The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutMinutes 12/10/2002 PUBLIC HEARING DECEMBER 10,2002 Present: Michael Gallagher Am Menconi Tom Stone Diane Mauriello 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 21ST CENTURY PHOTO SUPPLY 4 EAGLE RANCH A & A SEPTIC SERVICES A & H GRAPHICS AAA COLLECTORS ABBEY DOUGLAS ACE EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY ACE-KAUFMAN STAMP & SEAL ADVANTAGE NETWORK SYSTEMS AGENCY OF CREDIT CONTROL AILI FOSS AIRGAS INTERMOUNTAIN INC ALLIANT FOOD SERVICE, INC ALPHA INTERACTIVE GROUP AMERICAN DIETETIC ASSOC AMERICAN TOWER CORP AMERIGAS ANIMAL HOSPITAL OF V AIL ANN MUNCASTER ANTLERS ADAM MARK ARMA, INC ASI SIGN SYSTEMS INC ASPEN BASE OPERATION ASPEN V ALLEY HOSPITAL ASSOCIATED SERVICES AT & T WIRELESS SERVICES AVON COMMERCIAL OWNERS SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE 1 226.22 11,448.20 325.00 60.00 3.10 15.00 74.05 56.95 25.00 23.68 10.54 46.03 2,503.74 65.00 121.00 875.00 120.50 262.00 6.90 574.00 2,002.08 75.50 287.57 97.00 25.00 802.30 2,022.61 12-10-2002 B J ROWE BAILEY FUNERAL HOME BENCHMARK ENGINEERING BERRY COMPANY, THE BERTHOD MOTORS BETTY ABBEY BETTY HOBBS BEVERLY KUNKEL BLOSSOM SOFTWARE BOARDWALK WOOD BOB BARKER COMPANY BOREA BRADFORD PUBLISHING CO BRATWEAR BRENT BLAKE BROWNING FERRIS IND BRUCE CAMPBELL BRUCE STRASINGER C & H DISTRIBUTORS INC CAD-1 CAPITOL ADVANTAGE PUB. CARLA HAGGART CARLOS MACIAS CARLSON CARLSON DUNKELMAN CARMEN LOZOYO- VELEZ CAROLYN HELTZEL CASTLE PEAK VETERINARY CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING CENTRAL PARTS WAREHOUSE CENTURYTEL CERTIFIED BUSINESS CHADWICK, STEINKIRCHNER CHARLES B DARRAH CHRISTINE L MOTT CO ASSESSORS ASSOCIATION CO BUREAU INVESTIGATION CODEPT AGRICULTURE CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH & CO DEPT PUBLIC HEALTH AND CO SECRETARY OF STATE CO STATE ASSOC CLERK AND SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 15.18 175.00 300.00 324.60 80.01 112.80 735.00 24.00 30.00 910.00 179.87 1,458.00 309.00 378.00 44.11 2,524.62 107.56 143.21 250.57 1,585.00 33.90 75.21 500.00 30.00 265.65 1,100.00 243.57 141.87 106.77 2,877.31 740.74 12,500.00 56.90 1,868.00 2,328.00 66.24 100.00 115.20 276.20 30.00 265.00 2 12-10-2002 COLLECTOR COLORADO CONCRETE COLORADO COUNTIES INC COLORADO LEGAL DIRECTORY COLORADO MOUNTAIN MEDICAL COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS COLORADO WEST MENTAL HLTH COM-LINK COMFORT INN COpy PLUS CORPORATE EXPRESS CORPORATE EXPRESS IMAGING CRABTREES PHOTO WORKS DARK ROOM THE DARLING BERGSTROM MILLGAN DAVE MOTT DAVID GUINNEE, DVM DAY TIMERS INCORPORATED DEEP ROCK WEST DEFENSEFINANCE/ACCOUNTNG DELL INC DENNIS KARPUSKA DENNIS WILLEY DIANA JOHNSON DIANE & RICHARD OSTRANDER DIANE H. MAURIELLO DOCTORS ON CALL DOLPHIN CAPITAL CORP DONNA BARNES CORONER EAGLE AMOCO EAGLE COMPUTER SYSTEMS EAGLE COUNTY MOTOR POOL EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF EAGLE PHARMACY EAGLE RIVER WATER AND EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING EAST WEST RESORTS EASTER OWENS ELECTRIC CO ECOLAB EDWARDS MAGNUS ELISA ACOSTA REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT 25.00 293.04 47.56 57.00 372.00 4,782.78 1,885.00 25.19 237.44 144.00 2,873.91 403.79 500.00 162.32 66.74 9.00 2,007.39 136.91 129.73 733.91 2,661.89 134.32 147.10 90.00 150.00 12.00 110.00 224.16 22.69 287.00 9,601.58 729.79 43.02 132.59 130.10 941.50 1,832.66 4,495.00 127.04 300.00 56.23 3 12-10-2002 EMC2 EMILIA GONZALEZ EPS DESIGN AND PRINT EXECUTNE TOWERS INN EXTENSION PROGRAM FUND FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY F AMIL Y VISITOR PROGRAM FARRELL, GOLDSTEIN, FEDERAL EXPRESS FELSBURG HOLT & ULLEVIG FILE FINDERS L TD FIRST BANKS FISHER & SWEETBAUM FITZSIMMONS MOTOR COMPANY FLAIR DATA SYSTEMS INC FLORINDA VIADAURI FLYING COLORS HORSE SUPPL FORINASH KATHLEEN FORSYTHE SOLUTIONS FREDERIC LEE MARTENS FRONT RANGE FIRE FRUITA CONSUMER COOP ASSN G & G ARENS INC GALLS INCORPORATED GE CAPITAL GEMPLERS INC GFOA GLENWOOD SHOE SERVICE GORE RANGE BREWERY GRACE FINNEY GRAINGER INCORPORATED GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES HAFID IZERRADEN HALL KYLE HANSEN STEVE R HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HEALTH ON BROADWAY HERMAN MILLER INC. HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS HILL & COMPANY SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 231.68 101.25 120.09 107.00 1,161.55 1,585.60 6,520.53 3.10 440.22 16,134.10 30.00 24,511.84 4.96 102.00 4,406.52 100.00 704.48 184.55 521.27 197.26 3,415.00 1,162.50 425.00 890.47 159.99 689.11 5.00 227.00 56.90 68.31 202.64 19.42 129.38 18.53 135.70 250.12 7,724.22 110.00 2,456.05 416.75 924.87 4 12-10-2002 HOGAN & HARTSON HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HP EXPRESS SERVICES HSSRENTX HY- WAY FEED & RANCH IAPMO ICBO INJOY VIDEOS INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE JACQUELINE ALLEN JEAN NUNN JEFFERSON LARRY POTER JENA SKINNER JENNIFER JAYNE LILLO JJ KELLER AND ASSOCIATES JODY CARUTHERS JOE ROACH JOHN E REID & ASSOCIATES JOHN FITZGERALD JOHNSON KUNKEL & ASSOC JOSEPH L FORINASH JULIE SNYDER KAPLAN COMPANIES, INC KATHY KNOX KELLY FREDERICKS KINDER MORGAN INC KINETIC 0 WATER PROS LAB SAFETY SUPPLY LABELS DIRECT INC LANDS END INCORPORATED LASER JUNCTION LAURA KAY LYNN LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPLY LEARNING PUBLICATIONS INC LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC LESLEE SCOTT, INC LESLIE KEHMEIER LEXIS NEXIS MATTHEW LEXISNEXIS LIBERTY FLAG SPECIALTY CO SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES 1,032.94 10,672.97 959.00 1,162.65 3,731.00 150.00 91.99 255.85 270.00 361.84 90.00 6.20 106.52 25.00 415.95 37.10 75.00 800.00 189.75 777.75 45.00 233.95 3,551.31 162.15 100.00 7,060.71 90.50 1,416.19 401.00 1,016.45 75.00 10.00 185.78 145.00 734.46 578.00 49.72 155.30 542.00 214.80 5 12-10-2002 LINDA HUBBELL LINDA MAGGIORE LINDA P ANKUCH LOGO PRO LORIE CRAWFORD LOWEN CORPORATION M KELLY LIEKIS RN M LEE SMITH PUBLISHERS MACHOL & JOHANNES MALINDA GRIFFIN MARCIN ENGINEERING INC MARK CHAPIN MARK R DAVIDSON MARLENE MC CAFFERTY MARLISA MIZERAK MARY LOU CROISANT MATRIX DESIGN GROUP INC MATT ROYER MAXIMUS INC MBIA MCCAULLEY REBECCA T MCGLOIN DAVENPORT & MCI WORLDCOM MEDICAL CENTER OF EAGLE METEORLOGIX MICHAEL BAUER MICHAEL ROEPER MICHELLE BALL MICRO WAREHOUSE MICROFLEX MEDICAL CORP MICROW AREHOUSE MID STATE CONSULTANTS MIKE GALLAGHER MIKES CAMERA INC. MILAN & MALARA MONTAG KEITH P MOORE MEDICAL CORP MOTOR POOL FUND MOUNT SOPRIS SOIL MOUNTAIN GLEN HOUSING MURRAY FRANKE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT 805.00 232.10 65.14 5,553.61 22.14 151.62 133.99 157.00 77 .48 49.34 900.00 309.86 1,393.42 91.85 45.00 90.00 4,068.00 75.00 5,833.00 4,090.20 378.64 53.02 792.84 1,098.00 1,011.00 27.68 61.95 418.15 77.55 95.00 314.18 150.00 140.17 50.95 89.88 34.50 386.23 50,121.16 1,233.50 75,000.00 10.00 6 12-10-2002 NACO PUBLICATIONS NAEYC NANCY FOSTER NATE NELSON NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NATIONAL EVIRONMENT AL NATIONAL PUBLIC SAFETY NESTING COMPANY, LLC THE NETTIE REYNOLDS NICOLETTI FLATER ASSOC NOBEL SYSCO FOOD SERVICES NOTARY PUBLIC AGENCY OF NWCCOG OLSON PROPERTY OMB POLICE SUPPLY OSI COLLECTION SERVICES OSM DELIVERY LLC PAINT BUCKET THE PAINTING BY JESSE PAPER DIRECT PAPER WISE PAT NOLAN PATHOLOGY GROUP PATTERSONNUSS & SEYMOUR PAUL KUNKEL PEGGY GRAYBEAL PET FOOD LTD PETE N VLAHOS PETTY CASH ACCOUNTING PHONE SUPPLEMENTS INC PRCA MOUNTAIN STATES PRIMEDIA WORKPLACE PROFESSIONAL TREE & TURF PROTECTORS LTD PSS,INC PTL ELECTRIC PURCHASE POWER QUILL CORPORATION QWEST QWEST DEX QWEST INTERPRISE NETWRKNG SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE INCENTIVE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SHIPPING SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 250.00 75.00 94.68 189.75 25.00 85.00 218.00 1,725.14 245.52 160.00 3,209.24 33.95 25.00 600.00 7,205.00 9.42 836.00 89.48 77.80 139.90 1,190.00 105.00 2,150.00 25.00 39.60 160.00 463.60 10.78 2,247.86 51.90 1,000.00 388.00 15.45 187.50 389.45 3,384.12 13,504.39 868.52 4,324.02 48.89 1,250.81 7 12-10-2002 REIS ENVIRONMENTAL INC RIDEMORE'S PHOTOWORKS INC RITA R BOSSOW ROBERT B EMERSON, PC ROGER SATNICK S & H UNIFORM CORP SARA J FISHER SCHWAAB SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SHAINHOLTZ TODD H DDS SHEAFFER KAREN SHEILA FITZPATRICK SINTON DAIRY COMPANY SNOWBRIDGE ROTO ROOTER SNOWHITE LINEN SPECIAL EVENTS STARBUCK SURVEYORS & ENGI STEPHEN DENES STERICYCLE INC STEVENS HOME CARE INC STRAWBERRY PATCH SUE MOTT SULLN AN GREEN LLC SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLY CACHE SUSPENSE FUND SYBIL SETTERLIND T &M SERVICES TERENCE J QUINN ATTY AT L TERRI ALLENDER THE GOURMET COWBOY THE PUBLIC INTEREST TIMOTHY PARKER TOM TALBOT, DEPUTY TOOL CLINIC INCORPORATED TRADEMARK FARMS TRANSCOR AMERICA INC TYCO WILDFIRE UNIFORM KINGDOM UNITED PARCEL SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE 126.50 340.00 169.04 345.25 4.96 64.13 88.67 83.35 101.70 33,326.62 550.00 236.61 296.20 1,003.58 2,214.00 150.34 74.00 300.00 707.76 172.13 76.62 110 .44 84.00 1,404.00 656.02 280.00 75,691.47 30.30 340.66 10.12 60.00 970.00 25.00 49.22 210.08 27.75 960.00 2,119.93 334.60 1,799.10 194.01 8 12-10-2002 UNITED RESOURCE SYSTEMS UNITED STATES POSTAL SERV UNIV COLORADO AT BOULDER US GEOLOGICAL SURVEY V AIL ASSOCIATES VAIL MOUNTAIN RESCUE GROU V AIL RESORTS INC V AIL V ALLEY EMERGENCY V AIL V ALLEY JET CENTER V AIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTR V AILNET INC V ALENTINE DIGITAL VAX SERVE TM VERIZON WIRELESS, VICTIMS ASSISTANCE FUND VIKING OFFICE PRODUCTS VIOLA ULLERICK VISIBLE COMPUTER SUPPLY C VISION CHEMICAL SYSTEMS WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY WAGNER POWER SYSTEMS WALTER MATTHEWS IV WASTE MANAGEMENT WELLS FARGO WEST GROUP WESTERN EAGLE COUNTY WESTERN PAGING WILLARD B HARDESTY WORLDCOM WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY XCELENERGY XEROX CORPORATION Y & S PHARMACY YOUR PERSONAL CHEF ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY PAYROLL FOR NOVEMBER REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE PAYROLL EXPD SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES 25.00 3,077.00 80.00 26,250.00 8,088.00 5,000.00 10,285.00 1,170.00 266.49 874.95 67.80 865.00 2,275.00 248.08 1,090.00 244.21 105.00 43.44 2,037.48 620.00 1,020.00 74.16 95.00 277,616.23 1,825.75 5,000.00 8.00 3.72 2,460.74 163.00 62.57 4,749.59 2,276.80 1,265.00 1,166.01 PAYROLL 23 & 24 641,063.48 1,537,453.81 9 12-10-2002 ROAD AND BRIDGE FUND AMERIGAS ARNOLD STORY A TSSA BLAKE MARTIN BROWNING FERRIS IND COLORADO CONTRACTORS ASSN COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS DAVIS TRUCKING & GRADER DEEP ROCK WEST DRURY INN EAGLE COUNTY WEED & PEST EAGLE PHARMACY ELAM CONSTRUCTION INCORPO ENVIROTECH HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HELLERSTEIN & SHORE PC HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC INTERWEST SAFETY SUPPLY KIM NELSON KINDER MORGAN INC LAF ARGE CORPORATION LESLIE & EMSIE PARKER METEORLOGIX MOTOR POOL FUND MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS NAPA AUTO PARTS-CARBONDLE PETTY CASH ROAD & BRIDGE PROPERTY IMAGING, LLC ROARING FORK VALLEY COOP SAFETY & CONSTRUCTION SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SIERRA CONSTRUCTION SUMMIT LUMBER SUSPENSE FUND TERRY MARCUM THERESALADENBURGER TOM J FISHER TOOL CLINIC INCORPORATED TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SUPPLIES SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE 151.61 75.00 109.45 75.00 70.48 200.00 74.00 4,032.00 28.35 139.98 4,124.64 5.23 1,944.76 25,925.90 609.28 300.00 873.10 1,240.03 250.00 545.88 11,346.31 250.00 155.75 3,993.84 96.00 47.40 38.25 65.00 17.38 28.70 813.78 2,450.00 1,378.32 4,341.52 2,000.00 55.11 250.00 91.61 232.88 10 12-10-2002 US WEST DIRECTORY SERVICE 99.04 V ALLEY LUMBER SUPPLIES 18.04 VICTOR CHAFFIOT REIMBURSEMENT 250.00 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXOD. 24,423.55 WESTON SERVICE 2,000.00 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 322.06 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 111.06 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES 90.30 PAYROLL FOR NOVEMBER PAYROLL 23 & 24 56,610.56 152,351.15 SOCIAL SERVICES FUND ACTIVE COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE 169.00 ALL STAR DELIVERYIPROCESS SERVICE 25.00 ARLISS SIMS REIMBURSEMENT 72.31 BATTLE MOUNTAIN HS SERVICE 6,686.03 CAROL PRATER REIMBURSEMENT 65.32 CATHERINE CRAIG REIMBURSEMENT 130.70 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES 24.78 EAGLE COUNTY SHERIFFS OFF REIMBURSEMENT 117.08 EAGLE PHARMACY SUPPLIES 10.28 EAGLE V ALLEY CHILD CARE SERVICE 475.00 EC SOCIAL SERVICES SERVICE 20.00 FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY SERVICE 330.00 FORINASH KATHLEEN REIMBURSEMENT 721.68 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 722.96 HEALTH ON BROADWAY SERVICE 90.00 HIGH COUNTRY COPIERS SERVICE 83.25 ISABEL SANCHEZ REIMBURSEMENT 182.62 JERRI OLSON REIMBURSEMENT 154.22 JOEL KARR SERVICE 1,890.00 JOHN C COLLINS PC SERVICE 5,220.00 JULIE M LEWIS SERVICE 480.00 KAREN LAJOY SMITH MA LPC SERVICE 210.00 KATHY REED REIMBURSEMENT 142.14 LABORATORY CORPORATION OF SERVICE 165.00 LISA GRIGGS REIMBURSEMENT 43.16 LITERACY PROJECT SERVICE 3,816.43 LOUISA COUNTY SHERIFF REIMBURSEMENT 26.00 11 12-10-2002 MEDICAL CENTER OF EAGLE SERVICE 155.00 MESA COUNTY SHERIFF SERVICE 42.92 MICHAELCLAUSSNER SERVICE 480.00 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 1,003.91 ONTIVEROS, LUPE REIMBURSEMENT 10.50 PITKIN COUNTY SHERIFF SERVICE 18.56 PUEBLO COUNTY SHERIFF OFF SERVICE 5.00 QUILL CORPORATION SUPPLIES 16.92 RED RIBBON PROJECT SERVICE 1,250.00 RENEE RICHARDS REIMBURSEMENT 59.35 RITA WOODS REIMBURSEMENT 13 5.04 SAMARITAN CNTR OF ROCKIES SERVICE 540.00 SHANNON DUNN SERVICE 420.00 STATE FORMS CENTER SUPPLIES 78.02 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 5,906.00 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICE 845.62 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXOD. 17,621.25 XEROX CORPORATION SERVICE 428.27 PAYROLL FOR NOVEMBER PAYROLL 23 &24 36,810.88 87,900.20 WRAP FUND RENEE FIELDS REIMBURSEMENT 299.34 WALMART AVON SERVICE 300.00 599.34 RETIREMENT FUND SUSPENSE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 64,226.02 64,226.02 INSURANCE RESERVE FUND AMERICAN GLASS SERVICE 199.00 BERGLUND RUTH SERVICE 100.00 299.00 12 12-10-2002 OFFSITE ROAD IMPROVEMENTS GENERAL FUND SERVICE 100,000.00 100,000.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND AMERICAN CIVIL CONSTRUCTR SERVICE 35,480.27 B AND B EXCAVATING SERVICE 212,503.70 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICE 414.56 EDWARDS STATIONLLC SERVICE 593.69 ENCOMPASS NETWORK SERVICE SERVICE 19,262.40 IMP ACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS SERVICE 120.00 LAND TITLE SERVICE 621.00 LORIS & ASSOCIATES INC SERVICE 53,187.22 PEAK LAND CONSULTANTS INC SERVICE 4,954.44 PETER BERGH SERVICE 3,250.00 RESOURCE ENGINEERING SERVICE 49.00 TERRY SKOGEN SERVICE 2,600.00 UPBEAT INCORPORATED SERVICE 408.80 WEAR TRAVERS KRUEGER PERK SERVICE 507.00 333,952.08 SALES TAX E.V. TRANSP. B &H SPORTS SERVICE 221.51 BROWNING FERRIS IND SERVICE 246.78 CASTA SERVICE 320.00 COLLETTS SUPPLIES 97.65 COLORADO MOTOR PARTS SUPPLIES 23.10 COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICE 87.75 COLUMBINE MARKET SUPPLIES 19.39 CUMMINS ROCKY MOUNTAIN SUPPLIES 8,773.95 DCS AMERICA INC SERVICE 4,000.00 DDI EQUIPMENT SERVICE 20,193.00 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICE 16.35 DRIVE TRAIN INDUSTRIES SUPPLIES 7,029.54 EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE 461.18 EAGLE EYE PHOTO SERVICE 5.00 EAGLE V ALLEY PRINTING SERVICE 595.00 FAMILY SUPPORT REGISTRY REIMBURSEMENT 230.76 13 12-10-2002 FEDERAL EXPRESS FORCE AMERICA G & K SERVICES GATEWAY SECURE STORAGE GAY JOHNSONS INC GENERAL ELECTRIC GILLIG CORPORATION GLOBAL EQUIPMENT COMPANY HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HILL & COMPANY HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC I.D. EDGE INC INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTMS JAY MAX SALES JIM LAIR KINDER MORGAN INC LAKE CREEK VILLAGE LAWSON PRODUCTS LUMINA TOR M&MAUTOPARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS MOTOR POOL FUND MOUNTAIN GLEN HOUSING PANORAMIC GROUP QWEST ROCKHURST COLLEGE RON E BECK SAFETY KLEEN (WHICITA) SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF THE SCOTT GREEN EXCAVATING SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SNOWBOARD OUTREACH SCTY SUSPENSE FUND TOWN OF GYPSUM UNITED STATES WELDING VERIZON WIRELESS, WELLS FARGO WHITE SURVEYING ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY PAYROLL FOR NOVEMBER SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFIT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE PAYROLL EXOD. SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES PAYROLL 23 & 24 5.05 100.00 252.40 306.00 2,919.06 296.08 2,697.27 220.15 1,086.30 1,492.00 3,057.40 1,157.10 241.90 199.40 96.05 1,911.57 6,830.00 172.74 135.08 13.52 13.05 2,937.24 4,996.04 399.00 149.45 113.95 1,600.00 147.62 55.38 27,757.29 3,101.13 500.00 9,149.29 815.53 27.54 105.86 43,359.94 1,030.00 307.90 182.75 100,893.90 14 12-10-2002 263,152.89 SALES TAXE.V. TRAILS COLORADO MOUNTAIN NEWS SERVICE 78.00 CORPORATE EXPRESS SUPPLIES 88.14 EAGLE COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE 528.73 EAGLE PHARMACY SERVICE 29.78 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 5.36 IMP ACT GRAPHICS & SIGNS SERVICE 401.60 ROCKHURST COLLEGE SERVICE 100.00 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 137.36 TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE 16,032.29 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXOD. 875.80 18,277.06 TRANSPORTA. VEHICLE RPLCMT SUPREME CORPORATION SERVICE 153,492.00 153,492.00 AIRPORT FUND AIRPLANNERS, LLC SERVICE 3,322.64 ARFF WORKING GROUP SERVICE 60.00 ASMI SERVICE 502.25 A VERY DENNISON SERVICE 837.50 AVIATION PRODUCTS SERVICE 445.90 B & H SPORTS SERVICE 160.00 BAND B EXCAVATING SERVICE 658.50 BENCHMARK ENGINEERING SERVICE 8,884.49 BROWNING FERRIS IND SERVICE 384.71 CABELAS SERVICE 377.69 CARTER & BURGESS, INC SERVICE 12,420.00 CASTLE PEAK AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE 80.00 CENTURY EQUIPMENT COMPANY SUPPLIES 321.26 CENTURYTEL SERVICE 2,303.47 CHIEF SUPPLY SUPPLIES 260.00 CLARA NOFZIGER SERVICE 96.00 COLLETTS SUPPLIES 2,162.91 COLORADO MOTOR PARTS SERVICE 69.50 15 12-10-2002 CYGNUS BUSINESS MEDIA DAY TIMERS INCORPORATED DEEP ROCK WEST DISH NETWORK DRAGONS BOOT & SHOE EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASING EAGLE COUNTY WEED & PEST EAGLE V ALLEY HARDWARE FRONT RANGE FIRE GLENWOOD AUTO ELECTRIC GLENWOOD SHIRT COMPANY GYPSUM TOWN OF HEALTH INSURANCE FUND HERTZ CORPORATION HILL & COMPANY HOLY CROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC HONEY BUN BAKERY HSSRENTX INDEPENDENT TESTING INTERFLIGHT JAMES EPPERSON JAMES YANTZER KINDER MORGAN INC KOLBE STRIPING INC LAF ARGE CORPORATION LANDS END INCORPORATED LAWSON PRODUCTS M&MAUTOPARTS MAIN AUTO PARTS MAIN STREET GALLERY AND MARKOS PIZZERIA METEORLOGIX MICAH RADER MICRO WAREHOUSE MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC MOTOR POOL FUND NOBLE WELDING OFFICE SERVICES UNLIMITED OSHKOSH TRUCK CORPORATION RICHARD L GUSTAFSON SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE EMPLOYEE BENEFITS SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SUPPLIES SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE REIMBURSEMENT SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SERVICE SUPPLIES SERVICE SUPPLIES 1,350.00 260.82 95.60 70.90 462.31 213.21 297.93 6.61 1,447.08 159.75 261.25 334.25 416.80 338.02 2,556.43 2,283.52 12.00 724.56 1,340.00 18,561.18 150.00 20.00 645.43 46,873.95 947.75 105.90 123.80 435.43 47.33 762.12 175.68 1,344.00 6.00 194.34 28,433.00 2,087.64 696.00 2,294.78 156.25 14,400.00 89.23 16 12-10-2002 SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SERVICE 1,161.49 SEVERSON SUPPLY CO., INC. SUPPLIES 1,644.08 STEWART & STEVENSON POWER SUPPLIES 86.28 SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLIES 20.78 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 3,376.66 V AIL ELECTRONICS SERVICE 550.00 V AIL V ALLEY JET CENTER SERVICE 10.90 VERIZON WIRELESS, SERVICE 54.85 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXOD. 18,540.61 WHEATLAND FIRE EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES 1,753.00 WILLIAM E PAYNE & ASSOC SERVICE 39,085.40 WORKRITE SERVICE 682.64 WORLDCOM SERVICE 171.63 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 281.97 ZEE MEDICAL SERVICE SUPPLIES 206.15 PAYROLL FOR NOVEMBER PAYROLL 23 & 24 43,759.80 275,913.91 MICROWAVE MAINTENANCE FUND EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SERVICE 500.00 FORSYTHE SOLUTIONS SERVICE 2,245.00 LEGACY COMMUNICATIONS INC SERVICE 12,642.00 QWEST INTERPRISE NETWRKNG SERVICE 1,620.00 SKI COOPER SERVICE 41.54 17,048.54 DEBT SERVICE FUND US BANK SERVICE 745,230.00 745,230.00 LANDFILL FUND ACZ LABORATORY INC SERVICE 658.00 ALPINE ROOFING CO, INC REIMBURSEMENT 187.43 ALTERNATNE RECYCLE LLC SERVICE 34,875.00 CALWORNIACONTRACTORS SUPPLIES 99.00 CARDINAL SCALE MFG CO SUPPLIES 130.55 CENTRAL DISTRIBUTING SERVICE 82.36 17 12-10-2002 DEEP ROCK WEST SERVICE 81.95 DOWN V ALLEY SEPTIC SERVICE 330.00 EAGLECOUNTYPURCHASmG SUPPLIES 7.30 HEALTH mSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 346.58 KRW CONSULTING INC SERVICE 3,814.53 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 966.44 SANDYS OFFICE SUPPLY SUPPLIES 8.99 SCULLYS ART OFFICE AND SUPPLIES 41.96 SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SERVICE 1,651.18 SUMMIT LUMBER SUPPLIES 88.33 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 1,767.44 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXOD. 6,525.83 PAYROLL FOR NOVEMBER PAYROLL 23 &24 16,057.11 67,719.98 MOTOR POOL FUND ACE EQUIPMENT & SUPPLY SERVICE 46.33 AL-JON mc SERVICE 1,157.34 ASE SERVICE 15.00 BROWNING FERRIS IND SERVICE 182.18 CALIFORNIA CONTRACTORS SUPPLIES 269.40 COLBY RUSSELL REIMBURSEMENT 75.00 COLLETTS SUPPLIES 52,505.48 DDI EQUIPMENT SERVICE 62.53 DRIVE TRAm INDUSTRIES SERVICE 383.38 EAGLE COUNTY PURCHASmG SUPPLIES 59.50 FORCE AMERICA SERVICE 50.00 G & K SERVICES SUPPLIES 362.38 GATEWAY INN AND SUITES SERVICE 179.97 GAY JOHNSONS INC SERVICE 895.16 GLENWOOD SPRINGS FORD SUPPLIES 700.29 GOODYEAR WHOLESALE TIRE SERVICE 2,144.50 HANSON EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES 154.32 HEALTH mSURANCE FUND EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 287.54 HOLYCROSS ELECTRIC ASSOC SERVICE 2,257.34 mSTRUMENT SALES AND SERVICE 141.07 mTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTMS SERVICE 518.65 KINDER MORGAN INC SERVICE 1,411.34 LAWSON PRODUCTS SUPPLIES 445.55 18 12-10-2002 M&MAUTOPARTS SUPPLIES 106.89 MAIN AUTO PARTS SUPPLIES 331.89 MESA MACK SALES & SERVICE SERVICE 8,753.16 MONICA JACOX REIMBURSEMENT 18.00 MOTOR POOL FUND SERVICE 1,180.40 NAPAAUTOPARTS-VAIL SUPPLIES 1,563.44 NAPA AUTO PARTS-CARBONDLE SUPPLIES 9.40 PETTY CASH ROAD & BRIDGE SERVICE 20.00 POWER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICE 32.33 POWER MOTIVE SERVICE 89.77 REY MOTORS INCORPORATED SUPPLIES 4,147.84 SAFETY & CONSTRUCTION SERVICE 120.10 SAFETY KLEEN (WHICIT A) SERVICE 322.15 SAN DIEGO COUNTY OF THE REIMBURSEMENT 55.38 SCULL YS ART OFFICE AND SUPPLIES 106.25 SERVICEMASTER CLEAN SERVICE 2,104.73 SMITH WILLIAM REIMBURSEMENT 25.00 SUSPENSE FUND SERVICE 2,028.04 TOWN OF GYPSUM SERVICE 602.12 UNITED STATES WELDING SERVICE 274.91 VEEDER-ROOT COMPANY SERVICE 99.00 WAGNER EQUIPMENT COMPANY SERVICE 274.84 WELLS FARGO PAYROLL EXOD. 8,988.26 WYLACO SUPPLY COMPANY SUPPLIES 10.80 ZEP MANUFACTURING COMPANY SUPPLIES 52.85 PAYROLL FOR NOVEMBER PAYROLL 23 & 24 21,308.93 116,930.73 HEALTH INSURANCE FUND DENMAN GREY AND COMPANY EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 1,950.00 MOUNTAIN STATES ADMIN. EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 31,266.55 PROVIDENT LIFE/ACCIDENT EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 3,650.59 UNITED STATES LIFE INS EMPLOYEE BENEFIT 4,130.70 40,997.84 ENHANCED E911 FUND CENTURYTEL SERVICE 180.49 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES SERVICE 49.47 19 12-10-2002 QWEST RIO COMMUNICATIONS SERVICE SERVICE 15,076.62 461.33 15,767.91 REPORT TOTAL 3,991,312.46 Consent Agenda Chairman Pro-tem Menconi stated the first matter before the Board was the Consent Agenda as follows: A) Approval of bill paying for the week of December 9,2002, subject to review by County Administrator B) Approval of payroll for December 12,2002, subject to review by County Administrator C) Approval of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meetings for October 22, November 12 & 19,2002 D) Resolution 2002-164, for final release of collateral and termination ofthe warranty period for Arrowhead at Vail, Filing 18 E) Agreement to amend / extend the Contract between Eagle County and Mountain High Aviation, LLC F) Resolution 2002-165, Resolution Establishing regular public meeting days. G) Resolution conferring Power of Attorney upon Diane H. Mauriello, County Attorney, Bryan R. Treu, Assistant County Attorney and Bruce Strasinger, Paralegal, to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, with respect to Letter of Credit No. 3039292 in the amount of$921,963.60 for the account of Vail Corporation, drawn on Bank of America, N.A. to expire on December 15,2002 H) Resolution conferring Power of Attorney upon Diane H. Mauriello, County Attorney, Bryan R. Treu, Assistant County Attorney and Bruce Strasinger, Paralegal, to act as Attorney in Fact for the County of Eagle, with respect to Letter of Credit No. 3020782 in the amount of$1,037,326.19 for the account of Vail Arrowhead, Inc., drawn on Bank of America, N.A. to expire on December 15,2002 I) Resolution 2002-166. regarding an order for cancellation of certain uncollectible taxes J) CCOERA Colorado County Officials and Employees Retirement Association, Deferred Compensation Plan K) Resolution 2002-167, to adopt EGTRRA modifications to CCOERA Deferred Compensation Plan L) Joint Funding Agreement between Eagle County and the USGS for operation and maintenance of Gaging Station No. 09064600 near Minturn, Colorado M) Site and Landscape Design Agreement for recreation facilities at Berry Creek, with Peter Bergh N) Intergovernmental Agreement between Eagle County and the Town of Vail for Animal Control Services. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked the Attorney's Office if there were any changes to the Consent Agenda. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated items G and H need to be withdrawn from the Consent Agenda. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked Jack Ingstad, County Administrator, and Commissioner Stone for comments. 20 12-10-2002 Neither had comments. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Consent Agenda as presented excluding items G and H. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Plat & Resolution Signing Cliff Simonton, Planner, presented the following plats and resolutions for the Board's consideration: Resolution 2002-168 To Approve a Zone Change and Special Use Permit for the Edwards Corner Commercial and Retail Development (Eagle County Files No. ZC-00051 and ZS- 00088). The Board considered the Applicant's request on July 2,2002. Mr. Simonton stated related to the Resolution is a matter for the Board's consideration regarding the language of condition number ten. The applicant has recently requested that this condition be changed to allow Habitat for Humanity to receive the fees due in lieu of employee housing instead of the County. He stated he has attached the proposed language to the Board's report. Commissioner Stone stated they received a letter from the developer making the request to dedicate the monies to Habitat for Humanity. He stated the amount is $47,312.00. He stated he supports the proposal. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-168, to approve a zone change and Special Use Permit for the Edwards Corner Commercial and Retail Development Eagle County Files No. ZC-00051 and ZS-00088, with the change to condition number ten, "prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall pay cash in lieu, in the amount of $47,312.00 to Habitat for Humanity for use in Eagle County. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Ofthe two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-169, To Approve an Amendment to the Eagle County Regional Airport Planned Unit Development (Eagle County File No. PDA-00041). The Board considered the Applicant's request on November 19, 2002. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-169, to approve an amendment to the Eagle County Regional Airport Planned Unit Development, Eagle County File No. PDA-00041. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Resolution 2002-170, Adoption of the Mill Levy Resolution 2002-171, Adoption of the 2003 County Budget Mike Roeper, Finance Director, stated the next matter before the Board was to set the mi11levies and adopt the 2003 Eagle County Budget. He stated the first is to approve and adopt the mi11levy at 6.999 mills, which is the same as last year. The second is to adopt the 2003 budget in the amount of $72,017,478.00. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked Jack Ingstad for any input. Mr. Ingstad stated at this time they would rather answer questions from the public. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked for public comment. There was none. Mr. Ingstad stated they ended the budget process with a 72 million dollar budget and they are $92,936.00 to the good which means they had more revenues than expenditures for 2003. The budget is 21 12-10-2002 balanced and they are not dipping into the fund balance. He congratulated everyone for the success in creating a healthy budget for 2003. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi thanked Mr. Ingstad and staff for all their hard work on this budget. Commissioner Stone thanked Mr. Ingstad, the elected officials, department heads and all Eagle County employees for all their work. He noted that it is commendable that this County is in a much better financial situation due to the fiscally conservative nature. He stated there have been a number of funding requests for capital improvements as well as different operational expenses from different non- profits in the County. The Board did take a position to have a wait and see attitude to see how the winter progresses. He stated by being conservative and using a pay as you go basis that is the best effort they can continue to make. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-170 for the Budget Mill Levy for 2003 as presented, being 6.999 as the total mill levy. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to approve Resolution 2002-171, adopting the Budget for 2003. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Board of Equalization. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Abatement Hearings Brian Treu, Assistant County Attorney, stated this is a hearing for abatements and is an opportunity for the Assessor and the Petitioner to present evidence to the Board. He suggested the Board ask if there was anyone present to discuss the petitions and take those first. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi stated he has no questions on the first file. Commissioner Stone asked for the Assessor presentation. John Harrison presented a petition for abatement for Patricia Miller Gage, schedule number R051270. The Assessor recommended approval. An inspection of the subject property which is located in the Berry Creek Ranch Subdivision was performed in response to an appeal submitted by the owner in May 2002. Errors in the inventory of the property were corrected resulting in a lower value. The 2002 tax year should be abated pursuant to V.R.S. 39-10-114. The original assessed value was $94,530, with a tax amount of$5,730.98. The abated amount was $22,710 with a tax amount of$1,76.82, leaving a balance of$71,820 with a tax amount of$4,354.16. Jon Harrison presented a petition for abatement for Seven Castles Properties, Inc., schedule number R028072. For 2000, the Assessor recommended approval. In response to the property owner's abatement request, a complete inspection of the property was done. The property is comprised of eleven rental units in one building, three individual rental units and five mobile home rental spaces. The property has been used as residential rental property since the current owner purchased it in February 1999. After the inspection corrections were made to the square footage and inventory of the improvements, the classification of the property was changed from commercial to residential. The value of the property did not change significantly, however the assessment rate changed from 29% to 9.74% as residential. The original assessed value was $456,680.00 with a tax amount of$26,992.98, with an abatement of$301,780.00 with a tax amount 0[$17,837.30, leaving a balance of$154,900.00 and a tax 22 12-10-2002 amount of$9,155.68. For 2001, the Assessor recommended approval. In response to the property owner's abatement request a complete inspection of the property was done. The property is comprised of eleven rental units in one building, three individual rental units and five mobile home rental spaces. The property has been used as residential rental property since the current owner purchased it in February 1999. After the inspection corrections were made to the square footage and inventory of the improvements, the classification of the property was changed from commercial to residential. The value of the property did not change significantly, however the assessment rate changed from 29% commercial to 9.15% residential. The original assessed value was $557,070.00 with a tax amount of$28,689.66, with an abatement of$372,980.00 and a tax amount of$19,208.84, leaving a balance of$184,090.00 with a tax amount of$9,480.82. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve schedule numbers R028072, Seven Castles Properties, Inc. and R051270, Patricia Miller Gage, as recommended by the Assessor. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. John Harrison presented a petition for abatement for Donne F. Fisher, schedule numbers R040879 and R040880. The Assessor recommended denial of both schedules. For schedule R040879, the subject property is a single family residence located within the Cordillera Ranch PUD. The building consists of good quality construction and has good views to the East. Comparable sales from the statutory time frame indicate the Assessor's value is fair and equitable. The comparable sales have similar square footage, construction quality and are located within 2.5 miles ofthe subject. The original assessed value is $131,640 with a tax amount of$9,854.84. For schedule R040880, the subject property is a vacant residential lot located within the Cordillera Ranch PUD. It has a desirable building envelope with good views to the East. The lot was purchased on March 27, 2001 for $315,000.00. The Assessor's value for the 2001 tax year is $489,800. Sales occurring after June 30, 2000 have not be analyzed for comparable market values due to statutory guidelines, however, it appears there is a downward trend in sales prices for vacant and improved properties. Comparable sales from the statutory time frame indicate the Assessor's value is fair and equitable. The comparable sales have similar views and topography and are located within ~ mile of the subject. The original assessed value is $142,040 with a tax amount of$10,633.40. John Harris presented a petition for abatement for Katherine Paul Gwathmey, schedule number R018657. The Assessor recommended denial. The subject property is a vacant 40 acre lot located within the Horse Mountain Ranch Subdivision. The owners have addressed issues concerning agricultural classification, access, and lack of water on the property as a reason for an adjustment to the 2001 value. There is no significant evidence to justify any agricultural classification at this time. Representatives from the Assessor's Office were able to access the property and take photos in April of 2002. Therefore, no adjustments for access are warranted. The owners have submitted a receipt dated May 4, 2000 for a water well, which produced a dry well at the cost of $6,352.00. No properties with this characteristic have sold in Eagle County to display any market adjustment, therefore no adjustment for lack of water should be given. The property is valued at $149,080 which is well below market value due to the application of vacant land discount. The property was purchased by the petitioner on June 30, 1999 for $244,500.00 Pursuant to C.R.S. 39-10-114, the taxes have not been levied erroneously or illegally and this abatement should be denied. The original assessed value is $43,230 with a tax amount of$1,639.76. Commissioner Stone moved to deny schedule number R040879 and R040880, Donne F. Fisher, and R018657, Katherine Paul Gwathmey, as recommended by the Assessor. 23 12-10-2002 Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of Assessment Appeals and reconvene as the Local Liquor Licensing Authority. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Liquor License Consent Agenda Earlene Roach, Liquor Inspector, presented the Liquor License Consent Agenda as follows: A) Buxman Enterprises Village Market This is a renewal of a 3.2% Beer License. This establishment is located in Riverwalk in Edwards, along Highway 6. On 11-19-02, the Board suspended this license for a period of 10 days, of which the applicant served two, 11-24 and 12-01. B) Boulair, Inc Mulligan's This is a renewal of a hotel & restaurant license. This establishment is located on Eagle-Vail Road next to the golf course. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. C) Edwards Discount Liquors, Inc. South Forty Liquors This is a renewal of a retail liquor store license. This establishment is located along Edwards Village Blvd, next to Stop and Save. The Board suspended this application for a period of 10 days, one of which will be served within the next 60 days. D) Edwards Station LLC Edwards Station This is a renewal of a 3.2% Off Premise Beer License. This establishment is located along the Edwards Spur Road in the same building as Wendy's. There have been no complaints or disturbances during the past year. Commissioner Stone moved to approve the Liquor License Consent Agenda as presented. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Cranberry Isles Seafood Company Earlene Roach presented an application for transfer of ownership of a hotel and restaurant license for IDR West LLC, d/b/a Cranberry Isles Seafood Company. She stated the application is in order and all fees have been paid. All applicants are reported to be of good moral character. The previous owner was Wildhorse Bistro and the establishment is located in Edwards at the Inn at Riverwalk. Daniel Lief, president of IDR West LLC, stated the restaurant is owned by himself, his wife and the chef. They have moved here from Maine and have owned restaurants in Maine previously. Their restaurant in Maine is located on an island where they do not have a police force. He stated consequently he and his wife have become very sensitive to the responsibilities of owning a restaurant and serving alcohol. Commissioner Stone asked if Mr. Liefhas a copy ofthe Colorado Liquor Code. 24 12-10-2002 Mr. Lief stated he does. Commissioner Stone asked if it will be located on the premises. Mr. Lief stated it will. Commissioner Stone reminded Mr. Lief that the Board takes the ownership of a liquor license very seriously and enforces the regulations. Commissioner Stone moved to approve a transfer of ownership of a hotel and restaurant license for IDR West LLC, d/b/a Cranberry Isles Seafood Company. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Shop & Hop #3 South Forty Liquors Earlene Roach stated the next matter were Show Cause Hearings for Terrance S. Marcum, d/b/a Shop & Hop #3 and Edwards Discount Liquors, Inc., d/b/a South Forty Liquors. These are based on a sting operation held on September 5, 2002, in which both establishments sold alcohol to a minor. These applicants have stipulated to the violation. At this hearing we will focus on the penalty phase. This is the second violation for Shop & Hop #3, the first being in 1998, and a first violation for South Forty Liquors. If the Board will recall there were six establishments that sold to a minor. Four of those have had a previous hearing. Weare all concerned with liquor violations. Staff and the applicants met to discuss the problems and to come up with solutions on how they can be prevented. The violations are occurring when the owners are not present. In the past we tried something a bit different with a couple of establishments that seems to have worked well. Those two establishments were Sato Sushi and Gore Range Brewery. They were also cited for service to a minor. The minutes from those meetings are included in the Board's packets. The Board also has copies of alcohol management plans for each establishment. The plans include items such as incentives, zero tolerance programs, sting operations performed by the owners and termination of staff. Staff believes the applicants have worked hard to try and eliminate this problem. Staff is recommending the Board find there was a violation, suspend the licenses for a certain number of days and then hold all ofthose days in abeyance for a period of one year. I believe this program has worked with other establishments and have no reason to believe it would not work here as well. In the past we have suspended establishments for four (4) days for a first offense, eight (8) days for a second offense and six months for the third. These applicants will continue to work hard and with staff to prevent these violations. If a violation occurs within the next year, this suspension plus the penalty for a second violation will both come into play. Ms. Roach explained her recommendation in this situation to be the same as with the other four establishments. She stated she has prepared motions reflecting the decisions of the Board at the prior hearing. Larry Esqwith, president of Edwards Discount Liquors stated they are extremely sorry and are devastated that an employee oftheirs sold liquor to a minor. He spoke to his previous ownership of another liquor store and related they did not have that problem at that establishment. He spoke to the employee who actually made the sale and stated he had been an outstanding employee. On the night of the sting the employee contacted Mr. Esqwith immediately. He spoke to the measures they have taken and the zero tolerance policy they now have in place. They card every individual each time. He stated they have lost customers because of this but after doing this, he has come to the conclusion that they have to make carding automatic. Leaving it to employee's discretion leaves room for failure. He stated South Forty is primarily a beer store. The cooler has to be filled constantly and physically it is a difficult job. Young people seem to handle the physical demand, but on the other hand, they tend not to be as careful. When you are twenty-four or twenty-five, people your age seem to appear as such. He stated 25 12-10-2002 they have a program that is plugged into the machine giving the age of the person buying. He stated he questions the carding policy and asks about the problems. They have signs posted at the cash registers and on the doors and they intend on going forward with the program. He stated he doesn't know why the young man sold the liquor as he has in the past taken efforts to not serve minors. He has been terminated, which was difficult. He apologized to the Commissioners and stated he will continue to make every effort for this not to happen again. Commissioner Stone thanked Mr. Esqwith for coming in. He asked if Mr. Esqwith finds the fine to be fair. Mr. Esqwith stated he thinks so, but he doesn't know what is fair in this type of situation. He stated he believes that on premise establishments all over the valley over serve constantly. They don't have that problem though they do have the visibly intoxicated in their stores. He stated they screwed up and that is all he can say. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi thanked Mr. Esqwith for his comments and for the pro-active actions they have put into place. Commissioner Stone moved the Board find there was a violation ofC.R.S. 12-47-901 (a) for Edwards Discount Liquors, Inc. d/b/a South Forty Liquors and suspend the license for a period often days. Nine ofthose days will be held in abeyance for a period of one year. The applicant will serve one day which may not be on a Sunday or Christmas, however the applicant can choose the day within the next 60 days. Commissioner Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Terrance Marcum, Shop & Hop #3, was present for the hearing as was his manager, Mark Haynes. He stated that this is unfortunately not the first time they have been here. The other sale to a minor was in 1998. He spoke to the credibility of Mr. Haynes and his previous manager. He stated they too have taken a zero tolerance level and are carding everyone who makes a purchase. He stated they have instituted every possible action including training, TIPS training and termination. He stated he knows there will be future sting operations. They have placed stickers on all the beer cooler doors stating Id's will be checked. Mark Haynes stated he is really kind of a hard guy. He stated it is not so much 3.2 beer. He stated Kelly was an excellent employee who had been with them for a long time. He lost his ski pass and lost his job. He stated there is zero tolerance. He stated they have policies in place and he wishes he could say that it won't happen again. He hopes that it doesn't. He stated he is embarrassed and takes this personally. Kelly called him that night and termination was the result. All the employees have suffered but they know they will be fired immediately if it happens again. He apologized to the Board. He stated Mr. Marcum is a good man and a good owner. He stated everyone has learned a lesson and he hopes that it doesn't happen again. Mr. Marcum stated it all boils down to the discretion issue so they have to make it black and white. He stated they lost a good employee and hopefully the new person will work out. He stated they will try harder. Commissioner Stone thanked them both for coming in. He asked if there have been any other sting operations in the last four years. Ms. Roach stated there have been two. Commissioner Stone asked if they have passed another sting operation. Ms. Roach stated she does not know if they were subj ect of another sting operation or not. Commissioner Stone stated he is asking because if they did in fact pass another sting operation it would change his feelings about the motion he intends on making. He asked if Mr. Marcum thinks the penalty is fair. Mr. Marcum stated he believes it is fair. 26 12-10-2002 Mr. Haynes stated that Kelly got fired after working with them for 2.5 years. He stated they do run a tight ship. Kelly received a fine of approximately $130.00. He suggested that perhaps a mandatory fine might be helpful in the ingraining of the employee. He stated he has kids and so does Mr. Marcum. He suggested the individuals may need a little more incentive. He stated he has thought about this every day. Brian Treu stated the fine for the individual is the fine imposed through the Courts. He stated they have a signed stipulation that isn't notarized. He asked if Mr. Marcum would state for the record that he did in fact sign the stipulation. Mr. Marcum stated he did. Commissioner Stone moved the Board find there was a violation ofC.R.S. 12-47-901 (a) for Terrance S. Marcum, d/b/a Shop & Hop #3 and suspend the license for a period often days. Eight of those days will be held in abeyance for a period of one year. The applicant will serve two days which shall be on Sunday, however the applicant can choose the two Sunday's within the next 60 days. Commissioner Pro-tem 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. Commissioner Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Board of County Commissioners and reconvene as the Road Impact Board. Commissioner Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Ofthe two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Road Impact Fee Meeting Chairman Pro-tern Menconi, stated the next matter before the Board was a meeting on the County Road Impact Fee. He asked those in attendance to introduce themselves. John Goodman, Law Firm of Goodman & Wallace, Rick Mueller, president ofRomonov & Company, George Roussos, Assistant County Administrator, member of the Road Impact Fee Committee and the Impact Road Fee Administrator, Helen Migchelbrink, County Engineer and member of the Road Impact Fee Committee and Keith Montag, Director of Community Development, were present for the hearing. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi stated he was contacted by Mr. Mueller's partner this morning expressing to those present that he is a personal friend of Bob Hernreich but believes he can listen and speak objectively. Diane Mauriello, County Attorney, stated she wants to make it clear for the record that they are waiving any objection to Chairman Pro-tern Menconi participating in this hearing. John Goodman asked if Commissioner Gallagher would be present. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi stated he will not be present at this hearing but will not be needed for any decision. He asked the applicant to state the issues of the appeal. Mr. Goodman stated these are unique circumstances today. This applicant has appeared before the Board previously. The applicant/appellant is quite appreciative of these opportunities. The appeal is a technical one and they are not saying they are being kept from the development. The real purpose of the appeal is because this development and the developer have been before them before. This is more than semantics. What is occurring here is they are vacating a lot line but the lots will be maintained by 27 12-10-2002 the same owner. He stated some staff members have determined an impact to be assessed. He suggested the impacts have already been assessed and their position is that the impacts placed on the Edwards Corner parcel, have already been captured. He stated it has always been contemplated that a commercial development will occur on this parcel. He noted the purpose of the impact fees is to contemplate future impacts. He spoke to the Duncan study which states it is not to be used for sins of the past. He spoke to wish list projects along Highway 6 & 24 which were historically overburdened. He stated they believe this is to remedy problems that existed at the time of their application. He spoke to the pectoral iterations of this parcel. He referred to the maps. He stated ~ of the lot consists of parcel C-1, found in the South Forty Subdivision, Filing 1. He is referring to the final plat for South Forty Subdivision, Filing #1 recorded on February 1, 1977. He stated Yz of the lot is combined into Parcel 12, is lot C-1, which was originally contemplated for commercial purposes. He spoke to a second map of Downtown Edwards. Commissioner Stone asked if the impact fees were captured then. Mr. Goodman stated he does not believe that the Eagle County Land Use Regulations were in effect at that time. Commissioner Stone asked if the fees were captured. Mr. Goodman stated probably not. He further stated ifthere is a burden at the time and the County did not have the regulations in place at the time, it is not appropriate to do so now. He spoke to final plat for Edwards Village recorded October 29, 1981, that addresses the residential portions. The developer, Romonov and Company have paid for a number of items that they have asked for credits in the amount of$1,800,000.00 which have been denied. Many of these were related to improvements on the residential side. Referring to the same plat, they see Edwards Village Commercial and the common lot line on the east side shared with lot C-1. This includes parcel 12 where the Edwards Corner project is. They are not changing the use for that. Since Romonov has owned the property there have been different configurations. He spoke to the recorded document of October, 1985 and there are lot lines that create parcel 10, parcel 11, tract T and the Romonov Commercial Park. The Amended Final Plat was recorded. At the same time, Amended Final Plat, Romonov was recorded in February 1996. What happened when this was recorded there was a lot line vacation and at that time there was no attempt to assess any impacts. What they are left with is parcel 12 and that can be seen in the proposed amended final plat for Romonov Center. He stated all they are looking to do is vacate the lot line of the remaining portion of parcel 12 and C-40. He stated the properties have always been contemplated as commercial properties. If the impacts were not applied or they were overlooked they feel that is not the responsibility of this developer. The original application had a hearing date of April 3, 2002. This assumes that the application was made prior to that date. The Special Use Permit submitted by Knight Planning changed the South Forty portion from commercial limited to commercial general. All that was occurring to have consistency. That occurred because this had never been dealt with before. He noted the parcels are contiguous, owned by the same owner, and always contemplated for commercial purposes. He stated they are not doing anything different than they have done before. They are not subdividing. This is just the vacation of a lot line. Why should there be no fee imposed? He spoke to the County Attorney's memo that in no case shall the Road Impact Fee Committee be able to negotiate the amount ofthe proposed fees or waive the fee. He stated they have tried to come up with a workable solution and they are not asking that the fee be waived. They also have the ability to do a variance or exempt the fee. The reason no fee should be imposed is as follows: #1 This is not a subdivision under the definitions. He spoke to page 2-38 ofthe Eagle County Land Use Regulations. #2 These terms do not apply to a combination oftwo contiguous parcels. #8 on 2-39 and 2-110. #3 This is not a new development. It already contributed to costs of roads and capital improvements in this area. Section 4-710, B (2). As set forth in his appeal and the Duncan Study of December 1999, it suggests the impacts cannot be applied to fix an overburdened road or infrastructure 28 12-10-2002 that exists at the time of application. #4 This application is exempt under 4-710- E. The vacating of the lot line has not been shown to cause an increase in traffic. #5 This application is exempt under CRS 29-20-104.5 (6) because the application for Special Use Permit was submitted in April 2002 and the Land Use Regulations regarding adoption of the Road Impact Fees were not heard until May 2002. #6 Support can be found for exemption under 5-270 of the Land Use Regulations, Section 1 (c) as to pre-existing lots. This refers to Lot C-1 in Parcel 3. Further support can be found in the Land Use Regulations at 5-280-2 I under Consolidation. Even if an impact fee is assessed proper credits were not applied. Even if this Board were to determine that an impact fee is appropriate, they believe a variance is warranted due to the unique circumstances from liberal enforcement of the Code due to the hardship on Romonov. He asked if they should go back for clarification on the seven points Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked if Ms. Mauriello or staff can review these. Ms. Mauriello stated she has taken notes and knows the Clerk has taken minutes of the meeting. Mr. Roussos stated from his perspective the Land Use Regulations are clear cut. The Road Impact Fee Committee met on two separate instances and felt that what is proposed does constitute new development which triggered road impact fees, not curing the ills of the past but with the expansion of future development. He stated credits were granted for revenues received routinely from the State and other sources and credits for development that was approved in the past. In their minds this did constitute new development. The impact fee calculation is rather a cookbook approach and they came up with a figure of $200,448. Then they received a request for credits. They looked at the whole list and every project listed was also on the capital improvements project list which they previously gave credits for. In their estimation they did not have the flexibility to waive impact fees which was the unanimous decision ofthe Road Impact Fee Committee. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked that Staff respond to some of the points made. Helen Migchelbrink stated in response to Mr. Goodman's claim this is not new development because there was contemplated development on the South Forty Parcel C-1 and contemplated commercial development on the Romonov Parcel. She related if those develop separately she would agree. It was their choice to develop the two together, abandon the lot line and create a much larger facility that went on the two lots. By interpreting the Land Use Regulations and by looking at what they had done, they determined it was new development. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked how they distinguish the abandonment of the lot line and what has been approved is much larger development than what could have taken place on the one lot. Ms. Migchelbrink stated he added on a lot that was not in the original development. She spoke to parcels 10 and 11 which were both in the original development. Mr. Roussos stated the Road Impact Fees were actually adopted in May of 2001. Keith Montag spoke to the definition of new development and what has transpired over the last year that a re-zoning has occurred on a portion of the property as well as a Special Use Permit on the entirety of the property and that also constitutes new development. Ms. Mauriello stated one of the definitions they have seen sited is a reference in Article 2 of definitions, which means any of the following activities that require some form of development permit, pursuant to the Land Use Regulations, the subdivision or parcel ofland into two, two or more lots or division, or the construction, conversion, expansion or structural alteration or relocation or enlargement of any buildings or structures, etc. That is one definition for the Board's consideration. Also in the Land Use Regulations, there are also references to CRS 29-20-101, those sections relate to impact fees and the County's ability to adopt impact fees. In section CRS 29-20-103, development permit is defined as any preliminary or final approval of an application for re-zoning, PUD, conditional or special use permit, subdivision development or site plan or similar application for new construction. She stated they should have that information as well. 29 12-10-2002 Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked to review those sections. Ms. Migchelbrink stated what they are here today to discuss is, are they exempt completely from the Road Impact Fee, because in fact it is not new development. Ifthey find they are a new development, they must find then whether or not the Road Impact Committee erred in assessing credits. She stated they did not go into the exact list. She suggested they may have to review the particular credits that were asked for. She stated all of those, except for the one given credit, were not identified on the list of Capital Improvement Projects, thereby not making them relevant or eligible for credit. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked for public comment. There was none. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked for the applicant's response. Rick Mueller, Romonov, stated when they came in to abandon the lot line, he and community development were baffled. It was not their choice to do that but did so at the direction ofMr. Clarkson. He spoke to the abandonment of the lot line. He stated the two lots had a combined total square footage of roughly 63,000 square feet. They changed the zoning to commercial general which made it 67,000 square feet. They lowered it by 20% to 50,000 square feet. The anticipated use has been reduced by 20%. Take that with regards to the road impact fee in E(2)D, which states any development of a lot receiving final plat approval prior to the effective date of these regulations, shall be exempt from payment of a road impact fee unless a re-plat occurs or results in an increase in traffic. From their standpoint they have taken the impacts and reduced them by 20%. He stated they have asked for some other additional items including a bike path on Highway 6. He suggested the fact the only reason the bike path is there is to access the bus stop and he sees that as a road impact. Another issue, they sent a check for $36,400 in September of 1996 and asked that it be applied to the intersection and be credited. This was signed by Mr. Roussos but he now understands that Mr. Roussos sees this differently. He stated there is only one intersection in Edwards which is the main intersection. They contemplated the entire time this would be applied towards the intersection. They felt that it applied as a credit towards this. He stated the final point is when meeting with staff they were asked by Phil Scott to move their access point as far up as they could. When they went for special use permit, Ms. Migchelbrink asked they move it 100 feet away from the intersection. That cost for the new road, the sidewalks, the paving, the walls, was $300,000 that they have absorbed for traffic safety. That is a practical application and they are trying to make the safety situation better. Mr. Goodman stated the focus on this being a larger use of the parcel than originally contemplated, is actually less than that which is allowed. They do not apply a combination of two contiguous parcels. Further, there is an exemption found in section 4-710 for any development of lot receiving final plat approval prior to the effective date of the regulations. Parcel 12 did receive final plat approval in 1996 which was prior to the adoption of the impact fees. He asked they draw their attention to the exemption found in 5-270, which he previously mentioned. That is on page 5-57 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations for consolidation that results in consolidation of contiguous parcels into one larger parcel. Ms. Mauriello asked about 5-280 as the section. Mr. Goodman stated 5-280 on page 5-57. He stated they have 5-270 and 5-280 as the consolidation. He referred to what was in his written appeals which is when they talked about the original opportunities to capture any impacts, the SIA recorded at Book 395, Page 988, recorded September 1984. It was specifically required by the subdivider to agree at its sole cost and expense to furnish all equipment and furniture necessary to perform and complete all road and associated public improvements and primary access to the Edwards Village Subdivision with U.S. Highway 6. He stated he believes they have concrete evidence that money was captured from this subdivision. They should contemplate that both the parcels were commercial, yes they are earlier subdivisions, but they are only vacating the common lot line. Because the special use permit relates to that portion of C-1 that lies in South Forty, access the impact fee to that lot only. He suggested they may have captured it on the Parcel 12 section, and they have seen various actions with respect to that property. Maybe that is a way to 30 12-10-2002 utilize a percentage to capture an impact here. Those sentiments are reflected by Sid Fox in his capacity of Planning Division Manager, stated in a letter that the commercial site was originally platted with the residential parcel to the left as Edwards Village. Again, at the time they were reconfiguring, there was an opportunity but it was always contemplated as commercial and that money was paid. He asked when they consider the appeal today they look at whether the County has shown any determination of new impacts or whether they are remedying deficiencies in improvements that are needed to accommodate the traffic, burden on these roads. He referred to the Duncan Study wish list. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked Staff for a response to the statements. Mr. Roussos stated the purpose of the SIA was to construct improvements to the primary access of the Edwards Village Subdivision, with U.S. Highway 6. Those improvements are generally taken as part of the State Highway Access Code which are not really part ofthe Road Impact Fees. A credit probably would not be allowed in that instance. Ms. Migchelbrink spoke to the definition back to the new development and that lots Parce112 & C-1, put together, resulted in less traffic producing square footage building. She does not believe that is correct. She stated if these lots were not put together, it would be very difficult for them to develop on their own. She spoke to the difficultly of obtaining two accesses onto Highway 6. You can't simply say that if each were allowed to develop they would result in more traffic than they would if they were combined. Mr. Montag stated in order to accomplish the development that is currently contemplated the lot line needed to be abandoned and a special use permit needed to be obtained. Secondly, there was reference to a 20% reduction under what could be developed with the current zoning. The 20% is based on a floor area ratio calculation, that being the relationship of the floor area relative to the net developable allowed on the lot. It doesn't take into consideration any type of site constraints, site characteristics, parking, driveway requirements, set backs, open space requirements, etc. He asked they keep that in mind. The 20% is based on a floor area calculation without taking other items into consideration. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked Mr. Roussos to elaborate on why credit should be given or denied in this case. Mr. Roussos referred to his letter of September 26,2002, which reflected the review of the Road Impact Fee Committee on each and every point that was requested by Mr. Mueller. The primary item is that for a credit to be given it must be for some infrastructure or right of way that is part of the Capital Improvement Plan. The only item that would warrant a credit was the right of way that was dedicated to Eagle County on the final plat of Edwards Corner. Mr. Mueller in accordance with the Road Impact Fee Regulations submitted an appraisal from which they were able to come up with an appropriate credit. Mr. Goodman stated he is not certain they have been clear when he hears Ms. Migchelbrink speak. He stated the possibility to build on both of those lots combined, originally, would have been from 63,000 to 67,000 square feet. They are saying they are building less than they could and therefore the impacts are less. They are doing less than allowed on the one site. Secondly, they have not even established a credit for the Romonov Center and the Stop and Save. To suggest the bike path does not relate to traffic is disingenuous to the facts. The bike path is not merely recreational. He suggested the bike path travels from residential to commercial and keeps people off the road. He stated they are not small numbers in addition to the easement and there is nothing that shows how the impact fee monies would be spent. He spoke to plans for the future for widening Highway 6. He stated there hasn't been any tie from these buildings to those impacts. He spoke to the original configurations and those monies were pay back. Ms. Migchelbrink responded to the bike path question. He asked for three separate credits and there are currently no paths identified on the capital improvement plan list of improvements. She stated they are using the area where the bike path lies for green space to go for his 20% green space. He can't get credit for it because it is not part of the plan. 31 12-10-2002 Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked Ms. Mauriello for comments. She had none. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked Commissioner Stone for comments. He had none. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked Ms. Mauriello for her opinion on the choices the Board has at this time. Ms. Mauriello stated the Board has the power to affirm the decision made by staff or they may reverse that decision. They will make written findings and conclusions and those will be part of another hearing and part ofthe record. Should they chose to reverse the decision ofthe Impact Fee Committee or to give credit for certain items that were not given credit for previously, the Board can direct the administrator to make calculations accordingly. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi stated there are basically two decisions the Board needs to make and one is whether or not Edwards Corner is a development and exempt from the fees. The other is with regards to the credits. He asked if there is an opportunity for the Board to research and study the information brought forward. Ms. Mauriello stated the Board make take this under advisement but any formal decision needs to be made publically with findings. Mr. Goodman stated there is one other option possible and that is a variance. He stated ifthey reach the conclusion that this is a new development that they consider a variance. He stated time is of the essence because construction is ongoing on the project and this effects the building permit. Rick Mueller stated they have an application for final plat on January 17, 2003, for the foundation permit. For them to facilitate this and to get a building permit, he would be happy to provide a letter of credit to keep the process going. Commissioner Stone stated the discussion has been interesting but what they have failed to discuss is that they have already discussed this and today's hearing is out of contest. The Board already made a decision of what was required. He referred to the meeting minutes of May 28th and July 2nd it was previously heard. He stated in the meeting minutes of May 28,2002 it talks about this application for a zone change from CL to CG to a greater floor area, voids the exemption for the previous subdivided lot. Based on the areas they discussed what the road impact fees would be. He read from the minutes, as follows: "Commissioner Stone stated he is not swayed by the applicants arguments that this was already approved. " . Commissioner Stone stated in looking at the meeting minutes of July 2, 2002, they were still trying to state that this is not a new subdivision. He referred to page 17 where they were talking about housing and road impact fees at the same time. Mr. Mueller had stated they do want credit for developments they had already put in. It was discussed in general terms. In the requirements for final plat, Mr. Forinash had stated that $199,000.00 is the road impact fee. He suggested discussing this whole issue out of context is unfair and he finds it a little annoying and wonders how many times they are going to discuss this. He believes they have already given this issue full due process and previously they had decided what they would have to do in the way of affordable housing and road impact fees. He stated the main concern is that they are not looking at this as the entire development. He stated he doesn't know if they can go back and reassess this or look at the whole subdivision approval process again. He has not changed his mind and the quotes from Ms. Mauriello clearly state this is a new subdivision. In the findings he would state that the development is not exempt from the terms ofthe Road Impact Fee Regulations and the Board had already determined what credits should be considered. He suggested they might look at the credits again and that would be the only item considered. Mr. Goodman stated he apologizes to Commissioner Stone and the purpose ofthe meeting today was not to annoy them but to exercise the right to due process. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked about the distinction of what occurred in the previous meetings and today. Mr. Goodman stated his recollection is they were discussing this in the context of employee 32 12-10-2002 housing and that took the bulk of their efforts. They have since worked with Staff to try and come to a number and had some discussion to see if there were any ways to establish the credits. They have since gotten the bill and that is the purpose of the appeal today. Commissioner Stone stated the meeting minutes clearly identify the fees and when the Commissioners made the final approval he believes this was a condition of final plat approval. Mr. Montag spoke to Staff report and the discussion of road impact fees and the number set forth by Staff. He stated one could conclude that the Board was in agreement with what was included in the Staff report. Commissioner Stone stated the Commissioners already made one decision on this application. Mr. Mueller asked if the Commissioners at that time went through item by item and asked if there was an agreement reached by him. He suggested there were several items that would be affected and some that were not. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked Mr. Montag to review the minutes. Mr. Mueller stated he would be happy to allow the Board to review them later. Mr. Montag stated it is his recollection that Commissioner Gallagher voted to approve this project subject to the findings set forth in the minutes. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked at what point Staff started explaining that road impact fees would be applied. He asked who and when that happened. Mr. Montag stated the discussion would have occurred as the application was being reviewed and as staff report was being prepared. He stated he does know that it was in the staff report which is prepared prior to the start of any public hearing. He assumes the applicant was aware of those prior to the start of public hearings. Ms. Migchelbrink stated she had the conversation with Mr. Mueller no less than six times and one of those was as they drove around and reviewed the areas of the improvements they wanted credit for. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked how many of those discussions occurred before the hearing. Ms. Migche1brink stated most of them as she wasn't present for the hearing. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked if the discussion would have taken place and been part ofthe discussion with the Planning Commission. Mr. Montag responded it would be a part of that hearing, just as the staff report is used at the Commissioner hearing it is also used for the Planning Commission. Mr. Mueller stated he has been working with Ms. Migchelbrink and Mr. Roussos for a long time. At the time he and Ms. Migchelbrink viewed the property, she neither accepted or denied any of those items. At previous meetings with Mr. Roussos he identified certain items on the list that would be no problem. He spoke to the bus stop and that the trail was only going to the bus stop. He said later on he got the report that said that everything was denied except the land that was given to the County. He suggested he had not been part of the decision making process. Commissioner Stone suggested maybe they can table this but is not sure of the proper protocol. He spoke to the meeting minutes of July 2, 2002, right before the Board made a motion. He read as follows: "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 types 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 the intersection is being included in CDOT's list as monies become 33 12-10-2002 available. Chairman Gallagher stated if pedestrian traffic was warranted, 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 if number 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 C1, 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 Corner Zone Change, incorporating the staff findings. " Commissioner Stone stated they had pretty extended discussion on the road impact fees and he assumed when they give final approval, the conditions are in effect. He read condition # 1 0 as follows: "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" Commissioner Stone stated when they talk about something and talk about road impact fees he believes them to be the conditions of approval and approval of the project was previously given. Mr. Goodman pointed to the fact the focus was spent on employee housing issues. Subsequent to the July meeting there was ongoing dialogue and a process of education. He spoke to letters in August and September from Mr. Roussos, and another letter from Mr. Mueller. The number kept going down and it is the most recent decision by the Road Impact Fee Committee that they are questioning. Commissioner Stone stated he thought the decisions were already made. The Board made a decision. Mr. Mueller stated there is no question that the $199,000 was the figure given. What was not discussed was the amounts of the credits. 34 12-10-2002 Commissioner Stone stated that is where they need to do some research. Mr. Mueller stated he has a letter of September 26, 2002 and that is where the credits he had applied for were denied. He stated the response came several months later. None of the figures were approved at the point of the meeting. Commissioner Stone stated he would like to make a motion for continuance. Ms. Mauriello stated that would be the correct procedure. Commissioner Stone asked if it would be for a date certain. Mr. Mueller asked if he posts a letter of credit if it would allow them to move forward with the building permit. Ms. Mauriello stated she would like to review that and advise the applicant accordingly. Commissioner Stone moved to continue the Road Impact Fee Board meeting concerning Edwards Corner Subdivision until January 14, 2003. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved to adjourn as the Road Impact Fee Board and reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. Chairman Pro-tem seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. 1041-0044 Adam's Rib Bob Narracci, Planner, presented file number 1041-0044, Adams Rib. He stated the applicant is requesting this matter be tabled to February 4, 2003 because the Planning Commission has not rendered a recommendation on that file. Commissioner Stone moved to table file number 1041-0044, Adams Rib to February 4,2003, at the applicants request. Chairman Pro-tem seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDSP-00016, Adams Rib PUD Sketch / Preliminary Plan ZC-00059, Adam's Rib Zone Change Bob Narracci, Planning Manager, presented file numbers PDSP-00016, Adams Rib PUD Sketch / Preliminary Plan and ZC-00059, Adam's Rib Zone Change. He stated the applicant is requesting these files be tabled to February 4,2003. Commissioner Stone moved to table file number PDSP-00016, Adams Rib PUD Sketch / Preliminary Plan and ZC-00059, Adam's Rib Zone Change to February 4, 2003 at the applicants request. Chairman Pro-tem seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. SE-00032, Williams Ranch Exemption AFP-000150, Williams Parcels Jena Skinner, Planner, presented file numbers SE-00032, Williams Ranch Exemption and AFP- 000150, Williams Parcels. She stated between 1974 and 1984 the Eagle County Land Use Regulations permitted parcels of 120 acres! or more to be subdivided into three (3), small home sites ofless than 35 acres. This provision allowed ranchers to provide small home sites for their children, leaving the balance of the 120 acres for ranching. Each home site had to be a minimum of two acres in size. This 35 12-10-2002 use was considered a "use by right" in the Resource zone district. The property which is the subject ofthis proposal originally received approval in December, 1983. The site, known as the Williams Parcels, consists ofthree (3), approximately four (4) acre home sites, on a total of 120 acres. The intent of the amended plat is to reconfigure parcels 1 and 3, adjusting the home site locations to reduce the visual impact of homes to the east. Specifically, Parcell is proposed to be moved west of the access easement and will contain an existing house2 and barn. Parcel 3 is proposed to moved 200 feet to the south (see attached Plat). Parcel 3 is, as yet, unimproved. This proposal, although simple in theory, is problematic in that the Eagle County Land Use Regulations do not offer a single, simple process to allow platted land to be incorporated into un-platted land, and vice versa. Given our current regulations, to accomplish the applicant's goal of moving Parcel 1 into un-platted land, and an Exemption to exempt Parcel 1 from subdivision, and an Amended Final Plat to adjust the lot lines, is the best possible solution. 1. Contiguous and noncontiguous parcels under one ownership were considered for the purposes ofthis provision to constitute one parcel, as long as the total acreage was at least 120 acres. 2. The house was built in 1979, prior to the original subdivision. Ms. Skinner spoke to the history....(she had this on her power point). She showed the maps of the parcels and showed the two configurations. She stated the proposal is to move parcel three and move parcel one. Staff findings are as shown on staff report and as follows: SE-00032 Pursuant to Section 5-270.A Exemptions approved by the Board of County Commissioners, the Board of County Commissioners may, pursuant to a Resolution duly adopted at a public meeting, exempt from the provisions of Section 5-280, Subdivision, any division of land, if it is determined that: 1. Not within purpose of Section. Such division IS NOT within the purposes of Section 5-280, Subdivision. Eagle County does not have a single, simple method of moving subdivided/platted land, into un-platted land. Due to the unique situation of the original subdivision, the Eagle County Attorney's office has determined that the Board may approve a Subdivision Exemption by resolution, which would exempt Parcell from going through Sketch and Preliminary Plan. 2. Adequate access, adequate potable water, and adequate sewage treatment facilities are available. Adequate access, adequate potable water, and adequate sewage treatment facilities ARE available. Pre-existing access shall be exempt from current driveway standards unless the use of the access increases due to either a change, or intensity in use. The new Parcell will contain an existing house. As such, water, sewer, access, adequate building site, and geology have already been established with the approval of a building permit. AFP-00150 Pursuant to Section 5-90.G.2. Standards for Amended Final Plat: Adjacent property. The proposed amendment DOES NOT have an adverse effect on adjacent property owners. The following adjacent properties have been notified: Williams Ranch Investments, LLC, and Weeping Willow Services, LP. No letters of opposition have been received by the Community Development Department, from any of these owners, prior to the distribution of this Staff report. Final Plat Consistency. The proposed amendment IS consistent with the intent of the Final Plat. Conformance with Final Plat Requirements. The proposed amendment DOES conform to the Final Plat requirements and other applicable regulations, policies and guidelines. The Subdivision Exemption must be approved prior to the Amended Final Plat. With this approval, this finding is satisfactory. Improvement Agreement. 36 12-10-2002 Proposed improvements and/or off-site road improvements agreement ARE adequate. Further improvements are not necessary for this proposal as access to all lots has been previously established. Restrictive Plat Note Alteration. DOES NOT Apply. Tom Boni and Terrill Knight, Knight Planning, were present from Knight Planning Services. Dan Williams, applicant, was also present for the hearing. Mr. Boni stated Ms. Skinner has shown the application well and they are requesting the change in lot lines. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked for public comment. There was none. Commissioner Stone asked for a map that shows the totality of the 120 acres and he would like to see what happens to parcell. He asked if it is part of a bigger piece. He is trying to avoid having a piece that is set off by itself. Mr. Knight stated after looking very closely at the building site, they believe they can improve it by moving the building site. It is the same density and the same number of parcels and units. They are simply shifting one and it is connected. Commissioner Stone asked if the 120 acres is contiguous. Mr. Knight stated it is. It is not the intent or the result to separate the parcel. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve Resolution 2002-172 for File No. SE-00032, Williams Ranch Exemption. Chairman Pro-tem seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. Commissioner Stone moved the Board approve Pile No. AFP-00150, Williams Parcels, incorporating the findings and authorize the Chairman to sign the Plat. Chairman Pro-tem seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. PDA-00039 Arrowhead at Vail Joseph Forinash, Planner, presented file number PDA-00039, Arrowhead at Vail. He stated this file was initially heard and tabled by the Board at its' meeting of29 October 2002. The Applicant has proposed certain revisions to the text of the amendment to the PUD. The attached revised text is marked to show the changes, including new text in red typeface. Staff has continued to receive correspondence from property owners within the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. Staffhas attempted to tally the responses, which as of this writing total 135. It should be noted, however, that the responses do not in all cases lend themselves to precise categorization. Consequently, the following tally represents Staffs best effort to do so. He stated there are three additional responses with 2 in favor and one opposed. He stated the applicant has also provided a revision of the amended text providing clarification of some of the issues raised. He spoke also to a letter received from Vail Arrowhead, Inc., regarding certain commitments. Responses Up to 29 October After 29 October Total Favoring 30 33 63 the Amendment Favoring the Amendment/ 4 9 13 opposed to any new timeshare 37 12-10-2002 Opposed to any 12 18 30 new timeshare Opposed to 25 4 29 Amendment INTERVAL OWNERSHIP/TIMESHARE. This Section XIV shall apply only to those portions of the Arrowhead PUD that were at any time platted as "Arrowhead" or "Arrowhead at Vail". References in this Section XIV to "Arrowhead" or "Arrowhead at Vail" shall not include or apply to those portions ofthe Arrowhead pUD that are platted as or referred to as "Bachelor Gulch Village. This Section XIV does not apply to or have any effect in relation to those portions of the Arrowhead pUD that are platted as or referred to as "Bachelor Gulch Village". Permitted land uses or any restrictions on land use within or in regard to the Bachelor Gulch Village portion of the Arrowhead PUD shall be as provided for in sections of this PUD Guide other than this Section XIV. Except as expressly permitted in subsection 5 below, no Dwelling Unit, Duplex Structure or Unit, Condominium, Cabin, Chalet, Lodge Unit, Studio Unit, Lot, Single Family Structure or Unit, Single Family Primary/Secondary Structure or Unit, Cluster Home or any other structure, as such terms may be used or defined within this Guide, within any property subject to this pUD that is platted as "Arrowhead" or "Arrowhead at Vail" (each, a "Unit") shall be used: 1. for the operation of a timesharing, fraction-sharing, interval ownership, or similar program whereby the right to exclusive use of a Unit rotates among participants in the program on a fixed or floating time schedule over a period of years, or 2. for the operation of a reservation or time-use system among co-Owners of a Unit, regardless of whether or not any co-Owner may later opt out of such system and regardless of whether the reservation or time-use system is recorded or unrecorded, fixed or floating, if one or more of the following conditions exist: 3. such system is adopted, imposed or managed by a party other than the co-Owners themselves, or 4. such Unit is publicly marketed for sale subject to such system, or 5. the co-Owners are or were required, as a condition of purchase of a fractional interest in the Unit, to subject the fractional interest to a pre-determined reservation or time-use system among co- Owners. 6. all of the foregoing uses, systems or programs of ownership are hereinafter called "Interval Ownership". 7. Mere co-ownership of a Unit shall not create an Interval Ownership as defined herein unless such co-ownership meets any of the conditions described in subsection 2 above. 8. Any use of a Unit for Interval Ownership purposes in effect and existing at the time that this Section XIV is adopted and included within this PUD Guide shall be a "Nonconforming Use" as that term is defined in Article 2 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations in effect at the time this Section XIV is adopted. It is the intent of this amendment to the pUD Guide to permit these Nonconforming Uses to continue, until they are removed but not to encourage their survival. Therefore, such Nonconforming Uses may continue in accordance with the provisions and limitations contained in Section 6-110 of the Eagle County Land Use Regulations in effect at the time this Section XIV is adopted. 9. Notwithstanding any other limitation contained in this Section XIV, Interval Ownership Projects (hereinafter defined) shall be permitted on those certain properties within the Arrowhead PUD that are platted as "Arrowhead" or "Arrowhead at Vail" described below, whether or not specified as a 38 12-10-2002 "Use" or "Permitted Use" in the applicable development area. A. Lots 1,2,21, and 32, and Tracts Band F, Arrowhead at Vail Filing No. 13; and B. Tracts G and H, Dakota at Arrowhead Phase 3. As used herein, the term "Interval Ownership Project" shall mean any development (whether single-family, condominium, duplex or town home) (each, a "Project") within which all Units are used, sold and conveyed on an Interval Ownership basis and are managed by one party on a Project-wide basis. In the event that any Unit in a Project is sold on a whole-ownership basis (meaning the Unit is sold to an individual owner and not for Interval Ownership use), then no Unit within such Project shall be used for Interval Ownership purposes. Mr. Forinash stated the Planning Commission discussed the reasons for making any ofthe parcels in Arrowhead portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD exempt from the restrictive portions of this proposed PUD amendment. Distinctions between the types of timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses that would be restricted by this PUD amendment and other types of ownership arrangements (e.g., rental pools) that would not be affected. Desirability of addressing the issue through a PUD amendment as opposed to a revision to the applicable covenants. Mr. Forinash stated this was an amendment to the PUD Guide which would place restrictions on the permitted location of timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. More specifically, the proposed amendment to the PUD Guide would [1] restrict timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in certain portions of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD platted as "Arrowhead", [2] permit timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in other portions of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD platted as "Arrowhead", and [3] not affect permitted or restricted land uses in that part of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD platted as "Bachelor Gulch Village". As it currently stands, the PUD Guide explicitly permits interval ownership uses in certain areas of the Bachelor Gulch Village portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, and is silent with respect to interval ownership as a permitted use in the balance of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, including Arrowhead. At least in part because "interval ownership" has elements of being both a land use and an ownership arrangement, it has been the position the County Attorney's Office that interval ownership is permitted throughout the PUD. In recent years, two single family dwellings in Arrowhead have been owned and operated at interval ownership uses and have resulted, in the perception of other property owners in Arrowhead, in adverse impacts on the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. Given the opinion of the County Attorney's Office regarding the nature of interval ownership as a permitted use throughout the PUD, options available to the Applicant include seeking a PUD amendment or a revision to the applicable covenants. The Applicant is pursuing a PUD amendment as the more practical of the two. The proposed amendment, as originally submitted, would have restricted timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in both the Arrowhead and the Bachelor Gulch Village portions of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. The response to this proposal (see attached letters dated prior to 17 September 2002) included 23 letters from property owners, 22 of which expressed opposition to the PUD amendment. A common theme in the responses has been opposition to timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses anywhere within the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. The Applicant subsequently revised the proposed PUD amendment to [1] restrict timeshare, interval ownership, and fraction share uses in most areas of the Arrowhead portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD, and [2] not change the provisions of the PUD Guide for the Bachelor Gulch Village portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. Second notices, which were mailed to owners of property in the Arrowhead at Vail PUD on 17 September 2002, included additional information regarding the proposed PUD amendment and the revised text of the amendment. The Applicant has also mailed a letter to property owners providing an additional explanation of the proposed amendment. Copies of each are enclosed. 39 12-10-2002 The chronology of the application is as follows: 1983 - Initial PUD Preliminary Plan for Arrowhead at Vail approved. 1993 - Certain amendments to the Arrowhead at Vail PUD Preliminary Plan approved, which now authorizes a total of 2,025 dwelling units and 197,000 square feet of commercial space. Referral responses are as shown on staff report and as follows: Eagle County Attorney - Has indicated that he has reviewed the proposed language of the amendment and has no problem with it, but suggests a minor wording change to proposed amendment for greater clarity. (See discussion below under the Standard for an Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.]) Other Referrals have been made to Eagle County Assessor, and the Arrowhead Metropolitan District. Staff findings are as follows and as shown on staff report: Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F.3.e Standards for the review of a PUD Preliminary Plan: STANDARD: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] - The title to all land that is part of a PUD shall be owned or controlled by one (1) person. A person shall be considered to control all lands in the PUD either through ownership or by written consent of all owners of the land that they will be subject to the conditions and standards of the PUD. Due to the fact that the Arrowhead at Vail Planned Unit Development is largely built-out, all of the land that is the subject of this PUD Amendment is not owned or controlled by one person. However, the application has been filed by Vail/Arrowhead, Inc., on behalf ofthe PUD as a whole. [+] FINDING: Unified ownership or control. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (1)] The title to all land that is part ofthis PUD IS NOT owned or controlled by one (1) person. HOWEVER, the Applicant is Vail/Arrowhead, Inc., on behalf of the PUD as a whole. 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 proposed amendment would restrict certain permitted uses, specifically, timeshare, interval ownership and fraction sharing uses, in certain areas within the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. [+] FINDING: Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (2)] All of the proposed additional uses that may be developed in the PUD ARE uses that are designated as uses that are allowed, allowed as a special use or allowed as a limited use in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. 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 snow melt between buildings. No changes in dimensional limitations are proposed as part of this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Dimensional Limitations. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (3)] The dimensional limitations that shall apply to the PUD ARE those specified in the Planned Unit Development Guide in effect for the property at the time of the application for the PUD Amendment. 40 12-10-2002 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 proposed amendment will not adversely affect the adequacy of off-street parking and loading. [+] FINDING: Off-Street Parking and Loading. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been found at the time that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved that adequate, safe and convenient parking and loading was being provided. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the adequacy ofthe existing off-street parking and loading. ST ANDARD: 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. The proposed amendment will not adversely affect the landscaping within the PUD. [+] FINDING: Landscaping. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (5)] Landscaping provided in the approved PUD Preliminary Plan HAS been determined to have complied with the standards in effect at the time the Preliminary Plan was approved. With the recommended condition, the proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT impact existing landscaping nor require additional landscaping. 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. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely impact existing signs nor require additional restrictions on sign other than those already provided in the Amended and Restated Guide to the Planned Unit Development Plan, currently in effect for Arrowhead at Vail. [+] FINDING: Signs. [Section 5-240.F.3.e(6)] The sign standards applicable to the PUD ARE as specified in the Amended and Restated Guide to the Planned Unit Development Plan, currently in effect for Arrowhead at Vail. 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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate facilities were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of facilities for potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, 41 12-10-2002 fire protection and roads, nor will it affect the location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. [+] FINDING: Adequate Facilities. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (7)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate facilities were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the provision of adequate facilities with respect to potable water supply, sewage disposal, solid waste disposal, electrical supply, fire protection and roads, or location in relation to schools, police and fire protection, and emergency medical services. STANDARD: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] - The improvements standards applicable to the development shall be as specified in Article 4, Division 6, Imvrovements Standards. Provided, however, the development may deviate from the County's road standards, so the development achieves greater efficiency of infrastructure design and installation through clustered or compact forms of development or achieves greater sensitivity to environmental impacts, when the following minimum design principles are followed: (a) Safe, Efficient Access. The circulation system is designed to provide safe, convenient access to all areas of the proposed development using the minimum practical roadway length. Access shall be by a public right-of-way, private vehicular or pedestrian way or a commonly owned easement. No roadway alignment, either horizontal or vertical, shall be allowed that compromises one (1) or more of the minimum design standards of the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHTO) for that functional classification of roadway. (b) Internal Pathways. Internal pathways shall be provided to form a logical, safe and convenient system for pedestrian access to dwelling units and common areas, with appropriate linkages off-site. (c) Emergency Vehicles. Roadways shall be designed to permit access by emergency vehicles to all lots or units. An access easement shall be 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. (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. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate improvements were to be made. The proposed PUD Amendment will neither adversely effect the adequacy of these improvements nor warrant additional improvements. [+] FINDING: Improvements. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (8)] It HAS previously been determined that adequate improvements were to be provided based on the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect improvements regarding: (a) safe, efficient access, (b) internal pathways, ( c) emergency vehicles, (d) principal access points, and ( 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that the development was compatible with other development in the area. The proposed amended PUD will continue to be 42 12-10-2002 compatible with the surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatibility With Surrounding Land Uses. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (9)] The development proposed for the PUD HAS been determined to be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect this compatibility. 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 following analysis with respect to the Master Plan and the FLUM applies only to the changes proposed in the PUD Amendment, as submitted by the Applicant. Environmental Open Space/ Development Affordable Transportation Community Qualitv Recreation Housing Ser\iices Conformance X Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X X Applicable EAGLE COUNTY MASTER PLAN EAGLE COUNTY OPEN SPACE PLAN Land Use OpenSpace Unique Char. Visual Development Coo Deration Provision Preservation . Ouality Patterns Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X X X Applicable Water Quantity Water Quality 1"",1 [t",. Conformance Non Conformance Mixed Conformance Not X X X X X Applicable EAGLE RIVER WATERSHED PLAN 43 12-10-2002 EAGLE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE HOUSING PLAN VISION STATEMENT: Housing for local residents is a major priority of Eagle County. There should be a wide variety of housing to fulfill the needs of all its residents, including families, senior citizens, and those who work here. Elements of Eagle County's vision for housing are: Housing is a community-wide issue. Housing should be located in close proximity to existing community centers, as defined in the Eagle County Master Plan. Development of local residents housing should be encouraged on existing transit routes. Housing is primarily a private sector activity but without the active participation of government, there will be only limited success. It is important to preserve existing local residents housing. Persons who work in Eagle County should have adequate housing opportunities within the county. Development applications that will result in an increased need for local residents housing should be evaluated as to whether they adequately provide for this additional need, the same way as they are evaluated for other infrastructure needs POLICIES: ITEM I YES I NO I N/A I 1. Eagle County will collaborate with the private sector & nonprofit organizations to develop housing for local residents 2. Housing for local residents is an issue which Eagle County needs to address in collaboration with the municipalities. . . 3. Steps should be taken to facilitate increased home ownership by local residents x and workers in Eagle County 4. Additional rental opportunities for permanent local residents should be brought on line. Some... should be for households with an income equivalent to or less than x 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 ifnot 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 residents from having to compete with second home buyers. Where public assistance or subsidies are provided for housing, there should generally be limits x on price appreciation, as well as residency requirements 12. Eagle County recognizes that housing for local residents is an ongoing issue 44 12-10-2002 It has previously been found that the PUD is in conformance with the Master Plan. The proposed PUD Amendment is not sufficiently different in character or magnitude to alter conformance with the Master Plan. Staff also finds that the proposed PUD Amendment is in conformance with the Future Land Use Map, and makes a favorable finding. [+] FINDING: Consistency with Master Plan. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (10)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Master Plan. STANDARD: Phasing [Section 5-240.F.3.e (11)] - The Preliminary Plan for PUD shall 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. Phasing is not required for this PUD Amendment. [+] FINDING: Phasing Section 5-240.F.3.e (11) A phasing plan IS NOT required for this PUD Amendment. 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. i. Areas that Do Not Count as Open Space. Parking and loading areas, street right-of-ways, and areas with slopes greater than thirty (30) percent shall not count toward usable open space. ii. Areas that Count as Open Space. Water bodies, lands within critical wildlife habitat areas, riparian areas, and one hundred (100) year flood plains, as defined in these Land Use Regulations, that are preserved as open space shall count towards this minimum standard, even when they are not usable by or accessible to the residents of the PUD. All other open space lands shall be conveniently accessible from all occupied structures within the PUD. (b) Improvements Required. All common open space and recreational facilities shall be shown on the Preliminary Plan for PUD and shall be constructed andfully improved according to the development schedule 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. 45 12-10-2002 At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate common recreation and open space were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on the adequacy of these amenities. [+] FINDING: Common Recreation and Open Space. [Section 5-240.F.3.e (12)] It has previously been determined that the development DOES comply with the common recreation and open space standards applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect common recreation and open space within the PUD 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 ofreferral agencies as specified in Article 4, Division 4, Natural Resource Protection Standards. At the time the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that adequate protection of natural resources were to be provided. The proposed PUD Amendment will not have an adverse effect on natural resources. [+] FINDING: Natural Resource Protection. [ Section 5-240.F.3.e (13)] It HAS previously been determined that applicable analysis documents were adequately considered prior to approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. With the recommended condition of approval, adequate protection of natural resources HAS been provided for. 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)] The PUD IS consistent with the Master Plan, including, but not limited to, the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect the consistency with the Master Plan. STANDARD: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] - The proposed subdivision shall comply with all of the standards of this Section and all other provisions of these Land Use Regulations, including, but not limited to, the applicable standards of Article 3, Zone Districts, and Article 4, Site Development Standards. Article 3, Zone Districts When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, findings were made to warrant the zone district change to PUD based on the applicable Land Use Regulations. The proposed PUD Amendment is also consistent with the provisions of Article 3, Zone Districts, ofthe current Land Use Regulations. Article 4, Site Development Standards When the Preliminary Plan was approved, it had been demonstrated that applicable site development standards had been satisfied. The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the earlier finding. [+] FINDING: Consistent with Land Use Regulations. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (2)] It HAS previously been found that the development complied with the regulations, policies and guidelines of the Land Use Regulations applicable at the time of approval of the Preliminary Plan for the PUD. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely affect compliance with these 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 46 12-10-2002 result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. (a) Utility and Road Extensions. Proposed utility extensions shall be consistent with the utility's service plan or shall require prior County approval of an amendment to the service plan. Proposed road extensions shall be consistent with the Eagle County Road Capital Improvements Plan. (b) Serve Ultimate Population. Utility lines shall be sized to serve the planned ultimate population of the service area to avoid future land disruption to upgrade under-sized lines. (c) Coordinate Utility Extensions. Generally, utility extensions shall only be allowed when the entire range of necessary facilities can be provided, rather than incrementally extending a single service into an otherwise un-served area. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the development would have an efficient spatial pattern The proposed PUD Amendment will not alter the spatial pattern in any way that causes inefficiencies in the delivery of public services, or require duplication or premature extension of public facilities, or result in a "leapfrog" pattern of development. [+] FINDING: Spatial Pattern Shall Be Efficient. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (3)] It HAS previously been found that the Preliminary Plan for the PUD satisfied the requirements of the Land Use Regulations in effect at the time with respect to efficient spatial patterns. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT adversely affect the spatial patterns in the area. 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was found that the area was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment does not alter the suitability of the property. [+] FINDING: Suitability for Development. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (4)] It HAS previously been determined that the site was suitable for development. The proposed PUD Amendment DOES NOT alter the suitability ofthe property. 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. When the Preliminary Plan for the PUD was approved, it was determined that the development is compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment will not adversely affect the compatibility of the PUD with surrounding land uses. [+] FINDING: Compatible With Surrounding Uses. [Section 5-280.B.3.e (5)] It HAS previously been determined that the development is compatible with other development in the area. The proposed PUD Amendment WILL NOT adversely effect the compatibility of the resulting development with surrounding uses. 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." A draft amended Planned Unit Development Guide is provided which incorporates the necessary revisions to effect the proposed PUD Amendment. Tom Moorhead, the County Attorney at the time this application was initially under consideration, has noted that he has met with representatives of the Applicant regarding this proposed PUD Amendment, has reviewed the proposed language, and has no problem with it. He has provided an additional suggestion, for purposes of greater clarity, that the phrase "in effect" or "existing" be inserted in the first portion of the sentence in the text of the proposed amendment beginning on the fifth line from the bottom so as to read as follows: "Any use of a Unit for Interval Ownership purposes in effect (or existing) at the time that this Section XIV is adopted. . . ." This suggestion has been provided to the Applicant, who has agreed to insert the suggested phrasing into 47 12-10-2002 the text of the proposed amendment. A revised amendment is attached to this staff report. [+] FINDING: Initiation [Section 5-240.F.2.a.(8)] Applicant HAS submitted a PUD Guide which incorporates the necessary revisions to effect the proposed PUD Amendment The requirements of this Section are fully met. Pursuant to Eagle County Land Use Regulations Section 5-240.F. 3.m., Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD: STANDARD: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F.3.m.] -No substantial modification, removal, or release of the provisions of the plan shall be permitted except upon a finding by the County. . . that (1) the modification, removal, or release is consistent with the efficient development and preservation of the entire Planned Unit Development, (2) does not affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment of land abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) is not granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. The proposed PUD Amendment satisfies the requirements of this Standard. [+] FINDING: Amendment to Preliminary Plan for PUD [Section 5-240.F. 3.m . ] The proposed PUD Amendment (1) IS consistent with the efficient development and preservation ofthe entire Planned Unit Development, (2) DOES NOT affect in a substantially adverse manner either the enjoyment ofland abutting upon or across a street from the planned unit development or the public interest, and (3) IS NOT granted solely to confer a special benefit upon any person. Rick Plyman, PJ Land Planning and Greg Perkins, Counsel for the applicant, were present for the hearing. Mr. Plyman stated they did go through this at a previous meeting and he will be happy to review any of the issues as needed. They are representing Vail Arrowhead Inc. and the Arrowhead at Vail Association. They are the master homeowners association for Arrowhead and are the voice of the residents and owners of Arrowhead. Within that ownership group there has been a concern with a fairly recent land use phenomonon with the Vacation Club/Timeshare Use of single family homes. He spoke to timesharing of otherwise wholly owned units. The Arrowhead PUD guide does not address timesharing as a concept. The state of the art in the land use has changed significantly. The Beaver Creek PUD was specifically amended to state where timesharing is allowed or not. They would like to amend the Arrowhead PUD to specifically identify where timesharing would or would not be allowed. This would not include Bachelor Gulch. They have written that definition and the language which has been reviewed by the County Attorney. They have made some amendments since the last meeting. They also put this issue out to the homeowners. The Board of Directors of the Homeowners Association has voted in favor. He spoke to the the letter to the homeowners as well and the recap of the letters they have received in response. They believe the letters are supportive. They have tried to communicate the issue and they believe there is a majority of support. He suggested they open this up for discussion. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked for public comment. Tom Lianheart, President of Arrowhead at Vail Homeowners Association stated, he speaks for the majority ofthe homeowners who are in favor of this project. He stated he mentioned at the last meeting that Arrowhead is always referred to as Arrowhead Resort. He stated about 20% of the 550 home sites are residents. They see this as a community. In Arrowhead there are only seven commercial establishments. He stated when the Cresent Club began advertising timesharing, the homeowners got very concerned. That is why they are here today to request the County Commissioners prohibit timesharing within Arrowhead. He stated their concerns have been realized. They are probably good folks but they don't understand Arrowhead. He spoke to garbage, parking, parties, and animals. They end up with absentee ownership and they don't have the ability to deal with the issues of timesharing. They don't believe it should be present in single family areas. He stated VRA owns four sites in Arrowhead which are exempt of the PUD amendment. Three of those are parking lots and the site right behind the lift. Those are vacant today, but if they develop, they could elect to put timesharing in those 48 12-10-2002 areas. If they do elect to do so, the entire complex will have to be timeshare. Secondly, the site would be managed by a professional manager similar to Ritz Carlton. They have an agreement with VRA on this issue. Next is the issue of rental units as some property owners do in the village core. The majority are managed by onsite property managers. They then can go to the property manager and deal with the owners of the property. With timeshares that is less than possible. They do have overall community support. He spoke to the matrix provided by Mr. Forinash and the 25 correspondents who where opposed. He stated those individuals were actually in Bachelor Gulch and that area has been pulled out of this amendment. He stated there is in fact a ground swell of support from the Arrowhead owners. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked how many single family homes there are in Arrowhead. Mr. Lianheart stated about 300 and two are interval ownership homes. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked about concerns with those. Mr. Lianheart stated they have had concerns and Mr. Maxwell, a neighbor, can speak to those. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked how many of the single family homes are rented short term. Mr. Lianheart stated he believes very few. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi spoke to the purchase by multiple parties of one home. He asked if that takes place in Arrowhead. Mr. Lianheart stated there are some ofthose whether families, corporations, trusts, etc. but they know who those are. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi spoke to the direct link with the owners of the properties. Mr. Lianheart stated there is a direct link and they have a vested interest in the property and in the neighborhood. Commissioner Stone asked what they see as a perceived benefit of having a complex being whole ownership or timeshare. Mr. Lianheart stated people then know what they are buying into. He stated it is more of a perception and an understanding and the management will pay more attention to the entire unit. Commissioner Stone spoke to St. James Place in Beaver Creek where one wing is whole ownership and another is timeshare. He stated it developed from interval ownership and then included whole ownership. He asked about the vested interest and making a $300,000 investment. He asked what if there is a requirement that there be an onsite manager. Mr. Lianheart stated people bought into a unit or a single family home assuming that that they will get to know the neigbors but the neighbors change weekly. Bill Maxwell, full time resident of Arrowhead and on the Homeowners Association Board, stated he lives two doors away from Cresent Club. He suggested there are at least two new groups that come in per week. He spoke to the trash and the lack of respect for parking regulations. He stated had he known that was going to happen he would not have made the investment in his residence. He would like to see this eliminated. He stated a lot of people talk about rental units but typically that is rented full time. Timeshare is a different matter and will increase the maintanance costs for the public uses. He stated they want Arrowhead to be the community that it started out as. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked who owns the Cresent Club. Mr. Maxwell stated he honestly doesn't know. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked how it is managed. He asked if one is interested in using an interval week, how do they go about it. Mr. Maxwell stated he has never seen two groups converge on the same day. Jack Kosen, developer in Arrowhead, stated he has a vested interest because he has a club that would like to purchase there. He thinks there are some misconceptions with a timeshare being mis- managed or a problem to neighbors. He stated a great deal of Arrowhead is rented and he thinks that putting everything into one box is a problem. He stated people will have an investment and they are coming to a place that they will return to. They do have a vested interest. He stated in the case they are considering, they would have a full time concierge with a car in the garage. Some of the stories they 49 12-10-2002 hear are some of the things that can be handled through rules and policies. There is the opportunity to have over site. There are many teenage kids and they don't always park properly. He thinks there is a concept that if a person can't afford to buy the whole thing that they aren't good enough to be there. He thinks that is wrong and he thinks that most of the issues that have been talked about can be addressed with regulations and regulating authorities. He stated he is a developer and owns a number of properties that are for sale. He would not sell with the idea that his neighbors are annoyed. He thinks that these clubs, if run properly, can be an asset to the community. He stated they are notoriously underused. Something that will give vitality is a good thing for the community. He suggested if this regulation is enacted it will take away his property rights and a property he has under contract that will make that happen. He stated at first blush people see the negative. He believes a lot oftimes there is a reaction, but once thought out it can be helpful. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked about the closing of the contract. Mr. Kosen stated this particular property will be a high end project. Dana Dunbar, a resident of Arrowhead and the first home owner there, stated the Cresent Club was never deemed a timeshare by the State of Colorado because of the number of ownerships within a year. That number is 16 and set by the State. She stated she is not tallied on the list. She stated there is nothing wrong with a timeshare, it is a good thing. She does have a concern with the various entities related to Vail Resorts, and questions having the PUD that is the village being incorporated into timeshare. She stated there are some units within the PUD that are asking for favors where others are being denied. She spoke to the statement of it does not adversely affect the neighborhood and is not granted solely for the use on one person. Accordingly should this application be approved. Vail Arrowhead, Inc. will receive a land use benefit unique to only hand held properties by the applicant, and to the detriment of other owners within that PUD. The expressed requirements that modify this PUD have not been met and they can not be met by this. She stated she is in favor of the core of Arrowhead being allowed to do timeshare. She thinks that all properties should have the same rights within this specific PUD spot zoning area that is requested. If it is fair for the goose, it is fair for the gander. She spoke to units within the same building not being allowed to do the same thing. She is asking the Board go ahead and see the PUD is changed, suggested the need to have it be fair and make it across the board to make it unilateral. She spoke to timeshare management and you will have good management to have secure the property. She stated what will have impact is the usage of the public units. She stated the Alpine Club has allowed the owners to use the pool. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked if right now the core has the right for timeshare and whether these amendments to the PUD would stop that right. Ms. Dunbar stated right now it is spots. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked if properties that are already built should be allowed to change over to timeshare units. Ms. Dunbar stated only in the core group. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked ifthere are carved out areas. Mr. Forinash stated as the PUD guide is written now there is no provision for the timeshare or interval ownership. He stated by the absense of that distinction, timeshare is allowed throughout the Arrowhead portion of the Arrowhead at Vail PUD. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi stated there is a core area and inside that core area there is vacant land that would allow for the timeshares. Is there other vacant land within this subdivision that this amendment would not allow to have timeshares. Mr. Forinash stated he would guess that there are vacant parcels outside of the core area that would then preclude interval ownership. Ms. Dunbar stated there are two houses that came in under Cresent Club. She stated Mr. Maxwell lives next door to a home in Arrowhead, but she lived next door to a home which is always advertised for rentals as it has eight bedrooms. She suggested they not spot within the spotted area. She 50 12-10-2002 sees no difference with the two night rentals being done today. Commissioner Stone asked on this map which properties are or are not effected. Mr. Forinash stated there are two parcels in the Arrowhead PUD. This amendment would not effect any ofthe Bachelor Gulch PUD. Commissioner Stone asked what portions of the Arrowhead PUD would be effected. Outside of the core area he asked, besides the two homes, don't these regulations allow for somebody to continue the existing use. Mr. Forinash stated the core area has not been defined. If there are some areas outside the core area they would be allowed to continue. Ms. Dunbar stated if they are going to have rentals by the week, she is saying when they isolate the Village Core area and spot there, then that is not fair. Commissioner Stone spoke to the exemption of people already having a timeshare use, they would be allowed to continue with that use. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi questioned in the amendment if a group of individuals want to purchase a home what are the specifics. Mr. Forinash stated it is the management of the timeshare that is critical. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi spoke to many homes in the valley that are owned by an LLC or a group of investors. He asked if the regulation prohibits that. Mr. Pylman stated they have rewritten this because it does not adequately address some of the other ownership structures. He spoke to siblings, friends, a corporation owning or sharing a house. He stated the language is specific in the amendment. Greg Perkins stated sections 2 & 3 address the concerns and that meer co-ownership doesn't violate the ownership. He stated it further explains public marketing or non-owner management. He stated if you go out and buy an Arrowhead unit with five of your friends that does not violate the intent. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked about a corporation. Mr. Perkins stated that does not violate the intent. Bob Nolan, area resident, asked Commissioner Stone about a conversation regarding St. James Place. He stated he understood the first and second phases were advertised as timeshare and the third phase was private ownership. This was understood before people purchased and knew what they were buying into. He has been in Arrowhead for about six years and was originally an owner in the village at Spruce Tree Lodge. He left that area for a single family home because he didn't want the rental issue. He has no experience with intraval ownership. He stated when he bought into Arrowhead, Vail Resorts advertised it as Vail's private address. He bought into the concept of a private village and everything it offers. He thinks it is totally inappropriate for those who bought into the private address concept to be surrounded with interval ownership. Mat Mullin, resident of Arrowhead, stated he grew up there. He has gotten to know the security of Arrowhead and in talking with them has come to understand they have more problems with the renters than the interval ownership. He doesn't believe that people who own property there would want to have their options taken away. He spoke to the neighborhood, but also as Vail's private address. He stated it is unique that you live in a neighborhood that is also a resort. He stated Arrowhead is both and should be considered as both. He suggested if this is left alone, nothing will be effected. If this is passed, nothing will be effected but the unbuilt land owned by Vail Resorts. Terry Staples, resident from the Front Range and partner of Jack Kosen, stated he has been a homeowner in Arrowhead for over four years and considers himself to be a vacation homeowner. He comes to enjoy the amenities. He owns a condominium in the Village and bought with the desire to have several opportunities for use. One being to sell it to Club ownership. He stated he is on the Board of Directors of the Arrowhead Village Association. He stated the ones that are marked on the map are owned by Vail Resorts or it's subsidiary. He stated all the black spaces between those identified are parcels within the village. 51 12-10-2002 Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked if those parcels marked are open space. Mr. Staples explained the lots shown are the undeveloped lots that are shown on the map as open. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked if there is any undeveloped land within the core. Mr. Staples stated he does not believe so. He stated he does not want to misrepresent anything and that he would like to be able to sell or use his property as a club sale. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked how many condos are in the building. Mr. Staples stated 11. He stated five ofthe units he believes are in the rental pool. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked how they would make twelve condos into interval units. Mr. Staples stated when they set up the regulations for the facility they did not negate the opportunity for club ownership or interval ownership. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi questioned if this was not an issue at this time, their condominium association would not be present. Joe Labow, owner of two properties in Arrowhead, stated if you look at the data, the majority of the people who did comment are voting against timeshare and voting in favor of this amendment. He reviewed the numbers. He stated in a democratic process, the vote is very strong. He stated the vote was strong before and after October 29. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked ifhe was present at an association meeting where there was a vote. Mr. Labow stated they were asked to send in their comments. He stated he voted for the amendment. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked if it should be an all or nothing amendment. If it was allowed in one part of Arrowhead should it not be allowed in all portions of Arrowhead. Mr. Labow stated when he related he wanted the amendment it was because of the center area that Vail Resorts owns. He is more concerned about the areas of Arrowhead where there are single family homes and duplexes. He stated it is a different feeling of owning a time share than owning your own home. He stated the other matter is the property values. Selling of condominiums or duplexes does not bring the same amount as a single family homes. He stated he is personally against timeshares. Dennis Robertson, Arrowhead resident, stated he finds this to be a simple issue. If a tabling is requested, he is certain they can find that 75% to 80% ofthe homeowners within Arrowhead, would prefer to see this amendment adopted. The only people that are here speaking against the proposal have something to gain. He stated no one would be in favor of having their next door unit being converted into timeshare. He stated an overwhelming majority do not want time shares and are in favor ofthis amendment. Jim Mitchell, Arrowhead resident, asked a question of Mr. Perkins. He stated Jim Thompson also states that Arrowhead is the gateway for Beaver Creek. He suggested they do allow public access through there. He stated he owns one unit and is under contract to purchase another one. If five people bought a house and managed it themselves and rented it 50% of the time, they would be going against the regulations. Mr. Perkins stated they would not. He stated it would not be a timeshare and is not professionally managed. Don Miller, Arrowhead resident, stated he retired ten years ago and bought a condomimum in Vail and one in Snowmass. He sold the unit in Snowmass and then moved to Arrowhead. He stated the big difference is whether you own a condominium or a townhouse. He stated he was never told he had to live here full time. He stated his re-sale value will definitely hurt if this amendment is passed. He stated there should be a grandfather clause to protect him. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked what type of property did Mr. Miller own. Mr. Miller stated he owned a condominium in Arrowhead. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked about the number of units in the building. 52 12-10-2002 Mr. Miller stated he did not know. Chairman Pro-tern Menconi asked what Mr. Miller wanted to be able to do. Mr. Miller stated he would like to be able to sell to anyone. It is a part of his retirement and this IS wrong. Dennis Roberston stated he believes that every neighbor of a person selling his or her unit as a timeshare unit would have substantially decreasing value in their home. He stated it is similar with single family homes. If there is a piece of property purchased for the intent of building a timeshare, the owners on both sides are going to suffer on the value of their homes. Joe Labow spoke to the two properties he has for sale. He stated the properties that sell first and have the greatest appreciation are single family dwellings. The properties that sell next is the duplexes and yet they are greatly depreciated in comparison to the single family homes. The last to sell are the condominiums and townhouses. Part of the reason is that people are concerned about who is going to be their neighbor. Chairman Pro-tern closed public comment. He asked if the applicant had further comments. Mr. Pylman stated they have tried to write this as intelligently as possible and allow people to continue to enjoy the rights of private property owenership. They have also tried to address the proliferation of the club concept mixing interval ownership into whole ownership developments. He thinks they have accomplished that. He stated they also tried to address the core area and the property rights of the remaining vacant parcels. Time share is not a restricted use on properties throughout Arrowhead. He stated they have worked closely with all the Attorneys involved. He stated they tried to address the core area and the property rights of the remaining vacant parcels. They have shown on the map all of the remaining vacant properties. From the PUD Amendment, they are exempted. If a proj ect is built that is a complete time share, there are regulations that will apply to that. He stated in the rest of the area, the constituents are relating they do not want time shares in their neighborhood. Commissioner Stone asked what ifhe makes a motion to approve the regulations with the deletion of paragraph # 5 which exempts and allows the interval ownerships on eight pieces of property. Mr. Pylman stated this application has been made on behalf of Arrowhead Association and on behalf of Arrowhead Inc., and the applicant would withdraw the application. Commissioner Stone asked what ifhe moved to approve this amendment but also included a new paragraph also exempting the balance of the core area, that would include the core area. Mr. Pylman stated he would defer to the Association. Mr. Perkins stated the answer on that would be to this point they have heard from the broad base of homeowners, that they are in support ofthe proposal. He suggested ifthat was a consideration they would ask for tabling so they could find out if that is acceptable to the homeowners or not. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi suggested there is an interesting standout from the developer who has a property under contract and a person who has gone forward with the purpose of selling it as an interval ownership. He asked if that could be listed as a condition of the amendment that those who are under contract would not be subjected to these regulations. That would not only include Jack but any other properties that are currently under contract. Mr. Pylman stated they wrote the grandfather clause because they did not want to get into a long battle with those who have a vested interest. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked ifthis was to go into effect how this would affect those under contract. Mr. Perkins stated he thinks they are changing a law that tells you how you can use your property. Under this, it would not fall under the definition of non-conforming use. That property is already used for something that violates the regulation. He suggested if they have a concern with that kind of issue, maybe they should set an effective date for this amendment that would allow anyone who has a property under contract to make the sale and to develop. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi stated his concern is that of fairness. 53 12-10-2002 Ms. Dunbar suggested that this is spot zoning within a PUD and it is for the future. In great fairness just say no. Ifthe owners in the core really don't want this, that's what they don't want. If you say that you will approve ofthis in the core unit then everyone has the fairness to be able to take part in this. Mr. Perkins stated he understands wanting to make things fair. He spoke to cherry picking. Maybe there is a way to make this fair. He suggested that if any whole project might want to convert, they could make that possible. Commissioner Stone asked what if they gave a time period for anyone within this area in Arrowhead time to request an exemption for this new rule. Mr. Perkins asked what would be the criteria. He suggested it takes the effect ofthis away. Commissioner Stone stated the majority of people are against this. Very few people would ask for exemptions. He suggested a process that is similar is within special districts and the Board of County Commissioners have the allowance to grant exemptions. He stated he can see the validity in owners stating this is not the kind of thing they bought into. On the other hand, he is not convinced that timesharing is a terrible thing. He stated he is trying to protect the rights ofthe minority while trying to be fair to the majority. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi stated he thinks the one thing he can add is that the people who have brought forth this proposal could be giving up something too. The resort company could be interested to see iftourism is viable in this community. This would prohibit a number of hot beds from occurring in the community which is also beneficial to the tourist based economy. He stated he would be willing to move forward to allow for a time period for those under contract to complete their sales. Mr. Mullin stated it is blatently apparent that this is going to benefit some people and not others by the fact that they are willing to withdraw their application. Jack Kosen stated he likes what Commissioner Stone put forward and he thinks it would be important for the owners in the core area to understand. He believes the time would have to be long enough to give them time to understand this and see the possible value to them. He stated in the core this would be a valuable thing and that people would not want to give it up. He believes there will be a fair number who will want to reserve the right. Tom Leinhart stated a good majority of the letters in the packet are within the core. The ground swell response has been developing over a number of years. He suggested somebody's ox will be gored. He spoke to walking dogs without a lead. The point is, a number of people bought the homes to be in a neighborhood and have a private place to live. The real issue is why am I there, things have changed and I want to fix it. Commissioner Stone stated it is very difficult to take something away once it has been given. The comparison differs when it comes to private property rights. He stated he would like to table this for a sufficient period of time for the applicant to come back with a modification of the exemption language to either do so or to consider two scenarios. One would be to exempt the core area. The other suggestion he would like to ask them to explore is giving the opportunity to request an exemption for some period of time. He thinks it is worth exploring. Mr. Pylman spoke to the two options for the association to discuss. Another option is to set a timeframe for individuals to sell or bring their properties into a non-conforming use. Commissioner Stone stated he is not opposed to any suggestions. Mr. Pylman stated they did not reach a concensus and would like the time to take this back to the Association. Commissioner Stone stated he appreciates that everyone seems to be willing to take this back and find a workable conclusion. He suggested it is always easier for the Board to make a decision when everyone is in agreement. Mr. Forinash stated the earliest date would be the last meeting in January which is Jaunuary 28, 2003. 54 12-10-2002 Chairman Pro-tem Menconi asked ifthey have closed public comment they would in fact only need Yz hour. Commissioner Stone asked how long they will need to get to the Association. Mr. Lernhart stated his term ends in two weeks. He stated that the end of January would provide them enough time. Commissioner Stone moved the Board table File No. PDA-00039, Arrowhead at Vail, to January 28,2003 at the applicant's request. Chairman Pro-tem Menconi seconded the motion. Of the two voting Commissioners the vote was declared unanimous. There being no further business to be brought before the Board the meeting was adjourned until December 17, 2002. Attest: Clerk to the B 55 12-10-2002