neutral. He spoke to other discussions and how there are a variety of opinions. He stated that wasn't scientific, but those are the people in the area that he has been able to contact. He stated he is getting a mixed review. He spoke to the public hearings that have been held. He spoke to Mr. Milke's comments today and related he was one of the main opponents initially. Commissioner Stone reiterated one last time that he can understand the frustration of CDOT over this and he was surprised when Director Tom Norton called him and said there were other places to use the money. He spoke to the Eagle-Vail Property Owners meeting and that he said he thought this was a done deal but he would still try to work on it. He stated he is surprised that CDOT would be open to listening to them. He would like to recommend the following: First, the traffic signal at Stone Creek Drive be built. He knows it is a safety issue today. Secondly he would not like to see the half diamond at this time. He understands that this is not part of the system, but sometimes the system needs to be changed. Thirdly; he would also like to see the traffic light replaced at Eagle Road. He expressed his appreciation for what has already been done. He suggested he has heard why this can not happen, but he would like to make a recommendation to the Intermountain TPR that they attempt to have the money go to improvements on the Edwards Spur Road and if not that, to the entrance at the Aspen Project. He stated SB 02-179 creates a minimum of a $10,000,000 pot with populations of less than 200,000 people. He spoke to Mick Ireland, Chairman of TPR, and requested they be moved up on the priority list for the Edwards Spur Road. He suggested they have time to finish the full diamond at Avon and reassess the situation. He stated he would request they approve the Resolution to have the half diamond not go through at this time and that the traffic light at Eagle Road be improved and the monies not being used to go toward the Edwards Spur Road or in a neighboring County. Commissioner Menconi stated when he found out about this on Wednesday it came from a newspaper reporter. He stated he has deferred this discussion to Chairman Gallagher and George Roussos. He spoke to a discussion they had last fall and it was his understanding that this was not something that could be stopped. He believes there is a great deal of responsibility and integrity of those who have worked on this project. He suggested if they are all working together for the community, they have agreed to support projects as they are needed. He stated inside the TPR there is the 1-70 corridor. Ralph Dockery, Eagle-Vail Property Owners Association, stated they have done two surveys and at least 70% are opposed, some are neutral and few are in favor. He spoke to the increase in traffic in Eagle-Vail. He spoke to getting to the big box stores from anywhere other than 1-70. He doesn't see 21 05-28-2002 where the new traffic will come from. As for studies of traffic accidents on rural highways, Eagle-Vail is not a rural Highway. He spoke to the cost benefit analysis and that $6,000,000 does not warrant this. Chairman Gallagher asked how many dwelling units there are in Eagle-Vail. Mr. Dockery stated about 1,300. Chairman Gallagher asked about the traffic projections. Mr. Trapani stated the projections were determined by looking at whatever development was on line. Chairman Gallagher asked about the box stores. Mr. Trapani stated they considered some growth but not specifically the two stores coming in. He suggested the assumptions are somewhat conservative. Chairman Gallagher stated he asked Director Norton if they can take this money and put it on the Spur Road. The answer was no. He stated he looks at the project from the position of someone who came today to be educated. He had operated under the assumption that this was a done deal. He stated a few days ago when Director Norton suggested they could stop, he welcomed the opportunity to be better educated concerning this project. He sees Highway 6 as a national highway. He believes 1-70 was meant to be 1-70 and it is not a neighborhood street. If you drive through Eagle-Vail, you are likely to use three roads to get in. He stated you have very controlled access to the highway, but he is not a highway engineer. He spoke to one ofthe issues being Dowd Junction. He stated this will take care of Dowd Junction. He believes the priority should be to fix Dowd Junction but he understands that it would be a very expensive project. He has been told that this is a reasonable requirement for the traffic projections that are coming. The traffic projections are not for how much Eagle-Vail or Avon are going to grow, but to how the rest of the County is going to grow. He thinks the safety that will be gained by having this interchange far outweighs the safety issues on Highway 6. He stated that with the assumption CDOT will continue to make the necessary improvements needed to keep pedestrians safe. This is not a country rural road, this is an urban road. He stated they have to deal with the reality that this is an urban area and that we are going to continue to grow. He believes that the Engineers have put together a justification. This is something that should go through. He stated he again requests that CDOT makes good on their promises and that they make the improvements they have identified and those that have been mentioned again today. He believes the noise is a valid concern and he would like to have CDOT, if they widen the road, have meetings with the citizens of Eagle-Vail and address the concerns that will come with the widening. Commissioner Menconi stated when he came to the office today he was very concerned that a project that has taken years to get to was going to be determined in one day. He stated he has tried to spend the last four days studying the facts. He has talked to many people involved with this project and the concerns surrounding the project. He suggested this is not his role, at this stage ofthe process with all that has gone on thus far. He stated if it is required of him to vote on a resolution because of a statement made by Tom Norton that if they don't decide they will continue to move forward or they will go away. He stated he is inclined to move forward with the wisdom of the people who have been part of this process. He suggested if there is an opportunity to review this for another thirty days, then he would be happy to secure the additional input. He spoke to the projections of people commuting into the valley from outside the community. Chairman Gallagher stated they are prepared later in the day.to do.aresolution. If the Commissioners are satisfied with a simple motion they can proceed in that manner. Commissioner Menconi suggested when he learned about this last week he understood it to be a forum. He suggested it is not the position of this Board to take a vote or pass a resolution but to allow the integrity of the TPR process. Commissioner Stone stated he respectfully disagrees. He suggested that Director Norton is looking for an answer. He thinks in respecting Director Norton's willingness to at least listen to their 22 05-28-2002 concerns, he deserves an answer. Commissioner Menconi moved to support the eleven years of Eagle-Vail Half Diamond Interchange, in continuing with the integrity of the TPR process and the CDOT process for Interchanges along 1-70. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion for discussion In discussion, Commissioner Stone suggested they could transmit this through Mr. Trapani and thanked he and Mr. Powers for being here today. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. Commissioners Gallagher and Menconi voting aye and Commissioner Stone voting. PDF -00072, Berry Creek / Miller Ranch Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDF-00072, Berry Creek / Miller Ranch. He stated this was a final plat for a mixed use development site which would create ten tracts, including five for school facilities, one for recreation uses, one for housing, one for an alternative use (currently intended as a campus for Colorado Mountain College), and two open space tracts. In addition, rights-of- way will be created for Miller Ranch Road and Charter School Road (portions of each of which will be constructed and/or relocated). Prior to approval of the plat by the Board of County Commissioners (and authorizing the Chairman to sign the County Commissioners' Certificate) as provided in the Land Use Regulations, the Board should also authorize the Chairman to sign the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership for Eagle County as one of the owners ofthe property. A similar action is required by the Eagle County School Board (RE50J) as the other owner, and approval by the School Board is expected prior to approval by the Board of County Commissioners. In addition, the PUD Guide requires an Open Space Management Plan for Tracts I and J (Open Space) be approved by the Board of County Commissioners prior to or concurrent with the approval of final plat for the PUD. The purpose of the Open Space Management Plan is to protect and preserve the environmental characteristics of the far eastern portion of the PUD while allowing for limited passive recreation use. The Plan [1] limits the location and construction oftrails and parking which serve the Open Space Tracts to minimize impacts; [2] requires control of dogs, horses and other animals while on the Tracts; [3] provides for oversight of the Tracts, including protection of wildlife and control of invasive vegetation; and [4] provides for seasonal closure of the Tracts in order to protect wildlife. The Open Space Management Plan is attached with this staff report and may be approved by the Board. The chronology of the application is as follows: 1999 - The Eagle County Recreation Authority (later Eagle County) and the Eagle County School District (RE-50J) entered into a Intergovernmental Agreement to develop the site on a joint basis. 2000 - A PUD Sketch Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2002 - Combined PUD Sketch/Preliminary Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Forinash stated all referral responses have been satisfactorily addressed. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: Pursuant to Section 5-280. B.5.b(3). Final Plat for Subdivision - Action by the Board of County Commissioners. ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following finding is made: The Final Plat DOES conform to the approved Preliminary Plan for Subdivision for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch Planned Unit Development, and Pursuant to Section 5-280.B.3.e, Subdivision Standards, of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, the following findings are made: (1) Consistent with Master Plan. The proposed subdivision IS consistent with the Eagle 23 05-28-2002 County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan; (2) Consistent with Land Use Regulations. The proposed subdivision DOES comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards; (3) Spatial Patterns Shall Be Efficient. 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. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions ARE consistent with the utility's service plan. Proposed road extensions ARE consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines ARE 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 ARE allowed only when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. (4) Suitability for Development. 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 ofthe property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. (5) Compatible With Surrounding Uses. 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. Mr. Forinash stated there is one outstanding issue that will require the plat not be recorded until that issue is resolved. Tom Braun, Braun and Associates, stated one condition of approval was the Open Space Management Plan which established fairly broad guidelines for the management of said open space. He stated the outstanding issue is with a Ditch Agreement between the School District, the County and Sonnenalp Golf Course. He stated they have been working with Sonnenalp since last fall. They have made some headway but are still trying to respond. He stated when they first approached the Sonnenalp it was suggested they might want to change the ditch configuration. During discussions they discovered it made better sense to pump the water from Winslow Road. Mr. Braun stated the most recent request is to move their point of diversion. The area they are talking about is 100' X 100'. The question is would the Board be amenable to the proposal. Chairman Gallagher suggested they would have to put the Open Space Management Plan on hold as well. Mr. Braun stated the plan does refer to the PUD Guide. Commissioner Stone asks who owns the land where the pump house currently exists. Mr. Braun stated he is not sure, it is not the County or the School District. He stated it could be the Sonnenalp or Berry Creek Metropolitan District. Commissioner Stone suggested if they are going to abandon the land and move it onto the open space, that could go into the ownership of the School District. He asked what needs to happen before the plat can be recorded. Mr. Braun stated the agreement needs to be signed. Commissioner Stone stated if they decide today and are amenable in the future, would that be what is needed. The Board concurred with the proposal. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. 24 05-28-2002 Ken Marchetti, representing Arrowhead, Berry Creek and Edwards Metropolitan Districts, asked if they are going to discuss the Open Space Management Plan. He spoke to the item for shelters, gazebos, and river overlooks which are in the PUD guide but not addressed in the Open Space Management Plan. He spoke to the intent and any road use would be the same thing. He stated at the very end there is a clause regarding violations and those being addressed by Eagle County and the Colorado Division of Wildlife. He suggested the management plan seems to contain the restrictions but suggested it needs to be specific as to who is going to pro-actively manage the oversight of the parcel. He stated the other major concern is the permanence of making this open space. He stated they have talked about deed restrictions and how those can also be removed. He spoke to the possibility of conveying some sort of conservation easement to restrict the property to open space. Chairman Gallagher stated his comments are on the Open Space Management Plan and how those issues mentioned by Mr. Marchetti should be addressed. He spoke to the non-motorized vehicle and they should allow for emergency access. He spoke further to the trail paragraph and what happens when people do go off the trail. Commissioner Stone stated he has no other comments but asked what the process is from here forward as far as trading deeds. Tom Moorhead stated they have just gotten the title work today from Land Title and as soon as the plat is recorded they will complete the Title process. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like to see the Open Space Management Plan reworked before the titling is complete. Mr. Forinash stated the Open Space Management Plan is to be completed before approval of the final plat. Mr. Moorhead suggested they can approve the Management Plan with the changes as directed. Mr. Marchetti asked to what extent this will be re-characterized more as a park than open space. Chairman Gallagher suggested that he did not want to imply that this is active-recreation. He stated if passive recreation is walking without throwing a frisbee. Are they tied to a trail or is there a better use of the property. Mr. Braun stated given some ofthe vegetation in the area they have determined that a trail is the best use of the property. Commissioner Stone stated they should have standardized trails to minimize the degradation to the environment. Mr. Braun stated the points are good ones and they are trying to establish a document that will address other property also and to find out what would happen if someone did step off the trail. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve the Resolution 2002-077 approving the Open Space Management Plan for Tracts I and J for the Berry Creek / Miller Creek Ranch Planned Unit Development, directing the Attorney's Office and the applicant to make those changes discussed today to the Open Space Management Plan. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve the final flat for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD and authorize the Chairman to sign the Certificate of Dedication and Ownership. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board approve File No. PDF-00072, incorporating the Staff findings, and authorize the Chairman to sign the plat. Commissioner Gallagher seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. 25 05-28-2002 ZC-00051, Edwards Corner Zone Change ZS-00088, Edwards Corner Special Use Permit Joseph Forinash presented file numbers ZC-00051, Edwards Corner Zone Change and ZS-00088, Edwards Corner Special Use Permit. He stated the Planning Commission deliberation consisted of the following: Maintenance ofthe bus stop on Highway 6. Power pole and lines near the intersection - power lines to be buried. Number of parking spaces on back (south) side of building and number of offices to be served. Snow storage - along the south side of the site, and the proposed snow storage behind the trash dumpster. Access on Edwards Village Boulevard. Importance of safety of pedestrians crossing both Edwards Village Boulevard and Highway. Basis for employee housing recommendation. During the course of the hearing, the Planning Commission also accepted a recommended condition from staff regarding additional review of this Special Use Permit in the event that, since access to the subject site is through Tract T, uses on Tract T increase the traffic at the Edwards Village Boulevard access by more than 20 percent (See Condition #14, below). Mr. Forinash stated this was a Special Use Permit application for an office/retail building with 50,382 square feet of leasable floor area on a 2.573 acre site. The Land Use Regulations require that a proposed commercial use exceeding 22,000 square feet of floor area, for which certain site specific information (such as lot layout, street pattern, drainage, landscaping and utilities) has not previously been reviewed as part of an approved subdivision, requires a Special Use Permit. The site consists of Parcel 12 in the Remonov Center, currently zoned C/G (Commercial General), and Lot C-l in the South Forty Subdivision, currently zoned C/L (Commercial Limited). The zone change application would re-zone Lot C-1 from C/L to C/G. A related amended final plat (File No. AFP-00137), a copy of which has been provided to the Planning Commission, would vacate the common lot line between the two parcels and create certain new easements. The structure would consist of three levels. The lowest level would be below grade and include mechanical and storage facilities, and 79 parking spaces, 6 of which would be handicapped accessible. The main level would be at grade and would include small shops and other retail businesses, and a restaurant. The third level would house business and professional offices. Due to the topography of the site, the third level would appear as a second story from the street side ofthe building, but would be at- grade from the side of the building away from the street. The development proposes to move certain functions off-site, including access, snow storage, and landscape buffering. A portion of the access and snow storage is proposed to be on Tract T of the Remonov Center Subdivision, located immediately to the south and west of the site. Tract T is restricted by plat note to "pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular access, drainage structures, landscaping, utilities, trails, recreation facilities and open space" uses. The chronology ofthe application is as follows: 1976 - Final Plat for South Forty Subdivision - Filing No.1 approved creating Lot C-l. 1981 - Final Plat approved for Edwards Village creating Parcel 3. 1985 - Final Plat approved for Edwards Village Center creating Parcell 0 and Tract T from a portion of what had been Parcel 3 of Edwards Village. 1996 - Final Plat approved for Remonov Center creating Parcel 12 out of what had been Parcel 10 and a portion of Tract T of Edwards Village Center. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineering Department 26 05-28-2002 Several site plan deficiencies are noted including curb design, location of parking spaces, and location of a trash dumpster. A retaining wall of up to 5.5 feet tall is proposed in a drainage and utility easement. This would prevent the intended functioning of the easement. Proposed access point on Edwards Village Boulevard should be moved to align with the Edwards Village Center access (across Edwards Village Boulevard). Certain intersection improvements at Highway 6 and Edwards Village Boulevard have been proposed. A raised barrier median on Highway 6, east of the intersection with Edwards Village Boulevard, is more appropriate than the proposed painted median to prevent illegal left hand turns from Highway 6 onto this site. Additional measures should be provided as part of the erosion control plan. Eagle County Environmental Health Drawings for the proposed underground storm water detention system lack sufficient detail to show oil and water separation or locations designed for particulate settling and collection (if any). It is not clear from the design of the proposed underground storm water detention system whether it will cause subsidence under this site and under the Highway 6 right-of-way. To insure perpetual maintenance ofthe storm water detention system, the final plat should have a note stating: "The current maintenance record of the storm water detention system must be submitted with all "tenant finish" building permit applications." Eagle County Housing Department 17 April 2002 Response It is suggested that the applicant provide 15.25 Local Resident Housing Units. It is recommended that the units be configured in such a way that the average maximum purchase price is equal to that in category two (households earning income less than or equal to 2 average wage jobs) and that there is an average of at least two bedrooms per unit. 7 May 2002 Response Based on floor area ratio (FAR), the difference in maximum floor area on this site before and after this proposed zone change is 3,828 square feet (as noted below). Based on an analysis similar to that in the 17 April 2002 response, the increase in leasable floor area warrants mitigation of 1.19 local resident housing units. Payment in lieu for 1.19 units, based on approach in draft Local Resident Housing Requirement, would be $47,213. ECO Trails (Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority) The project doesn't include sidewalks or any non-motorized routes that connect it to the rest of the Edwards community. Various elements of the Master Plan and Land Use Regulations support, promote and encourage or require provision of pedestrian facilities and safe modes of transportation. Pedestrian facilities will accommodate a variety users. Recommendations include: Sidewalks should be provided on each ofthe two frontages of the project. Some thought should be given to how to accommodate pedestrians crossing Edwards Village Boulevard, in spite of pavement markings, signs, warning lights, table crossings or other devices to encourage crossing at the intersection. Rely on engineers for determining the most appropriate sidewalk width. As with other sidewalks in unincorporated Eagle County, the sidewalks should be maintained by the project developer, subsequent owner, an association, or through another mechanism coordinated by the developer. ECO Transit (Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority) Supports comments of ECO Trails Planner. 27 05-28-2002 Would like developer to add sidewalk to the bus shelter just east of his property. Eagle River Fire Protection District Access and turning radii throughout the project must be verified based on the Uniform Fire Code and the Pierce Quantum pumper used by the District. Verify that access will be maintained through the loading dock area when vehicles are parked and unloading. Verify the total square footage for the building including the garage. It appears a fire sprinkler system would be required. Verify fire hydrant locations and line size. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Ambulance District, Colorado Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Transportation, Edwards Metro District, Upper Eagle Water & Sanitation District, CenturyTel, KN Energy, Holy Cross Energy, Homestead HOA, South Forty HOA Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.l] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. EAGLE COUNTY MASTER 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: Housing is a community-wide issue Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County master plan. . . Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing. . . transit routes Housing is primarily a private sector activity [but] . . . without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success It is important to preserve existing local residents housing Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should 28 05-28-2002 be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM I YES I NO I N/A I 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents and workers in Eagle County 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 * The Policy statement of the Comprehensive Housing Plan requires commercial development generating new employment to provide local resident housing. However, there is currently no regulatory requirement to do so. Local resident housing is discussed elsewhere in this Staff Report. Implementation ofthis policy, to whatever extent it occurs, is deemed to be in conformance with this policy of the Comprehensive Housing Plan. EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN 29 05-28-2002 I x I I I I I x I I Mixed ' c.,"rQ~~~ Not Applicable x x EDWARDS SUB-AREA PLAN x x EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN x x x [+] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan [Section 5-250.B.1] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and IS consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan, including standards for building and structural intensities and densities, and intensities of use. STANDARD: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] - The proposed Special Use shall be appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. Most of the surrounding land uses in the immediate vicinity are commercial, with some residential uses above this development in the South Forty Subdivision to the south. The latter uses are well buffered by the vertical distance between the two uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility [Section 5-250.B.2] The proposed Special Use IS appropriate for its proposed location and compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. STANDARD: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the standards of the zone district in which it is located and any standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. 30 05-28-2002 The proposed development is in conformance with the standards of the C/G zone district. This Special Use Permit application satisfies the requirement of Table 3-320 regarding certain commercial uses with 22,000 square feet or more of floor area. [+] FINDING: Zone District Standards [Section 5-250.B.3] The proposed Special Use DOES meet the standards of the zone district in which it is located, and DOES meet the standards applicable to the particular use, as identified in Section 3-310, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Applicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.BA] - The design of the proposed Special Use shall minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact of the proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use shall avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. Potentially adverse impacts include primarily those caused by traffic and drainage. With the recommended conditions, these impacts are minimized. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Adverse Impact [Section 5-250.B.4] The design ofthe proposed Special Use DOES minimize adverse impacts, including visual impact ofthe proposed use on adjacent lands; furthermore, the proposed Special Use DOES avoid significant adverse impact on surrounding lands regarding trash, traffic, service delivery, parking and loading, odors, noise, glare, and vibration, and shall not create a nuisance. STANDARD: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] - The proposed Special Use shall minimize environmental impacts and shall not cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. No significant adverse environmental impacts have been noted. [+] FINDING: Design Minimizes Environmental Impact [Section 5-250.B.5] The proposed Special Use DOES minimize environmental impacts and DOES NOT cause significant deterioration of water and air resources, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, and other natural resources. STANDARD: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] - The proposed Special Use shall be adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water and wastewater facilities, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. All public facilities are in place, and with the dedication of additional right-of-way, the development will be adequately served. [+] FINDING: Impact on Public Facilities [Section 5-250.B.6] The proposed Special Use IS adequately served by public facilities and services, including roads, pedestrian paths, potable water, parks, schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical serVIces. STANDARD: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Develovment Standards. Article 4: Site Development Standards. Pluses and minuses in the margin indicate where staff has found that the proposed development meets the Article 4 standard ([ +]) or does not meet the standard ([-]), or the standard does not apply ([n/a]). [+] Division 4-1. Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards Parking and Loading. The net leasable floor area of the proposed building is 50,382 square feet. At one parking space per 250 square feet, as required by Division 4-1 of the Land Use Regulations, 202 parking spaces are required. Of these, up to 38 may be compact car spaces, and at least seven must be accessible parking spaces. 31 05-28-2002 In response to discussions with Planning Staff, certain site features have been revised by the Applicant, including the parking plan. The proposed development includes a total of 205 spaces, including 36 compact and 13 accessible spaces. In addition, one in five (in this case, two) of the required accessible parking spaces must be van accessible, requiring a wider access aisle. Accessible parking spaces throughout the site are paired, to take advantage of shared access aisles. Given the number and dimensions of proposed parking spaces, including the mix of compact and accessible spaces, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards are satisfied. Section 4-140.K. requires that adequate space be provided for storage of snow removed from pedestrian and vehicular ways, and parking and loading spaces. The Applicant calculates that the total parking lot/access and sidewalk areas constitute 62,357 square feet. Two and a half percent (2.5%) of these areas is required for snow storage. For this development, this amounts to 1,559 square feet. Two curb comers in the parking area have sharp comers. The corners should have a radius of at least three feet for ease of moving into and out of the adjacent spaces. As a condition approval, all curb corners in the parking area should have a radius of at least three feet. [Condition # 1] Snow Storage. The Snow Storage Plan (See Drawing S 1.1) shows three areas for snow storage, including [1] approximately 600 square feet near the west entrance from Edwards Village Boulevard, [2] approximately 3,125 square feet around and behind the dumpster near the east entrance from Highway 6, and [3] approximately 3,800 square feet off-site on Tract T along the south property line. The two on-site storage areas are problematic. Regarding the larger on-site storage area near the east entrance, contours on the Drainage Plan (Sheet 3.1) shows a severe slope on this corner of the site, with the hillside coming down from area behind the site. The slope of the area, plus the location of the dumpster, will effectively make access by snow removal equipment extremely difficult and render most of this area unusable for snow storage. Regarding the smaller on-site storage area near the west entrance, this area is shown on the landscape plan (Drawing L 1.1 Revised) to be landscaped with small or medium shrubs (the Landscape Plan is contradictory in this respect) of 3 to 6 feet in height. These two on-site snow areas will not function as proposed. The proposed off-site snow area has its own difficulties. While the proposed storage area is indeed off-site, the Land Use Regulations do not necessarily require that snow storage areas be on-site. Further, the Land Use Regulations permit snow storage in open space areas. As noted above, the plat for Remonov Center includes a plat note which permits open space as a use on Tract T. However, the Applicant has not presented written authorization to store snow on Tract T. The Applicant maintains that he owns both the subject site and Tract T. While he may control the legal entities that own these parcels, they do in fact appear to be owned by separate entities. Additionally, there is nothing to preclude future ownership of the respective properties to be controlled by different parties. Reliance on this off-site snow storage should be permitted only after demonstrating that this off-site storage area will be available to the owner of this development in perpetuity. Yet another problem with the proposed off-site storage area is that it is located at the highest point on the site, severely limiting its utility for practical purposes Consequently, the Applicant has not satisfactorily demonstrated that adequate snow storage would be provided pursuant to this Section. As a condition of approval, prior to approval of this Special Use Permit, it should be clearly demonstrated that adequate snow storage will be provided and that all necessary easements for off-site snow storage be established. [Condition # 2] [+] Division 4-2. Landscaping and Illumination Standards Landscaping. Since the original application was submitted, discussions which have occurred in which the need for additional right-of-way along Edwards Village Boulevard has been noted. The Applicant has been willing to dedicate a certain additional right-of-way. A requirement of this Section ofthe Land Use Regulations that ten foot landscape buffers be established along all parking areas which are adjacent to street rights-of-ways. The required landscape 32 05-28-2002 buffers, or planting strips, including six-foot sidewalks, have been provided. It may be noted, however, that when the companion amended final plat is approved, a portion of the landscape buffer and sidewalks will be within the right-of-ways. Illumination Standards. The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to the requirements of the Land Use Regulations regarding illumination. [+] Division 4-3, Sign Regulations A Sign age Plan is included in the application as Drawing S 1.2. Various sign permits will be required pursuant to this Section of the Land Use Regulations. One of the features proposed for this development is the inclusion of a "vintage" mural being painted on the brick veneer on the east end of the building. These murals may be exempt from the provisions of the Eagle County Sign Code (Division 4-3 of the Land Use Regulations). However, to the extent that they are not exempt, for example, by identifying or advertising a product or business (see Section 4.310.B.14. of the Land Use Regulations, the Sign Code will apply. The holder of this Special Use Permit will be reauired to conform to the requirements ofthe Land Use Regulations regarding signs. [+] Division 4-4, Natural Resource Protection Standards [+] Section 4-410. Wildlife Protection Given that this site is in the midst of developed subdivisions, additional wildlife review has been determined to be unnecessary. [+] Section 4-420. Development in Areas Subiect to Geologic Hazards This site does not contain the types of geologic hazards for which the Land Use Regulations requires extensive review as part of the Special Use Permit application. [n/a] Section 4-430. Development in Areas Subiect to Wildfire Hazards This Section is not applicable to a Special Use Permit. [+] Section 4-440. Wood Burning Controls Wood burning devices are not proposed for this development. In any event, The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to the requirements of the requirements of this Section. [n/a] Section 4-450. Ridgeline Protection This site is not located on land designated on the Eagle County Ridgeline Protection Map. Consequently, the provisions of this Section are not applicable. [n/a] Section 4-460. Environmental Impact Report The requirement for an Environmental Impact Report was provided at the time the subdivisions were originally approved. An Environmental Impact Report is not required for this Special Use Permit. [+] Division 4-5, Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards. [+] Section 4-520: Noise and Vibration Standards The proposed uses do not appear to be problematic in terms of the generation of a significant degree of noise and vibration. Nonetheless, the holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to the requirements of the Land Use Regulations regarding noise and vibration. [+] Section 4-530: Smoke and Particulate Standards The proposed uses do not appear to be problematic in terms of the generation ofa significant degree of smoke and particulates. Nonetheless, the holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to the requirements ofthe Land Use Regulations regarding smoke and particulates. [+] Section 4-540: Heat, Glare, Radiation and Electrical Interference The proposed uses do not appear to be problematic in terms of the generation of a significant degree of heat, glare, radiation and electrical interference. Nonetheless, the holder ofthis Special Use Permit will be required to conform to the requirements of the Land Use Regulations regarding heat, glare, radiation and electrical interference. [+] Section 4-550: Storage of Hazardous and Non-hazardous Materials 33 05-28-2002 The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to the requirements ofthe Land Use Regulations regarding storage of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. [+] Section 4-560: Water Quality Standards The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required to conform to the requirements of the Land Use Regulations regarding storage of hazardous and non-hazardous materials. [+] Division 4-6. Improvements Standards Section 4-620: Roadway Standards There are no new roadways proposed as part of this Special Use Permit. However, the development will interact with the existing roadway system in significant ways. The County Engineer has noted that the proposed access onto Edwards Village Boulevard is not aligned with any of the existing access points on the other side of Edwards Village Boulevard, and is 90 off center from the Edwards Village Center entrance. Movement ofthe access onto Edwards Village Boulevard further to the west would [1] align these accesses and permit additional stacking distance on Edwards Village Boulevard for vehicles waiting to turn left onto this site, and [2] enable drivers near this access to better anticipate and negotiate movements of other vehicles. The lot immediately to the west of the subject site is Tract T. A plat note permits vehicular access. Access to Edwards Commercial Park, further west on Edwards Village Boulevard, presently crosses Tract T. Tract T is also controlled by the Applicant. As a condition of approval, adequate easements should be established and the access to this site from Edwards Village Boulevard should be moved further west to align with the entrance to Edwards Village Center. [Condition # 3] The access from/onto Highway 6 is properly proposed to be right-in/right-out to increase safety and minimize congestion at this location. A painted median is proposed to discourage left-hand turns onto or from the site. A raised barrier median would be more effective. As a condition of approval, a raised barrier should be required to be installed by the Applicant, subject to approval by the Colorado Division of Transportation, on Highway 6 to prevent left-hand turns onto or from the site. [Condition # 4] A dumpster is proposed near the east (Highway 6) entrance to the site. A trash truck servicing this dumpster will block traffic movements in this part of the site, causing potentially dangerous back- ups on Highway 6 and within the development. As a condition of approval, the trash dumpster at the east entrance to the site should be moved to a location that the County Engineer determines will not cause vehicles to back-up at the entrance. [Condition # 5] Traffic studies prepared for Eagle County for the intersection of Edwards Village Boulevard and Highway 6 have established a need for additional right-of-way to accommodate anticipated traffic in the Edwards area. The Applicant has offered to dedicate additional right-of-way and that dedication is reflected in the companion amended final plat (AFP-00137). A favorable recommendation for this Special Use Permit and Zone Change is contingent upon that dedication. If the dedication were not to occur, it would be necessary to re-consider these applications. As a condition ofaoproval, approval of this Special Use Permit should be contingent on approval and recording of an amended final plat (Eagle County File No. AFP-00137) which provides adequate additional right-of-way for Edwards Village Boulevard. [Condition # 6] The Eagle River Fire Protection District has requested verification of several items, including access and turning radii for fire fighting equipment, the necessity of a sprinkler system for the building, and fire hydrant location and line size. As a condition of approval, prior to issuance of a building permit for this development, it shall be demonstrated that the Applicant has adequately responded to the site and building design requirements of the Eagle River Fire Protection District. [Condition # 7] Section 4-630: Sidewalk and Trail Standards Six foot sidewalks are proposed along frontages of both Edwards Village Boulevard and Highway 6. Based on the recommendation of ECO Trails, and as a condition of approval, maintenance 34 05-28-2002 of sidewalks on and adjacent to this development should be the responsibility of the owner or successive owners ofthe development. [Condition # 8] Section 4-640: Irrigation System Standards It appears that no water rights are appurtenant to this site. This Section is not applicable. Section 4-650: Drainage Standards The County Engineer has noted that a retaining wall of up to 5.5 feet is proposed in the drainage and utility easement along the south property line, and that such structures are not typically allowed in the easements because they prevent the intended use of the easement. The County Engineer has recommended that the easement in this area be enlarged to include the likely locating of all necessary utilities. As a condition of approval, prior to approval ofthis Special Use Permit, it should be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the County Engineer that the site design in the vicinity of the retaining wall, and the proposed easements, are sufficient to accommodate utilities and easements in that area, and that revised easements are reflected on the amended final plat for this site. [Condition # 9] Section 4-660: Excavation and Grading Standards All issues related to drainage have been resolved. Section 4-665: Erosion Control Standards The County Engineer has noted that certain additional measures for the erosion control plan should be included, such as vehicle tracking control and a temporary sedimentation pond. As a condition of approval, approval of this Special Use Permit should be contingent on the submission of an Erosion Control Plan which is satisfactory to the County Engineer. [Condition # 10] Section 4-670: Utility and Lighting Standards Utilities appear to be available to the site, but commitments to serve by utility providers have not been included in the application. As a condition of approval, development of this Special Use Permit may proceed only if all necessary utility services proposed for the development are available. [Condition # 11] It should be noted that easements contemplated on the site plans for this development are not all in place. As part of the companion amended final plat (File No. AFP-00137) certain easements associated with the existing common lot line between the two existing lots are being vacated. New easements are expected to be created by that amended final plat. As a condition of approval, approval of this Special Use Permit is contingent of approval and recording of an amended final plat (Eagle County File No. AFP-00137) whid creates adequate utility, drainage and other necessary easements. [Condition # 6] Section 4-680: W.tter Supply Standards The Applicant h.s indicated that water will be supplied by the Edwards Metro District, although a commitment to serve JY the Metro District has not been provided. As a condition of approval, development of this Srecial Use Permit may proceed only if the Edwards Metro District provides all necessary water servi<es proposed for the development. [Condition # 12] Section 4-690 Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards The Appliccut has indicated that wastewater services will be provided by the Edwards Metro District, although a.:ommitment to serve by the Metro District has not been provided. As a condition of approval, developnent ofthis Special Use Permit may proceed only if the Edwards Metro District provides all necesary wastewater treatment services proposed for the development. [Condition# 12] [+] Divisbn 4-7, Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. Section 4700: School Land Dedication Standards Unless heal resident housing units are required as part ofthis development, the provisions ofthis Section are not .pplicable. Section~- 710: Road Impact Fees Sectior4-710.E., Imposition of Fee, requires that a road impact fee be imposed for any "traffic- 35 05-28-2002 generating development". An exemption exists for a lot subdivided prior to the effective date of the road impact fee requirement, unless a replat occurs that results in an increase in traffic. This application for a zone change from CL to CG, with a correspondingly greater floor area ratio, along with the accompanying amended final plat voids the exemption afforded a previously subdivided lot. (See Section 4-710.E.2..d.) Exhibit A of Section 4-710 provides that the road impact fee for general retail of less than 100,000 square feet is $5,805 per 1,000 square feel. The corresponding road impact fee for a sit-down restaurant is $5,708 per 1,000 square feet. Similarly, the corresponding road impact fee for general office ofless than 100,000 square feet is $2,218 per 1,000 square feet. Based on the application materials originally submitted, the development will include 20,684 square feet of retail, 4,000 square feet of restaurant, and 25,698 square feet of office. Based on these areas, estimated road impact fees due prior to issuance of a building permit are as follows: Retail, 20,684 s.f. @ $5,805 per 1,000 s.f. = $ 12t1,070.62 Restaurant, 4,000 s.f. @ $5,708 per 1,000 s.f. = $ 22,832.00 Office, 25,698 s.f. @ $2,218 per 1,000 s.f. = $ 56,998.16 Total, $199,900.78 The Applicant will be required to satisfy the road impact fee requirements of the Land Use Regulations at the time of the application for a building permit. [+] FINDING: Site Development Standards [SectiOl 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appfl\1riate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] - The,1Jroposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions rf these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. The Eagle County Housing Department has recommended that the Applicant be required to provide 15.25 Local Resident Housing units. The recommendation is based on [1] the Policy Statement in the Comprehensive Housing Plan that developments generating increa:ed employment are to provide local residents housing, [2] an unwritten policy of the County in recent ye\i'S to generally require new development to provide housing for 20 percent of employees (the so-calleQ'i'Arrowhead Formula"), and [3] the assertion that the necessary land use actions under consideration (ZOl~ change, special use permit, and amended final plat) clearly establish this as a new development, t'S contemplated in the Comprehensive Housing Plan. Further bases for the Housing Department's re'ummendation is set forth in the referral response. A Local Resident Housing Initiative, including employment linkage req ~rements, is currently under consideration by the Planning Commission and is expected to be forwardd soon for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. However, the "Arrowhead Formula" ha~'been utilized with some consistency in other land use applications, and "employee housing" has beel~required pursuant to at least one other Special Use Permit (that being the Special Use Permit that preceled and was subsequently replaced by the Red Sky Ranch PUD). Nonetheless, the Local Reside.\l Housing requirements are currently still under consideration and have yet to be codified as pc.~ of the Land Use Regulations. In recent discussions with the Applicant, it has been noted that this proposed tllvelopment is in a previously approved subdivision. An alternative has been suggested of providing a cat\-in-lieu payment for the difference between the development which could occur with and without a zont'Change and amended final plat. That discussion was preliminary and was not quantified. Since a conparable site plan for the two existing separate lots does not exist, it is difficult to compare the propo~ed development directly with an alternative. However, even though it is a less than ideal basis for this pU.l>ose, comparing maximum permitted building sizes based on floor area ratios (FAR) may be ilformative, that 36 \5-28-2002 is, comparing maximum building size for the existing lots and zoning vs. that for the proposed combined lot and zoning. With all this in mind, and based on subsequent analysis, it may be noted that the maximum floor area permitted on Parcel 12 (at FAR = 0.6) is presently 44,275 square feet, and the maximum on Lot C-1 (at FAR = 0.5) is presently 19,145 square feet - a total of 63,420 square feet. On the combined lot (at FAR = 0.6) the maximum floor area would be 67,248 square feet. The difference being 3,828 square feet. Given the employee generation rates in the draftLocal Resident Housing Requirements document currently under review, this difference in floor area would result in a requirement for the developer to provide 1.19 local resident housing units. The draft Local Resident Housing Requirements also specifies an appropriate cash-in-lieu amount is $39,675 per unit, or a total in this case of $47,213 [1.19 x $39,675]. Consequently, Planning Staff is presenting the referral response of the Housing Department for consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board, without recommending a condition of approval. [+] FINDING: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of these Land Use Regulations for use, layout, and general development characteristics. Requirements for a Zone Change In Section 5-240.D., Standards, the Eagle County Land Use Regulations provide that "the wisdom of amending the. . . Official Zone District Map or any other map incorporated in these Regulations is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the Board of County Commissioners and is not controlled by anyone factor. Based on the above analysis and other available information, Staff makes the following findings as provided in this Section of the Land Use Regulations: The proposed zone change applies only to Lot C-I of the South Forty Subdivision, and is intended to bring consistency to the zoning of the overall site. Staff suggests the following findings relative to the Zone Change Application: 1. Consistency With Master Plan. [+] Consistency With Master Plan. The proposed PUD IS consistent with the purposes, goals, policies and FLUM ofthe Master Plan. 2. Compatible with surrounding uses. [+] 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. [+] 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. [+] Effect on natural environment. The proposed amendment DOES 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, storm water management, wildlife habitat, vegetation, and wetlands. s. Community need. [+] Community need. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a community need. (6) Development patterns. [+] Development patterns. The proposed amendment DOES result in a logical and orderly development pattern, DOES NOT constitute spot zoning, MAY logically be provided with necessary public facilities and services. (7) Public interest. [+] Public Interest. The area to which the proposed amendment would apply HAVE changed to such a degree that it is in the public interest to encourage a new use or density in the area. Commissioner Menconi questioned the number of parking spaces compared to the number of offices. Mr. Forinash stated the number of parking spaces has not changed. Some of those are full size spaces and some are for compact cars. Commissioner Menconi asked how they determined the number of spaces and the possible inadequacy. Mr. Forinash stated what has been proposed conforms to County Regulations though the Regulations are not specific as to the location. Commissioner Menconi asked what the Planning Commissioner discussed. Mr. Forinash stated they asked and the questions were answered. Commissioner Menconi asked about deliberation on traffic, entrances and exits. Mr. Forinash stated they are proposing adequate signing along Highway 6 to help direct pedestrians. Chairman Gallagher asked to look at the photo of the entrance. He asked about the entrance not being perpendicular to the road. Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, stated they were trying to get the access lined up perpendicular to that across the street but the applicant wants it to be offset. Chairman Gallagher asked where the vehicles sit according to the sight. Mr. Forinash stated the vehicles are at grade. Chairman Gallagher spoke to sidewalks and asked where they are. Mr. Forinash stated it is in the plan. Commissioner Menconi asked how much buffer is on the north side between the end of the parking spaces and Highway 6. Mr. Forinash stated the Regulations require a 10' landscape buffer including a meandering sidewalk. Chairman Gallagher asked Lorie Bower about the report from the Housing Department, it is 15.25 total housing requirements. Ms. Bower stated the total numbers based on the employment generation, figures this development would generate 165.44 employees. Terrill Knight, Planner, stated also present today is Rick Mueller, Russell Geis and Sid Bieomson. He stated they have worked very closely with Staff on this project and they were complimented by the Planning Commission for their combined efforts. He spoke to two issues, one is fees in lieu of roads and the other being employee housing. He identified the applications they are making to the County. He stated they want to be sure the plat is correct. This is proposed as a mixed use commercial building. He stated the site plan shows more than the mock up building. They have combined two subdivision lots into one. He stated the main floor will be retail and restaurants with office space above. Underground parking will be available as well as parking on the outside. He spoke to the current special uses allowed on the site. He stated they intend to be helpful in planning for pedestrian uses. He stated the significant part is that the site is essentially flat and at road grade. He stated they are required to get a special use permit and that is part oftheir application. It has been recommended they make one zone district for the development. He stated they previously vacated the easement. The final plat will make this one lot. They are proposing to dedicate the right of way. It is their opinion the impacts will be serving the whole area. There will be new easements dedicated by the plat. They are not proposing uses any different than what are in use today. It has been deemed 38 05-28-2002 consistent with the Master Plan. This will complete the intersection and tie the area together. He showed building detail. He showed the Site Plan and the buffers Edwards Village Blvd and along Highway 6. They have made it a meandering sidewalk with ample landscaping. He spoke to the entrance being right in, right out. He showed the existing right of way and the proposed road on Edwards Village Boulevard. He showed how striping or a barrier may need to be placed for the left hand turn lanes. He asked the architects to address the design. Sig Bieornson, Geis Architects, stated they are using a module of a western main street. In the modern pieces, they will break up the scaling. He stated the building is swayed which enhances the scale. He stated the building is the only one on that comer that does effectively respond to the street. He stated the convenience for access to the back is for the convenience of the users. He stated the parking in front is mainly for retail businesses, other parking will be underneath the building. He stated the access to the back will be business visitor parking. He stated the end of that is flexible and is being left open. Russell Geis, Geis Architects, stated the two driving forces were convenience and safety. He stated the access, where they are proposing it at the end of the property, is the obvious place. He stated their engineers did a study that indicated this is a safer situation with the traffic not being directly across. He stated they did move the entrance down and found it created bigger retaining walls and some very site specific concerns. Rick Muller, President of Romonof, stated the building is kind of a carry through with the Edwards Village Center. He stated from day one he has stated that this project has to be as convenient as possible with safety factors being paramount. He stated they met with about ten to fifteen retailers and listened to their input on the layout. He spoke to their meetings with Paul Clarkson and his recommendation to zone the parcel commercial general. They also spoke with Phil Scott on the access. He stated they sold the property to a foundation in 1999 and have worked out with them the traffic on the back side. He spoke to the zoning of commercial general and how that impacts the plan for the property. He stated they now have the concern with road impact fees and housing. He stated they did not want to have the similar situation they have in Avon. He stated they looked at abandoning the lot line and now it is being considered a new subdivision. He stated since they are in two different subdivisions, they are now having issues with the requirements on housing. He stated they have reduced the square footage of the building to enlarge the parking. They are actually limiting the amount of space that goes into the project. They have gone under the requirements for the housing. He spoke to 1985 and the development of this property and that Edwards has been the employee housing for the valley. At the time, they figured the housing would compliment the commercial. They believe the housing component is taken care of. He spoke to buying the property in 1994. He stated they helped put in a situation that brought in 200 housing units. He stated they have come up with three solutions to the access point. He stated they are trying to figure out the impacts to the road. They provided a study that shows this as a compatible situation and has less conflict points than aligning the street. They have given up land and voluntarily reduced the size of their building. He stated this would necessitate a forty foot retaining wall. He stated from a safety standpoint they believe it should be where it is. He stated each side has proposed a solution that has its merits. He stated they are not in a position nor are they able to move the entrance farther with the cost sharing program with the property owner to the South. He stated they also have some questions on the road impact fees. Mr. Knight spoke to the letter he submitted regarding some of Staff's concerns. He referred to the letter dated May 24. He stated #3 is what was just discussed. He suggested in most circumstances, lining up the intersections is a good idea unless they are separated by good distances. #5, they have moved the dumpster. #7, they have agreed to maintain the sidewalks in front of their development. He stated they will carry that to the bus stops as well. He stated #8, #9, and #10 have been agreed on and they are collecting the letter of service. He spoke to the Planning Commission adding two conditions. 39 05-28-2002 He stated they have been working with Justin and Ms. Migchelbrink and all but one has been resolved. If they wanted to do two buildings on two lots they don't believe the project would be as good. He stated by the fact they are eliminating a new lot line, it is appearing as a new subdivision and they are decreasing the impact via the special use permit. He stated they exceed the minimum parking requirement because it is better for business. He stated they have made some revisions to address the snow removal. He stated the one issue they have on the site plan is the location of the main driveway and the two additional issues they will resolve before final plat. Chairman Gallagher asked if they still have issues with conditions 3, 13 and 14. Mr. Knight stated that was correct. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. Ken Marchetti indicated they agree with staff's recommendation that the intersections be aligned with the intersection for Edwards Village Center. Chairman Gallagher closed public comment. Helen Migchelbrink stated they have had lengthy discussions on this and she believes it is a case of what he wants for his marketing. She is trying to look at it from a traffic control standpoint. She and her traffic consultants agree the intersections need to be aligned for the traffic flow. She stated he hasn't come in with a design because it requires a retaining wall. She sees this as being more costly. Commissioner Stone asked about a stop light or about right in right out on the development across the street. Ms. Migchelbrink stated if you have the entrances staggered, pedestrians don't know what to do. Commissioner Stone asked about the future of the main intersection of Highway 6. Ms. Migchelbrink stated they have studied this intersection and the community stated they want a standard intersection. That design has been recommended and it is in the cue. She stated she doesn't have any idea when funding will become available. Commissioner Stone asked they address the traffic on the Spur Road. He stated they have been expected to solve all the Spur Road issues for Berry Creek and in his opinion all the developments contribute to the traffic in the area. George Roussos, Assistant County Administrator, stated the intersection is the terminus of the Spur Road project and is being examined as part of the 1-70 EIS. Commissioner Stone asked about the exclusion. Mr. Roussos stated they did not ask for a categorical exclusion because that deals with the environmental issues. What they ask for is that the Spur Road project be decoupled from the programmatic EIS to allow it to proceed independently. He stated they refused to decouple it. Commissioner Stone questioned the funding for this. Mr. Roussos spoke to some safety monies and that the costs to improve or fix this Commissioner Stone asked for an explanation of the housing. Lorie Bower, Housing Department, stated they are seeing this as a new development because it does constitute something entirely different than what is currently zoned. She stated they referred to the comprehensive development plan. Their recommendation does not reflect the new proposed levels. She stated under the current requirements they would have to have 25.85 units. She stated they have since had additional discussions regarding what would now be required compared to what they were going to build. She stated they felt that ultimately it would be something that the Board would have to decide. Chairman Gallagher stated he didn't follow the argument they need not provide employee housing. Terrill Knight spoke to the approval made in the 1980's. He stated the Edwards project was finally approved in 1984 or 1985. There was a mix of commercial and affordable housing. He stated the South Forty Subdivision was approved without any housing requirements. He stated the non commercial lots were roughly an acre in size which indirectly met a need at the time. 40 05-28-2002 Chairman Gallagher asked if they would tie the Edwards Village Center to this building. Mr. Knight suggested they have met the housing standards. Lorie Bower stated this is a past and present kind of thing. She stated there were no specific affordable housing guidelines. She stated that was incentive for people to move to Edwards. What was affordable then is not affordable now. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the Riverwalk Project and some of the deed restricted units. He asked if there are other affordable units in the area. Mr. Forinash stated there are not. Chairman Gallagher asked if there is a tie between Edwards Village and this project. Mr. Knight stated they agree with Lorie as to her interpretation. He stated if they came in with two separate lots they would have a worse design, but they feel that the case is clear on this. Commissioner Stone stated he is not swayed by the applicants arguments that this was already approved. This is a new development. He does not see they should be held to the standards of the proposed Land Use Regulations. He would like to hope the applicant could offer some sort of compromise situation. Right now ifhe heard correctly, they are not proposing any housing with this. Mr. Knight stated not on this site. Mr. Mueller stated on site is no. The question is does he want to pay $600,000 in affordable housing credits. He stated that will bankrupt the property. He asked if they want to have two gas stations on the property. Commissioner Stone asked if it is all or nothing. Mr. Mueller stated he has put a lot of money into this area having donated sidewalks and irrigation. He stated he is looking at it from the standpoint of giving up another $600,000 plus $200,000 for road impact fees. He doesn't know if this is the situation that he could come to an answer for. He stated he could do the 1.19 but the 15, he couldn't do. Commissioner Stone suggested he would have hoped they had come to some sort of idea of where else they could go. Mr. Mueller stated they do own some open space near the ambulance district and they might consider donating two acres behind the post office. Commissioner Menconi asked if that was given as open space for the Edwards Center Project. Mr. Mueller stated that was not specified and there is no correlation between the two. He asked Ms. Migchelbrink what she would estimate the difference in the accident rate would be. He asked how significant of a difference that was. He stated they provided additional alternatives but agreed those didn't work. He stated they don't own the property to the south. Ms. Migchelbrink stated they did talk about perhaps getting into some kind of negotiations across the street in changing their access. What she was hoping was a better dialogue. She stated he never did layout the access. Mr. Mueller suggested they did present a design on that. Ms. Migchelbrink stated she did not see any design. Terrill Knight stated what they don't have today is what it will actually take to shore up the hillside. He suggested they might be better off showing the alignment and what will happen to the hillside. Commissioner Stone asked about getting people across the street to change their access point. Mr. Mueller suggested that is a Condominium Association and he doesn't believe they will get their support. He suggested one of the options the County would have is to extend the bike path and at that time they could move the access point. Commissioner Stone stated there is no master planning approach being used. Mr. Mueller spoke to the meandering sidewalk on their sight. He suggested people take the point of least resistance. He stated if it ties in all the way to Homestead then it would make sense to do the 41 05-28-2002 sidewalk at that time. Commissioner Stone suggested that perhaps they could table this for a period of time to work out the issues regarding housing and for the traffic. They might be better served than to force a decision today. Commissioner Menconi stated he does have comments to make and doesn't feel it fair for the applicant to proceed without his input. He stated this is the first commercial application that he has reviewed. He asked Mr. Forinash how they decide what is the adequate amount of commercial space. Mr. Forinash stated there are several factors and the one they talk about most is floor area ratio. He stated in this particular development and probably in most, is the parking that is required to support the proposed uses on sight. He stated there is some parking located below grade and to expand the site would require more parking below ground. Commissioner Menconi asked about the previous approvals and how much space could he have built. Mr. Mueller stated the South Forty sight was 38,000 square feet. Under Commercial General Zoning, you are allowed to use 60% of that. He stated the current zoning is Commercial Limited and that is 50% which is 19,000 square feet. He stated the other site is 73,791 square feet and that would allow for 44,274 square feet. Commissioner Menconi stated 64,000 square feet of commercial space could be on that corner. Mr. Forinash explained the special use permit and what triggers that. He stated the numbers for parking are maximum permitted floor area. To have that kind of development would require some sort of provision that would not be permitted at grade, i.e. below grade, or the floor area would have to be reduced. Commissioner Menconi asked for a simplified explanation. Mr. Forinash stated with use by right, he would be able to get a 22,000 square foot development on both sights. He stated it is hard to compare because there has not been any sight design. Commissioner Menconi stated he is trying to determine whether the size of the project is compatible to the land. He spoke to the other issues and from his standpoint they tabled the Zoning Regulations with respect to housing. He asked them to demonstrate the need for the community for the retail and commercial. He asked if the developer is limited to two stories and questioned if that could in fact be a mixed use between commercial and housing. Would that require a variance to the height restrictions. Mr. Forinash stated a variance for height restriction is not available. Bob Narracci stated they could apply for a variance but it would be difficult for the applicant to show a hardship. He suggested a PUD could accommodate the difference. Ms. Migchelbrink stated it would totally change the way they would look at the sight and would have to revisit the whole site design. Commissioner Menconi suggested they are hearing there is more parking being provided than what is in the standards. He asked if the road impact fees relate to this. Mr. Narracci stated it does not. Mr. Knight stated he thinks they do need to hear what the concerns are. Chairman Gallagher asked to see the road right of ways. He looked at the proposed road. He suggested it appears that there are three lanes going up hill. He questioned the protrusions into the traffic way. He asked about stack spaces and left turn lanes. Ms. Migchelbrink stated they haven't set that distance yet because they are willing to move that access. Chairman Gallagher suggested there are at least four accesses into the business area. He questioned taking the one across from their entrance away. He suggested when they are looking at one on one side and three on the other, if there is something else they can look at. 42 05-28-2002 Ms. Migchelbrink suggested that closing the access is a potential. Chairman Gallagher spoke to the diagram and suggested the 10 foot contour lines are pretty steep. He suggested what strikes him, is that going out they are maintaining the same elevation. He asked to what foundation have they donated property. Mr. Mueller stated it is the Hernrich Foundation and what they may end up doing is a cost sharing program. He stated it is the kind of issue they have struggled not to bring up. He stated they would put a road in to access Tract T, and put in some sort of recreational use. They are looking at tennis courts or an ice rink. They would like to do something of a public benefit. The whole ability for them is to put the access in. Chairman Gallagher stated it is his recollection that this area climbs up a pretty steep hill. He is suggesting they will have to move a lot of dirt. Mr. Mueller stated they will have a great deal of dirt to move. Chairman Gallagher stated he is hoping they will be creative with the housing and there has been no previous requirement that the housing be on site. He suggested making space or land available is one consideration. He suggested they come up with some value to assist affordable housing in Eagle County. Commissioner Stone suggested they might consider putting some land under Habitat for Humanity. Lorie Bower stated they are looking at a pretty wide variance and unit numbers. She asked if they have any direction and if the 20% is what they would consider. Chairman Gallagher stated 20% is a starting point but it is negotiable. Commissioner Menconi stated he likes the way they have started out their analysis. He would have expected they would have the Land Use Regulations in place at this point. He suggested the applicant become available with the linkage formula. Commissioner Stone moved the Board table File No. ZC-00051, Edwards Comer Zone Change and File No. ZS-00088, Edwards Corner Special Use Permit, until June 18,2002. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. LUR-00038, Local Resident Housing Requirements LUR-00039, Inclusionary Housing LUR-00040, Residential Employee Housing Linkage LUR-00041, Non-Residential Employee Housing Linkage Commissioner Menconi moved to tabled file numbers LUR-00038, Local Resident Housing Requirements, LUR-00039, Inclusionary Housing, LUR-00040, Residential Employee Housing Linkage and LUR-00041, Non-Residential Employee Housing Linkage, to July 2, 2002. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until June 4, 2002. Attest: Clerk to the Board 43 05-28-2002