Loading...
Minutes 07/02/2002 PUBLIC HEARING JUL 2, 2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Tom Moorhead Jack Ingstad Sara J. 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: GENERAL FUND A & H GRAPHICS AAA COLLECTORS AAA TRACERS INC AARON VELDHEER AASHTO ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS ADVANCED LOCK & SECURITY AEC TECHNOLOGIES AFFORDABLE PORTABLE AILI FOSS ALAMO RENT A CAR ALL PHASE ELECTRIC SUPPLY ALL-PRO FORMS INC ALLlANT FOOD SERVICE ALPHA INTERACTIVE GROUP ALPINE AREA AGENCY AGING AMADEO GONZALES AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AMERICAN DIABETES ASSOC. AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC AMERICAN PUBLIC WRKS ASSC AMERICAN TOWER CORP AMERICINN LODGE & SUITES ANDERSON & KEIL ANDERSON PUBLISHING CO ANIMAL CARE EQUIPMENT AND ANN MUNCASTER APEX SECURITY API SYSTEMS GROUP APOLLO CREDIT AGENCY APPLIED ELECTRONICS ARMY & FACTORY SURPLUS ARNOLD AND ARNOLD ASPEN BASE OPERATON ASPEN CTR FOR WOMENS HL TH SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE 1 109.50 69.22 15.00 9.71 155.00 20.00 35.00 2,668.80 88.00 12.56 258.00 57.90 228.52 3,549.22 130.00 1,193.23 65.70 507.50 21.95 635.00 113.00 875.00 667.00 13.64 66.53 158.34 90.00 455.00 700.00 6.98 142.60 47.88 79.22 1,447.52 4,970.00 07 -02-02 ASPEN DAILY NEWS AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES AV TECH ELECTRONICS INC AVALANCHE PLUMBING AVCARD AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS B & H SPORTS BAND B EXCAVATING B J ROWE BAILEY FUNERAL HOME BALCOMB AND GREEN BARBARA KASIEWICZ BASALT MINI STORAGE BASALT SOCCER TEAM BATTLE MTN HS CHEERLEADER BATTLE MTN HS DANCE TEAM BAYER CAREY & MCGEE BENCHMARK ENGINEERING BERNICE WHITE BERTHOD MOTORS BEST LOCKING SYSTEMS BEST WESTERN COW PALACE BEST WESTERN EAGLE LODGE BEVERLY KUNKEL BLUE LAKE OWNERS ASSN BOB BARKER COMPANY BOISCLAIR & TAYLOR BONNIE L GRAHAM BRC/HARRIS INC BRENDA SCHULTZ BROWNING FERRIS IND BRUCE CAMPBELL C & H DISTRIBUTORS INC CALIFORNIA COALITION CALOIA & HOUPT PC CARLA HAGGART CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL SERVICES/EC CENTURYTEL CHANNING L BETE CO, INC CHARLES B DARRAH CHEMATOX INC. CHESS CHRISTINE L MOTT CITY MARKET #34 CIVIL AIR PATROL MAGAZINE CO AFFORDABLE HOUSING CO ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE CHAIR MATS SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 249.60 946.10 106.03 259.11 167.21 2,042.48 250.00 629.00 30.36 525.00 9.92 441 .26 140.00 1,620.00 640.00 980.00 1.32 300.00 40.20 523.00 126.37 990.00 282.10 141.60 1,876.11 151.01 8.69 9.92 537.53 13.02 135.48 100.00 127.68 90.00 2,133.70 40.71 2,395.81 6.80 21,652.93 1,266.20 63.72 165.00 467.00 2,356.25 91.54 145.00 150.00 5.00 2 07 -02-02 CO BAR ASSOCIATION CO BUREAU INVESTIGATION CO DEPT AGRICULTURE CO DEPT OF REVENUE CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH & CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH AND CO DEPT TRANSPORTATION COLLECTION CO OF AMERICA COLLECTO COLLETTS COLORADO ACTIVITY CTR INC COLORADO BIG COUNTRY RC&D COLORADO DOOR CONTROL COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO WEST MENTAL HL TH COLORADO/WEST EQUIP, INC COM-LINK COMFORT INN CONSERVE A WATT LIGHTING CONTINENTAL DIVIDE FENCE COORS DISTRIBUTING COpy PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING DRCOG DAMON BAILLIE DAVE MOTT DAVID A BAUER DAVID GUINNEE, DVM DAVID M ARAGON DAVID PROCTOR DEBBRA BROWN DEEP ROCK WEST DEERFIELD SEMINARS INC DELL INC DENVER NEWSPAPER AGENCY DERRINGER DESIRED OUTCOMES, INC DETECTOR DOGS DIANA KAFKA DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE DOCTORS ON CALL DOLPHIN CAPITAL CORP DON OLSEN DONNA BARNES CORONER DOUBLETREE WORLD ARENA DOUG WINTERS DREAMCATCHER IMAGING SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE 350.00 66.24 75.00 21.41 384.00 25.00 19,510.74 15.50 12.40 109.81 375.00 600.00 514.67 3,580.08 1,715.00 32,965.00 25.19 230.24 68.14 2,376.60 799.75 528.33 3,162.68 1,389.35 170.00 400.00 36.00 25.00 715.00 25.00 240.00 176.96 456.91 189.00 10,309.60 286.80 500.00 575.25 300.00 145.23 216,165.00 215.00 112.08 7.51 102.58 146.00 65.72 1,513.00 3 07 -02-02 DUFFORD WALDECK & MILBURN EAGLE AMOCO EAGLE AUTO RECYCLING & EAGLE CARE MEDICAL CLINIC EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS EAGLE CONVENIENCE STORE EAGLE COUNTY HEALTH AND EAGLE COUNTY MOTOR POOL EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING EAGLE EYE PHOTO EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE PRINTING EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE VAIL ANIMAL HOSPITA EAGLE VALLEY HARDWARE EAGLE VALLEY LEO CLUB EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING EARL GLENWRIGHT EAST WEST RESORTS EDUCATIONAL NEWS SERVICE EDWARDS STATION LLC ELECTION CENTER EMC2 EMILIA GONZALEZ ENERGY SAVING INC ENGINEERED AIR ENGINEERS & LAND SURVEYOR EPS DESIGN AND PRINT ESRI EXTENSION PROGRAM FUND FACTORY SURPLUS FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY FAMILY VISITOR PROGRAM FARMER BROTHERS FARRELL, GOLDSTEIN, FEDERAL EXPRESS FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG FILE FINDERS L TO FINANCIAL EQUIPMENT COMPA FINELlNE FIRE SPRINKLER SERVICES FIRKINS GARAGE DOORS FIRST AMERICAN HERITAGE FIRST BAMK OF AVON FIRST BANKS FITZSIMMONS MOTOR COMPANY FLAIR DATA SYSTEMS INC FLYING COLORS HORSE SUPPL REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 30.00 399.00 140.00 8,732.00 5,765.62 400.00 16.20 341.58 34.25 5.85 607.90 255.75 85.21 108.00 266.81 900.00 915.70 90.00 1,832.66 39.00 400.00 1,025.00 1,626.60 127.20 365.65 484.38 70.00 78.26 2,000.00 1,856.28 310.78 1,172.30 4,588.39 2,092.50 87.18 463.72 5,742.00 60.00 129.20 475.00 1,304.50 270.00 5.00 25.00 13,788.79 30.00 713.00 8,103.31 4 07 -02-02 GALLS INCORPORATED GARFIELD CO DEPT SOC SERV GATES MARGE PHN GE CAPITAL GEMPLERS INC GENE SEARS SUPPLY GFOA GIRL SCOUT BRONZE PATROL GIRL SCOUT TROOP #10207 GIRL SCOUT TROOP #193 GIRL SCOUT TROOP #293 GIRL SCOUT TROOP 288 GIRL SCOUT TROOP 292 GLENWOOD MEDICAL ASSOC GLENWOOD SEWING CENTER GLENWOOD SHOE SERVICE GOOD-LITE COMPANY GORE RANGE NATURAL GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND GRATITUDES GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES GT ALLIANCE INC HACH COMPANY HAMPTON INN DENVER WEST HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HEWLETT PACKARD HIGH COUNTRY SHIRTWORKS HILL & COMPANY HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HUD USER HUNDE HAUS IAPMO IES INDOFF INC (BP DIV) INTEGRITY PLUMBING AND INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE J BAR 0 CATERING JACQUELINE ALLEN JAMES J STANDLEY JANET KOHL JEANETTE HURSEY JEFF BYRON JEFFERSON COUNTY JOHN VENGRIN JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC JOLlE B RAMO JOYCE HANSON JULIE SNYDER SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 420.77 28.10 2,212.50 159.99 145.50 1,572.52 538.00 2,020.00 1,380.00 1,380.00 250.00 1,940.00 2,260.00 159.00 863.00 230.00 124.94 4,050.00 1,141.97 168.00 8.68 1,662.50 149.00 252.00 1,275,451.74 1,876.05 900.00 500.00 12,290.96 10.00 185.50 350.00 2,371.00 32.03 2,123.92 270.00 3,050.00 979.02 29.76 63.71 78.90 212.00 100.00 143.47 600.00 180.00 148.70 102.25 5 07 -02-02 JUSTIN HILDRETH K-D FLAGS KARA BETTIS, DEPUTY KELLY L1EKIS KEN WILSON KENDRA DOEPKEN KESSLER MARY J KIMBERLY SPAHMER KINDER MORGAN INC KINETICO WATER PROS KING CAMPBELL DDS KROGER KSKE-AGM KTUN-FM RADIO KUHN, CARNES & ANDERSON LAB SAFETY SUPPLY LAND TITLE LANIE MARTIN LAURIE BOWER LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC LEO JAMENEZ LESLEE SCOTT, INC LEXISNEXIS LORIS & ASSOCIATES INC LRP PUBLICATIONS M & M AUTO PARTS MACHOL&JOHANNES MAINTENANCE WAREHOUSE MALINDA GRIFFIN MARKOS PIZZERIA MARKS PLUMBING PARTS MARLENE MC CAFFERTY MARLlSA MIZERAK MARRIOTT MARRIOTT COURTYARD MARSHALL AUSTIN PRODUCTNS MARY JAN E LA YN E MARY OWENS MATTHEW BENDER AND MBIA MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS MCI WORLD COM MCKINNEY DOOR & HARDWARE MEDICAL CENTER OF EAGLE MERCK ATL MESA COUNTY HEALTH DEPT MICHAEL A FELlTTI MICRO SOLUTIONS REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 119.10 596.50 343.47 2,184.00 200.00 128.52 209.65 810.43 3,046.16 48.00 464.00 32.54 200.00 300.00 50.00 726.84 315.00 10.19 521 .23 1,535.12 64.98 527.60 542.00 13,127.01 219.50 13.12 56.20 163.68 38.00 139.62 1,358.89 90.00 390.35 188.00 338.00 1,500.00 127.57 114.00 107.94 8,294.41 3,215.12 6,542.36 107.27 1,472.00 8,190.00 21.00 162.12 69.95 6 07 -02-02 MICRO WAREHOUSE MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN MIKE GALLAGHER MIKES CAMERA INC. MONTAG KEITH P MOORE BUSINESS MOORE MEDICAL CORP MOTOR POOL FUND MOTOROLA INCORPORATED MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS MOUNTAIN ENERGY MOUNTAIN MOBILE VETERINAR MOUNTAIN STATES EMPLOYERS MS. DOLORES GONZALES MSC INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY N-GEN SOLUTIONS INC NATIONAL TACTICAL OFFICER NCR CORPORATION NEVES UNIFORMS NFPA NHSA NINA ETTAWIL NOBEL SYSCO FOOD SERVICES NORDIC REFRIGERATION NOVA GUIDES INC OLD NATIONAL JASPER OLSON PROPERTY OMB POLICE SUPPLY ONE OF A KIND DESIGN ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO OSM DELIVERY LLC PAINT BUCKET THE PAMELA HARRIS PARAMOUNT DISTRIBUTORS PATHOLOGY GROUP PAUL A SULLIVAN PEAK PERFORMANCE COPIER & PEGASUS SATELLITE PEGGY GRAYBEAL PESIHEALTHCARE PETER FRALICK PETRIE, BAUER, VRIESMAN PHOTO EFFECTS INC PITKIN IRON CORP PITNEY BOWES PITNEY BOWES INCORPORATED POCATELLO SUPPLY DEPOT POSTMASTER EAGLE BRANCH SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE 2,547.62 384.91 65.86 3,382.00 37.95 4,236.05 343.82 48,899.49 1,751.50 3,830.45 282.96 260.00 3,600.00 22.50 256.25 995.00 35.00 399.29 89.95 677.50 100.00 22.52 7,405.24 1,817.92 100.00 31,711.30 2,400.00 90.89 6,949.68 1,026.00 437.00 219.06 205.00 435.24 370.00 18.10 121 .28 61.96 320.00 139.00 19.05 10.00 307.50 93.27 2,490.00 133.99 995.10 681.94 7 07 -02-02 PPCT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS PPCT PRODUCTS LLC PRIMEDIA WORKPLACE PROFESSIONAL FINANCE PROFESSIONAL TREE & TURF PROMOTIONAL SOURCE PSS, INC PURCHASE POWER QUEST DIAGNOSTICS QWEST QWEST INTERPRISE NETWRKNG RADISSON HOTEL RAMON EDWARD RIVERA REBECCA LEONARD RESEARCH SPECIALISTS RESILlTE SPORTS PRODUCTS RETIREMENT FUND RICHARD COWELL COMPANY RICHARD KESLER ROARING FORK FENCING ROBERT B EMERSON, PC ROCKIE TALKIE COMMUNICATN ROCKY MOUNTAIN EMBROIDERY ROGER MOORE RONALD WAYNE CROTZER ROSIE STAHL ROTARY CLUB VAIL/EV RSC RUTH A SHARP SANDRA L SKILES SANDYS OFFICE SUPPLY SARA J FISHER SAWAYA AND ROSE SCAN AIR OF COLORADO INC SCOTT THOMPSON SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SHAINHOL TZ TODD HODS SHEAFFER KAREN SHERATON STEAMBOAT RESORT SIGNATURE SIGNS SIMON PEREZ SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SKILLPATH SEMINAR SNOWHITE LINEN SOUTHERN STEEL COMPANY STARBUCK SURVEYORS & ENGI SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 65.65 248.51 388.00 15.00 733.48 3,214.50 10.97 10,100.00 596.19 4,812.13 1,297.58 774.00 35.00 32.00 10.08 1,379.40 307,897.50 42.50 3,528.74 1,805.75 208.05 828.00 1,160.00 24.52 3.72 125.00 1,000.00 2,427.48 57.82 189.75 17.70 446.14 47.60 225.36 200.00 22.50 1,406.00 31,618.67 666.00 143.67 4,968.47 526.00 37.50 587.14 975.00 166.44 90.00 600.00 8 07 -02-02 STERICYCLE INC STEVE JOHNSON STEWART TITLE STOUTS ELECTRICAL MOTOR STRAWBERRY PATCH SUCCESSORIES INCORPORATED SUE MOTT SULLIVAN GREEN LLC SUMMIT COUNTY GOVERNMENT SUMMIT COUNTY SHERIFFS OF SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLY CACHE SUSAN M PAPKE SUSPENSE FUND TAMRA BLACKARD TELEVUE SERVICE COMPANY THE SOPRIS FOUNDATION TOM SCHREINER TOOL CLINIC INCORPORATED TOSHIBA AMERICA INFORMATI TOWN OF EAGLE TRANSCOR AMERICA INC TV8 UBALDO CASTILLO UNIFORM KINGDOM UNITED PARCEL UNITED REPROGRAPHIC UNITED RESOURCE SYSTEMS UNITED STATES POSTAL SERV UNIVERSTIY PHYSICIANS INC UPBEAT INCORPORATED UPPER ARKANSAS VALLEY VAIL DAILY THE VAIL ELECTRONICS VAIL LOCK AND KEY VAIL NET VAIL TRAIL THE VAIL VALLEY EMERGENCY VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTR VAIL NET INC VALLEY LUMBER VALLEY PINES HOMEOWNERS VAN DIEST SUPPLY COMPANY VERIZON WIRELESS, VI BROWN VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS VIOLA ULLERICK VISION GRAPHICS SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE 158.51 87.40 6.00 226.22 414.00 164.48 96.00 79.20 1,500.00 45.00 76.12 757.00 316.50 71,185.85 80.73 1,577.87 90.00 8.78 235.23 3,480.07 10,875.66 872.03 1,300.00 250.00 3,028.00 353.18 1,316.62 25.00 1,000.00 25.00 1,086.47 920.00 487.50 132.50 10.50 39.95 400.00 1,080.00 2,309.45 2,060.95 142.81 708.45 5,112.65 6,571.43 49.50 125.54 105.00 1,298.77 9 07 -02-02 VOTEC CORPORATION SERVICE 17,565.80 WALZ POSTAL SOLUTIONS INC SERVICE 341.82 WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICE 95.00 WATER RESOURCE CONSULTANT SERVICE 4,808.28 WEAR GUARD CORPORATION SERVICE 236.93 WEE CARE BABY PRODUCTS SERVICE 150.00 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 279,448.26 WEST GROUP SERVICE 390.00 WESTERN PAGING SERVICE 8.00 WESTERN SLOPE SERVICE 1,175.00 WESTERN SLOPE BAR SERVICE 165.00 WESTON WESTMINSTER SERVICE 480.00 WILLARD B HARDESTY REIMBURSEMENT 3.72 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 687.79 XCELENERGY SERVICE 57.29 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 5,153.44 Y & S PHARMACY SERVICE 3,450.56 YAMPA VALLEY ELECTRIC SERVICE 103.99 YOUR PERSONAL CHEF SERVICE 450.00 e.REPUBLlC, INC. SERVICE 115.00 PAYROLL FOR JUNE PAYROLL 12 & 13 624,542.29 3,397,651.28 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 81.00 ALL AMERICAN SERVICE 250.00 B & H SPORTS SERVICE 2,525.00 BIG DOG LANDSCAPING REIMBURSEMENT 150.00 BOGUE CONSTRUCTION SERVICE 1,108.93 BRUCE CAREY REIMBURSEMENT 75.00 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICE 48.66 COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE INC SERVICE 219.01 EAGER BEAVER REIMBURSEMENT 250.00 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 151.37 ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPO SERVICE 92.40 ENVIROTECH SERVICE 31,170.65 GORDON CHICOINE REIMBURSEMENT 2,000.00 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 113,147.01 HELLERSTEIN & SHORE PC SERVICE 300.00 HOL Y CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 411.41 INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY SUPPLIES 97.37 KINDER MORGAN INC SERVICE 97.19 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 168,896.94 MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS SUPPLIES 234.00 10 07 -02-02 PROPERTY IMAGING, LLC SERVICE 300.00 RELIABLE SUPPLIES 45.61 RETIREMENT FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 29,119.00 SAFETY & CONSTRUCTION SERVICE 526.36 SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SERVICE 885.59 SKILLPA TH SEMINAR SERVICE 199.00 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 3,575.42 THOMAS A DAVIES JR REIMBURSEMENT 100.00 TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE 232.88 TREVOR BENEDICT REIMBURSEMENT 100.00 V AIL RESORTS DEVELOPMENT SERVICE 680.00 WADEL DEVELOPMENT REIMBURSEMENT 250.00 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 16,788.15 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 791.72 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES 25.98 PAYROLL FOR JUNE PAYROLL 12 & 13 55,972.63 TOTAL 430,898.28 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 70.00 ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF SERVICE 57.00 ALL STAR DELIVERY/PROCESS SERVICE 25.00 CATHERINE CRAIG SERVICE 57.27 CATHERINE ZAKOIAN, MA SERVICE 1,440.00 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICE 588.75 CHILDRENS HOSPITAL SERVICE 102.15 CLEAR CREEK CNTY SHERIFF REIMBURSEMENT 5.00 COLORADO WEST MENTAL HL TH SERVICE 550.00 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES 29.01 CSED REIMBURSEMENT 123.54 DENVER COUNTY SHERIFF REIMBURSEMENT 18.00 DEREK H ICKE SERVICE 845.00 EAGLE COUNTY SCHOOL DIST SERVICE 2,500.00 EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF REIMBURSEMENT 258.28 EAGLE PRINTING SERVICE 209.25 EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SERVICE 78.54 EAGLE VALLEY CHILD CARE REIMBURSEMENT 1,449.34 EAGLE VALLEY PRINTING SUPPLIES 213.75 ENVIRONMENTS, INC SERVICE 13.47 FAMIL Y SUPPORT REGISTRY REIMBURSEMENT 330.00 FREMONT COUNTY SHERIFF REIMBURSEMENT 38.00 GARFIELD CO DEPT SOC SERV REIMBURSEMENT 84,528.00 GLENWOOD ORAL SURGERY SERVICE 1,095.00 HART INTERCIVIC SERVICE 240.81 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 118,995.08 INTEGRITY PLUMBING AND SERVICE 1,737.76 11 07 -02-02 JAITIRE INDUSTRIES, INC SERVICE 1,292.19 JANICE K OKELLEY SERVICE 31.20 JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFFS REIMBURSEMENT 12.65 JOHN C COLLINS PC SERVICE 7,830.00 JOHN McCORMICK SERVICE 360.00 JOSE BANUELOS SERVICE 3,360.00 JUNIPER VALLEY PRODUCTS SUPPLIES 12.14 KAPLAN COMPANIES, INC SERVICE 572.82 KATHY REED REIMBURSEMENT 167.67 LABORATORY CORPORATION OF SERVICE 110.00 LISA GRIGGS REIMBURSEMENT 108.02 LYONS KATHLEEN REIMBURSEMENT 152.26 MARK YARE SERVICE 500.00 MESA COUNTY SHERIFF REIMBURSEMENT 17.08 MICHAEL CLAUSSNER SERVICE 300.00 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 893.30 NICK ANTUNA SERVICE 490.00 ONTIVEROS, LUPE REIMBURSEMENT 35.19 PEAK PERFORMANCE COPIER & SERVICE 99.22 PITKIN COUNTY SHERIFF REIMBURSEMENT 12.78 RETIREMENT FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 19,484.50 RITA WOODS REIMBURSEMENT 93.20 ROCHELLE A BOWER REIMBURSEMENT 307.40 RONALD MC DONALD HOUSE SERVICE 555.00 SAMARITAN CNTR OF ROCKIES SERVICE 1,500.00 ST MARYS PRESCHOOL SERVICE 1,315.00 SUSPENSE FUND REIMBURSEMENT 5,835.03 SYLVIA SALAZAR REIMBURSEMENT 75.90 TERRI ALLENDER SERVICE 480.00 VANASK WAREHOUSE COMPANY SERVICE 171.12 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICE 563.28 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 16,733.62 PAYROLL FOR JUNE PAYROLL 12 & 13 36,028.71 315,097.28 WRAP FUND 5TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT SERVICE 3,220.00 ALL KIDS DENTIST SERVICE 2,624.00 ASPEN VALLEY HOSPITAL SERVICE 37.50 BASALT RECREATION DEPT SERVICE 300.00 CO WEST RECOVERY CENTER SERVICE 15.00 JULIE M LEWIS SERVICE 360.00 ORTHO ASSC APENE/GLNWD PC SERVICE 521.00 PANDABEAR PRESCHOOL SERVICE 2,376.00 PATRICIA SENA REIMBURSEMENT 60.51 ROCHELLE A BOWER REIMBURSEMENT 114.17 12 07 -02-02 SUBURBAN LODGE OF EAGLE SERVICE 294.00 SYLVIA SALAZAR SERVICE 172.00 TERRI ALLENDER SERVICE 780.00 THE CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL SERVICE 100.00 THUNDER RIVER GYMNASTICS SERVICE 70.00 TOWN OF BASALT SERVICE 330.00 WALMART GLENWOOD SERVICE 100.00 WINNING MOOD SOCCER ACDMY SERVICE 440.00 11,914.18 RETIREMENT FUND SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 56,867.71 56,867.71 INSURANCE RESERVE FUND GYPSUM AUTO BODY SERVICE 723.40 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 991.36 1,714.76 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND ACE-KAUFMAN STAMP & SEAL SERVICE 61.95 AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTR SERVICE 136,779.47 BRADS ELECTRICAL SERVICE SERVICE 272.61 CYBERLlNK SERVICE 286.60 DESIGN WORKSHOP SERVICE 7,392.05 DIVERSIFIED LIQUID SYSTEM SERVICE 5,600.00 FELSBURG HOL T & ULLEVIG SERVICE 2,959.27 HERMAN MILLER INC. SERVICE 29,947.24 HYDOSYSTEMS INC SERVICE 2,655.00 MOUNTAIN TERRASCAPE SERVICE 19,179.00 PEAK LAND CONSULTANTS INC SERVICE 285.00 ROCKY MOUNTAIN REPROGRAPH SERVICE 662.56 RUDD CONSTRUCTION SERVICE 102,618.34 SHAW SIGNS SERVICE 1,335.00 VAIL ELECTRONICS SERVICE 75.00 WILLIAM BRUMMETT SERVICE 5,400.00 315,509.09 SALES TAX E.V. TRANSP. ABARTA MEDIA SERVICE 300.00 AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES SERVICE 208.50 B & H SPORTS SERVICE 597.82 BENCHMARK ENGINEERING SERVICE 1,035.00 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS SUPPLIES 112.87 CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE 1.04 13 07 -02-02 COLLETTS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLUMBINE MARKET COLUMBINE STORAGE CENTER COMPLIANCE ALLIANCE INC COPY PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN DE LA RUE CASH SYSTEMS DEEP ROCK WEST DESIGN GLASS INCORPORATED DODD DIESEL INCORPORATED DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES EAGLE AUTO PARTS EAGLE COUNTY MOTOR POOL EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING EAGLE RIVER AUTO BODY EAGLE VALLEY HARDWARE FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY G & K SERVICES GAY JOHNSONS INC GENERAL ELECTRIC GILLIG CORPORATION HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC INDEPENDENT TOOL SUPPLY INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTMS JAY MAX SALES JJP COMPANIES KINDER MORGAN INC KINETICO WATER PROS KROGER LAWSON PRODUCTS M & M AUTO PARTS MOTOR POOL FUND NATIONAL SAFETY COUNCIL PDQ OF THE ROCKIES PHIL HUFF QWEST RETIREMENT FUND RON E BECK SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF THE SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SPECIALTY INCENTIVES INC STEPHEN RICHARDS SUSPENSE FUND TERRY FIELDS TOWN OF GYPSUM SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE 291.30 520.00 8.85 1,350.00 462.00 107.30 502.20 11,413.35 305.11 43.50 385.00 2,004.31 10,983.75 29.06 15,968.13 340.65 718.00 148.55 230.76 275.80 3,035.00 269.16 5,120.98 255,026.76 1,440.65 1,485.26 49.95 113.20 1,168.00 340.37 35.00 209.36 676.06 60.05 3,995.28 56.18 2,772.00 170.00 150.16 28,841.00 1,500.00 55.36 3,101.15 430.73 1,350.00 6,777.02 111.19 815.52 14 07 -02-02 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICE 81.73 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 47,661.73 WESTERN SLOPE PAINT SUPPLIES 361 .44 XCELENERGY SERVICE 58.42 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES 261 .41 PAYROLL FOR JUNE PAYROLL 12 & 13 110,752.72 526,675.69 SALES TAX E.V. TRAILS ALPINE ENGINEERING SERVICE 570.00 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOC SERVICE 157.00 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICE 381.00 COLUMBINE MARKET SUPPLIES 31.81 COpy PLUS SUPPLIES 24.89 EAGLE PHARMACY SUPPLIES 51.99 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 1,030.86 IMPACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS SERVICE 100.00 QUILL CORPORATION SUPPLIES 414.52 SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SUPPLIES 9.00 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 132.10 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERV SERVICE 900.00 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 836.28 4,639.45 AIRPORT FUND AIRPORT AUTHORITY SERVICE 4,650.00 AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES SERVICE 115.58 AVIATION SECURITY CLEARHS SERVICE 1,450.00 BAG LADY SERVICE 250.00 BERTHOD MOTORS SUPPLIES 44.40 BROWNING FERRIS IND SERVICE 353.49 BUREAU OF RECLAMATION SERVICE 500.00 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICE 86.30 CENTURYTEL SERVICE 2,254.55 CIVIL AIR PATROL MAGAZINE SERVICE 135.00 CONTINENTAL RESEARCH CORP SERVICE 144.01 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICE 59.00 EAGLE AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES 10.66 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 182.05 EAGLE VALLEY HARDWARE SUPPLIES 101.93 EDDIE STORER REIMBURSEMENT 48.91 FUTURA CARWASH SYSTEMS SERVICE 180.00 GRAINGER INCORPORATED SERVICE 336.52 GYPSUM TOWN OF SERVICE 334.25 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 85,785.54 15 07 -02-02 HERTZ CORPORATION SERVICE 396.39 HOL Y CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 1,856.62 HONEY BUN BAKERY SERVICE 19.00 INNERMOUNTAIN DISTRIBUTNG SUPPLIES 47.96 J S LENGEL ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE 4,000.00 JJ KELLER AND ASSOCIATES SERVICE 144.75 KINDER MORGAN INC SERVICE 699.62 LAND TITLE SERVICE 3,300.00 LAWSON PRODUCTS SERVICE 117 .53 M & M AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES 13.68 MAINTENANCE ENGINEERING SUPPLIES 2,175.89 MCI TELECOMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 198.79 MCI WORLDCOM SERVICE 237.74 MICAH RADER REIMBURSEMENT 342.79 MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC SERVICE 32,408.00 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 558.36 ORKIN EXTERMINATING CO SERVICE 1,414.92 OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION SUPPLIES 603.12 PRO SPORTS POLARIS SUPPLIES 92.06 RETIREMENT FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 11,417.50 RICHARD L GUSTAFSON REIMBURSEMENT 8,400.00 SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SUPPLIES 131.44 SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SERVICE 1,161.49 SPIEGEL MCDIARMID SERVICE 165.00 SUMMIT COMMERICAL LAUNDRY SERVICE 25.98 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 2,589.84 TRANSCORE, INC SERVICE 41,001.20 VAIL VALLEY JET CENTER SERVICE 79.27 VAN SANT GROUP SERVICE 2,088.79 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICE 109.62 WASHINGTON INFRASTRUCTURE SERVICE 5,337.96 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 13,746.74 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 3.00 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 111.38 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY SUPPLIES 434.00 PAYROLL FOR JUNE PAYROLL 12 & 13 35,404.53 267,857.15 MICROWAVE MAINTENANCE FUND COMSEARCH SERVICE 1,970.00 HOL Y CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 2,730.38 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICE 262.50 MOTOROLA INCORPORATED SERVICE 65,962.68 SUNLIGHT PEAK USERS SERVICE 150.00 71,075.56 16 07 -02-02 CAPITAL EXPENDITURE FUND BERTHOD MOTORS SERVICE 21,000.00 21,000.00 HOUSING FUND CO HOUSING ASSISTANCE SERVICE 90,000.00 90,000.00 LANDFILL FUND B & H SPORTS SERVICE 1,161.32 BROWNING FERRIS IND SERVICE 40,149.00 CENTRAL SERVICES/EC SERVICE 42.12 CO DEPT AGRICULTURE SERVICE 100.00 CONTINENTAL WEST SERVICE 260.22 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICE 73.85 DODSON ENGINEERED SERVICE 254.15 DOWN VALLEY SEPTIC SERVICE 330.00 EAGLE AUTO PARTS SERVICE 3.55 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING SUPPLIES 101.76 EAGLE VALLEY HARDWARE SUPPLIES 5.38 GENERAL FUND SERVICE 1,380.00 HEAL TH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 36,107.05 KRW CONSULTING INC SERVICE 7,599.77 KTUN-FM RADIO SERVICE 350.00 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 63,980.55 OXFORD RECYCLING INC SERVICE 5,615.53 RETIREMENT FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 7,387.50 RONALD RASN IC REIMBURSEMENT 67.45 SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SERVICE 1,651.18 SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLIES 6.58 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 1,527.20 VAIL DAILY THE SERVICE 728.00 VAIL TRAIL THE SERVICE 210.00 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 6,785.62 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 62.98 PAYROLL FOR JUNE PAYROLL 12 & 13 16,681.59 192,622.35 MOTOR POOL FUND ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 27.00 CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE SUPPLIES 62.38 CENTURY EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICE 29.50 COLLETTS SUPPLIES 36,690.36 17 07 -02-02 COLORADO MOTOR PARTS COLUMBINE MARKET DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES EAGLE AMOCO EAGLE AUTO PARTS EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE VALLEY HARDWARE EATON SALES & SERVICE EMED COMPANY INC FARIS MACHINERY CO G & K SERVICES GAY JOHNSONS INC GOODYEAR WHOLESALE TIRE GRAND JUNCTION PIPE AND HANSON EQUIPMENT HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HONNEN EQUIPMENT INDEPENDENT TOOL SUPPLY INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTMS J&S CONTRACTORS SUPPLY CO JEANETTE HURSEY JOHN VENGRIN KINDER MORGAN INC LAWSON PRODUCTS LEADING EDGE TECHNOLOGIES LISA GRIGGS M & M AUTO PARTS MOTOR POOL FUND NAPA AUTO PARTS-CARBON OLE PETTY CASH MOTOR POOL POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY POWER MOTIVE RETIREMENT FUND REY MOTORS INCORPORATED ROCKY MOUNTAIN FLEET SAFETY KLEEN (WHICITA) SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF THE SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SERVICEMASTER OF VAIL SNAP ON TOOLS SUMMIT LUMBER SUSPENSE FUND TOWN OF GYPSUM TWO RIVERS CHEVROLET UNITED STATES WELDING VEEDER-ROOT COMPANY SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 1,272.81 0.85 1,271.85 42.00 124.31 5.79 1.80 2,805.80 37.97 121.77 336.76 2,237.68 1,617.08 8.95 56,806.32 55,923.04 1,244.50 57.79 352.66 245.80 48.60 28.34 21.50 251.28 712.72 95.00 10.05 148.23 8,993.76 56.62 178.00 597.88 215.54 10,051.50 2,725.56 225.00 527.71 55.40 12.44 2,289.60 57.51 443.55 1,758.42 602.13 124.86 378.04 198.00 18 07 -02-02 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SUPPLIES 5,379.99 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXPO 8,704.07 WENDY BOGNER REIMBURSEMENT 15.01 WESTERN SLOPE CHRYSLER SERVICE 97,426.93 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 1,180.50 PAYROLL FOR JUNE PAYROLL 12 & 13 21,590.89 326,429.40 HEAL TH INSURANCE FUND PROVIDENT LIFE/ACCIDENT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 3,557.43 UNITED STATES LIFE INS EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 3,619.50 7,176.93 ENHANCED E911 FUND AMERICAL SERVICE 1,022.44 AT&T SERVICE 1.17 CENTURYTEL SERVICE 179.86 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES SERVICE 49.75 QWEST SERVICE 3,313.61 TOWN OF VAIL SERVICE 4,006.60 8,573.43 REPORT TOTAL 6,045,702.54 Consent Agenda Chairman Pro-tern Menconi stated that Chairman Gallagher would be absent for the first portion of to day's meeting as he is meeting with legislators regarding the Airport Tower. He stated the first matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of July 1, 2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meeting of June 18, 2002 C) Modification to revise Schedule A, Agreement with the U.S. Forest Service D) Project Agreement for Squaw Creek Road, T -5S, R-83W, Sec 23 E) Cooperative Agreement between Eagle County and the USGS to conduct initial work on groundwater vulnerability mapping project F) Grant Agreement for AIP-3-08-0020-29 G) Contract to Purchase Parcel No. 211-102-00-007, from Mountain High Aviation LLC. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Tom Moorhead, County Attorney, stated there are no changes. Commissioner Stone asked about item G, the Contract to Purchase. Mr. Moorhead stated they have prepared a contract to buy and sell vacant land at a price of 19 07 -02-02 $1,120,000. There is a contingency ofa grant with the FAA to make this sale happen. Commissioner Stone asked if they have the changed the price in the agreement. Mr. Moorhead stated he has. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Commissioner Pro-tern Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher was not present at the morning portion of this meeting. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, stated there are no plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration. McCoy House Rental Lottery Drawing Carla Budd, Director of Human Resources, stated they have done this previously but the individuals interested at that time are no longer with the County. She stated there are three people who have submitted their names as follows: 1. Don Ivie 2. Fred Haskins 3. Chris Carlson Ms. Budd stated she will proceed in order offering the house to Mr. Ivie first, ifhe does not accept it will then be offered to Fred Haskins and if that doesn't work out it will be offered to Chris Carlson. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Sara J. Fisher, Eagle County Clerk & Recorder, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda for July 2, 2002 as follows: A) Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. Holden's Restaurant This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license optional premises. This establishment is located along Offerson Road in Beaver Creek. There have been no complaints and disturbances during the past year. B) Vail Food Services, Inc. Wildwood Shelter This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license with optional premises. This establishment is located on Vail Mountain. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda for July 2, 2002, as presented. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi seconded the motion. Ofthe two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 20 07 -02-02 Grouse Mountain Grill Sara Fisher presented a modification of premises for Ski Resort Concepts, LLC, d/b/a Grouse Mountain Grill. She stated the applicant proposes to add the hotel rooms to the licensed premise. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. David Dowell, applicant, was present for the hearing. Commissioner Stone asked about the process when those renting the room for an evening it becomes their premise and they are allowed to have alcohol in their rooms. However, that alcohol may not leave their rooms. Ms. Fisher stated it is a challenge. It is incumbent on the applicant to enforce the laws and regulations. Commissioner Stone moved to approve a modification of premises for Ski Resort Concepts, LLC, d/b/a Grouse Mountain Grill. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Spruce Saddle Restaurant Sara Fisher presented a modification of premises for Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc., d/b/a! Spruce Saddle Restaurant. She stated the applicant is proposing to add an outside area adjacent to their current optional premises. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Julie Papengelis, applicant, was present for the hearing. Commissioner Stone asked about the optional premises. Ms. Papengelis explained where the optional premises are located. She stated the new area will be only for special events, i.e. weddings, etc, in which there will be tents in place. She stated if necessary they will place temporary fencing. Commissioner Stone stated he prefers temporary fencing rather than just posting. Access points can also be controlled by fencing. Commissioner Stone moved to approve a modification of premises for Beaver Creek Food Services, Inc. d/b/a Spruce Saddle Restaurant. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Chairman Gallagher returned and resumed Chairmanship of the meeting. LUR-0038, Local Resident Housing Requirements LUR-0039, Inclusionary Housing LUR-0040, Residential Employee Housing Linkage LUR-0041, Commercial Employee Housing Linkage Rebecca Leonard, Senior Planner, presented file numbers LUR-0038, Local Resident Housing Requirements, LUR-0039, Inclusionary Housing, LUR-0040, Residential Employee Housing Linkage and LUR-0041, Commercial Employee Housing Linkage. She requested this matter should be tabled. Commissioner Stone stated the Board originally planned to hear this matter on the 8th but that 21 07 -02-02 date conflicts with two different schedules. Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, stated it appears the closest date would be the 29th from 9:00 a.m. to noon. He reviewed the Board's calendars. Commissioner Stone moved to table file numbers LUR-0038, Local Resident Housing Requirements, LUR-0039, Inclusionary Housing, LUR-0040, Residential Employee Housing Linkage and LUR-0041, Commercial Employee Housing Linkage, to July 29,2002, at the applicants request. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. ZC-00051 Edwards Corner Zone Change ZS-00088, Edwards Corner Special Use Permit Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file numbers ZC-00051, Edwards Corner Zone Change and 2S-00088, Edwards Corner Special Use Permit. He stated points of deliberation for the Planning Commission included the following: Maintenance of the 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). This is a Special Use Permit application for an officelretail 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 Romanov Center, currently zoned CIG (Commercial General), and Lot C-I in the South Forty Subdivision, currently zoned CIL (Commercial Limited). The zone change application would re-zone Lot C-l from CIL 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 Romanov 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: 22 07 -02-02 1976 - Final Plat for South Forty Subdivision - Filing No. 1 approved creating Lot C-1. 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 Romanov 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 shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering Department 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 oftransportation. Pedestrian facilities will accommodate a variety users. Recommendations include: Sidewalks should be provided on each of the two frontages ofthe project. Some thought should be given to how to accommodate pedestrians crossing Edwards Village 23 07 -02-02 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 ofECO Trails Planner. 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 Aeencies: 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 Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: 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.1] - 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 I Environmental I Open Space/ Development Affordable I Transportation Community FLUM Quality Recreation Housing Services Conformance X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: Housing is a community-wide issue Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the 24 07 -02-02 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 be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: 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 X and workers in Eagle County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on X line. Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than one average wage job 5. Seasonal housing is part of the problem & needs to be further addressed. It is X primarily the responsibility of. . . employers. . . 6. New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage of their units for local X residents 7. Commercial, industrial, institutional, and public developments generating increased employment will provide local residents housing. The first preference X* will be for units on-site where feasible, or if not feasible, in the nearest existing community center. . . 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 X 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 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue ITEM I YES I NO I N/A I * 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 of this policy, to whatever extent it occurs, is deemed to be in conformance with this policy of the Comprehensive Housing Plan. 25 07 -02-02 EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Oualitv Patterns Conformance X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X Applicable EDWARDS SUB-AREA PLAN Development Economy Housing Circulation Recreation Concepts Conformance X X X X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X Applicable EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN Water Quantity Water Quality Wildlife Recreation Land Use Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X Applicable [+] 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 26 07 -02-02 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 Avvlicable to Particular Residential. Agricultural and Resource Uses and Section 3-330, Review Standards Avvlicable to Particular Commercial and Industrial Uses. 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 offioor 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.BA] The design of the 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 servlces. 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 Development 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 27 07 -02-02 standard ([ - D, or the standard does not apply ([n/aD. [+] 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. 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) ofthe 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 comers 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 comers 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 comer ofthe 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 Romanov 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] 28 07 -02-02 [+] 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 of the 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 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 ofthe 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 Signage Plan is included in the application as Drawing S 1.2. Various sign permits will be required pursuant to this Section ofthe 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 ofthe 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. ofthe Land Use Regulations, the Sign Code will apply. The holder of this Special Use Permit will be required 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 ofthis Special Use Permit will be reauired 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 of a significant degree of smoke and particulate's. Nonetheless, the holder ofthis Special Use Permit will be required to conform to the requirements ofthe Land Use Regulations regarding smoke and particulate's. [+] Section 4-540: Heat. Glare. Radiation and Electrical Interference 29 07 -02-02 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 of this 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 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. [+] 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: Roadwav 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 of the 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-inlright-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 of approval, 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 30 07 -02-02 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 ofECO Trails, and as a condition of approval, maintenance of sidewalks on and adjacent to this development should be the responsibility of the owner or successive owners of the 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 of this 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 ofthis 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) which creates adequate utility, drainage and other necessary easements. [Condition # 6] Section 4-680: Water Supply Standards The Applicant has indicated that water will be supplied by the Edwards Metro District, although a commitment to serve by the Metro District has not been provided. As a condition of approval, development of this Special Use Permit may proceed only ifthe Edwards Metro District provides all necessary water services proposed for the development. [Condition # 12] Section 4-690: Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards The Applicant has indicated that wastewater services will be provided by the Edwards Metro District, although a commitment to serve by the Metro District has not been provided. As a condition of approval, development of this Special Use Permit may proceed only if the Edwards Metro District provides all necessary wastewater treatment services proposed for the development. [Condition # 12] [+] Division 4-7, Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards. Section 4-700: School Land Dedication Standards Unless local resident housing units are required as part of this development, the provisions of this 31 07 -02-02 Section are not applicable. Section 4-710: Road Impact Fees Section 4-71 O.E., Imposition of Fee, requires that a road impact fee be imposed for any "traffic- generating development". An exemption exists for a lot subdivided prior to the effective date ofthe road impact fee requirement, unless a re-plat 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 feet. 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. = $120,070.62 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 ofthe Land Use Regulations at the time of the application for a building permit. 1+] FINDING: Site Development Standards [Section 5-250.B.7] The proposed Special Use DOES comply with the appropriate standards in Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Other Provisions [Section 5-250.B.8] - The proposed Special Use shall comply with all standards imposed on it by all other applicable provisions of 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 increased employment are to provide local residents housing, [2] an unwritten policy of the County in recent years to generally require new development to provide housing for 20 percent of employees (the so-called "Arrowhead Formula"), and [3] the assertion that the necessary land use actions under consideration (zone change, special use permit, and amended final plat) clearly establish this as a new development, as contemplated in the Comprehensive Housing Plan. Further bases for the Housing Department's recommendation is set forth in the referral response. A Local Resident Housing Initiative, including employment linkage requirements, is currently under consideration by the Planning Commission and is expected to be forwarded soon for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners. However, the "Arrowhead Formula" has been utilized with some consistency in other land use applications, and "employee housing" has been required pursuant to at least one other Special Use Permit (that being the Special Use Permit that preceded and was subsequently replaced by the Red Sky Ranch PUD). Nonetheless, the Local Resident Housing requirements are currently still under consideration and have yet to be codified as part ofthe Land Use Regulations. In recent discussions with the Applicant, it has been noted that this proposed development is in a previously approved subdivision. An alternative has been suggested of providing a cash-in-lieu payment for the difference between the development which could occur with and without a zone change and amended final plat. That discussion was preliminary and was not quantified. Since a comparable site 32 07 -02-02 plan for the two existing separate lots does not exist, it is difficult to compare the proposed development directly with an alternative. However, even though it is a less than ideal basis for this purpose, comparing maximum permitted building sizes based on floor area ratios (FAR) may be informative, that 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 of63,420 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 draft Local 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 Chanee 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 ofthe Land Use Regulations: The proposed zone change applies only to Lot C-1 ofthe 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 of the 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 ofthe 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. 5. Community need. [+] Community need. It HAS BEEN demonstrated that the proposed amendment meets a community need. 33 07 -02-02 (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. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning representing the applicant, introduced Rick Mueller, representative of the project, John Goodman, participant in the development team, Sid Bjorenson and Russell Gise, applicants. He stated they are going through the procedural steps to Amend the Final Plat. He showed slides of the proposal. They are following the existing zoning as well as the Master Plan. He asked Russell Gise to describe the architecture of the site. Russell Gise, Gise Architects in Edwards, stated he was hired a number of years ago and has been trying to identify a site that will not be overbuilt. He explained their intentions behind the design. He spoke to the loop system of the driveway and set back from Highway 6. He stated they want to create the crown jewel of a building that will be a landmark. He stated it is not a slap together building and will create a community sense of pride. He stated the building is steeped in the history of Colorado with street frontages. He spoke to the modem interpretation. He stated they wanted to create a building that had a variety, not repetitious. He spoke to the proposed model. Mr. Knight stated they have worked with staff as requested to resolve the issues the Board previously identified. He stated they have three issues to discuss further being fee in lieu of housing, traffic, and entry to the development. Rick Mueller, representing Romanov who is the applicant, spoke to the fourteen issues and eleven being resolved. The three issues basically concern how much money they want to pay. He stated this project was put together in 1985 by WPI-2. He stated in the work, there was discussion of a bike path, putting in drainage improvements and a box culvert. It was to be completed in 1987 and then it was extended and extended again. In July of 1994 he met with Bob Loeffler, Deputy County Attorney at that time, who indicated there were no outstanding issues. He then got a letter from Bob Loeffler stating they would be foreclosing. He spoke to the bike path and the letter of credit they have undertaken. He suggested as the applicant they are not looking to get the maximum they can out from the project. He spoke to the intersection that has been installed. In July 1996 they received a special use permit and they put 202 single family units on the market at less than market value. He stated they moved those within 60 days. After 1996 they supplied work and improvements to build the park. In 1997 they completed the Subdivision Improvements Agreement. They also provided at no cost an access to the bike path through the church property at a cost of$65,000. He spoke to the improvements with Stop and Save and the access points. In 1998 they worked with Paul Clarkson to vacate the lot lines between the two lots. He stated this was unique as it was in two different subdivisions. They agreed to create a new subdivision, which is now being considered negatively. He stated this is not a new subdivision but a way to abandon the lot line. He stated they have already addressed and participated in some of the requirements. In 1999 they provided the land for the bike path. They donated land to the foundation that owns Tract T. He stated for the last three years they have worked with Community Development and Phil Scott who used to work in Engineering. They moved their access point as previously requested. He suggested what they had tried to accomplish previously has now gone awry. He spoke to the work they are doing with Homestead such as a skate board park. He spoke to the land at a current cost of $600,000. He stated they would like the Commissioners to acknowledge their contributions thus far and not that they are just trying to do this as cheaply as they can. He introduced John Goodman. John Goodman, an Edwards Attorney, stated he has been working with the applicant since they bought the property out of foreclosure in the 1980's. He stated this is not a new subdivision. He stated 34 07 -02-02 there really can't be an opportunity to have another bite out ofthe same apple. He spoke to the 1.8 million and that there are no requirements on the housing issue. He suggested one developer can't be asked to address all concerns. He spoke to County growth. What they are asking for is an acknowledgment that when they need to work this out the contributions will be considered. He stated the original plan contemplated a commercial area and a residential area. He stated the commercial aspect was to support the residential development, not the other way around. He spoke to South Forty and the commercial and residential aspect. Since the early 1980's this lot has experienced lot line abandonment. He stated there was no requirement for employee housing. He suggested they might look at some of the other considerations. He spoke to concerns with the intersection. He spoke to other projects that are recent commercial developments. He suggested if they asked to build sixteen residential units here they would be asking for more density than previously approved. He suggested the density should be revisited. He stated ifthis project does not go forward there are tax benefits that may be lost to the community. He spoke to the Eagle County Land Use Regulations and while the idea is there, there is no present requirement that can be enforced. They feel to go forward with additional requirements will be an unnecessary burden on the applicant. Rick Mueller stated they have put back $1,759,470 into the community. He spoke to the access issue and stated he has met with Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer, twice. He suggested they are working out a solution with the use of alternative B. He stated there is a question with that because it may give cause for two access points. From their standpoint they don't think that makes much sense. He showed the changes requested and explained the increased cost. He stated they have agreed to move to option B and showed the overhead. This would split the access to between Stop and Save and Edwards Village Center. He stated they put more available parking on a project than most other developers. High quality will only happen if they can afford it. It is a landmark building they are planning on putting on the comer. He stated from the standpoint of property tax the difference is $448,000 between what they would like and what they have now. You will be looking at two small buildings. He stated an addition of $1 05,000 in property tax will occur with two buildings. He reviewed the other applicable taxes. He stated the total income difference between them not going forward and going forward is nearly 3/4's of a million dollars. He spoke to the current situation in the community and nationally. He suggested in the next three years this project will put $9 million back in the community. He stated they have three proposals. The first is they have paid the amount suggested by Community Development at 1.19 housing units on the project, increasing the total square footage. He stated they would do the contribution based on that set up. He stated they do want credit for the developments they have put in. Commissioner Stone asked what they mean by get credit. Mr. Mueller stated he is suggesting the impact and the work that they have done in the community should be recognized. The second option, in working with the Foundation, they would make an application within 12 months to change Tract T and put the housing in that four acre parcel. He suggested they would build the units, put them in and they would do it at their cost without land costs factored in. He stated Tract T is in the core area and suggested they might put in future municipal structures. Option three, they suggest taking the total dollar amount off the income they receive now and earmark for the County the income generated from the project and apply that in time to the housing. He explained. Mr. Mueller stated they are asking nearly $2,000,000 in improvements for the comer. They are trying to figure out a long term successful program. He suggested the project would fund the additional development through taxes. Commissioner Menconi suggested if they develop the site the monies will come in. He asked if they are suggesting the monies get earmarked. Mr. Mueller stated they try to do things fairly and he thinks it will be a huge mistake to allow two 35 07 -02-02 franchise units there. He stated the housing should not be applied and they want to get credit for the traffic work that they have already done. Mr. Knight stated that concludes their presentation. They are here to discuss the issues and hopefully resolve the three outstanding issues. Chairman Gallagher asked if they are double dipping and if this was previously a development and the applicant paid the fees at that time. Is it righteous to be charging new fees. Tom Moorhead stated the finding of fact would be determined by the Board and whether they have sufficient information about the past, he is not sure. He stated the opportunity the Board has now comes through the Land Use Regulations and Special Use Regulations. He spoke to the Housing component and how that becomes an issue when evaluating the Special Use. He referred to the conditions and restrictions and the Board having the ability to set those conditions. He stated there is no specific housing regulation at this time. He stated the presentation made by the applicant comes down to whether the Board believes the testimony. Chairman Gallagher asked staff how they came to 1.9 dwelling units as a requirement. Joe Forinash stated it was a number calculated based on available information. He spoke to the allowable floor area and what will change once zoned as commercial general. He stated the amount of floor area proposed is less that what was allowed. Chairman Gallagher asked about the Master Plan and housing requirements. Mr. Moorhead stated also being used is the Comprehensive Housing Plan. Chairman Gallagher asked if the 1.9 came from the Housing Plan. Mr. Forinash stated it didn't come from the Housing Plan but it was looking at the regulations to see what might be permitted. This was an attempt to estimate the difference. Chairman Gallagher asked if the housing is based on the difference between the old zoning and new zoning. He asked if this exceeds the maximum building envelope under the old zoning. Mr. Forinash stated it does not. Commissioner Stone suggested that he asked that the applicant and staff come back with more of a global solution. He explained his desire to solve the access issues on Edwards Village Boulevard. He asked for the report on that. Peter Sulmeisters, Engineering Department, stated they have come up with several different solutions for access to this sight. Commissioner Stone clarified he wanted a site that can be developed. Mr. Mueller stated they can but with a 45 foot wall to allow the road to come in. Commissioner Stone asked about adjacent property owners. Mr. Mueller showed Tract T. Everything from the South is Tract T. Commissioner Stone spoke to the eventual development of Tract T. He stated once again he was looking for a global solution that would identify the access to Tract T. Mr. Mueller stated he met with Helen Migchelbrink on sight and she came up with three options. He stated option A is okay. He spoke to another access point that is further up the road. Commissioner Stone stated they are looking for the combined solution for future development. Mr. Knight stated the unknown is what will happen on that parcel. He stated there is potential to work with the owners of the adjoining parcel. He suggested there are two solutions, one making this a parking lot intersection. He stated not knowing what was going on they don't know how to approach it. Commissioner Stone suggested they are assuming Tract T will have its own access. He stated they are trying to deal with the multiple access in and out. Lets assume we go with option B and there will be a road on Tract T. He questioned the traffic problems. He stated he is trying to do master planning. Mr. Sulmeisters suggested options Band C do not address an additional access point. He stated they have a tough time projecting the traffic analysis as they don't know what will be built there. He stated depending on which option they go with they would be required to provide a traffic analysis. 36 07 -02-02 Mr. Mueller showed where the traffic will come and the joint use of the road. He stated his suggestion and working with Phil Scott, was to move it as far away as they can. There are two places for an access point. The difference they are looking at is the Foundation not wanting to pay the $250,000. He stated they had a traffic study done which indicated that either one of the two positions doesn't make a difference. Neither one are ideal. Commissioner Stone asked if Tract T will share the access point. Mr. Mueller stated that is their proposal. Under option B they will have a shared access. Chairman Gallagher questioned the cost of moving the road to make a four way interchange. Mr. Mueller stated that is not an option. He stated ifthe economics can work, he'll pay for moving the road to line up with the access into the Gore Range Brewery. He stated he can't pay and pay. He'd prefer to see it further north. Commissioner Menconi asked he delineate all of Tract T. Mr. Mueller showed Tract T on the map and Edwards comer. He explained the two different proposals. Commissioner Menconi asked about the Foundation providing the land for employee housing. Mr. Mueller stated one of the options is that a donor would provide two indoor basketball courts. He spoke to the proposed ice rinks and the land being donated for those purposes. He stated Tract T is a little over 4.2 acres with about 3 acres that are useable. Commissioner Menconi asked why it is not an option to move the entrance to Edwards Village Boulevard. Mr. Mueller suggested the turning radius is an issue. Commissioner Menconi asked about options 1 and 2. Mr. Mueller stated basically option one would be pay in lieu of. He stated they want to get credit for what they have done against the road impact fees. They would pay the $41,000, give or take, for Option 1. Option 2 is what they just discussed, putting housing on Tract T. They would make an application for design to include recreation, housing and a municipal building. Commissioner Menconi asked how that would be accomplished. Tom Moorhead asked if they are talking about dedicating the land. He asked who would build the housing. Commissioner Menconi suggested he understands that Mr. Mueller would. Mr. Moorhead stated that can be made a condition of approval. Commissioner Menconi asked about the terms of the condition. Mr. Moorhead stated it would have to be an enforceable condition. Commissioner Stone suggested getting to that level of specificity it is almost close to contract zonmg. Mr. Moorhead stated absolutely. Laurie Bower thought they should clarify that there is a significant difference between the 1.19 level and 15 units. Chairman Gallagher asked how they got from 15 to 1 unit. Mr. Mueller stated the 1.9 units is what was originally recommended to them. Laurie Bower stated in their initial communication they recommended they mitigate based on the difference. It is a significant size project for the number of employees that would be generated. They used the Arrowhead formula and came up with the 15.25 units. He stated they did meet with the applicant and discuss the possibilities. They originally recommended a payment in lieu of$605,000. She suggested that based on their conversation, they were comfortable with a figure of $300,000. Mr. Goodman stated the need for employee housing has already been addressed. He stated per the original plan, the commercial core supports the residential component. There is no present requirement for this type development. If they were to come in and ask for the zoning they would likely be denied. 37 07 -02-02 Chairman Gallagher stated he would want to better understand the residential vs. business. He questioned if the employees this will generate will be housed in the facilities they have already built. Mr. Goodman stated that is what the logic has been. Through the opportunities, it has always been contemplated with the commercial mix. Chairman Gallagher suggested those folks have actually gone to work elsewhere and these will be new jobs. Mr. Goodman suggested he understands and the applicant is sensitive to community concerns. He suggested there is a flux/shift for people to move from other areas into Edwards. Chairman Gallagher suggested that is why they have factors to lower the requirements. He asked the other Commissioners for questions. Commissioner Menconi commented when they discussed what could have gone forward there probably would be fewer employees with the two franchise operations. Mr. Goodman suggested that would be a need analysis. Commissioner Menconi stated that is based on the figures that they provided and suggested there would be fewer employees. Mr. Goodman suggested if you take the sight and put two businesses on it, they will impact in different ways. Commissioner Menconi asserted that the present zoning will create less employees than what they are proposing. Commissioner Stone asked about the problem with the trash dumpsters. Mr. Forinash stated that has been resolved. Commissioner Stone stated his concern is not so much with employee housing but access on to Edwards Village Boulevard. He spoke to the theory of producing jobs for gainful employment. He spoke to the bike paths and discussions he had with Bob Loeffler. He suggested they took on that commitment from the previous developer when he left town. He stated he will not recognize $1.7 million in contributions. He spoke to the traffic considerations and that they should place the entrance as shown in option A. He stated the traffic impacts and the benefits are really going to be on the Spur Road. He spoke to Douglas County and Park Meadows and how that should have been done. He stated they should have had a tax generating base earmarked and when the improvements are paid for, the tax goes away. He stated nobody has the money necessary to solve the traffic problems on the Spur Road. He suggested he would like to see combined access for this development and Tract T. He stated the housing he is not so concerned about on this tract ofland as it will be generating jobs. He thinks that is a good thing. He asked what they have in mind if they go to option A and what is the offset. Mr. Mueller stated the offset is they have donated the ground, agreed to put in the bike paths, and numbers 9 through 14, they've agreed to do. The traffic impact offsets, he would put in the road to option A where Ms. Migchelbrink wants. He stated the access would be shared by both properties. Commissioner Menconi stated he disagrees with Commissioner Stones assertion that building retail brings jobs. He suggested that would move venders from other areas to this location. He spoke to cannibalization. Mr. Mueller stated he sees it as survival rather than cannibalization. He spoke to the Edwards Commercial park and people moving their businesses out ofthe house. He suggested 50% of people in Vail don't have a location for their business. He stated you'd be looking at 50 to 60 percent of businesses that will relocate. Commissioner Menconi asked about the square foot price. Mr. Mueller stated they are looking at 27 to 28. Commissioner Menconi suggested if they are taking business from one location and putting them into this spot the sales tax increase would be incremental. He asked where they see the need for commercial space. He asked why the Board would want to move forward on this development when there is a great deal of commercial space available. 38 07 -02-02 Mr. Mueller stated in Vail they have priced themselves out of the market. He spoke to Edwards Center. He stated perhaps this building at this time may not be 100% full. He spoke to the growth rate of traffic at the intersection with a multiplying by the use. He stated their growth and their design is for the future. Mr. Mueller stated the Lindholm property is a concern. He stated 900,000 or 600,000 square feet would be a significant impact. Commissioner Menconi stated if they get in first then the large commercial came, they would be better off. Mr. Mueller stated that is good economics. Commissioner Menconi asked about traffic impacts. Mr. Roussos stated he does not have that information. Mr. Mueller stated their traffic consultant indicates it will be 3%. If you have 3000 cars going through 1,000 would be from this development. Mr. Moorhead stated Tract T is zoned commercial general. Mr. Mueller is speaking to Tract Z. Commissioner Menconi asked if the Board would be trying to approve contract zoning. Mr. Moorhead stated that would be correct. Commissioner Menconi asked about the foundations and dedicating a park or open space. Mr. Mueller stated he has not. Commissioner Menconi asked if the applicant would be inclined to turn the property over for open space. Mr. Mueller stated Tract K is owned by them and they are happy to turn that over for open space. That is the property they are looking at building a skate board park on. He pointed out on a map the two open space parcels. They are zoned for open space and recreation. Commissioner Menconi stated all three Board members have been in support of open space for over a year. He stated what he hears today is that this applicant is interested in doing something. They were offering land and housing. He suggested maybe there is an option for both on Tract T. Commissioner Stone stated the problem is the applicant does not own Tract T and cannot commit to doing something on property they do not own. Commissioner Menconi suggested tabling this matter until the determination of Tract T is completed. Mr. Mueller stated if this matter was tabled he would be finished due to labor costs and such. He stated he has been trying to get a hearing with the Board for six months. The Lindholm property is coming up. He stated the owner of Tract T and himself have worked out a deal. Commissioner Menconi stated the only difference is the 5% profit suggested by Mr. Mueller. Mr. Mueller stated there is no cost ofland because of the donated land. Commissioner Menconi stated Mr. Mueller said they would be giving land and the only difference between his recommendation is the 5% profit on the property. Mr. Mueller stated he would prefer to move forward with the commercial and not do residential. Commissioner Menconi stated the Board cannot do that because of contract zoning. He stated he would like the property to be deeded to the County. He stated he is looking for a solution to come to a compromIse. Chairman Gallagher asked how many dwelling units would Commissioner Menconi like to see on that tract. What requirement for dwelling units is he looking for to take action on this file. Commissioner Menconi stated the developer has agreed to 1.9 units and Ms. Bower stated a compromise would be 2.25 units. Ms. Bower stated these figures would be from a precedent from the past. If they pay a fee in lieu of, it would be appropriate and the fees are a little higher than what is proposed in the Regulations. The amount of$75,385.53 is the cash in lieu of. Commissioner Menconi asked for the recommendation from the Housing Department. 39 07 -02-02 Ms. Bower stated they would like to see $300,000 as cash in lieu of. Mr. Forinash stated the fees from Community Development were an example and there was not a recommendation. Commissioner Menconi asked what would be appropriate for units per acre. Mr. Forinash stated 8 units per acre. Commissioner Menconi stated somewhere between 10 and 15 units on that property. Commissioner Stone questioned Road Impact Fees. Mr. Forinash stated $199,000 is their Road Impact Fees, which would happen at building permit. Commissioner Stone asked if it was typical to have an SIA with this file that would put monies towards a stop light. Mr. Forinash stated if it were determined those to be off site impacts, that would be appropriate. It is not significant to warrant those type of improvements. Chairman Gallagher stated the traffic light at the Spur Road and Highway 6 is not adequate for foot traffic. Could there be something added to that intersection. Mr. Sulmeisters stated that intersection is being included in CDOT's list as monies become available. Chairman Gallagher stated if pedestrian traffic was warranted if adding a pedestrian phase to the other four phases would be adequate. Mr. Roussos stated the impact fees would go towards the development. Chairman Gallagher stated the Board has a list of fees incurred by Romanov, he is looking at Road Impact Fees. He would like to know ifnumber 5 was a Road Impact Fee of donations. Mr. Mueller stated it was a donation by Bill Williams and Bob Warner for the signal at the intersection. Chairman Gallagher stated item number 5 is a contribution. He asked on item 4, Parcel 12, Lot C 1, is that what is being discussed today. Mr. Mueller stated at the time their contribution was to go towards the Access Control Plan and those monies would go towards that intersection. Chairman Gallagher asked if that was a road impact fee. Mr. Roussos stated that $36,400 was from the State and the access permit indicating it was to cover impacts from the Edwards Village Center. The funds were to be deposited with the Treasurer. Those monies are in an interest bearing account and are designated for the Spur Road and the intersection. Chairman Gallagher stated he has listened to the presentations from the applicant and staff and questions from the Board. He stated there are two issues, employee housing and access. Concerning access, he agrees with Commissioner Stone that the A solution is best. He suggested that requirement be made and available to Tract T. Concerning the housing, the Arrowhead precedent was done with the cooperation of the developer. The applicant has agreed to cooperate with payment in lieu of housing and suggested that be made a condition of approval. Ms. Bower stated payment in lieu of is $39,675.00 per unit multiplied by 1.19%, which is $47,213.00. Chairman Gallagher would ask the applicant to pay those amounts to the County. Commissioner Menconi stated last week they listened to Wildfire Regulations and what they know now with forest fires he believes they know what is being proposed in the Regulations. This is a well designed project and will be a landmark. He stated he believes it is his responsibility to create affordable housing. He stated developers have come forward and not enough affordable housing has come forward. He suggested Tract T should be donated to the County. Chairman Gallagher stated at such time they adopt new rules and regulations he would agree but they must follow the current rules and regulations. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. ZC-00051, Edwards Comer Zone 40 07-02-02 Change, incorporating the staff findings. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Commissioners Stone and Gallagher voting aye and Commissioner Menconi voting no. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve File No. ZS-00088, Edwards Comer Special Use Permit, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. All curb comers in the parking area have a radius of at least three feet. 2. 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. 3. The applicant be required to provide the appropriate access as shown by the Eagle County Engineer, Option A. That access be allowed to be used by development on Tract T. 4. A raised island and signage be required to be installed by the Applicant at the north entrance, subject to the approval by the Colorado Division of Transportation, to prevent left-hand turns from Highway 6. Signage is also required to be installed by the Applicant to prevent pedestrians crossing Highway 6 other than at designated crosswalks. 5. Approval of this Special Use Permit is contingent on approval and recording of an amended final plat (Eagle County File No. AFP-00137) which [1] vacates the common lot line between Parcel 12, Romanov Center, and Lot C-1, South Forty Subdivision, thereby creating the proposed Parcel 15 of the Romanov Center, [2] creates adequate utility, drainage and other necessary easements, and [3] provides adequate additional right-of-way for Edwards Village Boulevard. 6. Maintenance of sidewalks on and adjacent to this development is the responsibility of the owner or successive owners of the development. 7. Prior to approval of this 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. 8. Development of this Special Use Permit may proceed only if all necessary utility services proposed for the development are available. 9. Development of this Special Use Permit may proceed only if the Edwards Metro District provides all necessary water and wastewater treatment services proposed for the development. 10. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations of the Applicant in this application and all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval. 11. The applicant will pay the amount in lieu of for employee housing of$37,213.00. 12. Ifuses on the adjacent Tract T become such that traffic using the access to this site from Edwards Village Boulevard is expected to increase by more than 20 percent of that for Edwards Comer, this Special Use Permit be subject to additional review and new or revised conditions of approval with respect to access to the site. Chairman Gallagher seconded the motion. Commissioners Stone and Gallagher voting aye and Commissioner Menconi voting no. ZS-00092, Beaver Creek Receiving and Delivery Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented file number ZS-00092, Beaver Creek Receiving and Delivery. Topics discussed by the Eagle County Planning Commission at their regularly scheduled meeting of June 19th include the following: Safety concerns and options for the separation of skiers from truck traffic on Dally. The potential for delayed emergency response as a result of delivery trucks using the fire station entrance and bridge. The need for spill prevention procedures for trucks that may have an accident on Dally. 41 07 -02-02 Night-time lighting ofthe facility, particularly lighting of the warehouse dock area when trucks or cats are being loaded or unloaded. The need for Bear Proof trash containers. Noise impacts along Dally, and options to mitigate the same. Options for visual screening to better separate Dally from homes to the west. The Planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the request for special use, with the following conditions: That the applicant provide sufficient barriers and/or separation along that portion of Dally traveled by food service delivery vehicles in order to guarantee skier safety. That trucks descending Dally from the new warehouse toward the village be prevented from using their "Jake" breaks. That the applicant provide evidence that the Division of Wildlife has reviewed and accepted plans for on-site trash containers, given the requirement that they be bear proof. Vail Associates, Inc. has submitted an application for a Special Use Permit to operate their Food Service Shipping and Receiving operation out of a new maintenance facility proposed for construction on an unplatted parcel at the far southern end of the Beaver Creek PUD. The site of the new building is in immediate proximity to the ski mountain, approximately 2400 feet upstream from the existing Beaver Creek Service Center. This area ofthe Beaver Creek PUD is designated Open Space Recreation (OSR). This request for a Special Use Permit is related only to the Shipping and Receiving operation, which will occur in a 4,200 square foot warehouse located within the new 23,000 square foot maintenance facility. The Beaver Creek PUD Guide makes provision for "Special Uses" within the OSR designation, and shipping and receiving is listed as one such use. All other uses proposed for this new maintenance facility are "necessary for the support and operation of a year-round resort", and as such are uses by right in the Open Space Recreation designation. Structures up to 24,000 square feet in size are allowed in the OSR zone to house resort support and operation services. Approval ofthis application for special use will allow a relocation of the food service warehouse from its existing location in the Beaver Creek Service Center to a new location within the proposed 23,000 square foot maintenance facility. Day to day operations will not change. Deliveries are accepted (most during the day, as many as two at night) unpacked, re-packaged and then shipped to various mountain restaurants. The warehouse is staffed by approximately eight workers, and operations are necessary around the clock. Vail Associates was required to secure, and has obtained, an Army Corp of Engineers Individual Permit for the new maintenance facility, a process that has taken approximately a year to complete. As a result, the project has received extensive review by the Environmental Protection Agency, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the Colorado Division of Health and Environment, and the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments. The final Army Corp permit for the structure was issued in March of2002. The project has also been reviewed and approved by the Beaver Creek Design Review Board. The new receiving and delivery site will be accessed via Elk Track Road and the entrance to the Beaver Creek Fire Station. After crossing the creek on an existing bridge, delivery vehicles will travel on a new road that will take them around and to the north of the fire station parking lot, and on to the roadway portion ofthe Daly Ski Way. This "half' of Dally can be maintained year-round, and is used by transport vehicles to access Beano's Cabin, and by busses and service vehicles to access the Redtail Race Finish area at the base of the Birds of Prey downhill course. If approved, food service delivery trucks will use this route to travel south (up) to the maintenance facility. Parking for employees will be provided on site. Potable water and sewage disposal will be provided by Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation through both existing and newly constructed lines. The applicant has provided an engineering report estimating water use of 2,600 gallons per day for the new maintenance facility. As this is less than ten single family equivalents, a 1041 permit is not required 42 07 -02-02 for the project. The Beaver Creek PUD was approved in 1979, and most recently amended March 29, 1994. No land use action predates this application for this un-platted portion of the PUD. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Engineering Returned memo stating "no comment". Eagle River Fire Protection District 5/16/02 Expressed concern for the potential traffic congestion at the entrance to the fire station and a resulting delay in response time (is the bridge wide enough for fire trucks and delivery trucks to pass at the same time?). Asked how the Dally ski way will be maintained during the winter months. Wondered if there was a possibility to use the access road to the water tank site as a means to access the site. Had questions regarding water supply and re-fill capabilities of related water supply systems. Asked if fuel spill management conformed to Section 8003 ofthe Uniform Fire Code. The Applicant responded to the Fire Protection District's concerns in a letter dated 06/06/02, attached. Other Referral Agencies, not responding: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Environmental Health, Eagle County Sheriff, Eagle County Assessor, U.S. Forest Service, Beaver Creek Metropolitan District, Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation, Beaver Creek Property Owners, and the Beaver Creek Design Review Board. The Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development Guide provides specific criteria for the approval of Special Uses within the resort. Pursuant to Chapter V (five) ofthe Amended and Restated Guide to the Beaver Creek Planned Unit Development, "The Special Use shall be approved if the Eagle County Commissioners find that:" a) STANDARD: Materially Consistent. The proposed use is not materially inconsistent with other existing uses in the area. Existing uses in the area include winter skiing, snowmobile and Snow cat operations, winter bus traffic on Dally, summer service truck and passenger vehicle traffic on Dally, passive hiking, mountain biking and horseback riding (on Dally), and occasional maintenance activities at the water tank site to the west (across the creek) of the new site. Travel routes that are used to deliver supplies to mountain restaurant sites are well established at Beaver Creek and will not be altered by this proposal. As presented by the Applicant, ample room exists on the Dally Ski Way to accommodate recreational uses and maintenance and delivery truck traffic. With the exception of delivery truck and Snow Cat operations on designated travel routes, all activities associated with this special use will take place inside the maintenance facility building. All other resort service and maintenance activities that will occur within and around the new facility are allowed as uses by right. By their nature, many of these activities will generate snowmobile, Snow Cat and service truck traffic. [+] FINDING a: Materially Consistent. The proposed use is NOT materially inconsistent with other existing uses in the area. b) STANDARD: Adverse effects. There is no potential material adverse effect of the proposed use on the character of the adjacent neighborhood or the Beaver Creek Resort. Beaver Creek's food service warehouse and delivery presently operates out of the Beaver Creek Service Center, which is immediately adjacent to the Beaver Creek Village and nearby residential areas. Moving the operation 2400 feet to the south will provide a considerable buffer between the noise and lights of trucks and Snow Cat and the residents and guests of the resort. With the exception of delivery truck and Snow Cat operations on designated travel routes, all activities associated with this special use 43 07-02-02 will take place inside the maintenance facility building. Snow cats associated with on mountain deliveries will be fueled and maintained at the new facility. Potential impacts from contaminated surface runoff will be controlled through the use of state- of-the-art sand and oil trap vaults located at the terminal end of drainage features around the building. The proposed drainage control devises will be routinely serviced and cleaned and, according to the Applicant, are considerably superior to those presently used at the existing Beaver Creek Service Center. A separate spill containment system is planned for on-site fuel storage tanks, which will be buried and monitored for leaks through a modem computerized telemetry/control system. Resort operations should be significantly enhanced by this new facility, which will be appropriately sized and configured to better serve the now mature Beaver Creek Resort. On-mountain Snow Cat delivery operations will utilize the same travel routes as those presently used. A small number of employee cars and ten to twenty delivery trucks per day will now utilize 2400 feet of lower Dally to access the re-Iocated operation. This additional impact, when weighed against existing activities, should be minimal. There are no residential neighborhoods in immediate proximity to the travel routes or the new location for these operations. The nearest home is approximately 850 feet to the south and west, and the new facility is screened from adjacent residential areas by stream side vegetation and large trees. To further soften impacts, the Applicant is proposing to plant trees along Dally in specific locations for the purpose of closing various "visual windows" that exist between the travel route and private homes to the west. [+] FINDING b: Adverse effects. The proposed use WILL NOT result in any potential material adverse effect on the character of the adjacent neighborhood or the Beaver Creek Resort. c) STANDARD: Access. Access to and from the site of the proposed use is adequate. Access to the site is via Dally, which is maintained year round by the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District. The bridge at the entrance to the fire station is 28 feet wide, and should accommodate employee and delivery truck traffic without compromising fire station operations and/or emergency response (see referral memo from Eagle River Fire Protection District, 05/16/02, and response from Glen Palmer, AEI, 06/06/02). A second access is also available year round via Elk Track Road and the service road to the Beaver Creek Water Tank site. [+] FINDING c: Access. Access to and from the site of the proposed use IS adequate. d) STANDARD: Water and Sanitation. Water and sanitation service for the site of the proposed use is adequate. The Beaver Creek PUD is served by the Upper Eagle River Water and Sanitation District. A domestic water line presently exists just south ofthe proposed building's site, and will be accessed to provide both potable water and water for the maintenance facility's fire sprinkler system. Additional water for fire fighting will be provided by dry connections to the 2 million gallon water tank located directly across the stream from the new facility (see referral memo from Eagle River Fire Protection District, 05/16/02, and response from Glen Palmer, AEI, 06/06/02). Approximately 2400 feet of new sanitary sewer line will be installed from the site down the Dally Ski Way to connect with existing sewer lines near the Beaver Creek Service Center. A 1041 permit is not required for the new facility, as daily water consumption will be less than ten single family equivalents. [+] FINDING d: Water and Sanitation. Water and sanitation service for the site of the proposed use IS adequate. e) STANDARD: Physical Arraneement. The physical arrangement of the proposed improvements on the site of the proposed use is appropriate. It would appear that the location of physical spaces and related activities within and around the new maintenance facility, in particular the space(s) allocated for food service shipping and receiving operations, has been arranged in such a manner as to maximize efficiency and reduce impacts to the site. 44 07 -02-02 The project has been reviewed and approved by the Beaver Creek Design Review Board. [+] FINDING e: Physical Arraneement. The physical arrangement ofthe proposed improvements on the site of the proposed use IS appropriate. C) ADDITIONAL STANDARDS / DISCUSSION / FINDINGS This proj ect was also evaluated in terms of its conformance with Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-250.B, Standards for the review of a Special Use Permit. The application as submitted was found to conform to all applicable standards. Mr. Simonton stated that the Planning Commissioner recommended unanimous approval with 3 conditions, which are: 1. That the applicant provide physical separation between skiers and traffic on the Dally Skiway in order to guarantee skier safety. 2. Delivery trucks be prevented from using their "Jake" breaks when descending Dally. That would be particularly important in the evening when people are in their homes. 3. That the applicant provide evidence that the Division of Wildlife has reviewed and accepted plans for on-site trash containers, given the requirement that they be bear proof. Tom Allander, SE Group representing Vail Associates, spoke to the special events they have run above the existing site. He stated they will adhere to condition #1 whether included or not. He spoke to ensuring there are no delays for emergency response. This actually provides for an extra exit. He spoke to lights on the bridge they plan on instituting. He spoke to night lighting and the desire to have no off site impacts to the neighbors. Bear proof containers are certainly something they can incorporate. He has spoken with Bill Andree. There is some concern with noise and they are very concerned with the condition that outlaws "jake" breaks. He stated they will discourage the use, but in a safety related situation they will encourage them to be cautious. He stated residential noise is minimal. They have met with the homeowners regarding screening which will be adjacent to or on the lots. He spoke to the facilities within in area. He spoke to runoff and that they have planned for an extensive sedimentation process. He stated the barrier is no problem, the "jake" brakes they would like the word discouraged rather than prevented and they will go with the bear proof containers. Chairman Gallagher asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Menconi asked what will happen to the existing maintenance facility. Mr. Allander stated they are hoping to recycle the building and residential will be built on the site. Commissioner Menconi asked how much further up the residential can go. Mr. Allander stated the existing maintenance facility is zoned for 32 units. Lot 1, Tract M is zoned for commercial uses. There are no additional lots zoned beyond this location. He spoke to the VarIOUS zones. Chairman Gallagher stated he understands everything but the fire station moving. Mr. Allander stated everything in the maintenance facility is moving except the wheeled vehicle maintenance and the retail. He stated the reason for putting the new facility further up hill is that all functions that take place in the new facility have to be adjacent to both pavement and snow. Commissioner Menconi asked if the motion needs to carry the recommendations of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board of County Commissioners approve file ZS-00092, Beaver Creek Shipping and Receiving Operation, based on the application submitted and the associated Staff findings including the Planning Commission's recommendations as follows: 1. That the applicant provide sufficient barrier and/or separation along that portion of Dally traveled by food service delivery vehicles in order to guarantee skier safety. 2. Delivery trucks be prevented from using their "Jake" breaks when descending Dally. That would be particularly important in the evening when people are in their homes. 45 07 -02-02 3. That the applicant provide evidence that the Division of Wildlife has reviewed and accepted plans for on-site trash containers, given the requirement that they be bear proof. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. He suggested changing the word prevented to discourage in condition number two. Commissioner Menconi concurred with the amendment. Chairman Gallagher called for the question on the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PDS-00031, Heritage Park PUD Sketch Plan Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file number PDS-00031, Heritage Park PUD Sketch Plan. As revised since last being tabled by the Planning Commission, the applicant has reduced the proposed density by eliminating the originally contemplated lock-off units, and two single family lots. Further, the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Ambulance District have both responded favorably regarding the anticipated ingress and egress to the site. Staff has determined that sufficient positive findings have been demonstrated to warrant a recommendation of approval with conditions. The Planning Commission recommendation is denial. The sketch plan proposes the subdivision of 11.4 acres of unincorporated land in the Resource (R) zone district into 24 single family home lots. The lot sizes proposed range from 9,400 square feet to 18,400 square feet. A "meandering park" is contemplated for walking and light recreation, which would be open to Homestead residents as well. The gross density of the proposed development is 2.1 dwelling units per acre. By comparison, the gross density of the combined Homestead PUDs, which envelope the subject property on three sides, approximates to 1.1 dwelling units per acre. The approximate net density of the portion of Homestead Filing 1 that exists along and adjacent to Allen Circle is approximately 2.55 units per acre. The Green Ranch PUD borders the western side of the subject property and allows a gross density of approximately one unit per 14 acres. Access for Heritage Park is via the 50 foot wide, 0.103 acre "Tract B" of Homestead Filing 1, directly off of Allen Circle. The proposed internal road configuration is two cul-de-sacs sharing a common connection to Allen Circle. The easterly cul-de-sac serves 17 single-family lots and the westerly cul-de-sac serves 7 single family lots. The proposed lengths of each are 1,000 feet and 500 feet, respectively, which conforms to Section 4-620c.9 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The current zoning ofthe site is Resource (R), which requires a minimum lot size of 35 acres, allows agricultural uses and the development of a single family home with an accessory dwelling unit. The chronology of the application is as follows: In July of 1980, an Exemption Plat was approved by the Board of County Commissioners for the Hollis Allen Parcel, a 10.37 acre parcel ofland in the Resource (R) zone district. In September of 2001, the applicant and his representative filed an application for a Subdivision Sketch Plan (SDS-OOO 11) for the subject property which was withdrawn based upon staff comments. In October of 2001, the applicant and his representative submitted the current Planned Unit Development Sketch Plan application (PDS-00031) for the Allen Tract site. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended denial ofthis project. The reasoning behind their recommendation was centered on the issues of density, access, and traffic. Also of concern were questions of whether there exists a need for this type of housing under present conditions, and the lack of community support in the immediate neighborhood. A significant number of people voiced their opposition to this proposal during the public comment portion of the hearing. He spoke to the number of letters they have received against the project. Staff continues to recommend approval with conditions 1 through 13. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: 46 07 -02-02 Eagle County Engineer The engineer has numerous comments which are attached to this report. Eagle County Environmental Health Environmental Health has comments which are attached. Eagle County Road & Bridge Questioned whether the width of the proposal's access off of Allen Circle is adequate. Eagle County School District RE 50J The school district has attached comments regarding the cash in lieu of land dedication requirements. Colorado Geological Survey The comments of the Colorado Geological Survey are included with the attached referral responses. Colorado Division of Wildlife The comments of the Division of Wildlife are attached. Office of the State Engineer, Division of Water Resources The Division of Water Resources has comments (letter attached). Holy Cross Electric The proposed development is within a certified service area of Holy Cross Energy. Their response letter is attached as well. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments NWCOG has numerous comments which are attached. Homestead Owners Board of Directors Letter attached to this report. Additional Referral Aeencies (No Response): Eagle County Assessor, Attorney's Office, Historical Society, Sheriffs Office and ECO Trails & Transit; Colorado State Health Department, Colorado Historical Society, and Colorado State Forest Service; KIN Energy; CDOT; Century-Tel; Edwards Ambulance District; Eagle River Fire Protection District. Public Comments: Approximately 115 letters were received from immediate neighbors and Homestead residents objecting to this Sketch Plan application. Most people stated their opposition is based upon the density of the proposal and the potential negative traffic impacts it may have on Homestead Drive and its enVirons. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a Sketch PUD: Under the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, Sketch Plan review standards (Section 5-240.F.3.e. Standards): "The Sketch Plan and Preliminary Plan for PUD shall comply with the ... Standards," which thereby requires that it conform with virtually all Article 4 "Site Development Standards." While all standards will, at Preliminary Plan, be applied in detail, it is appropriate at Sketch Plan to determine: (1) whether sufficient evidence exists to demonstrate that these standards are able to be met at Preliminary Plan; and (2) that when fully applied, the Preliminary Plan will conform to Sketch Plan. If staff found the information supplied sufficiently vague, or had sufficient doubt that, particularly, when an Article 4 Standard is applied at Preliminary Plan general conformance with Sketch Plan could be found, then staff could not make a finding that the Sketch Plan conceptually conformed with that Standard. Pluses and minuses appearing before certain Standards indicate where staff has found that the proposed development meets that Standard ([ + D, does not meet that Standard ([ - D, is mixed ([ +/ - D, or has found that the Standard does not apply ([n/aD. 47 07 -02-02 STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240f3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a pud shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the pud. It has been demonstrated that all of the land in the proposed PUD is owned by Landel Company, L.C., A Texas Limited Liability Company, and Barbara Allen. The applicant has a consent agreement in which he is identified by the owners as having control over the land. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part of this PUD IS owned or controlled by one (1) person. STANDARD: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] - The uses that may be developed in the PUD shall be those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule", or Table 3-320, "Commercial and Industrial Zone Districts Use Schedule", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these use designations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. The uses proposed are residential in nature. All uses are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use, or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Districts Use Schedule" within the existing Resource (R) zone district. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] The uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE those uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in Table 3-300, "Residential, Agricultural and Resource Zone Districts Use Schedule" for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. STANDARD: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] - The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD shall be those specified in Table 3-340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. Variations of these dimensional limitations may only be authorized pursuant to Section 5-240 F.3f, Variations Authorized. provided variations shall leave adequate distance between buildings for necessary access and fire protection, and ensure proper ventilation, light, air and snowmelt between buildings. The dimensional limitations proposed for the PUD are not in compliance with the standards set forth for the Resource (R) zone district in Table 3-340 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations. The proposed density of the Heritage Park Sketch Plan exceeds that which is allowed within a Resource (R) zone district. The Applicant has requested Variations to the dimensional limitations pertaining to minimum lot size for uses in the Resource (R) zone. The Resource zone district has a minimum lot size ofthirty-five (35) acres. The applicant proposes lot sizes that range from 8,800 to 14,300 square feet. Section 5- 240.F.3.f., Variations Authorized, also provides that in order for a variation to be granted, it must be found that the granting of the variation is necessary for the purpose to be achieved, and that the Sketch Plan for PUD achieves one or more ofthe following purposes: (a) obtains desired design qualities; (b) avoids environmental resources and natural resources; (c) incentives for water augmentation; (d) incentives for trails; (e) incentives for affordable housing; and/or (f) incentives for public facilities. [+/-] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE NOT those specified in Table 3- 48 07 -02-02 340, "Schedule of Dimensional Limitations", for the zone district designation in effect for the property at the time of the application for PUD. A Variation WILL be required pursuant to Table 3-340 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations STANDARD: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] - Off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. A reduction in these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that: (a) Shared Parking. Because of shared parking arrangements among uses within the PUD that do not require peak parking for those uses to occur at the same time, the parking needs of residents, guests and employees of the project will be met; or (b) Actual Needs. The actual needs of the project's residents, guests and employees will be less than those set by Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards. The applicant may commit to provide specialized transportation services for these persons (such as vans, subsidized bus passes, or similar services) as a means of complying with this standard. The Applicant has indicated that the off-street parking and loading standards, as stated in Article 4, Division I of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations, will be met. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It WILL BE demonstrated that off-street parking and loading provided in the PUD CAN comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 1, Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards, without a necessity for a reduction in the standards. STANDARD: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] - Landscaping provided in the PUD shall comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaving and Illumination Standards. Variations from these standards may be authorized where the applicant demonstrates that the proposed landscaping provides sufficient buffering of uses from each other (both within the PUD and between the PUD and surrounding uses) to minimize noise, glare and other adverse impacts, creates attractive streets capes and parking areas and is consistent with the character of the area. A landscape plan for a PUD is intended to address issues such as type and placement of trees in common areas, and how areas disturbed during development will be re-vegetated. The conceptual landscape plan is required to illustrate the overall intent of the Applicant with regard to landscaping of the development. The current landscaping plan in the proposed Sketch Plan does adequately depict the general intent of the applicant in terms of which areas are to be most heavily disturbed, what types of vegetation exist now on the site, and other features that may be removed or replaced. The Landscaping Design Standards require that landscaping in a PUD shall be provided in a manner that is most consistent with the character of the proposed development and the unique ecosystem and specific environment in which the development is located. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the PUD DOES comply with the standards of Article 4, Division 2, Landscaping and Illumination Standards. The Conceptual Landscape Plan DOES adequately demonstrate what areas will be disturbed and how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will preserved, replaced or the areas otherwise re-vegetated. The Landscaping Design Standards may be satisfied with the Preliminary Plan application. STANDARD: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] - The sign standards applicable to the PUD shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. unless, as provided in Section 4-340 D., Signs Allowed in a Planned Unit Development (PUD), the applicant submits a comprehensive sign plan for the PUD that is determined to be suitable for the PUD and provides the minimum sign area necessary to direct users to and within the PUD. Signs are contemplated for this PUD and will conform to the Sign Regulations within the Eagle 49 07-02-02 County Land Use Regulations. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD SHALL be as specified in Article 4, Division 3, Sign Regulations. STANDARD: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] - The applicant shall demonstrate that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. Potable water sUlJTJlv. The Edwards Metro District will facilitate water supply. Successful completion and approval of a 1041 permit application either prior to or concurrent with preliminary plan submission is required as a condition of approval. Sewage disoosal. To be provided by the Eagle River Sanitation district. Successful completion and approval of a 1041 permit application either prior to or concurrent with preliminary plan submission is required as a condition of approval. Solid waste disoosal. Upper Eagle River Electrical suoplv. Holy Cross Electric Fire protection. Eagle River Fire Protection District Roads. Access to the site will be from Allen Circle. The Applicant has provided the Community Development Department with letters from both the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Ambulance District stating that the single point of access will be sufficient. The Land Use Regulations require, however, that "The applicant shall be required to provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shall be a secondary emergency ingress/egress from any development. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles." As such, the applicant for this proposal shall provide a secondary emergency ingress/egress OR, the Board of County Commissioners, at their discretion, may choose to grant a variance of the required improvement standard. Proximitv to schools. oolice and fire orotection, and emergencv medical services. When applying for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant is required to demonstrate that schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services will be available to this development. [+/-] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] The Applicant HAS demonstrated that the development proposed in the Preliminary Plan for PUD will be provided adequate facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, and will be conveniently located in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. With Preliminary Plan, either the applicant must provide a secondary point of ingress/egress or, the Board of County Commissioners, at their discretion, may choose to grant a variance from the required secondary access. Also, approval of a 1041 permit application for a major extension of existing domestic water and sewage treatment systems and efficient utilization of municipal and industrial water projects MUST be obtained prior to Preliminary Plan approval. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imorovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be 50 07-02-02 by a public right-ol-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO)for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be granted for emergency vehicles and utility vehicles, as applicable, to use private roadways in the development for the purpose of providing emergency services and for installation, maintenance and repair of utilities. The Eagle County Land Use Regulations require dual points of ingress/egress. The Applicant has provided written acceptance of the singular access point from the Eagle River Fire Protection District and the Eagle County Ambulance District. With Preliminary Plan, the applicant for this proposal shall provide a secondary emergency ingress/egress OR, the Board of County Commissioners, at their discretion, may choose to grant a variance of required improvement standard. (d) Principal Access Points. Principal vehicular access points shall be designed to provide for smooth traffic flow, minimizing hazards to vehicular, pedestrian or bicycle traffic. Where a PUD abuts a major collector, arterial road or highway, direct access to such road or highway from individual lots, units or buildings shall not be permitted. Minor roads within the PUD shall not be directly connected with roads outside of the PUD, unless the County determines such connections are necessary to maintain the County's road network. (e) Snow Storage. Adequate areas shall be provided to store snow removed from the internal street network and from off-street parking areas. The Applicant has not adequately demonstrated that these standards can be satisfied on a sketch plan level. As pointed out in the comments of the Eagle County Engineering Department, Section 4- 620.J.1.h of the Land Use Regulations requires two points of access to the public road system. The Heritage Park Sketch Plan has only one point of access. Unless a secondary point of access is provided, the Applicant must request a variance from the Improvement Standards to allow the singular access point. The Applicant has obtained written consent from the Fire and Ambulance Districts indicating that the one proposed access will be adequate in times of emergency. Prior to Preliminary Plan approval, the applicant must either provide a secondary point of access to the site or, the Board of County Commissioners may, at their discretion, grant a variance for the Improvement Standard to allow the singular point of access. When applying for Preliminary Plan approval, the Applicant is required to demonstrate that all other applicable standards of this Section regarding Improvements will be satisfied for this development. [+/-] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS NOT been demonstrated that the improvements standards applicable to the development will be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Improvements Standards regarding: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. (b) Internal Pathways. (c) Emergency Vehicles. (d) Principal Access Points. ( e) Snow Storage. STANDARD: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] - The development proposed for the PUD shall be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The subject property is bordered on three sides by the Homestead PUD, and on one side by the Green Ranch PUD. As detailed in the Summary section of this report (Page 1), the gross density of the 51 07 -02-02 Green Ranch PUD is substantially lower than that of this Sketch Plan proposal. The lot sizes proposed for Heritage Park are larger than the Homestead lots on its border, however, the gross numerical density of Homestead, inclusive of the Homestead Open Space PUD, is equal to 1.1 dwelling units per acre. The approximate net density or, visual density of the portion of Homestead Filing 1 that exists along and adjacent to Allen Circle is approximately 2.55 units per acre. The revised Sketch Plan offers a lower density than that of the surrounding Homestead neighborhood and provides a logical transition to the Green Ranch property. The finding for this standard requires that the development proposed be compatible with the character of the land uses that surround the subject site. The development as proposed should not adversely compromise the character of the Edwards community. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the gross density of surrounding land uses in the vicinity of the subject site. The net or visual density proposed with Heritage Park IS consistent with the adjacent homestead development. STANDARD: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] - The PUD shall be consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The consideration of the relevant master plans during sketch plan review is on a broad conceptual level, i. e, how a proposal compares to basic planning principles. As a development proposal moves from sketch plan to preliminary plan review, its conformance or lack thereof to aspects of the master plans may not necessarily remain static. THE MASTER PLAN ANALYSES BELOW CONSIDER THE PROPOSAL AS SUBMITTED. Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation Community FLUM Quality Recreation Housing Services Conformance X X X x x Non x Conformance Mixed x Conformance Not Applicable EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN The Sketch Plan does not conform to the Eagle County Master Plan in regards to the Affordable Housing component. The Eagle County Housing Department determined that the application does not sufficiently address the stated policies for Local Resident Housing. (Page 48 of the Plan) The Master Plan discourages building urban style roads in mountainous terrain. This proposal will entail an extension of existing urban style roads. (Page 50 of the Plan) The FLUM identifies the subject property as appropriate for community center development. Residential development in the Community Center is expected to be relatively high density in the range of 3 to 12 dwelling units per acre. (The proposed gross density of 2.1 units per acre is below the low end of the recommended spectrum.) 1985 EDWARDS SUB-AREA PLAN Development Economy Housing Circulation Recreation Conceols Conformance X X X X 52 07 -02-02 Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X Applicable The 1985 Edwards Sub-Area Plan is the applicable sub-area plan to this application. It offers the following: "The main development and the central community focus should occur at the Edwards Commercial Center. Development densities should diminish from high density to rural along the transportation corridor away from this community center." The Allen Parcel is on the inner edge of the community center. The Edwards Area map identifies the site as appropriate for medium density residential development. The Plan further indicates that medium density may accommodate single family residential, duplex or primaryl secondary development. The Plan does not define 'medium density', however, the fact that duplexes are included as appropriate medium density development, seems to imply that 'medium density' would be included in the FLUM's recommended density range of 3 to 12 du/acre. The proposed gross density is 2.3 units per acre. With regard to housing, the Edward's Plan recommends that, "the housing character should orient toward residential development and not the passing tourist". EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use Open Space Unique Char. Visual Development Hazards Wildlife Cooperation Provision Preservation Qualitv Patterns Conformance x x x x x x Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not x Applicable Eagle River Watershed Plan At Preliminary Plan, the developer will be responsible for demonstrating how pre and post- construction onsite storm water management and erosion control techniques will be employed to minimize negative impacts upon both the watershed and the Eagle River. Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan. The application does not conform with the Eagle County Comprehensive Housing Plan in that the following policies apply to this application and have not been satisfactorily resolved: Local resident home ownership should be facilitated; Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line; New residential subdivisions will provide a percentage for each of the three income categories of local residents, including the low and middle categories. There is a need to segment a portion of the housing market to protect local residents from having to compete with second home buyers. [+1-] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] As submitted, the PUD Sketch Plan IS NOT consistent with all of the guiding policies of the Master Plans, and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Planfar PUD shall 53 07 -02-02 include a phasing plan for the development. If development of the PUD is proposed to occur in phases, then guarantees shall be provided for public improvements and amenities that are necessary and desirable for residents of the project, or that are of benefit to the entire County. Such public improvements shall be constructed with the first phase of the project, or, if this is not possible, then as early in the project as is reasonable. The applicant has sufficiently addressed the phasing concept for this project. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan HAS been considered for this proposed development. STANDARD: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] - The PUD shall comply with the following common recreation and open space standards. (a) Minimum Area. It is recommended that a minimum of 25% of the total PUD area shall be devoted to open air recreation or other usable open space, public or quasi-public. In addition, the PUD shall provide a minimum of ten (10) acres of common recreation and usable open space lands for every one thousand (1,000) persons who are residents of the PUD. In order to calculate the number of residents of the PUD, the number of proposed dwelling units shall be multiplied by two and sixty-three hundredths (2.63), which is the average number of persons that occupy each dwelling unit in Eagle County, as determined in the Eagle County Master Plan. (1) Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-ofways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. ii. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed and fully improved according to the development schedule established for each development phase of the PUD. (c) Continuing Use and Maintenance. All privately owned common open space shall continue to conform to its intended use, as specified on the Preliminary Plan for PUD. To ensure that all the common open space identified in the PUD will be used as common open space, restrictions and/or covenants shall be placed in each deed to ensure their maintenance and to prohibit the division of any common open space. (d) Organization. If common open space is proposed to be maintained through an association or nonprofit corporation, such organization shall manage all common open space and recreational and cultural facilities that are not dedicated to the public, and shall provide for the maintenance, administration and operation of such land and any other land within the PUD not publicly owned, and secure adequate liability insurance on the land. The association or nonprofit corporation shall be established prior to the sale of any lots or units within the PUD. Membership in the association or nonprofit corporation shall be mandatory for all landowners within the PUD. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] The PUD DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards with respect to: (a) Minimum area; (b) Improvements required; (c) Continuing use and maintenance; or (d) Organization. STANDARD: Natural Resource Protection. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] - The PUD shall consider the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection 54 07 -02-02 Standards. Eagle County Engineer The engineer had numerous comments regarding traffic impacts, but is satisfied with the information submitted related to traffic. Eagle County Environmental Health Environmental Health has comments about 1041 requirements, landscaping, and storm water detention. Eagle County Road & Bridge Questioned whether the width of the proposal's access off of Allen Circle is adequate. Eagle County School District RE 50J The school district has attached comments regarding the cash in lieu of land dedication requirements. Colorado Geological Survey The comments ofthe Colorado Geological Survey regarding site suitability and potential hazards are attached. Colorado Division of Wildlife The comments of the Division of Wildlife are attached. Office ofthe State Engineer, Division of Water Resources The Division of Water Resources has comments on necessary reports for this type of application. Holy Cross Electric The proposed development is within a certified service area of Holy Cross Energy. Their response letter is attached as well. Northwest Colorado Council of Governments NWCOG has numerous comments on storm water management which are attached. Homestead Owners Board of Directors Letter of opposition attached to this report. The referral agencies that responded to this application are indicated above and their specific comments are attached. It is expected that additional responses will continue to be received. The Applicant should be required to demonstrate the manner in which the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered in the preparation of the application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+/-] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. (Section 5-240.F.3.e (13) The PUD DOES NOT fully demonstrate that the recommendations made by the applicable analysis documents, as well as the recommendations of referral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards, have been considered. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-280.B.3.e. Standards for the review of a Sketch Plan for Subdivision: STANDARD: Consistent with Master Plan. (Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] - The proposed subdivision shall be consistent with the Eagle County Master Plan and the FLUM of the Master Plan. See discussion above, "Consistency with Master Plan." (Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Master Plan. (Section 5-280.B.3.e (1)] As submitted, the PUD Sketch Plan IS NOT consistent with all of the guiding policies of the Master Plans, and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. (Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards o/this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Develooment Standards. 55 07 -02-02 Article 3, Zone Districts (Covered above) Article 4, Site Development Standards [+] Off-Street Parking and Loading Standards (Division 4-1) The Applicant has not provided a Comprehensive Parking Plan for this proposed PUD. Consequently, the provisions of the Land Use Regulations would be applicable. Given the proposed uses and density, there appears to be no reason why the requirements ofthe Land Use Regulations can not be satisfied at Preliminary Plan approval. [ +] Landscaping and Illumination Standards (Division 4- 2) The Landscaping Design Standards provide that landscaping in a PUD shall be provided in a manner which is most consistent with the character planned for the development and the unique ecosystem and specific environment in which the development is located. The Standards go on to indicate that for developments that contain lots larger than two (2) acres, "landscaping should include preservation or replacement of existing trees, shrubs and ground cover and re-vegetation of areas that are disturbed by development." Given this Design Standard, the nature and density of the proposed use on the site and in the surrounding areas is such that buffering within or around the perimeter of the PUD may be crucial. The Applicant has clearly demonstrated what areas will be disturbed and how existing trees, shrubs and groundcover in these areas will be preserved, replaced or the areas otherwise re-vegetated. The Applicant is required to provide such information as part ofthe detailed landscaping plan provided with the Preliminary Plan application. [+] Sign Regulations (Division 4-3) Signs are proposed for the development. To the extent that signs are used, it is reasonable to expect that they can conform to this Division of the Land Use Regulations. [ + ] Natural Resource Protection Standards (Division 4-4) [+] Wildlife Protection (Section 4-410) - No conflicts have been identified at the writing of this staff report regarding wildlife. Any conflicts subsequently identified are required to be addressed at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [ +] Geologic Hazards (Section 4-420) - Incorporation of the recommendations made by CGS should be reflected in the application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Wildfire Protection (Section 4-430) - The Colorado State Forest Service (CSFS) had not responded with comments by the time this report was written. Any recommendations from the CSFS should be incorporated into the application for Preliminary Plan approval. [+] Wood Burning Controls (Section 4-440) - No wood burning devices are proposed. [nla] Ridgeline Protection (Section 4-450) - The proposed development is not within a designated ridgeline area as depicted on the Ridgeline Protection Map. [ +] Environmental Impact Report (Section 4-460) - An "Ecological Assessment" has been provided with the Sketch Plan Application. The Applicant has been advised that if significant environmental issues are subsequently identified, a more extensive EIR will be required at application for Preliminary Plan approval. [nla] Commercial and Industrial Performance Standards (Division 4-5) The proposed development includes no commercial or industrial uses. These commercial and industrial standards do not apply. [+/-] Improvement Standards (Division 4-6) Not all ofthe Improvement Standards have been demonstrated as being met by the applicant. [- ] Roadway Standards (Section 4-620) - Internal circulation is proposed to be provided by two short cul-de-sacs. Standards applicable to the access are provided in Section 4-620.J.h., Access Approaches and Driveways. The Land Use Regulations require that "The applicant shall be required to 56 07 -02-02 provide two (2) points of access from the proposed development to the public roadway system, unless prevented by topography or other physical conditions. In any event there shall be a secondary emergency ingress/egress from any development. All dwellings and other structures shall be accessible by emergency and service vehicles." As such, the applicant for this proposal shall provide a secondary emergency ingress/egress OR, the Board of County Commissioners, at their discretion, may choose to grant a variance of required improvement standard. [ +] Sidewalk and Trail Standards (Section 4-630) - The Applicant will need to address the comments of ECa Trails at the Preliminary Plan stage. [+] Irrigation System Standards (Section 4-640) - The Applicant is required to demonstrate, at the time of application for Preliminary Plan approval, the extent to which the standards of this Section are applicable and how they will be met. [+] Drainage Standards (Section 4-650) - These standards are intended to minimize the likelihood and extent of flooding and environmental damage from uncontrolled urban runoff. The Applicant has submitted a drainage plan and will comply with the engineering comments at preliminary plan. [ +] Grading and Erosion Control Standards (Section 4-660) - The Applicant addressed aspects of the standards pertaining to grading and erosion control. The Applicant is required to demonstrate at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [+] Utility and Lighting Standards (Section 4-670) - It does not appear that the Applicant will have particular difficulty in meeting these standards, however, the Applicant is required to demonstrate at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [+] Water Supply Standards (Section 4-680) - Potable water is proposed to be provided by the Edwards Metro district. The Applicant has demonstrated the availability of this service. The Applicant is also required to provide a fire fighting water supply, fire hydrants and fire fighting system within the development, as required by the local Fire Protection District. [+] Sanitary Sewage Disposal Standards (Section 4-690) - Sanitary Sewage Disposal is to be provided by Eagle River Sanitation. The Applicant is required to demonstrate at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [+] Impact Fees and Land Dedication Standards (Division 4-7) Road Impact Fees will be applied to all new traffic generating development. The appropriate Eagle County School District has determined the proper fee in lieu of land dedication and it is outlined in their referral comments (attached). [+/-] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] The Applicant HAS NOT fully demonstrated that the proposed PUD complies with all ofthe standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. STANDARD: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] - The proposed subdivision shall be located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service 57 07 -02-02 into an otherwise un-served area. The Applicant is required to demonstrate fully at application for Preliminary Plan approval that these standards will be met. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] The proposed subdivision IS located and designed to avoid creating spatial patterns that cause inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. STANDARD: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] - The property proposed to be subdivided shall be suitable for development, considering its topography, environmental resources and natural or man-made hazards that may affect the potential development of the property, and existing and probable future public improvements to the area. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] The property proposed to be developed IS suitable for development, considering its proximity to other similar developments and public improvements to the area. STANDARD: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] - The proposed subdivision shall be compatible with the character of existing land uses in the area and shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. The subject property is bordered on three sides by the Homestead PUD, and on one side by the Green Ranch PUD. As detailed in the Summary section of this report (Page 1), the gross density of the Green Ranch PUD is substantially lower than that of this Sketch Plan proposal. The lot sizes proposed for Heritage Park are larger than the Homestead lots on its border, however, the gross numerical density of Homestead, inclusive of the Homestead Open Space PUD, is equal to 1.1 dwelling units per acre. The approximate net density or, visual density of the portion of Homestead Filing 1 that exists along and adjacent to Allen Circle is approximately 2.55 units per acre. The revised Sketch Plan offers a lower density than that of the surrounding Homestead neighborhood and provides a logical transition to the Green Ranch property. The finding for this standard requires that the development proposed be compatible with the character of the land uses that surround the subject site. The development as proposed should not adversely compromise the character of the Edwards community. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] The development proposed for the PUD IS compatible with the gross density of surrounding land uses in all directions from the subject site. The net or visual density proposed with heritage park IS consistent with the adjacent Homestead development. ADDITIONAL FINDINGS: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8) Initiation: Applicant shall submit the following: "Proposed PUD guide setting forth the proposed land use restrictions." The Applicant has submitted a draft PUD Guide. It appears that the proposed land use restrictions in the draft PUD Guide can be fully met at Preliminary Plan. More important is the use of a Planned Unit Development for what is being proposed. The purpose of a Planned Unit Development zone district, as provided in Section 5-240.A., Putpose, is: to permit variations from the strict application of the standards ofthe County's other zone districts in order to allow flexibility for landowners to creatively plan for the overall development of their land and thereby, to achieve a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application ofthe minimum standards ofthe Land Use Regulations. This Section further states that this purpose is to be achieved through the application of performance standards that: Permit integration of uses; Establish more efficient land use patterns; Preserve lands; 58 07 -02-02 Maintain water quality and quantity; Contribute to trails system; Establish incentives for affordable housing; and Be consistent with the Master Plan. Staffhas looked for indications that one or more of these performance standards are being served by such techniques such as clustering of building sites, protecting open space and/or view corridors, or some other benefit which justifies use ofPUD zoning. The rationale presented by the Applicant notwithstanding, it appears that the proposed development does create a more desirable environment than would be possible through the strict application ofthe minimum standards of the Land Use Regulations. Further, there does appear to be a creative use of the performance standards listed above in the Sketch Plan as presented. [+} FINDING: PUD Guide [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant has submitted a PUD guide that DOES demonstrate that the requirements ofthis Section can be fully met at Preliminary Plan. The Applicant HAS clearly demonstrated that the purposes ofPUD zoning are being served by the proposed development. Requirements for a Zone Change It has been recommended by the Eagle County Attorney that these considerations be reviewed at PUD Sketch Plan, even though zone changes are neither granted for a PUD at Sketch Plan nor may they be "formal" findings. It is almost impossible to avoid confronting these requirements at this stage since they are fundamental to the location's appropriateness of the proposed land use in the first place, and must be found at Preliminary Plan. Staff, therefore provides a list of criteria which must be met for a zone change, pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-230.D., Standards, for amendment to the Official Zone District Map: (1) Consistency With Master Plan. (2) Compatible with surrounding uses. (3) Changed conditions. (4) Effect on natural environment. (5) Community need. (6) Development patterns. (7) Public interest. Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, stated he and Tom Boni will be making the presentation today. He also said Jim Guida and Michael Shelden, Attorney, are present as well. He stated they tabled this file at the last hearing as it was determined two days would be needed to hear this application. Jim Guida, applicant and local building contractor, stated he moved here in 1990. He has three children that have been raised in the area. He stated he likes doing things right and he loves Colorado and this valley. He asked that he address the audience. Chairman Gallagher stated it is the Board, not the audience that will decide. Mr. Guida spoke to the project and the information that has been passed around against it. He suggested that many are here about open space in general. He stated they have met with various groups trying to bring this process to where it is today. He spoke to in-fill development which is akin to remodeling. He suggested if this is done properly it will provide immediate benefits. He suggested that this is not just about Homestead or about Allen Circle. He stated it is about giving an appropriate density to single family development that is close to schools, shopping and a town center. He stated this is smart and makes sense. He challenged the Board to throwaway the microscope and look at the bigger picture. He spoke to how far they have come as to where they are today. He suggested it would have been a thirty year process. He suggested they would like to dispel the mis-truths. This is a well planned, quality neighborhood that went through a very comprehensive process. He asked people to listen with an open mind and look at the bigger picture. He plans to be involved with the management and construction of the project. He suggested that just because people were asked to come that they don't 59 07 -02-02 have to talk negatively about the project. Tom Boni, Knight Planning, spoke to the context of in-fill development which is what this project is all about. He spoke to the project team being Guida Construction, TDA Colorado, Peak Land Designs, Knight Planning Services and Sheldon Gordon, Legal Council. He stated the Allen Parcel is an in-fill parcel which will by fact give reason to change within the neighborhood. He suggested in-fill development by nature spans concern with the neighbors. He suggested one dwelling unit per acre is not appropriate. They are looking at 2.1 dwelling units per acre. He showed the composite tax map of the area. He showed Homestead filings 1,2, and 3. One and three are adjacent. The site context is the most important. It is within walking distance of the post office, Edwards Elementary School, Restaurants and Shopping and the Regional Park. All are within 10 to 15 minutes walking. He stated the adjacent development average is 3.7 dwelling units per acre. Filing 1 is 2.5, filing 3 is 4.9 and the Green PUD has a development discussion pending. He showed the area map with the Heritage Park neighborhood added. He stated the open space is favorable. He showed photos taken form the property, looking in various directions. He spoke to the path systems to be incorporated. Mr. Boni stated the first plan they presented to homeowners and staff consisted of28 homes with 18 primary/secondary units. He then showed a revised plan with 26 single family lots with 18 primary/secondary dwelling units. This is the plan they are at today. He stated they have worked with the neighborhood in a very diligent way. He stated the reorientation ofthe park was one ofthe real concerns. He stated together with set backs they have created a minimum of a 45 foot set back to over 160 feet. He spoke to Mr. Guida's design concepts for the park adding vegetation selectively and creating a meandering path system. He stated this is a concept that they have with a well landscaped park that provides a real buffer to the park. They would consider a landscape program to guarantee pnvacy. Mr. Boni reviewed the project history. Approval of the Homestead PUD with Tract B as the legal access to Allen Parcel. The original plan included 28 single family and 18 secondary units and 24 single family homes on 11.4 acres. There will be a meandering park of 1.72 acres, a total open space of 3.54 acres and a wide buffer to adjacent properties of 15 to 145 feet. The design concept is a neighborhood of single family-family homes, a planned unit development guide compatible with Homestead's with additional details concerning buildings on Lots 12,20 and 21, design guidelines, compliance with Eagle County Local Suburban Road Standards and a traffic study and no reduction in the level of service on the surrounding road system. He stated the Fire Department and emergency medical services have approved of the road configuration. He stated in a PUD there is a specific element that allows the County to vary the standards. They have a commitment to construct sidewalks on Allen Circle and traffic on Allen Circle will be comparable to many quiet residential streets within Homestead and less than numerous other streets serving residential neighborhoods in the Edwards community. Mr. Boni spoke to the traffic comparisons between Allen Circle and Bull Run in the Bull Pasture in Eagle. He stated the traffic really is comparable to other residential neighborhoods. He showed the plat maps of Charlois Circle and Bull Run. He showed the properties approved in Eagle Ranch. He stated Heritage Park (2.1 d.u./acre) is less dense than recommended by the Master Plans, i.e. the County Master Plan indicates the suggested density to be 3 to 12 dwelling units per acre. The Edwards Community Plan. (Pending) stated Medium/Suburban Density is 2 to 2.5 dwelling units per acre. He stated smart growth and in-fill Development reduces the need for suburban development in rural areas, reduces reliance on automobiles, and reinforces community identity. Mr. Boni suggested the ability to walk to the various amenities does reduce the need for cars and thus reduces the traffic. Open Space Compliance provides internal recreation and an open space location outside of buffer areas. Edwards is an identified Community Center with growth pressures and has an additional need for move-up single family housing. Residential development in the Community Centers is expected to be at relatively high densities for Eagle County. He stated this land is currently zoned resource. He stated it is the Master Plan that is designed for the purpose and projecting growth. 60 07 -02-02 He stated the Master Plans are slow to be prepared before consensus can be developed. Mr. Boni spoke to the distances from other recent developments. He suggested that all of the developments are much further and much larger in size than Heritage Park. He showed the Future Land Use Map of Eagle County. He stated this is in the middle. He showed the draft plan for Edwards Community. He showed the filings of Homestead PUD. He showed the various densities and the reduction as one gets further from Homestead. He reviewed the responses and suggests that they reflect the desire ofMr. Guida to consider the areas and neighbors around him. He reviewed the standards and spoke to the Zone Change Standards. He spoke to the regulations and that they are not controlled by any one factor, but that the Board should consider all aspects. He spoke to the findings and suggested the original intent was for this tract to be developed one day and that access was tract B. It complies with the Future Land Use Map. Commissioner Menconi asked who owns the property. Mr. Guida stated Barbara and Wes Allen. Commissioner Menconi asked how long they have owned the property. Mr. Guida suggested since 1960. Commissioner Menconi asked if the Allen's have attempted to sell the property. Mr. Guida stated not that he is aware of. Chairman Gallagher asked for a topo map. Mr. Narracci stated the Board has a map in front ofthem. Chairman Gallagher reviewed the courtesies of giving public imput. He asked that people keep their comments to approximately 3 minutes and not become repetitive. Ralph Davis, area resident, stated he is not here having been drug in to find fault. He stated his concern about this project or any project is water supply for the valley for the community. He stated historically the drought records are scarce. He spoke to the drought periods of thirty and fifty years. The main thing is to make sure that development does not effect water supplies. He questions if it would not be wise to step back and look at this in comparison to the supplies. He stated the water district is saying they have a three years water supply but nobody knows the long term effects of an extended drought period. Chuck Harrison, local realtor and resident of Homestead, stated there has been lots of discussion about why this is not a good development. He would like to express why it is. He spoke to the proximity and the compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods. He stated it is a classic infill property. He spoke to the revisions the developer has made and reflects the developer's willingness to listen. He thinks it is an asset to the area and encourages the Commissioners to approve the proposal. Mike Layman, resident of Edwards for thirteen years, read the names of those who could not attend as they are away for the holiday week. He asked they keep in mind the 186 letters that have been sent as well. He spoke to the density and the wall to wall homes. He spoke of this development sitting on a plateau and that the physical elevation is higher. He suggested the Community Development Department has suggested a gradual increase in density. He suggested 2.1 units per acer is not appropriate. He stated the development will generate unacceptable levels of traffic. He suggested from a safety and responsibility perspective this is unacceptable. He suggested traffic will triple on Allen Circle. He suggested the volume is unacceptable to those who currently live on Allen Circle. He suggested as traffic becomes a reality, Allen Circle and Homestead Drive will become a four way intersection. He spoke to the other homes and streets within Homestead. He suggested 36 homes worth of traffic will make Allen Circle the busiest street. He spoke to the negligence of the Allen family and their efforts for not getting this platted accordingly. He suggested the possibility for access from Lake Creek also existed. He spoke to the Lindvill home. He stated the Allen family negotiated an agreement on the Upper 80 but not once during the negotiations did they discuss access to the Allen parcel. Having the only access simply indicates poor planning and the consequence should fall upon the owner, not the neighbors. He suggested that any developable land must have appropriate access. He spoke to Tract B 61 07 -02-02 which is owned by the Allen family, but is part of Homestead. He stated he realizes property owners have the right to develop what is there but a change in zoning should be a challenging obsticle. He suggested to do so there should be perceivable benefits to the community. He stated their community doesn't need 24 more $800,000 homes or another meandering park. He can not see any benefits and if there are any, that the objections outweigh those. He thinks a development such as this should have significant support from the Edwards Community. He suggested the County Commissioners should deny this project. He spoke to a quote by Commissioner Gallagher suggesting that local government represents the people better than one that is fifteen miles away. He asked the Board hear what the people of Edwards are saying and asked they agree with the unanimous denial. He asked the Board for questions. Nancy Kirby, resident of Allen Circle, stated she is opposed to this development and asked to mention with the glut of houses for sale on the market, why do they want to build more houses to add to that. She stated the economy and the water are issues. She referred to Fred Green's threat that if this goes through, he will look for re-zoning for the property he has on Lake Creek. She stated she doesn't have a concern with lower density but doesn't agree with the proposal. Bart Peasley, thirteen year resident of Edwards, stated he is a realtor and has been a member of Homestead Court Club. He stated he is familiar with Jim Guida and that the quality of his work is exemplary. He spoke to the path to the school which is a huge safety factor. In terms of there being a need in this price category there are only two homes in comparable price range that are four bedroom. He stated since 2000 there have only been four homes sold in this price range. He stated there is a need in this mixed market for people who are stepping up and down. He stated these will be quality homes and they will blend in to the community. He spoke to few homes on smaller lots. He believes this fills a community need and the applicant is a quality builder. Scott Worth, resident of Allen Circle, stated he would like to emphasize that Tract B is an inadequate access to this project. He is concerned about the construction traffic that will occur. He suggested if each phase takes what they are suggesting, that will be six years worth of construction traffic. He stated that is a huge impact on Allen Circle and that ongoing construction will depreciate the value of his home. He spoke to the mix of students and construction traffic. He spoke to the principal of the Edwards Elementary to learn that the school is above capacity. He stated he strongly disagrees with the need for this many homes at this price range as he feels the market is flooded. He reminded the Board that the Planning Commissioner voted unanimously to deny this and he hopes the Board will as well. Bonnie Peasley, resident of Allen Circle stated they are concerned with what this development will do to the traffic on Allen Circle. David Desbow, area resident, stated he has had conversations with Mr. Guida and he is a homeowner in Homestead. He stated he can see why some people do not want this developed. He suggested that this is a good and fair site plan. He stated it is significantly less in density and he has adapted the plan to try to meet the needs of the homeowners. He spoke to the in-fill development and how it makes better sense. He stated he sees this as a good proposal and thinks the Board should approve it. Bobby Warner, also a realtor, suggested there are a number of five bedroom homes available in Homestead. He stated he will commend Jim and his team for trying to change things. He stated he has been involved in Master Plans in Eagle County since the early 1970's. He thinks there is a lot of confusion on the word rural and what that means. He suggested it consistently gets used. He spoke to Arrowhead, Singletree and Homestead. He suggested that rural means they don't want to be anything like Avon, with nothing against them. He stated you don't see four and five story buildings and the rural tone remains in Edwards. He spoke to the building but that a lot of what has happened has done so by leaving open space. He stated the homeowners offered to buy the property but the Allen's refused to do so. He stated it is the in-fill in the small areas and the roads can't take it nor can the water supply. He 62 07-02-02 thinks the project should be denied and related he does not believe it fits with the Master Plan. Jim Green, also a realtor, stated the more he hears the more he wants to speak. He stated this is an amazing piece of ground and home to a whole eco-system. He suggested that Barbara Allen had suggested that one day she might live there. He stated he knows a group that offered to buy it with no contingencies. He suggested it would make the best cemetery they could have. He stated every in-fill piece doesn't have to be developed. The project is nice but it doesn't need to be there. There is plenty of inventory. Denny Shay, resident of Edwards, stated he doesn't know a lot about the project but he knows Jim Guida. He stated he is honest and a man of his word. He suggested if they choose to go ahead with this project they will be happy with the guy running it. Ann Mardis, resident of Edwards, stated there are three or four things that bother her about the project. She stated it is a wonderful parcel ofland and should be built on one day. She stated her biggest problem is that the density is a little large. She visited with Barbara Allen and had coffee there two years ago and she spoke of how they tried to down zone her property. She stated she wonders also about the water and the down slope from this parcel down to Allen Circle. She stated in general she would like to see a lot of things happen such as growth slowed down, more side walks, the bike paths finished and round abouts instead oftraffic lights. She stated for the most part, those in Edwards are primary residents. She spoke to the use of the infrastructure. She would agree with smart growth for this project or any other. She thinks that the density for this is too great and that traffic and density will be an issue. Rich Howard, resident on Mole Dust Drive, stated he is neither for or against this project and asks they consider its merits. Mr. Howard spoke to the form letters distributed by the Homeowner's Association Board. He referred to the letter and related it states that Eagle County should be protecting agricultural uses. He suggested this land is hardly rural anymore and agricultural is not an option. He spoke to the location ofthe property and the fact that it can be seen from all over. He explained that is true with much of Edwards. He spoke to the traffic in filings 1 and 3. He suggested at Homestead they allow non-residents to use the Court Club so if they want to reduce the traffic that is where they need to address their concern. He spoke to the construction traffic and that it has happened for twenty years. He suggested the access to this parcel has been platted for many years. He suggested that Homestead is about 1 unit per acre, but if you put it all together, there is really minimal open space. He suggested that 1 unit per acre is misleading. Chairman Gallagher asked if anyone else would like to speak. They did not. He asked about a breaking point for today. Mr. Narracci suggested that now would be a good time. Mike Layman stated that he believes that this is an unfair burden to ask the public and the applicant to return. Mr. Knight stated in their meetings with staff they have understood that there will be two meetings. Their traffic engineers and the County's engineers will be here at the next meeting. Commissioner Menconi stated when they discussed this at the last meeting that they addressed Mr. Layman's concerns and ifthere are others in attendance next week there maybe an opportunity for further comment. Mike Layman asked if public comment would be allowed at the next meeting. Chairman Gallagher stated for those who have not had an opportunity to speak today. Mr. Warner suggested that normally public comment follows the presentation and ifthey have only seen part of the presentation perhaps they need to allow for further comment. Chairman Gallagher asked of the letters in opposition how many were sent on a date that allowed them to be in response to this proposal and not some earlier proposal. Mr. Narracci stated he counted up seventy-one letters of opposition and one of support. He stated there is a whole other set that were primarily form letters and they were geared toward the 63 07 -02-02 Planning Commission. Chairman Gallagher questioned the proposed height of the units exceeding the Homestead guidelines. Mr. Guida stated they have stated that height is the one guideline they are in contradiction with. He stated they are working on this issue and at final plat hope to have this resolved. Mr. Guida stated it is his understanding that the Homestead PUD allows for 35 feet. Commissioner Stone said he will want to talk about water, height, pricing, connectivity of trails within and without, landscaping within and around the perimiter, the singular access, the width and safety, the possibility of restricting times for construction traffic. Chairman Gallagher stated he would like to see a topo of the area. He stated to the end of finding another way into this. He would like to know where the road is from Lake Creek and he would like to know the owners of some of the adjoining property. He would like to see what else is possible. Commissioner Menconi moved the Board of County Commissioners table File No. PDS-00031, Heritage Park PUD Sketch Plan until July 9,2002, at the request of the applicant. Commissioner Stone seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. PR-00019, Berry Creek / Miller Ranch Recreation Tract Joseph Forinash presented file number PR-00019, Berry Creek /Miller Ranch Recreation Tract. He stated the Preliminary Plan for Berry Creek I Miller Ranch PUD, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on 5 February 2002, created large development tracts for future development activities and projects. The Preliminary Plan provided for the development of Miller Ranch Road and conceptually indicated where access to this road may occur from the individual tracts. The uses for the respective Tracts within the PUD were identified as part of the Preliminary Plan, but the detailed plans for each of the uses were not available at the time. The PUD Guide provides certain additional Site Specific Development Review procedures for each of the Tracts. The specific development review procedure for the Recreation Tract requires that the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners review the proposed development to ensure that it is consistent with the vision of the overall Preliminary Plan. Specifically, approval of the Berry Creek Recreation Tract may occur after consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board that the development is consistent with the PUD Guide, the PUD Preliminary Plan, the Master Circulation Plan, and the Master Drainage Plan for the PUD. This Site Specific Review is for Phase 1 improvements on Tract C of the Berry Creek Miller Ranch PUD. hnprovements include three multi-purpose athletic fields; a passive park area to include a picnic shelter, seating and playground apparatus; landscaping, including a berm along Miller Ranch Road; and drainage and detention improvements. The parking lot and detention pond are temporary and may be re-located in the future. Points of discussion by individual Planning Commissioners included the following: On-site water detention Adequacy of proposed detention pond, so Eagle River will be protected. Advantages of one detention pond for entire PUD verses several throughout the site. Temporary verses permanent restroom facilities. Need for a barrier between Recreation Tract and Housing Tract Athletic fields Adequacy of space between the fields for teams, spectators, and stray balls Desirability of crowned fields verses those which sheet drain across the fields Whether fields will have a sand base and underground drainage Maintenance of fields is very important and will require staff resources Importance of having no lighting on the fields 64 07 -02-02 More curving temporary path is preferable to a straight path Use of magnesium chloride on gravel parking area may be necessary At the time the motion to recommend approval was considered, four concerns were noted that, while not a part of the motion itself, the Planning Commission asked to be conveyed to the Board, including: Adequate maintenance of the athletic fields Lighting be downcast and limited to areas such as restrooms Consideration of permanent restrooms as part of next phase of improvements Security of adjacent residential area and safety of children living there The chronology of the application is as shown on staff report and as follows: 1999 - The Eagle County Recreation Authority (whose interests were later to be transferred to Eagle County) and the Eagle County School District (RE-50J) entered into a Intergovernmental Agreement to develop the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch site on a joint basis. 2000 - A PUD Sketch Plan was approved by the Board of County Commissioners. 2002 - A Combined PUD Sketch / Preliminary Plan Berry Creek / Miller Ranch was approved by the Board of County Commissioners in March. The final plat for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD was approved in May. Referral responses are as follows and as shown on staff report: Eagle County Engineering Department All items have been satisfactorily addressed. No outstanding issues remain. ECO Trails Since it is possible that it will take longer to plan, fund and build a permanent, paved trail system than expected, the temporary gravel trail should be more substantial than currently shown. The temporary gravel trail should be wider (8') and more direct (straighter), and a sterilant be applied underneath before the gravel is laid down. Vail Valley Soccer Club Providing north to south "sheet drainage" on the soccer fields will enable the fields to be playable at least 2 weeks earlier in the spring and 2 weeks later in the fall. For future reference on the softball fields sketched in on these plans, it would be better if the diamonds were to be in opposite comers of the space rather than back to back as shown on the plan; this allows for another full-sized field during times when the softball fields are not being used. Additional Referral Agencies: Eagle County Attorney, Eagle County Facilities Management, Eagle County Regional Transportation Authority, Eagle County School District, Eagle County Ambulance District Approval of the Berry Creek Recreation Tract may occur after consideration by the Planning Commission and the Board that the development is consistent with the PUD Guide, the PUD Preliminary Plan, the Master Circulation Plan, and the Master Drainage Plan for the PUD. Consistency with the PUD Guide The PUD Guide establishes that the purpose for this Tract is to "provide sites for indoor and outdoor recreation, including active and passive recreation areas, parking facilities, and other community-oriented facilities." Permitted uses, specifically as they relate to this planning review file, include, among other things: sports fields, ball fields and hard court areas, parks and playgrounds, picnic areas, trails, and utility facilities. All of the uses proposed in this application are uses permitted by the PUD Guide. The proposed uses fall well within the dimensional limitations prescribed in the PUD Guide as it relates to minimum setbacks (20 feet from perimeter), maximum lot coverage (buildings: 50%; all impervious materials: 80%), and building height (45 feet). The number and design of on-site parking spaces is to be established through this site specific 65 07 -02-02 development review. The number of spaces proposed is 128. An analysis of the number of required parking spaces is provided in the supplemental material submitted by the Applicant. Staff is satisfied with the proposed number of parking spaces for Phase 1 development. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Guide [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Guide. Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan The Preliminary Plan approved for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD contemplates the development of this Tract as a recreation site. An overall landscape plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD, which was approved with the PUD Preliminary Plan, includes a streetscape/1andscape plan for the Miller Ranch Road right-of-way. Landscaping detail was shown along that part of Miller Ranch Road immediately east of its intersection with the Edwards Spur Road, in the vicinity of the Housing Tract D, and in the vicinity of the Berry Creek Middle School. Irrigation is proposed to be primarily by use of non-potable water. The overall landscape plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD provided that landscaping and irrigation of individual sites are to be reviewed during the site specific development review for each site. The landscape plan submitted for this phase of the recreation site development is consistent with the overall landscape plan. ECa Trails has recommended certain modifications of the design of the temporary gravel trail, including widening to 8 feet, straightening to make it more direct, and that a sterilant be applied prior to laying down the gravel. As a condition of approval, the recommendation ofECa Trails with respect to the width, alignment, and pre-application of a sterilant should be incorporated into the design of the temporary gravel trail. With the recommended condition, the proposed uses and development are consistent with the Preliminary Plan for the Berry Creek / Miller Ranch PUD [+] FINDING: Consistency with the PUD Preliminary Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the PUD Preliminary Plan. Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan The Master Circulation Plan approved as part of the PUD Preliminary Plan provides a primary access point into the Recreation Tract at the location currently being proposed. This access point is intended to serve both the Recreation Tract to the south of Miller Ranch Road and the proposed High School Tract to the north of Miller Ranch Road. Ultimately a single lane round-a-bout is contemplated to serve both Tracts. A traffic study has been provided reflecting aT-intersection where the access to the parking area for this site enters Miller Ranch Road. The traffic study indicates that such aT-intersection is sufficient to handle the traffic generated by the proposed use. The timing for improving the access to include a round-a-bout, as contemplated in the Master Circulation Plan, will be examined when subsequent site specific development reviews occur for the balance of the Recreation Tract and/or for the High School Tract. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Circulation Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Circulation Plan. Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan A portion of the non-potable water flowing to the Tract from the east will be used for irrigation of the athletic fields. A temporary detention pond will be created on this Tract to the west of the fields to accommodate these recreation improvements, the detention requirements of the housing site to the east, and the off-site flows from basins north ofI-70. The location and design ofa permanent detention facility will be determined during subsequent master planning for this Tract. The Vail Valley Soccer Club has recommended that these fields be developed to sheet drain from north to south, rather than be crowned, in order to allow the fields to be used earlier in the Spring and later in the Fall. .This design consideration also has cost implications and should be taken under 66 07 -02-02 advisement by the developer. [+] FINDING: Consistency with the Master Drainage Plan [PUD Guide, Section B.3.] The development occurring on this Tract IS consistent with the Master Drainage Plan. Commissioner Stone asked how the Planning Commission felt about this. Mr. Forinash stated they were in agreement. Dominique Morilla, Braun and Associates, stated they don't have anything more to add but feel the need to move forward was the need identified by the community. He stated there was a condition of approval to make the recreation amenities the highest priority. Chairman Gallagher asked about porta potties. Rich Cunningham, Director of Facilities Management, explained there will be three porta potties that are screened and enclosed. There will be space allowed for an additional three if needed. He stated the fields should be available next playing season, but he believes by next summer they will be able for use. Chairman Gallagher asked about the detention pond and if that is temporary. Mr. Cunningham stated it is temporary with the idea that the Board will provide a lake of something of that sort. Commissioner Stone asked if they did go before the Design Review Board. Mr. Cunningham stated they did. Commissioner Stone spoke to the standards for signage and lighting and that it is pretty restrictive. Play will be restricted to daytime activities. Mr. Cunningham stated that is correct. Commissioner Stone spoke to the bus use and the need to have turnarounds that are appropriate and adequate. Mr. Cunningham spoke to the efforts they have made and the fencing they would install to line the buses up. He stated they don't have the kinds of controls that there would be if there were curb and gutter installed. Commissioner Stone asked the extent of the picnic grounds and play area. Mr. Cunningham referred to it as a tot lot. He stated they have allocated additional funds for next year for improvements and the shelter. Commissioner Stone asked when the shelter and tot lot will go in. Mr. Cunningham stated next season. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve, File No. PR-00019, Berry Creek / Miller Ranch Recreation Tract, incorporating the staff findings, and with the following conditions: 1. The recommendation ofECa Trails in the correspondence dated 11 June 2002 with respect to the width, alignment, and pre-application of a sterilant be incorporated into the design of the temporary gravel trail. 2. Except as otherwise modified by these conditions, all material representations ofthe Applicant in this application and in all public meetings shall be adhered to and be considered conditions of approval. Commissioner Menconi seconded the motion. The vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until July 9, 2002. Attest: Clerk to the Boar 67 07 -02-02